Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


DPW last won the day on September 2 2015

DPW had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About DPW

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 04/28/1982

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Real Name
    Don Watkins
  • Copyright

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Clifton, Virginia
  • Interests
    Psychology, philosophy, sex & romance, humor

Recent Profile Visitors

2171 profile views
  1. DPW


    Conventional studies don't distinguish between genuine self-esteem and pseudo self-esteem. This is an example of that.
  2. First of all, thank you to everyone who has subscribed so far. The response in this regard has been pretty overwhelming. Keep in mind, however, that the lifeblood of an Objectivist magazine is the articles, and that means we are always looking for writers. If you would be interested in writing for Axiomatic, please feel free to email me at [email protected] Now to the issue... Issue 3 of Axiomatic is now available. Inside this issue: The Rationalist Corruption of Sex by Don Watkins III Some people use sex in an attempt to gain, rather than express, self-esteem. They view it as a tes
  3. Well, just wait until the remedy: if she wins, the doctor has to kill her!
  4. Axiomatic - Volume I, Issue 2 is available at http://www.axiomaticmagazine.com. Inside this issue: Ayn Rand vs. Hollywood’s Self-Censorship – Part 1 of 3 by David P. Hayes David Hayes chronicles Ayn Rand's experiences with Hollywood self-censorship during her years as a screenwriter. Embracing Existence by Don Watkins III While Ayn Rand said that morality begins with the choice to live, she spent virtually no time discussing what that choice consists of. Yet this is not a question we can gloss over. Merely to say, “We should do X if we choose to live,” fails to appreciate the impo
  5. For the record, I agree completely with everything Dave just wrote.
  6. There are a couple issues here. Yes, epistemologically, the choice is to think or not, and to evaluate we first have to identify. But the question is, why do all that? Why think in the first place? The only reason to do it is in order to achieve values. Knowledge is not inherently good -- it's good because we need it in order to live. But this is an issue of perspective. Hierarchically, epistemology precedes ethics. Knowing how to think precedes knowing how to live (it precedes knowing that "how to live" is moral standard). Developmentally, neither of these is completely accura
  7. As stated, that's absolutely wrong. The only reason one should be rational is because one wants to live. There is nothing in reality that demands objectivity except the choice to remain in reality. Outside the context of ethics, outside of the context of life or death, there are no "shoulds." The implicit implication is that man has a duty to gain knowledge, above and beyond his survival needs. He doesn't. But this does not mean that people walk around being irrational until Objectivism tells them morality demands thought. A conceptual being cannot escape the knowledge that reason is
  8. Thanks for that link. It's great to know that all Booknotes interviews are available online...for free! (Even Nathaniel Branden's...Heaven help us.)
  9. Favorite TV shows: Family Guy (most laughs per minute), The Simpsons (most consistently funny show ever), South Park (the greatest modern satire), Seinfeld (no show is more clever). Favorite movies: Mr. Deeds (extremely benevolent humor), Happy Gilmore (one of the few comedies that I've seen a million times and which still makes me laugh), Naked Gun (the only funny slapstick...well, besides Airplane), American Pie (what can I say...even toilet humor works once in a while), The Postman (not technically a comedy, but so bad it's funny), Dumb and Dumber (didn't like it at first, but it turns o
  10. True enough, but grasping which philosophical errors Rand was responding to in certain passages sheds a lot of light on your understanding of Objectivism.
  11. Look at it another way: the claim that a thought is merely a biochemical process makes exactly as much sense as the claim that a biochemical process is merely a thought.
  12. The Lord Radburn writes: That's true. But you should check your premises. Our thoughts are not "simply chemical interactions in our brain." They are our thoughts. They may have a physical component, but that doesn't mean they are reducible to that physical component. In fact, volition is self-evident. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, you can't use complex scientific discoveries, such as the existence of neuro-chemicals, to undercut the self-evident fact of volition. What you are doing is re-writing reality, or trying to. A scientific theory that contradicted the
  13. Donnywithana -- I'm not sure why, if you really didn't think that on some level your escapades would impress us, you would go into such detail on a public board. Let me say that they don't and that I highly discourage anyone else from doing the same. Besides, do you think any of these girls would appreciate you describing your encounters with them in such terms? On the Internet? You made some valid points, but you could have done so without the level of detail you subjected us to. The only reason I'm saying this publicly rather than by PM, by the way, is because you're not the first one
  14. That's a good point. That statement is imprecise. I believe it was intended to mean, "Necessary for your career goals." But strictly speaking, no knowledge is useless. It depends on what goal you have in obtaining it.
  • Create New...