nimble
-
Posts
621 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by nimble
-
-
You are willing to die for a principle, but not for a person who embodies those principles, and more?
Those principles are not valuable in themselves.
i think you didnt read my post. I dont love anyone enough to die for them. I havent found anyone who embodies the principles i love.
-
i suppose it will depend on how much you value the loved one and yourself. I can truly say that I dont love anyone enough at this point in my life to die for them. I might be willing to die for freedom or some principle...but not for any person in particular. I guess thats just me though.
-
well if you value your loved one's life more than your own....i dont know what to tell you. If you value your life more, then yes it is immoral to sacrifice it. And the first thing you should learn about Objectivism is to not accept unwarranted guilt. If it is not your fault that your loved one died, then any guilt you accept is unwarranted. It is something to definitely morn over, but not to feel guilty about.
-
There really isn't a good answer to the question, "who was a good president in the last century?". But if the restriction were lifted, I'd be all too happy to answer, "George Washington and Thomas Jefferson."
i didnt say "who was a good president in the 20th century?" I asked "who was the best of the 20th century?"
-
Using the media as an indicator, two examples of the popularity of Christianity are:
1. The Passion of the Christ
2. the Left Behind series (whose authors' names slip my mind)
I live in a small town where I would guess 50% of the people are religious, and the closer you go towards the outskirts and isolated suburbs the more of them you tend to find. I heard some discussion about Kerry being and atheist but I haven't had enough interest to research it. Has anyone else heard whether or not that is accurate? And why?
he is catholic, sorry. I think catholics are the easiest to convert to atheism, since they can see religion as it is: dogmatism.
-
Wow! Where do you live man? Where I live, it's crawling with religious people and sometimes it looks to me that I am the only non-religious person in the whole world! (then I come here)
People here are mostly christian. It's tradition here. Nobody really asks to be one, they're born with it and a vast majority doesn't bother to question christian principles. Those who do don't get to talk about it much, but even they don't get far - they become Jehovah's witnesses.
I live at a college in Michigan. And I visit home in the suburbs off of the bigger city Flint MI. At college, I find maybe 1 in 10 are christian or actually practice it. Some might say they believe in god, but they dont act christian or go to church. The media rarely portrays religion in a good light if it mentions it at all. All of my relatives are atheist. All but a few of my friends are atheist. I, until a few days ago when you mentioned it, never knew that christianity was ACTUALLY popular. I thought maybe 2 in 5 claim to be, and maybe 1 in 10 practice and thats about it.
-
The paper dollar can be backed by any objective value, it doesnt have to be gold or only gold. Silver works. Any precious metals work. Truly you could have a paper standard, where the dollar was actually worth what it was printed on. It wouldnt be practical, but the point is that the government shouldnt be able to dictate the price of the dollar.
-
i had the misfortune of reading Atlas Shrugged first. In turn, it made it so that I knew exactly what would happen and why it was happening in the Fountainhead. It kind of ruined the novel for me. Rand writes in a very unique way, and she consistently writes that way. So it makes her themes, plot and settings very predictable. If only I would have read Fountainhead, then AS I might have liked the Fountainhead better. I like both, but AS is the better novel.
-
wow, thats a very interesting story. Nice to meet you. I am nimble. I am learning Objectivism too. I know most of the ethics and politics, and I came to alot of my own conclusions from the basic premises of Objectivism, but I am currently reading Intro to Objectivist Epistomology. I need help in that area.
-
I would strongly disagree. Reagan was the president who started the tradition of the Republican party eating out of the New Right's hands.
who is in your opinion the best president of this century? And please dont say bill clinton.
-
why are they called PUBLIC schools if they are PRIVATE?
-
i liked pirates of the carribean. how could you not like it?
-
i think woxor was just debating that we are not omniscient. But instead of calling it omniscience, he called it certainty. So he said we cant be certain. What he really meant, is that we are not omniscient.
-
you can thank me later for the prompting question....
-
reagan i thought was a decent president. probably the best we've had this century.
-
i think he was arguing that you wouldnt know what 100% is if it is an impossible thing to have. As for the validity of that statement, I am not CERTAIN (hahaha) that his claim works.
-
The non-fiction helps, but hes just doing an essay on Objectivism. I would never read 20,000 pages of text JUST to write an essay.
-
thank you
-
yea how everyone loves a little S and M.
O wait maybe thats just me. HAHAHA -
No, it is because Ayn Rand DID know English that she used 'he'. It is proper grammatically, when using a third person pronoun with a singular antecedent, to use 'he' if the gender is unknown.
really? I have always been taught that the proper pronoun in a hypothetical situation with an unknown gender is "one." My mother is a high school english teacher. I havent taken anything above English 131, because thats all you need for an econ major. So i dont claim to be a know it all on this issue, thats why I am asking. I have just always been taught that "one" is the proper pronoun.
-
Most certainly.
The vocal chords, properly used, can produce tones. They are the prototypical "stringed instrument" from which other stringed instruments, like the lyre, violin, guitar, piano, etc. evolved.
I always learn something every time you post.
-
I love music too, and welcome!!!!
-
Greetings!!!
And its sad that you only discovered Objectivism now, but now you always have the future to look forward to at least. As for me, I discovered it about 3 years ago in High School. So i still have my whole life to define my views and correct any errors I had previously. Since I had very few years to correct, I assume my views must be much easier to change than yours were.
-
Truthfully, I doubt this is even relevant. I am not accusing anyone of being a chauvanist, because I dont think anyone here, or any Objectivist would sanction such a thing, BUT have you ever noticed that when most Objectivists refer to anyone that they dont for sure know is a "she" they call them a "he."
Even when I read Rand, I notice that when she talks of man in general sense, she uses the pronoun "he" instead of what normal people would do and say "one." I dont know if it is because English is her second language, or it might have to do with her views on the female role in sexual relationships. Can anyone explain, I was just really curious.
How can man act against his own nature?
in Metaphysics and Epistemology
Posted
well put.