Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

fanofayn

Regulars
  • Content Count

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by fanofayn

  1. I am currently reading Atticus Falcon, Esq's Planet Law School II (of course a pen name), and I was wondering if 1) there are any other members of this forum who are currently enrolled in or about to enroll in law school, and 2) if any of those people are prepping for their 1L year (or did/didn't prep who have any recommendations). I am really excited about the book, and of course want to get the opinions of my fellow students of objectivism as well. (warning: the author is definately philosophically corrupt, but his advice re: tactics and practical methodology seem really dead-on.) A
  2. As a philosophy major on her way to law school, I am extremely interested in studying objective law. However, I find myself in a resource-drought. I cannot find any discussions of or extensive materials on the subject. All I can find are brief mentions of law as it should be in Rand essays. Does anyone know where I can find more information on this subject?!
  3. It's conservative crap. Basically there will be three or four rational statements that only make the rest of it worse because it brings some validity to an absolutely abhorrant argumentative strategy/content. See: "The Anatomy of Compromise" (Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal) Try not to let the fact that liberals are so disgusting get you to the point of being able to like/agree with/tolerate a conservative. They are the ones that should have stood for capitalism and freedom (that which they should have "conserved") and didn't. They are your Gail Wynands. Liberals are mere Keati
  4. Hi everyone! I have seen the topic "Know any good books?" posted many times over the course of my participation here, and I have never been able to contribute, but now I can! DiLorenzo's "How Capitalism Saved America" is the rational person's antidote to Zinn's "People's History of the United States." He quotes Rand and von Mises, and he presents a wonderful pro-capitalist argument in a rational and engaging way. I feel like singing to the world that this book, a history of how capitalism is the ultimate life-giver, was even published and in my lifetime no less! I recommend it to any stud
  5. First of all, when you declare your Kantianism in the second sentence of an introduction, you let everyone on a philosophical forum know the most important things about you. Especially an Objectivist forum, where the members tend to be even more aware of the importance of philosophy than any other philosophical mind might be. Hence, we are not "prejudging" you, which implies a "judgement" based on nothing but impression rather than reason and fact: we are perfectly justified in judging you, and judging you on the most important aspect of your person: your ideas. You offered a character anal
  6. Wow. So reality is only the way it seems to be--to me--because it is more convenient for my little brain to perceive things in such a manner? Is it any wonder you've incurred such wrath on this forum? Please, please don't say that human beings only seem to be individuals seperate from a "single consciousness" (a collective consciousness) because their pathetic, bothersome little ego-hallucinations require such an illusion to continue on. And pretty please, if you must say it, don't say it under the banner of Objectivism.
  7. This is wonderful. It's wonderful because these people never think of the word "standard," and when confronted with it they most often respond with a frantic "what do you mean?!" The horrifying thing is that they really mean the question: They don't know what I mean. But that doesn't concern me too much because, as RadCap and oldsalt so eloquently put it, these people aren't effectible, or as I like to put it--they aren't "worth it." What I mean by that is that these people have nothing to offer me in the way of a challenge and hence there is no point in my wasting time speaking with them
  8. I have been really depressed over this for some time: How can I possibly respond to anti-realism? I am a philosophy major, and there is literally a giggle that goes through the classroom whenever I defend mind-independent existence (i.e. the existence of an objective reality). I am faced with transcendental idealism, Berkeley, Hume's problem of causality and inference, the absolutely disgusting phenomenon of "dialetheism" (a "logic" based on assuming certain contradictions), and countless other nonsense. The problem is, how can I PROVE a mind-independent existence? For example, Xeno's a
  9. The people who argue for utilitarianism, of the Mill persuasion, answered my arguments against it with the following: "The impartial observer"--this is what they use instead of saying "the objective perspective," but it is meant to be the same thing. To an impartial observer (this concept originated with Adam Smith, not Mill, but Mill appropriated it, as did Bentham), every life is equally as valuable as every other life, and therefore no one life can weigh "more" or "less" than any other life. Since an individual values life, and the standard of value is that individual's life, no (rationa
  10. Also, can you email me that article if you still have it on your computer? This (my name here) is my email address, only @ aol. Thanks!
  11. Am I to understand that any violation of rights in any manner or form renders the violater completely right-less; that it negates his right to life? That instead of a 20 year sentence, the protagonist of Hugo's Les Mis should have received a death sentence? I ask because I am inclined to agree that violating another's rights negates your own, but this concept has stopped me, and you seem absolutely certain of it, so please explain it to me. What must the basis of rights be if this is true? Is the basis of rights the fact that you respect other people's rights (in this scenario, that is wha
  12. "the instant one deprives another of rights, one loses one's own, and this applies equally to societies" - y feldblum This isn't true; right here in the US prisoners, convicted guilty of violating others rights, retain many rights, including the right not to be cruelly and unusually punished, so really the fact of being capable of violating the rights of others doesn't mean that you yourself are not capable of having rights. In effect, the mere fact that groups have a great capacity for violating the rights of individuals does not preclude them from being capable of having rights. The quest
  13. I think the problem I see comes from the fact that although a group is undoubtedly a mere collection of individuals, the value created in virtue of those individuals coming together in a group is not by or of any single one of those individuals. It is cumulative. It wouldn't exist unless there were exactly that many individuals in the group doing what they are doing and contributing what they are contributing. Without their status as "group," they wouldn't have the benefits they are receiving, but more then that, they wouldn't have the life they are living. The life designated after some p
  14. I am writing an honors thesis on the topic of independent versus dependent rights schemes. I try to prove that only independent rights schemes are valid, and that dependent rights cannot exist. I defined independent rights as the moral power to execute your will over your body. There was a law professor I was discussing this with who asked me why there are only individual rights and not group rights. He wanted to know the origin of these individual rights/what they are based on, and I said that the original right is the right to life, and all subsequent rights are traceable back to that ri
  15. And these books are to be trusted? They are compatible with the needs of the objectivist philosopher?
  16. I wanted to know if anyone knew of a good objectivist companion to Aristotle (and, while we're at it, the evil-one, namely Kant). Do you?
  17. I just wanted to make it known that I'm leaving for two months and won't really have access to a computer. Being involved in so many of the debates herein, I didn't want anyone thinking I am not answering their challenges, I am merely going to be absent for a short while. I have been having such a great time here and I look forward to the kind of debates AND discussions I will be returning to. See you soon! (Mid-august, to be exact.)
  18. I think it's admirable that both of you are persisting in your efforts to start Objectivist Clubs. I will not. I really wanted to start it for the very selfish reason of meeting fellow objectivists; to be exposed to intelligence, something someone like me is always searching for in my contemporaries. It was not to further the movement, or awareness of Objectivism (although that would have been a side-benefit I'm sure): I do that independently. Having found other methods (this being one of them) to fulfill my selfish desire, I am contented and focusing my energy on other endevors. There ar
  19. It is obvious to me, after reading your post (which was absolutely wonderful and I printed it out to read any time I feel sad about poor little earth -haha- !), that it is THIS point I can't yet integrate. It makes me sick to think about it, but is my problem with environmentalism an example of me thinking the same way those morons do when they say "A hungry man is not free"? If it is, I believe that was the last answer I needed. I don't know how to thank you. Also: Why don't you make that post into a full-fleged article and send it into periodicals? I've never read anything remotely
  20. I think that the way you are describing it, although in different terms, retains the same connotation of two seperate entities: a dichotomy. When you say "mental event" v. "physical event," you are seperating mental and physical, mind and body. The way I understand it is that there is no seperation. Since the mind IS the body (it is a body part), an action or 'event' of the mind is an action or event of the body. (And to answer your question of a different post topic, no, I have never read OPAR, I couldn't even tell you what it stands for!)
  21. I don't think the term "Public Good" is a valid one, either. It is merely the best way I can put it, or perhaps this is better: a Good that all individuals on earth require in order to survive, life being the precondition to production being the precondition to consumption. Now, this is still very fuzzy because it can be applied in such a way as to say "need is a claim" and it most certainly is not. Air, water, food, right? But I don't think that food (or as you have now proven, water) is something that can't be procured through one's own individual effort, so it is no longer something tha
  22. No, not "should." Could. I agree with your entire post. I think you are to be commended for being (apparently) a completely independent intellectual unit. I admire your ability to see the concretes in the abstractions. And yes, I do find pleanty of "proof" of this philosophy solely in Rand's literary career. Christ, she basically lived Roark's career (rejection by 12 publishing houses, ridiculous amounts of sabotage attempts by newspaper columnests and public opinion shapers, etc.). This is where the "proof" stops, however. I have always lived this philosophy, yet only found the words
  23. Since we start from the same premises (as I gather from all your posts), I knew it had to be a matter of opposing definitions. I agree with you completely. Oh, and: Touche! Hahahahaha. I think you gave me a bloody nose with that one. Or at the very least a fractured argument...
  24. I'd never heard of Brook until now. Has he written anything or can you only access his ideas via his public speeches? That initial comment sounds amazing. How wonderful to be able to face total absurdity and laugh at how ridiculous it is to take itself seriously! When I face it, I just want to scream. His method is much more impressive .
  25. It is true that the purpose of Objectivism is not death but life. It is because of this that I feel it would be worth dying for. Allow me to explain: Every other philosophy I have ever studied has been, at its core, death-worship. The motive power, the goal and the means of Objectivist philosophy is not death; the goal of LIFE is not death: it is life. To fight for a world in which such a philosophy (objectivism) thrived, to have that as a purpose would make for a most beautiful life. To live and work for the furthering of Objectivism would be a noble thing, but the purpose of such a l
×
×
  • Create New...