I deal with about 200 students per semester, over half of whom I have taught in a prior class. Of those, all will exposed to a little Objectivism from me, but as I am not teaching a philosophy class, unless they are seeing me for office hour help, they won't get a significant dose. Most of the students who come to Florida Tech already want to become producers. Some of these already know how, and are being polished. Many others need sanding first, and get it eventually.
Cheating scandals make a wonderful opportunity for presenting Objectivism. "No one gets to this place by faking reality in any way whatsoever." - John Galt.
My point is that it seems today that nothing is off the table when it comes to laws today. The majority does what it wants. We have a constitution but when it comes down to it, it's ignored. (Nsa, declaring wars, forcing you to buy health insurance. Etc)
Could even one in ten be persuaded by reason of the logic of objectivism you think? One in twenty? "Don't tease me, just please me." ~ Heard while drinking at the pool occupied by Tantalus.
-A student of Objectivism. Rand suggested that was all any of us would ever be. -Just because the military retirement fund is improperly set up does not make it an entitlement either. It is still earned. Although the amount and the time served to earn it could be debated, it is still a mutual agreement between an employee and an employer. Still earned. -Thank you for your service. -There is only 1 group of people in this country that we owe a debt to. Our veterans. -There is no, and can be no requirement, by the nature of Objectivism, to be an atheist in order to become an Objectivist. It is merely a result of learning, accepting and reflecting. I did not realize that I had become an atheist until I got involved in a debate with some family on facebook (of all places) and realized that I could no longer make my argument from a position of an agnostic. My wife still isn't there. Probably never will be.
-I also don't begrudge someone accepting social security (if they did pay into it) or even some forms of welfare/medicare/medicaid temporarily. In certain situations the system has been rigged to make it impossible not to.
Doesn't make me any less a soldier, even at my age. But the next time I pull the trigger I will decide and like Heinlein says if enough agree but if enough don't agree it isn't worth it.
a. I consider myself to be an Objectivist in training. b. I am not an atheist. c. If it's not funded such as military retirees pay it's an entitlement program. I left out the retiree. That was my fault. d. I do not go to church on Sunday worship the Prince of Peace and the go to war on Monday or as is most common go to work on Monday and spend six days breaking the rules screwing over people.
Instead when I went to war it was seven days a week and I would see those who started the war suddenly show up supporting the other side.
In any case I don't recall any requirement to be an atheist as part of becoming an objectivist so that's my next question. Where is it written? If it is a requirement it must be written somewhere. Or should I refer to myself as religious objectivist. No matter it's my individual choice. Just thought I asked.
I hook have the last of the books just ordered the newspaper colum book and started on the books with Rand and a co-author or about the subject by another author. (I might add over the years I have purchased and given to others two books. Atlas Shrugged over fifty and Where There Is No Doctor over two cases of those. More than any other.
I used to stand with a rifle in my hand and think 'Thank God for Ayn Rand.'
I still do.
And stand on the deck of my boat watching a particularly great sunrise or sunset and say much the same thing.
I gave you a thumbs up out of the last sentence. Glue as I recall is made by boiling. Bring on the cauldrons.
It was the differences, commonalities and the many disagreements that brought them together objectively by focusing on what little they did agree on. I know it is a mystical expression but I myself can think of none better to describe the outcome...it's referred to as divine providence. I could express it quantum physically...but it just doesn't have the same impact.
Your right about the attacks by the communatarians, Remember how they treated Paul Ryan? and now Rand Paul! However, an Objectivist could develop a conversation that logically deals with the immoral, the atheist and those mystical. There are certain truths that tie it all together in a logical objective way. This is the conversation I am trying to developing. I call it a 'Conscious' view. One cannot belong to any particular meme because it will encompass the value in all memes or levels of awareness. Problem is, it won't be understood over night. My hopes are that it will in our future. Currently there is only .01% of the population that finds themselves in this place. Thanks to you all here and at the Julian Jaynes blog post; and the Neothink society, I don't feel so all alone or out of place. Thanks for listening
I'm sorry for the confusion, I was referring to actual Objectivists.
I have known plenty of "christian democrats". (Double the irrational)
A military paycheck is not an entitlement. It's earned. Government employee paycheck; Debatable. Social Security; Absolutely an entitlement. People tell me "That's my money. I payed into that!" I tell them "That is not your money. They spent your money. Now they are stealing it from somebody else to pay you." Congressional retirement? Can't we just make glue out of them or something?
What makes you think ALL Objectivists are not religious much less atheist or agnostics. We know the left in it's leadership strata is anti-religion unless it's their kind but I think they opted out JC wouldn't take the pledge - to serve the party. Or to put it another way isn't Christian Democrat an oxymoron? Don't start laughing Republicans your eating the puppy chow of an oxymoron. Entitlements depend on what kind. That area covers anything in the area of pay covered only by the Annual General Budget. Military for example, Social Security, Government employees retirement to some extent, Railroad Retirement Trust Fund. Medicare which we are stuck with AND pay through the nose are all examples of monies people are entitled to where there is no funding. Congressional retirement
Yup, that's a problem! I genuinely wish that "The Virtue of Selfishness" had been published under a different name!
Another roadblock to understanding Objectivists (and libertarians) is that we can't, and won't, answer a question that deserves a thorough answer with a sound bite.
Q: Mr Trump, what is your position on illegal immigration and its affect on the American economy? A: I'd make the Mexican government pay for the wall! (Strains of Pink Floyd begin to play until someone shouts out, "And the worms ate into his brain!" No more Pink Floyd after that!)
Q: Ms Clinton, what's your position on medical marijuana? A: (shouting) We believe that health care is a basic human right and we won't stop until every working man, woman and child can walk into his chosen doctor's office and receive care from the best medical system in the world! (Ed: only "working" men, women, children? Are you saying you approve of child labor? Are you saying that the "currently un-jobbed" (new PC term for unemployed, which carries with it a terrible stigma) don't get healthcare? Are you saying we have the best medical system in the world yet you still want to redesign it from the bottom up?)
"try telling people that and explaining why... "You misunderstand 'selfish'!" I agree completely that it's hard to explain, but it seems like it shouldn't be. We have phrases to describe the opposite. "putting someone on the spot," "imposing," "hitting someone up for a donations." "Sympathy sex," "Guilt trip," "Roping someone into something," "making someone an offer he can't refuse." People generally do not want to be involved in these transactions. People want to be in selfish transactions.
My biggest reasons: Reason 1; Over 50% of the people are receiving entitlements. Reason 2; 75 to 85% of the people are religious to some extent. While some people who are receiving entitlements would rather have a job and earn their way and some people who are religious would vote for an atheist if he had the right platform those are some large numbers to get around. The irrational outnumber the rational by a wide margin.
I've been wanting no winner by plurality and a choice of NOTA for years and years! Instant runoff would address the plurality issue and also attenuate the worries of those that are afraid to "waste their vote."
We're cruel and heartless. We're selfish and proud of it. I thought everyone knew that!
Naturally, both of the above statements are false, but try telling people that and explaining why... "You misunderstand 'selfish'! Ayn Rand defined it as 'rational self interest,' it has nothing to do with not sharing your candy.
The third strike was the New Deal. The fourth strike was the Great Society. The fifth strike was Obamacare. The sixth strike were all the useless wars we have been in in the last 65 years. OK, maybe that would be several additional strikes. Needless to say, the mighty Casey (as in Casey at the Bat from baseball lore) has struck out. Now you and I are on strike, too.
That cost us the checks and balance system but even at state level there is a lot of control by the federal level party bosses. i would agree with in your own county, possibly city and your own local voting district. Beyond that it's rigged. That's also when the State selected delegates to the the USA sitting in Congress disappeared and the congressional became Federal citizens. The act wasn't however a violation of the Tenth Amendment rights not granted as it passed as a new Amendment. No hope there. They did income tax at the same time. Two strikes with one left to go.
At the present time no. Ask me next week it might be Guatemala. i'll redo the one on campaign clean up. The last time it drove the Soristas/secular progressives up the wall and out of here. They really aren't well trained. I sucked that guy into a fire sack and sucker punched him.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Cheating scandals make a wonderful opportunity for presenting Objectivism. "No one gets to this place by faking reality in any way whatsoever." - John Galt.
-Just because the military retirement fund is improperly set up does not make it an entitlement either. It is still earned. Although the amount and the time served to earn it could be debated, it is still a mutual agreement between an employee and an employer. Still earned.
-Thank you for your service.
-There is only 1 group of people in this country that we owe a debt to. Our veterans.
-There is no, and can be no requirement, by the nature of Objectivism, to be an atheist in order to become an Objectivist. It is merely a result of learning, accepting and reflecting. I did not realize that I had become an atheist until I got involved in a debate with some family on facebook (of all places) and realized that I could no longer make my argument from a position of an agnostic. My wife still isn't there. Probably never will be.
-I also don't begrudge someone accepting social security (if they did pay into it) or even some forms of welfare/medicare/medicaid temporarily. In certain situations the system has been rigged to make it impossible not to.
Edit; Last line added
No more cannon fodder.
b. I am not an atheist.
c. If it's not funded such as military retirees pay it's an entitlement program. I left out the retiree. That was my fault.
d. I do not go to church on Sunday worship the Prince of Peace and the go to war on Monday or as is most common go to work on Monday and spend six days breaking the rules screwing over people.
Instead when I went to war it was seven days a week and I would see those who started the war suddenly show up supporting the other side.
In any case I don't recall any requirement to be an atheist as part of becoming an objectivist so that's my next question. Where is it written? If it is a requirement it must be written somewhere. Or should I refer to myself as religious objectivist. No matter it's my individual choice. Just thought I asked.
I hook have the last of the books just ordered the newspaper colum book and started on the books with Rand and a co-author or about the subject by another author. (I might add over the years I have purchased and given to others two books. Atlas Shrugged over fifty and Where There Is No Doctor over two cases of those. More than any other.
I used to stand with a rifle in my hand and think 'Thank God for Ayn Rand.'
I still do.
And stand on the deck of my boat watching a particularly great sunrise or sunset and say much the same thing.
I gave you a thumbs up out of the last sentence. Glue as I recall is made by boiling. Bring on the cauldrons.
I know it is a mystical expression but I myself can think of none better to describe the outcome...it's referred to as divine providence.
I could express it quantum physically...but it just doesn't have the same impact.
However, an Objectivist could develop a conversation that logically deals with the immoral, the atheist and those mystical. There are certain truths that tie it all together in a logical objective way.
This is the conversation I am trying to developing. I call it a 'Conscious' view. One cannot belong to any particular meme because it will encompass the value in all memes or levels of awareness. Problem is, it won't be understood over night. My hopes are that it will in our future. Currently there is only .01% of the population that finds themselves in this place.
Thanks to you all here and at the Julian Jaynes blog post; and the Neothink society, I don't feel so all alone or out of place.
Thanks for listening
I have known plenty of "christian democrats". (Double the irrational)
A military paycheck is not an entitlement. It's earned. Government employee paycheck; Debatable. Social Security; Absolutely an entitlement. People tell me "That's my money. I payed into that!" I tell them "That is not your money. They spent your money. Now they are stealing it from somebody else to pay you." Congressional retirement? Can't we just make glue out of them or something?
--Objectivity and rationality
--Pursuit of happiness
--Valuing achievement
They just aren't ready for the full implications of those principles, and they have (on average) a poor opinion of Objectivism as such.
Entitlements depend on what kind. That area covers anything in the area of pay covered only by the Annual General Budget. Military for example, Social Security, Government employees retirement to some extent, Railroad Retirement Trust Fund. Medicare which we are stuck with AND pay through the nose are all examples of monies people are entitled to where there is no funding. Congressional retirement
Clean sweep
Another roadblock to understanding Objectivists (and libertarians) is that we can't, and won't, answer a question that deserves a thorough answer with a sound bite.
Q: Mr Trump, what is your position on illegal immigration and its affect on the American economy?
A: I'd make the Mexican government pay for the wall! (Strains of Pink Floyd begin to play until someone shouts out, "And the worms ate into his brain!" No more Pink Floyd after that!)
Q: Ms Clinton, what's your position on medical marijuana?
A: (shouting) We believe that health care is a basic human right and we won't stop until every working man, woman and child can walk into his chosen doctor's office and receive care from the best medical system in the world! (Ed: only "working" men, women, children? Are you saying you approve of child labor? Are you saying that the "currently un-jobbed" (new PC term for unemployed, which carries with it a terrible stigma) don't get healthcare? Are you saying we have the best medical system in the world yet you still want to redesign it from the bottom up?)
I agree completely that it's hard to explain, but it seems like it shouldn't be. We have phrases to describe the opposite. "putting someone on the spot," "imposing," "hitting someone up for a donations." "Sympathy sex," "Guilt trip," "Roping someone into something," "making someone an offer he can't refuse." People generally do not want to be involved in these transactions. People want to be in selfish transactions.
Reason 1; Over 50% of the people are receiving entitlements.
Reason 2; 75 to 85% of the people are religious to some extent.
While some people who are receiving entitlements would rather have a job and earn their way and some people who are religious would vote for an atheist if he had the right platform those are some large numbers to get around. The irrational outnumber the rational by a wide margin.
Start from 2:00 in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoiKD...
"My only goal is to make money."
Naturally, both of the above statements are false, but try telling people that and explaining why... "You misunderstand 'selfish'! Ayn Rand defined it as 'rational self interest,' it has nothing to do with not sharing your candy.
Load more comments...