gadfly

I don't play, but a game that's caught my attention from afar - based on other's descriptions - is "Grand Theft Auto". Its premise of wanton violence - kill, rape, pillage, repeat - is pretty disgusting. The version I heard about takes place in Los Angeles (I think), and maybe that's part of my problem. Violent games that take place in some remote, kill-or-be-killed world/situation, or provide a legit motive to kill within the context of the game, at least let you off the hook for killing because you have not choice. With GTA, you don't have that excuse; it just seems like violence for its own sake.

I'm "frightened" to learn I'm actually a Platonist first, Objectivist second. And I'm not crazy about Hobbes, either: 1. Aristotle (100%) Click here for info 2. Plato (100%) Click here for info 3. Ayn Rand (91%) Click here for info 4. Jeremy Bentham (86%) Click here for info 5. Thomas Hobbes (86%) Click here for info 6. Aquinas (84%) Click here for info I'm hoping these listed "Platonic" ideas are the reason: "There is reason to act justly even if one can get away with acting unjustly. There is a single, general, pure idea of goodness that all good things possess (although this seems like intrincism - the idea that good is IN the object). There is only one model of the just person. " My main reaction is: Ayn Rand is in good company. You may not like everybody at the party, but at least you got invited.

... and how about those Teletubbies? The first time I saw that show, I thought: "What the...?". It's like a bunch of oversize, cooing, incoherent, multicolor, living marshmallows on acid. Can someone with kids, or with an understanding of the show, explain what it's about?

I would do a search of this site for "Libertarian" since I understand this is a common topic and has been dealt with a lot. However, the summary version of the Objectivist stance (that of Leonard Peikoff and colleagues, including the Ayn Rand Institute) is that Libertarianism is a political party that lacks the proper philosophical and moral foundations to properly promote and defend individual freedom. There are certainly people sympathetic to Objectivism within the Libertarian party, but there are also many who are not, including anarchists, and Objectivists don't want to support a party containing so many individuals holding philosophical viewpoints antithetical to theirs. They believe this is both impractial and immoral. But, as you'll find from the posts, there are differences of opinion on this topic, even among users of this site. Basically, I think you will find that those who believe that objectively correct ideas are also morally right ideas, tend not to support Libertarianism.

I know what you are saying when you say the man was justified, but I think you have to choose between vigilantism and and the state. To support vigilantism is to undermine the authority of the state and to be "against" the state, and that means both cannot be morally permissible at the same time; the premises contradict each other. Your last sentence is a utilitarian justification; that is, supporting the state because it "works" to achieve some concrete goal (order), not because it is the right thing to do, so Objectivism would not use that argument. That's not to say that Objectivism doesn't work, but only that the primary defense of the state should not be utilitarian, it should be moral, i.e. do it because it is right to defend individual rights.

Yes, all users. I take it you're suggesting that these people could not understand them? If so, the only thing the site can do is provide definitions and expect others to grasp them. If not, and they get booted, that's their tough luck. I don't know why the idea of providing definitions per se is even generating discussion... it's just a matter of being clear. But if the consensus among mods is to not provide definitions, then don't.

Ah... I didn't think to do this first: when I put my cursor is over the icons, there is text in the status bar that says "Mark forum as read?". Thanks.

I second that. It's wrong to say that it's appropriate for groups of people to be sent out of the country for their beliefs, unless you supply some other distinguishing characteristic that justifies it, such as "violent Christians from Lebanon who were engaged in illegal activity". It's no more permissible coming from Objectvists than any other group. Otherwise, you are saying that our form of government is wrong, and individual rights should be ignored so that certain groups of people can be arbitrarily deported.

Personally, I'd like to see a little more on this topic before I assume no other option exists. A good start. Good examples.

They also apparently found a Martian boy living in Russia. They had better watch it; for a collectivist rag, it's getting pretty close to The National Enquirer, king of capitalist checkout lines across the U.S.

On the main page for the forums (from the home page, click "Objectivism Online Forum"), there are icons with dollar signs on the left side, next to each topic. I tried clicking on one, thinking it would take me to that topic, and it simply greyed out. What are they for? -Thanks

New Yorkers weren't enamored of it at first, either (nor was I). I used to live in Brooklyn and traveled under the towers on my way in to work (on a typical day, I would have been long gone by the time they fell). However, standing in the plaza, looking up at the two towers, they were quite a sight. The minimalism of them was actually a plus from that vantage point; they were almost unreal because they were so smooth and homogeneous all the way up to the top. The towers may have been simplistic, but they were beautiful.

Yeah, and build it out of rubber. Won't they be surprised next time... Actually, I like that idea. Make it like it never happened. However, it would have to have one hell of a missile defense system to get me to work in it.

Rules contain words, which have definitions. To understand and abide by the rules we need to know the definitions of the words in them. Clear to users of the forum, and for the purpose of making sure they can follow the rules.

It is not necessary to be omniscient to be able to determine what one's future will be... in some cases. OK, suppose there existed a real couple exactly like Hank and Dagny. I'm not ready to say that suicide is always unacceptable on principle, because it is my life, and it is not mere biological existence that defines life, but rather living, i.e. meaningful life, life with value to me. I admit it's difficult to think of a case where suicide would be the right thing to do. Because no matter how bad a situation is, there is nearly always a reason for sticking around. I would not want to go away merely because of a failure of imagination. Also, if depression is the cause, it is an illness, and can be cured. What if we rule out the cases were mental illness/unhappiness is involved, and are left with the question: is there any circumstance in which a clear-headed, mentally healthy, rational individual would be right to commit suicide?

Ditto what everyone says about it not being inborn. Since Objectivism holds that we have no instincts and must learn everything, that goes without saying. Environment definitely has an influence; it's basically the stage, the "ground-zero" from which you embark. In my case, where I grew up, at any given time, there were usually just one or two kids my age in the neighborhood. So, I spent a fair amount of time finding ways to amuse myself, from hiking, building things, drawing, etc. developing self-reliance. Also, my father's a chemist, so rationality was in my household; it was assumed. This is not to say it was a done deal, because after high school I was probably more of a subjectivist (that evil false cousin of individualism) than anything. I wish I had found Objectivism about in about 9th grade, rather than in college as it actually happened... P.S. - I would not have read Atlas Shrugged at age 9 because: ...no color pictures!

I thought I was the only one. I can't decide if it was that abomination Jar Jar Binks, or the meandering, flatlining plots, the annoying kid Anakin, or what. Although I did enjoy #2 more than #1.

I've re-read this thread in an attempt to find what in Godless_Capitalist's posts you are referring to, and cannot find any of this. Is this from some other thread? Definitions are a legitimate request, if people are going to be expected to abide by them. Especially on a site for students of Objectivism, where clear definitions should be expected.

Or, depending on your age: My girlfriend's kids aren't going to be home tonight Or... ...on second thought, I think I'll stop there.

Sorry, but my socks urgently need refolding... won't be able to join you.

- I need a Tylenol. - Oops, I swallowed a Tylenol! - That guy took my Tylenols...

Yes. The last time I studied the topic, the purpose of Zen Bhuddist meditation was to obliterate rationality. The ZB student is peppered with nonsensical sayings all day (such as the ever-popular "What is the sound of one hand clapping?") and told to empty their mind during meditation, to basically become nothing. It is truly the exact polar opposite of Objectivism; it's a desire to achieve a state of non-existence. I take "meditation" to mean mental relaxation, or quiet thinking about a subject, uninterrupted by daily concerns. If I get stressed out, it helps me to relax. I fail to see how that is irrational, or an indication of not being healthy - except overstressed. Many people seem to use intuition to mean what Ayn Rand thought of as well-integrated knowledge; things that we know so well that we no longer have to explicitly make the mental connections we used to to learn them in the first place; we just know it. Why can "intuition" not be used to describe this? What about creativity, which involves simply trying out combinations of things in new ways, that have not been done before? I am fully aware that this is based on rational thought and knowledge (or can be), but it is not determined by that prior knowledge. What should be used to describe mental leaps to radically new ideas? Or am I simply applying rationality in too narrow a scope, and in fact this is reason?

I wonder if this includes price fixing? I'd never looked up its meaning either, so thanks, that was edifying. Hopefully it will become so commercialized people will forget the original meaning, like with Christmas!

No "disrespect" is a little too authoritarian for me. Is questioning Ayn Rand's personal behavior disrespectful? Questioning her ideas? Some may judge it that way. And the questioner would learn nothing. What defines "promotion"? Couldn't any exchange of ideas be considered "promotion" since you might influence someone? "A single instance of violation of these rules will be grounds for banning". Too quick. I have questioned Ayn Rand's behavior. I have said I liked some of David Kelley's writing, and said I was upset over his "excommunication", as I called it. Fortunately, amid the insults that I inevitably received, were some helpful suggestions and actual information about these matters. By these rules, I may not have gotten these, and might not be writing this. I agree with Brian. Civil arguments and discussions are fine, and I think most of us are capable of distinguishing when they have become irrational and "disruptive" (as the current rules state). None of us are hatched as full-blown Objectivists (or students of Objectivism); we all came from somewhere. I don't want a forum full of robots, too afraid to say something "disrespectful", I want people who have been convinced because their doubts and questions have been answered, whatever they may be.

QUOTE(Neurosophist @ Dec 5 2004, 09:58 PM) I assume your basis for acceptance being the default is because you do not see it as in anyway impacting on any non-consenting adults, unless there should be any other reason... I wouldn't say not impacting. Everything has an impact. Primarily, I accept it because it's their right, and does not involve physical force against others, so it doesn't involve - as you said, "non-consenting" adults. And personally, my sense - admittedly unscientific as it is - is that homosexuality is as ingrained as my heterosexuality is in me, and things that are such a part of one's "nature" are morally neutral since we can't choose them. To use an extremely simple example, it is like accepting brunettes because they are born with that hair color - it's simply the way it is.