Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About LifeSimpliciter

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Real Name
  • Copyright
  • School or University
  • Occupation

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Baston, MA
  • Interests
    I'm an unreasonable Red Sox fan, love dancing (mostly swing, some salsa), good food, travel, languages, astrophysics, math, Sidney Poitier, Stevie Wonder, Baseball in conjunction with Molson Canadian, chess, shapely women, expressive but intelligible paintings and sculptures (particularly those containing shapely women), cowboy movies, doing a job correctly, happy music, and so forth.<br /><br />There's plenty more, if you want to know just send me down a message.
  1. “If you acknowledge that someone, through their own efforts at creating their own character, is of great potential value to you (which is what liking them means) and then you intentionally reject that value, you are nuts, you are acting against the furtherance of your own life, and towards your own destruction.” Suppose one such person were to argue, what need have I for another person, like-minded or not? Actually, I have two ready examples: First, my father is a simple man that likes drinking beer after a day of work. Our neighbor is the same way, but they never spend time together. T
  2. That is true, but I believe it was you yourself who noted that society and tradition are man-made, not metaphysically given.
  3. “Where does "subjectivity" figure in, if at all?” It is precisely what Kant was trying to argue against. He was trying to tell people that one should not mistake one’s subjective perceptions for objective reality. “This is what you get when you study the Kantianese translation of Special Relativity.” Actually, it is what was proved by Kurt Godel, best friend to Albert Einstein, and when Godel pressed his argument Einstein considered it a great contribution to General Relativity. “On an earthly scale, the differences between time measurements are negligible.” But, importantly, s
  4. Jennifer, I still don’t believe people today understand society that way people in the past did. Localism is not nearly the same as it was, and it is a popular post-Lutheran approach to society to consider everybody as an individual collected on a single plot of land--even Marxists begin their analysis of society and politics in this way, and then bind the people by means of physical resources and government. Pre-Lutheran society did not conceive of people as individuals to be bound together, but began with the assumption of society. It is almost like an irreducible and unquestionable entit
  5. “If so, does that mean we will never unlock the secrets of the brain and how it works?” Perhaps, perhaps not. If, indeed, consciousness is uniquely in humans that cannot be scientifically reproduced, then it seems like something mystical and I have to reject that out of hand. If, on the other hand, consciousness is not a result of physical matter but is still an objective existent (say, it is a second and distinct form of existence that interacts with physical matter), then we should still be able to study it. I have always rejected the notion that there is anything we can even talk ab
  6. You mean the old trick, clubbing her and dragging her by the hair to your cave isn't a good strategy? Bah, if it was good enough for my old man it's good enough for me. I was thinking more along the lines of dating tips, though. What to do and such. Movie and a dinner is nice, but it is a little unimaginative.
  7. JMegan, you may be right, I don’t know. If somebody said on public television that we all exist for the sake of the community, I would be taken aback, but perhaps I’m not in touch with American society enough. I always conceived of America as more ruggedly individualistic than that. I know we have our patches of collectivists, but they always appear to me as fringe groups that hold only a little intellectual sway in this culture. As for my post count, I'm not quite sure what that would do for me. “Ok, but my question was a serious one. When I see you say "...I do believe in the genera
  8. Oh, but Volens brings up a point I've concerned myself with long and hard last year. Did Kant create his self-destructive philosophy on purpose or by accident? He was an intelligent man and must have known what he was doing, but at the same time he said that Hume was the inspiration for his activities in philosophy. Kant envisioned himself as a savior of metaphysics, keeping it from wandering into claims it could never support, and protecting it from the pit-fall of Hume's problem of induction. And yet, everything falls together too perfectly. Man cannot truly know anything, moral good is
  9. “OK, I think I'm beginning to get it. "Time flows differently in different frames of reference, therefore time is not objective"--would that be the basic idea?” Well, we’re heading in the right direction, but we aren’t quite there yet. It’s more of an analogy than it is a literal connection between the Einstein-Minkowski model and Kant’s. In the Einstein-Minkowski model, our very means of perception causes us to believe a falsity--namely, the objectivity of space. Now if we come to correctly understand our perception and how it relates to the rest of the world, it actually tells us that
  10. I love Clint Eastwood. He’s a good-looking guy but what I love most is his integrity. He is perhaps the only actor to have ever asked for fewer lines because he wanted above all to make the art what it should be, even at the potential expense of his own career. But more than Clint, I am in love with Sidney Poitier and his amazing glare. Never have I seen the very image of masculinity, sensitivity, assertiveness, confidence, defiance, and intelligence displayed openly in a single face. He has starred in several of my favorite movies, such as A Raisin in the Sun, In the Heat of the Night, a
  11. If Marilyn Monroe existed today, I'd have a crush. She was stunning, and from what I've seen she seemed extremely sweet. My heart also goes out to her because she was so depressed and tortured in her life, from childhood to suicide--none of which she deserved. Also, she had hips. They don't make hips like that any more. I also think Jessica Alba is gorgeous, but that's the only good quality I've seen in her. Also, Elizabeth Taylor. Stunning, curves all over, and she was a terrific actress who choose very challenging and edgy roles. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof is one of my all-time favorite
  12. Hello there. I think I differ from most Objectivists too. Hopefully it won't be too much of a problem. I think the response that you will or should get about fitting in is, why bother? If someone doesn't like you, there's no sense in paying attention to them. Be yourself and hopefully you'll find people you like. Also, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly was fantastic. I love Clint.
  13. I've been mulling over how proper relationships ought to go myself, since I just got out of a relationship with a Jewish communist. At first I was hesitant because of the obvious reasons: She believed in a god, and a state that would direct my personal and professional life. After almost a month I ended it for several reasons and I now realize that I should have heeded the warning signs. In my defense, however, I am a man and she practically... no, literally jumped on top of me. So I figure that any contradiction in one of the two fundamental philosophical fields, metaphysics and episte
  14. As I look over my previous post, I see a couple mistakes I made. "For instance, according to Kant, the relationship of distance between two points--call it relationship R--is actually a property of something as it exists in itself, but we should assume that the property is the relationship R as we perceive it." This should read: For instance, according to Kant the relationship of distance between two points--call it relationship R--actually represents a property P of the thing-in-itself., but we should not assume that the property P is the relationship R as we perceive it. And as an
  • Create New...