Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Element

Regulars
  • Content Count

    80
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Element

  1. I have suffered from the same problem and have realized that I over invest emotionally/intellectually in women I know. The main trick is to try and not think about them (I hope I don't need to explicate anymore on that point). Idealizing people in anyway is dangerous, but in particular it is dangerous when you do it with women because of the image they put out, or the fantasies you have, or a context you might give to their sexual activity that you can not actually verify. A lot of anxiety that I would feel (in regaurds to their sex lives) would be the same anxiety I would have felt if I was a
  2. My personal experience matches this theory. Although it is important to realize that winning an argument doesn't mean anything about your ideas.
  3. Socrates had this metaphor where there are bunch of things inside you. One of them is a man and the rest are beasts. If you do predatory things you will feed the beasts, and if you do rational things you will feed the man. If you feed the beasts to much the man will be overrun inside you, and you begin to loose your virtues. If you feed the man you can domesticate the beasts and control when you need to be mean/predatory. This was his argument against the idea that "virtue is not in one's self interest" argument. It is somewhat convincing.
  4. I answered yes, but you need to define to what degree. Objectivism rejects polylogism, the idea that different races or classes have different kinds of logic. Objectivism also rejects the idea of inherited knowledge or literal racial memory.
  5. (Try to format your posts better next time, use the preview post button) Your thesis need some review. Anyways, here is why; Capitalism, Socialism, and Fedualism are three separate economic systems that have a variety of definitions. Fedualism is the only system that I would say that has existed in a "pure" form long term, this is because people really only analyzed fedualism after it started changing into other systems. It is basically defined by the religous and military classes being at the top of society, and everyone else including merchants and peasant
  6. If you were bad to her and lost her to someone else because of it, the pain makes sense, and honestly you deserved it. Why you are feeling it now is confusing. Maybe you feel like your feelings of possession were violated, when in reality you stopped "owning" her a while before any of that happened. DISCLAIMER- Terms of possession something metaphor something sexist male emotions something.
  7. 1) Yeah Ayn Rand is wrong. Take for instance Noam Chomsky. He has a very clear idea about what the good is, he thinks its man's power to use his creative capacity, he claims capitalism is bad because it alienates men from this. This was Orwell's and Oscar Wilde's theory also(see The Soul of Man Under Capitalism). In my opinion the Alienation/Psychology of Power (and power sharing) argument is the most powerful ethical argument for socialism. Socialism isn't a consistent philosophy, it is just a political and economic theory. Marxism is a whole philosophy though.
  8. Well you are basically strawmanning most socialists. There are a ton of socialists who reject utilitarianism for one. They see it as just another justification for inequality produced by the upper classes. For instance Herbert Spencer promoted a brand of utilitarianism. It is also very debatable whether or not it is a key tenet of socialism to derive the truth of something by polling. If you look at the works of Orwell, you will see that while yes, Totalitarians do in fact believe in post-modernism, Orwell, a socialist himself, did believe in the truth.
  9. I read the article. There is something messed up here, but it is the community not the author. It seems like that the people living are just starting to realize how barbaric they are.
  10. Well somalia is better of than it was before. Other than that it is just a medieval country. Libertarians aren't medievalists. And there is no such things as anarchy, governments of one kind or another always emerge.
  11. If you want a good example of what counteracts the idea of independence, look up "Filial Piety". It is a Confucian idea that includes the idea that one should give deference to your parents and superiors in disagreements even if they are wrong.
  12. Why don't you like him? He seems to be the only senator who is remotely sane.
  13. The man will only be a burden to others considering he will be a social pariah. No one will want to hire him. So he will have to go to the state for help. If they aren't going to kill him they should put him in a box.
  14. I don't know how to feel about that. On one hand it is nice that governments are adopting business models to make their place better, on the other it is statist, even if it is in a generally benevolent way.
  15. A feudalist society is controlled by thugs and mystics. Our system right now run by plain conmen. To recreate a feudalist society you would have to get rid of industialization, make people take religion serously again, and establish a militant society which sees itself fit to rule a populace. All of these things are absent. Religion is a joke. The military is dreadfully humble, and wouldn't be interested in ruling others even if it weren't. And fedualism just doesn't make sense in the context of factories. Serfdom isn't flexible enough to account for the flexibility in labor that an indu
  16. So yeah this is the peak oil thing right? My answer to this is that as oil gets more and more expensive people will become less and less dependent on it and find other solutions. Even if we can't find an alternative all that means is that we have to live in a weird steam punk world. Anyways the only real problems is governments messing with this process. In which case I would have to agree that we are probably doomed.
  17. That reasoning is terrible and borders on kantianism. The "if everybody did it all the time" logic is flawed in that it has nothing to do with reality and is non contextual. If people didn't break the law, the law wouldn't exist in fact, because someone had to rebel to establish the current law. So a moral prohibition against legal activity would make all law based in immorality. There really isn't any reason to follow the law outside of the consequences of getting caught. You are really only obligated to follow reasonable laws, but not because someone said so, but because they are reas
  18. Element

    Sacrifice

    Self sacrifice is pointless because there is no value in my absence.
  19. Yeah this is a problem. I would love to cite Ayn Rand in some of my philosophy papers, but I know that if I did my paper would get a bad grade. This leaves me not wanting to use her arguments at all because it would be plagiarism. Do you think it is okay to make Objectivist arguments but act like they are completely new ideas? The two problems I see happening are either me getting caught, and also it isn't very fair to Ayn Rand.
  20. Can it even be called a standard of value? All these people care about is avoiding suffering. Objectivism and and certain forms of Buddhism do have some ethical similarities. An Objectivist would say that only irrational desires necessarily lead to suffering, and so you should only "detach" from those. But the Buddhist view of the self makes it an all or nothing proposition it seems. Too bad for them. And no wonder Buddhist countries are hell holes.
  21. He acts like this idea that cooperatives work is new. Of course the work to a degree. Markets haven't been around forever, and a lot of stuff was done through a tribal model. Still doesn't mean that they are as good as markets.
  22. This is interesting. So if we tried to define thought without a mind we would have trouble because it would go something like Thought is an event which... Yeah there doesn't seem to be an event based account for thought or value.
  23. Well here is the thing, the whole argument of the Buddhists is that there is value without a valuer, and thought without a thinker. Are you saying that thought and value necessitate a valuer and thinker? Is this different than Cogito Ergo Sum?
×
×
  • Create New...