Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Michelle

Regulars
  • Posts

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Michelle

  • Birthday 08/20/1991

Contact Methods

  • Yahoo
    mikshelle
  • ICQ
    0
  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Interests
    I've read Ayn Rand for a few years now, but never really intergrated into my life. As I'm getting older, I rely more and more on my principles which reoccur with objectivism. I joined to sight to clarify my own personal views and see how others justify their opinions.<br /><br />I cannot say I'm an objectionvist, but I do rely heavily on it. I tend to see things from more of a survivalist point of view, more like objectionvism as the physcology of survival of the fittest.
  • Location
    North Carolina, USA
  • Gender
    Female

Previous Fields

  • Sexual orientation
    Straight
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Interested in meeting
    I'm actually looking for multiple objectionvists in the local area for a Senior project.
  • Chat Nick
    Michelle
  • State (US/Canadian)
    NorthCarolina
  • Country
    United States
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Michelle's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. A 17 year-old Objectivist chick? Yowza.

  2. Its hard for humans to determine conciousness, because we are (as far as we know) the most concious beings and we can only see this matter subjectively. I think we're all throwing bits and peices of information in because we're lacking a true, fundamental question here. I think first off, we need to determine a definition, what causes conciousness, and what its essential properties are. Remember, these are my personal views! What is conciousness? The ability to comprehend and analyze sensory information, and utitlize that information towards finding a personal means of satisfaction different from instinct survival. There are three levels of conciousness- primal (as in the case of animals), social (the ability to relate and recognize others, higher forms such as apes) and spiritual (humans, such as metaphysics). What causes conciousness? I believe that conciousness is caused by the diffusion of electricity in the brain. Some people become more self-aware than others by developing curiousities and investigating the questions. Given this, you can say conciousness is self-driven. So if I'm wondering what the purpose of life is, I'm going to read and investigate and FOCUS on that one question as opposed to Susie who may be questioning about five other things and choose to focus on what shoes she wants to wear. There is then a diffusion of electricity when I stimulate my brain with more information, making more nueral connections in my brain and making me more self-aware. Now be it, Susie and I have the same LEVEL of conciousness, we can both think on a spiritual level but I am more self-aware driven by curiousities that may have been shaped by past events in my life or experiences. Remember, we are animals. So if I was younger, and my hand was slapped compared to a child who's hand wasn't slapped, I may be more curious as to why that slap hurt or why I was slapped to prevent me from being slapped again. A concept of survival of fittest on a larger scheme of things. I did have to write this in a small amount of time, so I'm going to apologize right now for any nuances or errors, but I'll have to come back later and make sure it doesn't sound like complete gibberish. For a bit more explanation, I would look into spatiotemporal continuity. Events create questions, what determines the difference in self-awareness is the motivation to find the answers.
  3. Thats a very "absolute" scenario, and very few and far between do we find absolute scenarios in life. No other way to subdue my attacker? Lets say I did take that man's life, which if I was put in such an absolute situation, then I probably would just because of basic instincts; it would not justify the murder. Even if I did kill that man, to save my own life, I wouldn't be able to satisfy my moral conciousness afterwards. That would be my own decision. I wouldn't force that guilt on someone put in the same situation, but it would not relinquish the guilt if I was put in the scenario.
  4. I just finished a course in philosophy, only a high school ethics course, but one pertaining to the nature of philosophy nonetheless. I think my teacher, Dr. Preston, taught a wonderful course that I could only wish others could take. A very small segment of the class was actually debating, but rather he taught us how to debate using If then statements. Such as.... 1. Life is good. 2. If life is good, then absence of life is abscence of good (bad). 3. Death is the abscence of life. Therefore, death is bad. A very elementary idea, but instead of having to defend our own ideas and concepts using our personal logic, we had to argue using other philosophers' arguments. One week it was Aristotle, the next St Augustine, and so on in chronological order. So we had to answer and had to understand how these great philosophers came to their conclusions and use those arguments to defend our points. As in the case of Marxism or Nihilism, I could hardly say I agreed with their points or philosophy, and I probably had the biggest struggle with Marxism, but I still had to learn how to answer like someone who completely believed in that philosophy.... I'm just saying, maybe she's coming from that angle. Some teachers make you answer very basic questions using different methods of philosophy such as need-based vs. care-based.
  5. I will reply with what I just recently posted. I am a member of mankind, and I can allocate that because I have the capacity for logic and I apply logic to comprehend the world and decide what values are necessary for my survival (definition of human). But because I allow myself to live, I cannot justifiably take away another member of mankind's life. It would be hypocrisy, and there are no circumstances when taking a human life is allowed (or at least in my book). But for the ruling majority, death should be allowed as a punishment under certain scenarios. I don't agree with those laws, but I live in a society where the majority does, so by living voluntarily in the U.S I must consent to those laws. I am under free will to move to a country or even state outlaws death penalty, but I choose not to. There are three universal rights (or at least in my belief there are). Life, Liberty of the Mind and the Pursuit of Happiness. In my opinion, a universal right occurs when there are no circumstances that exist in which those rights can be infringed. But my ideas and morals are very different from others. Like I said beforehand, my idea of applying logic to reality is different than another person's concept of logic. As long as my rights aren't infringed, I don't mind what someone else believes. By being human, you are entitled to think whatever you want and practice those beliefs to the extent that you don't infringe on others' rights. But by living under a certain creed of government that meets the bare minimum of first generation rights, you are submitting to the laws decided by the vast majority. You also have the right to challenge those laws or leave. Its your right as a human. So if I live in North Carolina, where the death penalty is allowed but I'm morally against it, I have the freedom to pack up and go. But if I'm convicted of a felony and punished with the death penalty, I cannot complain against the punishment because by living in that state I agreed with that law, and by committing a crime I agreed to the consequence of my action.
  6. I'm sorry, what I said earlier was a typo. But I'll elaborate still. I am a member of mankind, and I can allocate that because I have the capacity for logic and I apply logic to comprehend the world and decide what values are necessary for my survival (definition of human). But because I allow myself to live, I cannot justifiably take away another member of mankind's life. It would be hypocrisy, and there are no circumstances when taking a human life is allowed (or at least in my book). But for the ruling majority, death should be allowed as a punishment under certain scenarios. I don't agree with those laws, but I live in a society where the majority does, so by living voluntarily in the U.S I must consent to those laws. I am under free will to move to a country or even state outlaws death penalty, but I choose not to.
  7. these questions are so elementary its funny. No. You're wrong.
  8. An individual's moral stance is made of that person's logical conclusions to the events and scenarios in life, molded by their own prefences and beliefs. To say that there is a "collective moral stance" would be comparable to depriving someone of their unique individuality. By assuming rights or laws, you're depriving yourself of those rights by depriving a logical conclusion to them. Human beings are the only animals that posess the logic to pursue their own resources of happiness and make decisions on what makes them happy by using a process of logic and reasoning. Taking this logic away is to reduce a man to the level of any other animal. makes sense to me at least... I don't believe in any moral universalism with the exception of a mankind altruism which provides that it is hypocritical and illogical to recognize your own basic rights while ignoring the basic rights of others (such as life or property). The only selfless act is an act in which you despise yourself for afterwards. Otherwise, you are (in some form) benefitting yourself.
  9. I was actually hoping for an Ayn Rand citation, but that was given to me by the first post. thank you very much for your help. I couldn't get those answers from three different law firms, and two History majors. a rather frustrating journey, but I don't think I conveyed quite clearly what I meant beforehand. However, the question I meant to pose was answered in a very effective and concise manner.
  10. For a minute, I thought that your pirate photo was actually you dressing up as Frank Zappa.

  11. I have to agree with above, A newspaper is a product, just like a toy, that is marketed and bought and advertised to a certain group of people for max profitability because news, in any form, is nothing more than a product of a long and complicated marketing scheme. Media coverage is subject to the whims of the people, so to change the Media, you must first change the morality of the people who buy that news. The companies will then change their advertising and marketing strategies to meet the public's criteria.
  12. I think we're forgetting some basic human rights here. Given that the land is public land and for minimal use by the independent nation, I would say that a group of people could secede under the conditions that their rights were being violated. So in the theoretical "Texas" situation, I would say no unless the group of people wanting to secede could logically prove that their rights to life were being taken away. But let's allow for a small group of bigots living in Texas wanting to secede. You would need a large enough population, and probably a sucession of court cases proving that US Law violated their right to pursuit happiness in marrying more than one spouse, but then you'd have the challenge that by marrying more than one spouse you'd be depriving multiple people of their freedom. In the case of Tibet, which I know very little about, if the group of people is large enough to start a small government and operate, that very same government does not violate any human rights, then I would see no reason for China not to allow them a small peice of government property which is owned BY the people so it should be for use OF the same group of people.
  13. That does seem strange for a government to make that ruling. I could see their fear of Walmart turning into a monopoly, but it doesn't seem like a problem if the company offers its employees cash. It seems like that would be the employee's choice, and if the case may be that they would get less cash than the value of those coupons; I could maybe understand the frustration but, that does not justify it by any means. Thats a very strange ruling, if the decision was in my hands, I would only hand out cash and refuse the coupons. When you open a store in another country, you have to be willing to conform to their culture which in Mexico, happens to be handing out coupons. I don't like the UN.
  14. I'm starting research on my Senior Paper, in which I chose to focus on Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Its understandable that these are the basic rights endowed upon any human who is born upon this earth, but why? Why did the forefathers feel that liberty and pursuit of happiness should be guarenteed to any man on this earth? I've been trying to clarify my answers through Human Right documents, but unfortunetly, I can't seem to cite any sources that explain WHY humans deserve life, WHY we deserve liberty and WHY every man has the right to pursue his own happiness. Its such a fundamental topic that it befuddles anyone with a mind as to who would ask those questions. Its fun, but considering a research paper has very little room for personal thought, its very frustrating. I just want to write my own personal thesis on why man deserves his rights.
  15. I guess the argument would then lead to if a relationship is hollow, or as you refer to it, fake. I don't think anyone can define love for any other human being. There is no conventional love; each is unique. You may love someone in a manner that is wrong, or grotesque or morally deprived; but in that you still love them. Is love nothing more than the infestation of thoughts and emotions as interpreted by the mind? Can we choose who we love? I believe those are all questions that can really, only be answered by a personal faith in love. A truly idealistic man can love a woman through logic, but we're not all idealistic men. My belief is from a survivalist point of view. I believe that since a homosexual couple cannot produce offspring, the action is irrelevant and detrimental to a species' survival, which means a homosexual love is not natrual but rather, an intense infatuation. That is my belief though, I'm not going to argue with a gay man whether he loves his partner because although I can question the geniunity of that love or its moral integrity, I can't redefine his definition of love because his is based on faith, not logic.
×
×
  • Create New...