Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

GoodOrigamiMan

Regulars
  • Posts

    244
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GoodOrigamiMan

  1. It is either that or you’ll ruin my thesis of: Quote Competence and Life Competence – the downfall of HTML syntax and society. As Howard Roark said... "There is no substitute for competence."
  2. This thread makes me think of moths to the flame. Speaking of statistics… two for two people who couldn’t manage using quotes have left.
  3. As I recall Stadler always said, "What can you do when you are dealing with people?" This would probably be his justification for not caring.
  4. It is a legitimate question… I think what you are getting at is the nature of the drug. The nature of Advil is metaphysically given – its natural properties are not a matter of choice, they are what they are and could not have been otherwise. However Advil was created by choice, so it requires a moral evaluation. If you say Advil is good, you are judging the choices made to create it and setting your personal terms for using it. Basically though it is a matter of not unconditionally accepting anything that is the product of a choice – saying Advil just is brushes over the fact that it didn’t have to be, aka it was a matter of choice. So there is a fundamentally different way to approach things that are metaphysically given and things that aren’t, the former must be accepted unconditionally (including the nature of nature) – the later must be judged (which requires a method of judging, context, etcetera).
  5. No you didn’t, but if I had said ‘caffeine and alcohol’ instead, the rest of my post could have remained the same. However the drugs I chose make my point a lot clearer, which is why I chose them. I asked you if evolution programmed us to take drugs, you answer “Yes...” Determinism doesn’t get any better than that. Maybe I took your 'yes' to literally though. Rubbish. Objectivism is not a religion, and religion is not a drug. Btw: I sent you one link to one passage, referring you only to one paragraph. I’m not sure how this qualifies as “spouting off links and referring [you] to passages” – the English language has a singular text for such occasions.
  6. Plato: it is ironic that your Avatar is the current cover art for the book Philosophy: Who Needs it? (the first essay of which is what everyone is rightly referring you to).
  7. So what is the difference between the biological level and the objective reality level? Regardless, you didn’t answer my question. Yes? I’m sorry but you are just plain wrong. Evolution did not program people to enjoy ecstasy or cocaine. Rather evolution led to the development of a pleasure pain mechanism, which we can affect with said drugs. Rationality is not only what prevents us from abusing these drugs - it was what made the creation of these drugs possible in the first place. Notice how in the case of ecstasy and cocaine reason is being subverted to pleasure – aka to the task of creating or intensifying a sensation. The point remains that sensations are not a guide to life – they are in fact indicators - and using your rationality to make a short cut is undermining their function. It is more or less like cheating on a test… a good grade is an indicator of your progress and knowledge, if you cheat on the test then you still get an A, but that grade is merely a false indicator of your understanding of the material. Just like someone who is high on drugs is experiencing a false indicator that they are in harmony with reality. They still had to think to cheat on the test, but this thinking is misguided and ergo fundamentally irrational (fundamentally anti-life).
  8. No government should ban reality TV or any actual drug. If you disagree then take a look at Introducing Objectivism on the ARI website (specially the last paragraph on politics).
  9. Maybe her essay “The Objectivist Ethics” in The Virtue of Selfishness is what you are looking for. Or even better... Atlas Shrugged.
  10. This is enough for me to stop replying; you don’t deserve to be taken seriously and you have insulted a lady. I hope you leave this forum one way or the other.
  11. Controlling your body’s biochemistry not inherently bad. I can’t think of any drug that can’t be applied medically for a good purpose. My idea of a “bad” drug is one that doesn’t do what it is supposed to or one that is created to be used to immoral ends. The distinction between metaphysically given is the difference between a marijuana plant growing in the wilderness and marijuana plant growing in some teenager’s closet. The former pot plant just is; the latter plant is evil because it is a product of immoral actions. Granted the later plant could be of value to someone, but this does not change that it was not created as an objective value and neither will it be used to such and end.
  12. What is the difference between humans and other animals? Did evolution program us to take drugs?
  13. Rationality is a fundamental Objectivist virtue... not pleasure. Earlier in your post you implied that you were for life, well SexMachine that same attitude is why Objectivists choose reason over pleasure when making decisions. A rational person is someone who makes choices using on a set of hierarchical principles and values. A hedonist is someone who makes choices based on their pleasure pain mechanism. It is fundamentally irrational to guide your life hedonistically. You cannot use reason to effectively pursue your life by subverting it to your pleasure pain mechanism. If this were true then it would be in a sadist’s rational self-interest to torture other people. It would be in everyone’s rational self-interest to partake in drugs and group orgies instead of going to work… funny how close that is to what you are advocating. You are neither a consistent rational person nor a consistent hedonist - you are some boring compromise between the two.
  14. No… the distinction is as follows: Metaphysically given entities: A mountain, a tidal wave, a bolt of lightning, a forest, a cave, sunlight, etcetera. As opposed to other entities like: a ski resort, a surfboard, a lightning rod, a log cabin, drawings on the wall of a cave, sun block, solar panels, etcetera. The difference is the latter group was created by choice (by beings with free will), ergo it is subject to moral evaluation. You cannot morally evaluate a mountain, it is metaphysically given – there was never a choice for anyone on whether or not to create the mountain. The question "is a drug good or bad?" is part of a moral evaluation. It is a moral evaluation because some person made the choice to create it.
  15. Drugs that are produced are not 'metaphysicaly given'.
  16. From a personal stand I think the kind of someone interested in Objectivism needs is critical support. Meaning not a passive encouragement but active evaluation and acting accordingly. The primary Objectivist virtue is rationality, thinking is hard work and acting true to your ideas takes integrity, it helps to have someone who can strengthen your convictions – or if they are wrong, tell you why. If he is working, aka being productive, he should give himself more credit… I don’t like the popularity of jokes and movies about people hating where they work (like Office Space)… I’m not sure if I’m being unreasonable or not but I look at hating where you work as irrational, meaning people tend to think they would be happy if they were working somewhere else. Frankly I think people have subconsciously have surrendered the virtue of productivity to the altruist sludge. There is no point in hating work, if you know you’d rather work somewhere else then work towards that, but don’t blame work for your unhappiness – rather thank it for your house, car, food, and if you have time – vacations. If you found a fault, which is implying that you know it is a fault… why not fix it? If the computer eats up time at the house then unplug it. Or just limit using it to half an hour a day (unless you are posting on the O.O. forum ). Get out of the house! Walk in the park; get a dog or a cool hobby like Ballroom Dancing, Archery, Taekwondo or the Piano.
  17. Personally I think he has offended cat owners everywhere. It is remarkable it never dawned on him that lions live in packs, so by his understanding cats would need morals too. It is just sad.
  18. In context when you said: You were referring to the creating of a socialist state. Now you say you cannot initiate the use of force. Tell me nimble, how are you going to maintain a socialist state without initiating force? Your statement does not follow Objectivist ethics. By “ok” you imply “good” because you probably know enough about Objectivism to know that anything done by people must be judged, if you plan to draw the line between good and evil with “ok” then you have already violated Objectivist ethics. Is it possible that you meant ok as in they have a right to do it even if it is not in their rational self-interest? But then it isn’t good is it, even if they all agree on it. Moreover you phrased it by saying, "Anything" which much too powerful a word for a shoddy idea.
  19. It really hurt to see this in the Science section of the New York Times… so much for the NYT. Here is the link, I really felt like sharing the burden, please rant at will to make me feel better. Edit: Link doesn't work (darn the NYT again). If interested just google { "good dogs" "james gorman" }
  20. If your standard is the collective...
  21. If everyone truly consented then there would be no reason to faction off – they could live like socialists under a capitalist government. Since you claim no individual rights are being violated a capitalist government would have no reason to interfere. They could just give all their property to some collective then create a shadow government to redistribute wealth, set prices, print currency, delegate tasks, etcetera. They wouldn’t be allowed to use force, but you said everyone consented so they wouldn’t need to. Furthermore criminals and foreign threats would be generously taken care of by the capitalist parent government. But without coercion their little socialist paradise wouldn’t last long. If the little devils start initiating force on people (who are no longer consenting) the capitalist parent government would have to spank the little tyrants and if necessary lock them in their room. BTW: I never said anyone has a right to create more than one government, just that there is no inherent problem with having more than one. A socialist government has not right to exist, neither has it a right to be created. A capitalist government splitting off of a capitalist government is not a question or rights; it is a question of reasons and there is no reason, just an arbitrary claim you have made. Agreed upon or not this isn’t going to lead to anarchy. The fact is both countries will probably be ten times better off than we are in America today. I would actually like to see two capitalist countries try it each way and see the results. It makes me wonder if the A country will have better innovation and artistry while the B country will become an orgy of second handers. As far as intellectual property rights are concerned, there is a correct answer and a study of two capitalist counties differing only in that respect would make it much more apparent (to me and anyone that doesn’t agree with the ‘they are practical argument’). Anyways, I am not an authority on property rights or their implementation and my lack of understanding doesn’t make me think it can’t be understood objectively.
  22. I said, “two Capitalist governments” which is why your example will have to be hypothetical. If you want to use Donald Rumsfeld as a concrete example to illustrate a principle that would be relevant to my question go ahead (but good luck). No context dropping please. Whose theory says they have the right to create any form of government they choose? Who has a right to create a government that violates the rights of thousands of individuals? Your position would make sense if you think rights are some collectivist creation… are you familiar with the Objectivist position on rights?
  23. Frankly I don’t know what you mean here… Perhaps your could provide a hypothetical example of how two Capitalist governments would compete for the use of retaliatory force and end up in anarchy. At what point does Capitalism force people to believe something they don’t want to? So how do you coerce socialists to participate in a Capitalist government? Are you implying that since they are socialists they should be allowed to violate individual rights? Before I was thinking of a Capitalist faction splitting off from a Capitalist government… but you are implying a socialist faction splitting off from a Capitalist government – which is really pathetic. If you feel sorry for the poor socialists forced to live in America (or god forbid a real Capitalist country)… why?
×
×
  • Create New...