Reply to Re: Are there any Objectivists out here?
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Subjective reality does not exist. Only OBJECTIVE reality, ie that which actually exists can exist, nothing else. so if subjective reality is defined to be different, then by definition it does not exist, and cannot.
Intuition cannot impart knowledge. One someone acts quicly as you say, their mind acts on knowledge they have (which they might not consciously recall they have) and then they act. Noone can act do something they have no idea how to do, eithear they know from the start how to do it, or they figure it out quickly.
there is not a part of the brain which gives someone ways to do things out of thin air. it has to come from somewhere, ie knowledge.
The nature of human kind derives from his OBJECTIVE NATURE. That he is a being of violational conscioussnes, he chooses his actions, and whether or not to think (which is the fundamental human choice). All those factors you mentioned are decided by reality, what really happens, ie objective reality. Not a reality subject to human whim, not subjective reality.
Free will means that one must make their own decisions. Everything we do, our brain has decided to do. Even when we are physically bullied into doing something ,we still choose to do it, I mean we COULD choose the consequences of not doing so, even choosing to be shoot is a choice, an exercise of free will. Noone is a puppet, if their mind doesnt make decisions, they are essentially an empty shell. Your mind makes those decisions, someone else doesnt steal your decision making ability and do it for you.
Free will is unavoidable.
Rational self interest is NOT every man for himself. That is not rational behaviour, largely because normally because you will be punished severly for doing this.
Anarchy, which is what you are suggesting, can never be in ones best interest, nor is acting in a way that harms others just to get what you want.
How does your bit about murder refute my claims? Of course someone has a purpose for murder, even if it is abit hazy for them. But unless it is objectively reasoned out, it is not justified, it is just wrong dressed as a justification.
Physical force is not toobe taken totally literally here. to make someone do something against their will, you must force them, and if they refuse, you must make them fear imprisonment, violence or etc. Generally if someone knows their actions will have no real consequences, or that the person trying to make you do something wont really do anything physical (ie use more than mere words) then they wont change their behaviour.
an experience is not art. Art is physical, or at least ohservable as equivalent to a physical object (say an image on a computer screen perhaps). Art is a recreation, not something that happens to you. So calling it an expereince is nonsensical.
It might though be an expereince in the sense that the creation theject is an exploration for the artist of their value judgements.
Do i get the prize for the longest entirely self written post on the network? lol
Intuition cannot impart knowledge. One someone acts quicly as you say, their mind acts on knowledge they have (which they might not consciously recall they have) and then they act. Noone can act do something they have no idea how to do, eithear they know from the start how to do it, or they figure it out quickly.
there is not a part of the brain which gives someone ways to do things out of thin air. it has to come from somewhere, ie knowledge.
The nature of human kind derives from his OBJECTIVE NATURE. That he is a being of violational conscioussnes, he chooses his actions, and whether or not to think (which is the fundamental human choice). All those factors you mentioned are decided by reality, what really happens, ie objective reality. Not a reality subject to human whim, not subjective reality.
Free will means that one must make their own decisions. Everything we do, our brain has decided to do. Even when we are physically bullied into doing something ,we still choose to do it, I mean we COULD choose the consequences of not doing so, even choosing to be shoot is a choice, an exercise of free will. Noone is a puppet, if their mind doesnt make decisions, they are essentially an empty shell. Your mind makes those decisions, someone else doesnt steal your decision making ability and do it for you.
Free will is unavoidable.
Rational self interest is NOT every man for himself. That is not rational behaviour, largely because normally because you will be punished severly for doing this.
Anarchy, which is what you are suggesting, can never be in ones best interest, nor is acting in a way that harms others just to get what you want.
How does your bit about murder refute my claims? Of course someone has a purpose for murder, even if it is abit hazy for them. But unless it is objectively reasoned out, it is not justified, it is just wrong dressed as a justification.
Physical force is not toobe taken totally literally here. to make someone do something against their will, you must force them, and if they refuse, you must make them fear imprisonment, violence or etc. Generally if someone knows their actions will have no real consequences, or that the person trying to make you do something wont really do anything physical (ie use more than mere words) then they wont change their behaviour.
an experience is not art. Art is physical, or at least ohservable as equivalent to a physical object (say an image on a computer screen perhaps). Art is a recreation, not something that happens to you. So calling it an expereince is nonsensical.
It might though be an expereince in the sense that the creation theject is an exploration for the artist of their value judgements.
Do i get the prize for the longest entirely self written post on the network? lol
