Proud_to_be_SELFISH!
-
Posts
19 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Proud_to_be_SELFISH!
-
-
For instance: What if Objectivists have an average of 1 child per couple while non-Objectivists have an average of 2?
I was looking at it more as a species adopting the philosophy bit by bit than it being passed on generation to generation.
-
Programing a robot to think for itself is a contradiction in terms, just as programing a human to think for itself is a contradiction in terms.
Are we not minimally "programmed" before birth? To say that we are not, is to say that we have no ability to learn or think.
By Objectivist principles, I mean the very basics of Reality and Reason.
Please don't start sentences this way. We don't care about what most people agree on; if we did, we wouldn't be Objectivists, we'd be Subjectivists.You're right. Sorry about that.
-
You assume profit is a monetary compensation only, which is quite an enormous assumption (and a philosophical error).
Please, do not tell me what I do and do not assume, thank you.
The philosophical profit gained from ARI's operation has nothing to do with this topic. Yes, they gain philosophically, great. But, why not financially as well?
I've seen some other posts with answers I was looking for but some contradict eachother.
-
(Mod's note: Later -- now merged -- topic starts here.)
A few weeks back, I took the Jung Typology Test. It's basically a personality profiler. While reading the description of my personality type, INTJ, I noticed that I shared this type with Miss Rand. Does anyone else know their personality type? If not, feel free to take the test linked above, it only takes a few minutes. I know it's probably not an objective test but it's better than any fortune cookie or horoscope I've ever seen.
We will probably find that we have very similar personality types according to that test, so the more interesting discussion may be how strong everyone scores in each category. If I remember correctly, I was 89% Introverted, 75% iNtuitive, 100% Thinking, and 44% Judging.
-
How does evolution do this? What is the process? If a trait does not significantly impact the ability to survive as a living entity (regardless of the "quality" of such life), and if it does not impact the ability to reproduce, then how does that trait get "weeded out"?
If a species does not evolve to meet the demands of its environment, it will perish. Are you presuming that Objectivism "does not significantly impact the ability to survive as a living entity"?
-
I go to the University of South Florida, a public school. Recently (since Pope John Paul II died), at the beginning of every class my US History professor gives us a brief update (5 minutes) on the latest pope news. He has never given us any other current events news. My solution was to go to class late and just skip that part of the lecture. Today, I followed my usual routine and arrived about 5 minutes late for class to witness him still discussing the pope situation. It was so bad that he actually had a live video feed (of the chimney) displayed adjacent to our lecture notes. We maybe had 50% of the time in class as normal lecture and 50% was interupted due to false smoke alarms and finally a debate over whether the smoke was black or white.
Am I justified in being upset over this matter? Does the election of a new pope have enough significance in American history that it should garner attention in a college US History course or is this another violation of the first amendment in a public school?
-
What an arbitrary claim. What possible use could there be for it?
1) Artificial intelligence. An area that I am very interested in, despite the bad name. I was wondering if robots programmed with Objectivist principles would need governing.
2) Evolution. Evolution "weeds out" those species too weak to survive. Since Objectivism equips man with the necessary philosophy for survival, who is to say (at some time in the future) people who adhere to Objectivism will not be the only ones to survive?
Most everyone agrees that history teaches us valuable lessons to use in the present. So does the future, if one can predict it properly.
(The evolution discussion has been split into a separate thread.. SoftwareNerd)
-
What do you mean by "catch"?
I meant, why is an organization that promotes profit-seeking individualism for non-profit? Some could view this as hypocrisy. I assume it is just because of some ridiculous anti-profit laws and taxes. And as a result, at the current time, employees are actually able to make more money as a non-profit organization than if they declared a for-profit business.
Am I correct in these assumptions?
-
AIM: Rowray6 (anyone can feel free to chat)
-
I was just on the ARI website and I noticed they are a non-profit organization. What's the catch?
-
Sometimes it is in your best interest to "use" force, especially when you are defending yourself. I think you meant that it is not in your best interest to initiate force.
No, I meant exactly what I said, "use". The logic behind it is that no force can then be inititiated, in this hypothetical scenario. In this case, "use" and "initiate" are interchangeable.
Now, if everyone understood and lived by that principle, we would still need government, because accidents do happen and ignorant people (children, for example) do exist. Force can be initiated, and rights can be violated, accidentally or ignorantly.Again, I'm coming at it from a programming mentality. Like I said in my post above, a computer cannot do anything it is not programmed to do. So, no "accidents" could happen.
I understand this scenario negates human nature. - That is the key to why government is needed. That was not my question but I have my answer anyways.
-
From what I have seen (even though I haven't seen much), whenever people make any decision, they have something to gain out of it, whether or not that decision is in their self-interest in the long term.
For example, some people practice altruism to get to heaven, some because it gives them a sense of pride and some because it boosts their self-esteem.
Can we do something when we have absolutely NOTHING to gain out of it, in the short term or long term?
Or does Nature forbid it?
Like someone above said, the answer is in "Isn't Everyone Selfish?" by Nathaniel Branden in VoS.
Yes, we can do plenty of "somethings" where we have nothing to gain short or long term. Some people have been answering this question by implying that that something is continuous. In that case, wanting to live (a selfish desire) can not be achieved through selflessness. I'm interpreting the question as a single instantaneous decision. Continuously making ill-adviced selfless decisions would lead to self-destruction.
The difference is in the Objectivist egoism and Hobbesian egoism. Thomas Hobbes argued that everything one does is selfish because one wants to do it. However, the selfishness of an action is more objectively determined in why one wants to do it.
-
Sorry I've been gone and thanks to others' responses.
Unless one knows with absolute certainty that all men in the future will be law abiding and not initiate the use of force one cannot remove the insitutions which protect individual rights.. We call such knowledge omniscience. A government cannot be built on the assumption that everyone will play by the rules.I was considering omniscience "knowledge of everything."
Also, my approach in this question (which I should have made clear at the beginning) is coming from a computer science major's prospective. Computers (as you know) cannot do anything they are not programmed to do. So, the idea presented would be people essentially "programmed" with reality, reason, rational self-interest and capitalism. I understand this would negate human nature.
It teaches me about the philosophy. Again, I was trying to emulate a scenario that I am accustomed to. What is learned from this line of inquiry is that Objectivism has all the necessary tools for an individual's prosperity (like the programming of a computer). A computer programmed with specific instructions executes its tasks perfectly without the need for supervision.But to learn what? What does speculating on the requirements of a government in a non-existing world where only Objectivists exist teach you?How does that follow?I figured out the comedy thing, thanks.
-
Not correct.
Let's assume the absurd situation that all men are Objectivist is true. A government exists to protect not just against current violations of individual rights, but possible future violations of rights. To safely abolish the the executive and legislative branches of government , one would also have to throw omniscience onto the absudity pile. The whole discussion of what kind of government would be required if we all believed the same thing and we all omniscient is a bit of a waste of time.
Can you give me an example of a future violation of rights, assuming everyone would be an Objectivist in the future as well? What does omniscience have to do with it?
Feel free to ignore the questions, like I said, I'm not completely read on the Objectivist concept of government.
If I can ask a meta-question: what is the goal of this line of inquiry?The same as every other line of inquiry: to learn.
Any comments on the comedy issue? I mean, comedy has to have some truth to it or else it's not funny, but if it were all truth, it wouldn't be funny.
-
1) Given your scenario, government would still be necessary to arbitrate between honest parties in a dispute.
In this case, you are referring to a judicial system as the only necessity, correct?
Understood, it was a hypothetical inquiry.2) More importantly, Objectivism is not some utopian world view
Well put, thanks.3) A system of ethics and politics should not be built upon abberations from normal human capabilites. -
Excuse my ignorance for not having been completely read on the topic of government. I've read The Virtue of Selfishness essays, heard Dr. Peikoff's introductory lecture, but still working on Atlas Shrugged so I don't know how $ Valley (is it?) is set up. I'm not to that part yet.
Anyways, I understand the role of the government would be to protect citizens from force: physical explicitly and fraud implicitly. However, if you did have an entirely Objectivist universe and everyone understood it was not in their best interest to use force, would government still be necessary? If so, why?
A few more:
Art is supposed to depict what ought to be in the sense of reality. What role does comedy play? What sort of comedy is considered "good art"?
People usually shriek at the thought of laissez-faire capitalism for various reasons but one overwhelming reason is "the poor helpless". People will tell you, "some people just can't be productive". If you press them, they usually give you examples of people stuck in wheel chairs or bedridden. Has an Objectivist ever argued against these claims with Stephen Hawking as evidence? Many people are potentially more capable than him and use their weakness as an excuse to be unproductive.
-
Welcome to the forum.
Thanks. Also, good story. On the basis of probability, I don't think I'm going to find too many people that were brought up Objectivist. It would be pretty cool to compare lives though.
-
My name's Rory and I am a sophomore at the University of South Florida. I'm majoring in Computer Science/Computer Engineering (declared) and Economics (undeclared). I guess you can say I'm new to labeling myself "Objectivist". I've shared the ideals my whole life but it wasn't until recently that I started researching Objectivism. I was lucky enough to be raised by Objectivist parents. They don't keep current with what's going on in Objectivism or anything but they read plenty of AR back in the day. If AR hadn't broke down the barriers like she did, it probably would have been my mom.
It's incredible for me to find other people that understand the purpose of a brain. I was beginning to think I could only find them in my immediate family. Every once in awhile I'll come across another atheist, only to find out they are really just a pissed off Christian and don't actually know how to think rationally.
I read The Virtue of Selfishness and I am almost done with Part One of Atlas Shrugged. So don't ruin it for me!
Does anyone else come from an Objectivist background or have you all had to make the discovery on your own?
Greatest Movie You Have Ever Seen
in Movies, Shows, and Theatre
Posted
I'm glad you mentioned this. I felt the same way about this movie (Flight of the Phoenix) while I watched it. Afterwards, I was pretty dissappointed with the predictable plot.
One of favorites that has only been listed in one post and has not been given any discussion is Men of Honor. Great story of individual resilience and utter determination to reach a goal. Overall, it is a productive movie.
Contact is one of my favorites, too.
Others that haven't been mentioned:
The Bourne movies. I was very impressed with both Identity and Supremacy. Original plots and a good theme of cleverly fighting for one's right to live.
Finding Neverland. Portrays a great sense of life and positive attitude with the ending depicting the inability to escape reality.
Office Space. A realistic comedy, almost like Seinfeld. Very funny.