Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/08/21 in all areas

  1. Not-Neil responding: I believe Americans have too much (or misunderstand inherent rights) when they demand a right to freedom from want.
    1 point
  2. Certainly. If I remove myself from society, the rest of the world will continue turning just fine without me - only I won't have to deal with them. That's the point. This is so weird. To recap, DA mentioned the possibility of Trump being "reinstated" either through the courts or reelection. Alright; one can argue about whether or not the courts are going to do anything about this last election (and if one was feeling particularly uncharitable one might even characterize such an idea as a bit unhinged) but it's neither advocating violence nor conspiracy theories. Even if he were advocating a conspiracy theory why wouldn't we hear it out and then (if it is, in fact, a conspiracy theory) pick it apart like we would with any other bad theory? Why do you need to know DA's real name? Are we not going to consider any of his arguments unless they're accompanied by a social security number and a DNA sample? @Devil's Advocate I don't care if you're this Neil character or not. I'm not sure we'll agree about the answer to the OP and I'm confident we do not agree about what happened this last election - and that's okay. I don't need to see your papers.
    1 point
  3. My summarized take after reading all your responses: The Benevolent Universe Premise describes an attitude that views man as empowered to survive in an intelligible universe: he can discover facts, causal connections and the unknown. He is equipped with a tool that, when applied correctly, allows him to build an ever-growing context of knowledge which, rather than being threatened by new knowledge, is strengthened by it. It's also helpful to make a few distinctions that clarify thinking about the kind of world we live in: (1) the metaphysical vs. the man-made; (2) the unknowable vs. the unknown; With respect to distinction #1: The differences between men and objects are consequential enough (a badly styled outfit is capable of being visually irritating, a badly developed soul is capable of murder) to separate them out for analysis. With respect to distinction #2: A quote from John Galt's speech describing the feeling of living in an unknowable universe: Actually, this is something I had in mind originally too. According to the quotes below we consider “accidents” as not being the essence or the “norm” of human life. It’s still not really clear to me what kind of conceptual stepping stones I need to jump over to be fully convinced of this. I can see that we have a tool to discover the unknown, but there is still the unknown—and the unknown can include causes of negative, deadly consequences and this fact is "in the nature of existence." I don’t think I’ll get an answer until I explore lots of real-world examples of how men actually dealt with the unknown, e.g., the case of discovering blood types compatibility and how that unfolded. This is what Greg pointed out with exploring “positive reinforcements” too. Some quotes: With respect to distinction (1), the man-made: Rearden reflecting in Atlas Shrugged: “The Inexplicable Personal Alchemy:" With respect to distinction (2), an unknown as opposed to unknowable universe: Leonard Peikoff's lectures:
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...