Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

secondhander

Regulars
  • Content Count

    232
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

secondhander last won the day on October 24 2014

secondhander had the most liked content!

About secondhander

  • Rank
    Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Florida
  • Relationship status
    In a relationship
  • Sexual orientation
    Straight
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Biography/Intro
    I work in print journalism, and still have a job. For now. I have a bachelor's in journalism and a master's of divinity in Christian theology. I became an atheist a couple years after graduating from seminary (protestant). I've held libertarian beliefs during my earlier life, but eventually became more familiar with Objectivism and Ayn Rand.
  • Experience with Objectivism
    From reading Ayn Rand's works and works about Rand.
  • Occupation
    Journalism and writing

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2267 profile views
  1. A person should only take pride (or shame) in their own actions, not those of other people, including ancestors. In my view, knowledge of ancestral background only has one benefit: Appreciation of good things and hard work done by your ancestors that put you in a better starting place in your own life. Note, that's appreciation, not pride. You cannot take pride from other people's actions. That's stealing pride, and false pride. (Perhaps a second benefit is learning from the mistakes and successes of other people, but that's not confined to your ancestors. You can learn from anybody's mis
  2. I would focus on history, philosophy, and economics, if it were me. I'd only do physics and math(s) if it pertained to my field of work. With history, I'd suggest picking a topic or time period that interests you and start there. As you go, you will come across other issues or time periods that connect. Move on to those areas and read about them. With philosophy, I think it might be a good idea to go through an anthology. I'd suggest Copelston's starting with Vol. 1 and going forward. He's religious, but his work is considered to be a classic, and it's well-done. Then, try to read the primary
  3. "did Rand do herself a disservice by redefining what it means to be selfish? " No. People do themselves a disservice by not really caring enough to read and understand what she wrote. I don't see why Rand or us objectivists should take any blame for that. Besides, Rand absolutely used the term "selfish" properly, and also explained exactly how she was using it. She also uses the term altruism properly, and used it according to how it was used by Comte, the guy who coined the term. Most people define selfishness in terms of the emotions associated with a person's decisions. In other words,
  4. As a former Christian apologist with a master's degree in Christian theology and philosophy, I can tell you that the most popular version of the cosmological argument these days (and for a while now) is the Kalam cosmological argument, which has received popularity through William Lane Craig's use of it. I think it's a really interesting question, and it poses some questions that we can't yet answer with the knowledge we have so far, but it in now way can be concluded that some mystical and personal force created the universe. So when I encounter this, I simply say, "Yes it would see
  5. Because if you love your own life, why destroy the world that you live in? That's what a person does when he violates the rights of others. He degrades the world he lives in, and makes it more difficult for himself to live, and thus damages his own life.
  6. Depends on what kind of feminists. There are sex-positive feminists (I consider myself one) who have been saying what she wrote for a long time.
  7. I think she's right. What about her argument/statements did you disagree with?
  8. Fraud is a combination of lying and the force of theft. In other words, if I trade with someone, and then realize that I did not get what I was promised, or the terms of the agreement of the trade were not met, than I can go to the other person and say, "Hey something is wrong. This is not what I was promised." And since the agreement wasn't upheld, the money and/or items traded should be returned. But if someone does not fulfill the terms of the agreement and refuses to return the money or traded items, then it is an illegal trade and should be brought before a court. If the person knowingly
  9. So clarified. Although you can imagine my confusion since your response was just after mine and I used the word "part" in mine. And I was using the popular definition of semantics, meaning that our argument is the same and we mean the same thing, as you said, but that we used different words to argue for the same thing. "It is often used in ordinary language for denoting a problem of understanding that comes down to word selection or connotation" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics
  10. I meant "part" in the same way that a foot or an arm, etc., is a "part" of the body, so I think your argument is the same as mine aside from some semantics.
  11. The pregnant woman has the right of autonomy and the right to her own body. Therefore, as long as the fetus/baby is part of her body, she continues to have rights over her body and everything attached to it.
  12. Anarcho-Capitalism is closer to Objectivism. ... I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at by asking that. I'm not denying that you could compare (or contrast) the two philosophies. I am saying, however, that certain philosophies have necessary attributes that are contradictory to the necessary attributes of other philosophies, and it is nonsensical then to try to combine the two, because you would be forced to throw out one or more of the necessary attributes from at least one of the philosophies, and you would no longer have that philosophy, because you need all the necessary attr
  13. Doh. I was in my super serious robot mode, apparently.
  14. I like this topic, and I was waiting to see other replies first, because I wasn't sure exactly what kinds of examples you were looking for. I feel as though daily I have profound experiences that corroborate objectivism. Or I read examples of them in the news. But I guess it would cease being "profound" if it happens daily. I'll try to think of an experience that stands out and offer it. Give me some time to think. I could offer some profound ideas that have affected me, which have translated into experiences. For example, I realized, shortly after becoming an objectivist, that the
  15. There isn't a "logical integration" of objectivism and anarcho-capitalism. Both are advocates of capitalism, but that's about it. At core, they have differences that cannot be integrated. Anarcho-capitalism views government as evil and wants to do away with any and all government, and put the use of force on the marketplace. And Objectivism believes government is a necessary good. Using the term "anarchobjectivism" is like using the term "athesisttheism." The two are mutually exclusive.
×
×
  • Create New...