Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Brian S.

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Brian S.

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 03/09/1973

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Copyright
  • Occupation
    Machining Process Technician

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. Is it perhaps because of the open-ended nature of concepts? What I mean is, if all concepts (according to O'ism) are open-ended then wouldn't permanent patent rights essentially close-off the concept? Seems to me that if we were to close of an entire class of knowledge to further consideration (by anyone other than the owner) that this would be devastating to individuals as well as civilization as a whole. This isn't something that I've studied or considered much, but the relationship between open-ended concepts and patents jumped out at me.
  2. Living is not about mere survival and Objectivism isn't about how to best survive. It's about how to achieve the best life for man qua man. Again I refer to Ayn Rand herself:
  3. Joy on the other hand is a feeling of pleasure. It can come from something as simple as physical stimulation. I think they are easily conflated because joy is so often the result of happiness. Happiness is the barometer of achieving ones values. It is the counterpart to suffering. Just as suffering is how you know when something is wrong, happiness is how you know when something is right. It's not the goal, it's how you know you are reaching it. By way of analogy: You want to boil water, the goal is to bring it up to 212º. Making the water bubble is not the goal, but it is how you know
  4. Are you perhaps conflating happiness with the emotion of joy?
  5. Leonard Peikoff took this question in his podcast. LINK America in the 19th century came the closest. Well, these things don't happen suddenly, so that's a hard question. Also, what do you mean by "the world"? Everyone?
  6. If they play their song at a concert, aren't they revealing their creation to the world and thus anyone hearing it may in turn also use the song for their own benefit? My point in asking is this: if one's only right to intellectual property is to choose whether or not to reveal it then they have no means of benefitting from it without allowing others the opportunity to also benefit from it. Quite the collectivist result. Again, why would the possession standard be correct? By what principle? Certainly not objectivist epistimological standards. First, I answered that. Children
  7. Couldn't that same reasoning be used to justify licensing for anything?
  8. Mnrchst, So in your view a man has no right whatsoever to benefit from his idea without allowing all others benefit as well? An idea is the product of a man's mind. A mind is not something you "own", that would be a contradiction because without a mind there is no "you" to own it. A man with no mind is no longer a man, as he has no consciousness or rational faculty. Ideas are products of a mind. The idea itself exists in the mind and only in the mind. You seem to be basing you argument on the form that ideas take, that is to say they take on a form that has no physicality and that can
  9. So, her parents split up when she was 4, but the divorce came through around the 11th grade? That's quite a legal battle. Also, "clicking through lolcat photos"? How old is this author?
  10. I would support any effort that 1) did not put our people in harms way whatsoever, and 2) we would be financially reimbursed for in totality. Beyond that I have to agree with 2046. No matter what your and my feelings are on this, anything more would be an act of altruism. Using money taken from people against their will in order to finance putting American lives at risk to depose a dictator so the people of Libya can install a new and improved…evil, authoritarian, muslim despot. Let's not forget how Gaddafi gained power in the first place, through revolution with the hopes and promises of
  11. I have heard the argument that states don't have the right to abrogate contracts, even though that is what they are doing in Wisconsin and other states. Any thoughts on the constitutionality/legality of this? I'm not really sure how to argue it.
  12. With the average height of a woman in the US being only 5'4", he is hardly being unrealistic. Well, maybe in a country of fat people like the US. (myself included!) Also, not to put words into your mouth, but it has been my experience that most who protest a man's so-called unrealistic expectations on the low end, are not so judgemental of his preferences if they are on the high end.
  13. My other problem is this: This is not a case of either/or, it's a matter of one or both. No matter if anyone is around or not to perceive "sound", the other definition of "sound" STILL applies. The presence of the receptor doesn't negate the other definition of "sound". So, in the asking of this question, why does the deliberate omission of the other applicable definition make sense? In either context, definition "c" is still valid.
  14. First, any chance of actually achieving such a goal is far in the future, beyond any hope of bringing anything resembling immortality to you. Such a goal, if ever to be reached, would benefit those not yet born. Second, the whole concept seems circular. Your life's goal is to live longer so you can pursue your values further, but your top value is to live longer. The whole concept is fixated on what happens at the end of your life and is focused on the evasion of the reality of death…rather like religions without the mystical garbage. ?
  • Create New...