Veritas

I still dont get why in Objectivism I should care about anyone other than myself. What is irrational about taking someone elses life as long as mine is preserved in this view? What if I don't view them as a good ally in thinking rational?

I see in Objectivism the value of not harming yourself, but if your own life is the standard of value what benifit is the life of someone else? Why not just kill them if they are bothering you? What is the objective value in valuing another persons life at all? How does Ayn Rand address this? I was reading a book by George Smith and he mention some of the psychological effects that you take on by harming others, but what if you do not feel the psychological effects?

Can someone give me the Objectivist position on these questions? 1. What is it about the nature of the universe that says that the universe must exist. To give an analogy: I exist but not necessarily. I did not have to exist. If my parents never met I would not have existed. Is there anything that necessitates that the universe must exist? Is it possible that it could have not existed? 2. What do you think of the Kallam argument posed by William Lane Craig? Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Premise 2: The universe began to exist. Conclusion 1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause. Following from this it would follow that whatever caused space, time, and matter to begin to exist cannot itself be spatial, temporal, or material and posits something divine. Thanks

Some had sent me an email stating this: But there are several reasons to think the universe is not eternal, and thus cannot be that which has always existed. One such example is the thermodynamic properties of the universe. The energy in the universe is finite and increasing toward entropy. If the universe were infinitely old, we would have reached a state of entropy an infinite time ago. And yet we have not reached a state of entropy, therefore the universe is not infinitely old. It began to exist a finite time ago. If the universe has not always existed, what has? Given the maxim that every effect requires an adequate cause, and nothing is self-caused, that which has always existed must be the causal explanation for the universe coming into being a finite time ago. What could have done so? Given that whatever caused space, time, and matter to begin to exist cannot itself be spatial, temporal, or material, we are limited to two possibilities: abstract objects, or an unembodied mind. Since abstract objects are causally impotent by definition, they cannot be the cause of the universe, and thus are unlikely to be that which has always existed. That leaves us with an unembodied mind as the eternal something. This makes sense. Not only are we are intimately acquainted with the idea of minds creating things, but it also makes sense of the design and order we see in the universe. An intelligent agent is best explains why the universe is as it is. Since an eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, intelligent mind is what most mean by “God,” it is best to conclude that God is that which has always existed. He is a necessary being, who contains within Himself the sufficient cause for His own existence, as well as the existence of everything else. I am not familiar with cosmological argumets like this. What would you guys say in response? Thanks

But wouldn't you only be able to tell the answer to the proposition by looking outside?

What is this in the Kantian sense? Basically, I am trying to read "The Critique of Pure Reason" and am not grasping what apriori knowledge is. Are there any examples? Is it true? Why or why not?

So in other words... if the supernatural existed it would exist in nature?

Does te supernatural exist? How can a person know whether a thing is potentially knowable or not? How can a person prove that the supernatual does not exist?

So then would't the answer then just be that the reason why there is something as opposed to nothing is because it can't be any other way?

Why is there something as opposed to nothing? Is this a meaningless question and if so why?

This is part of a discussion that was held between an Athiest and a Theist. Here is part of what the Theist is saying. What would the objectivist say concerning this?

Ok, I see what you are saying. Nature implies identity. God cannot have identity and be infinte at the same time. The stolen concept is identity. Is that correct?

They would say that this is meaningless because it is not logically possible. I said that to someone and they replied that illogical statements have no meaning. It would be like suggesting that God make a square cirlce. They say that God acts according to his nature which is "logical". God making a rock so big that he cannot move it they say would be like saying that God could be so powerful that he could cause himself to not exist. God can do only those things that pertain to his nature, which they say is logical. What do you think?

Can you expound on infinty being and anti identity? I am not sure I understand.Thanks

I was wondering if you all would help me with my argument here. Claim: If we exist than God cannot exist. 1. God is a perfect being 2. A perfect being needs nothing external to himself for complete happiness 3. We exist 4. We are something that is not God 5. Either we exist and God doesn't or God exist and we don't 6. We exist therefore God does not I thought of this while thinking about the robot in VOS. When I posted this to the theist he said "It would work, except for the statement, “A perfect being needs nothing external to himself for complete happiness.” First, a perfect being might need companionship and love (like you). Happiness is not necessarily the product of perfection. Otherwise, only perfect people would be happy. (And I am happy and imperfect.) Second, a perfect being might want to create something in His image who could experience His happiness and love (like your decision to have a son). If God is perfect, then He is not selfish; which means He would want to share His love with others. And He would need to create other beings for that." What do you make of my argument, and the response? Thanks

What is the difference between rationalism and objectivism in a nutshell (if that is possible)?

Where does Aristotle's ethics deviate from Ayn Rand's ethics?

Let's say that they aren't arbitrary and the do coalesce. Is it possible to be unhappy then? I am wondering what exactly happiness is. Is it a state of being? Is it simply like a linguistical medal tha tyou get after achieving your values as a runner would get at the end of a race?

Does it make any sense for someone to acheive their values and still be unhappy?

I was just watching a show on TLC about lottery winners. They have gained there wealth simply by luck. What does the Objectivist think about these people?

Why weren't they able to show that? I am just surprised at the simplicity, or even better, the common sense that lies at the heart of Objectivism. What muddied the waters during that time?

Ok, gotcha. So existent can include actions. Ok, so what about the philosophical problem of causality? Is there really a huge problem or is it as simple as all entities are the cause due to it nature, or identity?

Its true that forces are involved but as Peikoff gives the example, if you have two pool balls and you replace the second one for an egg the result is not that the egg rolls once it is hit by the first ball, which would be the case if it was another ball. So the cause of the ball rolling once it is it has to do with the nature of the ball not the force that was exerted upon it. Right?

Doesn't objectivism say that an event can't cause anything because an event is an action and not an existent? If there were no existents there would be no events right?

David Hume says, "When we look about us towards external objects, and consider the operation of causes, we are never able, in a single instance, to discover any power or necessary connexion; any quality, which binds the effect to the cause, and renders the one an infallible consequence of the other. Just so see if I understand Objectivism clearly, I would say that the cause of the thing comes form its identity right? Since every existent has a particulary nature it is the existent itself that has within it the cause right? Hume also says, "There is required a medium, which may enable the mind to draw such an inference, if indeed it be drawn by reasoning and argument. What that medium is, I must confess, passes my comprehension; and it is incumbent on those to produce it, who assert that it really exists, and is the origin of all our conclusions concerning matter of fact. This question I propose as much for the sake of information, as with an intention of raising difficulties. I cannot find, I cannot imagine any such reasoning. But I keep my mind still open to instruction, if any one will vouchsafe to bestow it upon me." Why can't he understand that the cause is in the nature of the thing itself? Why has the issue of causality been such a heated debate? Ayn Rand seems to make the issue easily reconciled with reality. Is her methodology to simplistic or is it really this easy?