Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by IchorFigure

  1. Thank you. On the one hand I am happy that Trump's policies are making immigration big news. Even though I disagree with most of what he's done, immigration has been a dead issue for years. (Remember when Republicans lost some ground in the previous election and for about two weeks immigration reform was sort of being considered?) On the other hand I watch the protests - I see the gross cliche clenched fist symbols being employed, and the usual "love wins" type of crap, and I wish the opportunity weren't being squandered by misguided hippies. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad there is such an outpouring of support for immigrants and refugees, but I just wish it weren't the Occupy types leading the charge. They don't deserve to.
  2. Hi everyone. I haven't been an active poster on this forum since I was younger, but I thought that I could tell everyone about my Objectivist oriented immigration FB page. I started this page because I think that the uniquely Objectivist viewpoint of individualism is missing from immigration discussion. To use some typical examples, the Left talks about some mushy notion of "love" as though it's a winning immigration argument, while the Right talks about "American Jobs" and deterministic qualities like voting demographics and I.Q. tests. If you agree with me that the individual needs more consideration check out my page, thank you https://www.facebook.com/IndividualistsForImmigration/
  3. I do not read or speak Hebrew so I haven't a clue what this debate is about, but Youtuber Anochi recently uploaded a debate of Yaron Brook's: http://youtu.be/FTGCd-q1xYY Maybe someone could tell us more about what the debate considers?
  4. I have been meaning to re-read AS so maybe I'll try to sign up.
  5. The fact you even use the word "excommunicated" just signifies you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
  6. Ok I realize this is a forum for Objectivist topics and this really isn't related so feel free to junk this topic if the mods don't think it's pertinent. But I just think an Objectivist audience might be able to offer better more first-handed answers. So my environment science class very quickly glossed offer this idea of biomagnification. It is the process by which toxins "magnify" as they accumulate going further up the food chain. This is a very common and basic subject I gather, but the content in class and even in the book gives very little info about how it's supposed to work. My question is this: why is it only the harmful things like mercury "biomagnify" in the food chain? Why is it that components that could enhance a living things health don't get "magnified" as well?
  7. That little detail isn't as "controversial" to me as the fact these movies suck period.
  8. Who else is going to be watching this on livestream? It might be cool to all join in on the chat or something.
  9. Oh yep thanks SWN thats what I was looking for And yep I get what you mean Nicky. Actually I don't even think that heiroglyphs were 100% representational in terms of image = word for the thing it is. I just wanted to show it to a friend who was interested in the history of languages.
  10. Hmm no that's not it. Hands and mountains was just my example I don't think she refers to those exactly. I was so sure it was in ITOE but now that I can't find it I'm not positive where it was. She did refer to eastern languages in some way.
  11. Hi, I don't mean to sound lazy but I have been trying to locate a piece by Rand's where she talks about how language probably evolved. I could have sworn it was in ITOE but the appendix hasn't helped. She writes about how ancient writings began with perceptual symbols of things like hands and mountains, and then became more abstract as letters representing sounds. Does anyone know where this particular bit is located? I'm grateful for any help thanks.
  12. The trichotomy of those 3 also serve to pose as useful contrasts to the uniqueness of Objectivism. Subjectivism is focused on the subject. Intrincisism is focused on the object. Objectivism is focused on the relationship between the subject and the object. So looking at it this way you can see the essential differences in classyifying them like this, is to break them down to what their target of the philosophy is aimed at. On the subject, on the object, or on the relationship between them. Like Grames said, this is not to say that in real-world practice that intrincisism doesn't become subjective.
  13. I don't know this is the first time I've heard of her. I went to her website and read a summary of her book. It states she's an atheist, but her book is all about how the liberal media is supposedly trying to quash Christianity. At the same time she has a photo of herself reading Atlas Shrugged at the top site banner. So pretty clear she has some mixed ideas going on...
  14. This is a good question I've asked myself. I'm not sure that I'm the best person to answer. The way it seems to me is that intrincisim is just one offshoot of subjectivism, so really the two opposites are objective or subjective. (Because what those intrinsic values are ultimately have to come back to your or someone else's whims) I'm supposing that while that is true, perhaps what she was going after with these classifications was only to identify the 3 most fundamentally expressed types. I'm interested to see what others have to say.
  15. Here is a great clip from an MSNBC discussion panel where the host S.E. Cupp calls out Obama's recent "you didn't build that" speech. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/07/17/se_cupp_to_msnbc_panel_obama_is_a_collectivist.html Better yet she states it precisely as collectivism and throws in a relevant Ayn Rand quote. Definately refreshing and gutsy.
  16. Their own insecurity, cowardice, and second-handedness.
  17. September is a busy month for Objectivist book releases There's 3 upcoming titles set for realease, in order of release they are: The D.I.M. Hypothesis by leonard Peikoff. Sept. 4th http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0451234812/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d0_g14_i3?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=0X58AVJ6J9RR572P1Y0W&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846 Dr. Peikoff's long awaited book about 3 fundamental types of philosophic mindsets, and how they can predict directions of a culture. Free Market Revolution by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins. Sept. 18th http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0230341691/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d0_g14_i2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=0X58AVJ6J9RR572P1Y0W&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846 Brook and Watkins coauthored book about how to go about putting forth real plans for a Capitalist future. The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure by John Allison. Sept. 25th http://www.amazon.com/Financial-Crisis-Free-Market-Cure/dp/0071806776/ref=pd_sim_b_5 One of the biggest voices for economic and banking policy reform - with support from the Ayn Rand Institute - argues that extreme free market capitalism is the only hope for building back our economy.
  18. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Senate The Senate failed to take up debate on the House bill and instead took up H.R. 3590, a bill regarding housing tax breaks for service members.[157] As the United States Constitution requires all revenue-related bills to originate in the House,[158] the Senate took up this bill since it was first passed by the House as a revenue-related modification to the Internal Revenue Code. The bill was then used as the Senate's vehicle for their health care reform proposal, completely revising the content of the bill.[159] The bill as amended incorporated elements of earlier proposals that had been reported favorably by the Senate Health and Finance committees.
  19. http://capitalism.aynrand.org/the-ayn-rand-center-responds-to-the-obamacare-verdict/
  20. This is so twisted. They upheld it as a "tax", yet it's not a "tax" for the purposes of the anti-injuction act... (which is good at least or it would be blocked from repeal until in effect). They ruled that its use under commerce and neccessary and proper clause weren't constitutional, but yet it's okay as a tax. Now it's up to the Republicans and Romney to do something about it. How pathetic. My consolation is that they did reject the idea that congress can regulate inactivity, although that's quite hallow seeing as how apparently they can do anything anyway if it's a "tax". If the spineless republicans can actually manage to repeal part or all of it, perhaps it might create a renewed taste for repealing all kinds of laws. (Trying to be optimistic) The real goal as always is to fight for long term proper laws to protect our rights.
  21. That's not "semi-voluntary" it's compulsion. Human beings are not omniscient and fallable. Not somehow deterministically drawn to supporting good politics. You could put someone through the exact same education the founders had and still get an unconvinced statist. I don't find this convincing. The only interesting argument I've heard for a limited requirement to basic education is from the standpoint that it could be child abuse to deny a child the tools they need to think. I'm talking about extremely basic essentials like the alphabet, capability to read, and the basics of math. And even in this case it's not a societal compullsion. It's a legal issue to be required of parents if they *choose* to have a child. Like basic nutrition.
  22. Hmm thanks. I've heard of his Praxeology with mixed opinions but not read any of its content. But I think my idea of what would make a science "qualitative" or "quantitative" was probably not defined well and even floating. For example would physics be an example of a quantitative sciene, where psychology is qualitative?
  23. I vaguely recall somewhere in Rand's non-fiction writing that she reffered to one of the "soft sciences" as a qualitative science. It may have been in ITOE. Speaking about either philosophy or economics as a science that is qualitative, as opposed to quantitative, like physics. This is something I've generally agreed with but lately I've been thinking about it more and I don't think my understanding of such differences is as solid as I thought. Is this a useful distinction of *categories* of science? Not just as a designation of a study, but as the category of a science as a whole. And if so what do you think are the essential differences that seperate the two types?
  24. I've seen it. I think it was a totally decent movie. Average but not great. (In the Hollywood of today however "average" is almost "great"). The protagonist is conflicted, but heroic and someone you want to like. The love interest is beautiful but she's also smart with technology and fiercely independent. It's over the top in a pulp-fiction way, but not in that borderline mocking post-modernism way that laughs at itself. There's no "edginess" for the sake of being "edgy" (it is a Disney movie). Basically the sci-fi setting is a metaphor for war, power, and it's effect on the innocent. Specifically it draws on the Civil War. There's the North (Helium), the South (whatever the red side was called), and the Indians thrown into the mix (the Tharks). You might be raising an eyebrow like I was suspecting it will turn out to be an Avatar/Pocahontas movie that condemns Westerners. But it doesn't come into play. There are a lot of expensive CG action scenes which is the standard for big budget movies. But it wasn't dumb action just barfed up desperately to keep the audience from being bored. The action was justified by the plot and the conflicts going on. The characters actually have some depth, characterization, and backstory. You may actually wind up liking them and sympathizing with their situation. Pretty rare in "action" movies today. My main criticism is that the antagonist is bland and not very villainous. We're told he wants control and he has a scary blue magic laser thingy but he's never really shown being all that villainous. Maybe this was a failure that came from translating the books to a script? I don't know. The lacking villain(s) and eventually the climax that turned out to be underwhelming then over-thought took some of the value away. It's also not clear to me why John Carter was so important. Because he's from Earth the gravity difference allows him to jump really high. Okay cool. But why does jumping really high help fight against an endlessly dynamic magical blue laser beam of death? Eh. It could have been better, but there are far worse movies to spend money on.
  25. Edward Cline has written about this at his usual blog: http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2012/03/steal-this-philosophy.html
  • Create New...