Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Dániel Boros

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dániel Boros

  1. I read many works regarding objectivisms and listened to objectivist phylosophers and I consider myself an objectivist. I however did not became and objectivist because I realised that objectivism was right but because I realised that what I believed was right was called objectivism... ... but there's one thing that doesn't really fit into objectvism that may or may not be true and that conserns me. Yes dodging bullets in the Matrix would be in fact an illusion, but how could you affirm that if you exist inside the matrix? What if you're just a program and you don't really exist outside the Matrix? If you believe that everything is governed by natural law than whatever causes Neo to dodge bullets has to be also governed by natural law. You cannot say that there is probably a World outside if you believe you live inside the bounds of nature. You can only say that our knowledge of nature is incomplete and we don't know how Neo does his thing. So if someone violated natural law you cannot say it happened because that would be a claim regarding the supernatural (i.e.: a miracle happened). Even if you are right, even if you can prove it, you cannot say it. If a donkey started talking that would be totally normal as well, because everything is normal.... We assume nothing can interact with Nature, but isn't that just an assumption? By law creating law I meant the big bang and big crunch theory. Instead of having multiple Universes with different laws you would have one Universe that is periodically recreated and whatever recreates the Universe would be that law (or rather what would describe that phenomena would be the law). I don't mind if people refer to that as "God", although I do not think that is an appropriate word for it. Einstein wouldn't agree with me on this one, but who cares? I see this is partly a problem of definitions. My definitions would be: Reality - Everything that exists Universe, Nature - The part of reality governed by natural law Supernatural - Inside of reality, but outside of Nature (super = above, which means above nature) Supernatural may or may not be nothing, but that shouldn't be decided by phylosophy...
  2. The U.S. violoates Israel's sovergnity when they dictate how Israel shoud make peace, or wage war on others. Is that what we call an allience? Maybe evil is a harsh word, but I also think what the U.S. does to Israel is wrong. Isn't meddling in the foreing affairs of other countries generraly a bad thing? So what if people here like Israel that much? Is that a good cause to wage war on any country? Israel is more than capable of defending itself and has done so many times in the past without any help of the US. If you are worried about Iran sending their first nuke to the US maybe you should ask: Why would their primary target be the U.S.? Because of the interventionist foreign policy ? Naaah... that can't be it.... That thing with the Shah was to spread democracy like in Japan and Germany... People are a bit too willing to send other people into their death these days. Ron Paul gets more donations from the military than all the other republican candidates combined and more than Obama. Maybe they don't like the heat? Or the sand...
  3. So if we were inside the Matrix anything outside would not be considered existence, correct? Even if somone could dodge bullets and deny the laws of physics that wouldn't mean anything, right? If there was a law responsible for creating the natural laws that law by definition would not exist even if we could deductively prove its exsistence from the natural laws. Am I correct?
  4. So anyone who signs up to the military gives up his right to life and becomes the slave of the state...sweet Anyone who thinks that offense to defend the states economic interests is the same as defending the life of its people is deluding itself. What good did the US do for Germany? The Soviets defeated them not the US. Germany was split into two even though the US could have bargained for all of Europe since they had the nuke. How could we know what would have happened to Japan if the US did not win? We don't. Also did the US attack Japan to spread democracy or because of Pearl Harbour? So because there's a single war from hundreds that sarficed thousands but achieved something good that could have not been achieved peacfully we should start attacking any country that does not behave as we like it?
  5. Why does someone who believes there exists a supernatural realm based on reason and science fail as an objectivist? What is the philosophical basis for deniing the posibility of its existence by deafult? Someone who believes in the multiverse could not call hismself an objectivist since the multiverse isn't ruled by natural law, am I right?
  6. If you want to volunteer and go to war, than go ahead. You are free to do whatever you want. You can fight in Syria if that is your wish. I doubt they would say no to a helping had an to any cash you may offer. Forcing soldiers who have volunteered to defend their own country on other hand should not be treated as if it is their choice, when they are sent to a foreign land to kill people. So self proclaimed lawfull nations have the right to invide any lawless nation and kill people so that their rights can be respected. Dead people don't have rights... So we should adopt a policy depending how benificial it would be to us who are not sent to the battlefield? Defending rights...right... Japan and Germany I believe were quite advanced even before the US started dropping bombs on them. I would point out that eastern europe was enslaved by Stalin thanks to the same total and was not that benifitial to them.
  7. Great summary I would add that Israel's offical policies regarding their neighbours are similiar to Ron Paul's views. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zGCdHelRvE I don't see how any war started by the state can be justified by objectivists if the people living in the country are not in any danger. Even if the country being attacked had stolen goods from an inverstor, that act does not justifies making innocent people die (the soldiers) taking it back. Someone's property is never valuable than someone else's life. Also waging war on someone depends on a democratic choice even in a republic. Remember Socrates? There are no protections in foreign affairs like the law involvign domestic affairs. Iran is not Germany... If Iran would drop a nuke on someone ther would be no Iran the next day it happened.
  8. I've listened to what Yaron Brook said about Ron. Oh my God. To think that there was someone who could mischaractarise Ron more than Fox. He had fun with his strawman.. maybe he will talk about Ron next time. I thought the goverment of the US had commitments to its people and not to its allies. By allies I know you don't mean Israel since they are the only ones with nukes in the region and have said a dozen times that they don't need the help of the US. By enemies I know you don't mean Iran because they aren't even planing to make a nuke and are in the middle of a recession. South Korea and Japan have the strongest non nuclear military in the World.... Germany isn't threatened by anyone at least not militarily. Afghanistan isn't threatened... it's in war.
  • Create New...