Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'value'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Introductions and Local Forums
    • Introductions and Personal Notes
    • Local Forums
  • Philosophy
    • Questions about Objectivism
    • Metaphysics and Epistemology
    • Ethics
    • Political Philosophy
    • Aesthetics
  • Culture
    • Current Events
    • Books, Movies, Theatre, Lectures
    • Productivity
    • Intellectuals and the Media
  • Science and the Humanities
    • Science & Technology
    • Economics
    • History
    • Psychology and Self Improvement
  • Intellectual Activism and Study Groups
    • Activism for Reason, Rights, Reality
    • Study/Reading Groups
    • Marketplace
    • The Objectivism Meta-Blog Discussion
  • Miscellaneous Forums
    • Miscellaneous Topics
    • Recreation and The Good Life
    • Work, Careers and Money
    • School, College and Child development
    • The Critics of Objectivism
    • Debates
  • The Laboratory
    • Ask Jenni
    • Books to Mind – Stephen Boydstun
    • Dream Weaver's Allusions
    • The Objectivist Study Groups
    • Eiuol's Investigations
  • About Objectivism Online
    • Website Policy and Announcements
    • Help and Troubleshooting

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL





Other Public-visible Contact Info



Chat Nick

Interested in meeting

Real Name

Digg Nick


Experience with Objectivism

School or University


Found 6 results

  1. I've had a significant epiphany recently which drives focus toward clarifying and defining the Value of Attention. It has been with me, all my life, in the background, subconsciously. I am making effort to bring it into full focus. The Value of Attention. When I make a work of art I improve the value of my own attention, I improve the value of my attention toward the world, I improve the value of the attention the world has toward me. When I have seen a very good film, and find a friend capable of exploring the depths of the abstractions present in the work, my friend and I improve the value of our attention toward the work and toward one another. What are your thoughts about the way Attention relates to volition?
  2. Since this is being discussed in many places and by many persons, I thought I'd start a new thread for discussion using some great free reference material: The Objectivist Ethics by Ayn Rand from the Virtue of Selfishness (VOS) is free to read and listen to on aynrand.org https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1961/01/01/the-objectivist-ethics/page1 https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1961/01/01/the-objectivist-ethics/page2 https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1961/01/01/the-objectivist-ethics/page3 https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1961/01/01/the-objectivist-ethics/page4 https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1961/01/01/the-objectivist-ethics/page5 https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1961/01/01/the-objectivist-ethics/page6 Page one features a radio version read by Ayn herself, and a Q&A session of a separate radio program in which she answered questions on the subject. Once we all have a chance to read and listen to the above as well as listen to the Q&A. I'd like to open the floor with a few questions aimed at a critical analysis of her ethics: Is the Objectivist ethics too "narrow" or "impoverished" due to its standard being man's survival qua man? Would a man necessarily live a lesser life by its adoption? Are there any alternatives to the Objective ethics which also qualify as objective and are also absolutely based on the facts of reality? Should one choose an ethics different from the Objectivist Ethics, and why? (based on what standard or reason)
  3. I would like to know if I am understanding this concept correctly. When it comes to objectivism it is my understanding that when determining how to deal with or interact with people you must first determine how much or to what extent you value said person. From my perspective I value my own life as well as my wife and my son's lives the most, followed by my parents, my wife's parents, friends, extended family members, people I know on down to strangers as having the least value to me. If two people ask me to do something that would occur at the same time and one is my mother and one is a friend I will help my mother because I value her more than the friend. If I can save my wife or a stranger then I will save my wife. Following this rubric I should feel no compunction about not helping or saving the person I value least. Don't get me wrong I feel all people have value as a default and through their actions either increase or decrease their value. If I am correct, however, when I make a decision concerning who to help or how to treat someone it is based upon my opinion of that person's value to me. Please let me know if I am correct, moving in the right direction or completely wrong. Thanks.
  4. I am somewhat new to objectivism and would like to get some feed back on whether or not I am understanding something. In my reading of Rand, Peikoff and Biddle, I have come across the concept of the Heirarchy of Value. This is how the individual values the world around them and establishes the import of said things. My heirarchy of value is as follows: 1. Life 2. Freedom 3. Wealth 4. Happiness Obviously life relates to my own life and the lives of those I value. The same can be said for freedom and wealth. Happiness is a catch-all. Is this heirarchy to vague? I know that by saying "Happiness" the whole category is vague but am I heading in the right direction. Any feed back would be appreciated. Sergius
  5. Well, I'm new here and of course, I have some questions. (I've only just begun the 3rd part of 'Atlas Shrugged') First, in an ideal society how is the free market regulated? Hypothetical Situation : Suppose there is great demand for a commodity that has not yet been invented but is being actively researched. One team finds the answer (while others are close), patents the product and sets an exorbitant price for it as well. Now the problem is, is it ethical for them to do so? They would get a lot of money but do they deserve it? Even though they worked for it, aren't they making more than should have? (I have the same questions regarding the patenting of 'Rearden Metal'. Sure, he should have been the only person collecting money for it in the beginning, but after he received a specific sum for his achievents, the patent should have expired [it seemed Rearden had no intention of it]). In such a case, where competition is effectively eliminated, how is money regulated? When patents are absent the situation gets worse, the original inventor would get little or no money. (Basically how is the money value for work determined?) Secondly, from the point of view of an objectivist, it is our 'need' that the rest of the society functions according to our moral code (because an individual cannot make any money in a rogue society by just means and would probably not survive if he follows his own ideals). So we 'need' others to change as per our requirement. So this would mean we are holding others based on our needs, aren't we? (I know I am wrong but I dont know how to put it) Also how do we change others anyway?
  6. Hey all, Whats is the point of changing one's values and overall philosophy in life, if one's sense of life has been miserable for many years? When man's emotional reactions to the world are fear, hate, guilt etc. and it's hard or even impossible to change the sense of life. So what the point of recreating ones's values trying live a happy life when the underlying emotions are always negative and may never change? Thanks, D
  • Create New...