Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

KurtColville

Regulars
  • Posts

    165
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KurtColville

  1. This page on BB&T's web site offers a general view of their management philosophy. Across the banking industry, BB&T is revered for their singular training in customer service and management performance.
  2. Of course Obama holds the idea in his head that he doesn't want to destroy America and wants America to be great. I've even heard him say that he wants America to regain its place as the world leader in science and technology. But his policies and values stand in direct opposition to those goals. When someone's wants are disconnected from the rational means of achieving them, what they want no longer matters. What they do is all that counts. A mind that functions without regard for the nature of reality or man, without regard for the necessary steps between wish and accomplishment, functions on the level of an infant, on a primacy of consciousness. Obama wants good things to magically happen, because he doesn't care to identify the way that the good truly does happen, and he can count on Americans not caring either. Oblivious to the nature of reality, he fills in the steps between with any pet whims that he wants. If they benefit someone, somehow, that must make America stronger. Billions have to be wasted on failed auto manufacturers, in order to save auto workers' jobs. The government has to cripple the oil industry to support alternative energy businesses. Guantanamo has to be shut down to get the world to like us again. Global warming must be combatted, or polar bears will drown. We must double our national debt to save future generations. How? Blank out. Because Obama (and this goes for anyone in Washington) acts on the primacy of consciousness, he holds no principles, good or bad. Instead he starts with values cobbled together from a life of passive collectivism. Today, he promotes those values, and makes them real by pointing a gun, with pragmatic compromises and feel-good slogans. His admirers, and those who don't know any better, laud his "intelligence". This man isn't intelligent. His speech is a mesmerizing fog of contradictions, non-sequiturs, and second-hand pap, accented by a few out-of-context facts, and strung together just well enough for those who can't think to mistake it for intelligence. The reason to fear Obama is not because he wants to destroy America. The reason to fear him is because he can't tell the difference between good and evil, and neither can Americans.
  3. To answer the question, you have to assume the premise that the U.S. is no longer the best country to live in. In that case, I would guess Australia or Hong Kong. Switzerland wouldn't be too bad, either, although their zoning laws are horrific compared to ours. Even Canada is conceivable, if things got so bad that the able had to leave and every other country stayed the same. Not too many other places to go. The best solution, in my view, is not to look for a country that will allow you to live free, or to try to turn a bad one around, but to create a new one.
  4. I agree completely. I am ready to participate in such an undertaking.
  5. That does sound fun. One of these winters, I'm gonna make it out to Whistler to ski. That Wings team that won the Cup with Konstantinov is still my favorite. And the wars they had with Colorado -- unbelievable. Lidstrom will go down as one of the three greatest defensemen ever. Definitely helps having Connelly back!
  6. That reminds me of the old adage: soccer is a gentleman's game played by hooligans; rugby is a hooligan's game played by gentlemen. And hockey isn't just for goons -- you can play hard and clean.
  7. I tried that once. Wasn't a big fan, but I could see the appeal. I do like hiking in the snow, though.
  8. Sorry, Zip and Sophia, I have to proclaim my love for hockey, too! I play and ref here in Kansas City -- I just wish we had an NHL team. So I pull for the Wings (mom's from Hockeytown) and the Sabres (I went to Syracuse Univ.). We get a lot of Blues games here on TV. I'll second that about Ovechkin -- he's just sick. Christmas, skiing, and hockey are the only good things about winter!
  9. "Islam" means "submission". From Wikipedia: Submission is what they want of everyone.
  10. Absolutely. Absolutely. This isn't force, because I'm still free to exercise my own judgment; the owner isn't depriving me of a value that I have earned.
  11. I've gone back and read this thread several times through to see where the disagreement lies, and I agree that all we are arguing over is semantics. If I conveyed the notion that physical force was not essential to the concept of implied force, that was not my intent and may have been the result of poor wording. The only sense in which I was making a moral distinction between the two is that implied force adds the concept of "threat" to physical force -- hence the need for two different terms to denote two different concepts. Sounds like we agree on the nature of the two.
  12. Very, very impressive. And to do that without Boldin, wow -- and man, the secondary came to play.
  13. I agree. The threat of force amounts to actual, physical force. It is implied, as distinguished from a physical act taking place, only in that it is delayed by some indeterminate period of time. Someone threatens you, the harmful act is coming, and maybe immediately or maybe well down the road, but what matters is that it's coming and you will suffer harm as a result. I'm not sure, though, that I understand what you mean by saying that "force is an axiomatic concept". My understanding is that there are only three axiomatic concepts: existence, identity, and consciousness. Do you mean that force is ultimately metaphysical?
  14. You don't think that's insulting? I could understand frustration with it being in error, but not simply on the basis that I came up with it off the top of my head. I don't claim that it is flawless, but I can't say that I see a problem with it. Do you find it in error? Nope, that isn't the source of our disagreement, either, because I don't view force to be anywhere near axiomatic; there are tons of more fundamental concepts upon which it depends. The source of our disagreement appears to be that you regard the threat of force to be described under Newton's Second Law of Motion. I don't know how you think that, but you argued it here and in earlier posts. Okay, but why? Why is the change in an object's velocity sufficient to qualify an action such as brandishing a knife as force? I maintain that such an action is force, but not because the victim's velocity has changed due to the knife being brandished, but because the victim must focus his mind on the possibility of this maniac stabbing him.
  15. I used to loathe him, bcause he'd play all these hippies or iconoclasts snarking on America or something good. But in recent years, I've seen him take on some terrific roles, and he is a terrific actor. My favorite role of his is as Mr. Bennett in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. He's fantastic.
  16. Oooh, that's an interesting choice. He has the right combination of intelligence, amiability, and condescension. Very nice.
  17. Which example are you talking about, the starving man? I did address that. I said that "he's screwing himself" by not being able to eat. If someone is preventing him from eating, then that is force. Insulting me is not going to elicit my interest in discussing this. I have spent plenty of time thinking this through, I have directly addressed the flaw in your conception of Newtonian force vs. force in a moral context, I think the definition is pretty decent and you haven't named what you find wrong with it, and I have read ITOE three times. If insults and snarkiness have to part of your comments, don't bother. Jake, I see that you're talking about your post from 4:20 yesterday. I haven't addressed it because I haven't had time to get to it. I wasn't blowing it off. I haven't gotten to David's post, either.
  18. But force in the moral sense is not the same as the force that Newton describes in his Second Law of Motion. That physical force requires a change in the velocity of an object. It requires the physical interaction between two objects. Some physical event must take place for force to exist. There is no part of that law that includes the idea of implied physical force. If a change in velocity occurs, then force happens. If it is "implied" ("potential" in physics terms), no force happens. In the Newtonian sense, there is no force occurring from someone pointing a gun at you; the force is implied. Here is my spur-of-the-moment definition of force (in the moral sense): an action that requires a person to act, because to do otherwise would result in harm to that person. It means that someone presents you with a situation which, in order to be rational, you must consider it and evaluate a course of action, because if you ignore it, you'll suffer harm. It is a person causing you to use your mind against your will by exploiting the relationship between facts of reality and your nature as a human being. (I'll provide examples of what I mean by this, if you wish.)
  19. If you think that political parties are immutable, metaphysical givens that have no connection to the prevailing cultural philosophy and that these philosophies can't and don't change over time, then you're right, there is no point in discussing it. It's obvious, though, that even the conservative and liberal establishment are subject to philosophical change. The current ideas behind environmentalism, political correctness, multiculturalism, Just War Theory, and many other cancers plaguing our politics were non-existent and unthinkable not too long ago. People's ideas do change.
  20. Newton rightly described the natural phenomenon of force as that which changes the velocity of an object with mass. As a technical aside, when a tree hits the ground, it does move the earth (in the direction that the tree hits the ground), but it moves it such a small amount that it's regarded as trivial. When a tree hits the earth, that kinetic energy has to go somewhere. The earth isn't attached to an object that absorbs the energy and pushes back on the earth to keep it in place (like if I push on a house); it's floating in space, so it has no choice but to move. There is a different sense in which physical force is used in a moral, social context. Not to be repetetive, but force exists when one person gives another person no choice but to deal with him. When you lose your freedom to act rationally according to your own judgment, you are being forced to act. Unlike natural phenomena, physical contact is not necessary for force to exist in this context. If someone points a gun at you, you are forced to act, even though no bullet has touched you. If someone defrauds you, you have had force initiated against you, even though you never saw the guy again after you happily handed him your money. If someone says to you, "I'm going to kill you," and they mean it, that is force, even if they never touch you. Someone uses their mind to present you with a situation in which you have to take a certain action, because to do otherwise would mean harm to you. That is force, and it requires no change in the velocity of your body. That's right, because no one is preventing him from using his mind to act. He's screwing himself.
  21. Obama didn't just run against Republicans. Lots of other poltical candidates ran, and run, against Republicans, but they didn't get elected, either. Obama ran against Republicans and for Democratic socialism. Obama didn't say, "Vote for whatever change I bring you." He didn't say, "I want change that gets government off your back, upholds your individual rights, and makes you take responsibility for your lives." He said, "Vote for change, and here's the socialist laundry list I mean by 'change'." He advocated public service, renouncing selfishness as a virtue, negotiating with enemies to get the world to like us, higher taxes on the wealthy, crippling regulations on the oil and coal industries, sweeping green policies, radical undoing of the Constitution, he swept personal and public scandals under the rug, and much, much more. And Americans said yes. Whether they support that by conscious identification or a subconscious response to their values is irrelevant to what they chose and the danger it poses. If Americans can't be bothered to tell good policy from bad, and regard serious, consistenly advocated threats to freedom as small-print nuances not worthy of noticing, then they cannot be counted on to defend freedom in this country. Okay, so your point is that McCain is an unprincipled moron. No argument. Again, if Americans voted out of rejection of Republicans, why did they choose more socialism over more freedom? And why have they been doing so for over a hundred years and continue to do so? What is it about Republicans that they hate and wish to replace? It isn't freedom, because they don't support principled defenders of freedom. The alternative that Americans are faced with is not limited to who ends up on the ballot on election day. They face alternatives all day, every day. They have the chance to learn about what made this country free, and about Ayn Rand's ideas, and other similar defenders of freedom and moral integrity. Political elections are statements about a society's moral values. The reason their only alternative to corrupt Republicans is corrupt Democrats is because they have spend the last hundred years joining the world in rejecting freedom.
  22. What an interesting question! If I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't do much differently, but there are a few things that come to mind. Once I started reading Ayn Rand, I took it in at a slow pace. I already implicitly grasped and practiced the Objectivist ethics, so my reaction to her fiction was more or less, "Yeah, that's how I think. I wish others felt the same, but finally I've found someone who thinks like I do and puts it all together like I never could." Because I started out a little lethargic, I would get a hold of Dr. Peikoff's "Objectivism Through Induction" series right away. I didn't listen to it until almost twenty years after I discovered Ayn Rand (reading "Anthem"), but it propelled my grasp of Objectivism and ability to seamlessly tie concretes to principles like nothing before. I think it's accurate to say that it did more for my epistemology than Atlas Shrugged, OPAR, or ITOE, and they did a ton! I'd also seek out other Objectivists, either through online forums or through clubs. I did jump into Objectivist Usenet groups when they first started, but I was in school, was just learning Objectivism, and didn't participate with much gusto. (Experiencing it in the context of the birth of the Internet was fun, though!) I would have tried to find other Objectivists at school or right away after school. I waited too long, and really envy those of you who are super-active in college or even younger. Objectivism should be a social force in your life, not just abstract ideas that you agree with, alone in your dorm room. I didn't get much into this (thankfully), but it's good for new students to avoid and it goes with avoiding rationalism: avoid using Objectivism as the means to one-up others in debate. I can't tell you how many young people I see do this, simultaneously demonstrating that the idea of using Objectivism as a guide for living means little or nothing to them. They use it basically as polemical ammo. Bleh!! Debate for debate's sake is garbage, even if you're good at beating people. I understood it generally right off the bat, but it still took years of integration and premise checking to feel it in my gut, as though it were an organ or appendage, that Objectivism is for living.
  23. You can measure that by determining how much government control over people's lives Americans support and vote for. Obama ran on more government control than McCain, and Americans rewarded him for it.
×
×
  • Create New...