Sarrisan
-
Posts
84 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Sarrisan
-
-
I love how they're able to successfully combine serious ideas with showmanship and comedy, and end up making a pretty good case most of the time (Though, as libertarians, I sometimes disagree with their conclusions). Ultimately, it ends up that they are able to reach a much wider audience than if they simply went around the country lecturing (Not that there is anything wrong with that, either. Different contexts for different kinds of people).
-
I'm not so sure... I mean, what are the main differences between a masterful statue and a masterful dish (Besides the fact that one of them is going to last far longer)? I think if you approached it in the right way, it could be art.
I'd like to see some more thoughts on this subject.
-
2. belief that is not based on proof
You would imagine this means "case closed," but I somehow doubt it will be.
-
Instead i was presented with a hero who was easily corrupted(Dent)...
Easily corrupted? As was stated earlier here, Dent was one of the few character with some real principles. He was driven insane (Which I would call different from simply being "corrupted") because he had to deal with the pain of losing his highest value (Rachel). In that state, it is completely believable that he would be open to the Joker's coercion. I mean, do you really think he would have ended up the way he did if Rachel had been fine and dandy?
...another hero with a conflicted sense of justice that made him take all the burden of actiosn he did not cause(Batman)...I'm a bit more on-the-fence with this one, but I think you have to take his actions into context. Gotham is hardly a normal or rational world -- and Batman does whatever he can to try to save it. That is his highest value. Wanting to see the world changed for the better, for justice to finally have a meaning, is not an altruistic or irrational value to hold, and considering the context of his fight (Literally, that of one man against the world), I think certain considerations are required on his behalf. While far from the perfect hero, I think he is quite a bit better than most Hollywood gives us these days.
...and the only character with real conviction was the Joker.Excuse me? Maybe I missed an important part of the story, but I thought that the whole point of the Joker was that he was a raging nihilist -- his only "conviction" was that he hated everything equally and wanted it all turned to ashes.
-
Before you can say that something is "against man's nature," you have to define clearly what his "nature" is. Objectivism identifies that Man's nature is that of a volitional being, who must make rational choices in order to survive.
What exactly are you suggesting Man's nature is?
-
I hope they fix the audio soon - I was out while it was running and now I can't even hear it. I listened for a few minutes, and Yaron was legible, but Giddy talks so softly that I can barely make out every third word.
-
All presidents in American history, or just those of the 20th century? Either way, I'd second Coolidge, and add Washington as my personal favorite (Alas, my knowledge of presidential history is a bit weak).
-
Unfortunately, it's kind of inevitable that something like this happens to most Objectivists (Unless you happen to know great people who are open to the ideas of Objectivism, but alas, such people are rare). As humans, we are attracted to those people who share our values. Once those values change, so will our relationships. That being said, I honestly doubt the loss of someone so vile could be anything but a positive for you. His attacks are second-handed calls to what you should be, how you should act, according to his evil standard. As for the allegation involving your friends, I would ignore it until you get further evidence. It's probably just another baseless attempt to guilt-trip you into abandoning your values.
Personally, I haven't experienced anything so harsh (For the same reasons as Juxtys; I was a loner before Objectivism), but I've drifted away from the venues and groups I used to frequent. It may hurt a little at first, because these are people you once valued, but I've come to see that, more often than not, that value is no longer really warranted.
Having said that, you should do whatever you can to gently "convert" your friends, if you can, but don't lose too much sleep over this.
-
Even if he somehow explains why the democrats are weak, why does that justify voting for them? Republicans, at least, favor a move towards something a bit closer to our morals(though still far from it)
This gets less and less true every day. At this point in time, I'd say the only real differences between the two (At least in regard to how more or less free they will make us) is that one is side will lead us to communism, while the other side, to fascism. It has gone far beyond "they are both bad."
I'd suggest you read Craid Biddle's article "Mcbama vs America" in The Objective Standard, if you haven't already. There are other places to look as well, but that is the most concise and readable one out there that I know of.
-
I don't remember Kahlan being an expert horse-back knife-thrower in the book...
But then, in the book...
Yikes! Almost went into nerd-mode, there. I gotta be careful this week.
-
I wish there was a more up to date version of this. I'd like to see if the contrast between lists is quite as vast as it is currently.
(edit: spelling)
-
I'd like to point out that ARI has been doing a lot more lectures and talks around the US since the Ayn Rand Center was opened in Washington. If you go to their main page an scroll down a bit, the up-coming lectures are listed in a bar on the right.
Almost every week there are two or three more. Seems to me like they are just getting started, too. I think we can expect a lot more from them in the future.
-
To begin with, I would suggest that you at least read something of Objectivist ethics before you try to argue against them. Secondly, just because an idea is objectively true, does not mean it must be able to answer irrational hypotheticals. Your hypothetical is pretty unrealistic, to the point where it's laughable. It's like saying "yes, I know gravity prevents people from flying without help, so people should not jump off cliffs, but what if gravity did not exist?" The question is useless because it does not relate to reality.
Now, to answer the bulk of your post, I'd like to first correct an error. According to Objectivism, man has rights not because he is conscious (Unless I'm misunderstanding the term), per-say, but because he has a rational faculty, and furthermore, it is within his nature as a man that he must use his rational mind to survive. If he does not use his rational mind, then he will not survive unless someone else helps him. Physical force (Which includes coercion, fraud, etc) is the only thing that can keep a man from using his mind to it's fullest extent against his will. Since he must use his rational mind to survive, rights exist to allow that -- outlawing the use of physical force among human relationships.
Also, the question must be asked, "Is it a part of this creature's nature that he must use his rational faculty to survive?" If he has a rational faculty, but it is not prominent in his survival, then rights are not required, as he might have other traits, like great physical strength or instincts, that allow him to survive. Rights come into play only since man needs to think rationally to survive. That is all he really has. He has no great strength or instincts to aid him -- he only has his mind. Therefore, he requires rights to be able to survive in a human context.
So, finally, to semi-answer your hypothetical -- it would depend on their nature as thinking beings. Are they dependent on their rational faculty to survive? If not, then rights do not apply.
Mind you, I am still sort of a "newbie" myself at this, but I think that is the gist of it. Once again I advise you to read Rand's work. Or, if you want a slightly more streamlined version, go for "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand," by Leonard Peikoff.
-
*** Mod's note: Merged with a previous thread. -sN ***
This is something that has been popping around my brain for a little while, and I'd like to get your take on it.
Violence, as I understand it, is not something that is evil in and of itself. It is only when it is used as a agent of force to violate the rights of other human beings that it becomes evil. A couple boxers sparring with each other could hardly be called evil for doing something they both enjoy and agree to.
But what about lethality? Should two people be allowed to sign a contract, validating their intent, state of mind, and the rules of the duel? I'm not asking if it is moral (deciding to simply kill each other, however you look at it, doesn't seem very rational to me, except maybe in extreme contexts that I can't think of right now), but whether it should be allowed under law, since apparently no coercion is involved, and both parties are consenting.
-
I've watched this show for years. Got my mom and sister into it, and they ended up buying the Season DVDs.
Of course, my mom only watches it to stare at Daniel. I think she almost cried when he cut his hair after the first few seasons.
-
Where can I find this 'debate' your involved in? I'm interested in checking it out.
I believe he said it was a PM (Private Message) discussion.
I'd like to agree, though, that making videos and arguing on Youtube and similar places can be of use. There are millions of people who go there daily, and while most of them are retards, there are plenty who are either smart and intelligent, or simply misguided. By debating and showing ideas in the personal manner that video-blogging allows, you can reach certain people who you might otherwise ever have a chance to.
-
Gagh! I missed it...
Is there any way to listen to it now that it's passed?
-
I think what made Rapture fall was the lack of a military/police force capable of dealing with any rights violations coming from the use of plasmids. I remember a recording in which Ryan says, "the government won't stop the use of plasmids - let the free market decide." It seems that whoever wanted to characterize Rand's philosophy, failed to do so accurately; they assumed Objectivists are in favor of anarchy.
I never actually considered that part of it. Excellent observation. Another example of how Ryan really wasn't an Objectivist -- he was close, but no dice.
The think the main problem (If you consider it as such) is that they (The creators) weren't interested in making an argument against or for Objectivism, or even Laissez-faire. They simply wanted an interesting setting to place their game in.
And, well, I think they succeeded. Bioshock, despite it's problems, was very immersive and had an excellent environment that really drew you in. If the game mechanics weren't so... well, that's another discussion. A good game, definitely, overall.
-
When discussing the middle-east with people, the topic of Isreal and how they "invaded" Palestine almost inevitably comes up. I have a very vague understanding of what happened back then -- but it is all third or fourth-hand knowledge, if not worse. This makes it difficult to debate effectively, as any middle-east discussion I have with someone usually hits a brick-wall at this point.
So, I wish to ask you all here whether you have some recommendations as to good histories written on the subject, especially pertaining to current-day issues. Also, I would prefer it to be from a more or less Objectivist point of view, since that is the position I am most likely to be arguing from. I'd like a book best, but any lecture series or such would be welcome as well.
I would look around myself, but I have very limited funds to use in exploring the subject, so I want to go for the best possible source first and make my money spread far as possible.
-
If I remember right, Rapture failed because of Fontaine's illegal and manipulative actions, which ultimately set a chain reaction which led to the city's destruction. Seeing his city falling sent Ryan mad, which contributed to it's end. Ultimately, I think the biggest problem is that Ryan was never a fully-realized Objectivist. He was a business man with good premises, but he wasn't a philosopher in any sense, and neither were the people who lived in the city.
So the ultimate thing that led to Rapture's destruction was the fact that no one who lived there was explicitly Objectivist. Hell, Ryan was really the only implicitly Objectivist person. Combine that with the fact that the city had to be completely secret form the rest of the world - it was doomed from the beginning.
I think it was a pretty good dystopia story all together, but it's clear that the creators had some pretty mixed premises themselves, which ultimately works toward the story's detriment.
Also, about big-daddies -- weren't they brainwashed? I don't remember completely, but I never got the impression that they were volunteers in the matter (And neither were the little girls).
I don't really think the big-daddy/little sister relationship is a very good way to represent Objectivism though, especially considering what the little-sisters were and how they were used. It could deffinetely give the wrong impression to a layperson.
-
That we know of. But, what if a non-human animal were to possess this property? Such as Zira from Planet of the Apes? Would she possess rights?
First, it's important to understand that unrealistic situations, or emergencies, are not the basis for ethical or moral theory. The purpose of ethics is to guide rational beings through their every-day lives. Emergencies are special situations that must be analyzed individually, and often with hind-sight, for any ethical or moral considerations (Ethics are based on the ability to think and use your mind rationally -- doing such a thing in the middle of most things that are classified as 'emergencies' is often impossible to a large degree).
But to answer your hypothetical; yes, she would. Rights exist because they are a requirement of our survival as rational beings. Specifically, to negate the initiation of force in all social interactions between men (Rational beings). If, somehow, we were to discover another race who were not "men," but who were similarly rational, then yes, they would have these rights as rational beings.
It's my understanding that, according to Objectivism, humans are born tabula rasa. So, the infant in question may not be able to reason initially, but will gain this faculty further down the road, assuming all goes well. Thus, according to Objectivism, because the newborn has the potential to be rational, it is worthy of rights for this reason alone. Is this a correct understanding?I would judge that assessment largely correct (Though I am not an expert by any means, so take what I say with a grain of salt).
Hmmm. I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one. I used the word "worthy" because, according to my point of view, "rights" can't be "inherited" as you seem to suggest, they can only be assigned by entities capable of rational thought. The nature of the recipients of these rights is irrelevant; a human could assign rights to a chair if he so wished. Whether it would be in his rational self-interest to do so is another matter entirely. Ayn Rand just happened to believe that the only entities worthy of rights were humans. You said:"if men are to interact with one another in a way which is conducive to survival"
Obviously it's in the rational self-interest of most people not to be murdered, assaulted, enslaved, or robbed, or to permit others to do so at will. So, the concept of "rights" (along with "government" and "justice") was invented to prevent these bad things from happening. "Rights", in the sense I am using them, are synonymous with "laws". The Geneva Conventions and the US Bill of Rights are good examples of this, although rights/laws are not necessarily the result of moral consensus.
Are all men rational? Are there no irrational men? I believe the answer to both questions is no. That is why humans have rights - and why laws exist to protect those rights. If the entire world were rational, then we would probably not be having this discussion!
I think you are misunderstanding what rights are, as well. A "right" is simply a recognition of the fact of reality that, to survive, man must not be coerced into taking actions that his rational faculty knows will hurt him. It is not a gift, or a whim, imposed by man on other men.
I'm sorry but I can't articulate further, hopefully someone else will be able to do a better job!
-
I thought I'd mention this site, www.couchsurfing.com for a few reasons. First, with all the Objectivist conferences and meetings that are spread out in different states, it seems like a good site for anybody looking to hang out in a city for a few days on the cheap. Secondly, I'm hosting while I'm in NYC and it's been pretty fun so far. I've only hosted one guy so far, but I have a few more lined up. It's a nice way to meet really interesting people, and to help people out with the prospect of making friends in other countries who might help you out when you go travelling.
Thirdly, I wonder if anybody has any ethical or social reactions to the idea, since it is prima facie an organization of people giving free stuff.
And, technically, an internet forum is just a group of people exchanging ideas and information largely for free. While that website seems to have some serious Multicultural overtones that sound disturbing to my Objectivist ears, I don't see anything wrong with the idea itself. Indeed, you just listed numerous values that you yourself have acquired using it.
-
During one of Dr. Andrew Bernstein's lectures, he mentioned he is writing a book that is a lay person's introduction to Objectivism. I'm eager for that to come out so my mother will quit bugging me.
It's called "Objectivism in One Lesson," and it looks really good. According to that page, it'll be coming out tomorrow. I plan on getting it as soon as I can afford it, myself. Bernstein is great.
I'm afraid I find it hard to reach people myself. Sure, I send LTE's, make short posts introducing people to Objectivism, etc, but when it comes down to it, it's very hard to get someone interested enough that you can explain some of the core values to them, or get them to read AS. It becomes especially frustrating when these are people you care about, whom you know are good people, but simply do not think philosophy is anything they need to think about.
As a matter of fact, I think it's this type of outlook -- that philosophy is just something for those crazy grad-students and professors to babble about -- that is most difficult to deal with. At the very least, someone who is holding false-premises or is slightly hostile to Ayn Rand's ideas knows the importance of ideas, and can be engaged and debated with (And possibly converted). But when all you have to work with is one big wall of indifference... It's annoying, to say the least.
-
Thanks everyone for the replies. I think I'll try linking him back here next time I get in touch with him.
@ Chops
Dang, I did some searching before I posted but I couldn't find any other threads on the subject. Thanks for the link.
Penn and Teller
in Intellectuals and the Media
Posted
Teller takes Powells history course? Man, as if I needed another reason to start on that...
I hear my budget crying.