Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


CriticalThinker2000 last won the day on May 23 2016

CriticalThinker2000 had the most liked content!

About CriticalThinker2000

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright
  1. My experience with MJ in small amounts is that it sort of dulls the conscious mind and allows things to flow very freely from the subconscious. If I know/understand a topic well and have it integrated within my subconscious, I can write very easily and freely on the topic. In Rand's The Art of Fiction (or is it Non-fiction I'm thinking of?), she gets into the conscious/subconscious a bit. She describes the phenomenon that occurs when she's really writing well. I would describe it as being 'in the zone'. For example, if she has integrated the characters into her subconscious and is writing dial
  2. I don't think that it's comparable to proving a negative. It's impossible to prove that something is infinite because an infinite object has no bounds which means it has no identity. Proof itself is premised on the law of identity and so 'proving the existence of infinity' means using the law of identity to show that the law of identity does not exist. With respect to proving a negative, one is never required to disprove a claim to knowledge when there is no evidence for the claim because a lack of evidence means that the 'knowledge' has no known basis in reality. The two things are bo
  3. Isn't this the analytic-synthetic dichotomy at work? A stake is being driven between concepts and their referents.
  4. By Saudi I meant the Saudi government and by Islamic totalitarianism I meant the ideology that justifies the imposition of a global caliphate. It was a sincere question that I believe is intelligible to the average person on this forum.
  5. Aren't the Saudis providing financial support for the spread of the Islamic totalitarian ideology?
  6. I got it, I just haven't responded because I've been thinking about it. I think it's the most important and original contribution to this thread.
  7. Those "rights" are obviously in contradiction. The right to life is a freedom of action and the right to education is not- it's a right to be given a product of someone else's effort. A right to be given education means that the right to life is violated. How do you square this?
  8. To your first question, no. You can probably tell that Eiuol and I disagree on this subject To answer yes to the above question is to imply determinism- or that your situation determines your choice. If the answer is yes, then in a given situation you must, by your metaphysical nature, act in one way. Just as a rock must fall to the ground when dropped. I think it's important to first really understand what the law of identity is and where it comes from before you can understand what it implies. Identity exists because to be is to be something. To exist is to have a specific nature. Th
  9. One other thing that I've been thinking about which relates to the spirit of the original question is the fact that a government represents its citizens in its dealings with other governments. If a government bombs another nation, it does so in the name of its citizens, whether individual citizens agree with the action or not. In this sense, a citizen of a country should expect to bear the responsibility of his government's actions, even if the citizen disagrees with them. He may not bear individual moral responsibility for the actions of his government but he must bear the practical results o
  10. Do you mean that in a superficial sense, as in they both believe it is a practical means of winning a war? Clearly the fundamental justifications differ.
  11. I think you've just got to decide how much of the value of posting comes from clarifying your thinking and how much comes from spreading the right ideas to people. If you get a lot of value from the latter, as I do, then you have to decide if the person to whom you're responding is being honest or not. That, to me, is the more difficult question to answer. I think a lot of what I would have previously chalked up to dishonesty is really just a result of rationalism.
  12. Huh? I was talking about Objectivism Online. It's privately owned but open to anyone who signs up.You used this minor point to ignore what I was saying. While I do often post for only my own benefit (to clarify my thinking usually), it's way more enjoyable to engage with someone who is being honest. I fail to see how you can not understand the distinction between free speech and speech on private property that SNerd, DW, and I pointed out. In another thread you also refused to acknowledge the fundamental distinction between rights protection (force) and education (the mind). For someone with y
  13. This is a private forum open to the public. Also, just because a method is good and powerful at communicating a message does not mean that the message is acceptable in every context. A dirty Ayn Rand cartoon like the religious one posted earlier will convey its message clearly but such a message has no place on this private forum.
  14. "There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one’s silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender—the recognition of his right to one’s property." -Ayn Rand What would she say about compromise on the issue of speech? If Charlie Hedbo decides not to print something because they are threatened, who has won? The notion that the world is too complex for the simplistic principles illustrated in Ayn Rand's fiction is a thinly veiled excuse to compromise on basic moral principles.
  • Create New...