Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Matthew J

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Matthew J

  1. This is really great stuff. I love it. As usual, David Odden, Rational Cop, and Daedalus present the ideas that I agree with most accurately. I'm interested to see where this goes.
  2. Nice to meet you, and twice welcome.
  3. Point in Case: Hank Reardon vs Momma and Brother Reardon.
  4. Excellent stuff, Synthlord. Thanks a bunch for the ideas guys. I've pretty much settled how I'm going to treat the situation. From here, I think I'd just like to know in what cases, if any, an evasion of reality is moral. and If none, I'd like to have a hierarchical proof of its immorality. I'm currently reading OPAR, and though I find I'm familiar with nearly all O'ist stances on different things, and can explain what is moral or immoral, I cannot find the link between the three axioms, and epistemelogically prove them in ethics. Theres alot of things in between I'm missing. So.. any help on this one would help me out. Thanks again.
  5. I am in agreement that an unearned grade is an affront to the standards of education. As to what earns a grade, I've always known that Grades reflected Effort, not intelligence. I test (academically and psychologically) better than 99.75 percent of my peers. i graduated 254 out of 580 in my class. I never much liked this, but I always thought that was because I was smart, and if I werent, I'd feel differently. Now, I'm not so sure. But I do like the things that are being said.
  6. I don't remember my dreams, but do experience dejavu. No suggestions as to why or how this happens, but I simply just take joy in it when I find the experience to be enjoyable. Whatever the reasons, it must be something wonderful.
  7. I'm not concerned about the husband at the moment, but no, I dont think she plans to fix anything any time soon, and theres a few things she can't directly fix. Just a clarification. Please, keep'em comin.
  8. I was not sure if this belonged in "questions about objectivism" or "The Morality of Alcohol" thread, but eventually decided it merited its own thread. Please feel free to move it if I was mistaken. A coworker of mine told me today that she planned to go out to a bar tonight, get drunk past consciousness and hopefully not remember what she did next so she wouldnt have to tell her husband (who is in Iraq). I pointed out that her desire to drink might be rooted in a desire to evade reality. Surprisingly her response of very pointed and aggressive in the affirmative. She agreed that her only desire was to be absolutely unaware of anything and forget for a short evening, everything that was wrong with her life. Completely taken aback, I had no response. What could I say to this woman that would convince her that this was wrong, and would not make her happier, or serve any purpose whatsoever? I could not think of any argument to suggest that could possibly convince her to stay conscious. I want to hear your thoughts on the matter. I do not want this to turn into a discussion of alcohol, but of a desire to be unconcious, or evade reality, so please keep that in mind in your replies. Thank You.
  9. That, is found throughout the book. I've read it and was satisfied. I invite you to read it as well.
  10. Spano, I was not attempting to prove the existence of God. I do not feel it would be appropriate to try to do so on this forum. I was merely defending my beliefs as they were being misrepresented, and did not wish these fallacies applied to myself. Thank you for your forthcoming answer however. I shall only offer one small piece of evidence that will likely mean nothing, as this thread has been devoted to debunking it: If the book of Mormon is true and was translated by the boy Joseph Smith, that would be evidence to the rational mind that God exists.
  11. Okay, and now for today's topic. Momonism or bust. right.. Southpark was oversimplistic in the same way that many are oversimplistic. Mormonism is one of the only religions that does Not condemn a person to hell if they die unbaptized into our church. Firstly, I'd like to establish what "heaven" is, if we care to use such a term. When properly sealed to your spouse on earth in a temple, the LDS faith teaches that they will remain sealed after the resurection. In this way, they will be the only ones able to attain exaltation because exaltation requires procreation, an ability only available to someone who has someone to procreate With. Exaltation, or "heaven" thus requires you to have a spouse sealed in a temple (and yes an LDS temple, as no other church has or claims to have the power and authority to act in gods name). This necesarily requries you to have been baptized in order to meet the demands of justice. God is perfectly just and cannot fake reality any more than you or I can. God, in the LDS faith, Is perfectly consistent with the axioms of Existence, consciousness, and identity, as well as the primacy of existence. He cannot defy them, for then he would cease to be a perfect being, and thus cease to be at all. This paradox is not even worth considering for the impossibility of Such an entity acting in contradiction to his nature. Once a person is baptized, the demands of justice can be met through Jesus Christ by means of a covenant or contract made with the person being baptized, which i will not detail here. this was merely to establish how baptism is necesary to entering the temple or acheiving exaltation. So, in this sense, yes, we believe you must have been baptized and sealed by the power and authority of God which only the LDS faith has, and in that sense you "must be a mormon" to "go to heaven" to be grossly simplistic. However, if you die without having made these covenants, we do not condemn you to hell like many churches do, or as the world believes we do. We have another practice that is often a target of ridicule which is posthumous baptism. We take teenagers, baptise them in the Name of the dead, and the dead have the opportunity to accept or deny the covenant thereby offered to them. If they do so, they will have opportunity to find a spouse after teh ressurection and acheive exaltation. Finally, the depiction of hell as a place of fire, brimstone, and satan being a dude with horns and a tail is completely inaccurate, is a tool of entertainment for southpark, and should not be attributed to the LDS church. Damnation literally means, a halting of progression. That is all.
  12. In the book of Alma there is a man named Moron. So really, that would be a better laughup than Moroni would, if the smear made any logical sense, which it doesn't. I do not know the etymological roots of the word Moron, but I assure you that it wasnt any kind of insult (or in fact a word at all) for the people whose history is purportedly included in the book of Mormon. In fact, if Joseph Smith were intending to make it up and pass it off as truth, he would likely have refrained from giving them such names. Incidentally, at 17 he managed to "make up" over 400 names that are historically consistent, a feat that alone would have taken months or years of research, of which he had none. Must've been a really smart kid that Joseph. Joseph Smith died long before the Latter Day Saints went to Utah. Thats simple history. Also, he was considered a shrewd businessman and had no desire to take other people's money, and you will find no first hand account of his character to the contrary. To attempt to discuss polygamy on this forum would require an accepted premises that does not exist, so I will not attempt it. As for the videos, I actually found, to my surprise, that there was very little misrepresentation done. The points I would especially like to set straight involve the translation of the plates. Of course, the sitting on the floor with a hat was added for comical effect. Also, the first 116 pages of the manuscript were indeed lost by Martin Harris, though not exactly in the same way portrayed in the cartoon. Whether they were hidden, stolen, or destroyed is unkown or unimportant. Joseph did not retranslate those 116 pages (known as the book of Lehi) because If he did, the origional manuscript would be produced with changes so as to appear that Joseph Smith was inconsistent. To avoid this, the 116 pages remained lost. Again, I could continue to defend certain points in history, but I expect it would be fruitless and needlessly contrary. I could not let these few points go Unfixed however. Upon serious study, you will find nothing rediculous about the life of Joseph Smith. Thank you.
  13. Etymology is truly wonderful. I love alot of the stuff you posted. Thanks a bunch. The prehensile brain is a bit of a stretch, but still a neat illustration. Oh, and welcome to the forum!
  14. Matthew J


    Inspector, my comment stemmed from a similar thread about objectivist computer games, in philosophical premises as well as aesthetics. For one, the game is a clear proponent of evolution, versus theism. Secondly, the goal of the game in earlier stages is the advancement of your creature into sentience and ultimate exaltation. Also, simulations games can be very enjoyable to many objectivists when economy and diplomacy are featured. Lastly, the game allows the user to create and design on so many levels (including lifeforms, vehicles and buildings) that anyone with an appreciation for metaphysical life-views in art will likely enjoy the ease with which they will be able to express themselves, and then have these expressions interact with one another. Aside from these, it is not an objectivist simulator in any sense. In fact, I should rather have said that most Objectivists will enjoy this game, and that of the target audience, objectivists will have more capacity for enjoying some of its qualities. Thank you for the correction. Edit: readability
  15. 1: Myself and my kitten, then able to sit on my shoulder like a sort of parrotcat. 2: Books are my favorite presents. 3: DND with Megan, and some guy I forget. I'm on the right, if you werent sure. 4: This isnt me. It's Ewan McGregor. But I still pretend sometimes.
  16. Matthew J


    I got to thinking today... Humans are pretty darn good the way they are built already... but if you were to improve on the design in the game, what would you do? 2 more hands? A tail? lets hear some ideas!
  17. Matthew J


    Will Wright is making quite possibly the best computer game ever conceived. It's called Spore. He thought of calling it SimEverything, but I think Objectisim is more accurate. This game is just that great. You start as a single cell organism, then gain points to get weapons to defeat other amoebas then youre a sea creature then you evolve legs or whatever you like and then you can become sentient. At this point the game turns into a sort of RTS as your small family of creatures competes with other tribes for resources, and sometimes fights. They can then make settlements, which turn into cities. Then the game is more like SimCity as you try to make the people happy. As they grow and begin to compete with other cities, it becomes a sort of risk game, as you try to take over the world, in whatever way you like, with this people you have created and designed every aspect of. From there the game goes from goal oriented to open ended as you begin to take a swiss-army-ufo into space to terraform other planets, find intelligent life, modify, create, or destroy planets, and eventually gain interstellar travel. I cannot express how excited I am about this game. You really have to watch the GDC movie to understand. Here it is. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=83...0559198&q=spore I seriously can't wait to play this game. Thoughts? p.s. The movie is a half-hour long, so beware.
  18. I've never been quite so frightened for my future children...
  19. Hi Musenji, and welcome to the forum. It's always nice to see a new nerd around.
  20. hmm... Yes this is all very fascinating. I'm learning quite a bit about the definitions of perception and how my mind integrates data, but I've still seen nothing that answers the origional question. Though poorly worded for the more literal minded people on the forum, I think that most can understand what kind of information the guest was looking for. What is the dominant philosophy of Americans? I dont know. Ayn Rand suggests it is altruism. For kyle: I am 19 years old, white, male, LDS and a student of Objectivism. I live in Boise, Idaho U.S. of A. I am a capitalist. Thats really all the information I can give you, as I have not a clue as to the philosophy common of my countrymen. Good luck in your search for information.
  21. Holy Crap.... the first time in my life that I approve of something said on Southpark (of course I dont really watch it, so that could be part of it.) anyway, that was very enlightening and entertaining. thanks Eternal.
  22. Wow, some typos are really important. I meant to type "aren't". Of course, addictions aren't diseases and the book defends that premise extensively. Personally, I wouldve rather had that in some kind of thesis or journal and then had my addiction handbook simply help solve problems. Thanks for pointing out the typo.
  • Create New...