The Lonely Rationalist

Heh.

So what, you're saying that morality (And logic) is irrelevant and that you are going to act on your emotions? Why are you even on an Objectivist forum if that's how you feel?

Are you saying that there is no such thing as a perfect philosophy currently, or that there, by nature, cannot be a perfect philosophy? Also, which parts of Objectivism do you disagree with? The fundamentals, or the smaller issues?

I have to agree with Howard... I have no real idea what these paintings are supposed to be.

Ever since Netflix added MST3k to their available mvoeis, I've been watching them like crazy. My favorites are probably Boggy Creek 2: And the Legend Continues, and The Screaming Skull.

I was looking through the Ayn Rand Lexicon, and I noticed how Kant, according to Peikoff, "ushered in the era of social subjectivism—the view that it is not the consciousness of individuals, but of groups, that creates reality. In Kant’s system, mankind as a whole is the decisive group; what creates the phenomenal world is not the idiosyncrasies of particular individuals, but the mental structure common to all men." Peikoff then says how it was this that led to the claim that groups of people, whether divided by class, race, or country, have their "own distinctive type of consciousness." I've been searching all over the internet to find where Kant said that it was groups that determined reality, but I can't find anything. It seems to me that, according to how Kant viewed the phenomenal world as being that which one perceives through one's senses. This implies to me that each individual would see reality differently. So can anyone help me out by pointing out a quote of Kant on how reality is determined by groups, rather than individuals (Or help me understand it if it should be clear to me already)? Thanks in advance!

Wow, thank you for that amazing answer, Dante! That really helps clarify it for me.

I'm writing a paper on Kant's ethics for school, and I'm having trouble with 1 point: How is Kant connected to altruism? I can not find anywhere where Kant said that doing an act for a beneficial gain is immoral, nor can I find anything on him saying that doing things for others is a virtue. If someone could point out a quotation of Kant's on these things, that would be a huge help. For now, I'm stuck.

After reading about Voltaire in Will Durant's "The Story of Philosophy," I would really like to learn more about the man's life and beliefs. Does anyone know a good biography on him, one that really describes in depth his philosophical beliefs and the events in his life?

I just watched it, and I was quite happy with it. The first half hour was exclusively Objectivist, and Yaron Brook did an amazing job answering questions from the audience, especially when he explained how Objectivism is not about whim-worship. The next half hour, though not as good, still focused on the violation of individual rights, and ended by telling the audience about how Atlas Shrugged is still a huge seller and with John Stossel encouraging them to read it. I think the best moment in the show was when John Allison (Chairman of BB&T) was asked if it was fair that he made $7 million last year, to which he replied "I earned it."

Does one have the right to an attorney? I've been thinking about this issue recently. It seems like one of the arguments used against those who claim a right to health care apply here: If one has the right to an attorney, does that mean an attorney has no right to refuse representing someone? It seems, however, that if one does not have a right to an attorney, poor people could not afford representation at a trial, and would be more likely to be convicted of crimes, and that people would be forced to pay for attorneys if the government tried them for a crime, regardless of whether they committed the crime or not.

Well, I think the question to ask is how do we know he's committed such a crime? And if we know about it, then why is he not on trial for that crime? But if you're asking "What if a man like O.J. Simpson is on trial for a murder he didn't commit? Is it ethical to punish him for this crime, even thought he did not commit it?" Well, O.J. Simpson had a trial for the crime which most people believe he did commit, and got off. However, just because we feel that he committed SOME OTHER crime does not give us the right to punish him for THIS crime. Even in a case where you were the judge and had personally seen the man on trial commit a crime, yet he was never tried for it, you would still not have the moral right to convict him for a crime he did not commit. After all, he's on trial for ONE SPECIFIC crime, not for every wrong he's ever committed.

Please clarify.

Considering no human in history has ever been immortal, seeing that the human body is susceptible to diseases and aging, no, it's not possible.

I know what you mean. The thing that really irks me is the lack of technological innovation that's inevitably going to happen. I was really hoping that by the end of my life, humans would have much longer lifespans, but now... I don't know about that.

Erm... How about one's right to life and one's right to liberty?

I think he was referring to the Iron Man 2 trailer.

I agree it's a very minor issue. But I'm just curious what reason would be given for declaring something a federal holiday, other than religious reasons. Would it be national pride?

Not to end the discussion without thinking, but I actually see the logic in this thinking, and after thinking about it, I agree. I wasn't really sure about this issue, and frankly, this clarified it for me. So, thanks!

Perhaps I should clarify. I don't support the government forcing businesses to give people the day off, I was jsut wondering if the government should DECLARE federal holidays and give state employees the day off.

This might seem like a ridiculous question, but should a government actually declare federal holidays? On the issue of something like Christmas, it seems like declaring a holiday for a religious reason (No matter how secular that holiday may be) is a mixing of church and state. On purely secular holidays, such as Memorial Day, I really have no opinion at all.

Isn't it outside of the role of government to create contracts for people, even if it's one that would be convenient for most people to sign? It seems like law firms could easily do the same thing, having a default marriage contract with equal sharing of funds, etc. And if someone wanted a different type of contract, a law firm could draw one up for them.

Sorry, I should have clarified that I was asking about how marriage could work in the ideal society.

Couldn't marriage be privatized in the sense that a couple can sign any sort of contract they want concerning finances and any other matter inherent in marriages?