Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Individual

Regulars
  • Posts

    146
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by The Individual

  1. There is no objective time limit for gaming.

    I feel that 5-6 hours is excessive because it borders on playing for playing's sake, rather than for the intended purpose of relaxation.

    Also, that extra hours of gaming can be re-directed to a more productive activity such as reading about Objectivism, etc. Surely, one's most productive activity cannot be gaming, unless one is a professional gamer who plays for a living.

  2. Technically, land isn't a product of the mind. Land already exists.

    How did the first man acquire a piece of land and convinced his fellow men that this is his land? Based on a legal contract?

    Or perhaps at the beginning, all land belonged to the government and it was the government who designated respective areas of land to the people.

  3. How does one come to own land?

    "The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society." - J J Rousseau

    There would be thousands like him. The pioneer landlords would then start the first housing and mortgage market.

    I've no real knowledge of land ownership. I would think it's somewhat like this.

    Someone might want to correct me if I'm wrong.

  4. So, religious Apologists aren't that rational after all? It seems all their arguments do not hold.

    And, is an understanding of theology a requisite or useful in the discussion of God's existence/non-existence?

    My Christian friend is very contemptuous of Richard Dawkins because Dawkins claims there is nothing in theology that can be taken seriously.

    "It is not often that a professor admits to poor scholarship, but that is what Richard Dawkins has done (letter, 17 September). Had I received an essay from a first-year undergraduate in which he admitted not having studied the position of his opponent, I would have insisted on it being rewritten. What is even more remarkable is that Dawkins seems unaware that the positivist account of science, which forms the main plank of his argument, is thoroughly discredited." - Reverend Dr David Heywood (Lecturer in Pastoral Theology, Ripon College, Cuddesdon Oxfordshire) in a reply letter to Richard Dawkins, http://richarddawkins.net/article,1698,n,n

    What is the Objectivist's view to all these and of Dawkins? (By the way, the Reverend is not my Christian friend)

  5. Religious Apologists such as Christians Apologist aim to present a rational basis for faith using Reason. They attempt to use philosophical arguments, scientific investigation, rhetorical persuasion, etc, to defend their faith and prove the existence of God.

    An example would be the cosmological argument of God as the First Cause or Uncaused Cause. Or the ontological argument that the very concept of God demands that there is an actual existent God. Or the moral argument that if there are any real morals, then there must be an absolute from which they are derived. Or the transcendental argument that all our abilities to think and reason require the existence of God.

    Are they legitimate arguments? And I'm just curious - How does one refute the argument of God as the Uncaused First Cause? I don't understand how Occam's Razor can be used against such an argument.

  6. QuoVadis, you made a good point regarding the hierarchical difference of the Titan (Prometheus) and Olympian (Zeus).

    Hm, I think I might be confused by something.

    "John Galt is Prometheus who changed his mind. After centuries of being torn by vultures in payment for having brought to men the fire of the gods, he broke his chains—and he withdrew his fire—until the day when men withdraw their vultures."

    Is the latter sentence referring to Galt or Prometheus?

    If it's Galt, then I understand it completely.

  7. Maybe I'm just nitpicking.

    Re-reading it, Prometheus is certainly a good metaphor to describe Galt.

    My gripe is with the phrase "until the day when men withdraw their vultures".

    In the Greek Mythology, Prometheus was punished by one of his kind - Zeus - and not the Men who received the fire. The Men were grateful.

    In Atlas Shrugged, Galt was punished by the Men whom he gave the fire to. The Men were not grateful.

  8. "The metaphor works in as far as Prometheus was being tortured because he brought new knowledge." - Tito

    Yes, Tito, I see your point. But in the Greek Mythology, Prometheus was tortured by the vultures of Zeus, not Men.

    "John Galt is Prometheus who changed his mind. After centuries of being torn by vultures in payment for having brought to men the fire of the gods, he broke his chains—and he withdrew his fire—until the day when MEN WITHDRAW THEIR VULTURES." - Francisco

    The metaphor doesn't completely fit, though the characteristics of Prometheus certainly describes John Galt well, for having suffered because he did something good.

    A more accurate statement would be: John Galt is Prometheus who changed his mind. After centuries of being torn by vultures in payment for having brought to men the fire of the gods, he broke his chains—and he withdrew his fire—until the day when the gods withdraw their vultures.

    But that doesn't make much sense does it?

  9. "John Galt is Prometheus who changed his mind. After centuries of being torn by vultures in payment for having brought to men the fire of the gods, he broke his chains—and he withdrew his fire—until the day when men withdraw their vultures."

    Francisco says this to Dagny in Part Two, Chapter V, after they discover the words “Who is John Galt?” scratched into a table at a restaurant. She says there are so many stories about him, and Francisco tells her that all the stories are true.

    I do not find this metaphor apt because it wasn't men who set vultures on Prometheus. It was Zeus, god of sky and thunder, who did it to punish Prometheus for stealing fire.

  10. Objectivist epistemology holds reason as the only absolute and ethics as pursuing one's rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism for politics.

    I fully agree and believe that a laissez-faire capitalistic society is the best form of society for humans - only if we behave rationally. And that is the problem. Not everyone is rational and uses their reasoning skills properly. Won't these particular group of irrational people upset the laissez-faire capitalistic society? How do we address this group of people? And if we can't address this group of people, if we can't rationalize this group of irrational people, doesn't it mean that a laissez-faire society is not that wholly workable? And maybe, a capitalistic society with a little form of government intervention (to address this group of irrational people) is more suitable?

  11. I'm glad to say I deleted all the songs in my iTunes which I have acquired unfairly. I'm trying to change myself to be more in tune with the Objectivist standard.

    Apart from respecting intellectual property, is there any area where you guys have found it difficult to be consistent with the Objectivist standard?

×
×
  • Create New...