Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Megan Robinson

Regulars
  • Posts

    99
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Megan Robinson

  1. A man has been driving around Philly in his truck, decorated with a gigantic red heartshaped bilboard, delaring marriage; one man, one woman. The display includes several references to Jesus. Here the religious people lay it on thick. A few nights ago, a security guard in my dorm was holding an impromtu prayer meeting. Big city=higher concentration of nuts.
  2. OK, OK, you're right. But I just needed to get that off my chest. I think of only consistantly rational people as superior, everyone else dwells in varying degrees of absurdity. By the way, it was the European settlers who started the scalping.
  3. I don't understand how you can call it a certain improvement. As an aspiring historian, one thing that drives me crazy bout a lot of objectivist historians is the same trouble subjectivist and intrinscist historians have: lack of causality. Both cultures were bad, because both suffered from the same self-sacrificing plague of mysticism. The conquitodors enslaved the aztecs and felt a duty to massacre them because of their dilusion of mystic significance. Yes, they were a more advanced society, and yes they had a greater respect for the key elements that make human advancement possible. But they did it with a bad philosophy. Evil must stand upon good to thrive. The evil of mysticim paired with the good of individual rights and advancement manifest itself in the early european settlers. How can you condone coercion, even if it abolishes ignorance. The ends do not justify the means. Open trade would have been more rational. PS: I know I said something bad about objectivist philosophers, don't get upset. I'm not in anyway condeming the pholosophy, only a few people's inability to be consistant.
  4. Megan Robinson

    Genesis

    My university requires this absurd World Literature class, Intellectual Heritage, where we basically relearn all the world lit we did in high school. Anyway- We were required to read Genesis and my prof and myself began to dispute the nature of morality. I asked if it were possible for Adam and Eve to be held accountable for eating the fruit because they had no knowledge of good and bad. He merely ended the exchange by saying that God's commands are moral imperatives (if such a thing exists). Of course the story itself presents a contradiction, but here are the two cases I think are present in the story: 1) Adam and eve have no concept of good and bad and therefore can have no values. They are moral putty, and anything anyone tells them to do, they will do because they have no means by which to weigh an action. God tells them not to do something, the serpent tells them to...they do whatever they heard last. The problem with this is that if they have no values then they cannot value life, which is the consequence God sets before them if they eat from the tree. which leads me to 2) They have a value and hence already know good and bad. If they know that life is worth upholding they have a value and thus a principle and thus a moral. They can already decide, they don't even need the tree. This got me thinking...what is the nature of free will. Is it just the ability to seek out values? If this is true, then animals can do that. They are perpetually seeking out their life (like A and E in the garden). Obviously A and E were not governed by instinct because they CHOSE otherwise. I've quite confused myself on this subject, please be so kind as to correct me.
  5. Thanks for asking this question! People oftern make the mistake of thinking that because things are percieved through a subjective human consciousness everything is subjective. This is absolutely incorrect. Subjectivists fail to realize that reality is still objective, and we use the same faculty (reason) to draw conclusions hence the same input ->the same conclusion. History is no exception. History occured in reality, which is objective. ONE thing happened so we have to find out what that is. So we have to look at primary sources to find out what ACTUALY hasppened, and then using a set of principles evaluate and create a standard to establish the truth. This is very important. For example: some think the Shoguns were barbaric, and some think they were noble. I am not satisfied just to say "its all subjective", so by using an objective principle we can weigh the facts and come to a conclusion. Another problem in history is ignorance of philosophy. Knowing why people did the things they did is incredibly important. Evaluating the philosophy of a people/person and determining its concisitancy and effectiveness is an important aspect of organizing experiences, our own and of those in history. Anyway, i urge you to take your mom's advice and study other philosophies, no point in being indoctrinated. I think you'll find after a while that Rand is right. I did. I used to be an avid subjectivist. Descartes at one time was my favorite philosopher, but reason is the natural state. I can't imagine being happy any other way.
  6. It would be wrong to sacrifice anyone. A person would be depraved to be willing to "sacrifice" themselves, and it would be wrong to sacrifice someone against their will. Sacrifice is an evil mentality, it inherently violates self-interest. The ends never justify the means. You can achieve your self interest in a number of irrational ways, but that doesn't make it right. I am not a pragmatist. I believe in moral absolutes. Absolute principles that are absracted from reality will never run into brick walls. I guarantee it.
  7. I'm a scardey cat. I stayed up all night last night because I watched The Exorcist this weekend and I was afraid, for what reason I'm not sure. But this is my refutation: People have been looking for ghosts, angels, demons, ect. for millinea and there is not any absolute proof that these things exist. But as for things that are truly metaphysical but invisible to the human eye (atoms for example) speculatiom, induction, and proof have determined an absolute existence. I'm pretty sure that if ghosts existed or psychics could really predict the future accurately, we would know by now. Aristotle says that an assertion has to be proven, not disproven. Until there is quantitative proof that a supernatural existence is a fact, we are under no obligation to disprove anything.
  8. Thanks guys! I appreciate the welcome. I have alot of exerience w/objectivism. I've read OPAR, and too much Peikoff really . I know a lot of Rand and Aristotole, so i have a good backround, but at times I confuse myself so I could really use your help. To all the Drexel kids out there: I chose Temple over Drexel (I was accepted, and all of that), for what reason I can't remember, but now that I'm here among the socialists and there are so many of you guys (objectivists) over there...I'm really starting to regret my decision. Anyway, thanks again for the welcome!
  9. Thanks for your input. I realize that I often compare countries to the US forgetting that we're quikly becoming the USSA. The Germans in general seem to be happy with giving up their liberties, and this is really the baffaling part. Thats what it seems... but if you know otherwise, please let me know. I have another question: The personal freedom for germans is limited economically (they pay 70% of income in taxes and their education system is completely socialized.) But I suppose the biggest question from a macroecon stanpoint would be the taxes on businesses. Does anyone have any info/an opinion on that?
  10. The ends never justify the means. Forcing a man to help another would be worse.
  11. Abtract artists consist mostly of people with no talent making a big break. But I don't think I can discredit all absrtact art because some of it does achieve the objective of art. Those peices that have a definate meaning, or magnify or exempt and aspect of an object found in reality to make a philosophic point. Also, some modern artists represent the same reality differently and very skillfully. For example: Marcel Duchamp's Nude Descending a Staircase makes quite an impression in that in the midst of lines and colors you see a nude figure moving down a staircase. see: http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/mod...50-134-59.shtml
  12. I was wondering why democratic-socialism is working for Germany and France. I've taken German since I was a freshman in high school, and every german teacher I've had praises the socialist system in Europe. The obvious problems are apparent as far as freedom is concerned, but the Euro is doing so well. Does anyone know why?
  13. I think what Rand meant when she said the greatest evil came from not thinking is evasion. To evade an aspect of reality means that you have chosen to glide over it. Mystics do this, and subjectivists (Kant) do it as well. Though you may be thinking a little, an act of evasion can do a lot of harm to that act. Evil cannot exist on its own, it needs good to stand on. So evasion based on a little thought is worse than no thought at all (basically a vegetative state). And about the cheating... The first is an act of evasion. Sex is not moral without love (Rand calls sex without love 'a wriggling of meat') If he is fantasizing about someone else he either does not love his wife or does not view sex as a proper metaphysical expression of an abstraction. Either case is immoral. And the second case...Same story. if the wife hides her actions from her husband she is perpetuating an unreality. Aside from this, if she is attracted to a man sexually who does not embody her values, she has a problem. Both people are evasive.
  14. Shelle39: I know what you mean. I'm from the Brookside area, but I have family in West Tulsa. I'm so glad to know there are objectivists in Tulsa. I used to go to the Mardels at 51st and Harvard to "protest" mysticism. I didn't really do anything, but I felt that my presence in some way was a protest.
  15. I am attending college partly on achievment scholarships, but also by the help of a government grant. I also attemd a public college (I got into Drexel, but chose Temple because of the cost). I felt guilty at first for taking the money, but really if the government offers it to me it in my best interest to take it. The government realizes its in the interest of society to have eduacted members (but it acts like its members don't know its in THEIR interest to get an education). I plan to make money, so because of income tax as well as the multipler I will essentailly pay them back for their investment, so now I don't feel bad about it. Its the trader principle really. If there were no public schools i would have no probelm paying for a private one.
  16. One thing many poeple forget about some capitalists (JD Rockefeller, A Carnegie) is that these men were indeed great creators and deserved every penny of their millions, but THEY didn't feel they deserved it (later in his life JDR turned to socialism.) Rand talks about mystics of muscle, people who although they do hold their own economically still believe in a mind-body dichotomy. Happiness comes from achieving values. It is a product of being productive within your nature. Mystics of muscle's sole goal in life is $, but to a preson who does not accpet this dichotomy the goal is happiness (Aristotle), to be fufilled in the perpetuating of their humaness. Money is a result of this.
  17. Marijuana kills brain cells. My brain is my mechanism for survival. Enough said.
  18. Hi! My name is Megan and I'm a fresman at Temple University. i am a history major but i plan to add a double major in philosophy and a minor in EDU. I want to be a professor someday and write lots of books about why history is not subjective. I'm thinking about a project (very longterm) I might do independenly because school is boring. I want to create a comprehensive system by which historians can recontruct history as objectively as it occured. It seems simple at first (just apply Oism), but its gotta be a system. Very well organized and correct. I love philosophy, poetry, music, and the love of my life who introduced me to Ayn Rand (Nathan). My heroes are: Ayn Rand, Aristotle, and Ben Franklin. I can be a little dogmatic at times about philosophy (especially where mystics are concerned) so I apologize in advance if I attack someone....I'm sorry. I yam what I yam.
  19. I know where you're comming from. I'm new to the board but not to objectivism. I was rasied a Jehovah's Witness and when I decided to diverge from that faith my prosylitizing (sorry if the spellings bad) Christian apologetic friends were there to snatch me up. I read alot of Lewis (The Abolition of Man, Narnia Chronicles, Till we Have Faces and The Great Divorce.) I don't want to offned you, but I can't put this lightly. I hate Lewis. I always have. Even when I was trying to be a christian and here's why. The Abololition of Man was the first thing I read and I nearly pulled my hair out. Lewis makes the mistake that all Apologetics make in that they try to prove something logically with bad inputs. The best advice you could ever get to discover truth is this. 1) Start from scratch-what do YOU know, what do you need to know what you know and how do you know it. 2)As you progress ALWAYS CHECK YOUR INPUTS- logic is only as good as its "givens" 3) And lastly, A is A. I realize its turned into a cliche, but really think about that. Contradictions do not exist in reality, only in abstraction. Rand says that Happieness is the acheivment of value, which is absolutely correct. I know from experience that unhappiness can come from harboring contradictions. If ever A is not A check your inputs. Good luck! I really hope you like Objectivism. I can tell you from experience that finding truth and seeking out the values thus derived bring an unimaginable sense of happiness and worth.
  20. Hi! I am a Philadelphian now but I'm originally from Tulsa. What part of OK are you from? WOW an Oklahmoma objectivist! I thought I was the only one!
  21. AHHH!!! I know what you mean. We were discussing progressives in my history class, and a bunch of people said stuff like "They were trying to return America to what Jefferson had in mind when he wrote the declaration of independence". I wanted to puke. I then raised my hand and frantically reminded everyone of Jefferson's philosophic predecessor John Locke and the rights that the government is meant to protect. Peikoff also gave a good lecture in '88 (I think) about pragmatism. He gave a good example of how a person who adds the sum of his experiences and creates abstractions from them will then from those abstractions create principles. And this person is always governed by this set of objective principles. So when someone asks him to rob a bank he knows from the basic principle of property rights that its wrong, and he will refuse. A pragmatist, because they refuse to make abstractions and want to look at every situation as an isolated and individual case, when asked to rob a bank will ask questions like "what bank?' "How much would we be stealing?" "is the money going to AIDS victims?" and so on... People who are not governed by principles think the world is complicated because they want to evaluate every case which is unnecessary an impossible.
  22. I realize that many of you may object to this, but I have always been a big fan of Langston Hughes. True, the Harlem Renessiance did a lot for the post modernists but none the less much of his poetry has that resonating feeling that makes one think. Its the resonation that churnes up the philosophy he was regurgitating in his art. Here's my favorite: Song for Billie Holiday What can pruge my heart Of the song And the sadness? What can purge my heart But the song Of the sadness? What can purge my heart Of the sadness Of the song? Do not speak of sorrow With dust in her hair Or bits of dust in eyes A chance wind blows there The sorrow that I speak of Is dusted with dispair Voice of muted trumpet, Cold brass in warm air. Bitter television blurred By sound that shimmers Where? L. Hughes
  23. The example of geometry to humans is not accurate and here's why: obviously the definition of a rectangle and square are concretely defined, both definitions are governed by principles that by omission and abstraction creates a concept of what a square is, and what a rectangle is. Thus a geometric principle is at work. The definition of human however, is incorrect. Aristotle defines man as "The rational animal." Fetises have not develpoed cognition, and because they're senses are not at all developed within the time an abortion is availible they are neither capable of perception. If you like Kant believe that reason is a priori then the principle of human-ness would mean that all fetuses are human. But seeing fetuses are incapable of reason at that level the principle rules them out. Thus no humans are fetuses and no fetuses are human.
  24. What if a criminal rejects God? Its much easier to suppose that a person would reject god as opposed to reject a rational reality. Aside from this, the thing that keeps people from commiting crimes (and this is basic) is selfishness. Even the so-called altruists are aware and act according to causal consequences. A person will not commit a crime based not on decrees from God or state but rather because by commiting a crime they open themselves upto harm by those protecting their lives or their property. Its common sense. Collectivists (those who insist the counciousness of God or state is primary) often reveal in their claims that an "enforcer" is necessary display a disgusting distrust of the individual, which stems mainly from a distrust of themselves inherent in their philosophy. Anyone who believes that man is born guilty and must spend his existance "groveling to ghosts" will inherently distrust the individual's ability to make correct moral desicions.
×
×
  • Create New...