Citizen Publius
-
Posts
88 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Citizen Publius
-
-
Second.I would ask the moderators to step in and curtail these antics of The Durande. He has consistently misrepresented the views of other posters here, ignored the actual facts and arguments that have been presented, and then offensively and unjustly mischaracterizes those with whom he argues (even though most here have justifiably given up on even trying to have a rational discussion with him). I think he should be free to continue to embarrass himself by presenting his "arguments," but The Durande should not be allowed to continue to misrepresent others views and insult them in the process of doing so. -
Ayn Rand is the best. Did she teach you that jelly beans exist?I learned from the best!
-
Thank you for making this post.
Here is an e-mail exchange I had with TIA Daily concerning this:
From: Daniel Hayden [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 12:38 AM
To: TIA Daily
Subject:
Just a quick line here.
I am 47 years old. If my memory does not fail me, I first heard of Whittaker Chambers as being involved with the Communist Party and the founding of the United Nations. I had never seen this review but, it looks like a late 1950s hatchet job.
---Dan
Dan --
Chambers was indeed a former Communist, who later turned to the right by embracing Catholicism. All of which makes the selection of him as the author to review Ayn Rand all the worse.
-- Robert
-
That's right! America is responsible for every wrong in the world...
When I am in one of my darker moods, I can imagine the United States as having a machine to send a pulse through the earth to dislodge a tectonic plate thus causing it to shift, cause an earthquake, generate a tsunami, and hit'em below the belt. Maybe I read too much stuff like THIS. As far as providing money to them, this just plays into the hands of the intenational banking cartel, the ones who own/control the Federal Reserve.It was caused by an earthquake, which is not on the same level per se as a hurricane or a tornado. Of course, this will not stop them from proclaiming that humans are to blame for this tsunami. Truth and rationality never mattered much to environmentalists. -
Thank you.Thought I would share some links, because I wish I had discovered these earlier. -
I have had several friends who ran on a Libertarian ticket. The party is much easier to get on the ballot in. My occasional involvement with politics in that party shows me no specific underlying philosophy. The people I know that have run as Libertarians were Libertarians more out of frustration with the Democratic and Republican parties than aspiring to a particular philosophy. There were some Objectivists among the Libertarian candidates I have known. There were also some Fundamentalist Christians among them.I'm not talking about the underlying philosophy. I know that underlying philosophy is indispensable, but it seems to me that Libertarianism is more of a step in the right direction than either of the two major parties. The philosophy may still be bad, but at least some of the politics are leaning in the right direction.None of them ever got elected.
-
Welcome, Eric.
There are several people on this forum that are interested in physics. I am one although my knowledge of the subject is limited at this time.
An interesting thread on this forum is Cool Site. This is a test that tells you what philosophy you believe in. It is really just an advertising gimmick of sorts but it is fairly accurate.
-
I can hardly wait for flying cars.
-
Spoken like a "true" Objectivist.Don't jelly beans exist? -
If an adult Muslim blows himself up in order to kill a large number of non-combatant civillians because he thinks Allah will reward him in paradise with 72 virgins for destroying infidels, is this an immoral act or merely an error of knowledge?Ayn Rand stated that morals are ethical principles. If a person acts immorally or unethically, could you say that they don't really know any better? Can all acts of immorality be traced back to an error of knowledge? -
I sometimes visit The Photo Forum.Are there any other online forums you like – on Objectivism or any other topic?There is a picture of me posing in front of a sign, and the ensuing thread, HERE.
-
The best way to prove that the axioms of Objectivism are not valid is to deny them. If you do not exist and you are not conscious and you are the same thing as a bag of jelly beans then what are you basing your argument on?Doesn't this just make Rand's "axioms" simply a variety of Kantian transcendental induction whereby the thinker is able to reach conclusions about what is required for knowledge to be possible in any coherent way? That is a form synthetic a priori statement?I understand the desire to use "axiom" to refer to a statement that should be obvious, and is in any case taken without proof. But, normally "axioms" are thing that are used together with rules of inferences to deduce things. If these "axioms" aren't used in deduction, then what is the point?
-
-
I like SOS Mathematics CvberBoard. It is out of the University of Texas at El Paso and has a worldwide membership. I also like the two you named.Are there any other online forums you like – on Objectivism or any other topic? -
Has anybody seen this? "Big Sister Is Watching You," by Whittaker Chambers, National Review Online.
If memory serves me correctly, Whittaker Chambers was a member of the Communist Party USA and was involved (very peripherally?) in the founding of the United Nations.
Ayn Rand testified as a friendly witness for the House Un-American Activities Committee during an investigation of Communist influences in Hollywood.
When ARE they going to make a movie out of Atlas Shrugged? It would make a nice three-parter like Lord of the Rings.
EDITED to remove excessive quotation, possibly violating copyright guidelines. Moderator, Burgess Laughlin.
-
I started my study of Rand's works by reading The Virtue of Selfishness. I find The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z to be a handy quick reference for checking a particular topic. I read all the non-fiction before reading any of the fiction.
-
Will those who say that "the Iraqis" want the United States out of Iraq please explain, in relation to the above quote, which Iraqis want the United States to leave Iraq? Hmmm...?BAGHDAD, Iraq (Jan. 5) -- A car bomb exploded outside a police academy south of Baghdad during a graduation ceremony Wednesday, killing at least 20 people amid a surge in violence ahead of a landmark election. Hours earlier, another car bomb killed two Iraqis in the nation's capital.HINT: I am reasonably certain that it is not the 22 people who were just murdered.
-
Well...not exactly. What I was trying to do in the post of Jan 4 2005, 2:06 AM was to point out the extent to which mankind uses Objectivism in our daily lives. It "amounts to a logical body of knowledge" in that all knowledge is necessarily based on Objectivism. This includes knowledge obtained by the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method is based on the Axioms of Objectivism. No, the Scientifc Method is not "part of Objectivism, the philosophy Ayn Rand created?" It is validated and implied by it though.Why do you think that the methods of the specialized sciences are part of a philosophy? Perhaps I don't know what you mean by "philosophy."However, I am not really sure where the dividing line is. Maybe it is.
If it is not, then it is certainly validated by Objectivism and it is because the definition of philosophy does not extend it this far. If it is, then so be it.
I was not trying to engage in semantic minutia by making this post.
-
Read about it HERE.An Indian helicopter dropping food and water over the remote Andaman and Nicobar Islands has been attacked by tribesmen using bows and arrows. -
This thread appears to me to pose the question: "How does Objectivim address the "Reduction to Absurdity." Anyone want to have a go at that?
Will someone PLEASE combine these two threads?
-
Objectivism rests on three axioms.
Axiom One: Existence exists.
Axiom Two: I am conscious.
Axiom Three: A is A.
The best way to prove Objectivism is to begin by refuting one or more of these. All of Objectivism amounts to a logical body of knowledge based on these, including the Scientific Method.
Yes.I am not sure I understand. Are you saying that the scientific method, the method used by scientists in specialized fields such as physics, is part of Objectivism, the philosophy Ayn Rand created? -
I suggested that we give them a spot at the zoo and have them dance for nickels but perhaps someone who is more familiar with Objectivism and Ayn Rand's writings might have a better answer to this.The purpose of a free republic's government is to protect individuals' rights. Abandoned or abused children; comatose but friendless adults; the insane who have no friends; and the severely retarded who have no support -- all these are individuals and have rights, but they can't protect themselves. They should become wards of the state until the state finds someone who will volunteer to "adopt" such individuals.I have what I believe is a unique solution to the problem of people who are utterly helpless. Rather than make them wards of the state, which no doubt is actually forcing me to pay for them, why not have the government simply say to tax-exempt charity organizations or churches that they must practice what they preach.
In response to the question, “Who will take care of the poor In a totally free society?” Ayn Rand replied, “If you want to help them, no one will stop you.”
-
I am not really familiar with Existentialism. However, I did hear a taped lecture by Leonard Peikoff once regarding why Objectivism is called Objectivism. He said, "It could be called Existentialism but, there is already a philosophy called Existentialism that seeks to prove that nothing exists." While Leonard Peikoff is not my favorite author or professor of Objectivism, I take his word on this one. Therefore, I never looked into it any further.I know that there are more things wrong with the philosophy and I've been wondering what (if any) problems you see with it. -
Objectivism rests on three axioms.My take:There are two philosophical "schools" which argue against Objectivism:
1. A priori, as held by Plato and Augustine, among others, and
2. Emmanuel Kant & Co., who I label "nihilism."
As an architect, and a proponent of Objectivism and Capitalism, I strongly favor the Aristotelian approach, which has evolved into modern Objectivism, without modification.
Axiom One: Existence exists.
Axiom Two: I am conscious.
Axiom Three: A is A.
The best way to prove Objectivism is to begin by refuting one or more of these. All of Objectivism amounts to a logical body of knowledge based on these, including the Scientific Method. If I were to try to disprove Objectivism as a philosophy, I would try to establish a philosophy based on these axioms. Every time I have seen this attempted, one of three outcomes resulted. Either the philosophy incorporated a contradiction at some point, or the philosophy violated one of these axioms, or the philosophy was Objectivism given another name.
Violators, reports, feedback?
in Website Policy and Announcements
Posted