Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

  • °

    Objectivism Is The Everyman's Philosophy

    In the universe, what you see is what you get,

    figuring it out for yourself is the way to happiness,

    and each person's independence is respected by all

  • Rand's Philosophy in Her Own Words

    • "Metaphysics: Objective Reality" "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed/Wishing won’t make it so." "The universe exists independent of consciousness"
    • "Epistemology: Reason" "You can’t eat your cake and have it, too." "Thinking is man’s only basic virtue"
    • "Ethics: Self-interest" "Man is an end in himself." "Man must act for his own rational self-interest" "The purpose of morality is to teach you[...] to enjoy yourself and live"
    • "Politics: Capitalism" "Give me liberty or give me death." "If life on earth is [a man's] purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being"

  • Objectivism Online Chat

    Reblogged:Friday Hodgepodge

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    Four Things Let's take a short break from that damned virus today, shall we? In the process of answering a question about weather vanes, I stumbled across this gorgous picture of one. (Image by SmithVane, via Wikimedia Commons, license.) 1. Did you know that we may soon have a broad-spectrum flu vaccine? It is worth noting that, if this approach works, it will be tried against several other similarly challenging viral pathogens. 2. Having read in Socialism Sucks about the great strides to

    You should choose to live

    epistemologue
    By epistemologue,
    Man's life is the standard of moral value, and his own life is his moral purpose. So morally speaking, choosing to live is the most basic moral choice, that is the most basic thing that you should do. Anyone who chooses not to is abdicating their moral values, and contradicting their moral purpose.

    Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality

    epistemologue
    By epistemologue,
    I was curious if anyone else has read this book by Scott Ryan. I am still only on Chapter 1, but I think the author has a lot of clear insights that I haven't read anywhere else. The argument in Chapter 1 is that she missed the "problem of universals" entirely - which is properly a *metaphysical* question, not an epistemological one. Personally I've always thought it was odd that she began the book stating that it was all about the problem of universals, but the word "universal" i

    The Genuine Problem Of Universals

    intrinsicist
    By intrinsicist,
    "A “universal” is any property, quality, relation, characteristic, attribute, or combination of these—generally, any “feature of reality”—which may be identically present in diverse contexts. The “problem” of universals is—to put it in any of several ways—whether there are, or can be, strict identities between disparate contexts; whether two objects can literally have common attributes; whether universals (i.e., repeatable predicables, or qualities that can be “predicated” of more than one objec

Portal by DevFuse · Based on IP.Board Portal by IPS
×
×
  • Create New...