Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Sir Andrew

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sir Andrew

  1. Criticism of the book for the book is a different issue entirely. I shall quote Peikoff's letter directly: "[McCaskey's] disagreements are not limited to details, but often go to the heart of philosophic principles at issue" The key phrase here is "philosophic principles". If McCaskey has criticised Objectivist principle, then he has departed from Objectivism. Like I said, we have not seen this criticism, and may never see it.
  2. I noticed that this comment was left unanswered and wanted to point out that is entirely a rash and unfair statement given the fact that it hasn't been proven (nor disproven, for that matter) whether McCaskey has made any statements against Objectivism. If he indeed has, then it is completely understandable that Peikoff be incensed that such a person be on the ARI Board of Directors. In my opinion, Peikoff should not have allowed the release of the letter (as McCaskey claims he did) without making a full statement of the facts he refers to.
  3. I see what you mean, I was confusing the two. For example, I'm not a physicist but I grasp that everything is made up of atoms. "Atom" for me is a floating abstraction.
  4. If I'm not mistaken, it's not a floating abstraction on the basis of the fact that you can point the individuals in the society (say on the terms of being in a given area ruled by a government). Her point is that it is a valid concept, so long as one remembers that it is an epistemological or mental unit, not a physical unit, i.e. that men aren't actually all tied together in reality, they're individual entities. It is, therefore, not a floating abstraction in the sense that it isn't tied to any referents in reality.
  5. "Get Outta My Way" by Kylie Minogue. I'm a sucker for good pop.
  6. Relaunch of the Objectivism wiki is complete! Go check it out! http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/Main_Page

  7. Indeed. I'm rather surprised that someone doesn't secure distribution rights, even if just to have them out there.
  8. Revived my old twitter account: MusingsOfAMan

  9. Could I get a promotion on the Objectivism Wiki? I'd really like to go full-steam ahead with it.
  10. Just re-did the Main Page for the Objectivism Wiki. Go check it out!

  11. Is anybody else interested in seeing this to full fruition? Recently I've been going through and adding navigation tables to help organize the pages and direct traffic flow.
  12. Up way later than I should be

  13. I guess if we wanted our money to look like UNO cards, we could use their design.
  14. I have nothing to say for the female side of it, but I can say that even after a week of total abstinence, my thinking is a lot clearer.
  15. Objectivists have the principle that the universe is not chaotic and contradictory, but is absolute and knowable. When you integrate that principle in your life, you know you're not stuck in some chaotic universe that knocks over every so-called "castle in the sand" that you build. As far as reaffirming the benevolent universe principle, when I'm experiencing any doubt I compare the progress I've made in my self-esteem in the 6 months I've been a student of Objectivism vs. the years of chronic doubt, guilt, and fear I experienced when I was a Christian. To me, that's enough.
  16. This isn't your father's Star Trek.
  17. They can be relieved of duty, transferred, or court-martialed. I don't see where you're getting this notion that everyone gets away with anything. Most of the time, people don't disobey orders. When they do, they usually have good reasons.
  18. The only problem I had was when Old Spock said "Put aside logic and for once do what you feel is right.", but then I realized that this wasn't a matter of ethics per se, it was about what Spock wanted to do with his own life, not what some duty told him to do. Then he says "You will always be a child of two worlds, and fully capable of deciding your own destiny. The question you face is: which path will you choose?". So all in all, the philosophy of the movie isn't that bad. Now some people have said "It didn't have a great plot". Personally I think the plot was fine, but what they're missing is that the movie was character-driven, which makes sense when you understand that the entire purpose of the movie was to re-introduce the characters we've known and loved for 40 years. While they weren't able to flesh out every single character (which they didn't need to), they did a great job with a 2-hour movie. Next movie will most likely have a better plot, because the characters won't need introduction. The action sequences were spot-on, the actors' performances were great (Karl Urban as Dr. McCoy was an epic win), and overall the beauty of the film has beaten anything I've seen in a while.
  19. What a silly review. THE MOVIE WAS AMAZING.
  20. I liked Kira, loved Dagny. On the male side, I have to say that the only character who appealed to me was Andrei Taganov.
  21. The Illuminati don't want to become too conspicuous.
  22. I do the same thing with a book of logic puzzles to help with my deductive skills
  23. Hahaha, have I mistakenly resembled Red propaganda?
  • Create New...