Leaderboard

From Wikipedia: According to objectivism Nature is And I must say I totally agree since one has to define Nature before one can provide a objective scientific method to test it. The Supernatural So Methodological Naturalism states that scientists must look for causes that exist for events that happened and that they should not look for causes that don't exist for events that happened or that they should not look for causes of events that did not happen even though causes that don't exist and events that did not happen may exist. Doe that make sense? I think that's simple nonsense. Methodological naturalism gives credibility to supernatural arguments by asserting that the supernatural exists despite it not being part of scientific research. It is not simply stating the obvious since it does in fact imply the existence of non-existence, which is a contradiction in terms. Am I right?

Public or public-sponsored (i.e. government-sponsored)?

I hate the fact that he claims to admire Ayn Rand given that almost everything he does is the opposite of what Objectivism demands. He's just giving the left an opening to denigrate Objectivism by blaming the inevitable failure of his policies on Ayn Rand's philosophy.

I hear people talk about athletes and geniuses having "raw talent" that they are born with. But most often, I hear those same athletes and geniuses talking about all their hard work or training. Who knows better, the athletes and geniuses or the people talking about them? On a side note, sure you hear stories of 2 year old kids knowing how to play the piano, or people who have photographic memory. Prove me wrong, but I don't think the majority of producers or "talented" people were in that category.

A lot has been written by Objectivists about purpose, including Rand. I do think purpose is essential to human flourishing, but I do not think a lifelong "central purpose" which is not subject to change once set is ideal or even realistic for all people. For reference, I have changed purpose many times, and expect to continue doing so for the rest of my life. One experience leads to the next, which is both limiting and freeing, including for choosing a purpose.

I read somewhere that it takes 10 years to become an expert in any field. Which begs the question, why is everyone in such a rush?

Your best is the best you can do.

Those brilliant young engineers weren't born brilliant, or talented. They spent their childhoods and early adulthoods learning and obsessing over math and computer science, until they got really good at it.

What these quotes establish is: 1. Franklin and Rand disagree about property rights. 2. Rand did not like Reagan. Apparently you see a problem in the fact that, in either case, some people admire both. At least three possible explanations come to mind, and more than one might be at work in a particular case: - The admirers admire the two figures for different reasons, or - They are intellectually inconsistent, or - They don't know all the facts, such as the Franklin quote above, and might change their mind if they found out. (Not an exhaustive list) Let's suppose that somebody admires Rand for the right reasons. He might also admire Franklin's scientific talent, his role in the American Revolution or what have you, but not his ideas on this subject. This is not an inconsistency, although it would be If somebody claimed to agree with them both about property rights. That would be his problem, not Rand's. (For the record, I don't recall her mentioning Franklin one way or another.) The same possibilities apply to the Reagan example; any of the three explanations, or maybe others, singly or together, could be at work. I admire him for bringing the USSR down and for steering a large tax cut through congress, but not for what he had to say on abortion. Rand said repeatedly that thinking is volitional. Being right on one topic does not guarantee that you'll identify why you're right, in principled terms, and apply that to thinking elsewhere. The fact that people can and do hold mutually inconsistent beliefs is not a problem for her theory.

I take the "we don't matter in the grand scheme of things" to mean looking at something wonderful that happens to be natural, like the cosmos, and not feeling capable of producing something here and now that's even equally as grand. One action you take isn't really going to cause galaxies to shift and mountains to move. The issue I see isn't one of not seeing a purpose, but rather, believing that any personal achievement, even on the level of building a rocket to Mars, is by nature inferior or less meaningful than what goes on in the cosmos. So, why bother if your actions won't amount to much? As far as I know, a nihilist could still argue that self-invented purpose is fine (with twisted logic), yet still say it still doesn't matter much in the end. DA, I don't think your answer gets at answering why anyone should care about what they do. Acknowledging you have a right to live doesn't mean you care that you live, or even find much meaning in some career goal of building robots. Choosing to live in itself doesn't imply even enjoying life. People can and do go through the motions of daily life out of habit, without ever finding enjoyment or "mattering" in their own actions. Have you ever seen Office Space? Would saying "having the freedom to choose to continue living" lead people in that movie to start caring about life? I doubt it. Objectivism gives a better answer I find. Your meaning can only be yours, but it also requires understanding how pursuing grand goals *does* give meaning. Identifying that reason, self-esteem, and productivity are core values helps to point out that pursuing those values results in happiness/meaning/joy/"mattering". Still, those concepts are empty without action; understanding that those values leads towards something meaningful like happiness takes some first-hand experience. The ability to choose to live is only the beginning. Some additional perspective from Rand when Rand was interviewed by Playboy: PLAYBOY: If a person organizes his life around a single, neatly defined purpose, isn't he in danger of becoming extremely narrow in his horizons? RAND: Quite the contrary. A central purpose serves to integrate all the other concerns of a man's life. It establishes the hierarchy, the relative importance, of his values, it saves him from pointless inner conflicts, it permits him to enjoy life on a wide scale and to carry that enjoyment into any area open to his mind; whereas a man without a purpose is lost in chaos. He does not know what his values are. He does not know how to judge. He cannot tell what is or is not important to him, and, therefore, he drifts helplessly at the mercy of any chance stimulus or any whim of the moment. He can enjoy nothing. He spends his life searching for some value which he will never find.