Skylark1

His Twitter/X page indicates conspiracy theorist. Could be hypothesizing, but he sounds pretty convinced to me.

Hello, Descartes and Hume, as amateur philosophers, were not university philosophy teachers. European philosophers didn't go professional until the 18th century. Some ancient Greeks were professional philosophers. I believe the first modern professional philosopher was Kant, who taught at the University of Königsberg. I understand that amateur philosophy wasn't a genre until the 19th century. But amateur philosophy existed before that.

Conspiracy theorist.

Ellis's part of the debate was a synopsis of his criticisms in that book. The book is his angry version. Well, thanks anyway. By the way, a PDF of Is Objectivism a Religion? is available for free reading online.

For a friend.

I've read the book a couple of times. So where is the rest of Objectivist epistemology?

In that case you're simply being an Objectivist and defining your spectrum in terms of a government's position on property rights.

I evidently haven't defined "rational centrism" very well. If Objectivism is on the extreme Right (considered from the US viewpoint of the political spectrum), then it has to be a form of totalitarian fascism. Of course it is not that. If on the other hand Objectivism were placed on the far Left of the political spectrum, it would have to promote a state-less workers' utopia. But I know that Objectivism does not promote such a bland existence as that. Nor does it, as the fascists would have it, make everybody march in goose-step rhythm to whatever the State says is right. In either case, the individual becomes expendable relative to the value of the commune or the State.

"Do you have an issue with those who dismiss seeking an "eternal bliss in the after-life" for finding happiness or bliss on the Earth, or can you stay focused on enjoying the fruits of your labors whilst still here on Earth?" I'm not promoting any ideas beyond the idea that our moral stance defines for us who the enemy is. Christianity was just an example. As for practicing a philosophy, I've seen that it depends on personality traits and values. People choose whatever philosophy defines them better than they can define themselves. Or they invent a philosophy for the same reason, to better define themselves and their values and oftentimes to defend themselves from those who claim to have better values. You say that Objectivism doesn't advocate Hedonism. On the other hand, it doesn't directly oppose it either. Christians do that. "What is the standard of life and where does it come from? Moral standards have to come from without..." That's the view of a follower, someone who is waiting to have their moral standards come to them pre-digested like worms from a robin's stomach. Anybody who claims such is merely practicing commonness. He or she lives not in accordance with superlatives but revels in mediocrity. Any superlatives that happen to come their way must be knocked down to a level of mediocrity approaching if not equalling that of James Taggart.

It already is mainstream in many ways. Stop psychologizing others, it is just a form of ad hominem. Stop looking preppy, take on a casual look instead. Don't imitate famous Objectivists, just be yourself. Engage in pop culture for its own sake, don't analyze and criticize it. Don't use the word "Man," as in "man's rights," all the time. Talk about human rights instead. Refer to Objectivist principles in the context of today's culture, not the culture of 50 years ago.

Yes. I'm asking you to justify assertions. How do you discern intent?

How do you distinguish a lie from simply being wrong in a statement?

I'm trying to find out what the lies are.

Are you disappointed over a campaign promise that Trump didn't make real?

So in truth, Trump's policy is America Last?