Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Maken

  1. Can't stop cleaning >_

  2. Maken


  3. Not all contracts have to be written in order to be valid.
  4. My grandmother had it done two years ago and her vision reverted to perfect 20/20 vision and she hasn't had to wear glasses for anything since the surgery. She told me it was painless and rather quick as well.
  5. Interesting.... Not that we didn't already know the answer to this.. at least it helps. http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/04/formerly-blind-children-shed-lig.html?etoc
  6. http://academicearth.org/lectures/morality-of-muder-and-cannibalism Interesting video. Good speaker with a smooth voice.. lol
  7. The axioms (Existence, Identity, and Consciousness) are not taken on faith. They can't be disproved because any attempt to disprove them is a contradiction. By this I mean that the only way to disprove them is by using them. It is the idea of the "stolen concept" that Rand sometimes referred too. Any attempt to disprove the axioms illustrates why they exist and why any attempt to prove or disprove them is futile. They are hardly issues of faith.
  8. Thanks everyone for the fast responses. This is what I was looking for exactly
  9. Ah, that makes sense. An alternative definition I was thinking could be applied to "ignorance" would be the refusal to learn or the refusal to admit to a lack of knowledge.
  10. As far as I am concerned ignorance is literally just lacking knowledge about something. Am I just wrong?
  11. I suppose I have a few questions so I will delve right into it! What is the difference, if any, between being ignorant and not knowing certain things? If there is no noticeable difference, then is ignorance a metaphysical fact or a man-made error? Being that man cannot possibly be omniscient and learns through condensing knowledge through concept formation, is it right to call ignorance a vice? If one cannot possibly know everything, would that not make everyone ignorant of something at all times? It seems as if ignorance is a metaphysical fact given to everyone, as we cannot possibly NOT be ignorant about something. This has been bugging me today and I think my error lies in my failure to differentiate between ignorance and not knowing everything.
  12. Rational arguments don’t usually work on religious people. Otherwise there would be no religious people. - House

  13. Oh OK I see what you mean. We MUST make choices in order to live, that is an automatically given fact about reality. If we don't make choices we can't live. If we make the right choices we are self-sustaining but if we don't then it will lead to destruction (in the way Rand meant destruction). Thank you for clarifying.
  14. Alright I see what you are saying. The issue I was arguing was whether Transhumanism was viewed or taken as a philosophy on its own or if it was movement based on some other philosophy.
  15. Sorry for the long quote on the last one, didn't think about that As for Transhumanism and ethics, I would be curious as to what Transhumanists base their beliefs on. I haven't done much research outside of looking it up on Wikipedia but it seems like most of Tranhumanism is based on a Utilitarian calculation that it would be best for everyone. If you can hold Objectivist values and seek out Transhumanism, I don't see where the problem is. I think the problem arises when Transhumanists try to have values without ethics and ethics without a base. I think that is the main problem with what Hotu has said in previous posts. If you divorce Transhumanism from any sort of ethical structure and want to say that Objectivists should seek to maximize their life span then I would agree that it is compatible. As soon as you start bringing in strict Transhumanist values you are venturing into ethics and that would lead you into a whole mess of trouble (mainly circular logic and ethics that can't be compatible with Objectivism). I also struggle with the idea that all Transhumanists respect reason and science when you said yourself that many are altruists and Utilitarians. These are not philosophies founded on reason. Hope that made sense.. lol
  16. I think there is a big difference between Transhumanism with Objectivist influence and Objectivism. You are advocating Objectivist ethics and Transhumanism which is what I find to be incompatible. Objectivism ethics would have to take precedence over Transhumanism in this case. I can agree that Objectivism would hold that it is good to extend one's life and to seek to live as long as possible, but don't let Transhumanism blur the lines between its own ethics and Objectivism ethics.
  17. I disagree that life is self-sustaining. One must make choices in order to live, an evasion of the necessity to make choices cannot lead one to sustain his life. If the purpose of one's life is to achieve immortality and to prolong life and that that was the value above all other values, then there definitely is circular issues. Transhumanism, at least the position taken by some in this thread, holds that all values are impossible without life and that, therefore, man must look to prolong his life above all else. This means that the value of "prolonging life" implicitly rises above the Objectivist values that life is an end in itself. This can lead to rights violation and neglecting to enjoy one's life for what it is. Correct me if I am wrong, please, I am trying to learn
  18. I agree. Circular logic that defeats itself.
  • Create New...