Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

GoodOrigamiMan

Regulars
  • Posts

    244
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GoodOrigamiMan

  1. Craig Biddle’s book, Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It is a calm introduction to Objectivist morality. On principle I don’t give books to my friends that I haven’t read; so last night I sat down and three hours later was finished – short and sweet. Of all the good things I have to say about this book by highest complement would be towards its style. Reading it felt very much like I was having a conversation - with a smart, straightforward and very polite person. As the title suggests the author make a great effort and succeeds, in tying lots of concrete examples to the principles being presented. Judging by the way the virtue of “honesty” was presented I’d bet my Christmas presents that Craig Biddle has a copy of Leonard Peikoff’s course Understanding Objectivism. But it was because of the style that yet another presentation of Objectivist morality didn’t seem repetitious or boring but rather fun and most importantly positive. As such this book is perfect for people with little understanding of philosophy – if someone is having trouble grasping the principles being presented in The Objectivist Ethics by Miss Rand, this book is for them. On another good note, the book serves a good wake up call for people who still think self-interest carries with it a moral negative. With the title, “Loving Life” and a gentle purple and green cover, no one would dare say that this book is evil. I will also reemphasize how polite the entire presentation is… the faults in subjectivism are outlined in a reflective manner hard to question and hard to take offence to. For people harboring any form of subjectivist morality Craig Biddle has found a way to say, “you are wrong” without triggering backlash. All in all Craig Biddle tells us the why, the what, and the how for self-interested morality. Furthermore he always goes back to the source and puts quotes from Ayn Rand right where they belong – in a book about loving life. I recommend this book as a fun read for an Objectivist or an invaluable introduction to Objectivist ethics for those not keen on objectivity. Anyways, I will now wrap up my two copies for Christmas. I first heard of the book from a TIA review, I bought two copies with the intent of giving them away – but naturally still had to read it for myself first. If anyone has questions or wants to discuss parts of the book then by all means.
  2. Thank you. I was pretty sure I couldn't go wrong with the 8pm.
  3. I’ve been unsuccessfully been trying to find what time the show will air on the west coast tomorrow. I’m assuming that it will be 8 and 11… if someone knows for sure I’d appreciate a response.
  4. WTF mates... I ended up watching Trading Spouses when I thought O'Reilly was supposed to be on. Fox News isn’t living up to the good things I said about them after the election.
  5. This was the first thing I noticed about the news covering the verdict as well… and yes it is bad. By a humanitarian standard being guilty won’t get you killed but being stoic will. I don’t know much about the evidence against him though… how inconclusive was it?
  6. I agree with most of your purpose here but I take it a little differently. I don’t want to be intimate with anyone that isn’t good enough to be married – that part is simple. But the practicality of getting married is not. My questions to your position are thus: You can have romantic love without an engagement or marriage - what actually changes the moment you propose? Love, pleasure and romance are not zero sums; it is not today at the expense of tomorrow – what is your reason for putting off intimacy with a romantic partner, how is it in your self-interest?
  7. Aurelia means ‘to be golden’… some insects, specifically butterflies, have a golden chrysalis (the shell that protects the pupa while it matures into a butterfly) – a chrysalis with this color is referred to as an Aurelia. Most terms in biology have a distinguished history, and it was the history part you were aiming for. However I thought it was possible you could be drawing an analogy between yourself and the metamorphosis of a butterfly. It might still be appropriate, but that is for you to say. Regardless, it is a beautiful name.
  8. To add to what has been said… anything based on the choice to die is not morality. Death requires no action, ergo if you choose to die any and all purpose you have is lost. Your ideas and actions cannot be judged moral or immoral depending on whether or not they help you die faster, if you choose to die then you have no further need of ideas or actions at all and no need for morality or its antithesis. To have any standard of morality requires to choice to live, morality for someone who chooses to die might as well be a text book on biology for some prokaryote. It is only people who choose life who can have morality. This does not mean that people who choose to die are free from moral judgment – someone who chooses to die is immoral at the most fundamental level (by the standard of people who choose to live – aka the only people who can any kind of morality). The only exception is the case of someone with a proper morality who reaches a lasting situation in which their values are no longer attainable – in this sense they could choose to live biologically but no longer as a person – killing yourself in this sense isn’t a choice to live or not, there is no choice (unless you want to claim that life is only your heart beating… I’d say that is a big part of it , but not all of it).
  9. Nothing to worry about -that wasn’t John Galt- that was some other young innovator who had some innovative ideas. I’m not sure if he ended up leaving the company or hiding his competence and staying – but either way, no more good ideas came out of him.
  10. Welcome I like you name, how much longer before you become a butterfly?
  11. Sherlock: You might want do draw a line for yourself between Philosophy and Psychology – then try and keep them separate in discussion. Also, please try using proper quotes - it will make your posts much easier to read.
  12. Objectivists: Born, Raised, then Made. As for the raised part… the most important thing I want to give my children is a flawless methodology. They will have to learn to love their lives for themselves – but gosh darn it they are going to think correctly!
  13. going back to what I responded to… You drew in analogy (if only in one respect) between John Erik Snyte and your vision of the ideal forum. I just couldn’t help pointing out that John Erik Snyte was not an ideal man, which was reflected in part by attitude towards blending different styles. My response, “I though John Galt was the ideal??? “ implied that your vision of the forum is not ideal. Frankly I can’t believe that you are think this forum would benefit from having a “stable of Religious Fundamentalists, Communist, Pragmatist, and so forth.” There are enough of them on the outside of this forum, please don’t let them in here. I was talking about benevolence as a virtue. My understanding of benevolence is giving people the benefit of the doubt that they are good – a benevolent man premise – innocent until proven guilty; and since you are giving them the benefit of the doubt you invest some of your time in people you know very little of. Benevolence has psychological consequences, helping someone makes you feel happy – but the only way to stay happy in the long run is if you understand where benevolence stands as a virtue and don’t sacrifice your more important things or waist your time on people who you know not to be worth the investment. I will make this clear too… just because someone could become an Objectivist does not make them worth the investment – there is the big question of “how are they going to become and Objectivist.” aka, whose time and energy is going to be spent? I also want to reiterate that the matter what you believe being polite, appreciative and respectful will no doubt keep you safe from being kicked off this forum. Stricter rules don’t mean some kind of witch-hunt – the rules are passive, they come into play when someone is stepping out of line. The purpose is to protect the contributors from attacks from the non-contributors - which means protecting Ayn Rand, ARI and upholders of Objectivism, from “Religious Fundamentalists, Communist, Pragmatist, and so forth.”
  14. I thought Howard Roark was the ideal??? Objectivists can practice benevolence by taking the time to help people towards the philosophy, however I don’t think the purpose of this forum is to be a kiddy pool. Besides, the best way for people unfamiliar to Objectivism to learn is to shut up and listen – and no one is going to ban them for doing that. I agree with Stephen concerning the alteration of the rules. These alterations serve the purpose of protecting the people who contribute to this forum from those who don’t. We have some Objectivists here, some serious students of Objectivism (myself included), and others. Personally, I would approve of active measures were taken to weed out most of the others - but those measures would have to be very active, so they wouldn’t be practical unless O.O. ever became a paid service. What is practical is to have rules that give people a chance to weed themselves out and then dispense with them.
  15. I interpreted it as knowledge of one’s own methodology… was this part of your intention as a parody?
  16. When I was a kid the only shows my mom let me watch were Mathnet and Sesame Street (Mathnet was my favorite ). A little latter in life Bill Nye the Science Guy came into play, but by that time something had happened to Mathnet so they never competed for my attention.
  17. My favorite is "Techno" from the e-mail section... "Throgdor was a man... he was a, dragon-man! Burninating the countryside! Burninating the peasants! THROGDORRR!!!" Good times Homestar () as a character is really 'slow' and is always being picked of an taken advantage of by Strongbad... sometimes he gets a little depressed but usually he is just clueless. I guess you could use it to patronize someone. Person A: I like to eat cake. Person B: Right...
  18. I want to give props to one of the random quotes on the home page: "The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics." ~ Thomas Sowell
  19. Your welcome – I wanted to share my interpretation of them. Thank you for the book, I’m delighted an Objectivist wrote it. The whole smiley art plays on facial expressions – there might be more value to studying them than a couple cool tricks for AIM. After all the smileys are supposed to reflect actual expressions or caricatures - Good stuff.
  20. Staying away from it is probably what I will be doing. Personally I had a hard time identifying its use thru the context... smileys are a poor substitute for rhetoric. This is my interpretation of them. "Dough!" – Homer Simpson’s trademark – used to express a stupid mistake on one’s own part… and some people use it to express a stupid mistake on someone else’s part … or the product of repeated stupid mistakes (usually on someone else's part): frustration. It depends on how you look at it, if you consider it as once cycle of the animation – it is hitting yourself on the head for doing something stupid; if consider the fact that the darn thing keeps looping – then it is definitely more along the lines of frustration. "huh?" - neutral confusion or surprise – neutral in the sense of no inkling whether it what you are reacting to is good or evil… maybe no inking to what it means at all. - This is one of my favorites… I think it represents the type of response one has when someone tries to tell you something that disproves yesterday. A grin and a squint seems to me means a critical evaluation… but since the smiley is looking up and to the side it is drawing up past memories and using them to critically evaluate some new idea – usually with the premonition that the idea is wrong. I think this is the most contemplative smiley on the market!
  21. I always though that this smiley: Represented some sort of *cringed look* but some people seem to be using it as if it were a *wink*… when I realized it was being used this way I noticed that there isn’t another *wink* smiley on the list - so I typed the AIM abbreviation for a *wink* [ ; ) ] and sure enough it was the smiley in question. Now this somewhat disturbs me because I think a *wink* should look more like a *happy face* and to me this *wink* looks more like a *distorted face*… and this is up until today the way I have been using it. So I am curious… is there a group of people like me that have been using: to represent a *cringed look* or am I the only one? If I am the only one then I will change my ways… it is not a complete loss since hereafter I can use the *wink* appropriately… Sadly though, this leaves me with no smiley to send to people who are making no sense. There is ...but it is a little to much for everyday use... and are ok substitutes - but they still doesn't convey that 'your idea is distorting my face!' reaction.
  22. I’m sorry Dave but there is nowhere to begin. If you have an interest in Objectivism that would be a start – but then you should focus more on it then your jealousy. There is nothing you can do about your emotions unless you take active measures in your philosophy… suppressing them won’t help in the long run. Wishing won't make it so.
  23. This is correct… another way of saying it would be: the standard for judgment is the metaphysically given. I am not arguing that the producer needs to be judged independently in order to appraise value to a drug – rather appraising the drug is also an appraisal of the producer. It is recognition that the drug did not create itself; rather that it involved the virtues of people. This would be the case for Advil. However, in the case of a drug like cocaine being produced by street chemists with the intent on selling it to LittleMachine, the situation is a little different. If someone tries to sell you cocaine your reaction shouldn’t be: “Oh my! There is some cocaine. It exists and I will avoid it because of it’s dangerous natural properties.” As opposed to a different response along the lines of, “This is cocaine was created to be sold to people like me – to whom it has no value whatsoever... in fact if I use this it will hurt me - ergo the person trying to sell it to me is lying (trying to pass it off as a value) and immoral, which goes for the person who produced it too, note to self: this cocaine is the result of immoral actions – if you can, do a little more than shrug and accept it: it stands against your values.”
×
×
  • Create New...