Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. It looks like ARI agrees with me. I read most of the first page, 9 pages is a big commitment. I know, it can be redundant when I don't read.
  3. Today
  4. Like evidence of a socialist activist. Did you read the thread?
  5. What would that evidence look like? If a person was violent as a youth and served a sentence for it, but has since then reformed and been released, he is then given another chance to be a law abiding citizen. If this same man was from another country and wanted to enter the USA, he should simply have to be sworn in and held to the laws of the land. It is the only objective way to go about immigration law.
  6. If there is evidence that he believes in violating rights, then no.
  7. Shouldn't any free man be granted entrance to the USA and simply sworn to be a law abiding citizen? If he/she fails to do so, they will be punished accordingly. I really think it's that simple.
  8. RIGHT & WRONG - Ethical Survey of Altruism, Predatory Egoism, Hedonism, Eudaimonia Part 2, Episode 1, where Ethical code of following systems is analyzed, synthesized, and understood Altrusim Predatory Egoism Hedonism Eudaimonia or Flourishing Life Part 3, Episode 2, will have Rational Egoism, Nihilism, Categorical Imperative, Skepticism, and Pragmatism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfOmLOBp6ro&fbclid=IwAR3uxSpyZAeQOIlntCrCl-clB8vPHT9STCG0cWUaY2rR1R4uRSJatujcI-8
  9. Yesterday
  10. Lol...yes and no, Doug. I can elaborate on what I know, or found out, when this theory was presented to me. I can't elaborate on its truth because the person, or persons, who presented it to me couldn't substantiate it. They claimed this was all revealed in a magazine interview of Frank O'Connor some months before he died.They never produced the article and the internet was in it's infancy when I encountered this person/persons. The access to information was a tiny fraction of what it is today. Frank died in 1979...which predates the internet by about 12-15 years. It certainly isn't something you can Google, unless its been archived electronically in the past 20 years. First, the acronym...AYN RAND: America You Need Reason And Not...Death...or Destruction, they weren't real clear about the D. Before you go thinking I'm a crackpot, I dismissed this theory due to the lack of physical proof. They never produced a photocopy of the article and I stopped looking years ago. Also, the person/persons were one of many who patrolled Objectivist BBS's and forums during the mid-1990's claiming answers to questions nobody was asking...because they were crackpot questions. There was a brief attempt by a number of these actors to de-secularize Objectivism, that is, to turn it into a religion. Some of them involved extra-terrestrials, ancient scripts, etc. These people were liars claiming knowledge that they couldn't have, but a lot of young "converts" bought into them. I suspect most of these people became Scientologists, or Mormons...or something. Anyway, I never believed it due to the lack of evidence, and because I had no background in religion or mysticism - I've never been much of a believer - taking their word on faith never entered my mind. Liars come in two variations, I have found: those claiming knowledge that they don't have, and those claiming knowledge that they can't have. This person/people proved to be both. During the search for this mysterious article I learned more about Ayn's early years as a writer. I think she first wrote under the name right about the time she met Frank O'Connor. If I'm right, she probably chose the name before they met, or before they became more intimate, when she decided to write for a living. I stopped looking because the claim was that Frank helped her with the name...the acronym. I surmised that the timeline for the acronym theory was wrong and that the person/people putting forth this theory were liars claiming knowledge that they couldn't have. Reidy is probably closer to the truth about why she chose a pseudonym to write and publish under. She still had family in Russia and she was very aware of what treatment they would receive if she published under her real name. As to why Alisa chose Ayn Rand, I don't know. It stands to reason that she chose it deliberately...but having studied her and other Objectivists over the past 30+ years, I'm not sure why it would be important to know why. Every so often I troll Objectivist forums to see if any of the crackpots are still around.
  11. LabelsForConcepts, Speaking for myself, I am sincerely interested to see more people taking an interest in Objectivism. If I understand your reasons for doubting my sincerity, you're suggesting that my egoism overrides my sincere desire to witness the rise of a new age of rationality. I have a sincere desire to see a rational trend, locally, if not globally. As a realist, I don't expect any such transformation to take place over-night, or more literally, in my life-time. I accept the fact that the majority of our society lacks any interest in accuracy or abstract concepts. Nonetheless, I am somewhat more optimistic knowing that you have taken some interest in Objectivism, and perhaps one day, you may encounter another individual who qualifies as a true individual, and the two of you may either part ways knowing that you are not alone in a quest for accuracy and sincerity, or the two of you may develop a cooperative partnership. In either case, you may experience a sense of gratification you otherwise would have not known had you not interacted with this other person. Even so small a measure of gratification is worth so small a price. While it's not likely that the next person you meet will be interested in, or familiar with Objectivism, please, don't abandon hope that our numbers are growing. PS: Welcome to the forum.
  12. That is quite the introduction and personal notes, LabelsForConcepts. If you're building a productive life of your own and find those who accept your moral code, that should in turn raise a standard which the honest will repair. Here is a bit more of the context of the George Carlin citation used: What, pray tell, do you think he is on to? And, welcome to OO.
  13. What would you like to discuss? I think we can start with interactions with other people. First of all, I always monitor what I say, that is something I had to learn. I used to think I could say whatever I wanted around people I was close with until I realized I am going to make ppl uncomfortable by going unhinged. Also, being unhinged is simply emoting, and isn't a very intellectual method of communicating. I love people when we are a value to each other. I love my boss because she is directing my proper behavior at work. She most likely appreciates me because I show dedication to doing good work. I believe we should have deep conversations about topics we share values in. This I think will help you with having accurate conversations! Let me know what you think!
  14. It created spacetime, it can do whatever the f it wants.
  15. Personally, I highly doubt the interest in objectivism to be found on this site or the hearts of its occupants, and anyone who truly values objectivism would understand precisely why it is so difficult to accept that another being could care about objectivism at all. Our society overwhelmingly neglects to reward honesty and accuracy in favor of rewarding conformity and submission. Therefore, a truly invested interest in objectivism is, by definition, a failure to adapt to the environment. It takes a brazen and crystal clear deformity from the human species to truly and validly pursue objectivism. I most certainly qualify as such because I don't crave human approval or interaction enough to compromise on accuracy. Not sustainably, anyway. I'm known to lie and appease others when they prove that sincerity is wasted on them, but I wield that dishonesty entirely as a tool rather than a habit I infect my mind and body with. Lying makes my skin crawl, and that look in someone's eye that silently demands "Play along and pretend that either of us believe what's coming out of my mouth or I'm going to mistreat you" makes me nauseous. George Carlin once said "If you think there's a solution, you're part of the problem." He may not have been entirely accurate when he said that, but he was certainly onto something. Human progress is inherently a purely team effort, and it would seem to me that there is no existing team on behalf of that. So I'm not here to try and start some kind of movement or change the world. Rather, I'm looking to experience something for the first time: A conversation with someone who values accuracy more than the approval of others. Someone who would like to indulge in some mutual soul-searching and dig into each other's heads to lay the foundation for discourse that is perfectly unhindered by the human stake in playing pretend games. Someone who understands that the very language we use to "communicate" has been undermined and infected by the dishonest intrigues of the humans who wrote it, and how necessary it is to rebuild it from the ground up in order to truly talk to anyone else. Someone who understands just how artificial and abrasive such an effort would need to be in the beginning. Inside and outside of fiction, I've never met anyone else like that, and I'd like to.
  16. It's the quantum field vs spacetime. We don't know much about the unobserved. It just isn't using spacetime. A detector is deciding the state of the particle before it even starts. Spacetime deals with physical objects. The quantum field does waves.
  17. What do unobserved quantum waves wave through? What does frequency mean in this context, and why is it called frequency? How does a detector change a non-physical entity not using spacetime to a physical entity using spacetime?
  18. The quantum field is only for unobserved quantum waves. Excitations don't require a timeline. They don't use spacetime.
  19. While the typewriter story can't be true, I can believe that Rand told it to BB among others. She was solicitous of her family's political security in the USSR, and the Remington-Rand explanation would have kept people from prying further and finding out her birth name. The Cyrillic story, while probably true, would have given the secret away.
  20. Which shows that he knows what the actual consequences of his ideas would be, if anyone was suicidal enough to take him seriously. In the DIM Hypothesis Peikoff relates an anecdotal account of a professor of Philosophy who sat down with his own daughter, in front of his entire class, to ask where her daddy was. She pointed at his chest and he said "no, that's daddy's chest. Where is daddy?" When she grinned and pointed at his head he said no; that's daddy's head; where is daddy? And he kept this up until the poor girl was sobbing "where's my daddy?" I don't know if this actually happened (it was secondhand when Peikoff heard it) but regardless, that is the kind of evil that Korzybski's ideas would inflict on a mind. If someone actually thought that "form or structure is the only content of knowledge" (which then has no relation whatsoever to any physical world)... Well, I'll just say that Korzybski himself doesn't take his own ideas seriously, and leave you to imagine what would happen to him if he ever did. What's really interesting is that he admits as much right there (just like Peikoff's professor felt no need to hide what he was doing to that poor girl). This might be part of why Rand never commented on him directly. Between "we know that we can know nothing" and what Korzybski himself admitted, she probably saw him as a dead horse. All jokes aside, I can only wonder what else really needs to be said about him. If anyone who knew all that still chose to listen to him, wouldn't they deserve it? What exactly are you looking for?
  21. Last week
  22. I find the very basic act of wanting to see the best in each other, even if we don't always agree on what that is, makes me love my Grandma, Sister, Parents and aunts on my mom's side. We don't agree on much else though. What do you all think of this one value we all have in common being the basis of the relationships?
  23. ...that is to say that "Ayn Rand" isn't really a name, not one tortured from the non-essential fragments most people want to consider, anyway. The "name" is her message's acronym.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...