RTB

Members
  • Posts

    105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RTB

  1. I don't think that suits me. I'm an Objectivist through and through. Your bits don't contribute to that. I adhere to logic and reason only. Really, I mean it......and I absorb the passions of emotions when it comes to music or art or polemics , or any other such thing.
  2. (I'm not experiencing your 'extreme jealousy'. I'm not experiencing any jealousy. LOL_) I'm working through philosphic structural problems. I'm doing it systematically. Thank you for your reply. You've missed it though. You almost discovered the puzzle pieces. But not quite. The question remains within us to fundamentally resolve the issue of logic and our emotional relationships. This still remains. I am sure that almost none of us would disagree with the fact that there is even a certain logic to illogical systems... this is not hard to dispute. I'm looking at something a little bit deeper. I've been thinking on this for a while and I want my little mental shenanigans to be proper and absolute. Objectivism needs a more elaborate structure allowing for it to pin point right 'there' in reality what it means. There is no other appeal for us but reality. I'm long winded but the point I wish to reiterate is that there's a certain ethical component BECAUSE of a certain emotional component that are involved in the above premises. I'm contending that it is possible in my scenario for good men or good women to negate one or the other without moral import to the other. Disagree with me if you want. Hell, I enjoy polemics. I actually think it's nice that I found a place where minutiae can be debated. I'm a bit tired of the usual.
  3. Anytime that there is a scheme of this sort all should be aware that sooner or later this will show up on 60 Minutes. Reputable investment firms are freely available to everyone.
  4. Hi, Rush. Glad to see you again. Guess we can't help but bump into eachother.
  5. In regard to Rand's essay in her 'Virtue of Selfishness' there is a clear idea given by examples where she describes the scenario where 2 men are competing for the same job in a society and necessarily one wins and one 'loses'. To me, this is simple to understand given her explanations that involve the assumption of both men being rational men. That is to say, the one that fails to attain the position understands his loss and situation and moves on to another or whatnot. I've argued this many years ago and explained it many times to dining room tables. To me, the principle is certainly easy to grasp. Now, I turn over to another page where she equates the romantic equivalent of this 'failure' and acceptance. The ostensible premises are the same. The logic is the same....except for the fact that there's no regard for the chooser (in this case, the woman choosing her beau) to be faced with a seemingly equal or indeterminately equal choice. Further, There's no clear function in the choices that are illustrated. Namely, there's no 'if this then that' that is in allowance. I'd also like to express that I believe once a man (or woman in this example) is faced with such a choice it is of a different sort than that of the simple job interview scenario. Something much more important is at work here. It doesn't mean I believe it is a question that is devoid of the authority of logic but these two human events are not the same. They cannot be the same in the order of ethics. Both of these seemingly identical scenarios following the same principle do not and cannot equate themselves properly since they involve different fundamental branches of philosophy. Namely, they correlate with epistemology and ethics both. But the last involves romantic ethics and Introspection of the dooer. I hope I've been clear. I'll elaborate if asked.