Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

tommyedison

Regulars
  • Posts

    543
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tommyedison

  1. I don't have a username there so I can't be involved in discussions. I can edit the pages though. PS - I saw the talk pages. Why haven't these two guys been banned?
  2. Thanks for the tip. I once changed the article which you mention (Objectivism(Ayn Rand)), especially the Libertarianism portion. I'll keep a watch on it.
  3. There is nothing wrong with feeling a desire to share ideas, I too love sharing ideas. That doesn't indicate a desire for the sanction of others. It is possible that you are judging yourself too hastily. For instance, you say that in your opinion, you can't ignore them because you feel that their opinions matter. However feeling that someone else's opinion matters doesn't mean that you want acceptance from others, especially when it is the opinion of a person you like/respect. If I were in your position, one of my tests would be what exactly do I feel about them. Do I feel afraid that they don't agree with me or do I feel sad that they don't agree with me? Do feel more interested in ideas or more interested in approval of others? Given the amount of thought you are giving to such problems, I doubt you really want the approval of others.
  4. If I understand your position correctly, you think that there is no value spending time with those guys yet your emotions clearly "want" to have you spend time with them. First, I would ask you to introspect and to understand that what element of theirs attracts you to them? It will not be an easy job but you have to analyze your emotions to find the solution. When you understand that element of attraction, judge whether it is something which is of any value to your life or not. If it is not of value, then follow your mind and stop interacting with them. Your emotions will eventually follow. Be aware though that it takes time to fully reprogram the emotional responses to different situations so don't damn yourself if your emotions are not as they should be.
  5. Corrupt wicked genius?. A genius might be wrong and in many regards even immoral, but corrupt and wicked? That is impossible. A genius is someone much more capable of conceptualizing than others, conceptualizing from facts of reality while a corrupt and evil person is someone who accepts things on faith. Both things can't be present in the same person. A person can't be a genius and Hitler at the same time. Failure to understand a true idea and/or to reject a false one represents a failure of conceptualization. In my experience, it is more due to the philosophy drilled in people since their childhood that makes it very difficult for them to conceptualize.
  6. I think you have got a fake signature. From a short google search, Ayn Rand's signature is mostly straight. Links 1) http://www.papertig.com/ilona_portrait.htm (Signature is in lower left corner of picture of the potrait)
  7. No to both points. 1) If its disastrous, some other company will prop up which is why none of the companies will make things such that it becomes a disaster. That is unless the government decides to forbid other players from entering the market or something of that sort. If you really believe that graphic you posted before, then you are just being cynical. The main fear of companies like Google is that the net providers are going to make their own web content stream faster while making it slower for competing companies. They are going to do nothing of the kind that the graphic claims they might. 2) End of free expression????? Are you alright? How the hell will it mean the end of free expression? Net neutrality is just even more government enslavement of big business disguised under an innocuous name.
  8. I don't think this will have any effect in the long run. It is govts. of various Muslim countries which are promoting attacks against the free world. If one individual goes, he will be replaced by another. Sure, terrorism may abate in Iraq for a while but it will soon come back to its current levels unless we take out the countries responsible for terrorism.
  9. Toolboxnj, Is this policy followed only for American students or also for international students?
  10. I haven't read the essay but from what I have read in this thread, it seems that she comes to the conclusion that it is moral to accept govt. grants and scholarships as long as you oppose the welfare state and have had money stolen to you from the govt. For example, it would be immoral for a foreigner to accept government grants/scholarships from the US government whether or not the foreigner intends to stay in the US because he has not had his money stolen by the US govt. Am I correct that this is her position?
  11. If there has to be a source for the organization of existents then there has to be a source for God too and so on ad infinitum. Things are what they are. The first principle is that of existence. There is no cause for existence. To attempt to justify the cause of existence is an attempt to justify existence by means of non-existence which is impossible. There is no proof that the universe reorganizes itself. Infact the dynamics of the universe depend on a WHOLE lot of factors not the least of which is the correct theory of physics applicable in all contexts. We know very little of the universe currently and don't have a unified theory of physics. So I don't think that the law of entropy is an argument for God. And by the way, currently there are scientific theories which say that the universe oscillates through cycles of expansion and contraction though I can't say whether these are true or false. Putting God as a cause of the continued existence of the universe is not rational. The physical cause of free will is as yet unknown. If you want to show that God causes free will in human beings, you are free to do so but you must show HOW God causes it.
  12. Welcome. Have you read Ayn Rand's non fiction as well?
  13. That will take time. I would say atleast 2-3 years or even more depending on your current state. Changing your sense of life is not the same as changing your shirt. Just rely on your mind and be rational.
  14. There is no such thing as FUNDAMENTALLY immoral. Any man can be moral no matter how low he has fallen if he wants to. However no one can escape the consequences of his actions. Why are you so worried about what others think of you? The most important thing is what you think of yourself.
  15. Very nice essay. I disagree however that we need an understanding of consciousness to defeat Christianity. Those who believe in fantasies like God in their soul at at multiple places at all times, have already rejected the Law of Identity. Reason cannot convince them and at such a stage, I doubt anything else will.
  16. The fact that intellectual property rights are not being upheld here. The court's job is to administer justice, not to decide whether it is fair to uphold the IP rights or not.
  17. Fascism? Here it is. SCOTUS sets aside eBay patent ruling
  18. You mean you will vote for McCain instead of Hillary? Just take a look at these two links and McCain's efforts to destroy the freedom of speech. Link 1 Link 2 Hell, I would take McGovern over McCain. Atleast Govern didn't attempt to destroy the First Amendment.
  19. And Bush hasn't? He has been just as bad as Kerry if not worse. Kerry said he would like the US to pass a global test. Bush is implementing it. The bad thing about Bush is that liberals have succesfully painted him as a hawk when he can't even kill an ant.
  20. Wait, don't only moderators and Admins have the right to change titles and subtitles?
  21. Do you have any reference where Miss Rand said that being a perfect human included having perfect looks? As for her considering Galt a perfect human being, I do think she said somewhere "You don't get further than John Galt" (paraphrasing) though I can't remember the reference.
  22. Are you kidding? His face is full of pain. If the movie is made, one thing I know is that the actor who plays Galt will look fake, abominably fake in his actions.
  23. It is the lack of a proper philosophy that is causing the disintegration. I don't think that the complexity of the society or the division of labor has anything to do with it.
  24. A free market cannot prevent monopolies. If a company is working extremely well in comparision to its competitors, it will gain customers. However it does ensure that if a monopoly tries to defy gravity by for example, charging astronomical rates for its services, it will collapse. The AT&T was aided and abetted by the government to mantain the monopoly. It was a coercive monopoly as it had the power of the government behind it. Competition was highly regulated and the government set the rates of the services. The AT&T monopoly was not an example of free market. It was a result of government coercion. The private medicine system is not free. On the contrary it is very highly regulated by organizations such as the FDA, etc. As for the union example, the unions would not be able to do so were they not backed by the power of the government.
×
×
  • Create New...