Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 02/05/17 in all areas

  1. Dustin, I wasn't asking if any of your questions/objections in this thread alone you considered to be answered/resolved, I was asking about if you considered that to be the case of *any* of your questions/objections you have raised on this forum in general. Also, you have in your post there stated your position, but you have not addressed anything any of us have already said to you here about why we contend such a position is incorrect. You didn't answer my question either about what sources, aside from this forum, you have on Objectivism, or even point me to a place where you alread
    2 points
  2. Hi everyone. I haven't been an active poster on this forum since I was younger, but I thought that I could tell everyone about my Objectivist oriented immigration FB page. I started this page because I think that the uniquely Objectivist viewpoint of individualism is missing from immigration discussion. To use some typical examples, the Left talks about some mushy notion of "love" as though it's a winning immigration argument, while the Right talks about "American Jobs" and deterministic qualities like voting demographics and I.Q. tests. If you agree with me that the individual needs more cons
    1 point
  3. Thank you. On the one hand I am happy that Trump's policies are making immigration big news. Even though I disagree with most of what he's done, immigration has been a dead issue for years. (Remember when Republicans lost some ground in the previous election and for about two weeks immigration reform was sort of being considered?) On the other hand I watch the protests - I see the gross cliche clenched fist symbols being employed, and the usual "love wins" type of crap, and I wish the opportunity weren't being squandered by misguided hippies. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad there is such an outpo
    1 point
  4. One may count using one's fingers, but one's fingers can't count. A computer program, aside from the programmer, is as deterministic as the computer which runs the program. It can only "learn" and "modify" its "behavior" to the extent the programmer understands and exploits his understanding of the finite deterministic aspects of the device.
    1 point
  5. Eiuol

    Universe as Object

    Why would it be an elaborate fallacy of composition? I explain in the paper that the composition isn't really important, and doesn't matter what something is composed of to be an object. I explain that causality matters. If I am wrong, then please argue against my claims or find the error if there is one. The bound of a universe is all that exists, i.e. it is its own boundary. It is still boundless as far as a "hard limit" does not exist, but the universe is exactly as big as all things in totality that exist. However this is NOT sufficient for objecthood. So, I go on to argue that emerge
    1 point
  • Create New...