Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright

samr's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)



  1. Hi, I don't live in the US, so http://www.michaeljfox.org/foxtrialfinder.cfmI is of no use. I have been using http://www.clinicaltrials.gov But, I have found http://www.words-plu...ut/istswtch.htm (Stephen Hawking uses a similar product from the same company! ) Which I will probably use. I don't really want to try Feldenkrais .
  2. Thanks. I need to read deeper objectvist literature.
  3. I think it is an important question, because Roark's "independence" is really like the one gecko describes. He is never described to be influenced by someone in his views. He somehow "knew" what exactly he wanted. I think it is _very_ unrealistic. Every major biography I have read, geniuses talk about people that have influenced them and of the gratitude they owe them.
  4. What do you think of the radical skeptical argument, that you cannot rely on your own senses, because the only way to justify your senses would be via an appeal to senses, which is infinite regress?
  5. According to objectivism, IMHO, god is an invalid concept. Which is different from being an arbitrary assertion. It just annoys me when objectivists say "God exists is an arbitrary assertion", as if it is on the same line as "The flying spaghetti monster exists". It isn't, even though Ayn Rand seemed to think it was ("there is no evidence"). The line of reasoning "It is an invalid concept" is much stronger. And mutually exclusive. You can't have evidence for an invalid concept, so it's wrong to assert there could have been.
  6. But how can one be sure that one has refuted "all" relevant religious arguments? They always can make up an argument, and say "see, you haven't refuted this! ". With evidence, it is easy to judge what is the evidence for a god, not relying upon other people. But with abstract reasoning it is harder. How can one be sure that he has "all" relevant abstract reasonings against a god?
  7. I think that religiuos people are coming from a different philosophic framework. They argue, as far as I can tell : Truth cannot be obtained by human beings. Because they can err. BUT Human beings can obtain knowledge from God. God is infallible. Science is human, religion divine. Ergo, true. Or, Reason cannot arrive at truth. THEREFORE, ULTIMATELY All our knowledge rests upon some kind of faith. Faith in science, faith in the law of the universe, faith in causality, faith in reason. And skepticism is in some sense, the foundation upon which religion rests. I think all these reasons hide behind the logic of creationists. Many of the specific arguments against the above are in "The case against god" by George H. Smith.
  8. Does anyone know of some breaking-edge treatments of parkinson, or how can I try and find them? Or had a good experience with a parkinson treatment? I have a family member, my grandfather that has very severe parkinson.
  9. I think the question is horrible. Obviously, I, as an employee am trying to get the job, so it isn't my interest to tell the truth about my bad traits to my future potential employer. But, I do not want to lie. Asking this question just makes me think - how can I hide my faults without looking stupid. Just an attempt to see who can outwit the interviewer. Does anyone have a clue what can be answered intelligently to "what are your bad traits"?
  10. To make the example extreme - suppose, that somehow, by moving your finger, you could have saved millions of people from dying. Do you have a moral obligation to do it? If yes - then it is exactly the morality of obligatory altruism. Only to a very small extent, but the extent does not matter. How can you defend the alternative position?
  11. Suppose you are a wealthy person, and people are starving near you. Their representative comes to you and _demands_ that you buy food and give. And, to fulfil objectivist scenarios, let's assume you earned your money, while they were reckless with theirs. So, the demand is infuriating. I agree. You have every political right to slam the door on that person's face. And, I would agree that a political system that would _force_ you to give them your money is evil, in some sense. BUT, while you have every political right, do you really have a _moral_ right not to save other people from death, if you can afford it? Despite the fact that it is "their own fault".
  12. Avila, I agree. You also forgot to add that I put this as a quote, since it is taken from http://humanities-notes.blogspot.com/2009_03_01_archive.html the same source from which you took (every single word) your paragraph on Copernicus. You also forgot to mention that Which is taken from http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0255.htm Where you took your paragraph on Hitchens from.
  13. Vik, maybe discussion is not possible, but that is still true? The possibilty of discussion, and the truth of propositions are different issues.
  14. Hi, What do you think of the following argument : God can make contradictions exist, because he has created logic. So he is its "master". edited : or merely "god is beyond logic".
  • Create New...