Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jimbean

  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.
  16. Alright, I wanted to draw out people's thinking on this forum in such a way that I could learn from. I will first give you this quote: “Naturally, the common people don’t want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.” -Hermann Goering-the man who, most likely, set fire to the Reichstag My point is that dishonest politicians use and need disasters in order to survive. The planned disasters are even better for them, but any disaster will do for the dishonest politician, bureaucrat, media personality (aka talking heads), etc. This sounds pretty evil doesn't it? Watch out, because where I am going with this will get controversial, some of you may know where I am going with this, but if you don't, that is okay for now. I want to discuss the possiblities and implications of subjects that I will use, using different points of view.
  17. Okay, I will make this clear: This does not have to do with Nazism. I am talking about the Reichstag fire as an example to help illustrate a concept.
  18. Forget the philosophy of nazism. What did the Reichstag fire help do, what can we learn from it.
  19. But the Reichstag fire was an important part, as well as the concept behind it. I am mostly after the concept here.
  20. The Reichstag fire was the one event that greatly empowered the Nazis and allowed for the nightmare of Nazi Germany. Taken this same concept, wouldn't the effect be magnified if the attack was a religious target on a day like Christmas? And what are some of the fundamental differences between *conspiracy theorists* and objectivists (if you chose to give out names)?
  21. There is no law that requires an American that lives and works in the private sector to file a 1040. Many people point out that it was the 16th amendment that requires one to pay a direct unapportioned tax on one's wages or salary. The 16th amendment does not give government this power because the framers of the 16th amendment did not give the word "income" a new definition. So instead of being honest about it, the government along with the central bankers with their newly established Federal Reserve tricked the masses into paying anyway by controlling public opinion. Today, the IRS has built a web of subjective laws and gets every person to subject themselves to something that would normally be unconstitutional by having every American unknowingly undergo a contract with them. Getting into that contract consists of signing a W2 or using a social security number; so when the IRS goes after you, they actually do so technically by contract law, not tort law.
  22. This is coming from a libertarian Ron Paul Bill Gates Martha Stewart Aaron Russo (for the most part) Alex Jones (for the most part) The three people I would not support, nor do I think anyone should support that were on this list (and anyone can debate me if they would like), are Tony Blair, Condi Rice, and Rudy Giuliani.
  23. I like that documentary. It is a nice little way of explaining the problems that we are facing with the Federal Reserve and the IRS. The two things that I do not like about this movie is that it 1.) Does not explain the contract law that taxpayer was fooled into and what makes him or her liable (the real reason why the government can send taxpayers to prison) and 2.) That Russo believes that money should be in the hands of government, when it really should be in the private sector in the economy. Nevertheless I would recommend this movie
  24. That's interesting. You say particular purpose, do you mean rational expectations or inherent quality? The chair in the room is an object that is picked up by the senses and then is subjected when it is called or thought of as a chair. It may have certain qualities that no other object has, but when it is labeled and measured, it is to the mind subjected. It would make sense that if value is objective, then that could explain why the Austrian School’s theory of value works the way it does if one were to go down that avenue. But there is a part of human nature that subjects reality in order to measure it. For example, an entrepreneur cannot make the calculation that a certain product is bad or good, the entrepreneur just knows that there is a demand for one thing and not the other. The more I think of this, the more it confuses me. I suppose this means there is something in this area that I do not understand. This is interesting enough for me to look for those books!
  25. I am studying the Austrian School of economics. I came a cross some legitimate criticism on the Austrian School, particularly on the theory of value. How do you know that value is objective, and if it is, can you give the reason(s) why?
  • Create New...