Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Nicko0301

  • Birthday 03/01/1990

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Miami, Fl

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright

Nicko0301's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)



  1. Thank you for elucidating this subject for me. Your explanation was enormously helpful.
  2. I never asserted that an action is moral because one has the desire to perform aforementioned action; please don't distort what I said. I simply wanted to explore why, given that life is what makes possible the concept of value, people purposely and consciously value things which are manifestly opposed to the furtherance and sustenance of life.
  3. I just have one brief question concerning the subject of value. According to Objectivism, "An organism's life is the standard of value: that which which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil." (OPAR pg. 212) Initially--after reading the arguments in support of this conclusion--I found this statement to be incontrovertible. However, after some deliberation, a question arose in my mind: If life is the standard of value, why do people often value things which are inimical to the preservation of life (e.g., drugs, alcohol, etc.)? It seems to me that many people often value things, not because they are conducive to the maintenance of life, but because they engender momentary pleasure (as in the case of drug addicts). Can anyone offer any insights? Does this in some way refute the Objectivist theory of value? As always, thanks in advance.
  4. If one billiard ball strikes another, what causes the subsequent movement of the struck billiard ball? I know that only entities act, but surely it wasn't the first billiard ball which engendered the motion of the second? Isn't the act of hitting the second billiard ball what causes the hit billiard ball to move?
  5. I was reading Bertrand Russell's The History of Western Philosophy. In it, Russell intimated, with what seems to be disdain, that Aristotle's Logic, though seminal and admirable, is obsolete; and that one mustn't neglect recent advancements in aforesaid field. This prompted a bit of curiosity in me, for I am trying to learn how to reason properly. My question is this: What works do you feel are important in regard to Logic? And, incidentally, would you consider Aristoteleanism as antiquated? Thanks
  6. Can anyone out there recommend a good book(s) on the history and development of the Law? It is a subject that I find completely interesting. Thanks
  7. Excuse me if this sounds foolish, but, in this context, what is the distinction between "proven" and "valid"?
  8. Berkely argued that "to be is to be perceived"; and that, when things are not so perceived, they continue to exist because God, being ubiquitous, perceives all that exists simultaneously. Firstly: What do you think of this argument? Secondly (and this is a question with which I have grappled for months): How do we know that things exist prior to perceiving them? How do we know that the act of perception does not somehow change the identity of things? Thanks in advance.
  9. I would never vote in favor of your execution, SoftwareNerd. I value the knowledge I can gather from you far too much.
  10. I'm simply trying to understand Objectivism and philosophy in general. I don't know why you people have to make such inane comments. Honestly.
  11. I see you enjoy being an unsociable asshole. Nice to know!
  12. I actually have several posts. I didn't think it was necessary to start a new post when my question was germane to the current post; it would be superfluous.
  13. How may one go about disproving it? I've been contemplating Kant's system for a while, and, although many Objectivists affirm it's falsity, I still haven't arrived at a clear, unequivocal refutation of it. Any suggestions?
  14. Is that what you actually believe, or is that merely what Kant said?
  • Create New...