Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Zedic

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Real Name
    Sayune Ket
  • Copyright
  • Biography/Intro
    Anarchist, anti-Establishment, tree hugging environmental Leftist.
  • School or University
    University of Kentucky graduate
  • Occupation

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. That right there is the big distinction. Objectivism says it's not in favor of destroying the environment, but in words only. If there's ever a situation that pits human civilization against the continued health of the environent, Objectivism is always on the side of denying that we're having any appreciable affect on this planet. There is decades of scientific research by thousands upon thousands of highly trained scientists about our impact on the environment and subsequently on ourselves. Yet Objectivism is miraculously still in denial. I don't claim to be any sort of expert in philosophy. I'm a physicist, philosophy is only a hobby so there's always the possibility for misunderstanding on my part. But anyone can create 1 dimensional characters to make any kind point. It's still not demonstrative of reality. I think it's only fair I'm given the opportunity to over come my disabilities to become a fully functioning adult. That can include accommodations provided by Institutions and protection against discrimination by laws such as the ADA. Those accommodations have served me well in life and I'm very close to being a 100% autonomous and contributing member of society. But early on there was no evidence that I could ever become a contributing member of society. In an Objectivist society that would of regarded the early me as a mental deficient, where would I of fit in? Would I of had a chance? The part I disagree with is the emphasis. That's where I depart from Objectivism. I believe all people deserve compassion. I believe in finding the "divine" (I use that word symbolically) in all individual. It's not always easy but it's a personal conviction I can't sever. Yes, I was factually mistaken here. Correction: Objectivists do not find animal torture moral. But my contention is with anti-Animal Welfare. The fact that Objectivism can't find a justification for animal welfare is proof (to me at least) of its moral failure. If it can't find a reason to protect an innocent dog who can't help himself, but must rely on human kindness for his very life, when he's being brutally beat or mutilated then it fails to meet even a basic moral requirement. Peer pressure can work on someone who has a conscience. But for anyone who has ever worked with animals or done animal rescue (such as myself) knows for a fact that it's largely useless in fighting abuse.
  2. I understand that principles come first. I've read Atlas Shrugged (and I'm familiar with the general plot outline of The Fountain Head). But perhaps I was mistaken. Objectivism is more concerned about how we impact the environment or about homeless people falling through the cracks than it is the dollar, no? I can agree with those basic values. On a day to day basis I probably share a lot in common with other Objectivists than not. But when those values are applied to something bigger than myself, such as society or animal welfare, it simply doesn't work for me.
  3. It's not about being right or viewing Objectivism from an angel that sits well with your sensibilities. It's a demonstration of a false assumption Objectivism makes. It's simply not for everyone. She didn't solve Hume's is-ought problem. No one "ought" to be an Objectivist in life. It's a matter of what appeals to you as an individual.
  4. I tried living according to Objectivist principles and it doesn't float my boat. Why? Because it requires me to take certain ideals which I think are important to one degree or another, but jack them up higher on my priority than I'm comfortable with. It went against my every fiber of my being to live according to Rand's philosophy. It made me feel unhappy and miserable trying to suppress values which came naturally to me. The only way I could sustain it was to fuel how right I was by demonstrating how wrong and immoral altruism was. What values did it conflict with? I think it's important to preserve the biosphere on this planet as much as possible, but Objectivism promotes not just a big foot print, but getting away with as much as possible by rationalizing and down playing the extent our foot prints have on this planet. Economics, equality and ecology are in equal footing with me. The assertion that doing anything except making dollars the #1 priority in economics inexorably leads to disaster is laughable to me. The only way Rand could demonstrate how her axioms demand that one must make money a top priority in Atlas Shrugged is if she made all the altruists in her story extreme caricatures that sure don't reflect me at all. Why aren't they moderates? A moderate wouldn't make the crazy decisions that James Taggart (et el) needed to make in order for her point to get across, thus undermining her entire premise. An indirect consequence of Objectivism would be how education would be approached. The way education is taught in society reflects the end goals of the education. In the case of a staunch capitalist society, the goal would be to produce people with agentic qualities and who excel in very narrow academic measures. Why would such a society care about someone like me, autistic and diagnosed learning disabled early on? The only reason I hadn't fallen through the cracks is because of government programs which seek fairness in society by helping people like me. "Charity" is often thrown in as a quick addendum to fill in a crack without much after thought given to it. Who would fund a charity? Well, only those who have a vested interest in the problem. That would be the parents. But how would such individuals fit in a society? A leaning bus exposes children to "broken humans"; Clearly, a person like me has no place in an Objectivist society. Inflicting pain on animals for sadistic reasons, while frowned on due to sociopathic tendencies, is in itself considered moral in Objectivist ethics. Abhorrent, and I can make that moral judgment free of Rand's axioms. (A lot like how atheists condemn the Bible's morality despite rejecting the Bible's moral authority.) A great Mark Twain quote that I like goes something like this: "I will live my life in a way that will kill anyone else." By that he meant every person has their own way. There is no way in hell all 6 billion people would happily accept Objectivism "if only they understood it." There's no way everyone on this planet will be a Christian, muslim, atheist, etc. Plauralism is endemic to human nature and there's no way around that.
  5. I prefer to talk to him individually so we can actually discuss it without other comments getting in the way. We can even do it on the debate forum if everyone else would like to watch it.
  6. I'm not an Objectivist so feel free to try and sell me "selfishness" in a PM or something. It can help you refine your rhetorical skills.
  7. I know, Tensorman already pointed out my oversight.
  8. I forgot, I'm dealing with folks who are known for being the epitome of humbleness.
  9. Yes, you're right. It depends, sometimes setting c = 1 is done to simplify the equations. I'm used to using c = speed of light and I over looked that he said c = 1.
  10. My very humble opinion is this: If you don't know physics then you should shut the hell up.
  11. That is incorrect. The proper equations are E^2=m^2*c^4 + p^2*c^2; for a particle without mass E=pc and the rest mass of a matter particle is E=mc^2.
  12. I read Dawkin's The God Delusion and found it quite informative. The part which has affected me the 2nd most profoundly (the one on evolutionary altruism is #1) is the last chapter. In it he discusses how our consciousness has evolved within a very narrow band of existence. He used the electromagnetic spectrum as a good example. What we can see is only a tiny fraction of the spectrum. The same goes for reality in general. We need to use tools to examine the very large and very small. This lead me to ask, what's the origin of our reasoning capacities? It's based on our evolutionary experience within that narrow band of reality. So while it feels very normal and natural to assume that existence can't have a beginning, that's under the assumption made by a nervous system which has evolved on a little planet in a small corner of the universe. Under what authority can anyone say that such a nervous system can decree absolutely that existence cannot have an origin?
  13. Do you honestly not understand what that usage of the word means? What religion? Believe: 2 : to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something Webster online dictionary. How was I vague? How so? So, instead of attacking the argument you must attack the person? So its mere existence is enough to deter us from inadvertently doing ourselves harm? I'll like to see you prove that. So no species has ever failed due to a strained environment which wasn't able to sustain them? That's how extinctions happen.
  14. Where have I said I have authority over anyone's life? If you mean that the sustainable development movement might fundamentally change people's attitudes and thus turn the whole system in a direction you don't like, then tough. Those of us who believe in sustainable development have the right to freely make the decisions which leads to its fruition. Splitting hairs doesn't contribute to the discussion. What ideology? I believe it is you who is forcing words into my mouth here.
  15. I've made myself quite clear. But other people coming in and putting words in my mouth and splitting hairs doesn't help get my message across. I've yet to see you justify your position that sustainable development is irrational. You've made a lot of accusations, but so far when I asked you to justify them your response has been silence. Now there's a good idea. I suppose it's all a matter of how one measures efficiency and what one values in life. You may think it's more efficient and long term to use a material once, leaving it non-recoverable for future use. Where I think it's more rational to use it and keep using it again and again. Hell, it'd be cheaper than having to dig more out of the Earth and process it every time we need more. But hey, that's just me and the numerous entrepreneurs in the burgeoning recycling/sustainable manufacturing industry. Ever hear the phrase "stop to smell the roses"? Would the world end if we chose to use more time to think and plan ahead? A little more time to think about where we're heading? Doesn't mean anything needs to stop, just means being a bit more thoughtful. If such a consequence is the result of the sustainable development then all the better. It's better to think rationally and plan ahead than barrel on forward in a single minded pursuit that doesn't stop to ask question.
  • Create New...