Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Repairman

  1. It''s never too late, my friend. I hadn't discover Ayn Rand until I was 46. But it wasn't life-changing, so much as it was a re-defining of semantic concepts, such as "sacrifice," and "the common good." True rational selfishness needs clarity, and Objectivism provides that sense of clarity.
  2. Welcome to the forum, Giemel, Your experience seems similar to my own. Reading through the many posts, you will find that there are as many differing views contesting to be the most rational point of view. I wouldn't worry too much about trying to identify as Objectivist, as I would see it more as an aspiration, rather than an identity. Most people I've discussed ideas with have never heard of Ayn Rand, let alone any philosophical school of thought. Most people are religious and anti-intellectual. There's little you can do about it. In conversation, I usually identify as "rational egoist," if that's any help to you. If they wish to know more, they need to listen, or it's their loss. In any case, it's a comfort to know our ranks are growing.
  3. Unless I'm mistaken, the culprit guilty of authoring the idea of "justified warfare" in Christianity was Saint Augustine (Augustine of Hippo). His writings are not included in the New Testament, but Western theology takes Augustine pretty seriously.
  4. What is it that you're hoping I'll post? I'm content to observe the discourse, and make my judgements. Or am I not allowed to judge?
  5. Human, you seem to see things as they are, without considering an optimistic vision of the way things could be. While I commend you for your grasp of the predicament facing Western Civilization, your emphasis on the multitudes of collectivist irrationality, my best counter-argument is that until the worst outcome is manifest, the best within each of us must continue the struggle to achieve the best outcome, by whatever definition you hold as the standard of the "best overcome." And so it is true. We make the best use of our freedom to exchange information, to innovate or engineer, and to create our own enterprises. I recommend to you to try to disregard the masses and their collectivist agenda. When conditions allow, argue the best case for reason to those who know only how to follow. Perhaps they may find new leaders one day. You may never "convert" some people, but if one individual begins to doubt his/her beliefs, you might make them aware of the fact that there are alternatives to mainstream myopia. Objectivism celebrates the great achievements of capitalism, and other movements advocating personal prosperity, constructive purpose, and entrepreneurial success are gaining popularity. Using our freedom of communication, you could create a video exposing the absurdity of the socialist agenda. This is a very important question: A regular cycle of history, or a Second Dark Age??? So many modern nation-states have experienced the pains of reforming runaway socialist economic systems. If we learn anything from it, I'm fairly confident that the USA will not have to endure the worst privations that have resulted in the failure of other economic systems. If they're unaware of the causes, they will only continue to treat the symptoms. It sure would be a shame, and it'll be wild ride to the bottom. Either way, the men of the mind may go on strike for a period, but eventually a few of them will emerge, and the arch of history marches on.
  6. Human, please, forgive me for not reading the entire commentary of your pessimism regarding human nature. That being said, I'd like to address your basic inquiry: Speaking strictly for myself, and not as an "expert" on the studies of Objectivism, my optimism is based on the fact that the human race persists. It's as simple as that. Or, I could offer more, and point out that between 1949 through to 1991, the shadow of nuclear annihilation presented the very real possibility of ended humanity, or to say that least, civilization as we know it. Rationality may not displace the less desirable aspects of human nature in a single generation. I've witnessed progress, and yet, as you, I can't easily shake off the pessimism that irrational people seem to gravitate to places of power, sometimes very dangerous power. If judged by the improving standards of living for more and more of the global population, there is much cause for hope. Given that the same technologies that improve human life can be used to reduce our liberties, or even enslave us, we have ever greater reason to be vigilant and engaged in the confrontation of those that wield great power. Man's greatest nature, that which makes him distinct from the animals, is his ability to reason. And so long as we have the freedom to reason, hope springs eternal.
  7. I couldn't help but to notice this was the first day in months that the word, "impeachment" wasn't mention on NPR.
  8. And your very pointed question is: ????? Are sure it's not a very pointless question?
  9. "He repays a teacher badly who always remains a student." This curiously appeared on the Forum's front page as a Random Quote, author Unknown. I thought it was appropriate.
  10. Jose, self-education means that you friend study material independent of an instructor. We cannot spoon-feed philosophy to you. You must make the honest effort. It would be best moving forward that you respond in complete sentences without any ambiguities. It would be senseless to re-cap the mistakes of the past. What, if any Objectivist literature have you read?
  11. Jose, I don't know if this is progress, but at least you're admitting that your purpose to all of this nonsense is your objection to Objectivism. Or perhaps a dislike of Ayn Rand. Or is there any purpose? Have you read anything Ayn Rand has written? The question you've posed seems to be related to perception and epistemology. Is this correct?
  12. Can’t find a way to take a decision using just objective criteria))) So, you're incapable of taking decisions. (taking decisions?) Ok, your problem, not mine. MisterSwigs has pointed out that there is no "objective criteria." And you support this claim with evidence. You're scenario lacks any criteria through your persistent inconsistencies. The simple replies you respond with indicate a total lack of desire to arrive at any useful point. If you are quite certain you wish to discuss nothing, you are doing just fine.
  13. Here's an example: I ask you what it is that you wish to discuss, and you evade by directing me to look back at other earlier posts, as if I'm going to play your silly game of denial. So, let's try this again: What is it that you wish to discuss? You did the same thing with dream_weaver, when he asked for clarity as which one was "the pupil." Jose, Objectivism isn't for everyone. Whenever I say that, I am struck with a tinge of sadness, and some people will disagree with me. Nonetheless, there are people who refuse to "let go" their beliefs they've lived with all of their lives, and something as truly radical as Objectivism seems to them to be alien. Now, your skills as a debater have serious shortcomings. If you see yourself as an opponent of Objectivism, you're approach to opposing it is not working, and yet, you ceaselessly follow the same pattern of evasion, confusion, and ultimately claiming victim status, by claiming that "you guys are poor teachers." We are not your teachers. No one is at fault for failing to educated anyone who is unwilling to learn. So far as I've read into this thread, no one has claimed to be a teacher. If you wish to be educated, as I've said before, educate yourself. Now, what exactly is it that you truly wish to discuss? (And you might consider starting a new thread, rather than continue this disaster.)
  14. Jose, You have been evading a genuine discussion. This is evident whenever you answer a direct question with an other question considerably more vague. Even more so, this is evident when you make assertions that you contradict or amend in later responses. The reason no one is taking you seriously here is for the facts: 1) you're scatological continuity reveals mischief rather than mistaken conceptual clarity; 2) when offered an explanation, you claim that the explanation is poorly presented and that you need a teacher that sees from your "worldview"; and 3) please, don't take this personally, but your use of the English language appears to frustrate everyone on both sides. I informed you that there are Spanish translations of the very best Objectivist literature. Consistently, you show no interest in examining Objectivism from its fundamentals. If it is a discussion you want, exactly what is it you wish to discuss?
  15. Well, I suppose that's that. The only thing near to an explanation I offered was to explain what Objectivism is not. Jose was not seeking an explanation, none were offered.
  16. Jose, here is my "goal-post argument": You have no argument. You do not approve of Objectivism, and are by no mean the first, and not likely that last to try to dissemble Objectivism. I will say that this was so far, the worst attempt I've ever seen. As I've stated earlier: You lose.
  17. Jose, It seems obvious that you are as unfamiliar with Objectivism as I assume you are with the Dead Parrot routine. You're circling back to the beginning of a pointless, and otherwise easily solved dilemma, and starting it all over again, as if that might wear down your opponent. I ask you to be honest, and you evade the point like a congressman. In this statement, you are admitting to the reversals that expose your lack of concept formation. You had to be confronted with an obvious contradiction. Objectively, I don't need anything from you. I find this amusing enough. What you don't want to understand is that your losing this argument.
  18. Jose, you've already given an example. What I point out is that we are engaging in the Monty Python Dead Parrot routine.
  19. I do not want to explore any criteria. You initiated the discussion. You have been throwing word-salad at the well-intending participants on this thread as if we were trying to force you to eat something that doesn't please you. You choose not to engage on any basis of rational argument, but rather you continually alter the direction of the conversation, or change the conversation, with explanations that you then deed "irrelevant." You are clearly evading any direct engagement, and this is another example of your evasive tactics: Explanation is change, when it is data previously omitted from the equation. This is not a winning strategy. What can you possibly gain from this? So far as I can tell, your whole point is that objective decisions are impossible. Is that your fundamental point?
  20. Jose, the clarification, additions, and expansions you've randomly inserted into your scenario are in fact changes. Are you denying this as a fact?
  21. So let me see... If one were to make an addition to an equation, that would not be the same as a change? But somehow only you would arrive at the same answer. This is utterly irrational. Well then, let's look at it from your point of view: If there may be multiple ways of interpreting reality, how can you possibly know when to use any criteria or none at all? How can you know anything at all? From your point of view, reality is entirely subjective.
  • Create New...