Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

fletch

Regulars
  • Posts

    549
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by fletch

  1. Interesting. I'd like to take a look at your work. What are some of your publications?

    Sure. But since you appear to be incapable of understanding a simple post on a message board, I don’t expect that you’ll be able to understand a higher level article (and one with so many pages!) in an anthology of articles on grammar and linguistics. Besides, I hate to see you spend your hard-earned money on yet another book that you won’t read.

    I am sure that whoever it was that published these works of yours is beside themselves with glee over your marketing skills.
  2. I can give you a good reason for why it could change eventually: the activities of the ARI
    While that cant hurt, I dont think it will be enough. I am thinking that what is needed is more in terms of a personality that can bring Objectivism into the mainstream like an MLK, or a Thomas Jefferson, or a Thomas Aquinas. The trouble is, the space between Aristotle and his rebirth through Aquinas was more than a thousand years. Eventually, someone will pick up the torch that Ayn Rand lit. Hopefully, it wont be next millenium.
  3. Why do some outgrow Objectivism with age?
    I can only speak for myself, but I have not outgrown Objectivism. What does seem to fade with age is a good deal of idealism and energy. The reality of the situation for me is that the US has moved farther from Objectivist principles during my lifetime and continues on in the wrong direction. I see no reason that that is going to change. It is easy to get demoralized when you see what you believe to be the right way forward, and virtually the whole of the planet is heading in the other direction.
  4. Drug abusers, alcoholics, porn fanatics, and wife-beaters all claim that their self-destructive behavior is a result of forces beyond their control
    This sort of thing has always struck me as being the other side of the collectivist coin. Positive things like success, wealth, achievement, happiness are often said to be the result of 'luck' or other forces beyond an individuals control. So it is, in a way, consistent to say that negative things and self-destructive behavior are beyond ones control as well. The whole of society has to share in the wealth of those individuals who produced it, so by the same token, the whole of society often has to share in the blame for the evils of the individuals within it. It strikes me as just another way to melt away the idea of the individual into the puddle of the collective.
  5. If you believe that people behave deterministically and do not have free will or the ability to use reason, you might still criticize someone, with the hope of deterministically "forcing" them to change their behavior
    But how would a person who lacked free will or the ability to use reason be any different than, say, a dog? You can get a dog to change its behavior, but any judgement you might make as to the animals behavior is in relation to your commands. In other words, you would be judging him based upon his adherence to your will, not his own.
  6. Precisely. The strength behind this resurgent Statism is not Socialism. Socialism is the theory that the source of value is society, that the beneficary is society as a whole, that the actions to be taken must be prescribed to the society. This statism is certainly being driven by a theory that men do not produce values, are not the beneficary of their, that they neither choose which values they want nor ultimately decide the actions needed to pursue those values; but it is not Socialism, it is God. It is the idea that all this is ultimately the product of God, and that various measures must be put in place, structured around God's plans, about what God needs to work his magic.

    If that were the case, would it not be true that the more religious a person or nation is the more statist he/it would be? I have found the opposite to be true. In the US, those pushing the leftist agenda are more likely to be secular than fundamentalist. I cant tell you the number of atheists I have clashed with on other forums who reject the existence of God, but despise capitalism and swoon over the welfare state.

  7. So, I understand and agree with all basic outlined parts of objectivism except the whole no God thing.
    If you try to hang on to Christianity and Objectivism simultaneously, here is an example of one of the problems you are going to face: What will you do when your understanding of Objectivism conflicts with you understanding of Christianity? You are going to have to hold on to one and let go of the other. Ultimately, there will come a time when you will have to pit your own judgement of reality against what you see as the all-knowing infallible will of God. Rather than wait for this inevitable confrontation, lets do it now.

    Take Original Sin as an example. The Catholic Church says the following: "The Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses man and their inclination toward evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the death of the soul." St. Augustine, the one who dreamt all this up said the following: "Infants, as true faith holds, are born sinners, not on their own account, but in virtue of their origin."

    What does Objectivism say about Original Sin? Here is what Ayn Rand wrote about the issue in Atlas Shrugged: "A sin without volition is a slap at morality, and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If a man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it: if he has no will, he can neither be good nor evil: a robot is immoral. To hold as a man's sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice, and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched."

    There is no way to reconcile those two points of view. There is no middle ground. Either Original Sin is the will of God or it is a 'feat of evil.' You as a "Christian Objectivist" must now decide. Will it be Christianity or Objectivism?

  8. Besides that, it doesn't really matter anyway what Piekoff, Binswanger, or even Miss Rand herself think and/or thought on this subject (or any other for that matter. All that really matters is what is true in reality.
    That s a good way to look at this issue. So, "what is true in reality" for you? Do you believe that you could voluntarily choose to alter your sexual orientation? Can you make the conscious choice to suddenly find men sexually attractive and not women?
  9. True. But when one attempts to debate without even having read any Ayn Rand yet, I think that comes dangerously close to trolling.
    I think you have a point there. In order for someone to come here and 'dissent', they should have at least some idea of what it is they are dissenting from. It is hard enough to grasp all of Ayn Rand's philosophy even after digesting her material. Criticising her based upon what others have said about her is meaningless.
  10. I actually think there could be money made in a Bible themed amusement park.
    I was thinking the same thing. You could have a "Space Mountain" style roller coaster that takes you down through the hell-fires of perdition. Or you could relive the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Or splash your way through the rapids on Noah's Ark at the "Walk on Water Park." Or ride along with The Four Horsemen as the wreak havoc on the planet. Hours of fun for the whole family.
  11. I can forgive Rand for her essays in The New Left because of the historical context of her writing. The evidence wasn't as clear, the implications not as obvious as today. But to be perfectly honest, she sounded like a fool.
    Well, obviously, having all the benefits of the 'historical context' the 'evidence' and the supposed 'implications' has not helped you identify the real fool.
  12. Is sexual orientation more complicated than most choices made by man because it is directly tied to his physical being as well as his mental being? Yes. Is it more complicated than most choices because most were made implicitly at a young age and slowly automatized in combination with hormonal "feelings"? Yes. But no matter how "complicated" and implicit the choices were, they still must have been choices at some point or else the whole concept of free-will in man folds on itself like a deck of cards. But we know volition exists, and therefore it must exist in regards to man's sexual preferences too.
    At what age do you suppose that the implicit choice of sexual orientation is made? Does this choice that you suggest must have been made at some point bind us as adults, or can we choose to act contrary to this 'chosen' sexual orientation? It would seem almost deterministic to suggest that we as adults are bound to some implicit choice we made as children that has since 'automatized' what we do today.
  13. "As your Representative from the Texas 18th Congressional District, I would support an amendment to the United States Constitution to provide protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception by prohibiting any state or federal law that ignores the personhood of an unborn child. However, since amending the Constitution is an extremely lengthy process, I would introduce and co-sponsor the Federal Right to Life Act. This act would define 'personhood' as the moment of conception. Therefore, all unborn children would be protected without the need of amending the U. S. Constitution."

    I suppose if such an amendment had a chance of garnering the support of 2/3 of both houses of congress and could get through 3/4 of all the states then there might be good reason to actually vote for Sheila Jackson Lee. And that might be only only instance where voting for her was a rational step. But there is no such support for such an amendment, so its not going to happen. It is little more than election year gimmick to motivate the Republican religious base. I am more concerned about what can actually happen as a result of the November elections.

    Obama gave us a taste in his speech today in Berlin:

    "This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many."

    "This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands. Let us resolve that all nations - including my own - will act with the same seriousness of purpose as has your nation, and reduce the carbon we send into our atmosphere. This is the moment to give our children back their future. This is the moment to stand as one."

    "Now the world will watch and remember what we do here - what we do with this moment. Will we extend our hand to the people in the forgotten corners of this world who yearn for lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and justice? Will we lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty, shelter the refugee in Chad, and banish the scourge of AIDS in our time? Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe? Will we give meaning to the words "never again" in Darfur?"

    Now that is scary. And all of it will likely become reality long before Faulk's amendment ever sees the light of day. Its sad, but republicans like Faulk (and McCain for that matter) are the only thing standing between what is left of individual liberty in the US and global collectivism. I admit, that is not very promising.
  14. The story about the motorcycle guy is just an example. Given the opportunity, people will just simply be shitty.

    You might be right about that, but you cannot make policy or law based upon the lowest common denominator. Just because someone, somewhere might do the wrong thing does not mean that we should all surrender our liberty. In any society, free or otherwise, there will always be plenty of people eager to swindle you out of what is yours or cheat when they think no one is looking. All a bunch of layers of government regulations do is give you a false sense of security--thus making the cheaters job that much easier.

  15. Could the same thing apply to a homosexual, i.e. no matter how hard you try, you simply won't find the opposite sex sexy?
    I think that is right. Or, put another way, "Could the same thing apply to a heterosexual, i.e. no matter how hard you try, you simply won't find the same sex sexy?" That is the situation I find myself in. I like females, I find them sexy. I don't care how good looking a guy might be, I wont find him sexy. Now, this is not the result of some conscious choice that I have ever in my life made. It is just the way I am and always have been.

    If the issue is whether or not sexual orientation is volitional or not, it seems to me that this can be proven easily enough. All we need is a volunteer. If someone who honestly believes that a person can alter his sexual orientation through his own volition would volunteer to do so, we could get to the bottom of this. That would entail someone who now finds the opposite sex to be sexually attractive to choose to find the same sex sexually attractive. I would volunteer myself, but I do not believe that sexual orientation is volitional, and there is no chance that if Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie were walking toward me I could ever persuade myself to gawk at Brad Pitt. Its just not going to happen.

×
×
  • Create New...