Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Egoistnotegotist

  1. Closed shop unions, for one thing, had begun to appear a decade or two before the turn of the century. Due to their absence in the early 1800s, I would still have to proclaim this society more free than many other eras. And furthermore, I should have been more clear on unions. Their appearance was not the problem, but more that fact that the government would intervene in strikes. The most popular example was the Pullman Strike of 1894, where the government felt it necessary to send federal troops to rectify the matter as well as force negotiations between the executives and their workers. Slaves are an entirely different matter. At the time, it was not sanctioned by the governement. You did not have to own slaves, though many did. As for women, I agree that the disenfranchisement of at least half the population was not a very free ideal, but I would much prefer it over today's standards of business regulation, eminent domain, and foreign policy.
  2. Thank you. I am quite sure, at this point, that he has over-interpreted the theory and extended its bounds. However, there are some points that cannot be refuted, rather worked around. A concrete is something that can be measured, so I think I can safely say that particle distance, etc can be measured. I will have to speak with him again.
  3. Technically, you are supposed to cite both. However, I generally tend to leave the quote as cited by the author, but I will now add that it is said by Francisco and finish off the quote since it has caused so much confusion. Perhaps now we can get back to the topic at hand
  4. I do not think I entirely understand the question, but I will give it a shot. You can live under a collective government and still be happy, as long as you love your life and judge your morality by it. You have to know that those who subjugate you have neither the power nor the authority to do so. When Equality 7-2521 in Anthem made his "lightbulb", he lived under a collective society. Yet, he was happy, even more so than happy, in fact, with his discovery. For the first time (I suppose), he had used his mind to create something, and it made him happy. In doing so, he made the first step towards discovering his true self. Before he could ever say the word "I," that self would have to develop, and it did. When he first pronounced the "God word," I most certainly felt a shift in the mood of the book. It was happy, and not that idea we get in this society from donating to charity, but true happiness. Also remember that, even in a collective society, you have to give up your life before you can be a part of it. If you do hold true to your life as the standard of value, perhaps you will be put to death. But you did not deserve it, and don't dare to call it martyrdom. By willingly holding yourself to life, you may also wonder if that would be contradictory in said society because you would accept death in its place. However, one must also remember that love of life is not the fear of death. Was that an answer?
  5. I dunno. I play on the US Spirestone server (horde of course!). I've never really been offended by anything people say on there, mostly because it's just a game. I can see why advertising that kind of thing would be a problem. I suppose lawfully it's bad or something like that, but philisophically, if they don't mind allowing guilds that promote heterosexuality than I don't see why they shouldn't allow homosexuality.
  6. Of course it is not guaranteed. That would be why the word "consistenly" was added.
  7. Wonderful suggestion! In his mind, I suppose if he perceives it to be something else, it should, right? That would most certainly follow irrationality, if you actually think about it. But of course not one irrational does think of such implications.
  8. Kind sir, Am I to infer from this post that, in the course of your entire life, you have never made a typo? Perhaps hit a wrong and/or extra key? No, I did not believe you had meant to say so, of course. As to the quote, you may google it if you should like. I am sorry to say that I found it on a quotations webpage that could have been wrong, as men are limited by the resources they use. However, it was more than one source that I got it from so I think she may have at least said it once to give so many people any idea that she had said it in the first place. I would also suggest that, in the future, you should not make your posts so inflammatory. A friendly question or suggestion would have done.
  9. That doesn't sound right. In a debate, it's okay to do stuff like that. In a philisophical discussion, out-maneuvering someone is not a victory because that would mean you were wrong and had to lie to be right. Something about that doesn't scream objectivism. Perhaps I misunderstood. However, when I argue, I have to either be able to refute the claim totally or agree with it totally. There is no in between. Im a quote bank fyi.
  10. I am an objectivist, and I have a very good friend that is an existentialist, irrational. We we're arguing the fine points of metaphysics and epistemology, and then we came to "A is A." My friend quickly pointed out that nothing is concrete, using Einstein's Theory of Relativity. I obviously tried to counter with the fact that things are not two things at once, etc, etc. Well, I got this out of him. Particles and such can never be in the same spot at once ergo they are in different lights and appearance to different perspectives so on and so forth. Now I ask you: how do I argue with Einstein? Does anyone have any good essays that refute his theories? I will say this...when every person in a school is told that Einstein's theory is right, no one refutes it. They don't even know what it truly means, but they accept it. Oh how I loathe the American education system! But yes, you try arguing with the "greatest" intellectual of our time and listening to everyone say that I cannot refute Einstein simply because I am not as "smart" as he was.
  11. Yes, life is most definitely the standard of value. For, if you are to hold life as the standard of value consitently, happiness is sure to follow. Happiness is what Man achieves through his life, but it cannot exist independently from life. A man's life is his end, not a means to it, in happiness. Without holding to your life and love of it (cheap Galt paraphrase), you can never be truly happy. Ugh, I think I sidestepped the question a tad but I think that's an answer.
  12. Yes. I guiltily read these books because I enjoy the writing and the languages, etc. However, I too noticed him taking on some most certainly altruistic goals. He never did anything for himself, but to save society, etc. Excellent observation. I actually started reading Eldest again yesterday and I did happen to notice that. The scene with Arya talking about the Quan clan. She refutes their belief in muttering to the air, and I immediately loved her. Somehow I missed it last time. Though, I will admit that ever since becoming an objectivist I read books in a different style.
  13. I should have to agree that this time period was the most free, regardless of slavery. After that, certain presidents came into office who, to my distaste, found it necessary to expand and centralize our government. Their efforts were essentially finished by our favortie socialist pig: FDR. But anyways, this period in time saw a fairly limited government that did not like to embroil itself too much in foreign wars. However, Washington's words would soon leave their ears and the War of 1812 fixed that. As to the comment about monopolies and trusts, there is nothing wrong with those. They did not drive up prices on oil, etc. The government did by trying to stop them. Protective tariffs were passed by the government which, though helping U.S. industry grow some, did more to hinder its foreign trade. Later in the 19th Century, unions formed and socialist minded presidents came to office. There the capitalists got slammed by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act as well as the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Now with the goverment FORCING competition, it had established a monopoly itself.
  14. Not bad at all. I thorougly enjoyed his classical styled pieces, though normally they would have been too soft for my liking. Some of the themes were a bit difficult to discern but overall he is a very good composer.
  15. In an irrational society, all that can be done is to accept it, for the time being. It does not do much good to speak out and destroy yourself, at least not today. We do have the excellent examples of Howard Roark and Hank Rearden, yet the circumstances are a bit different now. I use this quote to explain this: "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." I am still young, and I must obey the nature of the world and learn all about this irrational society. When I am wise and more philisophically in tune, then it is time to change it. All an objectivist has to do is keep thinking rationally, and thus the towers of irrationality will fall, with a bit of hard work. One day will come when a decision must be reached: will the world accept socialist or capitalist views? I, for one, will be on the capitalist side. Each person who choses this thinks rationally, thus undermining irrationality. Each person who choses this will be there with me, and we will be the men who change the world. For today, though, we must continue to wait, because as the socialists delve further and further into altruism, they will begin to turn back. Socialism is not, and cannot ever be, human nature. The rational mind knows this, and does not worry about his own actions ever, knowing them to be right. Neither does he give thought to those decrepit collectives. One day, they will find that they were wrong. I won't say "I told you so." I will say "Welcome back."
  16. AIM- Haldrimor MSN- [email protected] I never turn down a philisophical discussion...especially of objectivism!
  • Create New...