Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

athena glaukopis

Regulars
  • Posts

    257
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by athena glaukopis

  1. Like I said earlier, without the context, the answers to your questions would be dropped into a disintegrated void. If I were to keep answering the additional questions that would spawn from my answers, I would end up having to explain Objectivism backwards, from politics to ethics to epistemology and finally backwards to metaphysics. That would take a shit-load of time for me, and would honestly have nothing to gain by doing so, especially since (like I mentioned before) all of these answers are in Rand's works, set up in a coherent manner, starting from the most basic axioms of reality and building upon it piece by piece, so by the time you get to politics, you can see why (and if) the answers are objectively true and moral. I would keep in mind that Objectivism is a philosophical system, and politics is the second to last category of philosophy, hierarchically. So asking questions about politics without truly understanding the philosophical basis behind the political stances will not help you understand the stances, and like I said, would only force you through the philosophy backwards, which is cumbersome, disintegrated, and infinitely less effective then starting from the ground up and checking your premises every step of the way. In terms of being "un biased," there is no value in trying to explain a high-level philosophical concept to someone who is ignorant of logical progression of the concepts that make up its base and connect it to the facts of reality. It's like trying to teach calculus to someone who hasn't taken algebra, trigonometry or pre-calculus yet. Most members of this forum will not be patient enough to answer questions that can be easily answered by reading Rand's non-fiction, so don't be surprised if you get little response or even negative responses, because honestly it's a waste of our time when the tools are already there for you to use and understand on your own.
  2. From the nature of your questions, it seems to me like you don't really know what Rand's ideas are, their full scope, application, or the philosophical basis for them. (No offence, just an impartial observation) Unless you understand the philosophy as a unified whole, the answer to specific questions like "what about public schools?" will just fall into a disintegrated void and not make any sense. I would suggest reading everything that Ayn has to say on a particular subject in question, and then come here if you need further clarification. She is the creator of a unified philosophy and wrote it more clearly and eloquently then we can here.. she created it! Plus, it will save us all time here at the forum answering questions that are already written and bound, waiting for you to read. The Ayn Rand Lexicon that I linked you to above will certainly give you some fat to chew on if you can't get out and buy (or rent from the library) her books any time soon, plus the quotes in the lexicon will indicate what essay they are from, so it might help lead you to the right essays.
  3. I met my mate through The Atlasphere, a dating website for Ayn Rand admirers
  4. Capitalism does not include forcing people to do "what is best for them" whether it is making a law that you have to wear your seatbelt, or outlawing the ability to put drugs in your body. That is infringing on the right to property (of their body, of their cars, and of their drug filled seringes) and life (and ability to live it recklessly or even to lose it through recklessness) On top of that, stopping the sales, purchase, or intake of those drugs would fall under economic control, which I've already explained is not included. Private companies would. They would crop up because of the demand of other companies looking for a legitimate and trustworthy third-party to ensure to their customers that the standard of quality of their product is high, making the chances of business success much higher (a customer would more likely buy from a company who has the seal of quality from a reputable company than a competitor that did not). A great example of how this would work in a free market is the company that doles out "fair trade" seals, they have an objective standard that is available to the customers, and a recognizable seal to look for on products, and getting that seal is in the self-interest of the companies looking to get the business of responsible consumers. Another example is the Jewish community and their standards and seals for "kosher" foods Again, No government intervention in the economy; it is my right to use my property (my money) to conduct trade with whomever I want, whether they're in this country or out of it The term "public property" is a contradiction in terms. Property cannot be owned by the public, only individuals (or groups of consenting individuals). Regardless, because it is only the job of the gov't to protect the rights of its citizens, anything outside of that job is a misuse of power (and taxpayer money), but this one is explained in "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal" and also a few posts on this forum and would take too long to explain here All privatized. it's not the gov'ts job to steal property from its citizens (via taxes) to pay for these things, which are not included in man's rights. There would be a whole lot more charity if people were able to keep all of their tax money. If the gov't wasn't already forcing us all to donate to "charities" known as social security, public schools, socialized medicine, parks, welfare, etc etc etc there would be more incentive for the "socially minded" to donate to charities (and like i said, they would be able to use what is now taxed money towards the charities of their choice) These are just short, quick responses, but I would suggest picking up some of AR's non-fiction (especially "Capitalism: The Unkown Ideal" and if that isn't enough, Andrew Bernstein's "Capitalist Manifesto" if you are still interested in Capitalism in theory and in practice after reading "Capitalism; tUI")
  5. Then by your own admission, there is no possibility of proof of God, so there is no way to say "If you can find a rational reason.." because there is nothing in reality that could garnish that option. That's like saying "Its perfectly moral to be immoral if you can concoct some sort of half-assed flimsy logic to 'prove' that A is not A!" but you can't, and any kind of suggestion that you can is at best wrong and at worst completely immoral. I would suggest refraining from making any statements that could be construed as being an evasive, irrational loophole to hold mystical (or any other kind of irrational) beliefs, in case a newb takes it as an honest suggestion.
  6. This is absolutely not a position congruent with the philosophy of Objectivism. Because there is no proof in reality of the existence of God, there is no possible way for finding a "rational" reason for believing in God. To say that there could be is an evasion of the facts of reality. PS; Proofs of existence do not include any imagees of any of the holy trinity (or Mary) on a piece of toast, tortilla, or other foodstuffs
  7. there has never been a society that is "capitalist," only mixed economies. In Objectivism, Capitalism means a government that has absolutely NO jurisdiction or control over the economy whatsoever. Capitalism means "free markets," where the economy regulates itself, without any any any any control by the government to any degree. That being said, lets move on to your example: Like I pointed out before, if there has been no proper Capitalist country, so corporations have not been able to get big due to capitalism. Some of the biggest businesses (but not all!) in a mixed economy get big through getting in bed with the government, (which you are alluding to in this example) -- Objectivism considers this immoral and an infringement of man's rights and NOT part of the concept of "free market" The example you put forward be impossible in a Capitalist society because the government would have no economic power to flex whatsoever, so the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY for the business to get big is through their own ability to create products that the customer wants, because the government would not have the power to "help" them with laws, subsidies, etc. In short, the example you put forward would never be able to happen in a capitalist country because the government would not have the power to pass any such law restricting business activity. Here are some helpful links to Ayn Rand's quotes about Capitalism straight from her non-fiction (including "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" mentioned by someone above) and related issues that would interest you on the topic: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/mixedeconomy.html <-- read this one especially, because you are conflating the concept of "capitalism" with "mixed economy http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/freemarket.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/interventionism.html
  8. I think this is a viral marketing campaign for.. something, maybe a movie or a tv show coming out soon?
  9. Oscar Wilde was British, so Burgess didn't translate it (at least not into English) but he did write an Introduction for a Penguin edition of the novel.
  10. You go, Rational Biker!! WOOT!
  11. Jean Moroney (Harry Binswanger's wife) is a lecturer on effective business thinking, and has some book recommendations on her website here that might be what you're looking for... especially Barbara Sher's "I could do anything if I only knew what it was" There are also some seriously great lectures on CD that you can buy from the ayn rand bookstore, more specifically the lectures by Edwin Locke or Dr. Kenner, such as Locke's Setting Goals to Improve Your Life and Happiness or Kenner's Bringing Out the Heroic in Yourself
  12. Here is a photoshopped copy of Chivalry that I found that is a little more clear, but I think you're right, the horse does have an unusually long neck...
  13. First off, your scenario is pretty awful and I'm sorry that had to happen to you. I would focus on your schoolwork, and instead of actively trying to "make friends" just keep your eyes and ears out for people who are of the right caliber of person (for potential friendship or even just friendly acquaintanceship, if that is all you have time for) and don't be scared to go down the path of getting to know someone, but don't go past your comfort level if you're not ready... friendships are supposed to be an added value to life, not a cause of stress of emotional anxiety. In terms of women, each scenario will be unique, so you have to base your decision on the full context of your situation and of her person. In these cases, pay attention to your emotions!! If you pay attention to them correctly, can save yourself a lot of trouble. Use your emotions as indicators as to your values, don't use them as the final arbiter, but listen to them - they are lightning-fast responses based on your values and will often tip you off to things that your consciousness is not - follow them to explicit understanding via patient introspection (questions like "what about X made me feel Y?" "do i often react this way to Y? if not, what about this particular X?" etc) I hope this helps :?
  14. I second that... the cement manufacturer's comment sounds like it came right out of Atlas Shrugged! I only fear that this is a peek into our future as our government continues to kowtow-to-the-'viros.
  15. This film is so confused about its premises, even I walked out quite puzzled. Philosophically, it is a mish-mash. It's a great film if you want edge-of-your-seat excitement, but don't expect to find a hero that knows why he's doing what he's doing... or even a hero that knows if what he's doing is good or not... or a screenplay writer that knows what moral message(s) he's trying to convey... etc It's worth seeing it in the theatres for exciting "bif! bang! boom!" purposes, but that's about it. Another grab-bag of disintegrated (and often contradictory) moralistic one-liners lacing through two and a half hours of action and cool gadgets.
  16. Sophia's posts are, as far as I know, all contemporary artists. I have taken it upon myself to post "old" artists that - like you pointed out - many of us would have never come across otherwise.
  17. Miranda Romeo and Juliet La Belle Dame Sans Merci The End of the Quest Chivalry Portrait of a Woman Sir Frank Bernard Dicksee (b. London, November 27, 1853 – October 17, 1928) was an English Victorian painter and illustrator, best known for his pictures of dramatic historical and legendary scenes. He also was a noted painter of portraits of fashionable women, which helped to bring him success in his own time. Although not a member of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood many of Dicksee's paintings can be considered Pre-Raphaelite in style. Dicksee enrolled in the Royal Academy in 1870 and achieved early success. He was elected to the Academy in 1891 and became its President in 1924. He was knighted in 1925, and named to the Royal Victorian Order by King George V in 1927. (via Wikipedia)
  18. Too bad he didn't mention that lifting government regulations would allow the great minds to create that oil-substitute that much faster...and cheaper... not to mention that we should lift the ban on nuclear power. That speech gave me philo-political blue balls; finish the job, Dennis!
  19. Here is a book you might find helpful, via a review from Jean Moroney (wife of Harry Binswanger) from her website Thinking Directions:
  20. West and I will be at the ribbon cutting ceremony! All bay area Oists should come too !
  21. To each their own, I would say Hong Kong is infinitely more beautiful than NY. NY is just a crowded, dirty island. Hong Kong is a living, thriving example of capitalism in real-time. In New York, only the corpse of the city remains as evidence of what it once was.
  22. I am in the same boat... I have found Edwin Locke's lectures "Stress and Coping" (here) and the "Art of Introspection" (from this year's OCON, which will be available to buy in October methinks) to be incredibly helpful. When I brought up a question about difficulty with emotions at the Introspection lecture (mentioned above), Harry Binswanger's wife, Jean Moroney-Binswanger suggested this book, "Mind Over Mood: Change How You Feel by Changing the Way You Think" but I have not read it yet. Also, Binswanger himself has done a lecture called "Emotions" (here), but again, I haven't listened to it yet... but he's a great speaker, so I will be willing to guess that these are great lectures as well. One thing mentioned in the Locke class that I found to be the most helpful is just to identify the triggers or 'what happened a minute ago before i started feeling this way' (and ideally, to write them down aka "journal") even if it doesnt make sense to you in that moment, you will start to notice patterns -- that information alone will help you dig deeper.
  23. athena glaukopis

    Flobots

    I heard this song as West and I were driving to Newport, and I got really excited. Thanks for the warning before I went out to buy the CD.
  24. Very inspiring! Thank you for that story, Paul, it made me smile from ear to ear
×
×
  • Create New...