Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Olex

  1. Olex

    Eve Online

    When were you in Taggart?
  2. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/modern_art.html “Art and Cognition,” The Romantic Manifesto, 76 Bold is mine. The first image that was shown was a good example of "something piled together." How can that not be obvious?
  3. Olex

    Eve Online

    I second that as an ex-CEO of TTI in EVE Online. Look for the channel TAGGART, we'd give you a good exercise for the brain - in order to get membership, you'll have to write a bit of an essay. That's how we filter the good from the bad in EVE.
  4. This is a form of insult, an indirect form of insult to Ayn Rand.
  5. Yes. See my post above #43. The following is a great and simple explanation of a double slit experiment. http://speicher.com/tew1.html
  6. http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?act=boardrules Has the rules been changed on this forum?
  7. For those who wish to find a simple layman explanation of Dr. Lewis Little's theory, I highly suggest taking a look at the following 3-part article here: http://speicher.com/tew.html http://speicher.com/tew1.html http://speicher.com/tew2.html http://speicher.com/tew3.html
  8. I find these thoughts completely bewildering. Here's why. Let's remind ourselves that this is what supposed to be comments on a physical theory. But yet the first 3 sentences that we see is a random detour that "ttn" talks about various possibilities as to why the author misspelled "Innsbruck." Excuse me? The topic is physics not an analysis of an individual and his spelling ability. How would it look like if you were replying to Einstein's theory and your first few sentences were discussing that he misspelled some word? It would look ridiculous. In a scientific debate one ought to
  9. An objective rebuttal of a scientific proposition or theory should not start with a personal attack and name calling towards the person. One should attack the argument not the person. You've committed the fallacy of ad-hominem. I am appalled that the moderators are allowing this to remain unchallenged.
  10. So, in essence: " Language is just labels that humans hang on things. We as humans can only hope to understand only part of reality anyway. Economics come from what little part of reality we humans can get. Through this tiny amount, we hopelessly try to come up with more labels. First, we come up with an idea, without any relation to reality ( "First there is a hypothesis" ), then we check to see if it happens to match reality, and formulate as much as we can to best fit the idea to reality. Therefore, the 'science' is born. " ?
  11. I don't see it. Entities and their actions are inseparable. So this primacy only exists in your mind when you break them into parts. But in reality it's one whole. So I don't see your point. I don't know what you mean here. Actually, epistemology is in the same position as metaphysics is. So why are you separating metaphysics only? I think you are taking this too far. I'm pretty sure that many people today have a separation between action and thought. So they could act while denying the axiom. Furthermore, they often mess themselves up so bad, that they can't even
  12. Some minor corrections that I think you should be careful of. Be careful here. It's certainly true that there are no "floating" (i.e. cause-less) actions, and that's a decent start for induction to arrive at the principle of causality. But the final argument shouldn't be using that. Causality is really an extension or specification of principle of Identity. In short: if a thing is what it is, then it will act according to what it is as well. Once you say that, then in your argument you ought to provide some concrete examples to illustrate what you mean in reality. So "balls" should
  13. Of course, one idea was built on another idea. But this is wrong. Electromagnetic communication != WWW. Using transistor for switches != computerized communication. Just b/c an idea was based on some previous idea doesn't mean, nothing new was created. I think you missed my point. Of course, one must think of an idea and then make it. The point is that somebody had to invent the idea, which didn't exist before. Otherwise, you might as well claim that Newton didn't invent anything new at all with his laws.
  14. So, there was a concept of "world wide web" (i.e. Internet) before it was invented? Nonsense. That's what invention is - creating something that hasn't existed before.
  15. I would suggest then while reading Atlas Shrugged paying a lot of attention to Dagny Taggart - why she keeps fighting while others have already shrugged - try to stick to every bit of information there to the very end of the book. You could also consider all others characters and see what made them quit. The novel is very deep in terms of how much is going on there. This should give you more food for thought.
  16. There are a few things for you here that you really need to hit hard on: introspection and emotions. Introspection will help you figure out why and how something is bothering you. It's vital to keep asking yourself questions anytime something like this is eating away at you. Here is a link that contains useful excerpts from Objectivist literature on introspection: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/introspection.html Objectivism provides a very important explanation of where emotions come from. The common answer you've been taught is that they come from nowhere and nobody knows how to ch
  17. It's not intrusion that was pointed out. It's that the argument has been completed. From now on, in this thread, it's clear that your position here is a pure rationalist position, which is very opposite to Objectivism. So, all discussion between us will be going around in circles, and hitting the wall over and over again. And that's not the purpose of this forum. (My own understanding, though, I'm not a moderator, but I believe I'm correct.) If you say you wish to understand Objectivist approach, then you have to read the actual writing from Objectivism. I really doubt you can get any bette
  18. I second the review of Moose on the movie. He hit the nail. {Spoilers...} The end was definitely a serious put off. In all previous movies, Indiana Jones didn't end the adventure on his ass because he is awed by what he sees to be so much greater than himself. As Moose said, it used to end with riding into a sunset. But now it ends with Indiana staring at the UFO taking off. That's a quite a way to destroy the image of Indiana as a great man. And I agree, it's not even so much about irrationality or impossibility of UFO existing, it's about a wrong content. I was sitting there in the mov
  19. I don't believe you have answered my question. I was following the stance taken in this thread on the restricting stuff that appears to be non-Objectivist. And I was asking for an explanation on 'why' - not how some mis-application was actually non-application. I'm going to assume by your reply that mis-application isn't the problem. And what is non-application? Does it just mean dishonest conscious attempt to fool? Or is it really really bad application? If you say, it's dishonest, then I already said in my post I don't mean such cases. (Btw, I place that Christian club who stopped
  20. I've been reading this thread and I just can't get hold of the following problem. From one side, nobody on this forum can claim to speak for Objectivism nor officially state that a certain idea comes from Objectivism. All that we can do here is quote Ayn Rand or Peikoff, and on that basis in very limited cases, we can say that X does or doesn't belong to Objectivism. From another side, it is implied that at least some forum members are capable of speaking for Objectivism and are capable of explaining Objectivism to others on such a proficient level that if the other person doesn't get it
  21. Seeing that you present no arguments anymore, but just repeat your impressions of the movie, there isn't any point in going on here.
  22. I didn't complain about the plot's complexity in any way. I complain that it really didn't make sense at all on number of occasions. For example, why did Speed decide to live home? Why did his older brother decided to do it? Why did the older brother decide to hide his identity after the good won? Are you serious? What about parts of asking for a burger right after returning from the hell of being held captive? In my eyes, that was a very serious affirmation of one's values and life as a good thing. (The audience in the movie theater that I was in picked that up as well.) What about hi
  23. Oh, hell no. First half of Speed Racer left me with a very bad taste in my mouth. It was like having to eat lunch where before I get to good tasty parts, I have to first eat something crappy. "Overly anti-business"? Excuse me, but this movie had one of the worst representation of business. It was very very graphical depiction of depravity of business and their lust for money and profit. Geez, in one scene, there were some dudes with dollar signs in their eyes, and those guys were slowly running in the background as Speed Racer was doing his usual business. That was just sickening. Those
  24. Well, I'm done with this topic. I don't see where to go anymore with the arguments. So, I'm just going to disagree with the original statements in this thread by Dan_Edge, and leave it at that.
  25. Let's restart on some point I just had. Correct me if I'm wrong, Sophia. Your point is on maximizing the pleasure in your life by (sometimes) staying with a value that requires less effort, because alternative would mean more effort and some loss of pleasure, right? Now, how about this take: Happiness isn't the standard by which you choose actions. Your life is the standard by which you judge which action to take. So, wouldn't it be wrong to base your action on happiness versus what you think would be a good life for you? EDIT: spelling
  • Create New...