Cole

How do I know what is correct? How do I know that reason integrates my sensations in accordance with the facts of reality? How do I know that my sensations are accurate and the only means of discovering reality? What is the question here? If faith is a form of discovering reality then by what method does it seperate that which is true from that which isn't?

He made a typo in the URL. Try: http://www.whatisobjectivism.com/ Edit: As a disclaimer, this site has a heavy TOC slant and describes ARI as the "biggest pseudo-cult." Aside from that, its description of the basics is horrible.

Do you have any LSAT tips?

Can somebody define charity in a way that differentiates it from a purchase (specifically; a trade in which what you gain is of a higher value than what you give)? I've seen people here say that charity is not necessarily altruistic and that it can be done with self-benefiting ends. If that's the case, then what attribute of the concept "charity" requires that it have a different definition than any other type of trade?

How about giving each of them a $2,000 tax break instead?

It's a three hour speech.

I read Anthem in a high school English class as well. It was not because the teacher was an Objectivist, but because the book was on the school district's curriculum. We studied it with an emphasis on writing style instead of content. The closest I've ever come is my current academic advisor (who is a professor in the Philosophy Department) having a copy of OPAR on her shelf. When I commented on it, she chuckled and said something about capitalism being an economic system and not an ethics system. She told me that she bought the book in graduate school when Objectivism was the current trend. That's ridiculous. There are some issues (such as farm subsidies) that I thought everybody with even the slightest bit of economics education would understand are bad policies.

By standing out of the way.

Or it could be attributed to rescue helicopters being shot at and National Guards fearing for their lives when they walk down the street.

It may be that you're not getting responses because the people reading this thread find your idea to be common sensical.

Hurley's "A Concise Introduction to Logic" is my favorite. It does a great job of introducing Aristotelian logic, and it seems to be the textbook most commonly used in university courses on the subject. I, too, am undergraduate student interested in the study of logic. I'm currently taking my first course in sentential logic, which uses the book "The Logic Book" by Bergmann Moor and Nelson- which is good if you're interested in symbolic, more mathematical aspects.

Me neither. Aside from that, most Romans tend to be brutes.

Not only is "price gouging" not a bad thing in these situations, but it's what the hurricane victims need most right now. Well, I suppose what they really need most right now is an end to their barbaric system of trade.

You can't refute an argument if you don't know what the argument is. You should first find out which facts of the real world are being said to be avoided in laissez-faire theorizing.

I wonder how long it'll be until somebody in the media announces that "Hurricane Katrina didn't have all bad results. Think of all the jobs that will be created in re-building New Orleans."

It's best to start with the non-fiction. As Ayn Rand made clear; the essential purpose of a work of art is not to teach. If you read Atlas Shrugged after gaining a thorough understanding of Objectivism then the story will be all the more meaningful.

Yeah, that's exactly what I thought when I heard about the Hawaiian price controls. Unfortunately, I don't see the outcome as being "Wow, so I guess government tampering in the market is a bad thing. Let's not do that anymore." I see wholesale gas suppliers almost completely withdrawing from Hawaii (they'd be losing potential profit by continuing to do business there as opposed to other states without the price control), which would of course cause drastic shortages in gasoline. However, I suspect that the government's solution to this problem (in the style of its solutions to almost all problems) would be to pass another law requiring the supply of a certain amount of gasoline at the forced, below-equilibirum price. We all know what happens when that snowball gets rolling.

I decided awhile ago that, if I am ever a parent, I will not tell my child that Santa Clause is real. If I'm going to play a game with my kid, then it's going to be a game in which we're both willing participants. It also establishes a corrupt metaphysical outlook; that entities can exist which possess attributes that are unknowable to humans. However, there's no reason why I can't celebrate the image of Santa Claus with my child- as a fictional character. Santa Claus represents wealth and abundance, and giving gifts as a form of appreciation to those who one values.

Note the status of "Banned" under his name. Even still, there's no reason to take anything that anybody posts here as being the official Objectivist position.

To what extent do your feelings guide your worldview? What do you mean by that? Are you with or without theism?

Understand that "the philosophy of Ayn Rand" is not the same as "the summation of everything Ayn Rand ever said." Her opinions on homosexuality and presidential candidates are not aspects of Objectivism. I found your disbelief in free will surprising. When you said that you believe in selfishness, it seemed to imply that you believe that humans have volition and can choose not to be selfish. If humans lack free will then what do you mean when you say that you support selfishness? I don't know what makes you think that Leonard Piekoff supports the Republican Party. The only time I've ever seen him comment on any election is when he unequivocally announced that he would vote for John Kerry. If you want to comment on Mr. Peikoff's party stance than I suggest you research the issue first. On what issue in which the ARI has sided with the Republican Party do you not agree with? Regarding Iraq- it seems to me that the ARI made it clear that Iran is a bigger threat to the US than Iraq. The fact that you mention looking through CapMag to find areas of Objectivism that you disagree with is concluding evidence that you are disillusioned as to what "Objectivism" means.

Ok, but my question was a serious one. When I see you say "...I do believe in the general themes of reality, reason, selfishness, capitalism, and romanticism" but that you are not an Objectivist, I am intrigued as to which aspect(s) of Objectivism you do not agree with.

No. I'm willing to bet that the average American has no clue who Ayn Rand is, let alone the ability to grasp implications that she is a cultist.

Hi Tommy. In what ways do you think you might differ from most other Objectivists?

If you can't handle discussion questions without taking them as a personal attack, then I suggest you reconsider becoming a member of the OO.net community.