dark_unicorn

I would assume so, particularly because Ayn Rand's razor (a more formidable version of Ockham's razor) is quick to cut off such ideas before they could even be fully raised. In a debate most seasoned objectivists would shoot down Russell's view long before the other side could implement it into an arguement to refute the potency of the human mind. I've been trying to modify my own philosophical assertions with my fellow Thomists to take into account the problem of viewing concepts metaphysically rather than epistemologically.

I myself have always believed in a supernatural existence after death, but my principle belief is that all of nature and the place/time of it's origin are subject to moral absolutes and an objective existence, and Atheism has never held such a thing as objectivity to be possible. When you think about it, David Hume is a step back to the primitive tribalism that existed before Christianity, to when there was no form of conceptualization, when people acted without a thought process. He is described as a believer, but his philosophy is actually diametrically opposed to belief. He is an enemy of both Classical Theism and Objectivism, two opposing views in themselves of course. The modern Atheist is, in many ways, a throw-back to several Christian Heresies, the most notable being the Gnostics, who believed that all material existence was an evil and accidental side-effect of genesis. These people were the heirs of Plato's "Realm of Forms" and applied it much more consistently to their Christianity than Augustine did. The result was a system that had to portray Christ as being some sort of "half good" and "half evil" being because he had supposedly (I say this with the purpose of remaining objective) assumed form as a human being. Inevitably, if you desire to truly destroy civilized humanity, theism (and I mean the more rational theologies that developed between the Paleolithic era and the Enlightenment) must also be destroyed because it carries with it a tinge of self-interested thought, and with it comes the propensity for rational thought and rejection of self-hatred for the sake of self-love. Immanuel Kant and David Hume are the fathers of the various forms of irrational atheism that pervade society today (as well as many irrational forms of theological pursuit, some of which are found in the Catholic Church). And I believe that every human being, Objectivist or not, should regard them as mortal enemies rather than brilliant philosophers.

Remember that it was StarBuck whom leveled the criticism and no one else, in fact, most of the posts following StarBuck's criticism were counter-criticisms. I think we are doing a decent job at welcoming him to the forum, minus StarBuck's somewhat pugnacious response to his first post.

Welcome to the forum Mashimaro, I hope that you find the answers you seek, I myself have already found many in my short tenure here (though most of my answers came from Miss Rand's books, happy reading). You will find that every member of this forum is reasonable (minus the occasional troll whom will usually be disposed of quickly) and that as long as you respect the boundaries there will not be a problem. I myself do not qualify as an objectivist (Thomas Aquinas is slightly higher on my list of influences than she is), but I have become something of an ally of theirs on political and ethical issues, mostly because of my high respect for reason. Unfortunately you will find that most philosophers out there either despise reason or try to redefine it as it's opposite. Miss Rand is a true advocate of rational thought, and I hope you will keep an open mind to her writings, for they is much in them that you can profit from.

If John McCain thinks he can win by relying on the college vote he is already up the creek without a paddle. The problem with college students (I was one until about 4 years ago) is that they tend not to show up to vote, usually out of laziness. These kids are too busy keg-diving and indulging in the Neitzschean version of carnal joy to care what politician A is doing to thwart politician B. Half these dolts who voted for John Kerry might well have done so because they were impressed by his daughter's bust at that red carpet ceremony back in 2004. John McCain, whom I actually supported in the 2000 Republican primary when I was a college student, is a double tongued serpent who holds true to the moderate/pragmatist creed, there are no absolute principles in politics, only the heat of the moment, the here and now. He spent the past 5 years trying to undermine Bush's measily tax cuts by denoting them as "TOO BIG" and now all of the sudden he's got his cranium immersed in Bush's rectum, indicating both a lack of principles and a lack of pride. Bush may be a bit of a dunder head, but I'll take him over McCain any day of the week, and I am glad that he is not president today. Our next Republican candidate will either be Mitt Romney or George Allen, both of whom are half decent, though far from ideal.

Whoopie!!! Score another one for the protectionists! I would like to state for the record that I think everyone handled this badly. Bush had the opportunity to expose the congress for the morons that they are by appealing to reason while everyone else was rallying for the emotionalist republic, but instead he chose to throw down the gauntlet and threaten a veto before a vote was even called for. The congressional democrats have exposed the 100% racist soul that they have been hiding behind their "multi-culturalist" vaneer. And the congressional republicans and governers have gone the way of the pragmatist (per usual) and voted on the polls of an ignorant and ill-informed public. If this keeps up, I may be moving to the Emirates. God Bless America.

@iouswuoibev and Hal - The mathematical concepts that you are both referring to in order to prop. up what seem to be your doubts about absolute certainty didn't just magically jump out of the imaginations of the ones whom first discovered them, they were based on real objects observed in the metaphysical universe, hense they were based upon the given observer's certainty of reality. Henseforth, in order to draw doubt upon reality's absolute existence, you have to utilize something that is dependent upon it. It's like trying to prove that chalk doesn't exist by using it to write an equation on a black board, which itself may or may not exist, it's completely absurd.

Why does this seem strange to you? Being an Atheist doesn't automatically make you anything else, let alone rational, even if you claim to be a proponent of reason. Auguste Comte was an atheist and he was the man who invented the word "Altruism", which is the antithesis of Ayn Rand's system of morality.

I highly recommend them, I actually mentioned those two (Dragonforce and Powerquest) because they are from the UK. Powerquest in particular is excellent, check out "Wings of Forever" or "Neverworld", those two albums are unbelievable. Actually, if you listen to "Land of the Free", "Somewhere out in Space", and "No World Order" you don't get much of the religious angst, though their latest release is loaded with it. Freedom Call is pretty much the exact opposite lyrically. Helloween is excellent as well, I'm still taking in the complexities of their latest release (KOTSK the Legacy). Their new lead guitarist is actually Freedom Call's former lead guitarist.

Freedom Call, the side project of Gamma Ray drummer Dan Zimmerman. But on a sidenote, I'm known to give the horns when listening to Dragonforce and Powerquest as well.

First photo is me listening to some of my favorite power metal. Second is of me back in high school wailing away on the bass. Third is of me at West Chester University of Pennsylvania during the guitar ensemble concert of May 2003.

I broke with the majority and voted for Ted Kennedy rather than Theraaazzza Heinz, or John Kerry for one simple reason, Teddy boy actually did absolutely nothing to gain his fortune other than be born. Though Kerry and his wife are total twits, they at least had the diligence to marry their money, though obviously not on par with the true businessmen whom actually MAKE money, it is a slight cut above those whom simply inherit their fortunes and act like stooges. P.S. - That incident where Kennedy drove that woman off the bridge with him and then got his father Joe Kennedy (raving anti-semite I might add) to bail him out also contributed to my choice. The fact that this airhead has the audacity to invoke the American people on the senate floor is shameful.

Another thing to consider, apart from the obvious immorality of minimum wage laws, is that they promote inflation. Everytime the minimum wage goes up and businesses hire less people, the government goes ahead and prints more money as if that would solve the problem. If there were jobs out there that paid 2 dollars an hour, I would bet that $2 would come to once again be worth a bit more than it is now, as it was 40 years ago.

Wow, first we had the SA, then the SS, and now we have the HS (homeland security), will wonders never cease.

After researching the links provided by GreedyCapitalist I think I am now decided on this issue, there is no logical reason to try and stop the UAE from taking over the ports, we can only succeed in further making hypocrites out of ourselves if we insist on free trade only with governments who 100% support individual rights (no such country exists today unfortunately). When I look at those grand structures in Dubai, a city that I hope one day to visit, I see a country that may potentially be on the verge of an awakening that has been denied the USA for a long time. I would also like to add that although I have a great measure of respect for AisA's sentiments on this issue, I can not help but notice that alot of his information is dependent upon our State Department, which I have a hard time believing anything coming out of because of questionable ideological dispositions on the part of it's employment base. The State Department has been a thorn in the side of those of us who want a less contradictory foreign policy, as they wish to mirror the wishy-washy nuances of Europe's Left-wing. The laws against freedom of expression in the UAE are troubling, perhaps with time this can and will be resolved. But I would like to add that although we were the first country with the ideal system of self-actualization, women were denied equal rights to men until the early 20th century. I think a little historical perspective could do us all some good. Not to suggest that we should tolerate such laws, only that we should consider all aspects of the given situation before rushing to a decision. P.S. - Can anyone name an Arab country that doesn't have a form of non-democratic government in it (Iraq and Afghanistan excluded for obvious reasons)? I can't come up with one.

I am happy to have gotten a good healthy response to this issue, because no one on the other forums is giving credence to the situation, if Pataki and Urlich had given me the reasoning that AisA had given me, the word "Racist" would not have been included in this topic, but what has motivated both them and their like-minded Democrat opponents is not the principle of individual rights, but this idiotic "Buy American" protectionism. Selling these ports to a government owned corporation in the UAE may not be the best case senario, but the fact that people are using this as an excuse to spread statism by fear is extremely troubling. Besides, we sold our right to determine the ownership of these ports when we sold them to Britain, if they wish to sell it to the UAE and we seize it and say "No", how are we to distinguish ourselves from the Iranians who nationalized our Oil drilling equipment? On this particular issue, I have not neccesarily thrown my support in with the UAE (though my first post might have made it appear that way), but I think that we need a rational debate on this issue, not this insane barrage of political posturing and nonsensical rhetoric that is being vomited out by the talking heads in the Congress. Furthermore, being someone who has spent a good deal of time in Jersey, I would love nothing more that to see the Port Unions have some heat put on them, they and the government have held our Ports in technological stagnation for long enough as far as I'm concerned. This is all true, however, if the UAE can be susceptable to moving away from Islamicism towards a more capitalistic mode of governance by our influence, I don't think we would be helping any Islamic theocracies. On the contrary, with the right angle, we could marginalize Islamicism in the middle east if we influence the right countries.

Governers of Maryland and New York Threaten to block Port Deal with UAE. I would like to state for the record that I don't know all the facts behind this deal, in which the United Arab Emirates will take over ownership of various ports in the US that were once owned by England. Most of my perspective on this has been due to following Rush Limbaugh's take on it, though I have not always agreed with him on various civil liberty issues, he's dead on when it comes to this issue. No one is talking about all the facts that carry merit in this situation, the UAE is probably the closest thing there is to a rational state in the Middle East, with the exception of Israel. Furthermore, from the viewpoint of free trade vs. protectionism, this is clearly a no-brainer. As a former resident of the Maryland district that now Governer Urlich used to represent as a congressman, I will say that he has been a mostly good voice against statism when it comes to local politics, however he is 100% wrong here. When ports change ownership, no security interests are compromised or negated, only the "buy American" and "keep the jobs here" irrationality of protectionism can warrant such a stance. On a further note, I believe that the UAE has provided a more solid level of reliability in dealing with Islamo-fascism than any other Arab nation, and the fact that they have Sheiks and Islamic Clerigy in their country that don't like the USA (as do most other countries, including our own country) speaks nothing for this issue, which is clearly not the same as giving away missile secrets to Red China or not attacking Iran when they took our citizens hostage 27 years ago. Here is a link to the transcript of Rush's viewpoint and input on this issue.

You've got me on that one, but I'd venture that one of the reasons why unreasonable and unneccesary wars continue to happen is because artists don't know how to properly respond to what they see as injustices in the world they live in.

The democrats have been pretty much impotent since the end of the 1970s, there was a delay in them finally being ousted from power in the congress, but their constituents have been in a constant state of despair since the end of the Carter years. Clinton could be looked at as an anomally that arose with the circumstance of an extremely weak Republican candidate in George Bush Sr., coupled with the temptation of voting for someone whom really knew business like Ross Perot, who also unfortunately didn't understand politics very well. Right now the thing I'm more concerned about is whether or not the Republicans are truly up to the task of returning this country back to the course of greatness that it was on before the paranoia that accompanied the Industrial Revolution. I fear they will amount to be nothing more than less potent versions of the statism that the democrats represent, and may turn out to be worse if they are not countered with an ideology that is more rational.

At some point when I have more time we can discuss this on the debate forum, it is primarily my responsibility that this resulted in the beginnings of a debate because I jumped into metaphysical speculation upon responding to your last post. I will, myself, cease and desist on this topic because it does break with the forum's objective goal. But on a side note, I may not be fully in agreement with the Objectivist Epistemology, as I have only read ITOE twice and am still working on Objectivism: The philosophy of Ayn Rand. I concur with the superiority to Aristotilean reason over any concept of faith, and have sought purely rational methods to conceptualizing the universe, though this may not be the full extent of the Objectivist viewpoint on it as I have obviously not come to the same conclusion. That's all I'll say on the matter.

1. Fair enough, I would state the same case. 2. The "because I believe it" has nothing to do with what I was specifically talking about. Speculation on the extent of metaphysics has not yielded 100% proof of theism nor atheism, so to assert that absence of 100% proof positive of one senario automatically implies the other is correct does not hold up as rational. When we've explored ever crevice of this universe and find nothing beyond the basic elements and no evidence of an "origin to motion" and evidence towards a "universe in eternal motion", or vice versa, then we can talk about the error of point of view. Nothing scientific has proven that motion has been a constant, so I am not obligated to the axiom that "because it is" implies that "it has always been". 3. I'm not certain about some others here, but I have not advertized myself as an Objectivist, the only thing I recall stating was that I admired the firm principles on which the philosophy stands, and that I agree with the Epistemology and Ethics implied by Rand's arguement for reason. Furthermore, I can assure you that my affiliation with the Catholic Church has nothing to do with guilt, I geniunely have concluded based on my own deductions that the Objectivist view of metaphysics has some flaws in it. And if my deductive reasoning has lead me to an erronius conclusion, you will find me with zero guilt when I leave the church I belong to in favor of the correct answers to my questions.

Indeed, this educational approach would be essential, but it is also neccesary to elect different politicians in order to accomplish this. Having better educated judge-material is great, but accomplishes nothing if they are not appointed.

I have a quick question in regards to the issue of cults being applicable to all religions. Leonard Peikoff made a distinction between what he referred to as "truly primative, 100% irrational religion" versus "advanced theology" in The Ominous Paralles (I was paraphrasing, I can't remember if he used those exact terms). Was he making that distinction because of the level of reason that is used in Theology (an example being Thomism) versus the 100% faith alone fundamentalism of various Christian sects. under the leadership of ones like Pat Robertson? And if this is the case, how would this affect the Objectivist view of the application of the cult to various philosophers and theologians who mix reason into conceptualizations of a God?

Speaking for myself on this issue, Judicial Activism has become a very generic term that is used by the "New Left" to criticize the Judiciary for stymieing their plans to plant the virus of collectivism into the economic system visa ve the Interstate Commerce Clause, something which should be taken out of the Constitution in my view as an outdated and obsolete act that pertained to a confederation of states, not a union of many states into one country. Likewise, the "New Right" has recently been up in arms over various actions taken by the court, most noteworthy being the Oregon "assisted suicide" laws and "Roe vs. Wade", which prevent the New Right from usurping the rights of Liberty granted to every rational human being. However, Judicial Activism has also been used to Label the horrible result of the "Kilo vs. Conneticut" case, which essentially threatens to turn the US into a carbon copy of Mussolini's Fascist Italy. Clearly we are faced with a problem that is not unique to an out of control Legislature or Executive branch driven by bad philosophy which perpetuates bad ideology, but also ties into the Judiciary also behaving in a tyrannical way and usurping the true meaning of constitutional law. The solution to this problem is not an easy one, one would be tempted to try a coup and then write a new constitution and then give power back to the people the way Pinochet did in Chile, the result being that every socialist, authoritarian dictator, and ignorant proponent of democracy would universally hate you because you employed rough methods to deal with extremely rough enemies. As tempting as it would be to turn the guns that socialists point at individuals to steal their rights and give them a taste of their own medicine, the proper approach is to fight them on the democractic front, argue for a 100% objective constitution, and marginalize the collectivist threat by convincing enough people to vote them out.

1. Yes, I do love poetry and I also compose it in addition to reading it. The primary reason why I like it is because it brings words to a certain aesthetic level different from other literature, particularly ones where the rhythm and rhyme scheme are clearly structured. 2. I prefer to read poetry silently because there are few whom I like sharing it with because most people I know don't fully comprehend or appreciate it. Also, I like to be alone alot of the time, and poetry always gets composed when I'm alone.