I'm an Objectivist. Debate me.

Not surprised that you would find this a great read...

 

No it doesn't

So God exists because of this science? Which God is it? Does that also mean the Flying Spaghetti Monster could exist too?

 

Just because Heisenberg can’t figure it out, just because some scientists are baffled by the laws of causality and identity, that doesn’t make reality non-reality. They are just really confused. They’d be smart to re-examine their fundamental premises and discover their errors.

 

Insanity? Delusions? Hallucinations? Is there any wonder the world is lost in a constant flow of blood when a simple axiom as "Existence exists" is considered subjective wishfulness? Well, try having a surgeon who doesn't believe reality is real operate on your most precious love--and then pray for that which is not real, a miracle.

 

Wow. This doesn't say anything except: I hate Ayn Rand because she's right. You know, usually humans are afraid of that which they don't understand; Dorthy Parker shows she understands perfectly, and it terrifies her.

Ayn Rand: "The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law. The principle of man’s individual rights represented the extension of morality into the social system—as a limitation on the power of the state, as man’s protection against the brute force of the collective, as the subordination of might to right. The United States was the first moral society in history. All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself. The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary co-existence of individuals. All previous systems had held that man’s life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time. The United States held that man’s life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/america.html

Oh yeah, throw her books away... far away...very far away... before they hit too close to home.

 

No, it's government interference in the market place.

Power lusters, always want more. Every market failure is caused by government intervention in the market place; and every intervention breeds more regulation, which breeds more market failures; which breeds more regulation, until a man can't even buy a pack of gum without showing that he's wearing government approved clothes and shoes, that he drove to the store in a government approved vehicle on government paved roads, that he has the right government documentation which gives him permission to chew gum for just one hour--to help keep dental costs down--and on, and on, and on, until you want to scream and yank the government's ring from your nose and shove it up its ass.

Plantation slavery is not dead, it's alive and well in America--only it's the government that is the overseer, and the individual that is its slave, working hard to give the government even more of his life.

You keep believing nonsense; I'll keep fighting for capitalism.

 

Well, you would know.

 

Voluntairy--you don't pay, your house is on fire, you better have a supportive family and good friends because its going to burn, baby, Its going to burn.
You know: stupid is as stupid does.

 

Fighting fires is not an act of self-defense; fire has no consciousness. Uncontrolled fires are either an act of nature, an act of error, or an act of stupidity. The purpose of government is to protect your rights from being forcefully violated by another. There is no exception or special treatment. It is what it is.

It is not the government's role to protect you from mother nature, human error, or your own stupidity; its role is to protect your rights from being violated.

 

No, it says to find a better way than robbing and enslaving your citizens.

 

Oh you would love that. Let's not call a diamond, a diamond; and a cow pie, a cow pie. Hell, let's just do away with all conceptual thought. That way dictators won't be dictators; just misunderstood miscreants. Oh no. There I go using labels again. Damn.

 

Brilliant response. And spot on. Just great.

 

And when did Ayn Rand say every business will succeed in the market place? And where did Ayn Rand write that every person who uses reason will become the next Steve Jobs? What you write is just stupid. The basic principle Ayn Rand every preached was: if you want to fly to the moon, you better know how to think; because it ain't gonna happen by magic. You're just silly.

 

Are you objectively sure about that? Or just guessing because it feels good?

 

Capitalism didn't create the poor, nor the wretched, nor the ugly, nor the trite, nor the meaningless, it inherited them.

 

Yeah, you're right. She is really difficult to comprehend, and she lays a beautiful foundation for tyranny:

Ayn Rand: "Tyranny is any political system (whether absolute monarchy or fascism or communism) that does not recognize individual rights (which necessarily include property rights). The overthrow of a political system by force is justified only when it is directed against tyranny: it is an act of self-defense against those who rule by force. For example, the American Revolution."

Damn. What is she saying? I have the right to be free? That my life is mine to live? And the good is to live it in pursuit of my own happiness? Talk about wannabee tyrants: WTF! The frigging bitch. Next, she'll be telling me that my only moral absolute is to live my life to the best of my ability for the good that I am, so that I may enjoy the happiness I've earned. How horrendously horrible.

Burn that witch in effigy, and her evil books for real, now. Help save Mankind by crucifying Man...well, at least Ayn Rand's vision of him, yes?

 

Communism: I have a gun; your life belongs to me. Obey or die.
Socialism: I have the mob; your life belongs to me. Obey or die
Capitalism: Your life is yours; live it to the best of your ability. Oh, be free and happy.

See, it's not hard.

 

This is what they hate--the looters, the moochers, the whiners, the parasites, the thugs, the murderers of the only true Holiest of Holies, the inviolable Human Spirit, the unconquered hero in each of us. And therefore, it must be fought for, forever--if human existence is to prosper and flourish:

Ayn Rand:"The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness—which means: the values required for man’s survival qua man—which means: the values required for human survival—not the values produced by the desires, the emotions, the “aspirations,” the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifices, have never discovered an industrial society and can conceive of no self-interest but that of grabbing the loot of the moment.

The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value."
http://aynrandlexicon.com/searchresults/index.html?cx=013104633629966810561:g5jt9ka8qre&cof=FORID:11&q=don't+let+it+go

Thanks, Appleo, for the likes--and don't let the naysayers beat you. In other words, to quote Miss Rand: "...don't let it go"​

 

As contingent beings, we approach certainty via the exclusion processes, AKA the scientific processes, wherein doubt is removed by testing. The closest thing that we will ever have to proof positive is experimental repeatability.

It's not so much that ideas are really ever proved to me as it is that all of the other ideas that I have considered have been, to my satisfaction, disproved. Whatever remains is what I am left to believe, then that's tested, and so on, and so on.

To answer your question directly, I am not "objectively sure about that"; I am currently left to believe that.

 

Hmmm. A fan of the Theater of the Absurd, I suppose.

 

Already? Come on man. That's so … You retreat to ad hominin after what, three posts? Weak dude, weak.

 

Gibberish is gibberish. What did you expect? A link to OMC’s How Bizarre?

 

Noted, starjet, noted. I won't expect anything other than the standard you've set young man. I won't expect anything more than that from you.

 

You are welcome.

And I expected people to disagree and to argue without a clue of what they're talking about.

 

Just be sure to read the other philosophers you are talking about and find the truth in each. Rand got many things wrong -- we just saw her inconsistencies in ethics and her epistemological ideas are based on the completely anti-scientific notion of tabla rasa and the at-least-questionable notion of direct realism. Take the good she has to offer, but don't forget to trim the bad. I'm partial to Nozick myself and I think his ethical ideas are much better argued, but see for yourself.