Gramlich

Yes, this trial is a heinous witch hunt and more people should be aware of it. It's alarming that such a trial is even possible in this country.

Man, I just don't know what to do knowing the space aliens are ignoring us. I thought we really had something going on.

SOPA itself is a violation of property rights. It allows the government to shutdown websites, without warning or due process, for having user posted, copyrighted material. Which means: a website that allows user content and actively attempts to stop copyrighted material would be shutdown for the actions of a user on its services.

I didn't really think I was being too bad. Also, I think it's better to read a whole post and grasp the total context before critiquing each point, because my later points clarify previous ones (I even explicitly stated this in my post at one point). I'm assuming "newborn baby" is hyperbole, because that's just factually incorrect. Also, I understand that one should show respect to other people. What I was hoping to explain to you was why an "Objectivist" or "Ayn Rand fan" (This latter may clear some things up, because I was using "Objectivist" broadly as anyone who may be a student of Objectivism but still hasn't done an extensive amount of integration of the philosophy). My explanation unfortunately seems to have gone completely over your head (Maybe because you decided to debate each sentence I wrote on a point by point basis, without trying to grasp what the totality of my post was meant to accomplish). Also to clear some things up, when I write words like "maybe" or "may" or any other word to express doubt, I don't mean it as a sarcastic jab. I'm explicitly stating what I think. The same goes for any "unfortunately"s and "hoping"s, etc.. I'm not trying to insult you in any manner. My words are what they are. Although, I will admit I'm having a bit more fun writing this response than I should. It's relevant because it would explain why someone who adopts or attempts to adopt such philosophy would act in a particular way. That's what this thread is about: Why students of Objectivism or Ayn Rand fans act a certain way when confronted with conflicting ideas. Her goal was to present her philosophy. She doesn't have a duty to address every possible criticism an individual may have to it. Presenting a philosophy doesn't necessitate addressing criticisms, and not addressing them doesn't necessitate that a person is supposed to take the philosophy upon faith. This above assumption is false. I disagree. Nope, and nope. I really don't want to go into something that requires such an in depth response, unless you're my baby's Mama. I've mostly been bewildered by your response to my statements. Yes; I would be saying that an Objectivist who properly understands the philosophy, which may be a redundancy, wouldn't be able to separate his life from the philosophy, which I suggested in my original post as part of the problem with students of Objectivism and Ayn Rand fans. Acting as though a human being is just a container that philosophies drop into, and it doesn't matter which one occupies it, is just subjectivism, which is false and not supported by Objectivism. What students of Objectivism and Ayn Rand fans have to understand is how to listen to conflicting philosophies and understand them thoroughly while showing rudimentary respect to their proponents, if just for their own sake. They should understand that philosophy takes time and that, even if they don't understand how to respond to another philosophy, given thought, good premises, and hard work they will come to the truth, and the truth is never something to be afraid of, because it can only help them. I disagree. I think other people are invaluable to developing your own ideas but not absolutely necessary. This just confuses me. I was trying to explain why an Objectivist (student of Objectivism or Ayn Rand fan) wouldn't think talking to you is beneficial to him/her. I never said anything about the validity of Objectivism's method. I've read some things on Aristotle's ethics, in particular his virtues of moderation, and I didn't see anything enormously divergent from Objectivism. I didn't write anything in a snobbish tone, and, unlike you, I never acted as though the person's philosophy I was having a discussion with was a joke. I think I was extraordinarily helpful. I posted to be helpful. Your assumptions are completely arbitrary.

Well, as you pointed out, you're involved in philosophy academically. I would assume a prerequisite for engaging in academic philosophy would be encountering differing viewpoints and engaging the purveyor of that viewpoint with respect. Most Objectivists aren't academic philosophers. They are individuals of a multitude of other professions, usually students, who read her books and were inspired. That being said, and being something of an exposition of the previous fact, Objectivism is "a philosophy for living on Earth." Ayn Rand did not direct her efforts towards the academics (I think she didn't consider them worth her time.); she directed them towards educated non-academics (She considered businessmen particularly important.). Ayn Rand wasn't putting forth a philosophy for academics to ponder upon; she was creating a philosophically founded cultural movement, something that would save the world from its current state of decay. This is because Ayn Rand recognized philosophy as a practical issue, not as a game to be played, and, as such, it should be understood by any one who wishes to live. As a practical science, philosophy is absolutely essential to one's well being. Without a firm, reality bound grasp on it, at least implicitly, one is incapable of living. Since it's so essential to one's well being and Objectivism recognizes this, Objectivists, particularly those fairly new to it, are quite defensive when someone critiques some aspect of it, particularly since those critiquing it tend to have little to no respect for it. For an Objectivist who hasn't learned the finer points and subtleties of how ideas are handled, personally and/or socially, and/or, as has been said earlier, haven't engaged in due diligence, antithetical ideas are much like a personal attack upon one's own life. As pertaining to "humility," it would depend on what kind of humility you are expecting. Humility as such is not a virtue in the Objectivist ethics. If you're expecting Objectivists to temporarily concede that you could be correct on a very essential issue, you shouldn't hold your breath. Objectivists aren't supposed to compromise their ideas, even temporarily, merely because someone else has one that differs. If, however, you are expecting Objectivists to attempt to understand and judge your position on its merits, that's something that's reasonable to expect, but it is likely something that will take more time than a single 15 minute or so discussion to take place. A lot of people don't have exorbitant amounts of time to study philosophical ideas in depth or the philosophical training to integrate ideas on the spot. Another thing worth mentioning is that Objectivists don't regard dialectic as a valid means of knowledge, so they're not going to assume that having a debate with you is going to open up the purview of knowledge. That being said, a rational person should most certainly take ideas very seriously and try to understand the ideas that are around them. If the person is showing courtesy to and genuine interest in an Objectivist's ideas, I don't see any reason, barring time constraints and personal matters, for the Objectivist to be closed to discussion (I especially don't see any reason for them to be rude or short.). I know Aristotle was, and I know Nietzsche was in her early years. But she eventually discounted Nietzsche when she "found out what he was." Aside from that, I don't know how you could say that they both "would definitely be disgusted by Rand's philosophy." I don't know an extensive amount about either, but that still sounds like quite a claim, at least for Aristotle. Either way, whether it would be true or not, I don't see why it's important. Rand didn't base her approval of philosophers on whether they would personally like her's or not. Also, this comment makes me suspect that some of the Objectivist's response to your approaches weren't entirely due to an error on their part.

Isn't this just begging the question on your point? Aren't you essentially saying: logic is valid because logic dictates that it is valid? What do you mean by "inescapability?" What makes it inescapable? Does reality, i.e. that which we perceive? Your whole point just seems argumentative and confused.

I had no idea whether Wotan was being serious, joking, or trolling. I posted something that I figured covered all the bases.

Don't worry, Wotan; I have it all covered. I conversed with a rock today that told me Steve Job's soul was currently travelling past the Gligok galaxy, on its way to Valhalla. Now, as is well known, the Gligok galaxy is home to the infamous Kecktox. An evil race known for its proclivity of enslaving souls as they make their cosmic voyage. Me and the rock both agreed something had to be done, so, being a wizard, I cast a spell on Steve Job's soul to hide it from the Kecktox's souldar. With any luck, Steve Job's soul should arrive safely at Valhalla, where he will be at peace slaying Jewish money lenders for all of eternity.

Other than maybe a bit of residual inappropriate associations (Hell if I know), I think most of my problems are merely more deep-seeded than I previously thought. Actually, reading through your notes on the art of thinking helped me out a lot. Awfully handy those are.

NOOO! The strawman didn't even have a chance! QQ

I think I may have developed ADHD. A lot of the time it is as though I have no control of my mind. It takes an enormous amount of effort for me to focus on things I should be doing, and, even when I do so, my mind is constantly beset by other thoughts. The most extreme example of this is when I'm struck by comments other people made. Often, I'll think of a comment someone made that bothered me, and I'll proceed to "talk" to that person in my head (or out loud, which makes the simple minded think I'm nuts) and dissect their statement or statements ad nauseum. It's often difficult and seemingly painful to stop myself at times. I also often come back to the same statement over and over again, reiterating the exact same answer to it. If I can avoid engaging the comment that bothers me, it often pops in my head whenever something associated with it comes to my attention. This can lead to a cascade of chatter, as the first comment creates an association with the other comments that bothered me. The chatter can come from my own proclamations too, though, where I get a flood of "shoulds" and "have tos" and the justifications for them. From looking at ADHD tests, it does appear that I may have developed adult ADHD. I don't remember having these problems when I was very young, but they have gotten worse as I've aged, sometimes seeming to border on schizophrenic. My symptoms may have been exacerbated via cannabis use, as well. I normally wouldn't peg these sort of things on a disorder, but it's starting to become clear that my recent troubles with focus aren't entirely my fault.

Lol

Is this supposed to have some sort of contextual point? Or were you just going to make baseless claims, with undefined and ambiguous terms, and spout Marxist/Communist dogma? Troll elsewhere, please.

If you want to get to know me, you're free to throw me questions on my profile. Else, I don't really have any desire to recap my complete knowledge of Objectivism or go into depth whether I consider myself an Objectivist or not. I find nothing wrong with my question. Now, if you have any suggestions, I'd be glad to hear them.

I'm a senior Mechanical Engineering student that will be graduating this May, and I was wondering whether anyone had suggestions as to the best location to move to, preferably within the United States. I've lived in Maine my whole life, so I'm ready to find any change of pace or scenery. Locations I'm particularly considering are ones that have a high concentration of Objectivists, are relatively economically and socially free, particularly economically, and are fairly cheap to live in with plentiful jobs about, particularly in engineering. The latter consideration I can find on my own, so I'm mostly curious about the former two. Anyone able to help? Thanks

Welcome to the forum, Peter. I liked your essay. The Sword of Truth influenced me as well.

Superman is a pansy, now?

I may understand what you're saying, but I'm still a bit unsure. A person who is trapped on his own property, because someone else's property surrounds him on all sides, is different than the restaurant example, in that he is on his own property. Would it be illegal for the man surrounding him to refuse him service or passage?

What are all the stylish, liberal Mac users going to do now?

Value cannot exist without a standard of value, and life is the only possible source of values. Reason is a method for a particular purpose, i.e. life, and has no meaning or foundation without life. The choice to live, therefore, is pre-rational. If someone were to ask you "Why do you live?", you may give a list of things you greatly value, "My life is good; I love my parents; I have a good job; etc.," but all of these things are values derived for life. You would essentially be saying "I live to live." This is where Objectivism and Hume would converge, where it is accepted as fact that nothing can be rational or irrational but non-rational without a particular end. However, no goals are possible absent of life; life is the fundamental goal that must be pursued. Thus, to pursue any goal one must pursue life, to pursue life one requires many goals for the pursuit, since every action one partakes in has an effect on one's life, one can quickly see that life is the highest end. However, one must understand exactly what life is and what's required for it, and this is where the values of which one may die for stem from. I would recommend Tara Smith's Viable Values if you want to understand this further.

Tell me about. I'm sick of playing these sorts of games with people. I know a very manipulative woman who will flirt, bat her eyes at you, and put an all around good show as to appear to be interested in you. If you actually pursue these advances? She'll pretend nothing was meant by it. Disgusting. Some people appear to have a poor understanding of purpose, as though actions and thoughts are subjective accidents not worth changing and without consequences.

Beautiful.

Tar sands are intrinsically evil. All joking aside, this is great. I'm glad there are minds working to develop this resource. Keep up the good work!

Hahaha, this is great. Kudos to the kid.

No, but it's working now.