Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Nate

Regulars
  • Posts

    138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Nate

  1. Kendall, as I stated, I don't view this as a joke. However, I need to regroup before determining if and how to respond. My brain hit the meltdown point for today. I don't mean to imply that you implied, blah, blah, just making this clear. How about this for alarming? "Objectivism and atheism are not synonimous. Ayn Rand was clear on this. The first is a search for truth, the latter is a disbelief in God. She only supported atheism as it departed from truth, but was seeking for truth in sincerity. I haven't read her books yet, but intend to genuinely do so. copperb said: I lament that [Ayn Rand] is so misunderstood and her most fundamental and important points are ignored. The most fundamental and important points to whom?" Maybe this user is on to something: "Perhaps it would be usefull to discuss point by point the fundimental points of Objectivism?" Considering the second point (after existence exists, or possibly third if you count consciousness as a seperate point from->), identity, refutes the existence of god. Although I sincerely doubt I will be able to convince any of these people that god does not exist, I do hope that I (or someone else) can at least convince them that such a belief is NOT compatible with objectivism. Edit: In regards to the above quote, I'd like to elaborate that it seemed to me as if the author was implying that atheism is not a requirement of objectivism. Additionally, I did email ARI to at least notify them of the existence of this site. I'm not really sure what they can or should do about it.
  2. "Your positive assertion that God does not exist ... please prove your positive assertion."
  3. Brandon, did you get my email with questions about your school? Also, out of curiousity, what do you hope to gain from your discussion over at GGO? I started drafting some posts myself. In addition to honing my debate skills, I hope to gain a deeper understanding of how anyone could possibly come to such conclusions after reading a work such as atlas shrugged. I'm curious what kind of responses my using A is A and the primacy of existence will draw. I'm also curious as to whether or not any of these people are (were before this topic) forum members here at oo.net. EDIT!!!: "No, the burden of proof is on he who challenges the assertion of others." "From Cropperb's perspective, that is a valid conclusion. From Heather's perspective the opposite is the case. Both perspectives hold an element of truth." Nevermind, I quit for now. I've fully rememered exactly what kinds of statements are used by those who have abandoned reason.
  4. I don't think it is funny, I think it is appalling.
  5. "I really don't understand how this impacts your daily life." emphasis added, seemed appropriate after rereading my own post
  6. It only goes down to a certain point. I really don't understand how this impacts your daily life. Third time: how does this impact you? what purpose will this have? what kind of pain? Perhaps running would help you? At least that may have some unrelated positives.
  7. ARI doesn't even let you record internet courses you purchase from their bookstore. In your defense, the usual copyright line is NOT present directly underneath this particular course (but is still at the way bottom of the page), and I sincerely doubt you intended to violate terms of use. (for whatever its worth) Personally, I just assume terms of use / copyright is in effect unless I find out otherwise. Regarding the lecture's availability, they usually leave it up for about a month. Hopefully that will be sufficient time for you to listen to the course. If not, you can always wait for the book.
  8. "Suggest that you record the DIM course for future listening. That is what I did. THere is a nice little utility called WM Recorder 11, that will record streaming media directly to native format. Can do multiple streams simultaneously without playing them. I recorded the whole course in one night." Recorded from WHERE? I thought aynrand.org specifically prohibits this?
  9. "I did a whole post on this this afternoon, but the malfunctioning board sent it slinging into the netherworlds." same here. guess I'll have to become a premium member soon to help get this claptrap working. *grin* "Nate has some nice reasoning on a response to his "work for each other" point. I'm coming along quickly. *grin* Also, if he says something like "well, you should consume a minimum in order to be able to continue to provide value for others" then you can also cite the result of the full realization of this "moral ideal". Now you have all of humanity spending the whole of their time producing for "others", yet consuming the minimum they "need". Producing for whom? Fully realized, no one can benefit (as they don't NEED it) except non-entities like "others" or "god". (or in reality, dictators or similar)
  10. I'll take a stab ... "response: but how do you know what's human?" Volition. "1) Let's start by saying a man's life is his highest value - response: who says so? why?" In short: Value - that which one acts to gain or keep Values presuppose a valuer, a standard of value, and an alternative. (Of value to whom? for what? as opposed to what?) For the valuer, man, the fundamental alternative is life or death. Life requires specific action. "2) Because if man chooses to value anything other than his own life, man will, in general, eventually die. This is because he must prioritize his life first in order to do things that advance it - ie, productive work." You touched on several of the things I've stated. My main gripe with this is instead of saying "A because 1, 2, and 3" you've said "A because if non-a, then ..." Also, it is not precise. Man can value things other than his life, but he can not choose other than his life as a STANDARD of value. "- response: ok, but man doesn't have to choose HIS life as his own value. He could choose others lives as his own value .." this is so easily assaulted ... the easiest way is point out the extreme. if his standard of value is other's life, it would be immoral for him to gain in any way from any transaction whatsoever. how long would he survive under these circumstances? "and do productive work for each other." He just contradicted himself. This is TRADE ... this is immoral by the standard of value he JUST gave you. According to his standard it would be "and do productive work for them while getting nothing in return". "3) No because that's not what we observe is man's nature. When I breathe, I breathe into my own lungs, no one elses. WHen I eat, I consume into my own stomach, and etc. In other words, we are - response: that doens't prove it's truly our nature to be selfish" Are you trying to say that their is no such entity "others" ? "4) Well, consider that in nature when we do things that advance our life, we recieve the psychological response of happiness. In fact, productive work which advances our life is the only time we ever receive this feeling (not short-term pleasure, that's a different feeling). - response: flat out denial. Also, it was said that one could be happy by injecting drugs into his system. Some people become happy by different things, so we can't use this to observe our nature." Well, that's because you're wrong. The standard of value operating your emotional pleasure-pain mechanism is not automatic. If you are improperly wired, you might be happy, but you will not live a proper life. That is if you live at all. "- overall response: I'm just using circular logic by assuming that man's life is his own highest value and then using subjective claims in nature as "proof" for my pre-conceived claim. Where did I go wrong?" Circular isn't the word for it, but I see what he's driving at. The concepts of life and value are inseperable. The concept of life make the concept of values possible. How could you seperate them? Of value to whom? For what? Read The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand. Further, make sure the student which you are talking to actually understands what you are saying. It is evident from what you have written that he does not. Also be aware of cognitive dissonance. You are presenting concepts so contradictory to what he has likely been taught his entire life.
  11. In regards to (1): While it may not be necessary to produce in order to avoid death in this scenario, you must be careful to avoid confusing "not-death" with life. <QUOTE>"Does objectivism acknowledge that my nature SIMPLY WONT LET ME be happy mooching? In other words, happiness isn't merely "the product of achieving my values," but it must be the "product of achieving the values nature has handed me".</QUOTE> While (man's) nature determines how your values are to be evaluated, aside from your ultimate value, life, it will not simply hand you values. Life, your ultimate value, is the STANDARD of value. If you choose unworthy values as judged by this standard, then no, you will not be happy. Happiness is the product of achieving worthy values. Stealing and mooching are anti-life. In the long run, it will not make you happy.
  12. David, regarding restitution, I completely agree. You've said what I said in the chat. Although I didn't previously state it, I also agree with the rest of what you wrote as well. Also, charities would likely be established to reimburse innocent injured parties for the disparity between the amount looted and the amount refunded. I guess I should not have used the word immeadiately. Very quickly, relative to the amount of time suggested (several+ years?) that this individual seemed to be suggesting. I should have asked specifically rather than assuming, but didn't even realize that I was making this assumption at the time.
  13. I was discussing the issue of the national debt in the chat and how it would be addressed by an o'ist government. The individual I was talking to took the position that spending and taxation should be reduced gradually. As I understand it, they felt that the choice was between the lesser of the two evils of not paying the nation's creditors and taxation My position was that taxation should immeadiately stop. That this is robbing peter to pay paul, and that looting (taxes) to prevent looting (repayment of moneys) doesn't make sense. I also questioned the ethics of investing in government loans (bonds, etc) in the first place. Where does objective investor think his profit is going to come from? Any thoughts on this topic are appreciated.
  14. spano, sorry ... reread your post and I don't know what I was on because it doesn't seem possible to draw that conclusion from what you have written rational, as stated, I already started a thread on this issue and didn't want to turn the topic of this discussion david, I'd take you up but honestly the last thing I need is something else to keep track of. what do you mean by "enforcement" anyway? what would qualify and what wouldn't? what do you mean by totally screwed ... are you invested somehow beyond these wagers? do you play poker online? even if the government doesn't do anything further, the law is causing harm already four of my online poker account (including my three main sites) have been closed so far to us customers on their own accord in response to this law this includes partypoker, the (formerly) largest online gaming website. I believe they instantly dropped to #3 since 60-80% (depending on who's numbers you use) of their customer's were from the us. apparently 10 states, my state included, have passed antigaming legislation of some kind as well as a direct result of this, but I need to look into this further neteller, the paypal like service used by most casino's has stopped doing business with customers from certain states because they refuse to deal with the restrictions
  15. Spano, what about people (myself included) for whom poker is their profession? You have seemed to assume that no form of online gambling can be moral, although I've raised the question myself in an earlier thread. Anyone hiring?
  16. copyright issues on team america: world police link !?!
  17. anyone hiring? same topic as this thread: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=7707
  18. http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero_pages/tzero_html_home.htm ... very similar
  19. I mean read forum description ... "Basic questions for those new to the philosophy of Objectivism. All threads should be in the form of a question. Topics will be moved to other forums as necessary" Elvis didn't do no drugs! (Penn & Teller reference) (Mod's note: Okay, I've moved the thread to the "Psychology & Self-improvement sub-forum. -sN)
  20. "All topics should be in the form of a question" ... ?
  21. Originally, I was going to compare these two options of definitions, but I thought that would be loading my question. When I stated "What is an appropriate direction or purpose for one's life? The words following this phrase immediately above seem to indicate that a creative goal is man's purpose or direction, and that this somehow leads to his happiness." My thoughts were bascially similar to what you said ... I wanted to make sure I wasn't reading this excerpt from Branden too broadly. Also, anyone reading this shouldn't think "okay, that question has been answered and closed" as seems to happen often whenever anyone gives a response such as the one I've given. I'd still like to hear other thoughts and the reasoning behind them. This just leads me back to the question I asked in the "coping with an ultimate goal" thread... What is a rational value? Edit: Maybe "what is a rational justification/reasoning for a value?" is closer to what I mean to ask. /Edit Again, I will refrain from expanding on this with my own thoughts for now to avoid loading my own question.
  22. Nathaniel Branden's essay "the psychology of pleasure" (in VoS) states ... "Productive work is the most fundamental of these (areas the allow man to experience enjoyment of life): through his work, man gains his basic sense of control over existence-his sense of efficacy-which is the necessary foundation of his ability to enjoy any other value. The man whose life lacks direction or purpose , the man who has no creative goal, necessarily feels helpless and out of control. feels inadequate and unfit for existence; the man who feels unfit for existence is incapable of enjoying it." What is meant by "productive work"? Creative goal / productive work seem to be equivalent here. What is being created or produced? What is an appropriate direction or purpose for one's life? The words following this phrase immediately above seem to indicate that a creative goal is man's purpose or direction, and that this somehow leads to his happiness.
  23. That's the impression I got to, but that doesn't seem to match what the original poster is implying. What do you suppose would constitute a moral purpose ?
×
×
  • Create New...