Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About eficazpensador

  • Rank
  • Birthday 07/12/1990

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Chat Nick
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  1. Hume (and this author) are only focused on deduction. You can't get from an 'is' to an 'ought' deductively, Hume's right. Actually you can't get anything into a deductive conclusion without it appearing in a premise. For example, how does one get knowledge about apples? You can't get a conclusion about apples from premises not containing the word apple. In reality, we don't get knowledge of apples from deductive syllogisms. We gain knowledge via induction. Rand crosses the is/ought gap via induction as well. As for why criminality is anti-life, you should search the boards. It's been discussed
  2. Yes, the debate will be broadcast from the ARC Facebook page. You'll click LiveStream on the left bar and then check in. You won't need a Facebook to view it.
  3. I guess one can begin by asking the question, 'What facts of reality give rise to the concept of investment?' Rand answers this in the OP's quote (in the lexicon): "nature requires time paid in advance..." That is, production is a linear process where value is continuously added from start to finish. In order to create a high value, one must spend the entire time required to produce it. Or, as Rand puts it: "This means that he is relying on a continuous process of production—which requires an uninterrupted flow of goods saved to fuel further and further production." In order to start produc
  4. I don't know what you're reading but Objectivism absolutely rejects intrinsic values.
  5. I've always been fond of Benjamin Graham's definition of investing: "An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and an adequate return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative." Of course, this definition's purpose is just to differentiate between investing and speculation. I think 'investing' is the allocation of capital such that it aids the production of more capital. In this fashion, owner-occupied real estate is not an investment. Similarly, as Khaight suggested, government bonds are not 'investments.' Another epistemo
  6. Please, don't encourage the stache. I'll contact Matt Morgen at ARI too. I'm sure they'd like a copy and maybe they'll pay the royalty fee. I was looking through the home movies and saw the debate. I was like, "Is that Chris Hitchens???." lol.
  7. You should private message the user 'Gags.' He was the president of the Objectivist club that hosted the debate. Actually, I'm pretty sure we have a copy of it on video at home (I'm his son), but it's from C-SPAN so I don't know about the legality of releasing it/giving it away. Plus my dad had a John Stossel-esque mustache when he was in college which makes the debate so much more fun to watch.
  8. Are you seriously suggesting that hitting someone is not physical force? A slap in the face is a way of communicating? This whole thread deserves one big 'LOL.' You guys need to think about the principles involved in what you're saying! Is physical pain a proper way of communication? Of course not. My wish to communicate my disapproval of something doesn't entitle me to smacking someone in the face! Hitting is physical force. End of discussion. I can't believe this crap exists on an Objectivist forum.
  9. Do you understand what principles you're advocating? If you say something that makes someone angry, you ought to expect physical force in retaliation to your words. Are you an Objectivist?
  10. Why would you like a charity that is influential and effective at doing things you disagree with?
  11. Well, it looked like we were going to have Alex Epstein in a month or so, but unfortunately that fell through. At this point, I don't have any idea when the next one will be. Dr. Brook was talking about possibly having a debate. Any ideas about who a good opponent would be?
  12. Well, I attended. You should have introduced yourself!
  • Create New...