Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

BurgessLau

New Intellectual
  • Posts

    1430
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BurgessLau

  1. [bold added for emphasis.] Dan, you have asked a lot of questions, and that is good. But I am puzzled because I don't know where all these questions are leading. First, when you ask one question and other members here answer, you move to another, related question. What is the essential question, that is, what question is at the base of, the foundation of, your various questions about particular situations (such as shooting turtles). If you would identify the essential question, then others can address that and not need to keep addressing the inessential ones. Second, with all these questions, and particularly with the essential one yet to be identified, what is at stake for you in your life? In other words, when the essential question is answered, how will that answer change your life? Or, for example, is this a test of Objectivism? If you don't get an agreeable answer to your essential question, whatever that will be, will you reject Objectivism or at least Objectivist ethics (and therefore politics)? P. S. -- Your Viewing Profile suggests that you might be a hedonist rather than an Objectivist. Is that correct? Do you agree with Objectivism to the extent that you have studied and understood it? Answering will help establish a context for answering your questions.
  2. Source, thank you. You have not only explained the question with step-by-step clarity, but you have confirmed a desire I had while considering the poll question -- "I wish I had a diagram of this -- something like a Venn diagram."
  3. Yes, governments buying "surplus" agricultural produce to prop up commodity prices are politically attacking a free market. More fundamentally, such moves are immoral because they commit aggression -- in two forms: stealing the money (through taxation) used to buy the surplus and then (according to what I have read) prohibiting open competition among farmers, for example by imposing tariffs or quotas on produce from outside the country.
  4. David, Thank you for posting your poll. The difference in results, compared to mine, is thought-provoking. I will continue chewing on it. I remain puzzled about the poll question. The aspect that bothers me is one that I have seen before: A person says, "I don't reject anything in her philosophy that I understand ('grasp'), I just don't understand the metaphysics and epistemology," and then proceeds to hold a religious view in those areas (Two Worlds, in metaphysics, and faith-and-reason, in epistemology) -- all while still claiming to be an Objectivist. (I saw this sort of behavior in an advocate of "The Church of Ayn Rand.") How does your poll question preclude such a person from answering "No"? Of course, one thing I hope we can agree on is that no poll can account for people who have poor reading skills or are evaders. A pollster has to assume strong reading skills and a commitment to focus. As an aside, one of the benefits I have gained from comparing our polls is a concretization of my -- previously floating -- suspicions about polls. Your point about wording affecting results is well taken. I suspect, too, that even the order of the questions or options would affect results -- for example, if you or I had reversed the list of options.
  5. [bold added for emphasis.] To make sure I understand your message, I need to ask if the following summary is correct: Your solution to the problem of the many irrationalists in society -- individuals you believe are, in part, preventing Objectivists from creating a better world -- is to take the low road (in contrast to ARI's high road): overwhelm, trick, and delude them. Is that a correct summary? If so, how is that a use of reason, as you stated in the first sentence? Further, given that the essence of irrationality is evasion, how do you propose to plant a seed in the mind of an irrationalist (which is what a second-hander is)?
  6. Unfortunately, I haven't heard Dr. Peikoff's description. What I find very interesting is that when Ayn Rand essentialized her philosophy, while standing on one foot, she did not mention esthetics. I infer from her various comments in The Romantic Manifesto that esthetics is special, partly, in that it is not the foundation for any other branch (and hence not an essential (causal) characteristic of the philosophy as a whole, in the strict sense). Esthetics is also special in that it is the study of art's role in capturing emotions and insights that arise from one's fundamental view of the world -- that is, one's metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics. Art allows us to grasp -- as a single experience -- everything else. Art is how we hold it all in mind at once.
  7. SoftwareNerd, your description above of the structure of philosophy is definitive proof that you are, indeed, a Proud Father -- of small children! (I suspect your second "Ethics" was a typographical slip for "Esthetics.")
  8. Owl, as usual, SoftwareNerd's comments are right on target. I would like to elaborate a little. Please read the poll question carefully. It says nothing about "in OO.net." The title of the topic (the thread) asks about "in OO.net." The poll question is a means to an end, which is answering the question in the title of the topic.
  9. ObjectivismOnline.net has a debate forum perfectly suited for your friend. It will be an opportunity for him to put his thoughts into logical order -- and down in black and white. The debate can proceed with a very high level of etiquette. Invite him to place his arguments here. I am certain there are qualified individuals here who will respond.
  10. In "Introducing Objectivism," The Objectivist Newsletter, August, 1962, p. 35, (excerpted in The Ayn Rand Lexicon, p. 343), Ayn Rand writes: "At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did, as follows: 1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality [...]" [bold added for emphasis.] I don't know whether "I did" refers to both the standing and the presenting or only to the presenting, but I wouldn't be surprised with the former. Her sense of humor was as sharp as her anger.
  11. Dikaiosyne, see p. 343 of The Ayn Rand Lexicon, the "Objectivism" entry number 2. Also, please read the poll statements carefully -- that is, objectively. Describing something while "standing on one foot" is a way of saying, in English, "Boil it down, because you aren't going to be able to stand there long!" Ayn Rand did explain her philosophy -- by essentials, as is apprpropriate for an objective philosophy. Ayn Rand was not saying Objectivism has two feet.
  12. David, you might also ask the moderators to fix the typos: "to" instead of "do" in the title, and "philosophty" in the question itself. I hope I voted correctly. I voted "No," because I agree with every element of Ayn Rand's philosophy that I understand. In other words, a "No" vote is a vote in favor of total agreement with every element of Ayn Rand's philosophy that I understand. Right? At first I was confused by the use of "completely agree" in conjunction with "reject."
  13. Joynewyeary, Congratulations on having the courage to step up to a debate. It can be very intense, even unpleasant, but it is a great learning experience, as Ayn Rand noted (pp. 178-179 of Ayn Rand Answers). I have one suggestion, based on painful past experience through the years. If at all possible, try to reduce the issue to one sentence. Examples are: Slavery is good for the economy. Or, reality is negotiable. Or, capitalism crushes the working poor. If the issue under debate is more complex than that, you may never finish. If you pick an appropriate issue statement, your original purpose will probably still be met. If someone presents such an argument as you have postulated, you will then have an opportunity to debate it.
  14. The following is from the Forum Rules: Is there some other (additional) purpose stated elsewhere in OO.net that brought you to your conclusion about the value and purpose of this site? I suspect we will need to discuss this more, to sort out the terminology and respective ideas named by the terms. However, in the meantime I would suggest that "presenting Objectivism to non-Objectivists," that is, individuals who have chosen another philosophy than Objectivism, is irrelevant to creating a more rational society. The way to create a more rational society is to intellectually arm those who want to create a more rational society. The non-Objectivists will get in our way, but they will never be a path to achieving Objectivist goals. Perhaps, though, by "non-Objectivist" you mean someone who: (1) has not explicitly chosen a philosophy yet, but (2) is in agreement with everything (no matter how little) he has so far learned of Objectivism. Such a person would be a potential "convert" to Objectivism. However, a more accurate term than "non-Objectivist" for such a person would be "(novice) student of Objectivism." By the way, the idea of presenting Objectivism to individuals who have other philosophies is what ARI is implementing -- superbly -- among its other, more important functions. There is no need to duplicate their effort here, especially given that many of the participants in OO.net are not even Objectivists.
  15. So far, the poll results suggest the possibility that only about 55-60% of the participants in ObjectivismOnline.net are Objectivists. In other words, about 40-45% are not Objectivists. That picture roughly (nonnumerically) matches my experience in communicating with others here. That also matches what I see in the posts generally. About half are information exchanged between Objectivists (at varying levels of knowledge, which is good for trade), and the other half are contention with non-Objectivists.
  16. First, a general suggestion for learning any philosophy -- whether Plato's, Aristotle's, Kant's, or Ayn Rand's. (They are the four giants of philosophy). Do not focus too much on any particular point until you have made some study of the philosophy overall. Then, when you have the "big picture," that is, the general context, you can focus on a particular principle -- and see how it is produced or see how it affects other ideas in the philosophy. My personal suggestion for studying Objectivism is to read Ayn Rand's fiction first, because it shows you not only the key ideas but also what those ideas mean if applied to reality, according to the philosopher who created the ideas. Then I would buy The Ayn Rand Lexicon and follow my interests. Selfish interest -- especially if it is passionate -- is the nuclear fuel of study. The beauty of ARL is that it not only gives you substantial excerpts on all the main elements of Ayn Rand's philosophy, it also connects them -- through the cross references list at the end of each article. The book is alphabetical (the excerpts for "Axioms" come before those on "Zero, Reification of"), but you can read the excerpts in your own order. When you find a subject particularly valuable to your selfish interests, you can buy the original work from which a particular exerpt was taken, and then read that full work (article or book). An alternative is to purchase (from The Ayn Rand Bookstore) Harry Binswanger's audiotape lecture, "How to Study Ayn Rand's Writings." Dr. Binswanger is the editor of The Ayn Rand Lexicon. He has mastered Objectivism. He knows what he is talking about.
  17. I think that you meant your sentence, quoted above, to say: "Only physical things are objective." (Proper placement of the adverb "only" is crucial.) Before you pursue this subject further, you should be aware that the concept "physical" is a complex scientific concept. It is not a philosophical concept. You need to decide whether you are thinking about science or philosophy. Switching back and forth between them, without knowledge of doing so, adds confusion rather than clarity. For the concept "physical," see Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, pp. 245-246 and others listed in the index under "Matter."
  18. No, but you are on the right track. See "Objectivity" in The Ayn Rand Lexicon. In the philosophy of Objectivism, which is the philosophy that sets the context for ObjectivismOnline.net, the term "objective" names two ideas. One is metaphysical in its referent: "reality exists independent of any perceiver's consciousness." (ARL, p. 345) For example, the computer in front of me is "objective" (has objective existence) in the sense that it exists whether I want it to or not. The other idea named by "objectivity" is epistemological in its referent: "a perceiver's (man's) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic)." (ARL, p. 345) Objectivism is objective in this sense. It is a set of ideas, which Ayn Rand formed, drawn logically from the (metaphysically objective) facts of reality, using reason and logic. Suggestion: Abandon this hopeless attempt to learn a philosophy by discussing a subject you haven't studied with individuals some of whom may not even understand -- much less agree with -- the philosophy you are investigating. (Keep in mind that many of the participants in OO.net are not Objectivists.) Go to the original source: Ayn Rand's writings. ARL is a sort of guide to those writings (which you can order from The Ayn Rand Bookstore).
  19. No, they are always personal, but need not be subjective. (Thoughts are "subjective" only if they involve wishful thinking rather than a logical identification or evaluation of facts of reality.) To find out what the philosophical idea of "subjective" means in the context of Objectivism (which is the context for this forum), see "Subjectivism," The Ayn Rand Lexicon, pp. 486-490. By the way, The Ayn Rand Lexicon is an indispensable tool for any study of Objectivism that is meant to be both serious and efficient.
  20. Faith today is a greater threat to rational men than nihilism. This takes some explanation though. "Faith," here, means "faith-based worldviews" which usually include a domain for "reason" (however defined). Faith-based worldviews thus have values of some sort, and the believers, to some extent, have made an effort to somewhat accomodate their faith-based beliefs to the real-world. Most Catholics (the largest Christian group), for example, don't deny the theory of evolution or that car engines require fuel or that a responsible adult should work for a living and save for the future. Nihilists, by definition, want to destroy all values. Nihilism as a cultural phenomenon is imploding. It is a fading stain on cultural history. Post-modernism, to the extent that it has values (multiculturalism, diversity, equality, democracy, and so forth) is receding but leaving a thick residue where its principles agree with traditional religious principles (for example, egalitarianism). Because nihilism and post-modernism are on their way out, they have created a partial vacuum. Religions are filling that vacuum: Christianity and Islam especially, but also Environmentalism (still a nascent religion). One of the points I wanted to make with this debate is that an Objectivist almost never will encounter a pure fideist or Biblicist in any intellectual setting (such as academia). What we almost always encounter is the package deal of faith-and-reason. That is what we must learn to deal with -- e.g., by clearly separating and defining each and not allowing the religionists to set the terms of the debate. In summary, I would say that faith (that is, religion) is now (and once again) the greater long-term threat. That doesn't mean the pomos and nihilists aren't a threat, only that they are less of a threat as time goes by. The initial posts from Brother Brian were some of the most difficult pieces of writing I have ever done. My subconscious wouldn't cooperate: "You can't say that. It just isn't true!" But, as usual, Ayn Rand was right when she said (Ayn Rand Answers, pp. 178-179) that playing Devil's Advocate is very helpful to thinkers (especially to thinkers engaged in debate, either through writing or speaking).
  21. I can suggest a general way for getting over any loss: 1. Go for a long walk (or series of walks) and review your hierarchy of values, concentrating on the most important ones (and including the one for which you recently suffered a loss). 2. Focus on the value that you lost, in one form or another, by asking yourself what the value is -- in other words, make sure you know its nature. 3. With the value clearly defined, review your plan for achieving that value. 4. If you don't have a step-by-step plan for achieving that value, then develop a plan. 5. With the plan developed, take the first step in the plan and so forth. In summary, the way to get over a loss is to get busy achieving the value. The alternative is to disengage your mind, feel sorry for yourself, and drag yourself through life missing out on happiness -- which comes from the active pursuit as well as achievement of values.
  22. I am baffled by your statement. Three questions arise: 1. Where in Ayn Rand Answers did she make the comment about reading ITOE requiring an IQ of 150? Please cite the page number. 2. What original quote are you talking about? Where in the essay "The Wreckage of the Consensus" does the quote appear? (What page number?) 3. Are you saying that "The Wreckage of the Consensus" comes from Andy Bernstein's recently published book, The Capitalist Manifesto? I hope that you will be precise in naming sources. That helps achieve the purpose of this forum, which is trade among Objectivists.
  23. Dan, are you an Objectivist? (Your Viewing Profile doesn't say so, and unfortunately it hints that you are not.) If you are an Objectivist, and if you are serious about studying Objectivism, I would recommend buying and reading an introductory text on logic. The Ayn Rand Bookstore catalogue lists several possibilities. For you, as a beginner, Lionel Ruby's Logic: An Introduction might be a useful handbook. (Joseph's Introduction to Logic is excellent but quite advanced.) Among other items, Ruby's book offers a clear description of the major fallacies -- such as the fallacy of the straw man. Why should a student of Objectivism study logic? Because the essential concept of Objectivism, the philosophy which Ayn Rand created, is objectivity. That concept refers to a certain kind of relationship between ideas in the mind and facts of reality -- a relationship in which the ideas are drawn logically from the facts. Without logic, there is no objectivity. Without objectivity, there is no Objectivism -- or any other valid idea, for that matter.
  24. I wonder if the article cited is inspired by enemies of Objectivism. Note the references to "objectivism" and to TOC and entities such as Bidinotto, the founder of the "Atlas Society," a rip-off of the title of Ayn Rand's creation, Atlas Shrugged. The most suggestive evidence is the lack of any reference to The Ayn Rand Institute. Felix, your Viewing Profile provides no relevant information. Do you support Bidinotto and the TOC?
  25. I have two comments. First, why should we be surprised that today's collectivists resemble the collectivists of the past -- in being collectivists? Second, I doubt very seriously that Muslim Germans feel much "collective guilt" over the killing of Jews, homosexuals, and others. By implication, the German collectivists who sponsored the campaign were, of course, committing the fallacy of division (which might be called a "collectivist fallacy"): The idea that a general characteristic of a whole can be applied automatically to every part of the whole.
×
×
  • Create New...