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

    "How do I know I'm not in the matrix?"

    By mb121,
    OK so my friends "accept" the 3 axioms: 1) Existance exists 2) Concsiousness exists 3) Law of Identity But then say we can't deduce from those that we don't live in the matrix - or to be more direct that "I'm taking an act of faith by trusting my perception." A classic example is when I cross the street because the light is red, I'm acting on faith that my perception and reason were correct that the line was red and no cars would come. They also say there are "other" forms of obtaining knowledge (revalation, the bible), and that just because those 3 axioms are true, it doesn't mean there is knowledge out there that I am incapable of perceiving or reasoning (ie, the existance of God). Thus, let's say that no matter what I will never be able to perceive the existance of God (or deduce him rationally), but he DOES exist. Or, I live in the matrix, but I am incapable of perceiving the matrix or deducing from reason that I am in the matrix, but it DOES exist. What would objectivism have to say about these assertions?

    Number of people in Atlantis

    By gio,
    I heard a lecture where Ayn Rand was answering a question where she was making a hypothesis about the number of people in Atlantis (it was about a thousand I think, but I have to check). I can not refind it, does that tell you something? Thank you.

    Global Warming

    Guest Guest_guest_
    By Guest Guest_guest_,
    After reading a recent article in CapMag on the global warming myth I decided to find out some more by reading older articles. That's how I came across the petition project and the scientific research titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide". I also watched the video lecture by Dr Arthur Robinson and found it quite amazing. I've also come across the sepp.org website and under "the week that was dec 13th" 4. Letter on Kyoto to Russian president Vladimir Putin, there is a link about collecting signatures which is http://www.envirotruth.org/ president_putin/. I searched the site for some information regarding climate change and came to "Myths and Envirotruth Regarding Climate Change". Myth #1a: 'Computer Models Show Catastrophic Warming in the Future.' shows a graph which can also be found in the scientific research done at the Oregon Institute, but exact slopes differ somewhat. At envirotruth.org From 1979 to 2001 the graphc details the measured temperature trend from satellites and balloons, which begins in 1979 at just over 0.0 and ends in 2001 at a little under 0.2. At Oregon Institute 1979 also begins at 0.0 but ends in 1998 at just below zero. Does anyone know why the graphs differ, have I missed something?

    Reblogged:Litigation vs. Free Speech?

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    Over at Popehat, Ken White expresses grave concerns over the recent total, pre-litigation surrender of the Southern Poverty Law Center to a Moslem activist who had threatened to sue them over defamation, for including him on a list of anti-Moslem extremists:
    White's difficulty is that, although the SPLC was being ridiculous, they looked like they were, in fact, engaging in protected speech. Furthermore there was nothing in the apology that came with the settlement to indicate that the SPLC had actually engaged in defamation (which is and should be illegal), rather than indulging opinion, as sophomoric as it might be. I recommend reading the whole thing.

    -- CAV Link to Original

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