Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/07/16 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    New Buddha

    Intellectual property

    But my ownership of my bicycle is not contingent upon my entering into a separate contract with you and/or every other member of Society by either a separate written agreement or, more generally, by the existence of a written Constitution. It exists prior to any voluntary agreement I might choose to enter into with others. The same goes for all my Rights. They don't exist based on a Social Contract Theory. I mean, there are some schools of thought that believe this to be the case, but that's not Objectivism's position. Man is not a contractual animal. Man SHOULD be a trading animal, because it is in his best interest. And trading also presupposes ownership.
  2. 1 point
    dream_weaver

    Randroid!

    I kind of like Salon.com. It helps me see just how relevant they really think Objectivism is. Actions speak louder than words on that point, or so it appears to me.
  3. 1 point
    I haven't been arguing against civility, but against the instances where people have been censored for their views regardless of how polite they were. And you're still not hearing what I've been saying. How would I promote intellectual and productive discussions? Invite and encourage criticism, and then answer it, if you can. If you can't answer it, then reconsider your opinion. Challenge people to try to demonstrate any ways in which Objectivism is wrong, or ways in which they think it might not have sufficient proof to back up some of its assertions. Dare them to try to knock Objectivism's block off. Treat philosophy as an objective science. Science doesn't exclude, prevent and resent testing and criticism. Objectivism is a proposed theory. Many of its supporters have self-graded it as superb, if not perfect. Well, the next step is inviting people who are not its supporters to test it and criticize it. The next objective step in the process is to encourage doubters and the harshest critics to throw everything they've got at and try to disprove any or all of it.
  4. 1 point
    Thanks for the replies guys. I normally do not argue politics at all on campus for exactly this reason. I didn't want to argue with the professor, it was just that she went too far and I felt the need to speak up. I was very polite when I raised my hand to comment. I simply wanted to state an alternative opinion and had no idea she would interrupt me in the middle of speaking. I don't know how many of you reading this are fellow college students, but let me just say that the situation on college campuses has become extremely toxic for Objectivists. I kid you not, almost everyone here is a Bernie Sanders supporter. One of my other political science professors actually urged the class to vote for Bernie Sanders, though he didn't give any extra credit. To be honest, I feel stressed and alienated here. Once I saw a "Who is John Galt?" sticker on the back of somebody's car but it was parked and there was nobody in it and I thought it would be strange to leave some kind of note. I think I must have misinterpreted something in the Objectivist literature because holding these beliefs has really negatively impacted my standard of living. I know Leonard Peikoff talked about this exact issue in "Understanding Objectivism," but unfortunately it's not in my dorm room with me... I could really use it right now. Of course, I would never go back in time and erase "Atlas Shrugged" from my reading list of 2008. I just have some things to think through and work out. You guys have any other thoughts?
×
×
  • Create New...