brian0918

Before one would give pause, one should make clear all the details concerning said unhappiness. If such details are not clear, pause is not warranted. This is, of course, if the claim of unhappiness is even true, which also must be substantiated.

You may find your own ways to pick and choose pieces of Objectivism to use somehow in conjunction with your religion, but you can't then call it Objectivism. By believing in a god on faith alone, you are denying the reality of the universe (metaphysics), your own faculty of reason (epistemology), the purpose of life as one's own happiness and exploitation of life -- not a quest to Heaven (ethics), and also the foundation of rights, the individual -- not God (politics).

Ayn Rand didn't find atheism as the foundation of communism, as conservatives do, and she didn't find God as the foundation of morality; so she didn't see a connection between atheism and gulags. Instead, it was the irrational in communism that she condemned and saw as the root of its evils. Whereas religion glorified the crucifixion of Jesus, communism glorified the crucifixion of the individual. As an individualist and someone who wanted to live in the world, she didn't think crucifying men glorified mankind. Man's productive achievements glorified mankind and displayed his potential. That takes freedom.

How does such a survey determine whether or not Objectivism is a cult? You're merely relying on equivocation: utilizing two different standards of morality. According to traditional morality, humans by definition are imperfect, and only other-worldly, supernatural deities are perfect.

So if Objectivists tell you that Rand was "morally perfect", and you tell non-Objectivists that fact, they will assume you mean perfection according to their morality, in order to conclude that Objectivism is a cult. On the contrary, so long as one continually strives to be rational in his choice of values and actions within the full context of his knowledge, and with his life as the standard of value, his choices are correct - he is acting perfectly moral.

The easiest way to challenge the "cult" accusation is to point out that in a cult, people must accept conclusions on faith, whereas in Objectivism, to accept anything on faith would be contrary to the philosophy.

Insofar as its members are truly practicing Objectivism, the movement is cult-proof.

Obviously there will be people in any movement - including the Objectivist movement - who accept conclusions on faith. Such individuals are not following Objectivism.

The easiest way to challenge the "cult" accusation is to point out that in a cult, people must accept conclusions on faith, whereas in Objectivism, to accept anything on faith would be contrary to the philosophy.

Insofar as its members are truly practicing Objectivism, the movement is cult-proof.

Obviously there will be people in any movement - including the Objectivist movement - who accept conclusions on faith. Such individuals are not following Objectivism.

The easiest way to challenge the "cult" accusation is to point out that in a cult, people must accept conclusions on faith, whereas in Objectivism, to accept anything on faith would be contrary to the philosophy.

Insofar as its members are truly practicing Objectivism, the movement is cult-proof.

Obviously there will be people in any movement - including the Objectivist movement - who accept conclusions on faith. Such individuals are not following Objectivism.

To reason. Note the part in bold from my original reply: "It is invalid to ask why there is order (i.e., why everything acts in accordance with its nature), as any answer must presume what it intends to show." In other words, it is invalid because you are asking "why do things act in accordance with their nature and have a specific identity", since the "why" already presumes that things act in accordance with their nature and have specific identities. The act of questioning existence and identity presumes existence and identity. That is why they are invalid questions.

This is not simply an opinion on my part, but a contradiction on yours that you fail to notice. And I am not simply "declaring" that identity is axiomatic. I recognize that any attempt to disprove the validity of identity must necessarily assume identity is valid.

If you do not understand this most basic, fundamental point, then you must be very little acquainted with Objectivism. I would recommend the first few chapters of Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Another NPR article from today makes your point about the Republicans inconsistency:

http://www.npr.org/b...ion-inspiration

Yes, that's right: two largely positive NPR articles on Rand in the same day. Watch out for flying pigs.

This is absolutely wrong. It is convenient that you ignore my reference to the Apollo 15 demonstration on the moon, which you can view http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk.


Because the Earth, Moon, and Sun did not start out *motionless*.

The planetary nebula was in motion, rotating around the Sun. As the material coalesced into planets, those planets continued rotating around the Sun. When a meteor struck the Earth and broke off material, some of that material fell back to the Earth, while the material that was in a stable orbit around the Earth formed the moon, which maintained the solar-orbital-trajectory of the Earth. This is all due to the conservation of angular momentum.

Orbital mechanics is well understood - there is absolutely no room for debate.

Why is it important to get a nod that rain is good? You sound like you are taking something personally when all we (or perhaps I should just stick with I) are trying to do is put something into an objective perspective. Hurricanes and flooding resulting in death and property loss occur several times every year, so cases of rain threatening property and life are not so "extreme". Evaluating whether or not something is good or bad requires a context. Though you seem to keep resisting that idea, you keep providing a context every time you explain why rain is good to you. Rain is rain. Sometimes it is good for some people, sometimes it is bad for some people. Why is that idea so offensive to you?

Your first formula was:
Spend(customers) = BE

This formula assumes that profits are zero.
You then took this and did a few steps to show that profits are zero.
This was completely unnecessary, because it was assumed in your very first formula.
You ended up proving your premise. Well, your conclusion proves your premise, but what is the point of it when your premise is false.

It's here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/ObjectivismOnline/228973341867

People trade to mutual benefit. I give you X in exchange for Y, because I value Y higher than X, and you value X higher than Y. They are not of "equal value" because values are agent-relative. We are both better off as a result of the trade. Thus the free market is not a zero-sum game.

Regarding your equations, my signature seems fitting.

People trade to mutual benefit. I give you X in exchange for Y, because I value Y higher than X, and you value X higher than Y. They are not of "equal value" because values are agent-relative. We are both better off as a result of the trade. Thus the free market is not a zero-sum game.

Regarding your equations, my signature seems fitting.

I would be interested in a comprehensive reply to FeatherFall's preceding post. This is not such a reply. It is obviously unnecessary to know the scientific basis for some specific man's observed effeminate behavior. That behavior is certainly the result of some is - i.e., the result of the environment and circumstances under which he developed. A boy is not a man - his mind and body are still growing and developing years after leaving the womb. Depending on the environment in which he grows, his behaviors, tendencies, and preferences will develop and become ingrained. It's up to you to not only show why he should want to change them, but also why he should be morally condemned for not changing them.

Sorry, but there is no "thou shalt" that comes with having a penis or a vagina.

I'm amazed that you think warming cannot be good on balance. In actual fact, one cannot weigh one person's value against another's disvalue, and therefore the quote you provided was exactly spot on when it said "some areas will win and some will lose". This much ought to be obvious with just a little thought.
As for the net effect, there's no good reason to prefer warming over cooling.

Tyco: You'll recall from your history lessons that we gave the Japanese an ultimatum first, and when they ignored that, Hiroshima (a city of military importance) was chosen as a target. We then warned the Japanese about future attacks if they did not surrender. They chose not to surrender, and only then did we proceed to Nagasaki.

Obviously there were innocent people killed, and obviously that is the fault of the Japanese government.

As you say, the easements ought to come voluntarily. Other than that, the environmentalists and the government need to get out of the way.

In addition, the government needs to get out of the way of exploiting shale and other such resources inside the U.S. too.

That is simply because you still see science as more important to life than philosophy, disregarding the fact that science - as well as all other endeavors - *depends on* philosophy for its proper function and continued progress.

My first statement in this thread stands: Rand and Peikoff have a better understanding of what is necessary for proper science than many scientists (and indeed entire scientific fields), who implicitly accepted the philosophy that was handed down to them by their predecessors.

Peter Shiff's recent, 9/13/11, testimony before Congress on the Obama Jobs Bill:

Off topic, but if you think the characters in American Psycho are just "successful people looking after themselves" I think you missed the point of the movie. I've never seen a more perfect portrayal of Peter Keatings.

Agreed. So what can we learn from the fact that certain specific men (philosophers and theologians of the past) have argued for the existence of a creator of existence?
1. That man potentially desires to construct rationale to support preconceived beliefs.
2. That in order to even analyze the validity of the original question, it is vital to build a solid, objective foundation for metaphysics and concept-formation. This is necessary to understand how the concepts used in the question are formed, in order to determine whether those concepts are being properly utilized - i.e., within the contexts of the sensual evidence that gives rise to those concepts (the referents).

Given that all the referents for the concepts of "cause" and "effect" involve existents, one can only properly apply those concepts to interactions among existents. To attempt to apply them beyond that context is similar to committing the sort of scientific error I mentioned earlier. Rand generally calls this context-dropping, and specifically the fallacy of the "stolen concept".

Any appeal to peer-reviewed climate science papers is now immediately suspect. We all know the closed circle of AGW advocates was approving each other's papers and black-balling dissent.

Here is an argument not covered by that site: increasing atmospheric CO2 can have only a miniscule effect on global climate because of the physics involved. See Cold Facts on Global Warming and the explanation of Beer's Law. In short, the temperature response of the atmosphere as a function of the percent of CO2 is logarithmic, meaning it must have diminshing returns, and the current amount in the atmosphere is already way past the knee of the curve.