Amaroq

I have arrived at this conclusion independently before I knew about this topic. I just never thought to say anything about it until now. I think that not only are fashion ads art, but many if not all advertisements are art. The difference between usual art and advertisements is that an advertisement will almost always hold the company and/or product as metaphysically valuable. This metaphysical value-judgment is responsible for the fact that the details in the advertisement seem to almost always revolve around the product or company.

This is Objectivism Online. Objectivism was derived from and grounded in reality. You display a blatant contradiction of and misunderstanding and seemingly explicit disagreement with Objectivism, Avila. Science and religion are mutually exclusive, because they start from contradictory epistemologies. Religious epistemology takes faith as the proper source of knowledge. Objectivism takes observation and reason together as a valid source of knowledge. The dichotomy between faith and reason upheld by Objectivism is a principle firmly grounded in, and therefore applicable to, reality. What are you doing here? What interest do you have in convincing us that religion supports science? Probably the same interest that religious people have in convincing others that religion and science are compatible. Either that or you're simply unaware of the religions' ulterior motive whenever they claim this compatibility. They're trying to give their irrationality an equal validity to science, and you are in effect doing the same thing. The reason sNerd is saying what he is saying is because there is a causal connection between rationality and scientific progress that he is isolating. A person can be religious and a scientist, but once you isolate the causal connection between rationality and progress, you can see that their faith had nothing to do with their progress. (And in many cases, held back their progress.)

This is something I've had trouble with before too. Not just with history, but with general facts about other things, such as the history of our economy. I've seen a Christian blog that depicts the dark ages as a period of happiness and enlightenment, and I've seen people attribute the Great Depression to factors of the free market. Without knowing the facts first-hand, all I can say is that if it contradicts what you already know to be true, it probably isn't true. For example, I know that freedom and respect for individual rights is good for humans and consequently humanity. The idea that the free market caused the great depression contradicts that, so all I can do is just say "I don't know the facts about that issue, but I reject that claim because it contradicts what I do know." And if the dark ages was dominated by religion, then I can only assume that the religious take on it being a period of sunshine and roses is a lie. Because I know that when religion rules, everything goes to hell. Reality is non-contradictory. IE, logically consistent. So if you have already proved to yourself something that contradicts a historical claim, then chances are the historical claim somehow contradicts reality.

No they're not. Though it depends on what you refer to when you say "species". Wolves can interbreed with dogs and produce fertile offspring, so I suppose that means they're the same species scientifically. But wolves and dogs are different. Dogs never mature behaviorally beyond the maturity of a wolf pup. They exhibit wolf-pup-ish behaviors all their lives.

Marc K., thank you for your post (#117). I hadn't bothered to read Ninth Doctor's other posts, so I didn't know he was a Peikoff/ARI-basher. Overall, your post makes some good points that I was going to make myself. +1 for you. Louie also made a good point about the journals being a side-exhibit. Seriously though (I've been wondering this for a while now), what part of "Objectivism is closed, but that doesn't stop you from expanding on it" do these open system advocates not understand? Why are they so intent on evading the fact Oism's closedness doesn't stop them from coming to conclusions consistent with Oism? The only conclusion I can think of is that they have a contradiction with some part of Objectivism, and they want to keep it. If Objectivism is open, it can be quote-unquote "improved", and therefore their contradiction can be included in Objectivism. What other motivation could the open system advocates possibly have to keep pushing their position even when they're told that they can still expand on the closed system? Like I said, the main reason for me that Objectivism is, and should remain, closed, is to protect its integrity. I'm sure the Christian Objectivists group (oh yes, there is a real Christian Objectivists group) would LOVE Objectivism to be an open system so they can "improve" it with their wisdom about how belief in God is consistent with Objectivism. Silly Ayn Rand must have made a mistake and failed to identify that you can rationally believe in God.

There are tons of people, and even some well-known Objectivists (such as Branden and McCaskey) who come to conclusions that fundamentally contradict Objectivism. The way I see it, the system is closed to maintain its integrity and protect it from people who don't understand it. There's morons everywhere who think their mistakes and contradictions are part of Objectivism. If it is ever opened up to changes from them, it would quickly become compromised and untrustworthy.

I used the "don't be hatin'" thing to make my post sort of lighthearted. Geez. I guess he does come off as a little disrespectful. But I don't think this site is the best place to learn about Objectivism, so I can sympathize with the guy if he made his conclusion based on what he saw on this site. That's why I asked him if he is disappointed in Objectivism or in Objectivists. But we'll probably never get an answer.

I thought it was annoying/hilarious that she talked about our need of government as if Rand had been an anarchist and wanted to demolish the whole thing.

It would be amazing. Reading her work and listening to recordings of her is an amazing, inspiring enough experience already.

Well, it's good to have confidence in oneself. Don't be hatin' on the good for being the good.

If you're still here, I'm curious what you're disappointed in. Are you disappointed in Objectivism, the philosophy, or Objectivists, those who you see practicing the philosophy?

You may find this article helpful. http://thecoldvoiceofreason.blogspot.com/2011/08/rights-of-children.html

I think one thing to remember here is that our emotions are the result of subconscious value-judgments. Your emotions depend on your values. The pleasure-pain response is automatic. But since we're born tabula rasa, the joy-suffering response is not automatic. So I think it is possible to feel the emotion of happiness while living a life that is objectively bad for you, if your values are anti-life.

Can America really survive another four years of Obama?

Jonathan13, you haven't applied anything consistently. Ugh. Is Objectivism at war with America? Does the presence of Objectivist literature in Oklahoma City near the site of the bombing inspire people who are trying to kill Americans or destroy property? Does Objectivist literature inspire people to initiate force in any way? Is the presence of Objectivist literature at Oklahoma City near the site of the bombing a propaganda victory for those who violate the rights of Americans? Does the presence of Objectivist literature in Oklahoma City give a morale boost to those who violate the rights or Americans, and demoralize those who are protecting America? Are you an Objectivist? A student of Objectivism? Or just some guy here to criticize Objectivists? You seriously don't even understand why it was right for Dagny to kill the guard in that context? In that case, what did you think about the train wreck, where Ayn Rand listed everyone on board, tallied their views and ideas, and then narrated that no-one of value was lost? (They all died, just in case you didn't realize that.) What do you think about the fact that Francisco left Dagny to fend for herself for all those years while he was in Galt's Gulch? What do you think about the fact that John Galt made it harder on Dagny and Rearden and everyone else by taking away the people that society needed most when they were needed most? What do you think about the way the book ended? Do you think that those things were evil too? Do you understand Ayn Rand's reasons for any of the things she wrote? Do you understand the absolutist black-and-white-ness of Ayn Rand's morality?

Even though I know this is an automatic cross-post, I want to respond to the OP anyway. Sure, one person's individual rights are not in conflict with another's. But you still do not have the right to violate someone else's rights. It doesn't matter whether the American government acknowledges fundamentalist Islam's war against us. The mosque's existence is an objective threat to American lives. And the owners don't have the right to violate our rights. That's what you have to understand. I don't want to restart that argument here though. Everything that needed to be said on the matter was said in another thread.

@Jonathan13 What does the concept of "expert" refer to? People who know more about their subject than most others. If you go so far as to call someone "the expert", then they do know more about that subject than anyone else. The concept of expert implies, you know, expertise. I'm not saying they're infallible. But if a student of Objectivism has a disagreement with an expert in Objectivism, he should at least try to find out why the expert thinks differently. It's more likely the student made an error than the expert. But the expert still must appeal to the judgment of the student of course. If Rand were alive, people like you would be insulting her too. I'm pretty sure Peikoff isn't the only Objectivist who has ever said "If you don't [X], you're not an Objectivist." Rand did it as well. @Grames In my followng post, I clarified what I meant by my reference to Atlas Shrugged. Why should any expert in Objectivism come to a place they're not going to be treated with respect by anyone who disagrees with them? It would be selfless to try to teach Objectivism in such a setting. @Dante This is controversial. But I've already made the topic controversial, so I might as well bring it up. Dwayne and Carl both defended Peikoff in the chatroom. One was asked to leave this site, and the other doesn't talk much anymore in the chat. From what I've observed, they both have very strong opinions and aren't afraid to voice them, which I consider a virtue. Carl has mentioned before in passing that he is required to practice tolerance as a virtue in the chatroom now. The context I have suggests that people who insult Peikoff and other experts of Objectivism are expected to have their opinions respected in the chatroom, while those who most strongly defended those experts are made fun of precisely for the virtue of having done so. @Ninth Doctor Are you suggesting I'm second-handed like Peter Keating? An up or down-vote on a post represents individuals' value-judgments of the post. I was pointing out that people on this forum value posts that insult Objectivist experts and people on this forum dis-value posts that call them out on it.

Oh hey. Johnathan13's post that I downvoted got voted back up to 0, and my post got downvoted to -3. Someone who insults expert Objectivists has his comment upvoted, while my post is downvoted by three separate individuals. A person cannot vote on their own posts, so someone besides Johnathan13 thought his post was good, and a minimum of two people besides him thought my post was bad enough to vote down. Which proves the point I was making when I made my post. Why should a major Objectivist subject himself to coming here when a culture like this has taken root? When a user on this site disagrees with an expert on how to apply Objectivism, they don't try to understand their mistake. They just insult the expert, who knows more than them, for calling them out on it. Peikoff-bashing has become a semi-common pastime in the chat now, because heaven forbid Objectivism have identity and an expert dare tell someone that their conclusions contradict Objectivism. The chatroom (not the forum) of this site was the last bastion of reason (that I know of) for online Objectivist social sites. Why? Because we were allowed to pass harsh judgment on people who insulted the experts we look to for guidance. When it was shown that you can get into trouble with the administration for passing harsh, deserved judgment on people like that, it set a precedent. The more consistent of an Objectivist you are, the more you have to keep your judgments to yourself in the face of people like that, and the more common they become on this site. The rule on this site about not coming here to insult Objectivism is what preserved this site for so long. Insulting Objectivism's experts is basically a loophole to that rule. If you're going to allow people to insult the experts, at least allow the better, more consistent Objectivists on this site to stand up for them. Why don't any Major Objectivists participate in online forums? Observe the cultural state of this and the other online forums for a potential answer.

Dagny Taggart and and Hank Rearden could've had a positive impact on the community if they continued to work rather than strike. Why would prominent (and probably busy) Objectivists find it in their self-interest to come to these forums? EDIT: Can we raise the negative vote quota to more than one per day? I'd like to downvote all of Jonathan13's posts in this thread instead of just one.

What're you trying to get at? You don't make any sense.

I read a little bit of it. Up to the 13th page. One thing that struck me as contradictory is the fact that he thinks he's fighting extremism. He defines an ideology as a rigid system that cannot change to match reality, and thus it must convince its followers to abandon the truth to fit what its "truth" is, and will eventually bring about force to make people adhere to its falsehoods. Therefore, all ideology is evil. Then he names multiculturalism/political correctness as an (obviously extremist) ideology. Which of course must be fought by his own ideology of cultural pride/patriotism/whatever. But I don't think he notices that he's made himself a hypocrite defining his terms that way and saying what he says. (That I've read.) And he of course gets the problem completely ass-backwards. It isn't "extremism" that is the problem, but a lack of a firm ideology that is allowing the Islamization to happen. So if what little I've read is any indication, this guy is doing even more damage with his actions than I thought. The left will pin his actions on the right win, and on any pro-freedom group such as ourselves. And anyone who takes him seriously will just be spreading even more relativism and/or pragmatism, which will not stop the problem but rather elevate it. You can't fight an extremist ideology with pragmatism. You have to have your own firm ideology to proclaim as superior.

Welcome Snow_Fox. I wouldn't be surprised if most Objectivists know what you're talking about. I think the last thing you quoted of Ayn Rand's is definitely something to remember. There's a lot of people out there that don't think, and they won't hesitate to take a negative tone and posture at you if they don't like something you say. But tone and posture is really the only thing they can do against you. (See a fallacy Ayn Rand identified, called Argument from Intimidation. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/argument_from_intimidation.html ) In your pursuit of ideas, these types of people should be easy to just dismiss as irrational. But occasionally you're probably going to run into people who sound smart, and seem to be capable of advanced thinking methods (because they speak long sentences and use big words), but are really just irrational like the rest of them. They'll run the conversation in circles, jump from one topic to another every time you make a point, disregard context constantly, and put forth non-essentials as counter-arguments. They'll give off an air and tone of intellectual superiority, but they're really just irrational like the rest of them. They're just better at intellectual deception and sleight of hand. If you're incapable of understanding their argument, it isn't a fault of your own. It's that they just don't make sense. I don't know if you're susceptible to this like I was, but don't let these types of people make you think that you're wrong, or that you're incapable of understanding things "at their level". The Rand quote about leaving irrational people alone is one good piece of advice to remember. Another piece of advice that is becoming important to me is to not misapply your general optimism to those people. IE, don't keep looking for good in someone if they've proven to you that there is none to be found in them. If you think too highly of another person's judgment when they contradict what you know to be true, it'll make you feel like you're incapable of knowing reality and it'll hurt your self esteem.

As to the IP debate, Objectivism upholds IP as the most important property right of all. As I'm sure others have mentioned, a mind brought an idea into being, so the idea belongs to the person whose mind did that. The justification behind IP isn't any utilitarian bullshit. It's that whoever put the mental effort into creating that idea is entitled to reap the rewards that that idea brings about. They have the right to exploit that idea for profit, since it is theirs. You're wrong. There's a huge difference between selling a chair and the idea of selling IP rights. When you create a physical object, you can trade it to someone in return for something, but you can only do this one time. Intellectual property can be repeatedly exploited. If you invent something, you can make a profit off of the production of that invention for years. When you sell a chair to someone and they re-sell it, they can only get whatever one person is willing to trade for it one time. If it were possible to transfer intellectual property rights, then someone whose mind did not create that intellectual property could profit off of someone else's mental labor for years without having to put any effort into it. The reason the right to an idea cannot be transferred is because the ideal purpose of all property is to allow an individual to benefit from their actions. Traders of physical property cannot leach benefits from others' actions indefinitely. The recipient of someone else's intellectual property right can benefit from the originator's actions indefinitely without putting any effort into it. So rightfully, only the creator of an idea should be granted the right to exploit that idea for a duration of time. Whether by keeping it to himself or giving companies permission to produce it in return for payments on every product produced from the idea.

As far as I know, there are two main schools of thought, implicitly and/or explicitly, in the Open Source movement. Or rather, there's two similar movements that look the same, but are essentially different. The Open Source movement and the Free Software movement. As far as I know, the Open Sourcers' goal is just to make better software. Their reasoning is that when the source code is available for anyone to change, people will find ways to make it better. With a lot of intelligent programmers out there, bugs and errors and such won't exist for long before someone finds them and fixes them. So they're doing it for practical reasons. the Free Software Foundation, on the other hand, with Richard Stallman as its very vocal leader, advocates that all software be "free", in the sense that it is both open source, and any and all comers may have the source code and modify it as they desire. Free, in the same sense that people who reject intellectual property advocate for the "free-flow" of ideas, including the ideas of inventions that rightfully belong to their originators. Richard Stallman explicitly opposes proprietary software, and he explicitly does so on a moral basis. He explicitly states that he disagrees with Open Source school of thought, because they're willing to accept proprietary software if it works better than open source software. He uses a stone-age computer with no graphical interface, because it is the only thing he can find that "free" OS, hardware, and BIOS. He rejects proprietary software, on moral principle. The creators of a program don't have a right to their own creation, under his school of thought. Because he thinks like most other people who reject intellectual property. Proprietary software, to him, violates a person's right to their physical property by restricting what they are allowed to do with their own computers. Here is an article straight from the horse's mouth. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html It is true that Ayn Rand was not alive to talk about Open Source software. But we can apply her philosophy to this situation to come to a conclusion based on Objectivism. I conclude that the Open Source movement is fine, maybe even good, and that the Free Software movement is evil. EDIT: Whoa, I didn't realize this is eight pages long. I only have the first page's context, so keep that in mind when you read this.

The main page seems to be working perfectly for me again. Today is the first day in a few days I've looked though. If I notice anything going wrong I'll post more. Maybe it's cached for you Dwayne?