Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

dclynch

Regulars
  • Posts

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    Not Specified
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

dclynch's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/7)

0

Reputation

  1. I might be new to Objectivism, but I did not see one statement in that article which is concerned with the true principles of Objectivism. Rather, I'm not sure she knows what she is talking about. She does a remarkable job at condemning blind selfishness, but, unfortunately for her, Objectivism reveres rational selfishness. Further, she provides much more Greenspan-related fluff than actual, philosophical discussion. This article appears to be a surface level "attack" with no basis on the true principles of what Objectivism stands for. In short, I missed the part where she attacked the beliefs.
  2. Rather than worry about time-travel or destiny, it might be better to rephrase the question. You are on a runaway bus, with no way to stop. As the bus approaches an intersection, you see 2 groups of people (unmoving and oblivious). The first group, on the left, has 3 people, the second, on the right, has 2. It appears that if you shift the wheel either way (left or right), you will kill that group, leaving the other unharmed. If, however, you do not touch the wheel, both groups will die. What do you do? Or, perhaps another way. You are in a basement, and a mad-man killer is right above you. With your group of 5 people is a baby who is on the verge of crying. The walls are thin and there is no doubt that if the baby cries, the killer will surely know your location. You will be defenseless, and will die. Thus, the only way to save the 5 people and the baby is to kill the baby. What do you do? Now we can get at the issue at hand: do the ends justify the means?
  3. I appreciate the responses. Particuarly K-Mac, who (I believe) was the one of the few to provide the answer to what I think is a difficult question. Namely, how does an atheist cope with loss? I agree that reason is powerful, but in this specific instance I find it to be unsatisfactory. SuperMetroid, you should understand that I am not a troll and not here to prove the existance of God. Rather, I was simply curious as to the response I would get from the Objectivist community. While faith might be the antithesis of logic, calling it childish and insane disregards the power of human emotions. It is human nature to form some type of religion, look through history at the myriad of religions. Does that make it correct? No, but it offers evidence that it is human nature to move outside the purely logical. Plasmatic, I appreciate the link. Reading through however, I've stumbled upon what I feel is a direct contradiction. I'm wondering if you putting this into more layman's terms will help me understand the argument the author is providing. In one speech, we have the following: There can be no causeless love or any sort of causeless emotion. An emotion is a response to a fact of reality, an estimate dictated by your standards. However, directly above it, we have this: An emotion as such tells you nothing about reality... I don't understand, if an emotion is a response to reality, how can it tell you nothing about reality? The mere fact that it is a response seems to indicate that emotions tell the mind something about the reality he inhabits. Steve D'Ippolito, I appreciate the defense. It is true, it would be silly for me to call myself an Objectivist, after all, I've really just become introduced to the subject. As much as faith and reason appear to inherently contradict (one being reason and the other being complete absense from it), to choose one over the other is to choose my mind or my God. This is a difficult decision, as anyone who was religious and now is not will admit. This is, of course, exactly what SuperMetroid predicted when he accused me of evasion. If I know this dichotemy exists, I have to choose one over the other don't I? If I didn't mention you personally, that's not a knock on your posts. I just picked out a few which were different from the others and had things I wanted to address. I appreciate all the responses, I certainly have some thinking to do. (Although, since I use the word 'think', it appears like I've already made my decision.)
  4. I am new to Objectivism in general, and as a Christian who does believe in God, I am having some issues accepting this specific facet. For me, God exists by necessity. He provides meaning and comfort when confronted with sorrow, though he doesn't influence my day-to-day decision making. Objectivism would deny his existence because he is imperceivable, and the burden of proof is towards the positive. But at the same time, Objectivism doesn't offer up any substitute for meaning. It simply says what is, is. Don't you guys struggle with this?
×
×
  • Create New...