Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

0096 2251 2110 8105

Regulars
  • Posts

    231
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by 0096 2251 2110 8105

  1. I’ve been reading a little on environmentalism here, and got a copy of Return of the Primitive. But I’m finding it strange however that it only presents two options: to “exploit” the Earth, or to live like savages. The environmentalist intromissions in my life are not like this. Instead, what I usually get is propaganda advocating sustainable development or less extreme campaigns. I usually get stuck arguing with these people, since their not proposing to cut off technology or literally return to nature, but progress and prosperity while preserving environment. Since I can’t find any Objectivist material on this issue, could somebody please point out what is wrong (if so) with this alternative?
  2. Recently I was asked to take this quiz by one of my classmates, which I found horrible and insulting. I’m just starting to learn Objectivism, so I couldn’t give him a good reply without somehow admitting he is right. I’m not interested in giving him a response, and despite being called a coward and some other things, I didn’t give him any. However, I do want to know what others who are more experienced would say about it. This isn’t intended to be trolling, I honestly want to know if these questions are somehow dishonest, invalid, legitimate, etc. and what an appropriate response to them would be. Here it is: "Give yourself a point for every statement you agree with. 1) Ayn Rand is the greatest human being who has ever lived. 2) "Atlas Shrugged" is the greatest human achievement in the history of the world. 3) Ayn Rand, by virtue of her philosophical genius, is the supreme arbiter in any issue pertaining to what is rational, moral, or appropriate to man’s life on earth. 4) Acceptance of Objectivist epistemology is essential to mankind's future survival on earth. 5) Immanuel Kant is the most evil person who has ever lived. 6) Immanuel Kant deliberately set out to cause the Nazi Holocaust. 7) Nathaniel and Barbara Branden are only slightly less immoral than Immanuel Kant. 8) James Valliant's book "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics" is a profound, brilliantly argued expose of the above. 9) Modern physics, such as Einstein's theories, are philosophically corrupt and must be urgently replaced by a new physics based on Ayn Rand's epistemology. 10) Words have "true" meanings that are only available to superior Objectivist philosophers, whose job it is to inform those in lesser disciplines, such as scientists, of these true meanings. Where these special true Objectivist meanings clash with conventional dictionary meanings, those conventions are false and corrupt. 11) Ayn Rand invented a new, Objectivist super-logic which incorporates the standard bi-valent logic formalised by Aristotle, yet dramatically improves on it, solving among other issues Hume's problem of induction. 12) Ayn Rand is the only true Objectivist that ever lived, and will ever live. Everyone else is merely a student of Objectivism. 0 points = Congratulations, you are an Ayn Rand fan who while rightly inspired by her vision of productivity, reason, and human achievement is nonetheless sensible enough to have avoided her various cultic incitements. 1-6 points = Amber light: definite Randroid tendencies. However, this may be avoided by taking a suitably hard-nosed approach to her work, especially in epistemology and human nature where her defective theories are most evident to the critical eye. 7-12 points = Ultra-Randroid, and proud of it. You are welcome to debate with us here at the ARCHNblog (despite the fact you would be giving your sanction to our evil by doing so) but to be honest you'd be better off talking to a deprogrammer."
  3. Consider this hypothetical conversation between guy A and guy B (this probably isn’t the best example, but I hope you get the idea): A: Animals are not rational beings. B: Well, prove that they’re not. A: I’m sorry, but you have to prove that they’re rational. Now, what if it would’ve happened differently? B: Animals are not irrational beings. A: Well, prove that they’re not. B: I’m sorry, but you have to prove that they’re irrational. Or maybe this other example: A: God isn’t real. B: Well, prove that he isn’t. A: I’m sorry, but you have to prove that he is. B: God isn’t false. A: Well, prove that he isn’t. B: I’m sorry, but you have to prove that he is. Who has the onus of proof? How does it work? Is it that easy to fool the procedure, or am I just getting it all wrong?
  4. A friend of mine who is a Marxist, said that Aristotle's philosophy is flawed because it isn't dialectic. I don't know what he meant by that, and I don't talk to him anymore, but I would really like to know. Could somebody give an example of how this works?
  5. Usually when I try to avoid arguing with them, I get called "coward". I know that getting into a discussion is an error from my part, but this gets me a little irritated, so I do it anyways. Especially when they say that objectivists don't debate; they preach, which makes me think if this is true. I usually end up really frustrated and exhausted trying to prove them wrong. This is when I talk to solipsists, which I think is a really hard thing to do.
  6. Consciousness takes actions, such as thinking, feeling, etc. If attributes don't take action, and consciousness is a faculty, how can it take action?
  7. Ayn Rand defined "consciousness" as the faculty of perceiving that which exists, but "faculty" is an attribute designating an ability to perform. How can consciousness, being a faculty, i.e., an attribute, take actions, if actions are actions of entities?
  8. Well, according to the Lexicon: That confuses me a little, since I remember Dr. Peikoff saying: "In music means melody as against atonalism", in his lecture of Introduction to Objectivism.
  9. This question has been bugging me for a while, and it may be a really easy one to answer, but here it is: Isn't art subjective since it is a matter of personal taste? How can I say an abstract painting, for example, is bad, if somebody else thinks it's great? I think it would be bad if I'm using Ayn Rand's definition, but then somebody else would say: "Well, that's your definition". How am I supposed to reply to that? Also, Objectivism's view on music has been bothering me a little. How is it wrong to enjoy atonal music, such as jazz, or even "noise" such as dark ambient music or others?
  10. Are there any other branches of philosophy outside the ones defined by Objectivism? I've done some research and found a few others, like philosophy of education, of history, of mathematics, of science, etc. Why are these branches not specified by Objectivism?, or are they just under some other name?
  11. Regarding music, the usual argument I get is that many bands are where they are because of this. That the only direct profit they get is from concerts, which sell well because of people getting to know them through downloading. Does this make it any right?
  12. I am having trouble with this. I usually see the phrase on her writings, but never any sort of justification for it. She simply asserts it and carries on. What exactly does she mean by this? On what grounds does it rests?
  13. Why not? Can you back up your answer? If you were not planning to do so, why did you even bother in answering to my question in the first place?
  14. Assuming "elephants never forget", would it be accurate to say they possess the faculty of reason?
  15. My country's government is enforcing a new law which states that any driver with a blood alcohol content of 0.75, or more, is facing the suspension of his driver's license, the permanent confiscation of his vehicle, and up to three years in prison. The confiscation of the vehicle is supposedly valid as this country's constitution allows the confiscation of any private property used in criminal acts. I don't drink, but I don't think the best solution is to steal my property. Is there any way to confront this?
  16. This is a response I got somewhere else: It would be great to have a second opinion.
  17. Could somebody please extend? Isn't it an act of self-defense to rise against those who rule by force? Why is he a villain then?
  18. Is he a hero? Was he acting somehow in self-defense? Is it justified to take his actions when the revolution is directed against tyranny?
×
×
  • Create New...