Meghan

Rand was brilliant in many ways, but the crux of her metaphysics, the doctrine of primacy-of-existence vs. the primacy-of-consciousness, seems flawed. Objectivism holds that existence exists as an axiomatic primary. Fine. Nowhere does objectivism deny that consciousness exists. However, Objectivism does claim that existence is primary as opposed to consciousness, without providing any reason unless I have missed it. I am looking at OPAR currently, when I state this. If consciousness exists, then it is just as likely to be primary as anything else which exists. That is, no one can know just exactly what is or is not primary. The concept of eternity itself obviates such an idea of primacy. The error has to do, in large part, to the myopic emphasis on perception as (for the purposes of the metaphysics) the role of consciousness. the very concept of eternity obviates any notion of primacy, does it not?

Does this effect Objectivism's view on drugs?? "British researchers studied the mental sharpness of thousands of 50-year-old subjects, and found that those who had used illicit drugs—mainly marijuana—actually performed better than others on tests of memory and other brain functions" http://www.newser.com/story/136834/middle-aged-drug-users-have-sharper-minds.html Also, Stephen Molyneux posted this on his facebook, how exactly would a free society deal with this problem? Thanks. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/depression-medication-why_b_550098.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false ^---The title is inaccurate, the main part is this: " Drug companies are not forced to publish all the results of their studies. They only publish those they want to." Since information is such a crucial part of making sensible decisions in a market economy, would this and other critical information by private businesses, such as the contents of food etc. be required by federal law? How else would this be handled?

Ferrofluid Towers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me5Zzm2TXh4&feature=related

Doug, it seems by your reasoning you are not going to be able to use the internet much if at all in 20 years.

Cool website! I would also like to know the answer to TheEgoist's question.

Oh my god!!! What the hell is happening to this country!! I feel sick. Why were they so violent!? They were complying and they just body slammed and choked that guy!

Horrible.

Thank you guys! I think I understand this all now. I will pick up that OPAR book next time I find myself near the Barnes & Noble here.

Hi everyone. So I have some basic questions that I was hoping could be answered.... I know there is a search function but I thought a few of these are too specific to easily find the answers to, and that these questions were basic enough someone could answer easily for me. However, I would like to say I would prefer semi-thorough explanations if possible since I don't know much about Objectivism or philosophy in general and may need some of that simpler stuff explained that all of you accept as "obvious" already. I am working on learning more about both topics from what is available online. Hopefully these questions don't sound stupid to you all. #1. Are the foundations ...for Objectivism really based in logic, or rather axiomatic assumptions? For instance, from an Objectivist's mode of thinking, i.e. their empirical understanding of the world, is there a rational basis for belief in a free will? If so, what is it? #2. Can the superiority of logic to a specific worldview be logically proven? In other words, it seems like you start with the assumption that logic is the best criterion for a good worldview. Why? You have no logical basis for doing this, it is essentially an act of faith, isn't it? #3. It is my opinion that every worldview must begin with some level of basic faith, an axiom, something to be believed that cannot be truly proven. The problem I see with Objectivism is that it denies anything that cannot be proven. It takes it's own axiomatic foundations as truth and denies that such things can exist. Sure, it is logical and consistent after having established such things, but there is no logical reason to believe those basic foundations, just faith. To repeat, every worldview I think must start with faith. My faith is in God (to be clear, I believe there is a god, I do not however, assume it is some specific god like Christians, Muslims, and the like do, just that something was the source of all around us, I guess I am considered a deist because I don't think "it" involves itself with us), and from there everything else proceeds logically, and my worldview is less contradictory than Objectivism does because it still acknowledges it rests ultimately on faith. Objectivism also proceeds logically from its foundational axioms but it seems to me that Objectivism contradicts itself in saying it requires no faith, whereas I contend that it requires all sorts of faith commitments before it can get off the ground. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, and I again admit that while I think I have a handle on the very very basics Objectivism, I could still learn a whole lot more and I am interested in doing so.