Objectivism Online Recent Forum Posts Recent Posts http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:15:21 -0500 30 Objectivism Online Recent Forum Posts http://s88515748.onlinehome.us/objectivismonline/forum/style_images/1/logo4.gif http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php Read HBL for Free http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16859 Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:18:14 -0500 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16859 Jonas Salk and the polio vaccine http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16836
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Salk

The excerpt that caught my eye was this: "In 1947, Salk accepted an appointment to the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. While working there, with the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, Salk saw an opportunity to develop a vaccine against polio, and devoted himself to this work for the next eight years. The field tests Salk set up were, according to O'Neill, "the most elaborate program of its kind in history, involving 20,000 physicians and public health officers, 64,000 school personnel, and 220,000 volunteers." When news of the discovery was made public on April 12, 1955, Salk was hailed as a "miracle worker," and the day "almost became a national holiday." He further endeared himself to the public by refusing to patent the vaccine, as he had no desire to profit personally from the discovery, but merely wished to see the vaccine disseminated as widely as possible."

Salk seems to fit the definition of one of the "Men of the Mind" based on his work and ability to achieve that which others had failed. The development and distribution of the vaccine was not carried out using a capitalist model, but through a combination of voluntary charity (March of Dimes) and taxpayer dollars. Was Salk wrong in not patenting his discovery? Was the non-profit distribution an example of altruism and sacrifice?

I wouldn't feed an adult who refused to work or claimed his right to exist without labor, but I have difficulty embracing the same stance with regard to children. In the first case, a being of volitional conciousness makes an irrational choice and deservedly suffers for it. Yet children have no choice when it comes to the character of their parents and it strikes me as a waste of human potential to not vaccinate infants who cannot pay. I've read AS and am currently working my way through Selfishness & Capitalism. Is there an objectivist essay somewhere that speaks to the topic of children should be treated in society?

]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:25:56 -0500 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16836 The new Dihydrogen Monoxide http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16858
It's an old joke/hoax, but it has prompted the clueless to sign petitions urging government to ban water. So I wonder, can we do the exact opposite for another compound?

Let's see, we begin by lisitng all the wonderful thigns it can do:

It helps plants grow, in fact plants die if it's not present.
It can put out fires all by itself
It adds sensory enhancement to certain drinks, both alcoholic and non-alcoholic
It's used in the manufacture of many useful chemicals, such as carblic acid.
It exists freely in nature and it's easy and heap to obtain.

This would be followed by claims the government wants you to do without it.

Aything else?
]]> Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:58:13 -0500 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16858 Cap and Trade http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16854 ]]> Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:13:00 -0500 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16854 The July 4th Tea Parties http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16806 ]]> Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:57:56 -0500 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16806 The existence of God argued rationally http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16776
If the universe has always existed, then it had no beginning which means an infinite amount of time has elapsed up to now. In Thermodynamics, the Law of Entropy states that in any closed system, entropy increases with time (it goes into a state of maximum disorder). The universe is a closed system (there is no external input of energy) which means that with enough time, matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity (i.e. the universe dies). Thermodynamics laws also state that heat always moves from a higher temperature to a lower one and energy therefore degrades from the highest form (nuclear) to the lowest form (internal energy). You cannot reverse this process without an external input of energy which once exhausted means it will no longer be possible to do any work. So if the universe has always been there, we should not be having this debate right now.

The big bang theory which is derived from the doppler effect (clearly visible in the expansion of the universe which we observe using telescopes) shows there was a beginning of the universe about 15 billion years ago in which all matter was compressed into an infinitesimal speck (called a "singularity") that had infinite density. The singularity exploded, producing gargantuan amounts of energy, some of which formed matter and produced the universe as we know it. Questions:

1. Where did the singularity come from? Did it have a beginning? If not, then why did it stay as a singularity for an inifinite amount of time only to explode apparently without cause?
3. Does the universe support infinite existence or does everything have a beginning?
4. If God exists, did he/she have a beginnning? Who made him/her? And before him/her, an infinite regress of creational causality?

Creationists argue that life is too complex to have been a product of either chance or evolution. Ayn Rand talked about everything having an identity but she never explained WHY things are the way they are. To merely say "things are they way they are because of their nature" still begs the question. Why do we have two eyes at the front of our heads or such big brains or a spinal column that has several vertebrae (rather than one long bone)? Everything is just too perfect to have been a collection of random events, it is argued. Even a cell in the body is so complex and so efficient a machine that it appears to have all the characteristics of being designed by a designer (never mind a "simple" amoeba). As has been argued before, imagine finding a complex flying vehicle (car) on the planet Pluto and concluding that it is not possible that someone designed it.

I once read of some scientists that attempted to prove evolution as the explanation for the complexity of species by breeding insects exposed to radiation which multiplied the incidence of genetic mutations significantly (about one thousand times). The first generation had deformities (less wings, more legs, etc.) but by the fourth to fifth generation, the genetic code had repaired itself and there were healthy insects. Two people with a genetic defect can produce a perfect child. Evolution (natural selection) also does not seem to satisfactorily explain how a fish can turn into an elephant. There can be minor changes in the genetic code (e.g. skin colour) but a complete changing from one type of organism to another has never been proved, even by fossil evidence. e.g. to my knowledge, there has never been discovered a fossil of a giraffe with a shorter neck than the ones alive today and neither has any fossil been found of a human with half the brain size we have.

In any case, the Law of Entropy prevents evolution from one species into another via genetic mutations. Entropy produces chaos and not order. It requires intelligent energy input to produce a new speciess like the ones we make using genetic engineering or cross breeding. Just to produce a cross between a lion and a tiger took ten years of research and the best brains.

So, can we conclusively say God does not exist (and therefore did NOT create the universe) without running into contradictions?]]> Thu, 25 Jun 2009 06:09:47 -0500 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16776 <![CDATA[The most philosophically bad movies you've ever seen]]> http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16817
However, Bad Lieutenant plummets to new lows of altruist propaganda. A corrupt cop investigates the rape of a nun who forgives the offenders. He can't wrap his head around how such an atrocity can be forgiven but it gives him hope that he can be redeemed for his own scumbag life. He finds the rapists and after terrorizing them at gunpoint he gives them $30k that was intended for a gambling debt and a bus ticket out of town. At the end, the 'selfless hero' is shot to death by the gangsters he owed the money to.]]> Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:49:17 -0500 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16817 <![CDATA["Are you a Rand Cultist" quiz]]> http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16855
"Give yourself a point for every statement you agree with.

1) Ayn Rand is the greatest human being who has ever lived.

2) "Atlas Shrugged" is the greatest human achievement in the history of the world.

3) Ayn Rand, by virtue of her philosophical genius, is the supreme arbiter in any issue pertaining to what is rational, moral, or appropriate to man’s life on earth.

4) Acceptance of Objectivist epistemology is essential to mankind's future survival on earth.

5) Immanuel Kant is the most evil person who has ever lived.

6) Immanuel Kant deliberately set out to cause the Nazi Holocaust.

7) Nathaniel and Barbara Branden are only slightly less immoral than Immanuel Kant.

8) James Valliant's book "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics" is a profound, brilliantly argued expose of the above.

9) Modern physics, such as Einstein's theories, are philosophically corrupt and must be urgently replaced by a new physics based on Ayn Rand's epistemology.

10) Words have "true" meanings that are only available to superior Objectivist philosophers, whose job it is to inform those in lesser disciplines, such as scientists, of these true meanings. Where these special true Objectivist meanings clash with conventional dictionary meanings, those conventions are false and corrupt.

11) Ayn Rand invented a new, Objectivist super-logic which incorporates the standard bi-valent logic formalised by Aristotle, yet dramatically improves on it, solving among other issues Hume's problem of induction.

12) Ayn Rand is the only true Objectivist that ever lived, and will ever live. Everyone else is merely a student of Objectivism.


0 points = Congratulations, you are an Ayn Rand fan who while rightly inspired by her vision of productivity, reason, and human achievement is nonetheless sensible enough to have avoided her various cultic incitements.

1-6 points = Amber light: definite Randroid tendencies. However, this may be avoided by taking a suitably hard-nosed approach to her work, especially in epistemology and human nature where her defective theories are most evident to the critical eye.

7-12 points = Ultra-Randroid, and proud of it. You are welcome to debate with us here at the ARCHNblog (despite the fact you would be giving your sanction to our evil by doing so) but to be honest you'd be better off talking to a deprogrammer."]]> Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:45:59 -0500 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16855 Freedom is the Ultimate Political Value http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16848
Similarly, autonomy and self-rule are governmental goods and values which a given society finds very much worth having. And it's even worth while for that civilization to enjoy non-violation of their national soverignty and non-interference in their internal affairs by non-citizens.

But none of these political goods and values are anywhere near as important as freedom. In the life of the person and his nation, none are remotely as central and pivotal as liberty, justice, and individual rights.

Thus if some strange and hateful "foreign devils" decide to brutally smash another nation's democracy, republic, autonomy, and self-rule into the ground, while grossly violating their national soverignty, and interferring in their internal affairs, this shocking act may or may not be a true political and socio-economic evil. If the invaders -- no matter how distantly alien --do all this in a way which enhances the individual liberty of the given politiy -- and doesn't exact a large practical price in the process -- then this is a governmental good. The "bloody foreigners" have a right to do so, and the former local rulers and their supporters, in turn, have no right to complain. Certainly they have no right to militarily oppose them.

These external invaders can and should take their alien political values and "force them down their throats." If the foreigners' standards, ideas, and ideals are sufficiently superior to those they seek to replace -- and their imperialist behavior constitutes an act of overall liberation -- then they have the right to impose them upon the less civilized locals.

The fact that in the process these invaders trashed the democracy, crushed the republic, stomped upon their autonomy, and obliterated their self-rule is irrelevant. So too if the unwanted and even hated outsiders wantonly violated their national soverignty and relentlessly interfered in their internal affairs.

The simple fact is the locals have no right to violate the rights of their coevals. They enjoy no freedom to suppress the freedom of their brothers. No matter how properly and legitimately the local tyrants rule by some minor standards, they aren't allowed to set up or maintain a slave state. The supreme value of individual liberty forbids this. The absolute and untouchable right to freedom, justice, and individual rights forbids this.

Indeed, if a bunch of foreign devils and outside invaders decide to free some suffering nation, and they don't do appreciable damage in the process, the non-citizen aliens have every right to do so. The overwhelming reality is no political good is superior -- or even close to -- that of freedom. No social and economic value is superior -- or even close to -- that of liberty, justice, and individual rights.]]> Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:28:58 -0500 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16848 <![CDATA[The "other" ARI]]> http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16799
http://perceivingreality.com/]]> Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:22:31 -0500 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16799 Objectivism and circumcision? http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16828
I know Rand never mentioned it, specifically, unless I somehow missed it. But there should still be some interpretations or guidelines with respect to reality, rationality, rights, etc, which can help guide this decision.

Personally, I think it's disgusting. It's religious barbarianism meant to cut man down. It's a violation of rights. It's a sin against the greatness of man to mutilate his body in a way which may humble him until he dies.

If I may say so, I hope if anyone here has a male (or female) child, they will not follow these religious traditions and end this crime against man's ego. Thank you.

]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:02:29 -0500 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16828 The Fallacy of Composition http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16853 ) . Then I read about the fallacy of composition.

I will be taking philosophy this coming fall and would like to be able to defend free will (presumably) from the professor in front of the class. This means I need to understand my argument inside and out. I looked up free will with respect to the fallacy of composition and found surprisingly few links to choose from. In "An Essay on Free Will" by Peter Van Inwagen (via google books) there is a quoted passage which it appears Van Inwagen is going to refute:

QUOTE
To say that if all the parts of a system are determined then the whole system is determined is not to commit the fallacy of composition, for determinism is clearly the sort of property that "carries over" from parts to whole.


Unfortunately, this quote inside of the paper is at the end of the page and google books is missing the next page. This reasoning does seem sound to me. There has never been an example of a system (as far as I am aware) where determinism hasn't "carried over" from parts to whole. The fallacy of composition seems to arise from ignoring the relationships between the parts of the system. In this case, determinism is the relationship.

Is the fallacy of composition not a proper refutation of this oh so common determinist argument?
help.]]> Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:51:00 -0500 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16853 Art competition http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16731

Advantages of participating

Self-esteem wise, it would make me proud to participate, to push my skills and to earn the prizes I want (art and educational materials) with the skills I value and want to be valued for. It would be earning things with the work I want to do.

The idea I would want to participate with is very personal and to have it "avenged" if I won would feel great. It could also encourage me to move on with my personal project, since there would be people who I would know to have genuine interest in it.

Fears of participating

There's prizes in the list, such as massive exposure, that I'm not quite ready for. I don't have a career or even a portfolio of work to show. If I won, I would feel naked or like a fraud.

There's a high risk of loosing, since many artists with far better creativity and skill, at a professional level, will participate.

Because the work is personal and precious it would feel crushing to have it rejected.

Disadvantages of not participating

Inactivity. Not doing anything to improve my situation. Not knowing if I could have won.]]> Mon, 22 Jun 2009 01:13:28 -0500 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16731 Relaxation as productivity? http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16797 Quick question about the virtue of productivity. If productivity is defined as doing that which brings you value, could relaxation be productive too since you need to recover from the day sometimes and recharges you for later? That seems to make sense to me, so no question really. Came this far, mine as well post it. So, is relaxation productivity? Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:53:37 -0500 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16797 <![CDATA[Big Bang & Genesis]]> http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=548
I would like to know your opinions on this topic.

Scientists and others refute Creationism for may reasons but one of the reasons is that "something from nothing" is contrary to the laws of physics.

Lemaitre proposed the Big Bang theory and later it was "confirmed" by Hubble. However, at "time zero" or "singularity", supposedly, the mathematical model that explains the Big Bang theory disintegrates. The mathematical explanation implies that the Big Bang is probable and only that. Probable. IF (I am no mathematician) this is true, at time zero, something came from nothing and create this universe?

IS creationism and Big Bang theory are similar? I am not saying that they are the same but similar.

I am very interested in your thoughts on this.

Q]]> Tue, 06 Apr 2004 15:59:31 -0500 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=548 <![CDATA[Is Objectivism's political philosophy subsumed by Right-Politics.]]> http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16636
I've already stated why this is not so. I'd like to add that Rand never, to my knowledge, aligned herself with the right wing. She mocked the libertarians as the hippies of the Right, and made precisely clear her feelings toward conservatives as being far worse than the modern liberals. I couldn't possibly align myself with 90% of the people on the Right of politics, and the 10% remaining would have to be weeded through.]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:17:55 -0500 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16636 Objectivist adultery http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16847
If you were married to an Objectivist and he/she commited adultery what would you do? Is this a deal breaker? Can your spouse still claim to be an Objectivist? I realize that I am leaving out the context so PM me if you would like more detail. I could really use the advice...

Thanks.]]> Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:27:11 -0500 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16847 Who Was The Greatest Military Leader Of All Time? http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=2095
I say it was Ghengis Khan, the way the planned attacks and used communication and won battles mainly with light infantry and with much smaller forces and made the largest empire in history surely makes him one of the best.

Sure they didnt really spread civilization, but this thread is not about that. Im just strictly talking about military matters.]]> Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:36:01 -0600 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=2095 John Stossel http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16798 http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/2009/...020_stossel_hed

One of the first major commentators to blow the whistle on things like the eco's some 5 years ago. He's been fawed over by the conservatives. He seems to be some kind od libertarian]]> Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:58:28 -0500 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16798 An Israel Appreciation Thread http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16851
I thought I'd start by posting some music I love from the country.

Sivan Shavit is an excellent singer I first learned about thru the film "Walk on Water" here. I swear it took my a year to find it tongue.gif

Ivri Lider, a prominent gay Israeli does some awesome dance music.

So, post your own thumbsup.gif]]> Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:08:45 -0500 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=16851