Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by realitycheck44

  1. I'm sorry to interject, but I was under the impression that someone can call themselves an Objectivist if they agree with all of Miss Rand's philosophy, but not necessarily every single view she expressed on some subject or another. Kind of like Objectivist intellectuals disagreed about the Bush vs Kerry issue, isn't it possible for two people (Ayn Rand and (name) ) to disagree about some specific application of the principles. Or, because it is Ayn Rand's philosophy, is it impossible to apply the same principles and come to a different, yet rational, conclusion? (I can't seem to articulate this quite right.) Miss Rand may have made a mistake in the application. Is it possible to call yourself an Objectivist if you disagree with some of the applications of it's principles? Sorry, for some reason I can't seem to articulate exactly what I want to say. Hopefully you understand enough to answer. Zak
  2. That's awesome! I'm going to their concert this Friday. I love their music, but not that particular song. I'm partial to Summer Skin, Brothers On A Hotel Bed, and Stable Song. Transatlanticism and We Have the Facts and We're Voting Yes are also awesome cd's. Zak
  3. Not only is this bad for the reasons you state, but it also implies intellectual dishonesty because all of the Objectivist principles are based on the axioms- the axiom of existence being one of those. So he either doesn't know enough about Objectivism to accept it (which he claims to do) or he is *blanking out*. Either way, I think this comment is worse than "just touching a nerve", (though it could be my idea of just touching a nerve is much less than your idea. ) Zak
  4. I am not understanding what exactly your problem is. If you could give examples of the things that you do that "destroy your life", that would be very helpful. I understand that this is a personal issue, but more info would be helpful to understand your situation, I think. Zak
  5. So, excuse my ignorance, but what "philosophical lesson on second thought" does the white sweater have? I mean, it was a great tie in and I love when authors do that (one reason why I love Harry Potter so much) but I don't see a deeper philosophical lesson going on here. If you explain, that would be great. Zak
  6. Yes, that is my question. What checks will keep the whole police force- the whole government, for that matter- from selling out? Mr. Odden, you said: This is very illuminating. I agree with you thus far. But I have a few questions. How would the original founders know if the society they were to create a government for was rational enough to handle a government based on Objectivist principles? That seems to me like it would be almost impossible to determine. Okay, I know there were more, but I can't remember them right now. I'll let you know if I think of them. One other thing, I was just using the Bill Gates war thing as an example. Maybe something more along the lines of Bill Gates is charged with a crime and tries to pay his way out of it would better suit our discussion. Thanks for the responses! Zak
  7. Okay, I understand that having competing governments will not work and I understand that privatizing police is of the same vein. I have read Miss Rand's essay about the Nature of Government. I understand (I think) that taxation is an initiation of force. Economic freedom (ie Laissez-faire capitalism) and political freedom is essential to O'ism. Political freedom means that in the eyes of the state every man is the same and should be treated as such. This is the opposite of the "Aristocracy of Pull" we are familiar with in Atlas Shrugged. However, I am not convinced that a government based on donations rather than taxes would not lead to the degradation of this political equality. I think it would be fairly easy for someone to blackmail the government by withholding a particularly large donation. For instance, what if Bill Gates for example, didn't want to go to war with Iraq? The government would have to choose. The mere fact that the government has to consciously choose means that Bill Gates has much more political pull than, say, I (if I were eighteen) do. There is no other viable alternative: either taxation (initiation force) or donation (degradation of political equality). Thus we have a contradiction. Now, checking my premises, there is two places I see where I might have gone wrong. One is that political equality is not a right. (This is a major one that deserves more thought than I have time for at the moment). Two is that the donation method doesn't lead to the "Aristocracy of Pull". It would be very helpful if someone would help me try to resolve this issue. I have thought about it quite a bit, and I can't see where I am wrong. If you think government funded by donation would work, please try to explain to me why. Thanks alot guys! Zak
  8. realitycheck44


    No, I'm in the Pacific Northwest. Sorry, is this sub-forum only for people in the specific area? If so, we need one for the northwest! Anyway, I just had to post that comment as it nearly had me rolling on the floor. Thanks, and sorry for any confusion. Zak
  9. realitycheck44


    Maybe I'm tired, but that was one of the funniest things I've heard in a long time.
  10. Hi Sophia! What's up? I'm a junior in high school. It's so nice to meet other high schoolers who are interested in Ayn Rand. What have you read so far of Miss Rand? What part of her philosophy interests you the most? Is there anything that you specifically disagree with? How's school for you? Sophmore year for me was probably my worst year. (My GPA dropped from a 3.95 to like a 3.8 ) I'm doing much better now that the classes are harder. When the classes are easy, I tend to not pay attention in class, do my homework, study for tests (not that I do anyway ) , etc. So anyway, what subjects are you interested in studying in college or beyond? Have you any idea of what you want to do professionally? So, what else do you like to do? I play soccer alot, but I love almost anything that you can do outdoors. Skiing, backpacking, hiking, kayaking, climbing, running, fly fishing... well, you get the point. Anyway, I'd better get going. I have a crazy take home test (two essays) on The Crucible, plus calc and physics tests- all on Monday. Doesn't that sound like fun. Welcome and have fun! Zak
  11. According to a google search, it was made in 2003 and Charlize Theron does act in it. However, it doesn't seem to have been very big because it wasn't listed at imbd.com or some other places. That's very interesting. I'll have to see if any movie stores in my area have it. Thanks for the info. Zak
  12. I disagree. Both Galt's and Dagny's "machine" would be of little or no value without them. d'Anconia Copper, on the other hand, could last for a long time before being run into the ground by the looters. That is why he had to destroy it. Remember the other strikers- some, like Ellis Wyatt, destroyed their companies. Others, like Ken Dagganar (sp?) simply left a note saying they had left. It had nothing to do with differing values, it had to do with the complexity of the individual's "machine". Zak
  13. No, what would make her irrational is that she is wrong and at ends with reality. If you are an Objectivist, however, you should be able to either convince her theism is wrong, or point her to sources that will (OPAR by Leonard Peikoff is one) It depends. One could theoretically hold Objectivist philosophy without ever having read Ayn Rand. But other than that, if he/she is rational, he/she would be an O'ist (or close). There are also levels of all of those characteristic. I was speaking of the highest level. I believe I answered that with first post. I said it was much like the question of whether a Christian can be happy or not. I think the can, but not on the same level as one who holds absolutely no contradictions in his philosophy. Sorry if those answers were too short. Again, I can elaborate tomorrow if needed. I have to go to school in a little over six hours and I'm not done with my homework. Zak (Fixed closing quote tag -sNerd)
  14. No, of course not. (Thanks tommy I missed this point!) That is why you integrate things into your subconscious- so you don't have to constantly analyze. Do you realize how much time one would waste living if he actually bothered to see how every situation would benefit himself? If I actually analyzed every trivial thing, such as whether giving an acquaintance a piece of my lunch would give me as much pleasure as I would get from eating said food, I would go crazy! In most cases, that is a job for your subconscious. Zak
  15. But do you constantly analyze it? Besides, it is possible to spend your life with someone who is an Objectivist, but doesn't philosophize everything. I do it in my head mostly. See, this is your problem. Objectivism is not telling you to do anything. The only thing I'm questioning is whether she is, rationally, the love of your life. Love, as you know, is objective. I shoot for the best. If she is the best for you, go for it, no questions asked. My point was I don't think anyone but an Objectivist could become the love of my life. Do you see the difference? That is what my post was about. If you can be happy with her, great for you. Obviously, I don't know her, but the chances are I wouldn't be happy. Don't take it as an insult. It's just a fact. Zak
  16. Okay, I've held my tongue until now. I was on Inspector's side (and still am), but I thought he was making the claim that nobody can be happy unless they are married to an Objectivist. Now that I know he is just saying he could not be happy with a non-Objectivist, I can take his side without reservations. This is not unlike the issue of whether a Christian can be happy. I think the answer is yes. Some people, like my mom, honestly cannot see the idea of God, heaven and hell, etc as absurd, arbitrary, and a contradiction. To a certain extent, they can be happy. The same is true of people pursuing romantic relationships. Some of you might be happy with someone who is not an O'ist. Some maybe even someone who doesn't care for ideas. I can't. (And it seems that you can't either Inspector.) I search for the absolute best in myself and others. I cannot be truly happy with anything less. I have some friends who are not Objectivists. Do I enjoy hanging out with them? Yes. Do they make my life happier? Mostly. Do I LOVE them? No. There is space they will never be able to fill. Someone will, but not them. For example, when I get really excited about an idea, they don't get it. I take romantic relationships much more seriously. I don't want to be with someone who is not the absolute best. It wouldn't make me happy. If they are not good enough for a romantic relationship, they can still stay my friend. But for romance, I want a rational, benevolent, intelligent, lover of life. Why should I settle for anything less than the best? Why should I settle for anything less than I deserve? Does such a person exist? I think so. Have a found her yet? Maybe . For me (and those like me), it boils down to trading values: is the person you love as good as you are? If not, you will lose and they will gain. Zak PS: I'm kinda tired and I'm doing homework, so that was kind of rushed. I hope I got my point across clearly and didn't ramble too much. If anyone needs any clarification, please ask. Don't just assume I'm an idiot, or that I meant to personally attack anyone.
  17. Sean Connery for Hugh Akston. Diane Kruger for Dagny Taggart. (?) I think one of the best ways for this movie to be made (if it is at all) is to have unknown actors in the major roles and big-names in the backup roles. The thing is, and I noticed this when watching Sahara, you keep comparing it to the book. If the characters are off, I won't like the movie. Zak
  18. What about Michael Vartan? I think he has a more serious and intelligent face. I'm not that big a fan of Christian Bale for Galt. Zak
  19. First of all, I would tell him that Objectivism does not have a "we are right everyone else is wrong" philosophy; it has a "we are right because of (points x, y, z). These points are usually based on axioms. In fact, other philosophies stop growth by saying "I am right because I 'feel it' or 'I want it'." Plus, by saying two contradictory things can be right violates the law of identity. A is A. Secondly, I would tell him Objectivism doesn't "create an atmosphere where all other thoughts are wrong because Objectivists have already found the truth." Other thoughts are wrong because they contradict reality. A is still A, and it can never be non-A. For example, the belief in a omnipotent god contradicts itself. Socialism contradicts man's nature and reality. You get the picture. Objectivism, in my brief study of it, is the only philosophy that does not contradict itself, the senses, or any axioms. It sounds to me like his argument is just another form of "how are you so sure you're right?". Zak
  20. You could divide the movies into the three sections of the book. Non-contradiction, Either-Or, and A is A. I think that's a great idea. The movies could be filmed at the same time, and released like a year after each other. Besides, all the parts end suspensfully. Part I, non-contradiction, ends with Ellis Wyatt quitting and burning his oil fields. Part II, either-or, ends with Dagny crashing in Galt's Gulch. I think you could keep people interested. Zak
  21. Hey man, what's up? I'm 16 too, and I think I know what you're going through, though my mom hasn't gone so far as to threaten to send me to a shrink. Here's my advice, for what it's worth: Put on your happy face. Honestly. Don't be fake, but try to see the values in your family and don't dwell on their faults. Trade the values they give you, and give nothing when they have nothing to offer. For instance, my brother (15) is REALLY funny, but he can also be a jerk. When he is being funny, I have fun with him. When he is being a jerk, I walk away. When asked about it, I say something to the effect of, "I am a trader, just like any businessman. I trade values. When he has something to offer me, like having fun, I want to be around him. When he has nothing to offer and degrades my life, I don't." (I got alot of this from Galt's speech in AS) Now, the difference between this and what I would do with my friends is with them, I evaluate people on a whole. I still trade values, but on a grand scale, not instance by instance. The reason I offer this exception to my brother is it makes my life more enjoyable. One is just the fun I have with him. The other one is it makes my mom happy and she is worth it. She introduced me to Ayn Rand, though she is not an O'ist. Plus, she is very good at what she does. If your dad is a CEO, remember to give him the respect he deserves for being good at his job. NOTE: What I do with my brother is simply done while I am still living with him and my mom. After I'm on my own, he is the same as everyone else. I only deal with him because it makes life more enjoyable for me. Anyway, simply being happy around your family should solve some of your problems. It really does rub off. And simply making your parents happy makes your life alot easier. Give your parents what they deserve. All of it. I don't know how bad your parents are. I have found myself being too hard on the people closest to me after finding AR because I want them to be Objectivists. Don't dwell too much on people's faults if their virtues can outweigh them. Zak PS: Sorry if this was entirely unwarranted.
  22. Define what you mean by empty space. As Steven Speicher pointed out in an earlier thread, nothingness is an impossible concept. If "nothing separates two points, what stops them from becoming the same point? Nothing. Zak
  23. No, this is a forum that discusses Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, and it's application to different and current situations. I think that you have a very weird definition of reatity. There is only ONE. There is not one that you percieve and one that is "objective" (thus implying that yours is not somehow). A is A. There is only one reality that does not contradict itself EVER. Also, your philosophy (implicit or explicit) is the way you view the world and thus the way you conduct scientific experiments. It is not the other way around. Scientific experiment, mathematics, etc, do not shape your philosophy. Zak
  24. Hey zepho! What's up? Welcome to the forum. You sound like a very interesting and motivated person. Hope you enjoy this forum. I look forward to seeing your posts. Do you have any hobbies besides work and philosophy? Zak
  • Create New...