Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

JASKN

Admin
  • Content Count

    2624
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    78

Posts posted by JASKN

  1. 3 hours ago, 2046 said:

    Only if you evade the fact that it is an ad campaign created by white nationalists.

    Speak for yourself. I don't follow white nationalists in any way and imagine their agendas must be as dumb as they come, but I think "It's OK to be white" all the time to myself when I read the moronic public, racist displays of "black lives," "mormon lives," "women lives," or whatever else.

  2. 48 minutes ago, Grames said:

    I haven't seen much commentary on Trump's sense of life, but that is really what got him elected.  His optimism, his vivaciousness, his high energy, his guilt free enjoyment of life and his immensely entertaining Twitter taunts all make him tremendously appealing.   

    And I took you as more of a cynic! ;)

  3. "Fun: 1. Enjoyment, amusement, or light-hearted pleasure."

    Philosophy in general isn't really fun. Contemplating new ideas isn't really fun. Figuring out your course of action isn't really fun. Fun is kind of like humor, the flip side of something difficult. Objectivism can't be "popularized" with fun like a pop song. It's a slow burn from the other side.

  4. 6 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

    If you actually want to have a civilized discussion about this, then I'm all for it, but I don't think you're open to changing your mind anyway.

    But for now I will say that whoever you import has no "right" to vote for a socialist party. Or, preferably, no right to vote at all.

    “Whoever you import”? Like a bag of wheat? Is that what you consider civilized? I hope you realize that most of your fellow Americans are essentially socialists, and prove it with their elected officials from all parties.

  5. 47 minutes ago, Marzshox said:

    The technique I'm going to mention here, is fundamentally at it's core applicable to anyone. And really quite simple!

    The way to do this is to simply choose one route or another without trying to weigh your options or use any logic to guide your course of action. Just make a choice and stick to it, confidently... and feel pleased with your choice even if you have to "fake" it. Just have faith your choice will yield positive results. In fact, pretend it will if you must.

    Just say "I'll try doing it this way" and as if for no reason, do it!

    Once you have made the choice, see how things unfold and when you realize there is no immediate consequence to the decision you made, every sequential decision should be easier and approached with the same tenacity and randomness. Pick one or the other. And just do it!

    I’ve used the “just do it” technique successfully many times - to get over strong mental roadblocks like longtime OCD, to get past overthought life ruts that might be described as indecisive, to find a solution differently when my line of action or thinking has seemed to be totally ineffective, etc. It’s liberating to “just do it” in some totally different direction than you’ve been trying, it gets you thinking in other ways about other things, and it’s satisfying to see different results. Come to think of it, this technique may actually be essential to human progress.

  6. 4 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

    Culture controls the economy so there must be a culture of selfish ethics in order to maintain a capitalist system.

    Though you meant this as we do not and cannot maintain a capitalist system with a good culture, which is true, I believe the statement is also true when read as an explanation for current world wealth -- "this selfish culture MUST be the explanation for why everything is so good!" We have decent remnants of a very good Western Culture, a little piece of which is in nearly every human on Earth, which explains our high modern standard of living.

    4 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

    I believe JASKN's point was that there's no reason to believe such a place would do particularly well economically -- at least compared to a western country like the U.S.

    I also meant in other ways, like with individual mental wellbeing and interpersonal relationships. The past couple decades of Objectivists prove that the philosophy isn't an automatic ticket to happiness. It's simply an identification (as though it were simple to identify!) of what it takes to be a happy human. To your question, some people land on many of those identifications more instinctively (sometimes reading Rand and stating that she articulated what they'd always known), and lead better lives by sticking to it more than other people who read Rand and "know" the identifications, but for one reason or another struggle to apply them to their own lives.

  7. 1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

    Bottom line, I see this as either a case designed to get you to think about how to deal with consent and people with PTSD or other disorders, or a horribly written case that should be "dead on arrival". I don't think we should transform it into a normal case of college sex.

    The purpose of the original premise was to find the lines between rape and not-rape. Your only line appears to be required verbal communication, which isn't practiced in this way by most humans and thus still leaves no plausible rape distinction.

  8. Objectivists are people, too. Best case scenario is that their philosophy is superior, but even that is not a given - do they practice what they preach? Even with a superior philosophy, have they been able to translate that into life success? Can they get along with others? That is, do they have value to trade?

    People are people, too. They're not explicitly rational by choice, they don't explicitly pursue their own personal interests, but in practice, most do live this way most of the time. They are Objectivists to degrees and have translated that into life success, and have a lot of value to offer and trade.

    The world will never, ever present itself to you as the polar choice illustrated in Atlas Shrugged. People are fluid, choosing to change or not change. Atlas Shrugged is meant to crystalize principles, allowing you to make better day to day choices for yourself. It's an exaggeration which will never be a reality, because people have the ability to choose and change, and few of them are all evil or all good. Even more so today, a "band together and separate" fantasy shouldn't be given a fleeting thought, when everyone carries around pocket computers representing perfectly all the value the world has to offer to trade, the world's largest country is heading in the right direction, poverty is low, etc. etc. Why would anyone want to run from that? The world's never been better.

  9. 2 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

    I expect Rand hoped that many more would see things her way if she really laid it out. After all the focus, integration and effort that went into AS, I expect she would have been disappointed seeing that Objectivism was still somewhat niche even years after publication. Still, she had the affirmation of great sales, and ardent students. So, I assume she would have felt that she'd done things right, and that some people do get it, but fewer than she'd hoped for.

    I know I've heard or read Piekoff talk about how Rand's group of close friends and acquaintances were deeply disappointed by the general reception of Atlas Shrugged, and that before its publication they had worked themselves up to believe that it would be something like a cultural silver bullet. I don't remember if he'd grouped Rand into that also, or what he said specifically about her reaction.

  10. 21 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

    Sure, but she had said no, presumably a few hours before, and didn't give any particular reason to say she did change her mind. And then she acted in a concerning. At least as told, she wasn't making any gestures for sex - just kissing at most, which she already said was cool earlier. I'm taking this story as stated. I'm not imagining things that make the story more normal ("but are omitted from this story"). I don't think consent needs to be verbal always, as long as everyone is active. 

    The reason I say Chris acted immorally is that he still knew her stated wishes. Having sex with someone who seems hesitant about it isn't any warm and emotional bond that makes for an enriching experience. "Surprise sex" isn't a way to ease someone into sex at all. Chris knew she was new to all of it, so an honest and prideful way to pursue sex in this case is to talk about it more. Chris can get Sally more interested, find out what she also is eager to try. Going for a surprise is not helpful, not if he wants to be a caring guy or ever wants to have sex with her ever again.

    You suggested Sally has a mental disorder, which isn't stated in the premise, and is not "taking the story as stated." You say verbal consent isn't necessary "as long as everyone is active" - kissing is active. You say a person can change her mind, but that Chris is immoral because he knew prior wishes but then tested for a change of mind. You say "Chris can get Sally more interested, find out what she also is eager to try" non-verbally if "everyone is active," which presumably Sally would be if she is "trying," but then you say that a "prideful way to pursue sex" would be only if Chris communicated verbally.

    Looks like there are a lot of double standards going against Chris.

    And of course, robotic sex instructions like "may I please put my hand on your left breast" isn't how any normal person has sex. In addition to giving Sally a mental disorder, you've moved the premise further from reality by insisting on verbal-instruction-only intercourse.

  11. 9 minutes ago, Wayne said:

    I think that most people who only have a passing understanding of Objectivism only know it as advocating 'selfishness' and 'unbridled' capitalism. I don't mean to imply to 'soften' Objectivism but to stress its advocacy for life, rationality, benevolence and prosperity. I personally wish there were more heroic fiction along such lines. Fiction can have a greater cultural impact than non-fiction.

    I'm right there with you for focusing on positives, but the thing is, these things are only meaningful with a selfish personal foundation. Human life itself is only meaningful with selfishness as its basis. We could argue that using another word would be beneficial at this point in civilization due to knee-jerk negative reactions from most. But it's certainly not beneficial if the reason we're finding another word is to try to change its meaning and purpose just because most people don't like the idea that human livelihood has to be based on selfishness!

  12. An Objectivist would argue that no value can be had after an individual's death, because there is no value recipient. Other individuals may gain value through your work, but it would no longer be possible for you to gain any value yourself. Some value may have been gained while you were still alive by the thought of people for whom you care about continuing to benefit from your work after your death, so you still may wish to take lengths trying to ensure that your work is preserved after your death. But this lesser value only applies to your living self.

    Why had you created your work to begin with? Presumably because you enjoyed the act of creation and seeing the fruits of your labor, seeing others enjoy it or become influenced by it, etc. The catalyst for creation was the benefit you received while you were alive. If you could somehow trade your healthy living years in exchange for greater dissemination of your work after you're gone, the necessary premise for value creation is flipped in theory, and no longer makes sense in practice.

  13. 4 minutes ago, Grames said:

    "I consider myself a citizen of the world" has the problem of looking like egalitarian indifference to differences between countries while striding across the world like a colossus far above the concerns of lesser men.  That phrase is tainted by a bit of megalomania that Rand avoided in crafting her own phrase

    I suppose you can choose your sentiment/summation, Rand can choose hers, I can choose mine.

    5 minutes ago, Grames said:

    So this is the sum of your response, to simply deny or evade the fact that evil exists and that some evil people have and will cross the border of the U. S. to commit evil acts of criminality or political terrorism inside its borders?

    Evil must be stopped. What we have today does not first have that goal in mind. Now that I've acknowledged that some "border" control is necessary, you can acknowledge that today's immigration laws are seeped in racism and are unjust and immoral. The transparent trick is to claim that we're just trying to keep the bad guys out when really they just don't want the brownies in, which is what Trump does (mixed with his "egomaniacal" bullying).

    11 minutes ago, Grames said:

    We don't live in an ideal world and never will in any possible future, to think otherwise denies humans have volition. It is unjust to refuse to acknowledge that some countries are better than others at protecting rights right now.  To value those countries would mean taking action to preserve and protect them.

    Modern America is "ideal" compared to savage eras of human history. The point is you don't reach an ideal by denying its foundation - you don't create a society based on individual rights while violating some individuals' rights.

  14. 17 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

    Lordy, who is engaging in "racists" rhetoric exactly?

    Since I didn't mention skin color, I guess it's you for implying that these groups are only of a particular "race"?

    Edit: Seriously, though, at this forum of all places let's not get anywhere near to the loony practice of shouting "racism!" at the mere acknowledgement of stereotypes, the mention of racism, grouping people, etc.

  15. 11 hours ago, Grames said:

    How do you know anything at all about the people entering the country if they are not to be examined, and what use would that examination be without the right to deny entry?

    This is sacrificing the perfect for the good, making the exception the rule, ignoring the nonviolent norm that is already happening outside of the law, and in turn violating rights.

    11 hours ago, Grames said:

    Well what of your current country of residency, the U.S.?  The rest of the world does not share the principles of America, and so I value the rest of the world less than I value America.

    This is not the point. Ideally, rights-violating countries would not exist. "I consider myself a citizen of the world" is an acknowledgement that there is only one legitimate way for men to deal with one another, no matter which borders are erected or which laws are passed.

    11 hours ago, Grames said:

    And why do you call Trump racist?  Serious question.  Where does this come from?   No one ever asserted such a thing before the 2016 Presidential election season, and being such a fat rich juicy target certainly someone would have taken the shot?  

    The anti-immigrant rhetoric and now action is beyond pandering, he is obviously racist. "Keep dem out! Get rid o dem!"

  16. 1 hour ago, Grames said:

    Self defense is a good moral reason.

    I'll take an immigrant worker over U.S. citizen back-country hillbillies or inner-city career welfarists any day. Anyway, this argument fails because we already have millions of "illegal" immigrants who work and make this country better, and don't go around threatening people with violence.

×
×
  • Create New...