Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Jimbean

Regulars
  • Content Count

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jimbean

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified

Recent Profile Visitors

469 profile views
  1. I am starting a podcast in a week and a half from now and debating is one of my strengths. I studied Objectivism a long time ago when I was introduced to it by something called Neo-Tech back in 2003 (one of those offshoots of Objectivism). My goal is to get a proper grounding to reality so that I can effectively defend capitalism, individualism, and ethics. What I really would like to do is debate high profile individuals on social media. So it is not just Objectivism I need to re-learn, but also public speaking and presentation. In my opinion, I have the intelligence and work ethic, but I need proper training.
  2. In terms of learning objectivism, I thought the fundamental goal for personal understanding objectivism might be to make the widest integrations like Ayn Rand herself were able to do. To integrate from the axiom of existence exists to capitalism in such a way that is both local, abstract, clearly understood by other people, and entertaining enough for people to want to comprehend, for example. What are your thoughts? Do you agree?
  3. I think it also give some clues about what free will is.
  4. Free will is a corollary of consciousness. Julian Jaynes proposes a very interesting theory of consciousness that runs parallel with Objectivism.
  5. Have you ever read "On The Origin of Consciousness, The Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes?
  6. Jimbean

    Youth as a value

    Or if I were a multi-billionaire donating money to that kind of research.
  7. Jimbean

    Youth as a value

    "...acts to gain..." I missed that "acts to" part, so by definition it is possible to integrate with reality while acting to gain the ability to reverse the aging process if one is qualified to do that kind of work in bio-medical engineering, or whatever related field of study. Thanks for the observation. In a debate with someone like stefan molyneux, that would make the difference haha)
  8. Jimbean

    Youth as a value

    I have been submersed into irrational society that my psycho-epistemology is cluttered with subjectivity; I'm still at the metaphysics and epistemology stage of re-learning Objectivism. Life presupposes the act of valuing. Your own life is the basis of all other values you have. Your efforts are at least an attempt to sustain your life, so for example, if you can act in such a way that would reverse the aging process (i.e. extending your telomeres, or boosting HGH long term), then you would do that since it would sustain your life, similarly in the way you sustain your life by eating.
  9. Jimbean

    Youth as a value

    I thought about this a little more. I should specify that it is not a disintegration from reality if someone works to gain the attributes of youth, but to work to gain youth as a whole is a disintegration.
  10. Jimbean

    Youth as a value

    Excuse me if this is a stupid question. If there is any materiel that comes to mind to anyone reading this, please refer it to me as I am in the process of re-learning objectivism. Values are defined as what an organism gains and keeps for survival. Aging is a process that occurs regardless if the person wants it to happen or not; aging can be slowed down, but it cannot be stopped with current medical technology. Is it appropriate to value youth, or anti-aging? To value something that cannot be gained or kept? People buy into "anti-aging" products, but this only gives the characterization of youth. One can make changes to one's habits, or engage in certain exercises to gain youthful characteristics, but that does not actually stop, or reverse the aging process.
  11. And for the sake of informing, here is a good little article on some real conspiracies: http://www.cracked.com/article_15974_7-ins...y-happened.html
  12. This might have be be moved, I am putting this here because I am not sure where I should post it. I am a lurker to this forum, I don't post much, but I have a question and then a set of questions: Why is it that Objectivists do not argue with someone who subscribes to conspiracy theory. One explanation that I came across is that by arguing with someone who subscribes to conspiracy theory, some credibility is given to them, therefore Objectivists do not argue with them. What other reasons are there, if any, that an Objectivist does not argue against conspiracy if they do not believe it? My second question is more controversial, I do not wish to stir anything up here, so I apologize if I do, but here it is: Conspiracy theory by itself without evidence is an invalid method of thinking because then the theory is taken on faith. If there is any evidence of a conspiracy, it is approached inductively and gets shown to be false. But what about the conspiracies that are shown to be true? Was it natural to be wrong in that case? Or by being wrong means one had slipped into an inductive fallacy?
  13. For the information of this forum regarding Myers and Briggs typology, there is an alternative personality theory that is also based on Carl Jung's work. In my opinion, it is much better. It is called socionics, and here is a forum you can visit to learn more about it: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/ Most other sites are in Russian
  14. The political trend might just go the same way of global cooling did. Hopefully by then we will still be alive from all of the other problems that we are having Otherwise I assume that the climate change, as long as it is not to the extreme (such as an ice age), will turn out to be good for the human population as it usually is, I think.
  15. Since this topic is nowhere to be found on this forum, I assume that most of the members are not aware of this possibility. There is a segment, (which I assume is small) who thinks that 9/11 was actually done by so called black operations within the CIA/corporation/ political think-tank/military industrial complex. There is also a debate going on about everything that has been found by either “debunkers” or “truthers.” If this is true, imagine the repercussions it would have on foreign policy as well as the credibility of the establishment as a whole. At the same time, what if this is not true, imagine the repercussions of a small, but growing segment of the population that wants to reverse US foreign policy when it actually will lead to defeat. I know that this is a rather sensitive topic, so I would not be surprised if this thread ends up having some emotional responses.
×
×
  • Create New...