Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    dream_weaver got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in Derek Chauvin Trial   
    It should prove interesting to contrast Dr. Andrew Baker's eyewitness testimony of the cause of death with Dr. Michael Baden's and Dr. Alecia Wilson's later eyewitness testimony of the same.
    Dr. Michael Baden's eyewitness autopsy testimony regarding Michael Brown was key in establishing the fact Brown was facing, not fleeing Officer Darrin Wilson when Brown had been shot in Ferguson, Missouri back in August 2014.
  2. Thanks
    dream_weaver got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in Cultural Parasitism   
    Kristoffer Polaha played John Galt in the movie Atlas Shrugged. It's movie trivia to me, but a comment that arose from one of the viewers in the audience.
  3. Like
    dream_weaver reacted to Boydstun in What Has the 'Pro-Life' Movement Won?   
    What Has the Pro-Life Movement Won?
    by Ross Douthat - 2 April 2021
    Excellent review of what it has come to in the US. Legally and politically well-informed.
    Content of Roe and a Moral Rationale
  4. Like
    dream_weaver got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in How many masks do you wear?   
    Zuby noted how he liked to keep it real, as opposed to saying what he thought his audience might want to hear, and associated keeping it real as a contributing factor to his growing fan base. (around 20 minutes.)
  5. Like
    dream_weaver reacted to whYNOT in How many masks do you wear?   
    Kibbe on Liberty: Pandemic imprisoning and the culture war. Perspectives from Britain and the USA.
    Great conversation.
  6. Thanks
    dream_weaver reacted to Boydstun in Atlas Shrugged   
    Movers, Prime and Immovable
    Chapter IV of Atlas Shrugged is titled “The Immovable Movers.” Rand opens the chapter with the following paragraph: “Motive power—thought Dagny, looking up at the Taggart Building in the twilight—was its first need; motive power, to keep that building standing; movement, to keep it immovable. It did not rest on piles driven into granite; it rested on the engines that rolled across a continent.” (64)
    In that chapter are the lines: “She had always been—she closed her eyes with a faint smile of amusement and pain—the motive power of her own happiness” (65). This thought comes to her in an episode of wishing (after a day of learning that her capable contractor for rail construction of her Rio Norte Line in Colorado has decided to close his business and has vanished) “to find a joy outside, the wish to be held as the passive spectator by some work or sight of greatness. Not to make it, she thought, but to accept; not to begin, but to respond; not to create, but to admire. I need it to let me go on, she thought, because joy is one’s fuel” (65). She turned that evening to listening to her phonograph record of a concerto to give her the feeling she wanted to experience just then. This music was “like a voice saying: there is no necessity for pain . . . why, then, is the worst pain reserved for . . . we who hold the love and secret of joy?” (67).
    After days that formed a string of enormous obstacles, especially from a choking governmental directive, Dagny is with Hank Rearden at his mills, where they talk of how to accomplish what is needed for bright developments underway in Colorado, and they talk of all the new human possibilities opened by Rearden’s new metal: “She looked at him in the exact moment when he turned to look at her. They stood close to each other. She saw, in his eyes, that he felt as she did. If joy is the aim and the core of existence, she thought, and if that which has the power to give one joy is always guarded as one’s deepest secret, then they had seen each other naked in that moment.” (87) The chapter concludes with the line: “Dagny” he said, “whatever we are, it’s we who move the world and it’s we who’ll pull it through” (88).
    In proclaiming joy to be the aim and core of existence, Rand meant the aim and core of human living-existence. “Happiness is the successful state of life” (1014). Ultimate basis of successful human existence, of successful human life, is recognition, in mind and in act, of all-encompassing existence: “Existence exists” is the root of her moral code. Wish to escape that axiom is the root of disastrous moral codes alternative to hers (1015). Existence and consciousness of existence are, in Rand’s mature philosophy, “irreducible primaries” broadly implied in any human action and knowledge, at all stages of development (1016). “My morality . . . is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live” (1018).
    It is well known that Immovable Mover is a conception down from Plato/Aristotle. Likewise from Aristotle is Prime Mover, which conception and name Rand turned to human constitution in The Fountainhead. Therein she portrays Howard Roark as an end in himself, as an originator only secondarily concerned with others in his creative achievement. Such a human being is not concerned with others “in any primary matter. Not in his aim, not in his motive, not in his thinking, not in his desires, not in the source of his desires” (HR XVIII, 740).
    “The creators were not selfless. It is the whole secret of their power—that it was self-sufficient, self-motivated, self-generated. A first cause, a fount of energy, a life force, a Prime Mover. The creator served nothing and no one. He lived for himself” (737).
    I'll be continuing the material in this post with a close look at Aristotle on his conception of Prime Mover and his reasons adduced for showing the existence of Prime Mover, along with comparison to Rand's transplant and transformations of the conception, in the ETHICS thread "Rand and the Greeks."

  7. Thanks
    dream_weaver got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in "Are you a Rand Cultist" quiz   
    Back to the future. The discoveries of an unprecedented theory of concepts, a metaphysical basis for morality, treatises from the roots of war to it's counter-part in the yet unknown ideal provided by capitalism, await more minds that value them.
    The Verunca Salts are singing "I Want It Now", while the Oompa Loompas are queueing up for their retort of " Who Do You Blame When Your Kid Is A Brat." 
  8. Thanks
    dream_weaver got a reaction from Easy Truth in Metaphysical & epistemological possibilities   
    Rand stated in Atlas Shrugged about Aristotle's incomplete formulation "existence is identity" with her offer of completion "consciousness is identification". There are really two parts. The identity that is given by existents. The identification that is provided by consciousness, which also help to have it be maintained for future reference.
    Peikoff added something for me in his introduction to logic about A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time, and in the same respect.
    As you point out, reasoning it out as you are grasping it is helpful. In talking to others, you cannot reason it out for them. If you understand the reasoning well enough, let them indicate where they are in their process of understanding and you may help them take the next step. This is a skill, and like any ability, man is not born with it. Objective (not Objectivist) communication is a skill to be learned, developed and by some, mastered.
    Consider the clarity with which Rand wrote. Few write well enough to also read it straight to an audience as she did in Philosophy: Who Needs It. This may come as a surprise to you, but there are some who don't agree with it.
  9. Like
    dream_weaver reacted to Eiuol in Metaphysical & epistemological possibilities   
    That's a good restatement. The grammar was difficult to get exactly right.
  10. Like
    dream_weaver got a reaction from Easy Truth in Metaphysical & epistemological possibilities   
    So another way to put it would be: "What I know is mutable, allowing me to bring my knowledge into alignment with what is true."
  11. Like
    dream_weaver got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in Truth In Politics Youtube Channel   
    Yikes. I've listened to "The Money Making Personality" more than once. This is a detail I had not attenuated to in the process.
  12. Thanks
    dream_weaver got a reaction from whYNOT in HB v. AB: Is collectivism the greater evil?   
    In the spirit of leaning toward the religious over the collectivist, Christianity and Culture in an Age of Crisis admonishes readers to build a new culture in the carcass of what is going on around them. (It was a Real Clear Religion provided link.)
    Rod Dreher, senior editor at The American Conservative, is by far the most discussed author of this group, with his The Benedict Option first appearing in 2017. Dreher’s work casts a vision of Christian life in society that is less interested in steering the cultural ship than it is in fashioning a life raft to get away from the shipwreck of political and cultural liberalism. He replaces the old paradigm of “capturing the vote” with a vision of culture-building. Instead of creating a network of political influencers, Dreher opts for building a new world in the shell of the old, instructing Christians to establish classical schools, raise up families, and establish networks for Christian entrepreneurs.
    A few more paragraphs down with a darker expectation set in bold :
    [W]hat Christians need is not to abandon the free market, but to create parallel networks within it, to prepare for poverty and marginalization, situates the future of Christian work within the existing frame of the free market, encouraging entrepreneurial ventures and prudential engagements in opposing encroachments upon Christian values at work.
    In short, some of the same things some active interests for a more rational society are suggesting, such as: establishing Montessori schools curricula, creating networks of philosophic influences.
    From the Christian element too, could be added to set an example of living by ones 'beliefs' (or better yet, one's rational convictions) and, if family is a value, rearing children with such examples to be exposed to during their formative years.
  13. Thanks
    dream_weaver got a reaction from MisterSwig in PragerU and the Objective Standard Institute   
    Recently an acquaintance posted a plug for a move to watch for the season of lent: Chocolat (2000). The quip offered for watching it was a passage from the sermon offered by young priest Pere Henri.
    “…we can’t go round measuring our goodness by what we don’t do, by what we deny ourselves, what we resist, and who we exclude. I think we’ve got to measure goodness by what we embrace, what we create, and who we include." Trojan horse is a poetic conjecture. Consider that poetry through another poetic passage. "I have foreshortened the usual course of history . . ." In the same paragraph are the words "learn to stand at reverent attention when you face the achievements of man's mind."
    PragerU attracts many a mindset. Not every mindset enamored with a PragerU podcast is searching for "conservatism, with a bad intellectual quality". Can you put your finger on exactly what enamored you with the tenets of Objectivism?
    I didn't come looking for Objectivism until later, . . . after encountering it, and recognizing that it resonated with something deeper in my core, . . . my 'sense of life', if you will. The radio station that carried the message wasn't transmitting a 'Trojan horse.' The radio station was transmitting a show that turned a profit, that the advertising agents could promote to businesses an audience that was intelligent and would buy their products, provided that their products were aimed at a rational audience.
    If the only audience for Objectivism were Objectivists, the cart has truly been set before the horse. Such would be a denial of John Locke's identification of tabula-rasa from the outset.
  14. Like
    dream_weaver got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in Truth In Politics Youtube Channel   
    That company does not strike a bell with me. The movie "Wanted" (2008) comes to mind.
  15. Like
    dream_weaver reacted to Easy Truth in PragerU and the Objective Standard Institute   
    I saw it now. I assume some Prager people will have to integrate the fact that they are supporting an atheist with the fact that  "Even though atheists have a bad record".
    It was very politically correct, no mention of selfishness or knowledge without God.
    It's nice that it was published and some may be swayed. But I see a trojan horse in this project. I hope it belongs to Objectivism.
    But yes, provided by a generous donation from "The Objective Standard Institute". Who knows, the next ally of Objectivism may be the church of Scientology. They believe in Capitalism too and they may sway some people too.
  16. Like
    dream_weaver got a reaction from MisterSwig in PragerU and the Objective Standard Institute   
    PragerU and the Objective Standard Institute present:
  17. Like
    dream_weaver got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in Truth In Politics Youtube Channel   
    When the local store is out of cat food, and Amazon delivers, it is the product that is being focused on, not the establishment of the establishment running in the background. 
    Real Clear Politics is doing fluff pieces on what BLM is advocating while Amazon's contributions are brought up as an aside in an OO thread. 
    Gratefully occupationally work-from-home-capable keeps the 9 to 5 hours focused on maintaining the supply side of the Amazon equation, where a conscientious objection from the manufacturing side of the equation would remind me that paychecks come from products Amazon purchasers click "buy" on (though not exclusively in my line of work.)
  18. Like
    dream_weaver reacted to Eiuol in Truth In Politics Youtube Channel   
    I highly recommend this paper by Tara Smith. 
    It is as an argument about anything we've discussed here, it's a paper about a conceptual cleanup regarding terms used when discussing freedom of speech.
    The Free Speech Vernacular: Conceptual Confusions in the Way We Speak About Speech
  19. Like
    dream_weaver reacted to necrovore in Truth In Politics Youtube Channel   
    That is a non sequitur.
    It's not "undermining standards of rationality" to refuse to dismiss evidence that other people want dismissed. (In fact, I'd say it's the virtue of independence at work.)
    It certainly isn't "actively promoting subversion."
    Saying "the election was stolen" doesn't say what to do about it. As Peikoff puts it in The Ominous Parallels:
    As I've said before, I think storming the Capitol was a horribly bad thing to do (so bad, in fact, that I think it's a lie to call the perpetrators "Trump supporters," because what they did did not actually support Trump), but just because some people try to enact a very bad solution to a problem doesn't mean we should deny the existence of the problem.
    Even if you don't think the election was stolen, the fact that reasonable people think it was, indicates that there is too much doubt about the accuracy of the results. There are good reasons for such doubt and it's a mistake to dismiss those reasons.
    The correct thing to do is to come up with a better solution. This might mean developing ways to ensure the integrity of future elections, and putting them into practice. Some state legislatures are already doing that. (I think it's telling, though, that HR 1 systematically does the exact opposite, making it easier for the Democrats to steal future elections. If it passes, it will severely undermine confidence in those elections, and in the government as a whole. It also makes the Democrats look even more guilty of stealing the last election, because it systematizes the exact same methods they were previously accused of using to fraudulently enhance their vote counts in certain key states.)
    I think censorship, including self-censorship of this kind, is evasion.
    Contradictions cannot exist in reality. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect one's knowledge, including philosophy, to integrate all facts without contradiction. That's one of the main tenets of Objectivism.
    I was raised as a Christian and with the edicts that you shouldn't read certain books, listen to certain music, or watch certain movies. As a teenager I realized this was in contradiction with the First Amendment: if people aren't supposed to see certain things or hear certain things, why is "freedom of speech" there? What justifies it? Christianity doesn't have a good answer for this. Christians claim that "America is a Christian nation" but many of the ideas that the Constitution rests upon do not come out of the Bible.
    Leftism doesn't have a good reason for the First Amendment either. Leftism is just secularized Christianity anyway. But those who think that people's thoughts create reality, think that, in order to remove something undesirable from reality, they need only remove it from people's thoughts, by censoring it.
    Censorship does not work. The underlying reality is still there. But more to the point, for Objectivists, censorship isn't necessary. If you hold that the complete integration of your knowledge is both necessary and possible, then you don't have anything to fear from the new facts you might learn.
  20. Thanks
    dream_weaver got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in Truth In Politics Youtube Channel   
    The missing episode:
  21. Thanks
    dream_weaver got a reaction from merjet in Truth In Politics Youtube Channel   
    Andrew Bernstein's TruthinPolitics on rumble.
  22. Like
    dream_weaver got a reaction from Easy Truth in Is Dennis Prager a political ally?   
    Not a surprising viewpoint. It ignores the question of what is man's creator. 
    Rand described the philosophical wilderness as all but abandoned in her opening essay of "For The New Intellectual". 
    Is the notion behind the fifth column still being taught in history today?
    Today's destroyers, be they postmodernist, religious zealots, marxist, etc., have to present a position. What is it that Ragnar said regarding brute force pitted against force backed by the intellect? 
    Imagine a fifth column backed by reason rather than an unobtainable (except for short durations) power-lust? 
    Yes, Prager is attempting to rewrite history by underpinning a rendition with a narrative calculated to sway any discontented ballast. 
    Is Prager providing Biddle free advertisement, or is Biddle providing Prager his endorsement via appearance? Or are events like these merely red herrings to distract from the real task by using the sledgehammers to break the big rocks into little rocks?
  23. Thanks
    dream_weaver got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in How many masks do you wear?   
    An experimental toothpaste aims to treat peanut allergy
    A more rational approach to peanut allergy. Interesting to note that roughly 32 million (~10%) Americans have food allergies. The politicians seek to modify the behavior of the 90% (through mask mandates or taxing infringements), while the better scientists strive to inure the 10% of the anomalies that prevent them from enjoying the foods others enjoy without reactive concerns.
  24. Thanks
    dream_weaver got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in Shameful Display of Anarchy and Violence   
    Bloomberg gives Amy Peikoff, Parler, Ayn Rand a plug. (A limited # of free articles/month site.)
    In July, Peikoff became chief policy officer at Parler, and these days she finds herself working to salvage the controversial social media platform, which in January was driven off the internet in part by the very company she once defended on Fox.
    Parler, which came back online a few weeks later, continues to promote a hands-off approach to content moderation that is largely being driven by Peikoff, who wrote the rules that dictate what’s allowed on the site, according to two people familiar with the matter who asked not to be identified discussing private information.
    Since it went online in 2018, Parler has promoted itself as the antithesis of Big Tech, a free speech champion that keeps policing of its users to a minimum. “Our goal is to provide all community members with a welcoming, nonpartisan Public Square,” according to Parler’s latest, two-page community guidelines, which were written by Peikoff, according to the people. “We prefer that removing users or user-provided content be kept to an absolute minimum. We prefer to leave decisions about what is seen and who is heard to each individual.”
    This is the crux relating to Parler. The questioning must have gone south from there.
    Peikoff, 52, initially agreed to be interviewed but stopped responding to requests.
    The rest of the article appears to have been constructed from references extracted from Ms. Peikoff's blog. 
  25. Like
    dream_weaver got a reaction from JASKN in How many masks do you wear?   
    I am responsible for my own reasonable safety, @Easy Truth
  • Create New...