Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Bryan

Regulars
  • Posts

    409
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bryan

  1. I'm not talking "as if" anything. All I did was ask a question, specifically what your definition of altruism is. The two choices I gave you are the only two meanings of the word. If you derive happiness from helping other people it's not really altruism; you a gaining a value in exchange for your charity. True altruism is the code of self-sacrifice, complete selflessness.
  2. It looks some of the longer quotes have hard returns in them, if the text wrapping is fixed they should fit fine.
  3. I don't have the time or patience to pick apart your posts like Nick is doing, but I couldn't let this paragraph slip by. What do you mean by altruism? Do you mean: a.) Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species. or b.) Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness. ? What is your purpose for posting on this forum? You denounce communism but advocate socialism. For any productive conversation on an Objectivist forum, it would help if you at least had a rudimentary understanding of the Objectivist philosophy.
  4. Did you see he has his own daytime talk show now? I noticed it when I was flipping through channels the other day, I was shocked. I didn't watch it though, so I can't say anything about the content.
  5. Why would you think that your statements would get you kicked off the forum (maybe for your spelling, but not your statements )? There's nothing wrong with being attracted to overweight people, it's just not the norm.
  6. What about The Fountainhead, We the Living and Anthem? If you're tight on time, at least read Anthem, the story in the paperback is only 105 pages of large print. You could get through it in a few hours.
  7. It appears in the passage that he just used the word existent where he could have used the word entity. Since entities are existent, this is ok. As Gabrial_S implies, I don't think Dr. Peikoff meant this is an all inclusive definition of existent. Here's an example, I see a big dog and say, "That's one big animal." It's ok for me to say this because dogs are animals.
  8. It's very easy for people with the exact same philosophy to disagree on concrete issues. Look at all the fierce debates on this forum. I don't know if Dr. Peikoff and Ms. Rand had a disagreement about whether or not there could or should be a woman president. If they did, I don't find it of very high importance.
  9. Bryan

    Handedness

    If that's not conclusive evidence I don't know what is I'm very dominantly left-handed. I write, throw, bat, and eat left handed. I can play hockey and golf either way. There are a few things that I can only do right handed, like put in my contacts (which actually requires a lot of dexterity) and open a lock with a key.
  10. Exactly, the fact that she is telling this story now says a lot more than the story itself.
  11. An existent is simply something that exists, it could be anything. An entity is sub-category of the broader concept of existent, referring specifically to concrete objects.
  12. After watching episodes of The Apprentice, Trump reminds me more of a Peter Keating than a Hank Rearden.
  13. I find this entire story bizarre. Why would it be so important to Barbara Branden's mother to see her and Nathaniel back together that they would be willing to put on an act for her? It appears that purpose of relating this story now is an attempt to sling some mud at Ayn Rand for allegedly saying "I would have done the same thing," thus spurning debate among Objectivists, as shown in this thread. If she already doing damage control over the upcoming release of this book, there must be some pretty damning things about the Brandens in there.
  14. You seem to be trying to imply that if you put the word cause in quotation marks it automatically has negative connotations. Is this the case, if so, why?
  15. Yes, its called "The Force". If you live as a true Jedi and embrace The Force, you will be rerwarded with its power. Ragnar Dannekjold doesn't literally fight pirates, where did you get that idea?
  16. I recommend using the text from the bumper sticker you sell on cafepress, "Practice Principled Acts of Self-Interest and Ruthless Logic".
  17. Are there more jobs now than there were 100 years ago? If so, why?
  18. Stranglelove, If you take a look at the philosophy of Objectivism as a whole, it will answer a lot of these concrete political questions for you. You can't take capitalism as defined by Ayn Rand and rip it from its philosophical roots (that's what libertarians try to do). To completely understand capitalism, you must understand Objectivist ethics. To understand the ethics you must understand the metaphysics and epistemology. With a firm grasp of Objectivism in its entirety, the political aspects of it become superficial.
  19. Coming up with a standard to measure the addictiveness drug would be very difficult. When I said that alcohol was a serious drug I meant the potential devastation it could have on one's life.
  20. Why did this lady have 6 kids if she could not afford to feed them? If she was tight on cash why was she buying fast food? Freedom to choose does not exempt you from the consequences of poor choices. If the woman and her kids is the scenario that disproves reason, how so? If anything, it shows what can happen due to a lack of reason.
  21. Bryan

    Abortion

    The fetus is dependant on the mother. When you say unmolested, it’s not like a fetus is planted in the back yard and nine months later a baby sprouts from the soil, it takes a lot of effort and commitment on the mother's part for the fetus to properly develop inside her. If she's not willing to exert this effort, why would the fetus' rights supersede her's?
  22. That's very Objectivist response for someone who has just discovered Objectivism .
  23. The refutation is that the argument is arbitrary. There is no evidence for or against it. Until either positive or negative evidence is provided, the argument isn't worth consideration, it is simply blind speculation. I could spend the rest of my day coming up with my own theories about the nature of the universe and they wouldn't be any more or less valid than anybody else's arbitrary theories. Here's one: our entire universe is completely contained in an atom that makes up a piece of hair on the back of a super-giant-macro dog. Prove that it's not!
×
×
  • Create New...