Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Reasoner

Regulars
  • Content Count

    56
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Reasoner last won the day on April 28 2017

Reasoner had the most liked content!

About Reasoner

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Texas
  • Relationship status
    Married
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1591 profile views
  1. I have been to Germany, and I have been to China (along with many other places). It's hard to move about Berlin, or Munich, or nearly any other major city without intentional, constant reminders of the Holocaust. I only refer to it as denigration in light of the fact that few other countries equally deserving of such memorials don't have the courage to construct them. But the Death Camps exist to this day as museums. The holocaust memorial itself is something I will never forget. The plaques, the signs, the museums...its inescapable. Contrasted with Maoist China - where t
  2. Well yes - what I am saying is that the traditional "right" in the US has notions of individualism and capitalism - both objectively justifiable positions - juggled with Christian mysticism, other-worldiness, altruism, and all the collectivist ideas that come along with it. Fiscally Conservative with all the trappings of laissez faire capitalism, and Socially Conservative with the stifling tribalism of Christian mysticism. The traditional "left" does the same thing in reverse - they are the promoters of science, thought and secularism...unless they are contradicting themselves with their
  3. I'm really referring to the "Antifa" movement, where individuals are so worked up by the notion of "Fascism" that they are willing to physically assault people, however I'm not seeing the same zealotry when it comes to opposing the extreme left, despite plenty of historical evidence that their ideas can have terrible consequences as well.
  4. Agreed...I don't seem to be able to edit the original post...I'll keep trying.
  5. Yes, I agree, especially about the "Alt-Right" being a clown show. They just seem so ineffectual and...too stupid to warrant my energy. And I agree about judging the ideas based on the very real impact they have had in the past. However, the unfortunate truth is that the outrage and condemnation of "Fascism" comes at the cost of an intentionally blind-eye turned to the atrocities of Communism and the slow rot of Socialism. Average people only have so much energy and time to focus on this type of issue. Germany denigrates itself and wallows in it's own shame of the holocaust. "Nazi" i
  6. You are right, thank you for requesting the clarification...he does indeed predominantly use the term "Christianity", not "the right". I quickly scanned most of Chapter 15 "The Anti-Secular Revolution" and I understand better what he is saying. It's been about 6 months since I finished the Audio book (perhaps thats part of my problem 😋) but I think a larger part of my cognitive dissonance is that I was raised in a very conservative, Republican, religious household, and exposed mostly to traditional, conservative Christian viewpoints. So when someone says "Christian" to me, I automatical
  7. Having read the DIM Hypothesis, I am not convinced that his conclusions about the Religious Right are warranted. I live in Texas, certainly not a bastion of secularism. I was raised Methodist. And based on my experience, I just am not convinced that the religious right is anything but a haphazard collection of zealots in the US. They are formidable in numbers, but they are completely inconsistent in their philosophy and consistently make themselves look like idiots. The right wing in the US, to me, is completely hamstrung by their contradictions - attempting to (pretend to) advocate fr
  8. I'm looking at the question with a fresh mind, and I think you nailed it...thank you. Essentially, when it comes to the noumenal world one can neither confirm nor deny something, even cause and effect, or purple monsters with their eyes on their toes. To say causation doesn't exist in the noumenal world would be as impossible as saying it does. Tricky tricky. Thank you!
  9. I am neck-deep in ARI's 50 hour course on "The History of Western Philosophy" taught by Leonard Peikoff. I am perplexed by an answer to one of the quizzes - perhaps someone can help me. I understood Peikoff to be quite explicit when explaining that Kant taught that true reality (what I take to mean the neumenal world as-it-is-in-itself) is outside the realm of direct consideration. Does he reach the conclusion that causality (via the categories) exists specifically because he has deduced it, and thus we can say (from a Kantian perspective) that causality exists in the world as-i
  10. I wanted to add my thoughts, as a parent who is currently working through The Fountainhead for the first time. I appreciate the quote that was given on Rand' and motherhood being a career that can become outdated. This can be applied to fatherhood as well - which at this point in my life is my central purpose. Thus, I would characterize one's central purpose in life not in terms of an unchanging career, but in terms of a single building that Roark might have built - in the sense of a stage of ones life. A rational, discrete accomplishment and goal that consumes one with passion
  11. I haven't been on here in a long while as well, higher value commitments pull me away! I am working my way through DIM and at the same time trying to familiarize myself more with Kant rather than rely entirely on third party perspectives (of course, I haven't the energy or time to actually read A Critique of Reason" so it's all gonna have to be third party somehow But just for fun I wanted to nitpick the statement: "Objectivism follows the ethics of rational or objective egoism to the detriment of sometimes being able to develop healthy relationships with others." I would argue
  12. I am constantly running into this same argument. If human nature is inherently broken and corrupt, favoring the morally subjective and dishonest, then any argument needs to justify less external human involvement in human affairs - as each individual, acting according to an honest assessment of human nature, is naturally the most favorable actor to partake in that scenario. How can the alternative, massive oversight by OTHER human beings, rationally prove to be favorable?
  13. Thank you for your response. The relation to the thread comes in where I point out that there is a very important difference between refusing to name what you are (objectivist, etc) versus openly sharing that information. Whereas I am careful who I tell that I am an objectivist, it is still crystal clear in my own mind that I am one. Regarding concept formation, Rand directly states that a concept must be given a name before the concept formation is complete. My post argues that the ambiguous, fluffy, blurry notions that some people today "identify" with are an example of the anti-conc
  14. I wanted to add something to this thread that I created, even though it's been a few months since it's been active. In the Objectivist Epistemology, Rand makes it very clear that the last step of concept formation is to name the concept. In the latest revised edition, with the Q&A at the end, she reiterates this point - the naming of a concept ties together the importance of objective language and concept formation. There is an article that recently appeared on "spiked-online" (I admittedly am not familiar with this site outside of this one article, so please don't take this
×
×
  • Create New...