Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TruthSeeker946

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

328 profile views
  1. The Objectivist definition of a value is “that which one acts to gain and or keep”. However, one must first identify that which one would like to gain before one can act to gain it. If one wants to live, one must eat food. The food must be recognised as valuable before action is taken to gain it. But the Objectivist definition implies the food only becomes valuable during the action and not before. If this is the case, what motivates the initial action if the food is not perceived as valuable prior to action taken to gain it?
  2. My apologies, you’re right, it was unnecessarily confusing. I’m in agreement here, though I would say the psychological limitations are ultimately biological limitations and I want to stress that my concern here is the expression of these limitations as an average since these limitations will be different for different people. Yes ultimately the homosexual has to take action on the sexual desires himself so his decision has the final say. But the decision to act or not to act is affected by the biological factors in the sense that the homosexual desires are acting
  3. Good point about technology and thank you - I’m glad someone else here appreciates this issue.
  4. Suit yourself. I’m not going to try to persuade you to engage with the arguments. I’ve put them forward and they stand on their own merit. If you change your mind, I’ll engage with your responses. Fair enough. What do you mean there is no difference? I’m searching for the limits of our nature. I agree these things ultimately manifest themselves psychologically. I don’t deny they manifest themselves psychologically. Ultimately one has to mentally process the action of lying, stealing, killing etc before they do it. The point is to what extent are there determini
  5. Your rewrite doesn’t not equate to the essence of what I’ve said. Correct, but it should be cause for pause; for doubt, especially in this case due to the staggering observations in different times and places. I mentioned homosexuality earlier. It’s been observed throughout different ages and peoples, even in animals, and now we know there is at least some substantial biological basis to it. Rand thought it was just down to the wrong premises. She was wrong. I think we should seriously consider the possibility that man has biological “inclinations” in other areas too, lyin
  6. Good point. I assume it to mean a world numerically dominated by Objectivists and the application of the political prescriptions she described. In the introduction to the revised edition of The Fountainhead, referring to her husband, she said: “The essence of the bond between us is the fact that neither of us has ever wanted or been tempted to settle for anything less than the world presented in The Fountainhead. We never will.” I haven’t read The Fountainhead (please no spoilers) but whatever she’s referring to here, it’s interesting she used the word “world”. And yet,
  7. I have no intention to “escape detection” and it wasn’t why I made a new account, as I’ve explained. Well done, give yourself a pat on the back - I couldn’t care less how many accounts you have. I care about discussing/debating ideas.
  8. That’s not a “real” account. It consists of one thread over a year ago, it’s not my real name and I don’t even remember the email attached to it. So I made a new account, what’s the big deal? I am certainly not a troll. I’m a genuine truth seeker and as I mentioned in that previous thread I really do want Objectivism to work. I have returned to it over the last month, giving it another chance. I come on this forum with the intention of throwing my strongest arguments at Objectivists to see the responses I get, and also to share my thoughts. I truly believe any theory should be vigor
  9. 1. I don’t have a ‘real’ account. 2. Ideas stand on their own merit, what’s the obsession with who I am? 3. Why so defensive? Have you seriously never considered this most crucial question? Take sex and gender. Studies have clearly shown the differences between men and women, their behaviour, their masculinity and femininity having some serious biological basis. Or does Objectivism hold that gender is a social construct? Just a matter of the wrong premises? Rand thought homosexuality was a matter of wrong premises. Now the evidence suggests at least some significant biologica
  10. What on earth is your problem? If you don’t want to take part in an adult discussion, ignore the thread and move on.
  11. I should specify I don’t think mankind can never achieve X (widespread Objectivism) rather that Y (the evidence of our actual behaviour) suggests it is very unlikely without biological manipulation. I’m speaking from my general knowledge about history. Everyone is rational to some degree but nowhere near to the degree Objectivism demands. Surely you would agree that the primacy of emotion, tribalism, irrationalism and mysticism is widespread and always has been? I don’t think this is very controversial. Yes, ideas do matter and can change the world. My concern here is about the limi
  12. Really? Projecting my inadequacy? Straight in with the ad hominem from you then... I am simply observing reality, that is, the behaviour of human beings today and throughout time falling well below the standards Objectivism demands. One has to seriously consider if those standards are simply unachievable on a mass scale.
  13. I agree the question should be “Why? What caused it?” Etc but I don’t believe Rand provides a good answer. It cannot all be down to having the wrong premises. In every civilisation throughout history man displays a certain level of tribalism, irrationalism, mysticism etc. The answers must be buried in our biology at least to some significant extent. I think I read Peikoff’s daughter is studying this area. Do you know anything about that? I should say I’ve read Atlas Shrugged, The Virtue Of Selfishness, Ayn Rand Answers, Why businessmen need Philosophy and I’m up to Chapter 7 i
  14. Do Objectivists truly believe people will ever behave like Objectivists on a mass scale? Objectivism teaches us how the world ought to be and how man ought to live but we find ourselves in a world which is nothing like it, and never has been. If mankind can never achieve the Objectivist world Rand envisioned, or even get anywhere near it (where the majority are true Objectivists), then it is surely inadequate as a political philosophy. Of course we can never know for sure but history provides some strong suggestions. Don’t we all have to face up to the fact we have a society
  • Create New...