dream_weaver

@tadmjones Hating the Russians, or just Putin fits with attacking the president of the US, whoever the current one is. A commentator of yore used to quip, the Chinese people are our friends, it's the CCP that one need be wary of.

@EC I've picked a few to watch. Right now, Silent Witness, before that Murder, She Wrote. By and large it's an episode or two for an evening, depending on the length of the show.

<Sigh!> So why are you "engaging" with "so many more here" that "can't really be engaged with?" I abandoned television back in 1995. For all intents and purposes, I do get the gist of my current events from "random" web sites. If you've more pertinent information: provide it by breaking the abstractions down and showing how they are derived from the precepts from which the more pertinent abstractions were drawn from. If you can't do this, then I would suggest that it is not a case of the audience that is incapable of understanding, but of a "wanna-be-'preacher' " that is incapable of making its message clear.

Are the relatively free nations stepping up to the plate to defend their citizens, or are they primarily sending arms and munitions to Ukraine and letting the Ukrainians bear the brunt of Putin's ongoing war turned battle of attrition?

I, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, shudder at the thought of relying on IT for dealing with all the help tickets to get the "bugs" in the software worked out.

If memory serves, the Corleone Family tried to usurp the kingdom keys. I can almost see the headline now. "OO, thanks to Jon Letendre, singlehandedly takes down the Biden Crime Family administration."

The Biden Crime Family must rank right up there with the Corleone family. While pronouncing evil, as such, is indeed advocated by Miss Rand, there is another activity advocated within her repertoire with regard to values, i.e.; that which one seeks to gain and or keep. Value, in this case, being what you consider of importance to both focus on and expend effort to draw the focus of others onto as well. What percentage of your limited time and efforts allocated in life are you going to dedicate to the Biden Crime Family? I'm content there are worthy allocators that are manning the battle stations to allow me to go about pursuing my values, and leave the advances in the pursuit of rational philosophy to those qualified to do so.

Here is a Facebook post that came across my feed with the following preface: The Rational Scientific Method

@EC Sign back in using the same phone and you may get asked to clear or edit what you had previously typed up. Click in the window to add a new message rather than replying to an existing post. (Hope that helps.)

Consider the built in catch-22. As an acting agent in the world, the acting agent needs to choose how to act. It is self action, to accomplish for the self, whatever action is taken by the self. Is this not the essence of selfishness? Can the preceding paragraph easily be re-rendered to reflect the oft touted bromide: don't be selfish?

*** Thread Split Economic Freedom, from: Objectivists are working to save the world from tyranny--isn't that altruism? ***

She, who shall not be named directly in this thread by me, is an eye-witness. The information is available for those who have discovered how to query the available evidence.

Brushing aside the rest of your yet to be earned accolades of your sought-out information, who are the Objectivists on this board, and what is your evidence?

The woman who typed up the hand written pages Miss Rand wrote still walks amongst us.

Within this website, Mister Swig asks where are the charismatic proponents of the Morality of Life to counter some of the more charismatic salesmen that peddle so many snake oil solutions. The best programs that have emerged lately are like Alex Epstein, a number of themed podcasts from ARCUK, Tal Tsfany's delving into happiness via a more scientific assessment. Still many of these are preaching to the choir, yes. Catch-22. Building individuals that think for themselves while pining for something more effective than Galt's Speech to "start spreading the news." Recently an article on Real Clear Media was crying that scientific research should be made freely available even by skirting pay-walls if need be. ARI, after I spent many dollars purchasing materials for my own edification, has made lots of information available. Information of this nature has yet to go viral. Viral capitalizes on the entertainment value. As entertaining as Atlas Shrugged may be, to unlock the door harboring the motor(s) is dependant on the mind choosing to discover what's behind the ray-screen for themselves. (/rant)

Selfish is an apt example. The way selfish is used is an inversion, and rational self(ish) interest made it easier to illustrate her point for those of us who were helped to grasp it via her choosing selfish as worthy to battle over. In a seek first to understand, then to be understood stance, Objectivism has within its arsenal the sage advice with regards to concepts, that concepts can both be used as well as misused in the process of cognition. On an issue given as much importance, getting it right should not be left to a consensus. Especially in a country that was founded on recognizing and upholding the importance of rights.

Objectivists, as I understand, or Objectivism, as a philosophy for living on earth, shouldn't require keeping in line. True becoming part of the collective, and the notion of self-sacrifice are an anathema to one who values their independence and desires to live rather than simply avoid death, should hardly be but a blip to most authorities in power. In one of Leonard Peikoff's lectures, someone had uttered loudly from the back of the room "Revolution now!" Peikoff pointed out (heavily paraphrased) . . . "and then what? Most of citizens want the type of government that is currently in place, else it would not be the way it is. How long after 'winning' such a revolution would it take for things to return to the way they were?" Some critical and independent thinkers and individuals are like Rand, seeing the consequences all too clearly, and are afraid not to be outspoken. Some follow another path where "Objectivist are subversive as hell", discovering how to implement changes that don't necessarily grab the attention of the authorities.

So when Miss Rand wrote in Atlas Shrugged: The senses of the young brakeman interacted with Dagny in such a way as she could feel herself being looked at?

@Lone Cypress What has your imagined Objectivist done that requires intervention to "keep in line"?

@Lone Cypress, Part of the disagreement takes place in the terminology used to conceptualize the matter with. This is a large contributor to the high levels of contention observed between many of the participants engaged in slinging words at one another in the verbal side of the battle.

Yes. Shouldn't one evaluate a questioner by the questions they ask? Viva la difference! With a moniker of 'Economic Freedom', do you, perchance, have a preamble to compliment, or at least contrast with Fransisco's money speech? i know I'm going a bit off topic to ask this in this thread, but your demeanor, thus far, has resulted in more than one tributary being observed in your wake.

No. I'm just evaluating the questions being asked, reading the responses you've been given, and how you've responded to them. Carry on, for now.

It seems you've already reached your verdict. It is your mind that needs to process the data of your senses. It would be silly and, I would venture to say, an insult to tell you what you can and ought conclude for yourself as to whether you conclusions are in alignment with the facts of the final arbiter (i.e., reality). My apologies for resorting to paraphrasing Miss Rand to you.

@Economic Freedom You're not the first to hold the stance you are posturing with, nor will you be the last. If you are unable to find what you're searching for here, perhaps there are more fertile fields to plow elsewhere. Has anyone prevented you from positing your position and making your inquiries?