Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About N/A

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Public Domain
  1. Does the perception of time correspond to reality, or does sentient life existing on some thermally heated rock without natural indicators of time (such as sunrise and sunset, clocks) experience time inaccurately/variably? How does Objectivism defend (I assume) against philosophical stances on temporal issues, especially when the're made a matter of perception or the internal clock? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specious_present
  2. Life is. Sustain-end? AND- Enjoyed? Bye! nature. Existence? We are. Plugged? Direct'in the source? Itself. meaning: exists independent Of the mind = ability to comprehend Y-our desire? 2nd explain: Existence U-sing, RE.AS.On-Stems From your ...false sense of separation... you're fraudulent = experience of being a mental --- Entity controlling a body of text? A (sort of) ghost in the Met=ching!
  3. Sense_of_time Just because reason is not existence itself does not mean that an individual's application of reason can't explain existence. For when a man reasons, he lives his existence. His life is sustained and enjoyed by the rational, and all the meaning there can be exists within the rational mind.
  4. Emotions are the conscious state, in the art of meaningful living. The cause is the moment (situational context) and everything it implies to you. But you won't feel anything about existence unless you sense a thing, and then have some sense of (your) life regarding it. The alternative is that things have meaning to an individual apart from an experience or knowledge of the things themselves. Good or bad for no reason / for being nothing in particular. An act of identification entailing a thing's importance to your life would be the typical emotional stab, I think. It really sucks that there isn't anything to be aware of and feel anything about, and for that matter it's doubly depressing that I won't be able to do anything with my life because there is no life in this void of nothingness. Come to think of it, how did I even learn these words to contemplate the meaninglessness of nothingness and nonexperience anyway?
  5. There are no things which exist in the context of consciousness without sensory roots. Run the breakdown on consciousness any way you want, the mix is still always a sensory composition fundamentally. Your feelings, judgements, etc, exist with an inherent tie to the world no matter what nightmare or clarity you bring to the world. So on the repetitive remix, that means your thoughts and feelings always refer to specific sensory data as processed by you. It is your choice (mine too), the degree to which I evict myself from the realm of reason, but it is especially within the scope of reason to recognize its existence or lack thereof in another. So volition philosophically scrapes the edge of "you can't explain the irrational," but it is a philosophical truth that irrationality's specific nature is a void of awareness in contrast to its presence, which probably has an easy scientific correspondence if anyone ever decides to get down to the nitty-gritty neuroscience. There isn't anything you're integrating that wasn't initially the integration of sensory data.
  6. What? No one brings up the analytic-synthetic dichotomy? Crazies. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/analytic..._dichotomy.html Objectivism rejects that there is any thought outside of a sensory context. Johnny said 'Existence is identity; consciousness is identification.' There is awareness fundamentally because there are objects to identify. A consciousness conscious of nothing is a contradiction, so a thought (and then feeling) without sensory roots is thrown into the sea as well. Your volition is whether or not you will be-aware and of what, or not. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/imagination.html Whoo!
  7. Semantics? A man chooses, his nature is his faculty of volition which is also his capacity for reason. However, who this man is refers to that capacity (his nature as human), and his nature as a particular individual. His character is the expression-in-exercise of himself. It is entirely character and psychology for the individual man (since he is nothing apart from this) to affirm purpose or whim essentially. In accordance with the serenity of fishing in some pond for the remaining 50 years, your life may be a splendid harmony of Your happiness in the world affirming the very benevolent universe premise itself. However this should be more akin to the planner's nightmare than the vision of a rewarded existence. I think (less there is a supremely offended fisher among us) that we can spare ourselves that debate. What I am saying is that the fundamentals of confidence and insecurity are metaphysically (and psychologically) meaningless in comparison to conceptually-driven vs emotionally secure. Whether you are in your own personal hell or heaven because of necessary choices means nothing to their necessity.
  8. He took them for all they were worth. God bless.
  9. The crucial character trait of Man (the rational being) is his conceptual drive apart from some kind of emotional comfort zone or prerequisite. In contrast to a basic level of instinct or functioning largely tied to what some animal is feeling at any given moment, man is only limited by the discipline he can garner over the life he desires by his choices of the goals, to enact the causal requirements of gettin shit done, which he knows are morally valid because they'll keep him livin ..uh, the life! Man's great potential for creation as well as destruction boils down to his capability to adhere to duty, or to rational planning ..either way it's a personal struggle but to opposing extremes. He's the opposite of that easy-going whimsical creature.
  10. Thank god Disney will be completing this. http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/31/news/compa...arvel/index.htm R.I.P. Roy E. Disney
  11. Whoooo Avatar yeah yay gay furrriiieeezz ..etc =) I wanna see Joke pilot that dude!
  12. You can consider that both letters attempt to represent the same thing. Consider "A" as two lines diverging from a specific point of origin, with a division in the center representing the absolutism of their divergence. Contrary to this, the lines would not go "forever" out into space but eventually the angle would become so great that they would circle back around and intersect. So "B" represents that principle with a line permanently dividing two circles at their threshold of being at the angle that would otherwise be leading them back to intersection (180 degrees). "CD" Based on the nature of the universe, you can therefore say A never becomes B.
  13. I can honestly say there isn't a value I'd die for. And I doubt most any 'Objectivist' would be able to do more than affirm the theory of valuation that stakes their own life. All talk.
  • Create New...