Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Limelight

Regulars
  • Content Count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Limelight

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 05/09/1986

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Connecticut
  • Relationship status
    Single
  • Sexual orientation
    Straight
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    CT, USA
  • Interests
    music, philosophy, politics, psycho-pharmacology, reading, writing, outdoor activities (skiing, hiking, fishing, rock climbing), myself
  1. I just have a strong feeling that the AS movie(s) will probably be a major flop, poorly depicting the story as well as Rand and her philosophy through numerous misinterpretations and compromised revisions to attract the "movie-goer" demographic. Plus, once the movie is released and Objectivism is under the public spotlight, I can easily imagine a large-scale convergence of attacks against the philosophy- or at least libertarianism/right-wing economics- from all the ill-informed critics, pundits, academia, etc. out there, thus resulting in further rejection and ostracism of Rand's ideas.
  2. It's refreshing to read such strong and virtuous convictions.
  3. For those who care to shed more light on this subject, the argument continues: "Well, it seems to me that in this context, capacity is the more meaningful term. Saying that somebody has the freedom to do something which they do not have the capacity to do is hollow. A person living in poverty does not have the freedom to buy a yacht in any meaningful way. Were they to go and try to buy the yacht, they would be prevented from doing so by the market. So perhaps freedom, in the terms in which it's usually used, is not on its own a sufficient normative foundation for society If you read back
  4. I appreciate the feedback. I responded back to him and addressed many of the points you guys have posted. I also brought up the fact that absolute equality, if mandated by the state through regulations, is both impractical and infringes upon freedom. I discussed fairly basic facts regarding the tragic outcomes of leftist nations that have attempted to resolve the issue of socio-economic inequality through economic regulation. I even brought up a hypothetical scenario in which the government were to regulate the economy to the point where everyone would have a fair share of wealth--an equal sha
  5. We just started covering the "ethics of rights" in my ethics class, and we began to discuss what role the market plays on the philosophy of liberty and equality. To no surprise, my instructor is anti-capitalist, making such claims as freedom is actually increased by gov't intervention (i.e. socialized medicine), and how market transactions in a perfectly 'free' economy decreases freedom by creating inequality, as a reflection of power relationships. Here's the last thing he wrote to me in this little argument we've been having outside of class (I'd appreciate any feedback): "If a perfect
  6. Do people, for instance a priest, have the right to neglect taking any legal action towards a known crime? For example, the priest, to whom Robert Hanssen, an FBI agent who was selling information from US intelligence to the Soviets, was confessing to- was he unethical for not saying anything?... Is the law actually obligated to protect the so called "sanctity" of a priest and his confessor?.. I know the Federal gov't has protected it in the past, but is it an actual violation of the constitution to do so?... Also regarding Hanssen: was it ethically contradictory and hypocritical for the Fe
  7. The soul is simply a metaphysical concept to explain being and consciousness. It is our conscious selves, atomically formed as the brain/nervous system, thus corporeal. Like every atomic compound it slowly fades into dissolution and disperses. Given that it cannot survive death, once the body dies, there isn't anything to keep the soul together. That is what I basically believe. But can it be scientifically proven that the soul in this constraint cannot survive?
  8. But it is impossible to offer any "proof" that "The soul has a specific nature, and is causally-dependent on a functioning brain." Or to disprove it. There is no scientifically accepted definition of the soul, merely different schools of thought. That is the realm of Philosphy. I could simply choose another constraint. For example, a man's wife died 9 years ago. Her "atomic being" is gone. So according to these constraints her soul is gone. However, let's say this past Christmas the man goes to the cemetery and puts flowers on his wife's grave. From a physical point of view, thermodyn
  9. Okay... So the soul, our conscious selves, is atomically constituted as the brain and nervous system, thus corporeal. Like every atomic compound it slowly fades into dissolution and disperses. Given that our conscious selves cannot survive death, once the body dies, there isn't anything to keep the soul together. Has science, and can science, actually disprove the existence of the soul, post-corporeal (aka. the afterlife)? On that note, how can science ever possibly prove or disprove that anything does or does not exist beyond the physical world? Is it that the physical world is proof in it
  10. Limelight

    Justice

    Well I'm saying in the scenario we know it's a fact he did not commit the actual crime he's being charged with but did do something of the same calibre (worthy of the same punishment he is already receiving) of which he was never caught.
  11. Limelight

    Justice

    This has probably been asked thousands of times.... In a hypothetical situation, is it just or ethical if a man were to be punished for a crime he did not commit, but has committed practically a replica of the crime he's been charged for, or a crime "equally" wrong in the eyes of the law, without being caught or charged?
  12. I think if I were to lose the ability of effectiveness, however possible it its- where I would have no interaction with the world besides being suspended as a mere observer- I would contemplate whether I should live. Also, my brain- if my neurological setup was somehow deprived and incapable of producing specific receptors and neurotransmitters like dopamine and serotonin thus unable to feel pleasure or joy, my life would seem rather meaningless.
  13. Thanks. Very interesting. I can personally relate to the detrimental effects of which stagnation and evasive behaviors produce. I have clinical depression and anxiety due to PTSD, and through experience a prolonged avoidance of everyday life (i.e. sleeping in bed all day) only exacerbates my symptoms with such catastrophic analyzation, revulsion and rationalization of a cynical existentialist, breaking my true spirit and system of values.
  14. While I believe self reverence through self-affirmation and reflection is essential, shouldn't it be something that one practices automatically, where one is constantly self-aware yet mobile in a sense? Is it possible that man can achieve the same benefits of taking x amount of time in self-affirming meditation while remaining cognizant and engaged with the external world being the most possibly productive? Or does resting one's body and mind of the physical world, stopping and thinking, yield a more rejuvinating process of inner-reflection?
  15. What do you believe or foresee will eventually happen to religion and/or spirituality? Do you think it is likely that religion will one day cease and humanity will live through the virtue of reason? Or is the reverence and self-sacrifice towards a mystical element just an inevitable attribute within men's psyche? Is the most we can expect in terms of change just the further growth and development within the whole established new-age/neo-mysticism cult following, taking upon the position that spiritualism and science are compatible?
×
×
  • Create New...