Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
  • °

    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

    What is "Appreciations" relationship to "Value"

    Veritas
    By Veritas,
    If I want to get to the top of a mountain, two possible options are available to me. I can take a helicopter or a can climb it. What is appreciations relationship to value? Does appreciation come necessarily from struggle or from something else? My end goal is to get to the top. From an emotional standpoint will I appreciate being at the top if I do so at the expense of the struggle to get there (there will be a lot of secondary accomplishments ie; muscle growth, a better understanding of climbing) or will I appreciate being at the top simply because I have accomplished my goal. In other words what role does the amount of struggle place in achieving my values? Does struggle enhance the achievement of my goals or is it negligible to the achievement of my goals?   So in a another example, a person that is given enough money (given the have values to sustain it) vs a person that has earned it through hard work....

    Colonialism/imperialism

    Free Thinker
    By Free Thinker,
    I have a very difficult question which I have been unable to answer. Is Colonialism moral? I define colonialism as follows: "Colonialism is the extension of a nation's sovereignty over territory and people outside its own boundaries, often to facilitate economic domination over their resources, labor, and often markets. The term also refers to a set of beliefs used to legitimize or promote this system, especially the belief that the mores of the colonizer are superior to those of the colonized." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism) Imperialism? - "Imperialism is a policy of extending the control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries. The term is used by some to describe the policy of a country in maintaining colonies and dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the country calls itself an empire." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism) 3 Questions: 1. AR has stated (and Thomas Bowden) that the removal of Native Americans was moral. Now, whether one considers this colonialism or not, was it moral? 2. British hegemony in India, "The Scramble for Africa", "The White Man's Burden" -> (Rudyard Kipling's invention); were these moral in general? 3. If/if not for the cases listed, when is it moral?

    Correspondence and Coherence blog

    merjet
    By merjet,
    I didn't see a forum where I thought this post fits well. If the moderators want to move it to another forum , that's okay. Anyway, I've been posting to this blog for a while, and believe some would find an interest in a couple recent ones. LeBron, Trump, Altruism
    Marconi #6   This is one of a series of 11 that I wrote while reading a biography of Guglielmo Marconi, the inventor of wireless technology and often credited with inventing the radio. The post refers to John Galt.    

    Reblogged:The Person Hanging the Sign is Wrong, Too

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    I recommend the "keychain rule," instead. (Image via Pixabay.) Thought experiment: When someone writes Kick Me! on a sheet of paper, and then tapes it to the seat of someone else's pants, who deserves the blame when a third party follows through on the instructions? (a) Only the person who followed the instructions, or (b) that person and the one who posted the sign? If the wrong answer eludes you, consider what you might think about that in an ideal world, when nobody does the kicking. Or, perhaps, just consider the action alone.

    That scenario is what immediately popped into my mind when I got wind of an apology issued by a major airline after one of its ticketing agents couldn't resist the urge to belittle the name of a child whose parent should have considered the ramifications of the non-ethnic, non-literary, non-phonetic, and obviously made-up name she chose for her child. The airline in question immediately (and properly) issued an apology: As the child's mother correctly noted, the child was within earshot of the remarks.

    That said, I think it is wrong to give the mother a pass: she did her child a disservice by, at best, not giving enough thought to what that kind of name would mean for her child: A lifetime of having to (a) tell people how to pronounce it when they see it in print, (b) tell people how to spell it when they hear it, (c) say things like Yes. This really is my name., and (d) yes, fend off ridicule. As do many people with attention-drawing names (myself included during childhood, but unintentionally and for different reasons), the child may indeed end up loving the name. But why do something like this on purpose? Childhood can be challenging enough without a series of unwanted, undeserved, and unchosen confrontations built into the fact that one has to have a name.

    -- CAV Link to Original

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