Mike Hardy

I think you've got this wrong. Once upon a time the Dean of a College issued a statement on academic honesty. He began by saying every student is presumed to have arrived with a serious learning purpose. I think he got the matter just right. Outside the context of the _purpose_ in life, there's no reason to follow moral rules. A code of right and wrong action has to be a mission statement. That is equally true on a desert island or in society, but in society right or wrong action manifests itself in ways in which it does not on a desert island. Is there any reason for not harming others that makes sense outside the context of purposefulness in life? -- Mike Hardy

I'm not out of here yet, Michael Hardy; not till tomorrow. And George Smith doesn't have a theory of Freud's superiority to Jung. And I'm amazed that you didn't comment on my writing "dire straights of doom" instead of "straits." I fixed it, but not before MSK quoted the original. The word "straights" didn't look right when I posted, but I couldn't think why not until I saw that passage picked up by MSK. E- ___ Maybe George can develop such a theory in the next few hours. And maybe Julius Seizure may be inspired by some of your comments to post something on ATL2. -- Mike Hardy

I'll see if I can get George Smith to post his theory of Freud's superiority to Jung right away. -- Mike Hardy

Sometimes my wife suspects me of noticing a particular woman. So sometimes I point out just WHICH women I have NOT noticed. "I didn't notice THAT woman, over there." Then of course she doesn't suspect me of having noticed that particular woman. -- Mike Hardy

I wouldn't mind if "whom" were abandoned. But people who can't understand the difference surely need euthanasia---no one could possibly doubt that. Professional journalists who write about "The man whom police believe is the culprit...." (You wouldn't say "Police believe _him_ is the culprit.) That sort of thing. And let us not forget what James Thurber wrote: -- Mike Hardy

Oh, please. It's SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD, __not___ SUBJECTIVE TENSE. In English, personal pronouns can be subjective or objective, and that's about CASE, not about TENSE and not about MOOD. Verbs have TENSES, MOODS, and VOICES. Present, present-progressive, past, present-perfect, etc, are TENSES. Indicative and subjunctive are MOODS. Active and passive are VOICES. Grammar-naziistically -- Mike Hardy

Do suicidal people typically fail to place any positive value on their own lives? Auto-euthanasia can be done by people who would want to continue living if they could bear the pain. -- Mike Hardy

Um .... did you mean "ought" from "is"? -- Mike Hardy

I hope you're not proposing that that's a definition of "circular reasoning". Circular reasoning is this: "Since A is true, we can deduce that B must be true. Since B is true, C must be true. Since C is true, D must follow. Since D is true, it follows that A must be true. Thus we have proved A." -- Mike Hardy

I had not seen this until you pointed it out---thanks! -- Mike Hardy PS: I rather doubt this qualifies as "history" except in that that it's been recorded, maybe permanently.

Ellen Stuttle wrote: "So often people who become Objectivists at least go through a phase of developing characteristics which make them a trial to be around. " I took the liberty of guessing some reasons for saying that, including: (2) They think they're heroes like John Galt and Howard Roark, already complete and perfect. Ellen answered: This alludes to the phrase imitatio Christi and so I thought: At least members of that religion don't (usually!) think they're already complete and perfect like their hero. Does that mean we're proposting a point in favor of the Augustinian theory of original sin? :shocked: -- Mike Hardy

Why are they a trial to be around? (Rhetorical question---keep reading.) Three answers: (1) They're 18-year-olds who got all their information from only one source and have a lot of enthusiasm and little knowledge, and they don't know that there's a whole lot more to learn. (2) They think they're heroes like John Galt and Howard Roark, already complete and perfect. (3) Some things about NBI culture. Reading Nathaniel Branden's _Judgment_Day_ caused me to suggest this one; I've also seen it corroborated to some extent by people who were there, commenting in various internet forums. He says he loved having his students be in fear and awe of him, and when Ayn Rand lost her patience with various people, he always leapt in to support her. Her not infrequent impatience with those who misunderstood was emotion; his leaping in was calculated to keep NBI students in awe of the Authorities. It's been a long time since I've cracked that book open, but that's one of the impressions I'm left with. Reason #3 would explain things loosening up to some extent since NBI's been gone for a long time now. Reason #1 is certainly something I've seen happen. #2 seems very much related; I think I've seen that too. (Recently I saw #1 and something approaching #2 operating in some doofus with whom I exchanged some views back and forth for a while on Diana Hsieh's site. But he was probably about 60 years old, so I guess some don't outgrow it. He said that every concept must be referred to by just _one_ word, never a multiple-word phrase, and if I thought otherwise then my epistemology is so different from his that it was impossible for us to communicate. He cited Ayn Rand's _Introduction_to_Objectivist_Epistemology_ as a source of that proposition. I asked if Ayn Rand's concept of "conceptual common denominator" was not in fact a _concept_ that she introduced in that book, denoted by a three-word phrase. I also cited her concept of "sense of life", referred to by a three-word phrase. He went away without answering and was never seen again.) #2 is a reason why Rand's heroes might be considered not a good influence. Ellen, is that what you had in mind? -- Mike Hardy

I don't know why you surmise she would have liked that, considering her views on the corruption of 20th-century physics. I don't think Einstein was any intellectual hero of hers. Ellen ___ She mentions E = mc^2 in _Introduction_to_Objectivist_Epistemology_. But she was ignorant of mathematics and physics, so her admiration for their practioners lacked any specificity. -- Mike Hardy

Geez, Ellen, may bee Roland Pericles is knot really a whirled fame us philosopher, but just a pseudonym invented buy ewe. I never suspected. -- Mike Hardy

Is it really? Cannot a Darwinian say that species some of whose members do that have more offspring that survive long enough to procreate? -- Mike Hardy In a way, yes, Mike, but not in the way in which you put it. The issue isn't survival of the species. A species isn't an organism, and there's nothing advantageous for the individual organism in keeping the type of which it's a representative continuing to be represented amongst the living. The question is what benefit is conferred on the organism which is taking the risk to its own survival such that such risk-taking behavior would evolve? But you said "hard to answer from a Darwinian standpoint." From a Darwinian standpoint, I don't see that the question is what benefit is conferred on the individual organism. -- Mike Hardy Mike, is your problem with my having used "Darwinian" instead of "neo-Darwinian"? If so, you couldnt have just asked, "Wouldn't 'neo-Darwinian' be more accurate?"? Ellen ___ Well, normally I'd quote only a brief excerpt, but since we're trying for the record for multiply nested quotes, I'm leaving it all here. (Skip the above and start reading at this point.) Actually, I don't know what "neo-Darwinian" means. But I think you're position is becoming clear. -- Mike

I agree! I entirely disagree on this one. Ethics should be egoistic. Here is a misunderstanding. It's as if you thought ethics is about condemnation of that which merits it, rather than about how to live. Ethics is in a sense ONLY about personal and private concerns. My conscience doesn't exist in order to help YOU; it exists in order that __I__ can use it and be guided by it. Suppose someone writes about how to balance your checkbook or manage your investments. Will you say "Financial advice is about how you deal with OTHER people and avoid stealing their money; one of the most revolting aspects of this book is that it condemns you for mismanaging your finances when you're not harming other people. This is simply no reason to be honest or just in dealing with OTHER people except that it is necessary in order to live one's own life rationally and purposefully. -- Mike Hardy

Is it really? Cannot a Darwinian say that species some of whose members do that have more offspring that survive long enough to procreate? -- Mike Hardy In a way, yes, Mike, but not in the way in which you put it. The issue isn't survival of the species. A species isn't an organism, and there's nothing advantageous for the individual organism in keeping the type of which it's a representative continuing to be represented amongst the living. The question is what benefit is conferred on the organism which is taking the risk to its own survival such that such risk-taking behavior would evolve? But you said "hard to answer from a Darwinian standpoint." From a Darwinian standpoint, I don't see that the question is what benefit is conferred on the individual organism. -- Mike Hardy

Geez, Barbara, it seems downright un-Christian of you to say that. -- Mike Hardy

Is it really? Cannot a Darwinian say that species some of whose members do that have more offspring that survive long enough to procreate? -- Mike Hardy

On Ann Coulter: Sometimes I've wondered if Ann Coulter is putting on an act---parodying those she claims to agree with to make them look ridiculous. Here's an odd thing: The first time I saw Ann Coulter on TV---and all subseqent times---I was struck by the fact that her in physical appearance, her voice, her vocal mannerisms, she was a dead ringer for a woman I know who has a PhD in statistics and I think considers herself a liberal. Is Ann Coulter her evil twin? -- Mike Hardy

I'm pretty sure lots of non-Objectivist airheads do that. I don't actually know whether any intelligent non-Objectivists do. -- Mike Hardy

You don't tell us whether your list matched his. If they did, surely you know that _some_ people _would_ predict that outcome? (I'm not one of them, but maybe that's only because I lack that particular ability.) Whether they are right to do so is a more difficult question. -- Mike Hardy

Geez, Ellen, I was going to question your understanding of arithmetic on the grounds that your statement would actually imply that it is now 2007. Then I looked at the calendar. Oh, well, as Emily Litella would say........

Interesting story, Ellen. Since you compare yourself to Josephus, I can't help wondering whether you heard John the Baptist preach in person? (Ignore the previous sentence (unless you choose not to ignore it).) I'm a teensy bit surprised that you hadn't heard of George Smith before. I know that one of those you "met" was Roland Pericles. Via some email exchanges with Jeff Riggenbach I've learned that his official status is now "gone and presumed missing" (Jeff didn't use those words, but sometimes I have these infallible inspirations.) Anyway, if I send you an old-fashioned US mail address, can you send me that Opera Omnia Rolandi disk you've mentioned? (I'm wondering whether, when Roland was living in Maryland as a student at the Navel Academy, he ever saw the Baltimore Oreos play?) -- Mike Hardy PS for those unfamiliar with ATL and ATL2: Roland Pericles was a pseudonym under which Jeff Riggenbach sometimes used to post to those lists, most recently just a couple of months or so ago. He was a child progeny, then later a navel officer, and then a whirled famous philosopher who delivered lechers and rote assays on many subjects.

L.N. Subtle, I had no idea you were so evil. Now I'll have to torture you until you confess. But don't worry: your rights will be fully respected---if you die under torture without confessing, you will be publically proclaimed innocent (even though you're not). -- Mike Hardy