Jonny Glat

Proof of the contradictions that exist within the concept of "god" A is A. Which means a "thing" is. Which means a "thing" is something. Which means a "thing" has an essence - a nature unique to its identity. Man is Man. Which means Man is. Which means Man is (exists) something (Man) Which means Man has an essence - a nature unique to his identity I am. (I exist) I am myself (I have a unique identity) I am myself- and I know it (I possess consciousness) Every "thing" I know exists according to its nature, whether I know that nature or not. Every "thing" has a unique identity. An apple is an apple. It cannot be an orange at the same time that it is an apple. Every "thing" is an existent- it exists in accordance to the Law of Identity (A is A). Identity is defined by the nature of the existent. (What it is is what it is) Every existent has limitations. (An apple cannot be an orange simultaneously) Every existent's limitations or- every existent's definition or- every existent- exists within reality (is metaphysical) Reality constitutes everything that exists. If something is it is within a context. Every existent has an identity- which means has limitations. Every limitation is dictated by reality, the context in which it exists. Every existent is of a certain quantity (matter) All apples weigh something according to a quantitative measurement (a standard; ie. ounces) All trees can be measured based on the three dimensions: height, width, depth. Because all existents are made up of a certain quantity, all existents are finite. Apples cannot be 6 ounces AND 100 ounces. Either-Or. Never a contradiction. Apples with regards to any descriptive measurement (height, weight, color, texture, taste) are finite- meaning they have a specific identity. All Existents are finite by definition. No Existents can be infinite. Infinity does not exist within reality- within existence Existence, the context for all existents is finite. Infinity = non existent- non metaphysical- or literally not within reality Infinite = impossible to exist within a finite (the universe) An infinite being- god- cannot exist. An infinite being breaks the law of identity. God cannot be infinite and yet be some thing. Any thing has an identity- which means limitations- which means is finite. If he is only 6' tall he is not infinite (in a metaphysical sense) If he is only 3' wide he is not infinite (in a metaphysical sense) God is infinite = God is (not within reality) = God does not exist. God does not exist metaphysically- which means he does not exist within reality. Any attempt to prove God requires one to discard reality and to presume a supernatural realm. Supernatural realm = "above nature" = outside of reality = outside of knowledge = outside of existence = non existence. A God cannot create existence. A consciousness cannot exist without a context- without reality- without existence. God cannot exist within nothing. A consciousness cannot create except through a finite identity (ie: a body - that exists within a reality) by obeying reality (natural laws; ie: gravity) A consciousness cannot create anything except through reshaping the pre-existing existents (matter) A consciousness cannot know unless there is some thing (an existent within reality) to know A consciousness cannot exist outside of context. God cannot be the source of existence- he cannot be the source of the universe. Therefore god cannot be omnipotent. God cannot choose to create a boulder that he himself cannot lift. Therefore god is limited. contradiction. An existent without limitations to its identity does not exist.

Atlas, I also love Bioshock (only played the first) however I do not think that it was Levine's intention to present Objectivism/ Ayn Rand/ or even Capitalism in a positive light. It certainly is fair to cite Fontaine as a parasite which led to Rapture's destruction however I think Levine tried to show that free market capitalism is inherently evil. He package deals selfishness (Objectivism's definition of the concept) with cut throat force. Capitalism IS exploitative by nature according to Levine. Although I do not agree that Levine succeeded in damning capitalism or Rand, he definitely tried to. If I had to guess Irrational Games philosophic/intellectual convictions, they probably would involve relatvism, moral greyness, nonabsolutism, and mixed economy, altruist-tainted ethics. A balance between freedom and force.

A simple reply to your determinist friend: If we are all just puppets on strings, manipulated by physics, by genes, subatomic particles, environmental stimuli, fate, god, chemicals, what have you. If our minds are an illusion, how can you know anything? How can you know that we're determined with certainty and not that you're just being manipulated to think that. All determinists, including your friend, nullify his own mind to know anything. In essence, what they contend is: "We are determined by genes and environment and chemicals. My mind doesn't exist. But how do I know this? My mind. Determinism cuts the legs out from under its own argument. If you do not accept that a volitional consciousness exists, you have to use your consciousness to utter the words. If you think that the brain is just "matter" forcing you to 'think' certain things then how can you know that you aren't just being forced to think the wrong things? Determinism is a vacuum of contradictory 'premises' that nullify the source of knowledge: volitional consciousness

right - i thk what my friend was saying is that: there are sum instances in which it is viable to use force for the long run. If you don't rob the dude you will die from cancer in weeks. Therefore it is rational to steal 50,000 dollars to ensure that you have a long(er) life.

let's assume that this is the only option (it is such a small chance - maybe even impossible) open to you. That there are no charitible organizations or doctors willing to work things out. Is it viable to steal in order to save your life?

This is a hypothetical situation that I've been debating with a friend concerning whether initiating force is 'ever' viable. My friend gives the situation in which a college student who doesn't receive help from his parents financially learns that he has cancer. He doesn't have insurance and can't pay for the operations, chemo, and other services. He will die in several months unless he receives treatment. The question: Is it viable in the long run to steal $50,000 from someone he doesn't know to pay for all the treatments that will 'most likely' allow him to survive for many years afterwards? I have my reasons as to why its not viable in the long run but I'd like to get some feedback and quotes from Rand on why initiating force is irrational/not viable in this situation. Or is it?

"Society creates rights" is NOT the same as saying "Society has the right to create rights". Society creates rights may be true or untrue, depending on the society. (IE: North Korean society doesn't create rights. The dictator defines "rights" - which is unfortunately the same problem with democracy. Majority vote does not imply that the rights supports for its citizens are rational, objective "rights". "Society creates rights" is a factual statement. It could be right or wrong depending on the context. "Society has the right to create rights" is also a factual statement but it is WRONG. Rand demonstrates "why" society/democracy/tyrants/kings/committees do not have the "right" to redefine what a right is. Consider: "The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave." - Rand

"Society is a large number of men who live together in the same country, and who deal with one another." - Rand. Society how I believe you are defining it, is majority whim. Rights are not objective because the majority votes it into existence or because the majority of a group agree that it should be a right. Rights are objective "moral principles" derived from reason- which is man's only source of knowledge. Democratic votes do not change reality- man's identity is a volitional conscious being who must think to survive. Rights are corollaries of Man's metaphysical identity. If you begin to define "objectivity" based upon majority consensus a society will step close to the bottomless pit of collectivism (ie: America's past 70 years explicitly) Consider: Right to universal healthcare as moral and objective. This is a perversion of the concept "rights" because it takes (money- property- life)away rights from doctors, nurses, tax payers and redistributes it to the needy- everyone and anyone who breathes. Rights are meant to protect individuals from force - not to grant the use of force over others.

Dear LeftistSpew, Ron Paul is absolutely, objectively not a statist. I'd check your definition of Statism and then do research on Ron Paul beyond emotional whim.

"To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living." Reason: I know that healthy dieting and exercise will increase my health in the moment, my life's longevity, and my physique. These are metaphysical facts. Chocolate in excess makes you fat. Being a couch potato in excess makes you fat. I choose to increase my quality of life by working hard at the gym, and choosing healthy "fuel" for my body. Purpose: I want to live life to the fullest, looking my best, feeling my best, so that I may achieve my career goals, pursue my love interests and attain happiness on earth. Self-Esteem: I love myself. I love living. I love doing. I know that my life has value and that I am competent and worthy of living. If that is considered narcissistic than it is a virtue.

John Fowles is one of my favorite authors and "The Magus" is in my top 5 favorite novels of all time. I first read it when I was in high school (about 16 years young) and have reread it three times since then. I love Fowles' writing style which so expressive, honest, and descriptive. I love his ability to construct an original plot that is such a beautiful blend of philosophical inquiry, suspense, romantic exploration, and internal conflict. Particularly regarding "The Magus", I fell in love with Nicholas Urfe, the protagonist, who is such an irrational, contradiction-riddled character that I couldn't help but see shades of myself and others around me in him. His ethical system that guides his life seems to be at timse Objectivist, at times Nitzchean, and other times a a Don Juan sort of subjectivist who is unknowingly in self-destruct mode. His constant love for freedom is to be admired, however his dishonesty about his feelings with the two love interests in the novel are dreadful, manipulative, and evil. His commitment to his selfish interest and rejection of his parents' lessons of DUTY to God and Country are praiseworthy but his poetic cynicism, and masquerade of pathological victimization is juvenile, spoiled, and evasive. I don't love this book because Nicholas is an ideal Man, like Roark or Galt, but rather because of Fowles fierce and deep portrayal of a flawed man who in the end learns a lesson about himself, abour freedom, and about love.

John Fowles is one of my favorite authors and "The Magus" is in my top 5 favorite novels of all time. I first read it when I was in high school (about 16 years young) and have reread it three times since then. I love Fowles' writing style which so expressive, honest, and descriptive. I love his ability to construct an original plot that is such a beautiful blend of philosophical inquiry, suspense, romantic exploration, and internal conflict. Particularly regarding "The Magus", I fell in love with Nicholas Urfe, the protagonist, who is such an irrational, contradiction-riddled character that I couldn't help but see shades of myself and others around me in him. His ethical system that guides his life seems to be at timse Objectivist, at times Nitzchean, and other times a a Don Juan sort of subjectivist who is unknowingly in self-destruct mode. His constant love for freedom is to be admired, however his dishonesty about his feelings with the two love interests in the novel are dreadful, manipulative, and evil. His commitment to his selfish interest and rejection of his parents' lessons of DUTY to God and Country are praiseworthy but his poetic cynicism, and masquerade of pathological victimization is juvenile, spoiled, and evasive. I don't love this book because Nicholas is an ideal Man, like Roark or Galt, but rather because of Fowles fierce and deep portrayal of a flawed man who in the end learns a lesson about himself, abour freedom, and about love. If anyone has any comments on Fowles or The Magus I would love to get a discussion started. I've also read The Ebony Tower, The Collector, and The French Lieutenant's Woman FYI...

Which songs in particular do you contend "conceal a hidden moral or commentary through verbosity" ?? And I agree with the fact that they are "focused, melodious and expressive"

The City of Ember is a good "young adult" dystopian novel that is concise and an easy read but not too original. I do enjoy its parable-like simplicity though about individual will power, fear, and bureaucratic cronyism. Also I highly recommend reading "The House of the Scorpion" which is another "young adult" dystopia but is definitely more adult than "City of Ember". The author, Nancy Farmer, is an excellent storyteller particularly when handling child characters. The book takes place in a futuristic Mexico which is run by an Oligarchy of Opium mob families that use clones as slaves. Very enjoyable read - I've revisited it several times over the years.

I'm a huge fan of Vampire Weekend and was wondering if anyone else was... In general what I love about VW is their positivity, their upbeat tempos, Ezra's talented vocals and their creative punchy, afro-pop-meets-beach boys style. Upon doing more research on the band, I learned that they met while studying at Columbia and all come from families of means. This last bit doesn't really matter to me but I love how they made something of myself, worked, and created beautiful, original music when they didn't have to in order to pay the bills. Also as far as Objectivism goes, there are certainly some lines that Rand would agree with, although I've never heard any of the band members cite Rand in any interviews/inspirations/etc... "Walcott" off their debut album has a poignant line - "evil feasts on human lives. The Holy Roman Empire moves for you." --> personally I love the first part because I'm reminded of Atlas' "The Sanction of the Victims" and the second part because of the hierarchy involved. "you" being a girl of the protagonist's affections is presented here as incredibly powerful and history/a nation below her, acting for her. if anyone has other lyrical lines or comments on VW I'd love to get a discussion going.