• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Free Will

    For a more detailed and amplified discussion along the lines of Betsy's comment above, you might be interested in my article here: http://www.monoreali...s/freewill.html
  2. On a technical note, the reference to the Wright Brothers isn't accurate. The thing is filled with helium - it has a fascinating propulsion method, but this is lighter than air flight not the heavier than air flight pioneered by the Wright brothers.
  3. Introduction

    Thank you Michael. Arnold, where in Queensland are you? We're on the Gold Coast and have monthly philosophy evenings (in fact, there's one on tonight) and if you're nearby you might like to come along sometime. Yes, Mensa is living proof that IQ might be the start of intelligence but it doesn't even guarantee intelligence, let alone wisdom. I think it attracts a disproportionate number of people whose IQ is their only distinguishing feature. And yes, the web ring seems to randomly hijack my pages - I'm going to have to do something about that. I might quarantine it more. Re my "different philosophy", the thing is that I set out to start from reality and develop it where it went. If I called my site an Objectivist site, then it would be a reasonable presumption that my aim was to explain Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, or worse, that I was claiming that what I wrote accurately portrayed her philosophy. Also, Leonard Peikoff once said that if what you have isn't Ayn Rand's Objectivism, don't call it that. And as I say, my aim was to develop a philosophy to my own satisfaction, not primarily study someone else's (though obviously I have been heavily influenced by Ayn Rand). I believe I have developed things in a different way and to somewhat different arguments (off the top of my head, I believe that what I wrote on free will is a different argument, the validation of inductive reasoning is unique and my treatment of quantum mechanics is mine) - but the result doesn't have any major disputes with Objectivism. And as there is one reality and the rules of reasoning are what they are, I don't think that is surprising! My career is science and I have always held the primacy of reality and the power of reason. However I had accepted the view that "there is no ought in an is" - which is true, on the face of it. Furthermore I despised philosophy, because all I'd ever come across was generally either trying to disprove the obvious, prove the ridiculous, or just waffly verbiage (or all three). So when some friends (in Mensa, as it turns out) showed my "Philosophy Who Needs It" I just laughed - exactly my attitude. But when I read it, it was the first philosophy I'd read that I could not immediately dismiss as twaddle, even though it disagreed with some of my ideas at the time. I was not entirely convinced that she'd solved the is-ought problem but I was sure she'd made a pretty good stab at it. As time went by (and I thought about it myself) I came to realise that she was basically right. And the rest led from there.
  4. Hi all, I have just joined and thought I'd introduce myself. I have been into philosophy for years - I wrote a philosophy series in TableAus, the journal of Australian Mensa, for 20 years, finally finishing this year. My primary interest was developing my own philosophy rather than functioning as a "student of Objectivism", but it is influenced by and effectively the same as Objectivism. Anyone who cares about how I think can find out on my web site or on my Amazon author page: I have even met some of you in person - I was at the 1997 Second Renaissance Conference, and also went (with my then recent wife Sonja - in fact it was a somewhat delayed honeymoon) on the Art Tour of italy in 1999. Recently I've become more active online (hence joining this fine forum) - though my experiences so far are mixed!
  5. While your question was addressed to introverts, perhaps I can add something. I too was pretty introverted. I have a slightly different take on it - my reaction to psychology books that said "there's nothing wrong with being introverted" was "yeah? You try it!", because it certainly gets in the way of things. You can get over it (possibly not entirely, but certainly enough) if that's what you want - just takes practice in putting yourself out there (basically, informal behavioural therapy!). Of course it takes time, but it can be done. On the particular question of women, I actually found that the most effective way to find a mate was the internet. While there are a lot of frauds out there, you can screen far more people than at physical events. My policy agrees with what some others have said: I made my profile as explicitly philosophical as I could, with the deliberate intention of chasing away women who would be chased away. Worked, too :-) Good luck with it.