Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dominique

  1. I mainly got that impression from the focus on global warming and endangered species as the declared purpose of the documentary but I was wondering if anyone had actually found anything refutable in it. They did play the middle ground to some extent by pretending it was pure observation and there were only a few spots that disturbed me enough to ask about it but I was just wondering if anyone had noticed.
  2. I've been watching these series and while the images are incredible I find (not neccessarily suprisingly considering the source being the BBC and the Discovery Channel) that it is more politically motivated then even necessarily scientifically accurate. I am just wondering if any one has actually refuted the science, for example the time lines. They seem to not ever mention anything existing prior to 6000 years ago which seems to show a very Chrisitan based version of Science. I guess I was just wondering if anyone had noticed this and maybe had more information on it for me.
  3. Congratulations! The July 4th one? That's the only event I'm going to besides the general admission seminars. That's the most I can afford and that's even pushing it. Couldn't miss the cruise though It is a bit absurd isn't it Sorry 'bout that-I'm an emoticon junkie. I just love those little guys.
  4. Its good to see you too and thank you Good to see you too Eric! I'll keep an eye out for you
  5. Hahaha jokes on you-I'm back in DC-that's why I haven't been on much-too busy cavorting about the US Yeah, I'm not familiar with those flight costs at the moment, but I know the hotel where the conference is is going to be very expensive also. I'm looking into local cheap hotels or trying to split costs somehow. Otherwise I really just can't afford it.
  6. I'm interested to know all that are going to be there, but especially girls because the rooms are expensive and it'd be nice to split with somebody. The cost is almost prohibitive, but lucky I don't need to fly there.
  7. I'm sorry if this is posted somewhere and I missed it- but who plans on attending?? Any females wanna be roomies? (Added: Link to OCON - sNerd)
  8. [Emphasis Mine] How very simplistic, "Lifesimpliciter" . You live up to your title. Cheers! Where does "subjectivity" figure in, if at all?
  9. At any rate I changed: "This requires that he not deprive another individual of *his* ability to maintain *his* own life"? to This requires that one not deprive another individual of his ability to maintain his own life. Better?
  10. Well geez, I thought that's what I explained in my essay. Intrinsic implies a negation of context and consequence. Individual Rights are a concept. Concepts demand context. Intrinsic rights or values therefore are a contradiction. See Also The Ayn Rand Lexicon entries for these terms. In the mean time, here's a quick look.
  11. Dominique


    Objectivism does not hold that "what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences is *intrinsically* good". In fact I doubt it would hold anything but life as *intrinsically* good. Objectivism holds that what is right (what supports and maintains one's goal of life) is good, and ultimately-pleasant. That is an effect, not a cause-of value judgement.
  12. Agreed- I'm stuck on that topic and let it slip in (tsk tsk)-It has been removed. Again agreed. I took out the first two sentences and replaced them with just this one. The flow is much better. Ok this is what I had done with it prior to reading your post here: "A man can survive alone; he does not need society to survive. However, even when alone, man needs a moral code to guide his action. A code that is focused on the value of his own life as the standard, and reality as perceivable, is the only one which will ensure his survival. If a man, stranded on a desert island, rejects the facts observable by his senses; if he sits back and waits for instinct to tell him how to build a shelter, or a fire; if he waits for the gods to provide him with food, he will not survive long." This comes prior to the statement in question, so I was hoping to set the stage and thereby clarify the idea before they get to it. What do you think? Yeah, I caught that, and I changed it to this: "Once an individual entity is born, he gains protection by the rights granted to other individuals. This means that after birth a parent may not deprive an infant of the ability to sustain its own life, either by abuse, or neglect. [if the parents find themselves unable to support their child after it is born,] there are places established where parents may legally give them up. Before birth there is only one individual, the mother, and she has sovereign control over her own body." Does that help? Again, Thank You soooo much!!! LOL you were like 4 mins behind me. I appreciate it truly. This was a lot harder undertaking than I had expected. Soo many aspects are subsumed under this concept, and non-objectivists are likely to still pick it apart, but at least I straightened a couple things out in my own head
  13. Ok, advice taken. Thanks for the feedback Tom. I've gone ahead and posted the essay on my blog. I edited it from what you see here, but will still welcome feedback (I know I didn't give a lot of time to get feedback before putting it up).
  14. Ok, to avoid further distraction I have done a preliminary editing job. I'd like to get some feedback regarding the content before posting if possible. I have read and re-read and am still somewhat unsatisfied but cannot pinpoint exactly what it is that is bugging me. Thanks again. My apologies for posting in haste without editing first. (Remember the titles are hyperlinked. This is sufficient is it not? Or should I also italicize? Just seems like overkill to have all three, but I'm not sure what the proper method is) [edit: ack, now my paragraphs are merged-separating]
  15. Quite Right. Keen eye. Thanks again.
  16. Are you saying that this should read: "This requires that he not deprive another individual of *his* ability to maintain *his* own life"? This looks very unclear to me. [edit to add: Should the whole sentence just be scrapped and re-worded, or is the above actually correct? It seems it would stop the reader to wonder which "he" I was referring to.]
  17. Yes, my fault certainly, I was using a logical fallacies page for reference, not a dictionary. Very Well, we are beating a dead horse at this point. I am not overly concerned with continuing in this way and will simply leave it as is. Both points have been stated and are (I believe) irreconcilable.
  18. Thanks Tom, I meant to mention that I have not run this draft through Word, as I am still working on the actual content. Usually CF gets me on this stuff and I knew it was coming Any comments on the actual content? Also this is copy/paste from my website and so the titles are hyperlinked and underlined in the actual version (which has yet to be posted).
  19. Actually I found both spellings in use by searching the web, and could not honestly tell if one was more correct than the other. What did they say specifically that made you think they were referring to any of the other uses of the word? Unless I'm completely lost, this discussion was about whether or not Ayn Rand's name (and person) should be included in the definition of the philosophy she originated, and whether or not that philosophy could be altered and still called by the same name.
  20. This one was much harder, and I'm not sure I'm getting my point across. It's in response to a comment I got (more like a discussion) on my website in response to the first essay (The Metaphysical Error). I'd like to get some feedback from you all here before I post it as to what it's flaws are and how I can possibly go about correcting them. I am trying to cover so much information but all of seems essential because I am writing to a non-objectivist audience. Ok, well, thanks again in advance
  21. You pulled my statement completely out of context. Not just the context of this thread, but also out of the context of this forum. The forum rules clearly state that on this forum we use the capital "O" Objectivism to separate it from and avoid confusion with all other uses of the word objectivism. Your statement is not just a straw man but a non sequitor. Ok I get it, it's a game: Go out side the discussion, attack it from behind, and then interject an irrelevant tid bit for distraction, and quickly slide on the appropriate hat. Like musical-fallacies Or duck, duck, hamburglar From now on-when I use the term Objectivism with a capital "O", I'd like it to be clear that I am referring to "Objectivism-The Philosophy of Ayn Rand"
  22. Did you know about this? It's surprisingly similar-I thought it might have inspired the question.
  23. Would you feel more comfortable if we clarified "Objectivism-The Philosophy" and opposed to "Objectivist Poetry?" I still don't think this changes the fact that it is a proper noun. It refers to either a specific type of poetry or a specific philosophy-that of Ayn Rand. I think you are purposefully diluting the point here- Straw Man anyone?
  24. No, I have already said it refers only to ITOE. Adding to that the other works of Ayn Rand herself doesn't confuse the issue, she is the legal author of the philosophy. What ARI puts out is the application and study of "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand' (Not the book, just that, the philosophy of Ayn Rand). ARI isn't pushing Objectivist policy that is different or separate from Ayn Rand's philosophy (that I can tell). They apply it and *take credit for their own interpretations and applications*. They are scrupulous in pointing out what comes directly from the original works of Ayn Rand and what has been edited, expounded upon, or inferred. THAT is honesty. Any rational mind may decide if they are true to their agenda or if they are not. TOC tries the same thing and IS NOT. None of this changes the definition of Objectivism or of Objectivists. Your snide remark elicits no further discussion, however as I already mentioned, substitute Earth and earth, or try English and english, etc. (hint: it's called a proper noun)
  25. But that's precisely the point. "Objectivism" the title refers to the philosophy of Ayn Rand. This is to differentiate it from "objectivism", which has a different connotation all together. This is the same as "God" representing the Judeo-Christian God, as opposed to the gods of other religions. They also have two separate definitions. I doubt "God" (or his disciples here on Earth-hey there you go, another example) trademarked it. [edited for spelling and grammer]
  • Create New...