Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

necrovore

Regulars
  • Content Count

    197
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

necrovore last won the day on March 18

necrovore had the most liked content!

About necrovore

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 07/04/1975

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Florida
  • Chat Nick
    Necrovore
  • Interested in meeting
    Looking for friends.
  • Relationship status
    Single
  • Sexual orientation
    Straight
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • 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
    Male
  • 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

3443 profile views
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Moderation and censorship are not the same thing. Slashdot for example has an excellent moderation system; people moderate each other's posts, meta-moderation makes sure that moderation is fair, and trolls get voted down and hidden, but you can still see the downvoted troll posts if you want. Censorship, by contrast, is when a person deliberately tries to prevent someone else from obtaining information. That's my definition. This can be an infringement of rights in some cases (e.g., if you want to go to the bookstore to buy a book, but I stop you), but it can also not be (e.g., if I own t
  5. If you were right then the term "self-censorship" would only be able to mean "the government censoring itself." But it is merely a terminological point. I prefer to call "government censorship" just that. I also think there should be a term for when private citizens move to block others from having information, and though it may be legal and not an infringement of anyone's rights, there still needs to be a word for it. In many cases it is very rude behavior, and censorship is also not the kind of behavior one would expect of a person who is confident in the rightness of their ideas.
  6. I've been thinking about this overall topic for a while, and I am beginning to think that Leftism is indeed the greater evil. My reasoning might be different from Bernstein's, though. (I read his article but I was never able to watch the debate.) To review what Peikoff said in OPAR: Objectivism holds that existence has primacy over consciousness, but most philosophies hold the opposite, i.e., that consciousness controls existence. For them, the question becomes one of whose consciousness controls existence, and the classical answers are: God, society, or oneself. I've posted before t
  7. That is a non sequitur. It's not "undermining standards of rationality" to refuse to dismiss evidence that other people want dismissed. (In fact, I'd say it's the virtue of independence at work.) It certainly isn't "actively promoting subversion." Saying "the election was stolen" doesn't say what to do about it. As Peikoff puts it in The Ominous Parallels: As I've said before, I think storming the Capitol was a horribly bad thing to do (so bad, in fact, that I think it's a lie to call the perpetrators "Trump supporters," because what they did did not actually support Tru
  8. I've actually tried that, and it's surprising how often it is that the most fundamental disagreement is in metaphysics. Too many people believe in the primacy of consciousness.
  9. Why would the "applicability and practicality of Objectivism" have anything whatever to do with what the "vast majority of people" think or do? It's usually impossible to consider a single political issue in isolation because "controls necessitate further controls." Closed borders will often appear necessary because of other bad government policies, such as welfare statism, or failure to fight wars of self-defense. In order to open the borders, the other bad policies have to be unwound first; then, closed borders would no longer be necessary. I do think it would be suicidal to open the
  10. Craig Biddle (of The Objective Standard) suggested that the left-right spectrum be slightly redefined, so that the "right" was associated with freedom from the coercion of other people, and the "left" is associated with the coercion. I generally like that idea.
  11. I don't think it's right to call them "Trump supporters." They may have been wearing the logos but their actions did not support Trump, either in fact or in theory. If a bunch of idiots put on Ayn Rand paraphernalia and went on a rampage -- would it be right to constantly refer to them as "Objectivism supporters"? As if all supporters of Objectivism are like that? As if Objectivism supports rampages like that?
  12. I condemn them regardless of what they advocated for. Some of them were Antifa and I think it's wrong to evade that. Why should Republicans and Trump be embarrassed? They didn't do it. They didn't ask for it. They couldn't have benefited from it. Their ideas don't support it. They can't control, or be responsible for, the choices or actions of other people. If a bunch of idiots wear Ayn Rand paraphernalia and go on a rampage, should Objectivists be embarrassed? Why? Isn't it collectivism to say that if some members of a group do something, all the members of the group
  13. I do want to add one more thing. People are asking whether now is the time for violence -- or if not now, when. I think Ayn Rand already answered that question: the initiation of force is wrong, but retaliatory force is a "moral imperative." The Democrats are getting more and more abusive toward Republicans. Some of this is through the government and some of it is through "cancel culture" and riots and the like. Now that they are in power, this will probably continue. I could be wrong -- the Democrats are divided into moderates and extremes. However, the moderate position is inconsis
  14. I think David Kelley was saying that you can condemn an action but you have to "tolerate" an idea. Peikoff's position is the correct one, I think: you can, and must, condemn an idea on the basis of the actions to which it necessarily leads (and the results of those actions). However, where I differ from you seems to be, I don't think the ideas of Trump or Republicans necessarily lead to the storming of the Capitol. For one thing, Trump and the Republicans have been supporters of "law and order" all through the BLM and Antifa riots, and even through the election challenges they tried
  15. How so? (I haven't read Fact and Value in a while, but I remember disagreeing with it.)
×
×
  • Create New...