theestevearnold
-
Posts
282 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by theestevearnold
-
-
Rand hated the term "pragmatism" but Objectivism is very pragmatic.
Miss Rand was opposed to a type of philosophy called Pragmatism, not to be confused with small p pragmatism--which is a term she never said she hated.
I think Duey was a Pragmatist. I hate him. That god damned Duey Decimal System in my local library tied me up in knots for most of my childhood.
-
Me too. Why didn't, do you suppose, the authors of those books include Rand or Objectivism?Whenever I come to a philosophy book I check the index for Rand or Objectivism. Seldom do I find either. Never mind a chapter to her.
-
I’m not that familiar with text wrapping and was wondering if one of you might be willing to help me create this logo.
customdrawingsforonly40bucks.com shows my recent jobs.
-
theestevearnold:
Should compassion be banned also?
Of course not. I, an Objectivist Man, have felt intense compassion for the ones I love, and I've felt compassion (though not as intense) for the ones I like, and a less intense compassion for the ones I don't know, and no compassion for the ones I despise.
With all contexts being the same, except your relationship to the person, do you feel equal compassion for all people, whether you like them or not?
-
I said mundane to refer to all those things you say you would rather be doing; the basic requirements of survival.theestevearnold,
Thank you for your response.
What is the objective definition of "mundane" and "better" as you use them here?
I said better to refer to all the time spent on pursuits which involve men reaching their highest potential.
You may enjoy spending your life on the mere struggle to stay alive, but the rational man prefers a division of labor society in which he doesn't waste his life on simply staying alive and, instead, stays alive while he invents a machine, writes a symphony, goes out dancing, reads a book, etc.
The premise for what is best for man to live as a man is that we're talking about rational men. If you're a hermit on a desert island who murders visitors, you're living on a subhuman level.
-
Randomness versus Determinism is a false choice.
Everything acts in accordance with its nature. There is no randomness. Even a dice roll lands where the gamblers action (& the properties of the enviroment) caused it to.
Everything that happens, including the Man-Made, is not part of God's pre-determined plan or "meant to be", in the universe-as-the-puppeteer sense. Determinism is bogus.
I haven't validated volition, though I know its valid. I just wanted to show that the alternatives are invalid.
Dearest HD, it's nice to see you still find value in this site.
-
theestevearnold:
What if they don't show or do it? Does it mean that they did not like it?
Of course not. It means that I would be unable to perceive their emotional responses.
According to your brand of social subjectivism: If I had a private booth for a symphony, would the members of the audience be able to sense my feelings without seeing me?
And should privacy be banned?
-
theestevearnold:
The question then is how you find out about it. Do you watch people's faces and decide what they feel or do you feel this, and so you know? If you feel it (maybe in addition to seeing faces), then my explanation holds.
The look on their faces. And their standing ovation. And their whoops and hollers, and the ladies throwing their panties on stage. But no, no telepathy or whatever supernatural connection you are referring to.
What scientific discovery of collective emotions are you referring to? I don't think it exists.
-
But wait! We haven't identified problems with Objectivism yet.
Yep. Just a bunch of misrepresentation of Objectivism.
Emotions aren't tools of cognition. If I feel something's true, I don't integrate it into my knowledge till I make sure it passes the test of logic (non-contradictory identification).
And if I have an emotion, I don't act upon it until I've verified it with reason, because feelings are non-rational and, thereby, prone to error (especially if my value-system is flawed). Thank your god (state) that potentially-raucous-causing men like me know that filtering my emotions through logic--what you misleadingly call supressing emotions--is appropriate to man qua Man.
Mind you, when my emotions are justified by logic, I, and most Objectivists, are the most emotionally passionate souls on Earth, with no regrets the next morning.
There are no collective emotions; each individual mind experiences its own emotions. But if a group in the same concert hall experiences the same feeling of exhaltation when hearin Beethoven's Ninth, it can be a wonderful feeling to know that other like-minded men exist.
If I and they form a Beethoven's Ninth Club afterward, I would hope they wouldn't expect me to dedicate my life to it; I've got personal matters that are more important.
And no State is more important than a Beethoven's Ninth Club.
-
Even with my understanding of Objectivist principles, I sometimes am unclear as to their correct application to reality--due to my lack of knowledge regarding all the pertinent implications of my intended actions.
The minds here have a lot of helpful knowledge.
I've gained many other values: a better understanding of what Miss Rand said. And the fun of an intellectual debate with a subjectivist. And the constant reaffirmation that there are people that use logic. And more.
I pay them back by trying to write something interesting once in a while.
Thanks. I still owe y'all for all them values I scored here.
-
Why use life as your fundamental to dictate what you can or can't do while existing in the universe?
What about bugs who ruin crops?
Good questions. I can't answer them because there is no rational answer.
I'd like to add to question one: Rights is a Man-Made concept, as opposed to the Metaphysical. Life shouldn't be the fundamental dictate; the Man-Made (conceptual--volitional--consciousness) should be. The actions of the rocks and boulders you mentioned are, in this context, equivalent to animals' actions.
Question two highlights the inapplicability of using life as the fundamental dictate. Plants are alive, so killing the bugs would be protecting a plant's "right" to live, but killing the bugs would be unfair to their "right" to live because the bugs can't understand the concept of the plants' "right" to live, so they wouldn't know they were violating plants' "rights". And if a bugs' "rights" activist got legislation to prevent the use of pesticides, it would violate the farmer's right to property; he would be unable to do what he wants with his crop.
-
My government should protect my right to torture animals.
My rational mind should prevent me from doing so.
Again, just because I have a right--a.k.a a freedom of action protected by law--to an action, that doesn't automatically make the action right.
Just because the US government fails to properly protect my rights, the concept of rights remains valid, with absolutes that should extend beyond my right to live.
When I buy or capture an animal, I should have the (property) right to do whatever I want to it. If I torture it, that would be an evil action that government has no business preventing. I cite that tired old, yet true, cliche: With rights come responsibilities.
Personal responsibility.
-
I'm responding to softwareNerd's statement that one has a right to harm an animal. I don't believe that because someone is free to do something that it is necessarily a right. (but maybe it is)
This shouldn't confuse the fact that animals do not have rights.
Cool.
I understand your point. I think that just because I have a right to do something, doesn't automatically make my action right. Example: I have the right of free speech, but if I lie to a friend, my action is wrong.
-
@ dream_weaver,
This could also be looked at as a kind of biological justification for behaving altruistically.
Altruism was proven to be evil in VOS. If your conscience weighs heavily on you when you fail to act altruistically, please read VOS to remedy your thinking error.
Dream Weaver has provided two profound scientific discoveries: pinpointing Man's conscience, and recognizing animals' lack of it.
-
There are laws against cruelty to animals, and nobody I know of is lobbying for their repeal.
Don't confuse the issue.
-
My life belongs to me, not the state.
Statists may attempt to convince me I should live for the state. That's cool.
Forcing me to live for it, and building walls and fences with armed guards to keep me from leaving, ain't cool.
-
Men have treated industrial progress as the metaphysically given, like an automatic evolution. These men have assumed that civilization will always advance over time. I've read about the Dark and Middle ages.
And money doesn't grow on trees.
-
It's a good biographical film by Michael Paxton.
-
Since achieving my value of solitude is good because it contributes to the fulfillment and enjoyment of my life, not achieving my value of solitude is evil
Check your premise (your value).
I once valued drug abuse. I felt it contributed to the fulfillment and enjoyment of my life. That didn't make it "the good." The good is not "whatever I value".
It is best for man to live in a way that best suits his nature; this includes living among men, where the sharing of knowledge and division of labor are two of the many things that are good for Man, because they provide life-saving knowledge and reduce the amount of [life]time spent on the more mundane aspects of existence, giving him more [life}time to spend on better pursuits.
Double check your premise. Spend a month on a desert island and see if it's a rational value.
I know a member of an enviromentalist group--the Earth Liberation Front--who said industrial civilization is evil and the good (for Man) is to "go back to nature". In less than a month of camping out in the Oregon boondocks, he realized the value of supermarkets and microwave ovens and air-conditioning and computers etc., all made possible by men living among men--Man living as Man.
-
I thought that religion is separated from the state. Am I wrong?
In theory, you're correct.
Example of the reality: Obamacare forced Catholic institutions to violate their moral code by purchasing employee health insurance plans that cover birth control.
Equality under the law means government may not descriminate. But Man's right to property includes the right to descriminate in regards to the disposal of his property (who he wants to trade with).
As evil as descrimination and religion are, if a gay couple wants a wedding in a particular church, and the priest of that church refuses to allow it, the government should not force him.
Besides legislation, the US government threatens to revoke churches' and colleges' tax-exempt status if they don't comply with the whims of bureaucrats. As in the last presidential election, where government officials forced pastors to refrain from endorsing a presidential candidate during their sermons.
-
Oops. It's not forty, it's 40.
customdrawingsforonly40bucks.com
-
Now I'm putting an e in tattoos.
I've lost all credibility.
If you go to customdrawingsforonlyfortybucks.com I'll draw you up a one-of-a-kind design or a unique font I guarantee you'll like or your money back. I've never had an unsatisfied customer. (The drawings don't necessarily represent my philosophy or my sense of life.)
-
Just because I mispelled tattooed doesn't mean I was a hack.
(I'm texting all these profundities.)
I appreciate intellectualammo's desire to get tatted up, but I'm advising others to refrain from getting tattooes that can't be covered with just a long-sleeve shirt. I work in a restaurant, & every day I have to put makeup over my facial, neck, and hand tattooes.
Removing them is costly and takes months. So choose wisely. If something means enough to you that you wanna have it tattooed on your body. Cool, Man. I can dig it.
-
I worked as a licensed tattooer at the Dark Side Tattoo in Honolulu. I'm heavily tattoed.
There are a few superhuman artists in every city. And there hoards of hacks. Find a superhuman.
Free Markets are for Sissies
in Political Philosophy
Posted
Yeah, in the sense that things work out great when I apply it to my life.