Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Curious Capitalist

Regulars
  • Posts

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Curious Capitalist

  • Birthday 01/29/1983

Profile Information

  • Interests
    poetry, books, school, walking and not driving, morning sun, night rain, reasonable beings, learning as much as I can about the universe I call home
  • Location
    Hanover
  • Gender
    Female

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0
  • Website URL
    http://

Previous Fields

  • State (US/Canadian)
    NewHampshire
  • Country
    United States
  • Biography/Intro
    The semester is over and I'm moving! I've only read three Rand books, but her sense of freedom and individuality is a welcome breath of aromatic air in an otherwise stale atmosphere.
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • School or University
    Dartmouth
  • Occupation
    Student

Curious Capitalist's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. David, thanks for such a thorough explication of my post, as it helps me understand better the questions I have and their possible answers. However, it really only inspires more questions. I know, I will definitely make it a priority to check out OPAR post haste. The only question that you failed to answer is how can one define what is "rational"? My emphasis on skepticism was not a nihilistic value devoid of meaning, nor do I consider it "evil" (seeing the word as Nietzsche did), but rather something that when used rationally can lead to discovery the likes of which certainty cannot. To me, it seems that the epistemological doctrine of certainty holds that knowledge is simply complete, preventing the desire for further discovery. I am certain that I have no rational certainty to know what occurs in the center of a black hole, therefore I am rationally skeptical of my own knowledge, therefore it makes me want to discover the truth. If I believe that I already know the truth, based on reason and previously acquired knowledge, the certainty, to me, still feels like faith: "I believe this because of that, and I need not question either." I have no room for faith in anything other than myself and my ability to learn. And, isn't the belief in rational certainty still an emotional belief, as it inspired you to consider skepticism "evil"? I believe that I'm just getting lost in matters of semantics, which comprises a great deal of philosophy to begin with. I am confused as to the objective definition of "rational," "certainty," "skepticism," and now, "evil."
  2. There's no way I can argue with this logic. However, I think skip may be talking about individual perception, which is completely different from person to person. A seven foot man would have a far different perception than that of a four foot one. There may be worlds the shorter man is not even aware of, like the dusty top of book shelves, thus limiting his knowledge reality. Sure, there is only one reality, but infinitely different perceptions of it. I think this may be what was meant by "my reality," though I could be wrong.
  3. I originally found this forum because I was writing a paper on objectivist scientists, which was an almost impossible subject on which to find information. I wanted to see if "rational certainty" influenced the direction of objectivist science, only to find few objectivist scientists to use as examples. There were a fair amount of social scientists, mathematicians, linguists, but very few professed objectivists in the physical sciences. As I was trying to disprove a theory of a professor that said Aristotelean objectivist certainty (A=A) prevents the essence of discovery required to make good scientists, I had hoped to find more examples where objectivism was conducive with scientific skeptical inquisition. I ended up having to change the topic of the paper late in the game because of insufficient research, and I began to think that "rational certainty" does indeed hinder science. I think my only issue with objectivism on the whole is the idea of what's considered "rational." I have yet to read Peikoff's OPAR, and have only read a scant amount of Rand's nonfiction, but I'm learning a lot from these boards. However, the idea of the rational, to me, seems more subjective than anyone is willing to admit. One can make a rational argument for state-sanctioned murder, or segregation, or genocide--in fact, many have to great success. Did Hitler rise to power on a collective irrationality of the people, or a rational certainty of their own power and superiority? Germans had few rational reasons to doubt their superiority, as they were technologically innovative and produced some of the greatest minds of the modern era and certainly felt greater than the lowly position in which they found themsevles after WWI. However, their rational certainty in their own power led to millions upon millions of deaths, and in the end proved their superiority to be anything but certain. I've always been a huge fan of astronomy and considered pursuing a career in it until I realized that I was no genius at calculus; but I have learned that many of the discoveries made in the universe defy all rational thought that we have, and these discoveries are reshaping our knowledge of existence. Rational certainty is completely absent from the center of a black hole or in dark matter, and probability and statistics, the measure of most rational predictions, are subject to great inaccuracies. I am really hoping that someone can illuminate this entire subject for me. How is rational certainty better than rational skepticism? Doesn't skepticism encourage more discovery and acquisition of truth than certainty? And, wouldn't that make skepticism the more rational mode of human thought? I just look at religious thought and how it relies on certainty and rejects skepticism, as the latter threatens its ultimate power to control the faithful. I also look at science and how skepticism has driven its progress, along with the entire progress of man, from the discovery that the world is indeed round to the dismissal of a divine being. Is my certainty that more truth lies in skepticism rational?
  4. To extend this metaphor as far as it can possibly go, most people have wheels, and some simply prefer walking. It makes little sense for me to spend any time contemplating the inferior tread on their tires or the fact their hubcaps are rusty, let alone try to convince them mine are better. If they see me rolling by and notice the immaculate condition of my freshly polished wheels, maybe they will be inspired to inquire as to how they can have the same. Or, maybe they will simply get run over. But, to become a wheel salesperson just because I know my wheels are better than theirs, is simply something I cannot do. I'll leave the job of converting people to the Christians, with all their flat tires. Obviously, I despise religious thought of any kind, and I have noticed that many objectivists turn objectivism into their religion, which is just wrong. I think the biggest mistake we can make is to turn Ayn Rand into some sacred idol, because it instantly discredits most of what objectivism stands for. I feel we should be better than that. She once wrote that “a creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others.” The whole calendar issue seems very much the latter, turning into nothing more than a contest about the superiority of objectivists over communists. What can we really hope to achieve by debating her place among the motley group of atheists? Affirmation that our atheistic thought is better, that Rand is better than Che? Don't we already know this? It seems that irrational hatred of commies and the religious, who are simply humans with a different set of ideas, is nothing more than insecurity or frustration. I am confident in my ideals, and I just feel the best way to advance objectivism is to live it, not preach it, deify its founder, or criticize those who oppose it. Life is far too short to waste on such pettiness. I want to live!
  5. I haven't been on the forum in a while, and this thread instantly caught my eye. Ayn and Che go together like chocolate and battery acid. I did read a fair portion of the posts, but I am sure I am probably making some points that have already been made, though I promise not to insult anyone. The diverse group of atheists in the calendar removes all credibility for me. Where's the man who actually declared "God is dead"? Why would anyone buy this calendar anyway? Unfortunately, I have noticed that atheism has become a terrible fad as of late, a false intellectualism for many, and this calendar is just an example of trying to make a quick buck off insecure atheists--nothing more, nothing less. After all, it's on ebay! The thing that got me was that I wasn't aware ARI was similar to a collection of Muslim clerics dictating how the image of its prophet be used, and I am a little disappointed in that regard. It also surprises me that she only agreed to have her name used after her death, and I find ARI's response humorous: "Based on your reading of her letters, do you know what her opinion would have been about permitting an "Ayn Rand Institute" in her lifetime? Would you therefore like ARI to close down?" Yes! It seems to do little but rob from the value of her thoughts and deify her in a way that most likely would have repulsed her. If anything, as a philosophy that supports the free market in its purest form, they should be more than glad to plaster Ayn's face on as many things as they can, as it can only generate interest and revenue for the institute. Rand has no opinion on these matters any more--she is dead. To give this calendar such a deep level of analysis seems to be speaking of an Objectivist insecurity over someone like Che having the same beliefs as Ayn. The sad fact is that Rand, when lumped in with all those who share aspects of her philosophy, has some unseemly bedfellows to accompany her otherwise magnificent allies. Yes, commies are atheist, so they "share" that attribute. She belongs on the calendar by that criteria. To criticize her place within that context, or the choice of the ARI to include her, seems to negate all the knowledge she tried to impart while she was alive. Where is the individual in this argument? Where is the heroism of man? I personally feel, though I definitely don't know as much about Rand compared to most of you, that her emphasis on the individual and reason was her greatest contribution to philosophical thought, and her hatred of communists, however seemingly rational, spoke of a pettiness that remains in objectivism to this day. Why should we care about how anyone perceives that calendar, let alone communist ideals? Because, I just can't bring myself to care about either. Che is an icon because he didn't contribute anything more than revolutionary rhetoric. Ayn brought us all her beautiful and eloquent thoughts. It's obvious who contributed more to mankind. I guess my point is that I view Rand like the unknown creator of the wheel. Like the wheels on my car, I use her ideas to go places. She provided us with all this wisdom, and in the end that is all that matters. I have her ideas to mull, so I don't need her, nor can I concern myself with how she is perceived by anyone other than me. While I am grateful for her ideas, like the wheels on my car, the origin is a distant second to the value of my acquisition. But, that's just my opinion.
  6. Thank you, again, for all the great responses! I am definitely going with the theme that Objectivist scientists are not significantly influenced by their philosophy, except that they rely heavily on reason. David, I agree that the issue of federal funding may be the biggest difference between an Objectivist and run of the mill secular humanist scientist, but I cannot agree that the probability of life on other planets in not serious science. This is one of the most fundamentally huge questions humanity faces—are we alone in the universe? This question led people to create gods and spirits and all sorts of unhealthy illusions, which many still follow to this day, just to answer the question and feel less alone. From what science knows, there is a strong likelihood of life elsewhere, with the presence of water—a key ingredient in the formation of life—found on Mars, or the oceans of Europa. All science begins with a hypothesis, so why would hypothesizing that life exists off Earth would be irresponsible? We do know enough to know it’s highly probable, at least enough to entertain the notion. Does Objectivism also consider statistics an irresponsible branch of mathematics? If so, then I understand how searching for life on other planets may be an irresponsible effort. Otherwise, I think it is one of our most noble attempts to understand the universe. Once again, I appreciate the candor and the help that everyone has given me as I write my paper. I plan on finishing up tonight, but I will definitely keep coming here to learn more about Objectivism!
  7. Sorry, it's probably my fault for not linking his other writings: Saint-Andre's Objectivist Essays I originally found him through an Objectivist site, and I've found he adheres to many aspects of the philosophy, but also has many criticisms. I cannot claim to know as much as any of you about Objectivism, but I took his argument to mean that the ideological positions of Objectivism prevents truly objective study of science and creates a complete philosophical system out of incomplete knowledge. This was basically my professor's argument when I told him I wanted to write about Objectivism in the sciences. This is what I am trying to disprove. I guess some of my questions are what are Objectivist stances on pre-history, biological symbiosis, the big bang, black holes, space-time, evolution (which I have learned much about from the threads), the probability of life on other planets. It is obvious that having a Christian ideology impacts a scientists stance on cloning or stem cell research, but does the Objectivist ideology have a similar impact? To me, the article says it does, in a similarly negative way, by preventing true scientific objectivity and letting ideological philosophy to influence what to investigate. An example to me would be the idea that earth is the only planet with life and that man is the highest life form in the universe. To me, reason would lead me to think that with the immense number of galaxies, suns, planetary systems, there would be life on at least one of these. The probability seems too overwhelming to ignore, considering the advances in astronomy in the last fifty years. This is where I saw sense in the article. Right now, the possibility of life on other planets is philosophy, but it can become a scientific fact if discovered. Additionally, what if we also meet an advanced intelligent civilization? Would Objectivist philosophy have to be changed to make humanity equal to this new race? Science seems to allow for uncertainty, and I guess I took this article as saying Objectivism does not. Maybe I completely misinterpreted it, but I'm inundated with information at this moment, so please forgive me. I'm learning as I go, so thank you to everyone for being so patient and helpful.
  8. Thanks for all the help! I have been researching Norsen and Harriman and sent an email to the former about how his Objectivism has influenced his scientific ethics and goals. While physics is a significant branch of science, I still feel that finding an Objectivist in the biological sciences would be quite a boon to my paper. After all, these sciences are where many of the moral and ethical battle lines are being drawn. As always, I have a lot more research on the subject. I did manage to find something that deals specifically with science and Objectivism, though it is not what I expected. The writer is an admirer of Rand, Peter Saint-Andre, and he has written a fair amount of articles on her and Objectivism; but in an article that may or may not be useful to me, he takes a view that seems the opposite of what I expected. Unfortunately, it’s the only article I have yet to find anywhere that deals specifically with Objectivism and how it pertains to scientific study. As I am still learning about the philosophy, and hardly think the short time I have to research will allow me to consider all the proper counters to his assertions, I was hoping maybe some educated responses to this excerpt could help. I have a million questions, but right now my only question is whether anyone thinks Saint-Andre’s argument holds any water? As always, I am eternally grateful for your responses!
  9. While I am by no means an expert on Objectivism, I do think that something like skydiving is a relatively safe endeavor that ideally does not put one's life at risk. Surviving is risky, and experience is the stuff life is made of; so experiencing the thrill of gliding through the atmosphere skydiving, to me, seems like nothing more than living life to the fullest, as one pleases. Smashing into something at sixty miles per hour in a car is risky, but it hardly dissuades people from driving. Personally, I don't find any dichotomy for Objectivist skydiving, and in fact, think there should be much more Objectivist skydiving!
  10. You know, I'm almost starting to agree with that assessment of impossibility. The actual purpose of the paper is to write about how philosophy or religion affects scientific discovery. Things that lend itself well to this topic are the Christian scientists that have railed against stem cell research, or basically any of the impediments Christianity has placed on scientific discovery over the years, or how Nazi philosophy influenced their scientific studies. I wanted to write about Objectivism, as I knew no one in the class would. Additionally, when I brought the idea up to him, after he shot down my original two ideas, he told me that it would also be impossible but if I could pull it off, fine. Like I said, my professor has a real bias against my subject, and it only makes me want to make it better and more original than the rest. Academic sources can also include books, though he told me that I could use none of Rand's fiction. I questioned whether it was okay to use the Bible and what the difference would be, but my comparison did not persuade him. I haven't read much of Rand's philosophical work and I'm just learning about Objectivism in general. Truthfully, I figured that with emphasis on reason and man's ability to understand his existence, I would have no problems finding scientists that strongly and openly declared their Objectivist preferences. I've found a lot of good information, but I would love to find something like evolutionary biologists that are also Objectivists. I did read in this forum that Rand herself never said much about evolution, so I would love to find an Objectivist that studies it and see what they say.
  11. Thank you! From the earlier post, I didn't know he was a physicist. The two scientists mentioned seem to be focusing my thesis on physics, which will still be good for my purposes. Ideally, I wanted a survey of different sciences, but I'm glad to have these so far. As I am required to have my thesis and outline by Monday (yes, I procrastinate incessantly), I may just focus on Objectivism in physics. Does anyone have any ideas why there are so few Objectivist natural scientists? It looks like ARI is good about celebrating the ones they have, but I was really hoping I would be able to find more. The search continues... Thanks, again!
  12. Thanks! This is extremely helpful. I came across a Harriman article in my research and he's the only Objectivist natural scientist I've yet to find. I'm almost hesitant to use him as an example because I cannot find any information on him that does not come from ARI or other organizations and publications affiliated with Objectivism, and this was a huge stipulation of my professor. He told me repeatedly that only academic resources could be used, and therein lies the difficulty for me on this subject, because most of the sources I'm finding would not be considered "academic." But, Harriman is the perfect example of what I need. I read an article in which Harriman says Objectivism needs to be the philosophical foundation of physics, but the article fails to elaborate on that idea. I'm still searching, and I feel closer now than when I started. Thank everyone, for the help so far!
  13. Okay, in that case, you did quite well. The landscape you describe is certainly rife with descriptions of doom, death, and decay. The only thing I can even suggest is maybe infuse a little more feeling of paranoia, because I can imagine a murderer would be paranoid of being found out. But, what you have definitely sets the tone. Good job!
  14. Hi, everybody. I’m new here and just learning where everything is and goes, but I just have to say that this is a treasure trove of Objectivist knowledge! I want to write a paper for a writing class about the science of Objectivism and I was hoping I could find some good resources. The usual web searches have given me a lot of information about objectivism (little “o”) in science, as opposed to subjectivism, but not much about Objectivists that are also scientists. Is there any place where I can find information on Objectivism and the natural sciences? Ideally, I would love to find and interview a physicist, biologist, astronomer, or any other scientist that could explain how their Objectivist philosophy affects their work, if at all. Because my professor is a super leftist liberal along with just about all the students in my class, I want this paper to be focused and easily understandable for workshopping. My professor is already biased against anything I would write about Objectivism, and he rejected my first two proposals for being too opinionated. I was originally going to write about Objectivist views on environmental conservation, but then I found the idea of Objectivist scientists and the professor approved it. The research has not been that easy, though, and I was really hoping that some of you fine people point me in the right direction. Are there any good resources out there that examine Objectivist scientists? Are there any Objectivist scientists here? Thank you, in advance, for all the help!
  15. I am brand new to this site, but joined because of a writing class, so I find it amazing that the very first post I see has to do with creative writing! The first thing that stuck out about your story is that it's laden with description. That is always a good thing in writing, but I had a professor tell me once to write, then take out all the adverbs and adjectives to find the story. Detailed description and plentiful adjectives may be the point of your assignment, so I'm not going to say to take them out at all. But, if not, then you can most likely edit out some of the adjectives, because I've always heard that economy of writing style is preferable. Another technique is to make some of your sentences shorter to provide more impact when contrasted with the longer ones. Example: "The buildings stand out the most, stark and monstrous against the darkening sky, framed by crimson-stained clouds." "The buildings stand out the most. Stark and monstrous against the darkening sky they rise, framed by crimson-stained clouds." It focuses on the buildings more, and makes it easier on the reader. I really enjoyed the details you include, and I hope my criticisms are not too far off. I look forward to reading the rest of the assignment.
×
×
  • Create New...