Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Michelle

Regulars
  • Content Count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Michelle

  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 satisfacti
  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 sc
  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 idea
  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,
  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
  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 awa
  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
  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 hav
  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.
  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 l
  16. I think using self interests for the point of motivation can be explained by the flow theory. I can't do the theory justice by breaking it down into simpler terms than what I know, but it truly is relevant to the causes of motivation and types of productivity.
  17. I think it has a very useful purpose. I enjoy seeing how others have reached their conclusions on how to interpret life. As well, sometimes if you're lucky and you meet a Christian who's uncertain or has an open mind; you can show them true logic and reason. I would say the best outcome in arguing with a Christian in whether or not a God exists is having them read some material by Ayn Rand and showing them how you've reached your personal conclusions. If you're arguing with someone who you can sense is very close minded or not open to discussion, then I completely agree with you. But we can
  18. That is extremely true. I live in a rick hickety town of North Carolina, and its very depressing to talk to the youth of America. But I find the biggest problem with teenagers is how ignorant they really are, or how close minded they are to new ideas. Or their complete incompetence. I've talked to literally hundreds of people, and I only know two people who have the ability to think on a higher level. God...we read Ayn Rand in my Sophmore year, and to hear the comments that I heard....you would've cried. I nearly did. So many of these dum-prick girls would say that they didn't
  19. I would use this as an oppurtunity to show him the truth. I personally enjoy talking with Christians, because their logic is so faulted; its not that difficult to show them their faults and bring them 'to the light'. We have to start from the beggining, this Jason believes that because God created humans, and gave us life, and that all life is good. He's coming from a position where we are endowed to an unknown diety that created us by no choice. Its almost like a brainwashed mindset- suggest that if a child was born in a communist nation, does that mean he owes the dictator his uny
  20. I think the purpose of a city is to be a vast collection of resources; but if I'm a businessman and it takes me twenty minutes to get to my office; thats not very efficent. In smaller cities, the sidewalks are only packed in the tourist areas as opposed to the larger demands of a city like New York, where there are so many people, everywhere is packed. Thats as best as I can clarify for how I would determine a city efficent or not.
  21. I believe the photo of Norway is best. Artistic beauty aside, both Hong Kong and New York are too cluttered in areas, the cities aren't nearly efficent enough for their purposes. But I must argue, as I was born and raised in Seattle, that smaller cities are by far my favorite. You have the advantage of resource and beauty without the overkill of shoving everything into as little space as possible. Toronto is a nicely organized city as well.
  22. I must warn you; I am what is reffered to as a "young objectivist", so my improper grammer and spelling may in fact make you implode with anger. I believe both sides have been making logical remarks, in that, both sides have reached their arguments by following a clear syllogism of ideas. Although, I do have to say I'm not a big fan of Mr. Enthymeme's arguments, I can see from what direction he is coming from (no matter how twisted his map may be). I think that this argument would be great for another forum, whether that may be grammar and linguistics or interpretation of the senses and t
×
×
  • Create New...