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 philos
  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
  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 w
  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 mo
  • Create New...