Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Proverb

  1. This is a bit tangential but, having been to the movies lately, I had a distinct twitch of the heart when the trailer for M. Night Shyamalan's "The Happening" ran. It doen't really fit on all accounts but if you take it with a grain of salt you could imagine that whatever "the happening" is could be the event discribed by the disappearence of all the producers in the country ala Atlas Shrugged. I guess it's just neat that this disaster type angle could actually work for an adaptation of Atlas Shrugged. One part in the trailer has the protagonist asking a bunch of train conductors "Wh
  2. I agree with this and wanted to comment on how much of an uphill battle it will be to change the corporate world in this regard. There is a very large amount of positive reinforcement of the idea of doing business anywhere despite philosophical dissonance. There are the shareholders who don't hold a discerning view on doing business in bad places and in my opinion the majority of which are too short sighted to understand the albeit subtle but ominous long term results of doing so. Then there are the business people who are rightfully devoted to increasing stock value, but only in the "dolla
  3. It's important to understand when you are asking a psychological question as opposed to a philosophical one. To me it seems as though you are asking a psychological question in asking if your propensity for exercise in times of sexual inactivity is something that seems to be replacing sex in your life. As I both disclaim any training in psychological practice and offer advice in the area I have one thing to say: We are all rational animals. And in my view, though 'rational animal' is one concept, it's easy to lose sight of one half or the other. Namely, allowing 'rational' to totally
  4. The problem with your question is that it is acontextual. If you ask a question about a hyptheical that has two very different contexts invovled (in this case: knowing only that Trein was on a collision course, and then knowing that there was an astroid that would divert it.) you cannot attempt to ask the same question about the whole hypothetical and expect to get a meaningful answer. In other words: If you ask me, "was Trein ever on a collision course with earth, or not?" You are expecting me to know everything that there is, or ever was, to know about Trein. Which is impossible, I'm not
  5. The Article in Question Things like this make me very happy. It's all to often that I dismiss the idea of anyone but a small group of people having rational ideals.
  6. I understand the analysis going on here but I have to say that, if nothing else, the movie was the most visually stunning movie to date in my opinion.
  7. There are very few things in life that come naturally. No one has to tell you how to breathe, be hungry, or cry for help. These are things that you learn because you are alive and wish to stay that way. Life is a constant adaptation to your surroundings and of your mind to stay in line with the necessities of life. Many people would think this list of things stops at a relatively young age. I contest however that there are far more significant things to think about that come at a later age. Companionship is one of them. No one has to tell you to not want to be alone. No one has to say th
  8. I like this post. I think that you could easily expand it and add a bit more artistic commentary to make it an effective Op-Ed piece. I agree with you in spirit but I'm curious as to what enemy you believe deserves the first strike. What justification do we have for attacking an enemy whom may be tyrannous though not against us? What is the direct benefit to the American people that is drawn from an all out war on an abstract such as "Tyranny and Injustice" which may not directly threaten us. I understand that fighting against these things can yield an overall benefit in the long term bu
  9. Are you saying that a robust philosophical environment is necessary to a robust capitalistic economy?
  10. I'm very interested to hear why you think the material itself is politically skewed. Yes, I understand that it is part of a philanthropic effort by bank of america and that the creators may have a bit of lean to them. However, I feel the show itself is very even-handed and served its purpose of inspiring awe and respect for nature if not simply for the sake of it. I don't think that the series intended to go into the history of the planet but more a view of the planet as it is now.
  11. Ok, it dosen't seem like anyone has actually adressed the question that mb121 is asking, and I haven't had alot of time to read other threads to see if there is a place to read up on this. As I understand it, you're asking "Why is it bad/immoral/evil for a man to steal, cheat, or otherwise mooch off of anyone at anytime if he can get away with it and will not be wrought with guilt?" Bad/immoral/evil is a judgement of morality, which is the measure of an actions fulfillment or detriment to life qua man. Objective morality and judging it is something that requires the highest consciousness
  12. My initial thought process in trying to put a finger on how long intellectual copyright should last is thinking about tangible property as opposed to intellectual property. Obviously, ownership of land or objects is indefinite, or I more rightly should be. I can't however see on the surface why this shouldn't be the case with intellectual property. But, as I think about the progression of time in relation to property I begin to see a bit of a divide between the two types of property, tangible/intangible. If I own a plot of land, it is a clearly marked, tangible and finite object. As time go
  13. It is never, in the context of one's entire life, in one's interest to violate the rights of others. Yes, there may be situations where, if one considers only the next hour of one's existence, it might be in your interest to violate the rights of others. But morality and ethics are the rulers of action in one's life which doesn't go by in one hour spurts but as an entire arc spaning from birth to death.
  14. Ethics and morality are the requirements of maintaining a fundamental choice, to live or to die. A person who is not just sitting in one spot waiting for his body to fail is implicitly proclaiming that he/she wants to live. In as much as this is the case, one must follow the requirements of that life, morality/ethics, which are defined by the interests of one's life. If you go around shooting people you are denying that a right to life exists which forfeits your own claim to it. It is in your life's interest to respect the right to life of others and the consequential rights derived from it.
  15. I take a simpler approach. Consider this. The physical act of sex is pleasurable, at least by those without some physical defect. So for the purpose of argument it's fair to replace "physical sex" with pure 'biological' pleasure as it relates to the chemical and consequently psychological reward system. With that in mind, the hedonist says that sex, exclusively for pleasure, is a value. Consider the consequences: Finding a "sex partner" requires time. Convincing said sex partner requires time (and often money it would seem). The "act" itself takes time (albeit possibly brief). All
  16. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that being a stripper would be all that fulfilling or prideful. I just don't see a reason to think it's all that bad. Arousal for one thing isn't some kind of purley biological reaction, like that of goosebumps or blinking on a windy day. Even if it's only a visual stimulus it's not separated from rational value jugdements or from the mind; and in my view is not something that is immoral to value in at least some respect albeit small. I just don't see how you can drop the gavel on all sexual arousal/situations/actions that are not part of the one on one
  17. These two points are dripping with assumptions. I know quite a few women that, despite their better than average physique, would have no ability or potential as a stripper. My point is how do you assume that being a stripper is not a pursuit of the ability or potential of one's self? I, for one think that it would take an acute level of ability to fulfill the role. another blathering assumption in this context All but supported here. Don't get me wrong here. I don't mean to be short, only to point out what you have not said. Also, I have seen some seedy and worthless
  18. My workplace just implemented THIS system. It seems to me to be one of the most innovative approach to locking something up to date. The power is in the key and is used to activate a passive electronic lock cylinder that is compatible with the most common lock cylinders today. You can use a PIN to activate the key for the day at a keypad for added security or it can be a continuous use key. I think I'll use this system for my home someday. Especially with this method coming into view.
  19. I must say, that in addition to placing an alarm across the room (which I recommend to anyone who has to use an alarm in the first place) I personally never go to bed without at least 7.5 hrs between the time I turn off the light and the time my alarm is set. I have done this since highschool and I would say, on average, that I wake up on my own and turn off my alarm within ten minutes of it going off at least 80% of the time. I view my alarm as a safegaurd rather than a means to waking up.
  20. Isn't it nice to see some political entity somewhere taking a decisive position on any issue?
  21. This "Labling" issue, which really seems to be a precursor to the 'whose reality' problem, is one symptom of not understanding the difference between an ostensive definition and a conceptual definition. Some thing that requires an ostensive definition is something at which you have to point and say, "that." This is particularly true in obtaining a sense of color. I find the issue of color particularly facinating however becuase of the rate at which, when first learning 'color', one progresses past the ostensive level to a conceptual level. For example, when you see red for the first time it
  22. Why not just come out and ban 'em. Oh wait, they know that most people would say that that's crossing the line. After all, congress critters eat McDonalds too!
  23. I think that the easiest and most efficient way to describe when it is morally justified to kill bystandards is as follows: The killing of 'innocent' (as in wrong-place-wrong-time kind of innocent, and/or pacifist-objectioner innocent) bystandards should not be a consideration in a course of action when, that consideration would interfere or hamper in any way, the removal of an immediate threat to your life in the most efficent way possible in a given situation. To include that consideration in said context would be immoral as it would constitute a belief/support in a self-sacrificial/a
  24. Does this mean we should have ads on television saying how we should not prosecute cigarette companies and should support individual rights? Should we also film it like it was filmed on a cell phone? Gaaaaah, do we really need another 'chic' "T"-word ad campain with pages in magazines that fall out on purpose? That would not be desirable methinks. ;-)
  • Create New...