Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rudmer

Regulars
  • Posts

    56
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rudmer

  1. I learned of Kantianism before I learned of Objectivism, and was surprised to learn of Ayn Rand's and Objectivism's extreme distaste for Kant. At first glance, they appeared to be roughly compatible, but when I did some digging, I of course discovered many more disparities. Of particular note is the fact that Kant essentially says that "man is blind, because he has eyes—deaf, because he has ears—deluded, because he has a mind—and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them" (according to Ms. Rand). But I have yet to read or hear a complete, concise summation of all the reasons why Objectivism despises Kantianism to the extreme extent that it does. Would someone please spell it out for me, or point me to such an explanation? Thank you in advance.
  2. I fail to see how this changes the "posit a Creator" argument I gave. A Creator is logically unnecessary for Existence to exist, so whether or not said Creator is theorized as "alive/still exists" or "dead/no longer exists" is irrelevant.
  3. Recently, I've heard this argument phrased slightly differently, something like "If I see a painting, I logically assume that there is a painter. There is creation, so I logically assume a Creator." My counter argument attacked the analogy itself by arguing that the contexts were different: when you see a painting, you do so from an outside context, i.e. you are not part of the painting. You have observed, separate from the painting, that a painter is needed to create a painting. However, as a part of Existence, you are not outside the context of Existence (if I were to even admit such a possibility) and therefore can have no objective knowledge of what is required for the existence of Existence. As far as improving your counterargument, I cannot find where I found it, but a good argument for showing that a Creator is unnecessary goes something like: Must we posit the existence of a Creator? No, for it is an inescapable fact that Existence simply exists. Since a Creator would need to first exist before creating, a Creator is necessarily part of Existence. If one is unwilling to accept that Existence simply exists, positing a Creator will do one no good, since the Creator is necessarily part of Existence. To claim that a Creator simply exists is logically equivalent to claiming that Existence simply exists separate from a Creator, thus rendering the Creator logically unnecessary. (insert Occam's Razor argument here)
  4. Does anyone know how much of a financial stretch it would be for ARI to buy the rights? Because I think it's a good idea, but not at running the risk of going broke.
  5. If this is passed into law more or less intact as it is now, what are my options? The way I see it, I have 3: Obey (meaning purchase unwanted healthcare at the point of a gun), but protest. Disobey, but pay the fine. Disobey, and don't pay the fine. The last one is the only option I see as having any sort of effect. Unfortunately, a LOT of people would have to grow spines rather quickly in order for it to work. Thoughts?
×
×
  • Create New...