Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


khaight last won the day on January 3 2020

khaight had the most liked content!


About khaight

  • Birthday 01/30/1971

Profile Information

  • Location
    San Jose, CA

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
  • Website URL

Previous Fields

  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Country
    United States
  • Real Name
    Kyle Haight
  • School or University
    University of California, San Diego
  • Occupation
    Software Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

8115 profile views

khaight's Achievements

Advanced Member

Advanced Member (5/7)



  1. The historical chapters in Andrew Bernstein's The Capitalist Manifesto are a good overview of the Industrial Revolution and the Inventive Period written from an Objectivist perspective.
  2. I don't think this is true, at least of her fully-developed ethics -- or if it is, it reduces the significance of religious belief to triviality. The virtue of rationality is central to the Objectivist ethics, and it requires that all of one's beliefs and actions be based on sensory observation and rational inference therefrom. A religion, almost by definition, entails accepting and acting on beliefs based on some non-rational foundation. To whatever extent a religion, even one that upholds a 'naturalistic view of man and free will', incorporates faith-based belief and action, it has a fundamental conflict with the virtue of rationality. The only 'religion' that is fully compatible with rationality is one whose doctrines and prescriptions are entirely validated on the basis of reason -- and in what sense can such a belief system be considered religious? It doesn't surprise me that this letter was written in 1943. Rand's philosophical thought developed significantly in depth, richness and scope as she wrote Atlas Shrugged. In particular, she moved from a political/ethical focus on to a deeper metaphysical/epistemological focus -- precisely the parts of philosophy that reveal the conflict between religion and Rand's views. While an egoistic ethics simpliciter may be compatible with religion, an egoistic ethics tightly integrated to a thoroughly naturalistic metaphysics and observation-based rationalist epistemology cannot be.
  3. Given that there is an ARI Chicago speaker series and a Chicago regional conference going on next month, I have to assume there are at least a few Objectivists active in the Chicago area.
  4. Yes, this is the same documentary. It was aired at OCON under the title "Dystopia Now?" -- apparently they decided to change the title. I thought it was pretty good, all things considered. It's the sort of thing you'd want to screen at Tea Party events.
  5. I won't vote for either of them. I'll leave that slot on my ballot blank, just like I did in 2008. (Not that it will matter on a practical level -- I live in California, and if the Republican candidate is doing well enough here that my vote could impact things then he/she's going to win nationally in a landslide with or without me.)
  6. I've read a report describing some Turkish and Kurdish neighborhoods defending their lives and property against the rioters in what looks to me like an eminently rational response. I think the underlying problem here isn't racial, it's widespread irrationalism and entitlement-thinking in the dependent classes. Some of those are immigrants, some are native-born to the UK.
  7. That is the key point. I would much prefer that, say, John Lewis spend his time working on his upcoming book on the morality of war instead of debating Iraq on some web forum. He'd be happier and so would I. (I do know one Objectivist who used to be an active Usenet participant back in the day. Now he's working at ARI and co-authoring a book with Yaron Brook. I think that's a better use of his time, all things considered.)
  8. I think it depends on the reason for the violation. When one enters into a contract there is a presumption of good faith, i.e. that both parties will make an honest effort to carry through on their obligations. Entering a contract where one has no such intention strikes me as dishonest. If John enters into a contract with Mary to mow her lawn, with a $25 penalty for non-performance, Mary's reason for signing the contract is to get her lawn mowed, not to get $25. If John never intended to mow the lawn, he has deliberately wasted Mary's time if nothing else. If Mary had been fully appraised of John's intentions she would never have entered the contract with him.
  9. It was founded by Greg Perkins. Yes, he's a software guy.
  10. "I'd rather be happy than right." The more I think about that one the more irrational and evil it gets.
  11. Yo. "Transylvania Polygnostic University: Know Enough To Be Afraid".
  12. Try shifting your perspective on the question a bit. Instead of focusing on the one specific, concrete action, look at it from a character-centric perspective. What kind of person would use force if they thought they could get away with it, and is it in your overall self-interest to be that kind of person? There are two basic alternatives. You could be someone who acts on principle, long-range, and accepts a principle advocating the initiation of force against others. In that case, though, you will find that you cannot rationally validate such a principle consistently. It leads to double-standards -- others produce, you take. It turns the rationality and insight of other men into your enemy, because they might catch you. It undercuts your self-esteem because you know you can't create the values you need to survive on your own. It makes you second-handed, because you need to focus on deceiving other men to survive. And so on. A principle that validates the initiation of force against others comes into conflict with most if not all of the principles defining the other Objectivist virtues. If you accept such a principle in spite of all this, you are effectively rejecting the sovereignty of reason over your beliefs and actions, because you are allowing your actions to be guided by a principle that you know you haven't rationally validated. And since reason is your basic means of survival, it should be obvious that rejecting it is not and cannot be in your self-interest. The other possibility is that you are someone who does not act on principle, long-range. You allow your actions to be controlled by short-range desires, out of context, even when the principles you otherwise claim to accept counsel otherwise. This is a much more direct route to rejecting reason. Is it in your self-interest to be a short-range pragmatist? Again, no. One might ask "Why can't I act on rational principle, drop the principle just this one time because the payoff is huge, and then go back to acting on rational principle afterwards? Why does, say, stealing a million dollars now prevent me from being totally honest afterwards?" Simple. If you have really gone back to being totally honest, then you are an honest person in possession of a million dollars that belongs to someone else. What would an honest person do in such a situation? Give the money back to its rightful owner. Obviously, if you do this, you won't benefit in any way from the theft. (Quite the opposite.) And if you don't, then you aren't being honest any more -- you have rejected the principle of honesty on an ongoing basis.
  13. You might be interested in the OGrownups mailing list, if you're looking for other Objectivist parents discussing parenting issues and resources.
  14. "Quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur." ("Everything said in Latin sounds profound.")
  • Create New...