Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

freestyle

Regulars
  • Posts

    592
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by freestyle

  1. Lowering taxes on anybody or group which one wants to make the case for group is justifiable. Where's the part about the "taxing single mothers" more? Someone who supports eliminating taxes on teachers doesn't necessarily want to punish all other professions. They might just be acting selfishly. Anyway, which is the Objectivist presidential hopeful at this point? It is probably about time to star getting their name out.
  2. No. I am sticking to definitions. Being "weak" is clearly not the definition of "strength". This is simple stuff. The definition itself eliminates the confusion of other concepts and meanings. Don't over think it. All powerful does not come with limits. If you'd like to define some limits then, for the sake of accuracy, a better choice of words would be in order.
  3. Strength. No. Man is not omnipotent, so he doesn't suffer from the contradiction of that definition. Thank you.
  4. Keep working that through Jacob and you'll come to see the contradiction intrinsic to "omnipotent being".
  5. They are mutually exclusive. As you study Objectivist epistemology, this becomes very clear. To accept a "belief" in something like an arbitrary God w/o evidence or reason is diametrically opposed to the philosophy. "If you want to be a full Objectivist, you cannot reconcile that with religion..." -AYN RAND Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A If you have seen enough evidence to base your belief on, then that is a different story. Let's check your evidence. I'm very interested! What evidence are you considering? Let's check your premises. This is the crux of what you're missing about Objectivism. You ARE considering the arbitrary. Objectivism does not consider the arbitrary. Just imagine the infinite of creative ideas I could put forth for you to consider. What objective and reason-based method do you employ when considering whether or not to accept each of these ideas. For instance: There is no "God" however, there is a Xod which created everything and looks remarkably like a leprechaun. (He is also a fantastic basketball player.) Believe it, or not? What is wrong about this argument against correspondence ... There is some good discussion about this in the above thread.
  6. I think it is Rand's philosophy that the poster above stated that they try to follow. But believing in God and "not caring" about whether you are right or wrong about things is about as far away as you can be from Rand.
  7. Glenn Beck's stupid quote had nothing to do with Egoism. He was just saying that maybe God kills Japanese people in massive natural disasters to make a subtle and cryptic point about how humans are doing down here.
  8. Sorry - was typing from my phone: That's from A.R. in The Virtue of Selfishness, essay entitled "The Objectivist Ethics" You can find a bit more of that quote online here: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ultimate_value.html
  9. You are misunderstanding "life" as the ultimate value. It is not merely being biologically alive. When Rand describes *life* as the standard of value she means more than "time spent while not dead". :-) Exactly: "The maintenance of life and the pursuit of happiness are not two separate issues. To hold one’s own life as one’s ultimate value, and one’s own happiness as one’s highest purpose are two aspects of the same achievement."
  10. What if the natural consequence is potentially life threatenig to the child and there is urgency in teaching this lesson? (ie "Don't race your bike down the drive way darting across the street" is being ignored.) I'm not suggesting beating, but ignoring the action and praising other positive actions will not suffice here.
  11. This is well said. I was going to say that "ignore" implies a choice not to know, or even to disregard. Not being aware of some particular knowledge, in the course of study, would be better identified as "unlearned".
  12. Consider in this scenario that: Prior to the police being restricted from entry to the road, the criminal was allowed passage. (Or, at the very least, used the road) One ought not be able to use their property to obstruct justice.
  13. Many are. Unfortunately, the media in this country appears to be state run now.
  14. I believe that is the case, and it makes some people very, very uncomfortable. I recently got side tracked out of a discussion after I said, "...but your premise is wrong." The premise was, in fact, wrong however the discussion changed to attack me for stating something so definitively. "It isn't that the premise is wrong, it is that we disagree about it." The idea of something being right or wrong is still foreign to many people. Ayn Rand was right, and when one cannot refute something, they often resort to attacking the messenger instead.
  15. Since there are other options and you have made it clear that this property owner does not wish to have even police exceed the speed limit, then the police would not be able to violate that person's property. However, I see this as a very unlikely scenario. What rational reasoning would someone with the capacity to own and operate a successful road have for not allowing police on it? And, if you can come up with a good reason, then why wouldn't you respect that?
  16. As I read it, the act is not unconstitutional. http://frwebgate.acc...d=f:publ199.104 It states that the Federal government cannot "require" (force) one state to adhere to the marriage definitions of another state. It also defines the term "marriage" as used in federal congressional acts to be specific to one man and one woman. As for what the STATE's ought to do -- Ayn Rand was asked about that: Q: Should the state prescribe the obligations of a marriage, or should this be left to the contractual desires of the couple? Ayn Rand: This is an important and difficult subject, because of two complex issues; the rights of children and property rights. If two people are married, they may want or have children. Once a child is born, he is entitled to support until he is self supporting. In general, a husband and wife can make any property arrangements they want. But today, the law is a bit too much on the side of the woman. There was a time when the woman was at the economic mercy of her husband; today, she is not. There is a great deal of irrationality and contradictions in many state marriage laws, so there's room for improvement, provided thc basic principles are clearly stated and not arbitrary. The government cannot undertake to enforce any contract any two people decide to make. If your contract falls under a certain legal category, then the government can undertake to enforce it; but it cannot be asked to enforce some contradictory contract. This is one reason why there must be a uniform code of law—why individuals are not entirely free to make contracts in any manner. But proper marriage law-- and even the mixed ones of today allow two parties to make legal contracts regarding their relationship. [FHF 68] What is your view of laws prohibiting homosexuality and bigamy? All laws against homosexual acts should be repealed. I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults. Laws against corrupting the morals of minors are proper, but adults should be completely free. Bigamy is a different issue. If a man wants a relationship with two women, he does not need the law to sanction it. But the state should have standards about what it considers a legal marriage. The law should be uniform, and there are good reasons why in most civilized countries marriage is a monogamous institution. lf a man wants a wife and another woman, he doesnʼt need the legality of bigamy if he's open about it. Bigamy laws concern cases in which a man has two legal wives in two different cities, and leads a double life. Here there are good grounds, legally and morally, to prosecute him. [FHF 68] -- Ayn Rand Answers
  17. Not only that, but "God" already has a definition. Trying to remove "supernatural being" from the definition is inevitably a pointless compromise. The people who are emotionally attached to the concept that the word "God" represents will not discard that concept no matter what you attempt to equate it with. I know where you're going with that... Although I was never a religious person, for a long time, I held on to the notion that I was an "agnostic". Objectivism lead me to understand that to acquire knowledge, there is absolutely no place for the arbitrary. I make all my choices and decisions without consideration of an arbitrary deity. Therefore, I am clearly not a theist. http://aynrandlexico.../arbitrary.html As many have pointed out, the initial premise (God=Universe) is simply confusing as it asks for one to discard a known definition and concept. That said, I would alert you to an observation I've made about a number of stated Objectivists -- Quite a few tend to take Ayn Rand's very direct and critical view of religion and expand it into something that seems emotional and even hostile. There is a noticeable antagonism that you'll find towards religious people. (i.e. Check the Oo home page today with the Zombie Jesus... lol) I have found most religious individuals to be pleasant to talk to and don't find it of value to antagonize them.
  18. "Shared Sacrifice" is Stupid February 22, 2011 A kind of follow-up, I suppose... He is right, sacrifice is stupid and it doesn't often get said to audiences as large as his.
  19. If this is the case then, as you have defined the terms, the following would apply: [God] is the total of that which exists—not merely the earth or the stars or the galaxies, but everything. Obviously then there can be no such thing as the “cause” of [God] . . . Is [God] then unlimited in size? No. Everything which exists is finite, including [God]. What then, you ask, is outside [God], if it is finite? This question is invalid. The phrase “outside [God]” has no referent. [God] is everything. “Outside [God]” stands for “that which is where everything isn’t.” There is no such place. There isn’t even nothing “out there”: there is no “out there.” -Leonard Peikoff, “The Philosophy of Objectivism" Also... To grasp the axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., [God] as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the Law of Identity. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within [God]—from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life—are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved. Nature is the metaphysically given—i.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition. -“The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,”Philosophy: Who Needs It, So as long as you don't go adding to the above definition of God (i.e. "He" is a consciousness... and sports a white beard) -- Then all lines up fine. However, the use of the term "theist" without evidence of a deity is problematic for an Objectivist. So the term "pantheism" is problematic. If you want to go that route I'd suggest "Panphysis" instead since it suggests nature as opposed to an undefinable deity. P.S. I have never seen any evidence that it is possible to destroy the universe. (Or [God])
  20. In an Objectivist society the objective value of the land would be determinant. If it doesn't make financial sense to knock down a rock that makes an arch, then that rock arch wouldn't be knocked down. If the person who pays for and can make use of the land finds more value in doing something else, then they would attempt to realize that value.
  21. I hate to say it, but the trailer makes it look like a cheesy TV movie. If your'e going to do Atlas Shrugged, you gotta get A++ actors... (and it would even be difficult for them to pull it off). This looks like lots of story and 0 philosophy.
  22. I've explored this with religious people using the old line about: "If God can do anything, can he make a building so high that even he can't jump over it?" If they're smart they call it out as an invalid question. But even if they don't do that, they can just say "yes". An omnipotent being is not bothered by contradictions. He can overcome a contradiction and make it not a contradiction. ... (and your mind is too small to understand, so just have faith.)
  23. "If you want to be a full Objectivist, you cannot reconcile that with religion..." -AYN RAND From her Q&A:
  24. Check out this thread: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=20527&st=0
  25. I should say that I completely agree with Leonid's post up until that last line. By my definition, things that are deserved must be earned. (I.e. I do not equate them with rights.). Are we operating with different definitions here?
×
×
  • Create New...