Welcome to Objectivism Online Forum

Welcome to Objectivism Online, a forum for discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For full access, register via Facebook or email.

  • |

     Objectivism Is the Everyman's Philosophy

    In the universe, what you see is what you get,

    figuring it out for yourself is the way to happiness,

    and each person's independence is respected by all

  • Rand's Philosophy in Her Own Words

    • "Metaphysics: Objective Reality"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed/Wishing won’t make it so." "The universe exists independent of consciousness"
    • "Epistemology: Reason" "You can’t eat your cake and have it, too." "Thinking is man’s only basic virtue"
    • "Ethics: Self-interest" "Man is an end in himself." "Man must act for his own rational self-interest" "The purpose of morality is to teach you[...] to enjoy yourself and live"
    • "Politics: Capitalism" "Give me liberty or give me death." "If life on earth is [a man's] purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being"

    Zombies and Artificial Minds

    Harrison Danneskjold
    By Harrison Danneskjold,
    How do you know? Having ideas are one of the things a mind does. I'd grant that modern computers are, in fact, mindless because if we really look at their actions, they almost invariably behave very -for lack of a better word- stupidly. They do things that no thinking person would ever do. However, I find it entirely plausible that this won't always be the case. Far from it; within my lifetime I intend to write a program that'll stump Don Athos and Eiuol. The primary thing about it is that if something walks like a person, talks like a person and holds philosophical discourse like a person then to say it is not, in fact, a person (against all evidence) is to say that it's a zombie. I don't have everything about that worked out yet but I do know that there is something very wrong with the idea of a zombie.   *** MOD NOTE: Split from here. ***

    Reblogged:Tamping Down Little Dictators

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    "Evil HR Lady" Suzanne Lucas opens a column about a new overtime regulation:
    If it weren't for the fact that we are all affected by this law (and the precedent it sets), it would be comical to see this fool getting exactly what she deserves, but it isn't. Those of us who realize that flexible hours are a two-way street and want the freedom to accept or reject them are losing this choice. (This turns out to include telecommuting.)

    Perhaps there is no cure for what I call the "dictator fantasy," but perhaps there is something we can do to blunt its effects. The next time I hear someone fantasize about "managers" (or any other "bad" guy du jour) "getting theirs", I plan to consider how that might blow back on them and ask how that suits them. Perhaps, if more of us who don't use the government as a substitute brain help those who do, we will tamp down on all the foolish clamoring for the government to dictate every aspect of our lives. This is no substitute for broader cultural activism, but perhaps it can buy some time by slowing down the rate of growth of government "planning."

    -- CAV Link to Original

    No-one Denies that "A is A". Why Is It Such a Huge Theme in Objectivism?

    By Dustin86,
    Nobody, not even the most ardent communist, denies that "A is A" or denies that a thing is itself. It's a stupid little theorem that truly impacts nobody's life. Unless you are a professional academician in math or a related field, which very few people are, it does not impact your life at all. Also, Aristotle did not invent the notion that "a thing is itself". Do Objectivists seriously think that every single human being before Aristotle thought that things weren't themselves? Even the claim that Aristotle was the first person to formally formulate this (as "A is A") is extremely dubious, given that most works from that time period and earlier did not survive to the present.

    Reblogged:A Debate About Nothing Helps Hillary

    Michael J. Hurd Ph.D.
    By Michael J. Hurd Ph.D.,
    This non-debate just reconfirms what we already know: Leftists, progressives and Democrats control the agenda. That’s why they control the government, even when they lose the occasional election. This presidential election is rigged, but not in the way the term normally implies. It’s kind of like controlling the outcome of a test, not by knowing the answers ahead of time, but by writing the questions. Consider the questions asked by the so-called moderator in this absurd parody: Why would anyone want to lower taxes on the rich? Why did Trump raise the birther issue before Barack Obama refused to produce his birth certificate? Why can’t we see Donald Trump’s tax return? How will either future president create jobs? What will either president do about racial relations? All of these questions rely on the premise that government can and should control everything. Earth to media establishment (for the 100,000th time): Government does not do any of these things. Fact-checking? How about these facts, Hillary? Race relations only improve in spite of government, and have arguably worsened over the last few years thanks to Obama’s egging-on Black Lives Matter and other racist, anarchist thugs. Politicians do not create jobs. Hillary Clinton and her ilk undercut and ultimately destroy the potential for economic growth because, as Donald Trump correctly pointed out a few times, the endless red tape of regulation and confiscation of taxation makes it a hell of a lot harder for the private sector to create jobs. Throughout the whole spectacle, Hillary Clinton smirked, sneered, called Donald Trump a racist and implied he was crazy. This is what progressives do. In fact, that’s all they’ve got. They have no answers to fundamental questions about economics, defense and individual rights. So they do best when the test is rigged with questions they like. After the debate, I talked with a few Trump supporters about their disappointment in his performance. The questions played to the advantage of a socialist advocate of expanding government, and worked to the disadvantage of anyone who was something other than that. Trump, to his credit, at least fights back. Republicans never do that, but Trump did. I don’t happen to agree with Trump on every position he holds, but — unlike Clinton — he does appear to want this campaign to be about something. Hillary will have none of it. The debate should have been an actual debate. It won’t happen by changing the format. It will only happen by changing the questions. The questions should go like this: “What, in your view, is the proper function of the federal government? In other words, what should the federal government be doing, and what should it not be doing? And what steps would you advocate for reducing or expanding the things government does now?” “What is the purpose of taxation? Why is progressive taxation justified more than, say, a flat tax? Or if you don’t agree it is, then why?” “Should the government be spending more or less on defense than it currently is? Why or why not?” “Has the government response to ISIS and Islamic attacks against Americans at home been effective? Why or why not? What else can be done?” “What limits should be placed on government when it comes to spying on citizens for the sake of national security?” “Does the First Amendment apply, even when you offend someone personally, including their religion?” “Is the right to own a gun what the Second Amendment states, or does it say something different?” I heard no questions like this. Instead, I heard questions that invited the vapid responses we heard from Hillary Clinton. I didn’t agree or disagree with a single thing Hillary Clinton said the whole time. I normally disagree with her on just about everything, so this tells you something about the debate. The closest I came to disagreeing was when she commented that people critical of Islam want to “push Muslims away.” But wait a minute… isn’t that what Muslims are currently doing by attacking people who disagree with them? The entire debate played to the “strengths” of a candidacy … about nothing, which is exactly the kind of campaign Hillary Clinton is running. It fits with her apparent strategy of just quietly coasting her way to the presidency. Did anyone notice the hard look on her face when asked the ridiculous question at the end, as to whether the candidates would support the outcome of the election, regardless of who wins? Watch that one again. Look at the ugliness in her expression. I found it truly chilling. Do you really think she meant it when she said that she would accept the outcome of the election, even if she loses, and that this election “really isn’t about us”? If you do believe it, then I suppose you’re voting for Hillary Clinton. Regardless, I doubt this debate charade changed a thing. Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael  Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1 Check out Dr. Hurd’s latest Newsmax Insider column here!   The post A Debate About Nothing Helps Hillary appeared first on Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D. | Living Resources Center. View the full article @ www.DrHurd.com

Portal by DevFuse · Based on IP.Board Portal by IPS