NateTheGreat

Rand held that there should be a separation of science and state, just as there should be a separation of economics and state and church and state. One needn't convince me that when they are mingled, the state can go too far (shrimps on treadmills rings a bell).. However, I am curious as to why a private science entity would exist. Why would someone, for example, fork over money for space travel? Sure there may be resources out there, but those resources will be many dollars and years away, and it doesn't seem to be the best investment. Another example would be travelling to the depths of the sea: why would an entrepreneur spend the money to go down there? Answers would be appreciated.

Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, but he is one man who has significantly contributed to the freedom of generations: of keeping them out of slavery. Philosophies develop and adapt overtime. Objectivism won't look in 200 years like it does today, but the foundations will remain essentially the same.

I had this question a couple of weeks ago. To see the entire thread, click here: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=22020 Firstly, let me say I’m very glad you used the word ‘prove’. To prove something presupposes there is something to be proven, so I don’t have to take you through the whole identification of an objective metaphysical reality thing. I’ll give you the best answer I got on my thread. Consider what you are doing when you use force against someone. You’re making them do something that they otherwise would not have done, or making them not do something that they otherwise would have done. If they did what you wanted them to, no force would be necessary would it? Men decide what they will and will not do based on their rational judgment. In this way, force is the attack of another man's rational judgment: the negation of the mind. All of the human race is destroyed except for you. Are you free? Yes or no? I'm sure you can put it together from there. If not, then I can explain. Finally, you could ask for an explanation before you assert that I have created a new axiom. The only axiom in Objectivism is that existence exist. Everything else about the philosophy is based on that.

When I was trying to grasp a hold on Objectivism, I too had a problem with this. If one is truly to be selfish, why would he not sacrifice others to the self? I had trouble figuring out how a morality based on self-interest is also a morality based on not using force. To start off, I'd like to quote Thomas Paine: "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself" If you truly wish to support your own interests, you will recognize that to protect this right, you must recognize everyone else's right to support their own self-interest. When and if you violate this, it becomes fair game. You don't have the right to anything, it's just a bunch of brutes fighting for political power to club their opponents. Next, I would like you to look at it from the other side. Imagine you're the most selfless altruist: you exist to help other people and to serve their needs. Someone comes along and states that you have no right to exist. You've lived your entire life believing this, are you going to stand up to him when he seeks to transgress your rights? Not likely. The selfish man would not recognize someone else's right to transgress his rights. Next, life itself is a value. When you look at the way men fundamentally survive, it is through their reasoning mind. Force is the negation of the mind. Therefore, when you use force, you abandon the highest value: life. Finally, let me say this. I believe this may be the most important point: look at politics. Capitalism is based on self-interest and non-aggression. Capitalism recognizes your right to pursue happiness and own your life. The non-aggression principle is implicit in this statement. Socialism is based on selflessness and men living for other people. Socialism is based on force. Socialism is not based on the pursuit of happiness or the right to own your life.

I figured it had, but I wanted to answer partly to solidify it for myself.

I know the answer to your third objection: The reason is that a mathematical or philosophical discovery is not manmade, at least it shouldn't be. If these are created by man, they are not valid and thus are not applicable to mathematics or philosophy. Math, for example is concete. A is A. 2 is 2. You do not create 2 is 2 or the idea that 2 is 2, but identify it. Just as it is not your job to create reality, but to understand and interpret it, so it is with philosophy and mathematics. Machines are not found in nature, they're manmade, though they must necessarily follow the nature and laws of reality. A is A is to be acknowledged, but now you're applying the principle (is that the right word?) that A is A, and 2 is 2 instead of identifying it. You cannot copywright something that is found in nature (imagine trying to copyright a tree), but you can copyright something that you create with your own reasoning mind based on the laws of nature. If it helps you to understand, it's the difference between metaphysics and epistemology. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy pertaining to the nature of existence. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy pertaining to what we know and how we know it from reality.

JayR, I too thought that was the most profound paragraph of his reply. Thanks to you all, that cleared it up a bit. Also thanks for the link to the lecture.

As far as I understand, this is Objectivism streamlined: Metaphysics: The only axiom in Objectivism is that an objective metaphysical reality exists. If someone refutes this, you quite frankly ask them why they don't play in traffic. A is A. Epistemology: This metaphysical reality does not succumb to man's wishes, needs, or desires. We establish the highest value: life. Life is something that must be maintained and furthered, it is not given to man. Without life, there is no other possible value you can hold: you're dead. Man maintains and furthers his life by using his senses and his mind to identify and integrate his knowledge. It is through the recognition that A is A that he knows tigers will not spontaneously become venomous. Each day he learns more, he does not have to re-learn what he learned the previous day. Ethics: This is where I had the hardest time tying all of the philosophy together. Force, I am told, was wrong because it was the negation of the mind. I remember this being clearly illustrated in AS when I was reading it, but I have forgotten at this point. [Answer please] You should follow your self-interest because it is necessary for your survival: to not be self-interested would be to simply lie there and rot, not to use your mind. It is with this Rand ties self-interest with reason. But how force is integrated into this, I would like an answer. Also, why is egoism necessarily good if self-interest is necessarily good? Politics: Of course it follows that if man should not be forced, he should follow his self-interest, and he must maintain and further his survival, he should establish an economic system of laissez-faire capitalism. So if some of you could clear up a few of those holes, that would be awesome.