Richard_Halley

Yes, CapFo... you are presenting us "poetry" as an argument that her music is meaningfull. And Daniel, notice that I said "music may be judged objectively," not that it, at present, is.

You are making the mistake of defining Objectivism as: the correct philosophy. It is not defined as such. Objectivism is the name Ayn Rand chose for her philosophy, it is defined as: the philosophy of Ayn Rand. There is nothing arbitrary about identifying something for what it is.

He said nothing about what you think. When someone says "we do not accept x people here," it should be clear that he is only speaking for those who have the athority to accept them there, in this case: the forum owners.

RadCap, as admin, has the right to speek for the forum owners and it is only their opinion that matters.

It seems to me that SOLO is completly undifined, and anybody may be anything (so long as they call it Objectivism) and affiliate with SOLO.

A judgment of music relys on two things, in my opinion: ones hearing, and ones values. Music may be judged objectively. However, since the above may vary from person to person, so may an objective judgment in music vary. As for your example, we may say that Britney Spears' music is bad, since it is meaningless... but someone who values meaninglessness will disagree. And as for J.S. Bach, I find his work simplistic and boring. He pioneered piano music, though, and deserves some credit for that.

Not true, Bush has an established record in regards to reacting to attacks on America. It may not be as good as I would like, but I am assured that he will do something. As for Kerry, we have no idea what he would do to deal with our troubles in the Middle East. Also Bush, despite some major blemishes (especially with regards to medicare), is generally better with taxes and the economy than Kerry.

Your slogan "hits at" what I would argue is the least important fact about capitalism. While, as you claim, Objectivist ethics may be burried very deep in your slogan, they would not be recongnizable to the lay-man, which makes your slogan (at best) ineffective. Precisely, Objectivism is Ayn Rand's philosophy. To call anything which she did not say "Objectivism" would be to put words in her mouth. Imlications, applications, etc... of Objectivism are not Objectivism, they are implications or applications, etc.

The fact that anyone claiming to be an Objectivist would take any part in feminist writing--especially with regard to Objectivism--is utterly disgusting. Furthermore, the title "Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand" implies that Rand is open to interpretation... She is not... she presented a complete philosophic system which may not be "interpreted" into being compatible with whatever other ideas one wants to hold.

This entire discussion is based on the absurd notion that the merit of each institution's depends on how nicely written (and various) its articles are. The important issue is not the quality of the articles but the quality of the ideas. Incidentally, we have a number of discussions explaining why the ideas supported by the Ayn Rand Institute are superior to those of TOC and SOLO...

How is that different, feldblum? It is not necessary for someone else to make it possible for me to bake pies... I may bake pies how I see fit without their making it possible.

You say this: After this: In any case, no Objectivism is not "big on Nietzsche." They share some points of view... but they are seperate philosophies which also often disagree.

Yes, but if one may use an epistemology to view a metaphysic, and come up with invalid concepts, than either the epistemology or the metaphysic is wrong. That was my argument, and so the mixture was correct in the way it was used.

Perhaps a correction of my previous statment is in order... The collected mythology of any given religion points to the wrong values. There may be specific myths which point to good values, but the entire mythology of the religion is no good. I think you need to explain what "tragic world view" means... if it is what it sounds like, than I seriously doubt this statment. And, by the way, losing "faith" is always good. Suffering should be abolished (as much as possible), however, this may not be done by forcing more suffering... Your argument seems to be that, because some people try to stop suffering with more suffering, suffering should not be stopped. An absurd claim. Nobody is arguing that consciousness is omnipotent... Meaning is not created by the conscious mind, but art--which represents meaning--is. If I paint something, it may represent a multitude of things, but I still made it and any attribute it has comes from me... my only choice is whether I am aware of its meaning or not.

The shortcomings are that there is socialism involved. Oh, and also that it is not completely capitalist (but that was implied in the first sentence, wasn't it). Perhaps what you should ask is: what are the shortcomings of socialism?

AutoJC, you must recongnise that a vote for Bush is a vote against John Kerry, i.e. every less vote for Bush means one less vote Kerry must get... I, for one, will be voting for (though not supporting) George W. Bush.

Your first paragraph answers my question... As for this: My argument was that using your metaphysics, I may, through valid epistemology, come up with invalid concepts... This is a valid argument, and, had you been claiming what I thought you were, this would have proven that either your metaphysics or your epistemology was wrong. The "mix," at least, was completly valid.

The fact that someone is unaware of something does not excuse them from responsibility for it. Closing your eyes while you do something, does not mean you did not do it. Mythology (like other literature) is usefull in that it points to values... but religious mythology points to the wrong ones.

It seems to me that this Galton person is here for the sole purpose of posting essays which directly contradict Objectivism. Meanwhile, his claims that he is an "objectivist" are absurd, since he explicitly aruges that ethics is subjective.

I've seen that movie, broder... it was a good one.

Galton... perhaps you do not realise this, but you are in a forum for discussion of a particular philosophy, and one which lays out its objectives very clearly. We, here, all know what we mean by "work."

Here: Applying this to motion, we get nothing potentially in motion may become actually in motion, except by something in a state of being actually in motion. It is true that his reasoning then leads him to decide that there must be a first mover... and therefore possible that he did not intend for this premise to be taken seriously (although his verbiage seems to suggest that the rule applys to all other movers). This is all irrellivent to the validity of his arument (as it pertains to god) though... any arugment proving the existance of the supernatural--something which does not obey the laws of reality--is, necessariy contradictory of those laws. Oh, and it cannot go into infinity. At least not unless there have always existed things, which have always been in motion.

Galton, men have volition... Those who believe in religion do not do so for out of a genetic disorder. Therefore natural selection doesn't apply.

You disagree about what? Do you disagree that this is off topic, or that Objectivism does not accept subjectivity, or that it disagrees with libertarians.

This is off topic... if you want to discuss the supposed subjectivity of morality, you should do so in a thread about that topic. And I should warn you, Objectivism does not accept the subjectivity of anything... nor does it agree with libertarians.