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"

    Vote Trump!

    By MisterSwig,
    Let's not get caught up in all the non-essential questions regarding which candidate is more evil. Have we honestly not settled on the fact that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are ridiculous clowns? Why should we take seriously anything they say before the election? There is only one question to answer: Which clown do we want selecting up to four Supreme Court Justices in the next several years? It's actually the only question that really matters in this election. Forget what the candidates are saying today or promising for tomorrow. It's all trivial minutia in comparison to the unprecedented elephant in the room, which we strangely don't hear much about anymore: the fact that our next president will radically influence the direction of the judicial branch of our government. In broad terms, Trump is a big businessman trying to survive in an anti-big business political climate. He merely dabbles in intellectual matters, probably because he's not that bright and has a poor attention span. He entered politics without much initial support from his own party, and clawed his way to the top. He will probably try to run the country like a business and thus do what he thinks is pro-American. I don't see him shoving Christianity, Environmentalism, or any other devastating philosophy down our throats. Or picking judges based on such ideas. On the other hand, we have Clinton, a lawyer who stood beside her cheating husband before using him to start her own scandal-ridden political career. She has adopted nearly every liberal movement that gains any sort of traction, and she continues to push for more socialization of health care and education. If elected, I'm positive that she will nominate liberal judges and absolutely ruin the Supreme Court for a generation. Which is why I say: Vote Trump!

    Godel Escher Bach

    Sir Llama
    By Sir Llama,
    Hi. I have a question to any of you who's familiar with Godel's Incompleteness theorem. I've heard people claiming to disprove atheism by saying that GIT states that a logical system cannot explain everything so therefore you need an irrational faith based system to explain it all. I thought that was a load of crap. When I looked up GIT, it said that logical systems cannot explain everything because there are an infinite amount of paradoxical statements where truth cannot be ascertained (i.e. "I am lying" or "This statement is false"). I dont' really see how this implies the existence of God. Am I missing something here, or do I have an incomplete understanding of GIT? thanks Sir Llama

    Metaphysics of Death

    Harvey Meale
    By Harvey Meale,
    This is a particularly intriguing field for me and I'm curious as to what other people think about it. Is death bad for us or not? If it is bad, just how is it so? On one hand, we have Epicurus and Lucretius saying death is not a bad thing since experience terminates at death. Other scholars submit death is bad because it deprives us of continued good (i.e. life). What are your thoughts on this?  

    Is consciousness only possible in biological organisms?

    Steve Storck
    By Steve Storck,
    Hello, all.  The title might strike everyone as an absurd question, and it is, in a way.  Currently, consciousness is only an attribute of animals.  But, if you might indulge me in a hypothetical that strikes me as at least somewhat possible, I would appreciate it.  For those who loathe dealing in hypothetical questions, I completely understand.

    The field of neuroscience is always progressing.  If, in the next century or two, great progress is made, along with some breakthroughs here and there, and we gain a very good understanding of how the brain works, including new ideas for circuitry, processing, storage, architecture, and other things, it might revolutionize the field of artificial intelligence.  Surely, you know where I am headed with this.  Since we are Objectivists, and since we reject mystical notions of a soul or any other irrational idea that provides us with consciousness, it seems possible that we could create software, or computers, that are self-aware.  If they are self aware, then that seems to meet the criteria for consciousness.  The software/computer would exist, would have a sense of identity, and possess consciousness.  Is this a fair assessment?  Am I violating any of the principles of the three axiomatic concepts of existence, identity, and consciousness?  I am currently participating in a debate, and I have gotten thoroughly flamed for my suggestion, but it seems like the other people in the discussion are assuming that I mean something that I do not mean.  I will gladly expand on the ideas discussed in the debate, but I wanted to get some feedback about the initial premises of the discussion before I move onto the other concepts.

    So, taking the above possibility into consideration, if you even deem it to be a possibility, is consciousness only possible in biological organisms?   Thanks in advance, Steve

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