Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Zoso

Regulars
  • Content Count

    197
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Zoso

  1. I think my girlfriend would fall into the ignorant category...she's pretty smart, but she just prefers not to think about politics and philosophy.
  2. I know what you mean, but this little phrase still made me laugh.
  3. After reading Peikoff's essay, my curiosity on this subject is piqued. Are all non-Objectivists evil? What about people who just aren't philosophical people and don't think about it? My girlfriend, and future wife, is a Catholic...although, pretty much in name only...she isn't really sure what she believes. Another girl in one of my classes is about as far left as you can get, but she's one of the nicest people I've ever known. Should I label these people as evil?
  4. I just read (most of) Peikoff's essay on Kelly's philosophy. I agree with all the major points, but I am confused by one of them. Okay, I agree with him when he says that we should pass moral judgment on ideas, and not just actions. But I don't quite follow the logic of the idea that we shouldn't even converse with people who have opposing viewpoints. Maybe I just read that wrong, but that's how it sounded to me. Why wouldn't we converse with opposing viewpoints? First off, it seems logical to do so, in the sense that we can try and convince them that they are wrong. Secondly, it helps
  5. If only it were true. I have a hard time believing it though...all you have to do is have a conversation with the average American to see that it ain't happening any time soon.
  6. Has anyone else seen this movie? I'm not sure what prompted me to start this thread, but I just think this is an amazing movie. If you haven't seen it, but you like movies like Goodfellas, Casino, and The Godfather, you should check it out. It's got Robert DeNiro, Joe Pesci (minor role), and James Woods, and is by far the best gangster movie I've ever seen. But only watch it if you have a whole afternoon to spare, b/c it's about 4 hours long.
  7. I don't even have the book here. Can't you just take my word for it that he speaks against the HUP? I'm not making it up, I swear.
  8. Like I said, I'm no expert by any means, but I have trouble taking your words over people who are experts. From what I understand, there is no proof that quantum mechanics is undetermined but, the more we look at it, the more it looks like that might be the case. Maybe I'm just choosing bad experts or something, but I have never heard a single physicist try to refute quantum randomness. It seems to be pretty generally accepted.
  9. This is the kind of answer I was looking for. I guess I was just confused. To my knowledge, the HUP simply means that we can't know for certain both the position and momentum of an electron...not that each electron does not have a definite momentum and position. Why, then, does Peikoff seem to reject it?
  10. I'm not going to look for the exact quotes, but Peikoff mentions it in The Ominous Parallels. I'm sure you know of the apparent contradiction between the law of causality and free will, so I won't go into detail...I will, however, ask you how Objectivism rectifies this apparent contradiction. Also, while I am by no means an expert on the subject, I am aware that many experts in quantum mechanics believe in the precise form of randomness that, according to Objectivism, I should reject. What scientific evidence is there to the contrary?
  11. Canada would be the last non-third world country I would pick. Anti-americanism is blatant and fascism is rampant.
  12. Okay...maybe I'm wrong, but isn't the HUP the law that states that it is impossible to know, simultaneously, both the position and momentum of an electron? If so, why is this so offensive to Objectivism? Also, why is it that the idea of randomness on a quantum level is so offensive to Objectivism?
  13. Maybe you didn't get the memo...Texas hasn't been an independent country for quite some time.
  14. I live in the thriving metropolis of Huntsville, Texas...that was sarcasm by the way. I have no intention of staying here longer than absolutely necessary, but I'm getting my Master's right now. One thing about Huntsville that I like though...it's where all the executions take place, in the state of Texas.
  15. I would love to live in either New York or Chicago...but I'd have to be rich first.
  16. Funny that Bertrand Russell would say that, as an atheist. I've read many of his essays on religion, and I agree with almost all of them.
  17. If I picked a place based on how aesthetically pleasing it is, I would probably pick a secluded place somewhere in the mountains of Japan and build a hut.
  18. Britain would be cool too...I know they're sorta socialistic, but I'd be willing to put up with it so that I don't have to learn a whole new culture. But I would probably choose Australia first...then, maybe Steve Irwin would let me help him catch crocodiles or something.
  19. Okay, perhaps that was too strong of a word. Or, perhaps, I should have used "Libertarianism" instead.
  20. Which would you choose? I would choose either Australia or England. I know there are countries with freer economies, but I'd have to learn a new language if I lived in one. If I went to England or Australia, I'd be able to adapt to the culture pretty quickly.
  21. And I disagree. I'm still learning about Objectivism, and do not consider myself and Objectivist. But I don't wish to get into this debate, b/c it will wind up with me getting banned.
  22. Well, this thread has helped me understand why Objectivists hate Libertarians...but I still say that if the LP were to gain the status of a major party, it would be the lesser of however many evils.
  23. Seems to me that having Capitalism, built on a faulty premise, is better than having non-Capitalism on a faulty premise.
  24. But is it not true that, generally speaking, Libertarian politics are closer to Objectivism than Republican or Democrat politics?
×
×
  • Create New...