Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 03/21/21 in Posts

  1. https://youtu.be/ssvSsMqTtjo Kibbe on Liberty: Pandemic imprisoning and the culture war. Perspectives from Britain and the USA. Great conversation.
    3 points
  2. I mentioned this upstream, but thought I'd show more of it here, hoping to encourage more of the scholarly-inclined to get this book and make it one of our tributaries to discussions here. (I personally cannot imagine why or even how I would think and talk philosophy questions---at Rand's level of address or beyond---without places for written exchanges such as here and without finding out what other hard-study and hard-thinking minds have come to on the issue and its surrounding issues throughout the history of philosophy and the contemporary scene of professional philosophers. It's just that
    2 points
  3. Boydstun

    Atlas Shrugged

    For the New Intellectual Three years after Atlas Shrugged was published, Rand penned the essay “For the New Intellectual.” It is interesting to compare and contrast the analysis of philosophical and psychological archetypes in Galt’s Speech—Mystics of Muscle/Mystics of Spirit—with the types Attilas/Witchdoctors in FNI. In the present note I’ll not take that on, and I’ll not take on their relation to the broad philosophical types Peikoff frames in his book DIM. Certainly, in FNI and in Atlas, Rand was affirming, against many philosophies, the equal reality and virtuous unity of mind and bo
    2 points
  4. Boydstun

    Existence, We

    Once more I’d like to encourage anyone interested in seeing my fundamental paper “Existence, We” (EW), setting forth my metaphysical system and its relation to Rand’s and to others, to get your subscription to JARS at this time. I’ll post here a section of a paper that was to be a follow-on to EW and which—as the follow-on project has been redesigned—would no longer fit the follow-on paper.* This posted section is indeed built onto of the frame developed in EW. It gives a taste of some of what goes on in that fundamental paper. The material below uses that frame and some technical termino
    2 points
  5. When has this happened? I mean, it seems like the Magnificent Seven remake was the forgotten one... And if the original was forgotten, it's not because it was canceled. The logic seems to go like this: 1) companies that are rational make money 2) companies that are not rational don't make money 3) therefore companies that make money are rational 4) since it is not rational to make parasitic movies, the companies that make such movies won't make money 5) therefore the companies make these movies for reasons besides money 1-3 is circular (Why t
    2 points
  6. I saw it now. I assume some Prager people will have to integrate the fact that they are supporting an atheist with the fact that "Even though atheists have a bad record". It was very politically correct, no mention of selfishness or knowledge without God. It's nice that it was published and some may be swayed. But I see a trojan horse in this project. I hope it belongs to Objectivism. But yes, provided by a generous donation from "The Objective Standard Institute". Who knows, the next ally of Objectivism may be the church of Scientology. They believe in Capitalism too and they
    2 points
  7. I, too, am disappointed in the guilty verdict. Providing the epistemic justification requires being able identify and guide others through judicial landscape presented. Thanks for providing the summation. It was nice having it in one place, unfolding as you presented it.
    1 point
  8. True. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rational Egoism – Function of Mind – Function of Ethics – Supported Choice to Live – Desire to Value – Altruism – Sacrifice – Value Out There – Visibility, Benevolence, and Egoism – a, b ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My earliest writings were in the 1980's -- Political and moral philosophy, all published in the magazine Nomos. The Moral Value of Liberty (1984) Review of The Evolution of Cooperation (1985) Rights, Games, and Self-Realization (1988) Introduction / Part 1 - Rights against Personal Injury for
    1 point
  9. This also reminds me of the fact that even in the realm of tort law, rational people, be they juries or judges, may disagree as to the proper principles and/or their application to a specific case. All agree in the interests of justice. None have an overtly personal interest in the case. Can such disagreement be cast as conflict of rational interests? Should rational men be held to the same standard of Judges and Juries? Must rational men render judgement the same whether they find themselves on one side of the fact situation or the other? Edit: Do rational men seek anything other
    1 point
  10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV4tMvr7xZY
    1 point
  11. It should prove interesting to contrast Dr. Andrew Baker's eyewitness testimony of the cause of death with Dr. Michael Baden's and Dr. Alecia Wilson's later eyewitness testimony of the same. Dr. Michael Baden's eyewitness autopsy testimony regarding Michael Brown was key in establishing the fact Brown was facing, not fleeing Officer Darrin Wilson when Brown had been shot in Ferguson, Missouri back in August 2014.
    1 point
  12. The Stop the Steal. Game. When you open the game, text immediately says "the creator has been canceled, donate money to help save his freedom of speech!". That's it. Very similar way to cash in on buzzwords without meaning anything. This is just what happens when you're free to make anything you want. You get a lot of trash.
    1 point
  13. Kristoffer Polaha played John Galt in the movie Atlas Shrugged. It's movie trivia to me, but a comment that arose from one of the viewers in the audience.
    1 point
  14. Zuby noted how he liked to keep it real, as opposed to saying what he thought his audience might want to hear, and associated keeping it real as a contributing factor to his growing fan base. (around 20 minutes.)
    1 point
  15. Boydstun

    Atlas Shrugged

    Movers, Prime and Immovable Chapter IV of Atlas Shrugged is titled “The Immovable Movers.” Rand opens the chapter with the following paragraph: “Motive power—thought Dagny, looking up at the Taggart Building in the twilight—was its first need; motive power, to keep that building standing; movement, to keep it immovable. It did not rest on piles driven into granite; it rested on the engines that rolled across a continent.” (64) In that chapter are the lines: “She had always been—she closed her eyes with a faint smile of amusement and pain—the motive power of her own happiness” (65). T
    1 point
  16. Back to the future. The discoveries of an unprecedented theory of concepts, a metaphysical basis for morality, treatises from the roots of war to it's counter-part in the yet unknown ideal provided by capitalism, await more minds that value them. The Verunca Salts are singing "I Want It Now", while the Oompa Loompas are queueing up for their retort of " Who Do You Blame When Your Kid Is A Brat."
    1 point
  17. Yes, I like to think I see most of the themes including freedom. I've watched the series and movie multiple times, but it's the sort of show where I notice something new with each viewing. I hadn't read the Wikipedia article by the way. The family theme hit me when I realized the brother-sister symbolism of Simon/River and Mal/Zoe. Also, if you're into numerology (which normally I'm not), you might find it curious that Simon and River both have five letters in their names, Mal and Zoe have three. In Chinese numerology 5 is either good luck (Simon) or bad luck (River). The number 3 means life a
    1 point
  18. @Easy Truth, @MisterSwig, @StrictlyLogical Sorry, I see there were some typos and inaccuracies in my original post. Eiuol filled in the blanks and was correct. There's more context I could've originally provided so I'll do it now. The rest will take me some more time to think through before replying. Keep in mind the majority of what I'm about to write was in the context of a discussion about asking the question of "will this flight that I'm about to catch crash?" and how to think about such a statement. Yes, I meant to say man is non-omniscient and fallible. LP said fallibility
    1 point
  19. With all the arguing about Firefly, I thought I'd look it up on Wikipedia. I only read part of the article. What I read cleared up for me what the Alliance was. It also included "Firefly is an American space Western drama television series, created by writer and director Joss Whedon, " and "As Whedon states in an episode of a DVD commentary, every show he does is about creating a family.[12]"
    1 point
  20. Additional, from beyond the armchairs: How Brains Make Up Their Minds by Walter Freeman (Columbia 2000) The Neural Basis of Free Will - Criterial Causation by Peter Ulric Tse (MIT 2013)
    1 point
  21. In "what you know to be true is mutable" I think he is using "what you know to be true" to mean "what you think according to your knowledge (or assumed knowledge) to be true" and not using "what you know to be true" (in this context) to mean that "the truth in reality of which I actually know".
    1 point
  22. Never go full Parmenides
    1 point
  23. "lies, damned lies and statistics" The list of the top ten strongest men in the world, that is the ranking of the participants in the competition of the same name , not the actually ranking of the strength of men on earth .
    1 point
  24. Violence with sexual attraction; violence with humor. These achieve what the script writer wants, that we second-guess and negate the ugliness of violence to find hidden motives. Instead of violent acts being the last recourse, when reason has failed, violence is - normal. Or sexy or funny. It's in fact the substitute for reason. Which is why there's hardly a film made now that hasn't a fight scene in it: Muscles over minds. In a distorted pursuit of the hero values people inchoately still need, the last man(woman) standing *must* be somewhat better, 'heroic', than their antagonists, by
    1 point
  25. You are just making this thread messy by posting 3 times in a row to respond to the same person. If you can't wait for me to start a thread tomorrow, go ahead and start it yourself for now.
    1 point
  26. Trying to understand that question. There seems to be two fundamental definitions of possibility, one that relates to the future and one that does not. Also found this article that I am looking at. https://therealistguide.com/blog/f/metaphysical-possibility-vs-logical-possibility#:~:text=To summarize%2C metaphysical possibility is,real existence outside the mind.
    1 point
  27. I knew it would come to me eventually. I don't know how far back this sort of "cocky intimidation from a vulnerable position" trope goes, but it was masterfully applied in Princess Bride. Not so much in Charlie's Angels.
    1 point
  28. Reidy

    Cultural Parasitism

    Some possible examples of gay-turned-straight are the movie Enigma and Noel Coward's play Present Laughter. They weren't remakes, but they took real-life gay people and turned them straight, Alan Turing in the first case and Coward himself in the second. People have been speculating for decades that George and Martha in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf are both men, but the author insisted otherwise.
    1 point
  29. Exquisite. The smooth canvas a superb choice for the subject. She's almost hyper-real.
    1 point
  30. I believe the quote comes from her article "The Money-Making Personality" that ran in Cosmopolitan in the early 60s. PS: https://www.amazon.com/COSMOPOLITAN-magazine-MONEY-MAKING-PERSONALITY-Cosmopolitan/dp/B000NE6D22
    1 point
  31. Amazon might be trying to virtue-signal its way out of a controversy.
    1 point
  32. I have no "issues" with Objectivism. I use the philosophy to lead the best life possible in an irrational society. I may be an outlier, but I'm better off knowing and acting on the truth than I would be if I were to invest in a bad cultural movement. I focus on tings I can control and enjoy, and limit my exposure to politics except to the extent that I enjoy crafting arguments on issues I'm passionate about as an end in itself, regardless of the likelihood that my views will prevail in my lifetime. I enjoy going online and saying things that are on a totally different wavelength than the mains
    1 point
  33. "We The Dying", perhaps? To be taken as metaphor, but "better to die on your feet than to live on your knees". As the character Kira showed. I only caution to pick your fights carefully. I'm afraid this is one that no one can immediately win against the weight of 'public opinion' (emotions). Live to fight another day.
    1 point
  34. There is much more integration (not just coherence, but mutual reinforcement and support) between modern conservatism and Marxism and postmodernism, than there is between Marxism and postmodernism. For just one of many examples, one of the current leading and most influential conservative philosophers Alasdair MacIntyre continues to argue, using Aristotelian and Thomistic methods that Bernstein blathering on about in peak Objectivist mode, that modernism (aka the Enlightenment) is a failed project precisely because of its liberal capitalism, scientific rationalism, and individualism, and
    1 point
  35. 2046

    2020 election

    That and the primary purpose of most of these people is to channel new converts into the Objectivist lecture/books/course/conference/membership ecosystem, which is the primary monetization enterprise, aside from convincing rich people to donate money to them. I'd just recommend steering clear of them altogether, there's only a few of them that are even good at what they do. Let's take a look at the following propositions that DO mentioned: 1. The facts and logic always lead to only one conclusion 2. If two people come to different conclusions, then one if them has betrayed reaso
    1 point
  36. Maybe this will actually help provide clarity. I don't think we're having a conflict of interest, at least not in Rand's sense. I take Rand's sense of interest from the VOS introduction and "The Objectivist Ethics" to refer to ones good as a human being. (Or more precisely, to refer to the scope of one's good.) I take this because she uses self-interest and selfishness interchangeably (or as selfishness as concern for ones own interest), and refers to them as "the values required for man's survival qua man." I don't think my good and Merlin's good are in conflict. We don't have to agree t
    1 point
  37. This is a better way to say what I was thinking. I was basically trying to say that initially there may be an appearance of a conflict of interest (the belief that there is a conflict of interest) but upon further reflection, we would recognize there is no actual conflict of interest (in which case the dispute between interests disappears). No we don't agree. I admit that I had a hard time saying what I was thinking, but the above paragraph should make things clear. When I say long-term or short-term, I should instead distinguish between the initial appearance of things (beliefs about
    1 point
  38. Both or any rational people take reality as their final arbiter, and so it may be said that their specific purpose/goals - and "interest"- can't and won't clash, in the final analysis. Two individuals apply for the same position or contract; or suitors vie for the one woman - they'll understand that the acceptance of their rival was due to a rational judgment (the one's abilities/experience/etc. were more suitable to an employer, or the girl placed higher value/love in the other guy) and so no conflict and animus is possible to them. Neither, in rational justice, would want or could tolerate t
    1 point
  39. I guess you could say that, but the question isn't so much about figuring out which the best goal is. Conflicts of interest in this context are not about mere clashing situations. It's more about zero-sum games, or the idea that if one person benefits another person is left worse off. Contrary to that, including when we are mistaken, your rational self-interest does not conflict with my rational self-interest. If we have to decide on a plan, it doesn't go against my self-interest to go with your plan instead. That assumes we actually thought about it and discussed it. While there is a conflict
    1 point
  40. Well, even if we fully buy into the "good provider" theory, that is an evolutionary theory. In other words, it deals in men as they lived before specialization (as hunter gatherers, where you proved you are a good provider and protector through behavior, rather than any achievement or possession. And it was a very specific set of behaviors, because there was only one way to be a good provider and protector: be strong, fit, assertive, but also loving, open and honest. Specifically, EMOTIONALLY honest. This is what the "Red Pill" crowd fails to understand: being honest, being willing to put
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...