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"
- 106 replies
- 3175 views
- Add Reply
- 30 replies
- 733 views
- Add Reply
- 97 replies
- 2025 views
- Add Reply
- 0 replies
- 8 views
- Add Reply
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. ***
Really the full title of this message should be "If God Doesn't Exist, Then "Objective Reality" Is Really Nothing More Than a Cosmic Fart, So Why Do Objectivists Have Such Deep Reverence for It?" But that would be too long for the forum system. Getting down to brass tacks though, at the end of Atlas Shrugged, after the blowout of Project F, James Taggart, one of the villains, his brain just basically "snaps" and he sits down on the floor of the Project F room and he becomes basically this empty blubbering shell of a man, he reaches this dejected low point that is as abjectly low as a man can go. And this isn't because of sorrow at moral evil (moral evil according to the conventional non-objectivist definition that most people go by), it's because of his supposed inability to accept objective reality, his supposed incompatability with objective reality. Objectivism's atheism seems incompatable with Objectivism's deep reverence for "objective reality". Jim Taggart's downfall, in which he becomes this blubbering empty shell of a man, would be understandable if he were a character in a theist novel who discovered that he had been dissing God this whole time by dissing God's Creation, God's Reality. If he became this blubbering "repentant sinner" down on the floor at that point, in a theist novel, that would be understandable. But in an atheist framework, I just don't see it. At best, Objectivists are telling people to "love the one they're stuck with" even though it's admittedly no more than a cosmic fart that is no more deserving of any reverence than a fantasy world that somebody has built inside their head. Thoughts?
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.
By Michael J. Hurd Ph.D.,
Journalism based on gossip or rumors is a form of “terrorism” and media that stereotype entire populations or foment fear of migrants are acting destructively, Pope Francis said on Thursday. Journalistic terrorism? If this idea gains any traction, the First Amendment will be gone by the end of next year. In any contest between free speech and the defeat of “journalistic terrorism,” it’s the latter that will probably win. The question: Is there such a thing as journalistic terrorism? Even if you define it clearly, which Pope Francis did not? The context for his comments was obviously Islam. Pope Francis gets really upset that people criticize Islam, and as a result are reluctant to easily let proponents of Islam into their country. Instead of making the rational case for why letting Muslim immigrants into one’s country, and never associating Islam with terrorism, are reasonable things to do, he instead reverts to telling people who disagree that they’re the equivalent of killers. You’ve seen children playing games. When one of the children sees he or she isn’t going to win, the game board gets thrown over, or the computer screen gets slammed shut, or the child walks away in a huff. That’s precisely the kind of thing I visualize when anyone — I don’t care if it’s Pope Francis, or anyone else — calls you names after they realize they have nothing to say in response to your points. Pope Francis’ premise is that people have no control over their actions. For example, last year, the right-wing Italian newspaper Libero headlined its story on the Paris attacks that killed about 130 people: “Islamic Bastards”. Another right-wing newspaper, Il Giornale, headlined a story last year on the chaotic situation in Libya and the risk that militants might sneak into Italy with migrants: “ISIS is coming. Let’s arm ourselves.” Pope Francis’ unstated assumption? People reading these headlines cannot help themselves. Because newspapers call Muslims who perpetrate actual terrorism unpleasant names, this will force readers to become violent themselves. At that point, the blood will be on the newspapers’ hands, not on the people who originally initiated the violence: You know, the Islamic bastards. We might say, “Who cares what Pope Francis thinks? He’s just a religious official with no political clout.” True enough. But we all know that the PC in Europe as well as the United States cheer Francis’ words. This includes President Obama and his very possible successor, Hillary Clinton. Our own Attorney General, who (Clinton promises) will be Hillary Clinton’s Attorney General, if she’s elected, has already threatened to go after people criminally if they verbally assault or condemn Islam. When the time comes, do you think she’ll rely on Pope Francis’ premises, if not cite his actual words? Francis’ ideas represent a crude example of blaming the victim. Instead of challenging (1) the Islamic terrorists themselves and (2) the ideology of Islam upon which Islamic terrorists justify all their acts of brutality, Pope Francis turns his moral weaponry on the people responding with perfectly understandable anger, outrage and fear over the real terrorists’ hideous actions. What is wrong with this man, and with the people who applaud him when he says such things? Given his role as leader of the original Christian Church, Francis’ fixation on celebrating Islam is more puzzling or mysterious than anything claimed by his faith. 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 Pope Francis Calls Critics of Islam “Terrorists” appeared first on Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D. | Living Resources Center. View the full article @ www.DrHurd.com