Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About acapier

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 12/13/1971

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Real Name
    Todd Sanderson
  • Copyright
  • Occupation

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
  1. Yeah, I kind of realized all that after I posted it. Heh.
  2. We all know that Ayn Rand is credited (and most of us agree) for the creation of the philosophy "Objectivism"; but did she really create it? She may be the first person to have thought of it in such terms, and consequently the first to put it into words, but if the philosophy is one based on the facts of man's existence in reality, then didn't reality itself dictate what we call "Objectivism"? Is Ayn Rand the source, or is reality?
  3. They may fall in love, but as to whether or not they should (and to whom) is their decision. The odds of finding two or more individuals that fit exactly into one's idea of an ideal mate are not that good (it's hard enough to find just one), and if that does happen only one can earn it. No, I can't, and I see the error in what I said. Your work is your reason in action, so one must possess reason beforehand.
  4. My apologies, and I will do so in the future. This is true, and I should have said "objective value". Again, wrong choice of words. Let me rephrase by taking "necessarily" out of the question: "should one define relationships as a purpose?" Yes, and I will clarify to say that relationships are things that you act to gain/keep, therefore they are a value to one's life, not a purpose. Why not? You exist, the book (presumably yours) exists, and you are there to make the action (an action that you reasonably want to do). Every action one performs had an action before it that led to it; and there will (hopefully) be more actions after. As real as I am typing this right now, I exist to type it and it's a reason for me to exist. Every action I performed before it led up to this moment. If this is not a reason for me to exist, then I should stop now and go do something else.
  5. A person loves another when his/her primary values correspond with the other (reason, purpose, self-esteem), and s/he falls in love with the other when s/he knows that the other is exactly what s/he wants in another person. A person gains his/her primary values through his/her productive work (which should correspond with his/her central purpose), so one must have clear, concise goals already laid out before a relationship can even be considered. That is not to say that you must be at your end goal, but you must be working towards it. If you're not, then you aren't achieving your primary values, and one cannot have a proper relationship when one doesn't have those. Since one must already have this all in place, it is the higher value because without it the other is not objectively possible.
  6. I wasn't confused; if you "look for Impotent Evil", your intent is to find it. In order to find it you must know what you're looking for. Therefore, you will know when you've found it. Still, it is all a matter of intent. Enabler wants to harm Target using whatever potential Impotent Evil s/he may find (no matter how likely the potential Impotent Evil); therefore, anything given to a potential Impotent Evil by Enabler that leads to the harm of Target holds Enabler partially at fault, and s/he should be punished.
  7. Leia remarks that her mother died when she was very young, and that she was very beautiful. She may know that she was beautiful from what she learned of her through the Organas, or even holograms (they didn't use photographs). She didn't say "I remember her holding me in her arms at night, playing with me, etc.." She then says, "I know. Somehow, I've always known", responding to Luke's statement that she is his sister. Remember that that's because she also has the Force, which for those in the Star Wars universe is a means to knowledge (hey, I didn't create it). In talking about Anakin's turn to the dark side, remember he's been on the path since Episode II when he went on a rampage to kill the Sand People. And, in Episode III, everywhere he turned he was being confused by both sides: he felt untrusted by the Jedi Council (and used as a tool), and he felt safe with Palpatine (up until he figured out his true nature). And, although Anakin says he hates Palpatine for being the Sith, does he really or is he just repeating what his mentors say he must? Also, in Episode I Yoda is apprehensive to even have Anakin begin training because he is too old; a plight that is also referenced in Episode V with Luke (who, of course, is much older even). Apparently, the Jedi know that brainwashing is much easier to maintain and control before the subject has reached a cognitive state of awareness. There was one inconsistency, perhaps, that is at the end when Yoda tells Obi-Wan that there's a method for fallen Jedi to communicate with the living, and he would teach him the technique. Obi-Wan acts surprised that there is such a method (implying that no one else knows of it). If that is so, how does Anakin (at the end of Episode VI) appear to Luke? I find this interesting, too, that in a universe where Lucas says that only a Sith deals in absolutes, each individual world is one dimensional; that is, each one is completely of one climate/terrain.
  8. I understand the value inherent in having such relationships, but should one necessarily define them as a purpose? Any purpose, central or otherwise, denotes "reason for existing"; therefore, defining certain relationships with others as one's "reason for existing" (even if partially so) is contradictory to being an individual. Yes, many careers offer an individual the ability to sustain them wherever that individual might go; however, if one makes a move (considering a relationship or not) that diminshes the productivity of one's ability, then it would be immoral to make such a choice. Consider: If, in your example above, moving to the country required one to go from designing magnificent skyscrapers to designing simplistic barns then I would see a problem with that. One would still be "designing buildings", but not using the full capacity of his/her mind, thus cheating him/herself and any relationship s/he may have. The point here is that one's central purpose is the standard of one's life, and that purpose must be as concrete (in the individual's mind) as possible. If it is too abstract, as you say it should be, then one is free to float wherever life might take him/her; with no real goals defined, and no real direction to follow. If one is to make clear choices and have real purpose(s), they must know exactly for which his/her choices pertain (the standard). If I say that my central purpose, and thus the standard of my life, is "to be in the food industry" (very abstract), then I should be just as happy being a busboy for the rest of my life as I would be an owner/operator; regardless of which job I hold I am fulfilling my purpose "to be in the food industry". If, however, I say that my central purpose is "to be the best, most creative chef I can be", then anything short of that is not good enough for me (and anything more is too much); I must gain the knowledge, have the ability, and strive for the very best from myself in order to fulfill that purpose (which I've chosen). I see life as a straight line from point A to point B; there are no ambiguous curves or dark trails to go down as those distract one from the ultimate goal: And, in respect to relationships, one does not accomodate work to a relationship, but a relationship to his/her work:
  9. That's all inconsequential. The fact of the matter is that Enabler knows that any information given to Impotent Evil would be used to harm Target. I was indentifying the crime involved. Aiding, abetting, conspiring... Enabler provided the means with the intent that it be used by Impotent Evil, regardless of Impotent Evil's knowledge of said intent or means.
  10. Yes (aiding and abetting) because Enabler intended the information to be used for evil purposes. Even if Enabler's intent couldn't be proven in court, and he/her were acquitted, the fact remains that s/he violated the protected rights of an individual.
  11. No, and yes; One usually decides "this is my central purpose, therefore it is higher in value than..." (not the other way around), and it is higher than, say, a romantic relationship because a proper relationship can't exist without your CPL. Your CPL, however, can and does exist without any relationships. Additionally, if your CPL requires the relationship of another then perhaps you should check the premises of your CPL. It comes down to this: values are heirarchical, as one builds into the next. If reason, purpose, and self-esteem are the primary values proper to man, and man acts to gain/keep his values, then a man's work is a higher value than a romantic relationship; as his work gives him access to these primary values, a relationship (of any kind) does not, and such relationships are proper only when a man possesses his primary values. 2 + 2 = 4.
  12. The meaning of a particular piece of art is not open to interpretation as (like has been mentioned) it represents something of value or of importance to the artist; therefore, it can only mean what the artist intended. One can like or dislike the piece based on the value expressed in relation to one's own value of the subject, but one cannot say, "Well, this is what it means to me..."; that is to imply that it could mean something different to someone else. Of course, one can misinterpret it's meaning, but that would not change its real, intended one; and it would then not be a good representation of the artist's value as s/he could not clearly convey it. I'm reminded of the scene in "The Fountainhead" when Keating shows Roark his paintings. Roark dislikes them not because Keating is a bad painter, but because their values are diametrically different; so, it is impossible for Roark to like them.
  13. For some reason I couldn't edit the above to include something else I missed, so I will just add it here. It doesn't matter how many people truely benefit from the claims made of a particular product as long as the company making the claims does not "guarantee" those claims. So, in the case of the Dove product I'm sure they do not say that they guarantee that you will experience smoother, softer skin after using it. It's called "caveat emptor", or "buyer beware".
  14. Have you read the label of the actual Dove product? Most companies, while not expressing warnings in advertisements, do put warning labels for such problems on the product itself; additionally, I would say that it's the consumer's responsibility to be aware of their own physiology when using such products, not the company's. I am allergic to Comtrex, so I do not take it; the makers of Comtrex have no responsibility to tell me that I may have allergic reactions to it. As has been expressed before, someone is lying when they willfully, and knowingly evade the facts of reality in the attempt to deceive. In your example of the car salesman, he is a liar (and is lying) the moment he knowingly falsifies information. Being ignorant to the facts is indirectly lying; you've said to yourself that you don't know, or care, what the facts are, so you'll make something up, regardless of the truth. It is still dishonesty, which is immoral by all counts. For the consumer's part, you get what you deserve. I would never buy a used car without getting it checked out by a trusted mechanic to make sure that it is worth what the salesman quotes me. Simple as that. If you don't take that responsibility then anyone can (and usually will) pull a fast one on you, and you've then no one to blame but yourself. In the case of an emergency like a life threatening injury, I would give a doctor everything I had if it meant life or death (we're talking about your life here, I think any amount of money would be pennies to that).
  15. What I gathered from a class on Existentialism, and some reading of "The Ominous Parallels" by Leonard Peikoff is that Nietzche's "Will to Power" theory was that it is man's nature to dominate everything (including nature and other men). "Power", in this sense, translates to "Dominance" or "Control". It should be self-evident, by this, what Objectivism would say about it. In fact, I liken the character of Gail Wynand in "The Fountainhead" to that type of philosophy; read the parts of his days growing up in Hell's Kitchen and you'll discover Nietzche's "Will to Power".
  • Create New...