Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

dubrill

Regulars
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About dubrill

  • Rank
    Novice
  • Birthday 06/10/1942

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Utah
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Biography/Intro
    I am self-confident and an easy talker. My favorite activity is dinner parties with friends and/or family indulging in food and small talk. Have a gift of melody which has resulted in my composing classical pieces rather easily that everyone loves to hear and from which I intend to select a few to make music videos with a western or cowboy theme, creating a new genre, the classical music video. Have solved certain problems in philosophy, one of which is a correction of a logical blunder at the very beginning of Ayn Rand's moral argument. I supply the deficiency by actually finally solving the is-ought problem in ethics, a problem which even Arisotle said was unsolvable. Intend on publishing that and solutions to other problems within a year. I am a single male who prefers the company of other males. The frailties of the weaker sex annoy me, not the least of which is their always making mountains out of mole hills [as the past President of the LDS Church observed], their petty spite and vindictiveness [as Nietzsche observed], their moral inferiority to men [as Kohlberg observed], their interpreting everything they hear and see in the most negative light possible [as an article in "Men's Health" observed from a study], and in general their insecurity and touchiness, especially in relation to men, as all men have observed. All in all females are needlessly unpleasant. Associating with the chatterboxes is a plus only if they are MY females. Other men's women I avoid, like Aquinas, as if they had the plague. Men are cognitively superior to women, as well as morally superior. And men are more physically attractive, the peacocks, while women are the mud hens. Thus the hundreds of billions of dollars every year women spend to make themselves more attractive by approximating by artificial means the features nature gave men as gifts. Think about it. The male of every mammalian and fowl species is the more physically prepossessing. Why should the human species be different? It isn't. And have you noticed how shapelier men's arms, hands, legs, and feet are compared to women's limbs? Muscle is what gives shape to the limbs. Women are deficient in that area. Enough about the obvious. Well, it probably is obvious by now that I have no fear of the politically correct mob and their fraudulent ideal of equality, especially gender and racial equality. I have also discovered an unanswerable logical argument proving that inequality is NOT a moral problem in need of a solution.
  • School or University
    home
  • Occupation
    Money is not important to me. Never has been. But it is more important now as I get older, but only for security and the freedom it brings. Of itself or that status it brings means nothing to me. My passions are philosophy and secondarily music. I intend to overthrow the egalitarian culture that now dominates the world, especially the West and replace it with a rationally justified Aristotelian ethics that elevates the individual as the only entity that is morally relevant.

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Salt Lake City
  1. Kevin, you are young. I know that you are 30 from your personal. I, on the other hand, am a tired, old man. When you too have had the shit beaten out of you by life you just may become more compassionate toward those whom you dub as weak. In any event, ostensibly the "weak" character was Ennis, not Jack, who wanted to live together with Ennis, who wanted Ennis to pack his shit and move to Texas to be near him. But that's a superficial analysis. In reality Ennis was the stronger character of the two, the immovable object, while Jack, unfortunately, was not the irresisistible force. And it was t
  2. EC, you are so conventional. 10% of the male members of most mammalian and fowl species have been discovered to be homosexual, almost exclusively. Do 10% of elephants, horses, and penguins choose to be gay, destroying their lives as proper males of their respective species should live them? If that is not enough proof against your homophobia, in 1901 a survey was taken in New York City to discover the sexual orientation of the male population. 10% openly confessed to being exclusively homosexual! Back then! 100 years later in 2001 the same survey was taken in New York City to see if anything h
  3. None of the above. The content of a concept is not its definition, but its referents. In that case, a savage's concept of man refers to the same living entity as a civilized European man's concept does, albeit their definition of "man" would be different.
  4. Rand's assertion that she solved the is-ought problem doesn't mean that she actually did solve it. Rand assumes, as do the devotees of Rand, that an ought can be derived from an is. Unfortunately for Rand, Hume's criticism of that approach, the derivation approach, still stands as valid as ever. The problem with Rand's argument, which I am surprised none of her followers has detected, is that she is unaware of an equivocation on the word "ought." There are two meanings thereof, one being the alternative an agent faces to obey a princile of action or not, the other being the principle of action
  5. Kant's formal conditions of ethics, e.g., his universalization formula, albeit true are never justified by him. He just expects us to believe those conditions are valid. Rand's position is correct, moral values are those concepts required by man's nature. But even here, to show how clever he was, Kant speaks of morality being required by rational minds. But I don't see an argument demonstrating that which, apparently, Kant thought self-evident. Besides, the metaethical and normative aspects of ethics are not to be separated. Thus a demonstration of a norm as correct is inclusive of all met
  6. eriatarka, do you take everyone at their word? Just because Kant did not say that he was a Utilitarian, just because he was horrified by Utilitarianism--as who shouldn't be, Utilitarianism being the most absurd moral code concocted by the fevered brains of philosophers--does not mean that he did not ineluctably entrap himself in its absurdity just the same. The whole point of Kant's ethics being that the CI is objectively true in the same sense that the laws of arithmetic are true is irrelevant if that in fact is not what Kant's CI in any of its versions actually demonstrates. The whole proble
  7. Sorry KevinDW78 for my last reply to your request for a contradiction unearthed by the universalization formula of Kant. Totally my fault for misunderstanding what the professor asked by not reading your posting slowly. Here goes a second shot. First, the act of sharing would not be a possible contradiction unearthed by the univeralization formula inasmuch as the expectation of others of the act performed by you would not be contradicted. Besides, the act of sharing is not a contradiction to man's nature. Man's own well-being includes connections with other people, especially with those whom h
  8. Concerning KevinDW78's asking for an example of a contradiction in the CI, Kant's CI is in essence a Utilitarian imperative, at least as Kant himself elaborated on it. For Kant it is the general consequence in society, that is, the utility, of an act that is the standard of whether one treats it as an imperative or not. At one point in one version of the CI Kant himself talks about social harmony as the criterion of whether an act should be an imperative! Thus a contradiction in at least one version of the CI is that it is not actually a priori, at least in deciphering its moral dimension. In
×
×
  • Create New...