Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


necrovore last won the day on April 30

necrovore had the most liked content!

About necrovore

  • Rank
  • Birthday 07/04/1975

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Chat Nick
  • Interested in meeting
    Looking for friends.
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Copyright
  • Experience with Objectivism
    I discovered Objectivism in 1997, read all I could about it, and promptly adopted it. However, I don't know if I'm very effective at advocating anything.
  • Occupation
    Software Engineer

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Jacksonville, FL
  • Interests
    Programming (Scheme, F#, C#, C++, Forth, Java, Assembly), Music (Reason 11.0), Writing (Plot, Literary Theory, Science Fiction, Fantasy, Horror).

Recent Profile Visitors

3570 profile views
  1. You should read about "the arbitrary" in OPAR. First, you write "A casual inference, relying on the claim that there are casual structures, makes it very low probability that the farmer has not produced a green bowlingball-size sallad since there has not been any rain at all and other farmers have seen their fields turn into dry deserts. There are not enough ingredients for such a phenomenon to be produced." But the evidence you provide is actually enough to justify a probability of zero, not just "very low." Second, the claim "that you can't trust that there are reliable casual rela
  2. So, what you're saying is, the show is an example of information falling into the "black hole" of bad philosophy.
  3. I've been reading a lot about hyperinflation, and how it makes life more difficult for a lot of people, because it makes prices go up, and it makes cash lose its value, which punishes savers, and so forth. But there is one perspective I haven't read about lately, and it just occurred to me: hyperinflation isn't bad for everyone. It's not bad for you if you're the one printing the money. It's not bad if you're friends with the ones printing the money, or friends of those friends, or so forth. Many of the people running the banks, the Fed, and large parts of the government, graduated f
  4. When I say "Nobody has a right to someone else's body," I mean that in the same way as "Nobody has a right to an iPhone." Clearly you can buy an iPhone if you can find a willing seller, and when you do, you have a right to that iPhone, because you've bought it. (It might also be possible to rent, lease, or borrow an iPhone, and thus have the right to use that iPhone even though you don't own it.) However, I still think it's correct to say that "Nobody has a right to an iPhone." People, by consenting, can give you rights you wouldn't otherwise have.
  5. Abortion should be legal because nobody has a "right" to another person's body. I don't see how DNA makes any difference in that.
  6. necrovore


    Yes. Maybe instead of "in that" I should have said "in the respect that", which spells it out more clearly. I think an emotion about something is a recognition of the implications that thing has, or could have, for your own life, or the lives of people you care about. Intuition can be more "dryly intellectual," like recognizing that certain problems can be solved in certain ways.
  7. necrovore


    An intuition is the same as an emotion in that it cannot be assumed to be automatically correct. It has to be verified.
  8. I guess my argument for objective morality would go like this: First, establish objective reality. If your audience doesn't accept that, then there is no reason to continue. Then, I'd do the "argument from the hamster": If you want to keep a hamster alive and thriving, you have to follow certain rules. The same thing is true if it's a human instead of a hamster, although the rules are more complex. (Humans don't thrive in cages.) The same thing is true if the human you are trying to keep alive and thriving is yourself. That argument should be sufficient to d
  9. That doesn't make sense to me. "Arguing specifically for Objectivist morality" is like proving that 31 is prime, whereas "arguing the more general, abstract point of whether an objective morality can exist" is like proving that there is such a thing as a prime number. Not only should the latter be easier, but it is a prerequisite for the former.
  10. OK. Your original meaning wasn't clear to me. Sorry about that.
  11. I disagree with this: Objectivism is closed and nobody can add to it. Keeping it closed protects it from people who would misrepresent it. It means that if somebody wants to know about Objectivism there is only one place for them to go: Ayn Rand, because she wrote it. This doesn't mean reality is fake or should be ignored or anything like that: I can, and must, still add to my knowledge, and this may include adding to my own philosophical ideas, if appropriate. After all, Objectivism says to base your ideas on reality -- not merely on Objectivism itself, and not on Ayn Rand.
  12. There's an old parable about how, once upon a time, all the important banks put all their gold in a single vault, and they used a ledger to keep track of who owned what part of it, and to transfer ownership back and forth between people, so they ran the whole economy based on that ledger for many decades without even looking at the vault. Then one day they finally did look, and they discovered that, many years before, an earthquake had occurred, a fault line had opened up, the vault had broken, and all the gold had fallen into the fault and had been lost. But the economy at the time had procee
  13. As far as "defining Leftism," Peikoff gives a hint in The DIM Hypothesis. He provides a long passage in "Basic Consistency of the Big Three." It's a good lesson in thinking in essentials -- which is to say, identifying which facts are essential to a concept and which are non-essential. Of course, Peikoff here is concentrating on his specific purpose, which is to identify the greatest philosophers and the nature of their influence. But what he's doing here is the same thing anyone would have to do to integrate any concept, particularly concerning a concept that describes someone's ideas
  14. To my mind, a platform is something different from, say, a magazine. If you have a set of ideas that you would like to promote, a magazine is more appropriate: you can solicit submissions (either from the general public or only from specific people), evaluate them, and publish only the ones you like. You can also write stuff yourself and publish it in your magazine. I suppose two examples would be Marc Da Cunha running Capitalism Magazine, and Craig Biddle running The Objective Standard. When you decide to create a platform instead, you are creating something different. It's the Inte
  • Create New...