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"
Objectivism Online Chat
- 29 replies
- 102 views
- Add Reply
- 39 replies
- 434 views
- Add Reply
- 47 replies
- 552 views
- Add Reply
Your first paragraph is altruism. Your second paragraph asserts moral equivalance between all political states. You should at least be aware of a crucial difference between some nation-states on the legal status of homosexuals, so thats rather hypocritical of you. Then theres the value equivalence of professing to not prefer any language or culture or even climate over any other. I don't think you are so robotically indiscriminate on your personal tastes that you can truly claim that for you no place on Earth is better than any other. You are not a citizen of the world. Most of the world in fact would reject you if it became aware of you. Even in China, setting aside homosexuality, just your Objectivist philosophical activities could get you or I imprisoned if we came to the notice of certain officials. Even the minor differences within the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition between the English speaking countries should be significant to a politically aware citizen. Does it not matter to you that Great Britain has no equivalent to the American First Amendment freedoms? Or the Second? I think it should. That's what I mean by country loyalty, not whether refried beans are better or worse than fried rice. **MOD EDIT: moved from http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/topic/30795-white-supremacist-protest-violence/ **
Are we going to go to war with North Korea? The rhetoric on their side has always been bellicose, but it usually seemed to be more propaganda than anything worth taking seriously. Now that Trump is in charge, however, who is equally given to dramatic words, and who doesn't mind stirring the pot, and since North Korea is pushing the nuclear envelope to its breaking point... will this war of words escalate to an actual fight? If so, what would it look like? Would there be a nuclear exchange? Can South Korea survive? Would the war become more global in nature? Any thoughts about what might become the defining event of not only the Trump presidency, but perhaps our generation?
By gregory kalian,
A federal judge ruled the "supremacists" had a right to protest. It seems the reason violence occurred is because "counter protesters" gathered in an effort to block the lawful expression of free speech. Notwithstanding the murderous act of one individual who drove his vehicle into the crowd, is there a reasonable basis to blame the supremacists for the violence? I understand their position is objectionable, however the true value of the right to free speech is for the protection of speech some may consider objectionable. How is the action of the counter protesters different from recent incidents of students and others shouting down campus speakers and denying them their right to speak? I have not heard a single sole blame the counter protesters. If the supremacists had been left unmolested to merrily or perhaps nastily carry out their demonstration and go home, would any of this have happened? Many people believe abortion is murder. They consider abortion to be an abhorrent and evil act against the most innocent and defenseless. In a word, some consider abortion to be objectionable. If a "woman's march" or other "choice" protest were met by an armed and angry mob bent on the disruption of their free expression and clashes occurred, would we blame the freedom of choice people for perpetrating the violence?