Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Maken

  1. You merely displayed an extreme lack of understanding on Objectivism and why Capitalism is the only moral economic system in the world. I am surprised people wasted their time debating with someone who used so many baseless assumptions. Those arguments never end with any productive discussions nor with any side conceding.
  2. The fact that you are clearly putting "prolonging" life above all other values shows how this can lead to right violation. You would steal the cancer cure from the man because you put all values below prolonging your life.
  3. This. If you say that you would not fight for and steal the cancer cure, it is clear that you value SOMETHING over prolonging your life.
  4. I agree that extending life is a good thing but I have a problem with one point. A transhumanist, as has been stated here, holds extending his life as the highest goal to him. This IMPLICITLY implies that he would act to steal the cancer cure if it meant saving his life and surviving the cancer.
  5. I gave you the cancer example. Say someone cured cancer and had the cure but they did not want to share it with the world. They kept it locked up in a safe at home and left it there. If you developed cancer and needed to get well, would you be justified in breaking into this man's home and stealing his cure in order to cure yourself?
  6. "No matter the means" is implicitly implied throughout Transhumanism and is why it is a Utilitarian calculation. Your PRIME value is the act of living and you will look to fulfill that value through means. "Any means necessary" is implied because there is a lack of boundaries. What if someone is in your way of prolonging your life by non-coercive means? A transhumanist would hold that they can do what it takes to prolong their life because prolonging their life is their chief value.
  7. There is a difference between having a sense of reality and a sense of life. Reality is what it is. It exists independent of our consciousness and our "sense" or our interpretation of that reality is either right or wrong. I would recommend understanding Objectivist epistemology and metaphysics before trying to approach the ethics and how to apply it to your life. As for your sense of life, it is much more difficult to change. You have been guided by the mystics ethics your whole life and your sense of life has developed into a sense of life guided by fear and unknowing. "Sense of Life" is pre-conceptual and you cannot change it directly by an act of volition. You can, however, make a decision to STRIVE to change you sense of life and that will happen over time as you apply Objectivism to your life. I might be wrong in my understanding of "sense of life" and what I am saying in general, don't take what I say on faith because even though I do try to understand and Objectivism, my only source of discussing the philosophy and trying to understand it comes through these forums and reading Rand's books so I might be wrong completely.
  8. I see where my error was, thank you Grames knows this stuff a lot better than me, if that wasn't obvious from his post. Thanks for clearing that up, I was driving home from a friend's house unhappy with my reasoning and I knew I was wrong SOMEWHERE.
  9. You have to remember that not everybody IS a Roark type hero in the world. Objectivists would never tell you that you should not strive to achieve the rational status of Rand or Roark or Dagny or Galt, but they certainly would not expect it to be inherent in every single Objectivist. Realize that growing into Objectivity takes time. It is not something that happens over night. What you are having issues with is your sense of life. You have a philosophy that you respect, admire, and want to practice, yet it goes against your pre-conceptual sense of life that you formed before you decided to adopt this philosophy. Changing one's sense of life is not easy but it can be done, I am living proof of it. I have gone from being a stark Communist and a Christian to being an atheist who wants to learn about Objectivism everyday and hopes to one day know enough about Objectivist to call himself an Objectivist. Don't stress, it can be done and it takes time. Remember, there is no such thing as a causeless emotion. When you have emotional reactions to things, think about why you are having that reaction. Check your premises and change them.
  10. Of course extending life is a desirable goal but attempting to live forever is an irrational and, as far as we are concerned, impossible goal. No Objectivist would tell you that they would choose death over life when they believe that life is still worth living but you never answered by hypothetical situation. When extending your life, no matter the means, is your end goal in life, how does this not come out to a Utilitarian calc?
  11. Rand definitely believed that Objectivism is more or less a nod to reality. We have to understand reality in order to know how to make choice and we MUST make choices in order to live. Because of the fundamental nature of the universe and the way reality works, the proper philosophical code to uphold is self-evident and must be evaded or neglected to get away from it. We must later conceptualize it and understand it by an act of volition when we are capable of understanding abstract concepts and this comes through making the CHOICE to recognize it.
  12. This has a lot to do with character development. It is clear that Dominique never puts emphasis on things that don't matter to her throughout the entire novel. She laughs at people and mocks them for their second-hand view on life. As the novel progresses, you see it changes slightly in regards to things she values highly. She was extremely protective of Roark and the things she valued. Towards the end of the novel and after her changes after living with both Peter and Gail Wynand, it becomes clear that she understands why she valued the things she valued and what those values meant to her and she realizes that it doesn't matter what the second-handers think of her or Roark.
  13. I can try to help! 1. Rand had a lot of issues with the Feminist movement in general because she did not believe there was a NECESSITY to level the playing field for men and women. Where is the philosophical necessity that calls for such a level? Clearly she did not believe in the blanket statement that no women should ever lead people, there can obviously be exceptions. As for sex, there is a lot of information on the Rand Lexicon on what sex is and why people should approach sex objectively rather than based on some whimsical emotional desire. 2. Objectivism is a philosophy based on reason and the fact that nothing should be taken on faith. Think about a child trying to grasp Objectivism's epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, economics, and politics. There is a dire need to understand WHY Objectivist ethics are what they are and it would be incredibly hard for a child to grasp that without the correct understanding of concept formation. Rand did mention children in Atlas Shrugged several times when she discussed the pasts of Dagny, Francisco, Eddie, and Jim. As for raising children, well I am only 18 so I can't tell you how to raise a child Objectively but I would guess it would HAVE to start with identifying concept formation. Hope I helped somewhat, if not completely.
  14. It's the same basis for why many of the industrial giants in "Atlas Shrugged" chose to destroy their businesses rather than have it fall into the hands of the looters. Dominique valued the statute and its aesthetic symbol immensely. She understood what it represented and what it meant. To her, the thought of this statue being made for the second-handers of the novel and the thought that a second-hander could possibly one day set sight on this statue and condemn it for what it represented was justification enough to destroy it. She valued what it represented above her actual value for the statute. Her value for its symbol could exist without the statue and would have been degraded if it were ever presented to the second-handers and even by the THOUGHT that second-handers had ever possessed the statue. Does that make it clear?
  15. Nanite, I think you are missing what we are saying here. Clearly it is not a BAD thing to want to live longer and to want to make your standard of living better. The problem arises when obtaining immortality becomes a prime value to you, and by that I mean the end of your life.
  16. I would be interested in seeing the exact rhetoric used in a Transhumanism ethical system... It seems, to me, like this could be a dangerous stance to take human life and the ends we seek to achieve. We have values and we seek to fulfill values and it is obvious that these values cannot be obtained when we are dead. So, therefore a Transhumanist would believe that we must seek to prolong our life as long as possible and to achieve, ultimately, a state of immortality. The problem I see, is that this places the need for life as the prime value to somebody which could devolve into a system based on a very Utilitarian calculation. Here is a valid example. Say somebody cured cancer and had the cure with him. What if he chose not to release it to the world? What would be the Transhumanist's stance on this? What if the Transhumanist had cancer, would he then be ethically allowed to TAKE that cure from the creator and violate his rights? This is why I want to see the exact rhetoric on the ethics of a Transhumanist and I fear it is nothing more than a Utilitarian calculation.
  17. I just wanted a specific question answered. This question, in the past, always came down to definitional debate and whether it was a physics or philosophical question.
  18. Ah, I would agree that this is more of a physics question rather than a philosophy question. I was just bored and wanted to throw out some food for thought Thanks everyone.
  19. What would be the conceptual equivalent to "vibration waves", or is that a concept is and of itself? Edit - I am stupid. I am guessing "vibration waves" would be the equivalence of noise?
  20. *** Mod's note: Merged with an earlier tread. - sN *** If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Yea, I have seen this topic on the forums before and I know the argument usually comes down to the definition of the concept "sound" and it usually ends with a disagreement on the essential characteristics of sound, but after reading a passage Rand wrote (I can't remember where, I will have to find it), she talks about the fallacy of the Primacy of Consciousness. Could the negative stance (the stance that claims no sound would be made) be a corollary of the primacy of consciousness?
  21. It should be noted that Rand championed Capitalism because it was an economic theory was applicable to the philosophy of Objectivism. People often reverse causation and correlation with Rand. She did not create Objectivism to champion Capitalism, Capitalism just happened to fit in with her philosophy because it is rights respecting. It should also be noted that Rand WAS NOT a champion of the right exclusively. She had points that aligned with the right and points that aligned with the left. It just so happens that the right identifies itself with Rand more so than the left because her economics fall with the right. She did have points on gay marriage and abortion that would fall in line with the left though.
  22. I go to my best friend's house every day and spend a considerable amount of time there. His family has more or less become my second family. He has neighbors that are JUST like this. Peope who won't return balls that go over a fence (the first time), people who tell us that we need to take our "racket" inside at 7:30 p.m. because it is, quote, "Time to call it a night", and people who just generally dislike us though we have never said or done a mean thing to any of them. The cops have been called on us several times, the one time we refused to go in at 7:30 when the sun hadn't even set yet. We apparently were "causing a disturbance" in our own backyard and "any noise that violates their rest is liable for citation". As for this old hag, I would go out and buy about 200 different balls and throw them over her fence just to watch her struggle to pick them up, even if it meant I was in the wrong. But, I am a bit biased since I deal with irrational people like this on a day to day basis.
  23. You're claim about "sending messages from space stations" is still bound to being possible because we have sent people to space and we have sent messages from space. It is the same thing as Leonardo's flying machine. There is evidence of it's existence and possibility so it is not arbitrary. Evidence is derived from our senses. No court of law will accept the arbitrary as evidence, even if it is "possible" (which I feel hesitant to say because it really is a groundless claim until there is evidence to support its plausibility). Without evidence, there can be no claim. The dictionary entry you provide does not even get away from that. You know things are possible because they have evidence to support their plausibility. Without the evidence, you have a baseless, arbitrary claim. You can see the logical mess that derives from having such flawed reasoning.
  • Create New...