Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Nxixcxk

Regulars
  • Content count

    219
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Nxixcxk

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 12/12/84

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Denver, CO

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Colorado
  • Real Name
    Nick
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Recent Profile Visitors

1481 profile views
  1. AceNZ, how do you know the CPI is a very manipulated figure? Also, what is the correlation between inflation and buying power? If inflation increases by 2%, does that mean I can say the buying power has decreased by 2%? (Seems like I would have to take into consideration the price of goods--assuming inflation does not do that). Thanks Nick
  2. In the last couple of years or so, I have noticed the price of eggs to jump by about 300%. Other edible commodities seem to be following similar suit, yet when I checked the CPI (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ap) for eggs 2006/07, eggs have only increased by about 128%. Obviously prices vary geographically and what not, but there is a huge difference b/t 128 and 300%. Can someone explain why this might be so? Also, if you check the inflation calculator on this site (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/), you'll see that $1 in 2000 was worth $1.23 in 2008. That can't be right. Is that calculator solely taking into account inflation alone (maybe then I could believe the comparison)? Does that mean that $1 in 2000 had the same buying power as $1.23 does now? One more question out of pure curiousity, do those of you who have jobs demand an increase in salary every year proportional to the decrease in the buying power of the dollar?
  3. Objectivism's Public Speakers

    I should have clarified, but when I said "memorized" I was thinking more along the lines of an extemporaneous speech--a speech where the speaker either has a note card or a piece of paper left on the podium showing the speaker's general skeletal outline. And with "encourage a feeling of interaction," I meant that the speaker would cater and mend his delivery based on the audience's responses. . .so if the audience seemed bored or non-responsive, he might throw in a joke or something. With the speakers at AynRand.org, I usually find the delivery monotonous (the Q&As are always a treat though). The content is great and logically organized, but the delivery isn't very stimulating. If any of you have watched Tara Smith's recent lecture on "Justice," you may know what I mean. Her speech was informative, but from a speaker's perspective, if what a speaker wants to do is inform her audience of Justice, she must first have their attention. Professional motivational speakers I've seen have an upbeat delivery while conveying an important message through extemporaneous speaking, and it just seems to me that even an informative speech on Justice would be better presented by that method.
  4. My public speaking professor suggests that all speakers memorize their speech to encourage a feeling of interaction b/t speaker and audience. I agree with her, and am wondering why the speakers from AynRand.org don't memorize their speeches (I've viewed around seven total). Although philosophy and politics is highly abstract, I don't think that precludes the speakers from memorizing their speech. Thoughts?
  5. Why does morality demand free speech?

    Please remove this post, Dr. Brook address it further in his speech.
  6. Why would morality demand that a man be free to voice his opinion, especially in regards to irrationality? This question was prompted after hearing a speech given by Dr. Yaron Brook--he said that "you cannot enforce and should not enforce moral standards (because then it becomes an issue of who's moral standard)." But if we have the correct moral standard, why not enforce it?
  7. What is a statute?

    Ahh. . .so that's why, that extra "t" can mean a whole lot. I kept wondering, "Why would they have so many laws involving action where action is not possible!?"
  8. The Definition of Morality

    Thanks, those responses helped.
  9. The Definition of Morality

    Thanks. And that doens't seem odd to you? I usually associate the word "value" with something that truly has a benefit to my life. So to me, saying there are "good values" is just redundant. And saying there are "bad values" is contradictory. And yes, David, good point about the definition of morality. The reason I asked my question was because I was discussing ethics with a Christian, who then asked, "but what if I don't accept your definition of morality. What if I think morality is whatever God chooses it to be?" Which made me wonder if the truthfulness of a moral code was based on its definition. But of course, if someone says morality is merely right and wrong--then fine, but by what standard?
  10. What is a statute?

    ? What is a statue, in legal terms?
  11. Yeah, another good point to remember before speaking.
  12. The Definition of Morality

    What if someone argues that life also allows for evil, just like it allows for good. How would you respond? I don't think this is correct. What keeps me alive is my ability to recognize my biological needs, and then my ability to fulfil them. So what keeps me alive is thought(choice)+action. Those abilities, however, are not the standard of value--they aren't that which all my actions and choices are measured by. I don't see how reason is the standard of value. But I do see how life could be the standard of value and at the same time the existential goal. That's a redundant explanation. Why is morality defined as such? My first thought is that first we discover that we need values, then from there, we say, "Ok, now that we know we need values, which values should we accept?" Once we figure out the answer to that question, we've come up with a noncontradictory code of values. Thoughts? And how do you discover what a value is? Miss Rand defined value as "that which one acts to gain or keep." I'm not entirely sure how she came about that definition, as it seems subjective to me. I can act to gain or keep AIDS, but I don't see how that would perforce make AIDS a value. If value is only possible where life exists, then only "things" upholding or further life seem to be of value. I await your further responses
  13. The Definition of Morality

    I know my topic has been somewhat touched on before, but here it is anyway. Morality, as defined by Ayn Rand (I don't have my VOS with me, but I think this is verbatim), is "A code of values used to guide man's choices and actions." Why is morality defined as such? Some people might say, "Morality is whatever God has willed," or "Morality is right and wrong." I don't understand why morality is defined as she defines it. Obviously, to the non-Objectivist definitions of morality, one is apt to ask, "By what standard?" If we ask that same question of the Objectivist Ethics, I know the answer is, "Life." So Ayn Rand goes on to show that life is the only proper standard of morality. Yet for some reason I have a hard time grasping why this is so. . . ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please check my logic on the following: If morality is a code of values used to guide man's choices and actions, the first question that must be asked is, "Do humans need values at all?" The reason this is the first question to ask is because if humans don't need values, then they don't need morality--morality wouldn't exist. We quickly find out that humans do need values in order to survive--we have to pursue values in order to live (does this make life 'good'? it seems like the concept "good" is inapplicable to life--since life is a precondition of good). Because we are constantly faced with the alternative of life and death, the concept value arises. If we weren't faced with this alternative, values would be inapplicable to our existence. So, why is life the standard of morality--why is life that which all choices and actions should seek to uphold? Because without life, value is not possible. Is my understanding correct? If it is. . .then it seems like we are making life the standard of value for the sake of allowing values to exist. (which seems weird and at first-glance counterintuitive) Also, it's obvious we need values in order to survive, but is striving for the sustaining and furthering of one's life outside the realm of morality? In other words, is it logical to ask the question, "Is life good?"
  14. Yeah, I suppose a Socratic method is much better--I just have to remind myself to use it before I open my mouth.
  15. To which I would respond, "Do they? How do you know?"
×