Objectivism Online Recent Forum Posts Recent Posts http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:14:56 -0600 30 Objectivism Online Recent Forum Posts http://s88515748.onlinehome.us/objectivismonline/forum/style_images/1/logo4.gif http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php Objectivistic graphics http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14591



The first one accidentally got lossily compressed on a flash drive and I lost the good version, so its grainy.]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:51:44 -0600 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14591 <![CDATA[America's Financial Mess]]> http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=13792 decade due to government "help."

Would the economy really have a "melt-down" if Bear Stearns, Shearson Lehman, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, AIG, and all the rest were allowed to go bankrupt? I don't believe it. It seems to me like all these bad companies would just be sold off to good companies! Maybe they would then only be worth 80 cents on the dollar or so -- but the problem would be solved! As far as I know, the housing market is almost the only difficulty here, and it's just going to fall 20% or thereabout. So I say: Let it! "Hands off!" and "Laissez-faire!"

I think we desperately need a competent Objectivist economist here. I understand very little of what's going on today economically but...I have a truly sick feeling inside neither does anybody else. Especially not President George Bush, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson! The Three Stooges seem like they're gonna kill us. Help!]]> Wed, 17 Sep 2008 01:52:05 -0500 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=13792 Hopton Buffett http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14562 The Fountainhead the other day and came across this passage.

QUOTE
Hopton Stoddard had a genius for investment; he invested in everything -- houses of ill fame, Broadway spectacles on the grand scale, preferably of a religious nature, factories, farm mortgages and contraceptives. He was small and bent. His face was not disfigured; people merely thought it was because it had a single expression; he smiled. His little mouth was shaped like a v in eternal good cheer; his eyebrows were tiny v's inverted over round, blue eyes; his hair, rich, white and waved, looked like a wig, but was real.

]]> Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:16:19 -0600 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14562 Free Riders http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14287
My reasoning follows this path.

If an Objectivist Doctor or hospital/clinic was presented with a patient who had been in a car accident, but had no identification and there was no way to tell if he had medical coverage (insurance) would the ethical course of action not be to treat the patient regardless?

If that is indeed the case would it not follow that some people would game the system in that way?

Also, if the most destitute person could not afford healthcare but became ill and was brought to the hospital, ethically wouldn't it be proper to treat him or her regardless of their ability to pay?]]> Sat, 25 Oct 2008 13:37:39 -0500 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14287 The primacy of existence over identity. http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14551
I've been considering, don't we need a state of comparison for things that simply are, before we can judge elements as either true or false? Like, "Existence exists" can be restated as "Existence is that for which there is no logical reversal". An entity has a logical reversal, but existence does not. Does that make sense?

Here's another one: To give something universal form is to give it identity. Identity is dependent upon laws for entities. So while existence is not prohibited from not having entities, it is prohibited from having a lack of entities as a universal form. So entities exist.

A strong identity principle (IE one with noncontradiction) requires entities, since these are precicely those things IN existence that have a logical reversal. Yet the weak identity principle simply relates existence with universal form. (And I don't mean that in a platonic sense.) Furthermore, a universal identity (ie one with an excluded middle) requires an exhastion of entities, else to not be something isn't to be anything else.

So, A is A (the law of identity without a 'not' predicate) depends upon some fact of existence, but that fact itself is taken in relation to existence itself. Noncontradiction is taken in relation to the logical reversability of entities, and how no entity both exists and doesn't exist, although there is an option for entities. The excluded middle is simply saying that there is an exhastion method for entities, so that to not be something is to be something else, ANYTHING else, including possibly the conjunction of all other things, as long as this conjunction doesn't include the thing that it is not.

Does this make sense?]]> Sat, 15 Nov 2008 19:01:42 -0600 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14551 Our Enemies Our Emboldened? http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14589
Yeah right. That's why Al-Qaeda is calling Obama a "House negro" and insisting that the attacks be kept up.


http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idU...0081119?sp=true

]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:25:22 -0600 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14589 <![CDATA[Lee Sandstead's Art Attack]]> http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14588
http://www.travelchannel.com/Video_&_P...upId=2550966001


Note to Mods: I wanted to distinguish this post from the Dallas event post on Sandstead, but if you want to merge it with that one, feel free)]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:23:39 -0600 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14588 Supercomputers! http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14585
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11...rcomputers.html]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:04:40 -0600 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14585 How do you know if you are happy? http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=9219
First, I want to know how someone is supposed know that they are happy, as opposed to being just temporarily excited, pleasured, or content? And can you identify others who are happy, and how?

Also, I want to know if there is a common link to certain behaviors when a person is happy. Do all happy people act similar with their behavior? For instance, are all happy people social people -- do they gain a more noticeable desire to interact with others?

As a more intimate question, how do you personally act when you are happy?

Feel free to take a stab at any of those. Any comments are appreciated.]]> Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:28:49 -0500 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=9219 Reaffirmation Through Denial http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14592
I'm looking at you especially, Thomas! biggrin.gif]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 05:29:51 -0600 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14592 Voting Felons http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14449
Should convicted felons be given the right to vote?

Personally, I think not. The point of a prison system is to remove individuals from society. Giving them a voice in the running of it kind of defeats the point.
Just wondering what your opinions on this were, and what philosophic/moral/political value I could use to go pro/con (our sides are chosen for us).
Thanks!]]> Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:31:52 -0600 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14449 Which way is the right way to ensure property rights? http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14564
Doesn't Capitalism rely on government to define what can be property or not and what measures must be taken to get this property?

Even granted that you get to keep property you DO acquire, doesn't government have to step in and say "no, that's the wrong way to make property of something, we won't defend it" and "yes, that's the right way to make property of something, we will defend it"?

In other words, isn't the free market dependent on an infrastructure that is based on one particular concept for property aquisition in order for property protection to occur? How do we ensure that the concept is the correct one? If it isn't correct then isn't the government violating people's rights by denying people who WERE correct about the concept the proper deed to what is rightfully theirs?]]> Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:05:08 -0600 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14564 The Objectivist State as a Hobbesian minarchy http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14583 Leviathan predicts such degeneration in the absence of a government with absolute sovereignty over its subjects. A Lockean state, of the classically liberal flavor that Rand asserted would be based in "self-ownership", implies a population composed of individuals who, in their state of nature, would be peaceful and productive; the state is perhaps useful but not essential, and by implication, anarchy is a viable alternative to coercive government. Looters, Locke implies, would not run roughshod over the creators.

This is nonsense. States necessarily commit themselves to the preservation of a certain order for their societies; in the case of an Objectivist-led administration, that order is capitalism. A state cannot commit itself to the defense of "inalienable rights" and then assert that inalienabilities are forfeit with the commission of a crime.

The Objectivist state, as an agent of the capitalist order, is not a "necessarily evil" but an indispensable servant. Your family and a murderous gangster are kept separate not by mutually respected, inherent priveleges, but by the guns of the police force. Is it immoral for the state to violate a criminal's right to liberty by imprisoning him? Of course not; hauling a destructive barbarian away from the stuff he wants to destroy is a legitimately violent affirmation of the capitalist order by the agents of that order.

As long as our heroes stand tall enough that smaller men may hide in their shadows, we shall need a state, and we shall need to make sure that state is powerful enough that all the looters in the world could not smash what capitalism has given the world.]]> Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:51:14 -0600 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14583 <![CDATA[Obama's Well Armed Civilian Force]]> http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14453
Civilian National Security Force:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s...feature=related

This is the stuff of dictatorships. In America he is proposing THIS? Where is the attendant outrage? Where is the concern for our freedoms?
]]> Fri, 07 Nov 2008 09:37:21 -0600 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14453 Ability http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14518
In the area of web design that has to do with coding, all agree that one must learn, must learn hard and be consistent in the effort in order to understand and progress. People experience how long it takes to get good at this task. Of course the same effort must be applied in learning the visual aspects, the branding, the imagery, colors.

As a student of Objectivism I know that all humans are born without any knowledge, tabula rasa, that all things we know we have chosen to learn. That is the case also with artistic knowledge of course.

And here is where I get into the debates with people. I would say that 95% of the people I try to teach will in the end claim that they will never get good at this because they were not born with an innate ability. The claim is that I must have been born with artistic ability, only for me to discover and train a little bit to enhance later on. They have erected a wall around the process of learning because of this belief in inborn talent. I would also say that a large part of these people took this idea because it is so commonly accepted as truth and such a convenient excuse not to go through the long years of learning. Talent is their favorite term for this perceived inborn ability. I detest this term because it has become to mean (to me) inborn. Is that an irrational reaction on my part?

I have almost given up trying to convince them that they can achieve a solid level of ability in this field of visual design if they only put the same effort into the learning as they have done with all other things they know well. I have no way of braking down the wall because of the belief they have. I was able to convince some and the result is visible in their work now, but that does not convince the believers in the innate, they assume instantly that the ones that have improved their skills now were also born with this ability, but that it had been dormant.

"You are so gifted" is a widely used phrase, often meant as a compliment, but underlying this is total ignorance how one becomes this "gifted" person. This mouthing (not thinking) is most often applied to abilities of the artistic kind: writing, painting, sculpture, dance, music, etc. I have not seen this in other areas of knowledge as much. It would be interesting for me to find out from the members on this forum if this assumption of innate ability is made to this extent in other fields of expertise as well.

I thought this could turn into an interesting discussion.]]> Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:47:33 -0600 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14518 James Clavell http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14280
Today, I came across his wikipedia entry, which contains this:

QUOTE
Politically, Clavell was said to have been an ardent individualist, anti-fascist and proponent of laissez-faire capitalism, as many of his books' heroes exemplify.

Clavell admired Ayn Rand, founder of the Objectivist school of philosophy, and sent Ayn Rand a copy of Noble House in 1981 inscribed: "This is for Ayn Rand—one of the real, true talents on this earth for which many, many thanks. James C, New York, 2 Sept 81."
]]> Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:55:16 -0500 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14280 The Axioms. http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14154
Perhaps I'm missing something. Or perhaps, she cleverly allows other people to expose their philosophy, and she finds a point where her axioms are thus validated by their philosophy. Or perhaps she somehow knows that all philosophers who 'got it right' at least somewhat eventually found their way to the axioms. Or perhaps it was her unique insights, such as the connection between math and philosophy, or her 'fallacy of the stolen concept', which she planned on using and thus opened a gateway to the axioms for her.

I could go on and on, but I could never exhaust all of the possibilities. I myself am hoping to develop a branch of critical thinking which pertains to all human knowledge that exists whether or not it is certain. In this way I could work on math constructs and then use them in philosophy.

I hope to use constructs such as my definitions of deduction and induction, where induction means "You know one of these things is true... figure out what is true if any of these things is true" and deduction means "You know all of these things is true... figure out what is true if all of these things are true" and where logic is general enough to be used without EXPLICIT use of an axiom. When I say that I don't mean no axiom is possible. Nor do I mean that any axiom is possible. Actually I start with a requirement of a 'gray box' scenario. Black box means starting with no knowledge. White box means starting with all knowledge. Gray box means starting with any/some knowledge, the collection of which is neither complete nor consistent, meaning we must make additions and/or subtractions.

I hope to start from here and refine what an axiom means first before capitulating myself into a situation where I need an axiom. I may need a special kind of premise, yes, but I think I have given that by the requirement of non-emptiness and non-omniscience for any philosophy to proceed. What are your thoughts?]]> Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:58:21 -0500 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14154 What Is The Greatest Ancient Civilization? http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=2087 I would say Greek civilization. They are unparalelled in the areas of math, science, and philosophy in the ancient world. Sun, 07 Nov 2004 18:21:11 -0600 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=2087 Personality Types (Meyer-Briggs) http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=3442 http://www.advisorteam.com/temperament_sor...er.asp?partid=1

the above link is for those who've never taken it. I've taken it a few times over the last year to see if i've progressed into something new, especially having read atlas shrugged, but found that i'm the same INTJ i always was. Upon further research, I found that Ayn Rand was also an INTJ, too. Was curious if there are others of this personality type on the board. My initial thoughts are that most people on this board will probably be either entj's or intj's. Anyways....thanks for the input.]]> Fri, 30 Jul 2004 10:21:35 -0500 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=3442 Left or Right? http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14577 Where would you say, if you were politically aware before Objectivism, did you fall in the political spectrum? Left? Right? Center? What kind of Leftist or Rightist were you? Typical Dem, Typical Republican, libertarian? All that jive.]]> Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:43:43 -0600 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14577