-
Posts
323 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Proverb
-
How Do You Show Your Objectivist Flair?
Proverb replied to thejohngaltline's topic in Introductions and Personal Notes
I have a personalized plate here in Nevada: "A IZ A" and my car wears the "capitalist inside" ala Intel Logo in gold on my bumper. Though my car is a horrible blue and is a '93 buick skylark, I still think i've "pimped" it pretty well. ha ha ha -
I tend to think that since objectivism is the result of integrating the rational function of the human brain into a philosophy that it therefor may be considered an 'act of nature' in terms of Intellectual Property law and therefore un-ownable. That's not to say that "Ayn Rand" or literally calling the philosophy "objectivism" isn't protected under the blanket of IP law, I'm not necessarily decided on that. I just think trying to sue someone for being an objectivist because someone owns "Objectivism" and may only will its use like some sort of service is not something that holds up. I merely glanced over the topic so I might be totally off topic here. Off to replace more lightbulbs.....
-
Excellent reply Ogg. I would only like to clarify one point: Dreams and Thoughts are abstractions formed from perceptual level concepts. Also, though dreams, abstract thought, and abstract concepts may seem at their surface to be 'innate' or apart from reality (which many people actually believe is the case) it is only the result of an unconcious automization of deriving higher level concepts from their perceptual roots.
-
I think the issue is very clear when one considers the role of the conductor of an orchestra. Sure, the music is sitting in front of each 100+ persons; consider what would the music be without a director however. Director=Catalyst in my book.
-
Objectivism And The Correspondence Theory Of Truth
Proverb replied to dan_edge's topic in Member Writing
Truth within 'context A' requires the rational integration of the facts of reality within the whole of 'context A' Truth is inextricably linked to both a context and a process both of which are elements of conciousness from which truth is also inseperable. It seems beautifully circular to me. Truth requires Context requires Facts requires Perception requires Consciousness requires Truth. or Fact->Perception->Consciousness->Context(or knowledge)->Truth I'm being very simplistic so I'm not sure I even added anything here. -
What Is O'ism's Attitude Toward History?
Proverb replied to Elysium's topic in Questions about Objectivism
mmm sarcasm. -
When Did You First Read Ayn Rand?
Proverb replied to softwareNerd's topic in Introductions and Personal Notes
I was so sure that I could write a winning essay in ARI's essay contest for high school students that I picked up a copy of The Fountainhead. After Roark got kicked out of the school he was attending, I knew that there was a principle behind it that was worth exploring. Here I am. Ironically I never did write that essay because the actual study of the philosophy trumped everything else. -
Advocating The Extermination Of The Human Race
Proverb replied to Meta Blog's topic in The Objectivism Meta-Blog Discussion
"You're eating people!!!!!!" :-D I couldn't resist. -
Advocating The Extermination Of The Human Race
Proverb replied to Meta Blog's topic in The Objectivism Meta-Blog Discussion
I thought this was going to be a thread about PETA. This is much worse. I guess it's some form of Occam's razor that promotes killing people off instead of finding new technologies that will not have adverse affects on the environment. lol -
Thank you very much nerd! I feel the search option is a little laking and I didn't mean to start a rehash topic.
-
Cling to this principle: There is no such thing as "group rights" as such. If you were to use that concept to refer to somethig it would simply refer to the uncompromised whole of the sum of the rights of each individual within that group. "Group rights" is really an abstract reference and is largley useless when talking specifically about the concept of 'rights'. The only rights that exist are Individual Rights. Which are a direct consequence of the right to one's life. Know this, the concept of 'rights' that you will encounter on this forum is different than the widely accepted absraction of it that is accepted today. By the way, welcome to the forum!
-
When discussing capitalism with people who hold statist principles, besides the fact that I'm usually met with a kind of 'ethical' resistance, I hit a stumbling block when the concept of 'public' property comes up. Saying that it is a contradiction in terms is obviously not a complete argument, though true, and my problem is that I don't know where to go from there. The biggest question I'm asked in opposition of the thought of having all private property is, "who would own the roads?" Now, I kind of have a rough idea as far as that goes: I think that the people who would want roads, for business or other things, would fund and maintain roads while allowing a 'public' person the privilege of using the roads they built out of the possibility of trade and interaction. Again, kind of rough, but I think I'm on the right track. The next biggest question is the that of the ownership of land. I understand that much of the unutilized territory within the borders of the United States is 'owned'' by the government. I also understand that in a capitalist society the government is unable to 'own' land in this fashion. I am familiar with the concept of not calling land "property" until it has been utilized, I believe this is part of the Lockean theory of property. I am not, however, conceptually equipped to defend/discuss this principle. The question I am unable to combat is, "What if someone owned a swath of land that split a major land mass in half or encompassed someone else's property, if that person was not willing to sell, is that not a violation of rights?" I think it's really a matter of understanding the large scale functions of a capitalist society and as they compare to the current state of affairs such as "Public Property." Which, incidentally, is such a contradiction in terms that I am astonished that it is such a widely accepted concept today. I just keep getting bombarded by hypotheticals that continually run around each attempt to defend private property. I feel like I'm missing some important principle in this respect. I think I will Google "Lockean" right now. Any comments will be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
-
I don't mean to interject per se, because I think the dialogue here is very good, but I did want to make a contribution to the efforts here. Consider this: Two people walk into a room and lay eyes on an object that they each have never seen. Being naturally curious, they both proceed to examine the object. (the actuality of the object here is irrelevant as 'it' could be anything) With each avenue of sensation, they have they spend a considerable amount of time 'gathering data' if you will. Being that they are two distinct individuals, the actual 'experience' (sensory data) of the object will undoubtedly be different. The difference being minuscule at most, and unless plagued by an act of evasion, each 'experience' of the object, though different, will not contradict each other nor will they be non-objective, they saw what they saw. The point is that, as rational individuals and the volitional animals that they are, it is very possible that when asked about the object, and thus compelled to convey their sensory data in the form of conceptualizations, the two outcomes may be drastically different. Depending on their scope of knowledge it is very possible that one person may have very well come to a conclusion about the function/use/identity of the object that the other had not. One person may have seen, in whole, every component of said object but was not able, because of some lack of knowledge to integrate their observations into an understanding of the nature of it. This however does not lead to the conclusion of any limit, handicap, or epistemological dichotomy between one or the other's knowledge. It simply plays to the difference in scope of one person's knowledge compared to the other. The reason this applies to this thread is that, to purport that 'perception' is limited by it's nature and thus non-objective or somehow 'unwhole' is to deny the very nature of perception and that of knowledge. It is due to the fact that knowledge is limited (by the context of all of an individual's perceptions and integrations) that one is able to call it knowledge. To claim that knowledge or perception is somehow 'unwhole' or subjective because of the varying degree of details or scope is the same fallacy as a cry for omniscence in order to claim any knowledge of the universe.
-
Under a well written constitution, income tax would be in violation of it.
-
Will this change the fact that when I google my name the top three hits are a couple of my posts?
-
This is what I sent: (Larry Benson with ARI whom I CC'd thanked me.)
-
Objectivist Map Add Yourself!
Proverb replied to Proverb's topic in Introductions and Personal Notes
*BUMP* there's a new interface!! check it out! -
The Objectivism Meme Project
Proverb replied to DavidV's topic in Activism for Reason, Rights, Reality
This is what I came up with right off the top of my head. I would post the attached file conspicuously in some article about the fallacies behind 'public' property. You know we could also find a way to put together some compelling 'popular' internet video that we could post on YouTube.com. If we could come up with the right 'flavor' as it were, we could generate alot of traffic internet.bmp -
I did something that made me sick today. I google-news'd "Wal-Mart Bank" and read the first three articles. When will people learn?! I rarely let statist liberals get to me, but this just grinds my gears!! If/When I have a huge corporate conglomerate, I will take it to the bank, and to the supreme court!!! I digress and will pause for a moment of calm. /rant
-
If I take you seriously, that's a pretty hefty (besides false) statement. I would venture to say that it is more the evidence of the appeal of irrationality to the lazy of mind.
-
Necessary And Contingent Truths
Proverb replied to ontologicalrealist's topic in Metaphysics and Epistemology
I'm not sure what you mean by the distinctions you provide concerning 'truth.' In Objectivism, 'truth' or certainty or any knowledge whatsoever is in extricably linked to a context, whatever that may be. Objectivism rejects any form of a priori, or non-contextual knowledge while also rejects any attempt at subjective knowledge or 'truths' apart from the facts of reality. Again, I'm not sure if this is applicable to the distinction you are making above. However, whatever the case, it seems to be an issue of epistemology, which the base of is very clear cut in Objectivism. -
Free @objectivismonline Gmail Accounts!
Proverb replied to DavidV's topic in Website Policy and Announcements
The next thing on my wish list in this respect is an RSS feed of the newly replied topics that can be read in gmail. -
I realize that there is a thread about the ethics of downloading pirated music at which I am appalled at how long that thread is still going, but I have a question about fair use. If I have bought a CD, am I licenced to copy, reformat, or otherwise change the content for personal use? Essentially, dose the very act of copying a work, be it CD DVD or game, depreciate the value of a copyright, even if I have legitimately bought the work and own personal licence in it? I understand the basic implicit licence that is bundled with most copyright material but should each and every work explicitly define by what standards it may be reproduce. (much like most software these days) Is it even within the realm of law to define a licence? It seems to me, copyright needs to be protected by the people of whom it is interest to, much like a personal business contract, not by vague and Muti-faceted laws that are meant to 'write the contract' as it were. Any thoughts would be helpful.
-
I took the 'shot' at America as part of the overall effect. I think that the situation in England is treated as the last resort for something like what V was planning. As unlikely as it is, in the movie America seems to have already fallen to the same kinds of problems that England is facing and V is treated as the last hope for freedom. Though I would have had things reversed as far as location (because of the current state of things), I think the movie would not have as good of a chance at making a return if the revolution was in America. Though we can't know without asking the W. brothers, I'm lead to think that the market forced them to place the plot in England as opposed to America.
-
I could not stop smiling at the end. It was an amazing movie. Though with the way the movies industry has been in the past years, I'm afraid the average person has stopped looking for messages in movies. V for Vendetta, I my opinion is deserving of the title 'art' unlike almost no other movies in the recent years. I hope they make thier live-action DragonBall Z movie.