Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Gramlich

Regulars
  • Content Count

    117
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Gramlich last won the day on January 2 2015

Gramlich had the most liked content!

About Gramlich

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 06/07/1988

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Maine
  • Chat Nick
    Gramlich
  • Relationship status
    Single
  • Sexual orientation
    Straight
  • Real Name
    Nicholas Gramlich
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • School or University
    University of Maine Orono

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Holden

Recent Profile Visitors

3584 profile views
  1. Leibniz claimed that this is the best of all possible worlds. I wonder whether it is the only logically possible world or whether it is possible to have a different universe in the first place. Both Leibniz' claim and my subsequent inquiry most likely can't be proven, but it's an interesting thought experiment, even without the invocation of God. It makes one wonder what sort of leeway something like a law of a universe could have and what does it mean for something to be possible. My reasoning for why the universe would be the only logically possible world is based primarily on the fa
  2. Thanks for the replies, guys. This was what I was wondering.
  3. I've started reading Friedrich Nietzsche, and I can't help but be confused anyone took him seriously. The man seems to advocate for ideas that ultimately imply a kind of evil, and I'm wondering if I'm missing historical context that helps explain some of his more ridiculous statements. In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche writes: "For us, the falsity of a judgment is still no objection to that judgment -- that's where our new way of speaking sounds perhaps most strange. The question is the extent to which it makes demands on life, sustains life, maintains the species, perhaps even creates spe
  4. There was a half Puerto Rican - half white guy at my high school who would cry "racist" every time he did poorly on a test. (His purpose for this was obvious: he didn't want to be responsible for his own failure. This was a private school, and he came from a cushy, well-off family.) Racism is so heavily ingrained in some people's minds that it's the only thing they can see. They can't comprehend the existence of a mind separate from their skin color, hair/eye color, facial structure, and/or body build. It's an assumption they can't afford to challenge because it would leave too much in their
  5. Merriam-Webster gives the definition of intelligence as "1.a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason(2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) c : mental acuteness : shrewdness " The incorporation of free will into the concept of intelligence instead of the usual "dumb" deterministic view of it as a simple, flat quantity that you're born with doesn't dictate how much free will affects intelligence as such.
  6. I think the "come down to Earth" attitude may be different between your parents and Rand's example in the quote. A person can legitimately live in a fantasy world by not taking heed to the particular complexities of real life, or, as I think Eioul implied, it may just be your parents legitimately thinking that your worldview is unrealistic when it may be otherwise. Rand's example is in the context of a person directly addressing romantic art and trying to get a child to drop his interest in the idealized nature of it. The psychology behind this has already been explained in this thread. The
  7. You could read The Art of Non-Fiction, written by Rand, herself.
  8. Rock Lobster is the ballad of our ages. How dare you insult it's good name? You disgust me, sir.
  9. It's just short-hand for the law of non-contradiction.
  10. I never said it was "the only reason." It is a main reason for people targeting them, however. Most people who criticize business' collusion with the government do so on the grounds that you have the dirty profit seekers corrupting the otherwise pure egalitarians. And it's particularly the very successful companies collusion with the government that brings their ire the most, but this is a mixed economy, which makes success within it more dubious than a free-market. Judging the merits of a company on the grounds of "Did you have any dealings or manipulations with the government? Then you're
  11. It's commonly assumed that all large businesses are large due to nefarious purposes. Even companies from the industrial age that had little collusion with government are assumed to be evil and exploitative for seeking profits and succeeding in the attainment of them. What the vast majority of people attack these days is the profit motive as such, that it's bad to want to make wealth. Even conservatives have a lot of trouble being comfortable with large businesses making large profits (You seem to, as well). But the profit motive is the cornerstone to the entire free-market. Professional Obje
  12. That's because big businesses are always targeted as evil simply because of their success. It's a point that almost no one makes other than Objectivists. There's nothing wrong with being large or successful. To think Objectivists never point out that the poor are hurt the most due to government intervention is fallacious. Rand, herself, pointed it out.
  13. Because romantic feelings imply they are a value of which you want to obtain. Them being with another person means they are "possessed" by another person, so they are not a value that is obtainable, at the moment at least. The pain you feel is from your realization that a value is unobtainable.
  14. This is just insulting, and you're insulting our intelligence. You're assuming the only reason Objectivists are supporting the right to self-defense is because it's American tradition and it's where we grew up, not because there's any actual logical argument behind it. For someone who goes on about how you have to be willing to consider divergent opinions, you certainly are unwilling to do just that, so you psychologize, instead. Patronizing.
×
×
  • Create New...