Aggrad02

That was pretty funny.

" How does she thinks it is justifiable to force the pharmaceutical companies to lower their prices when if it wasn't for their research, their capital and their iniative there would be no life saving drugs. I wonder what she would do if the pharmaceuticals refused to sell drugs if her legislation passed? Doesn't capitalism pretty much solve most of these problems if left alone? Also it is funny how Democrats are now claiming to "oppose deficit spending" and "approve a pay as you go budgeting rule", they should call it what they want: "opposing deficit spending by ubertaxation" and "tax as you spend budgeting rule". Let see.. Raise Labor Cost, Raise Taxes and regulate businesses, I'm sure our economy will love it. BTW: I wonder how many people that actually make minimum wage actually vote? And why do we need to raise minimum wage when we have super low unemployment, it would seem that a lack of workers will naturally raise wages. Sighhh Dustan

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/17/dem...o.ap/index.html Democrats going back to advocating socialism to try and garner votes. This article makes me sick and this is the main reason I vote Republican. Dustan

Free-Wheeling Analyst. http://personaldna.com/report.php?k=vLoKRx...&u=abe451b67263 Dustan

I see, Cool. Dustan

Why? A few years back I did this a couple of times to make people happy and felt horrible because I was being untrue. Now I won't, I will be respectful and silent/still while others are praying but I won't fake it. Dustan

It doesn't seem that al-queda in Iraq's new leader al-Muhajer was quite finished with terrorism school, especially Threats 301 before he had taken over. This is his first attempt at threating the US: He warns the U.S.-led coalition that "between us are days that will turn your ancestors' hair white." I'm not sure whether to be scared or fall down laughing. Also most of my anscestors died old so their hair is already white. Dustan

I think that the major reason that Christianity (and Judaism and Islam as well) is popular is because it helps people avoid responsibility for themselves. First of all they do not have to form a ethical theory on their own, it is handed to them on a platter. Trying to figure out what we should do with our life and how we should act is not done easily. It is time consuming, draining and thought provoking, it makes you use your mind on a level that you do not for everyday task and most people would rather not do this. For example, when I talk to people that are religous one of the first things that they say is that if there was not a God to hand down morals then men would just go chaotic and kill each other, they do not believe that man is able to be responsible enough to form values and morals on his own. To me this is avoiding responsibility. Second they do not have to take responsibility for themselves. Many times when something happens to a religous person they say that it is "God's will", or when talking about the future "may God be with them". This lets them off the hook with reality. If they didnot reach a certian outcome, say they didn't get a job they wanted, it was not because of their lack of ability or the preference of the employer, but God's plan. Or if they are about to apply for the job they build an excuse "may God be with me" beforehand, therefore if I don't get the job it is because God wasn't with me. Thirdly it helps them avoid reality in the form of hope via prayer. Instead of having to take a look at themselves and see their flaws and then taking painstaking actions to change the way they are to gain the values they want, they hold the idea that God made them the way that they are and that they should accept their station in life and if they want something different they should pray for it and hope it comes magically to them. Lastly and probably most importantly it helps them avoid death, which I would say is the single most fear of most people. Instead of having to accept the fact we are mortal and that our life is limited and that one day we will cease to exist, Christianity allows them to hold on to the idea that when we die we just magically go to another realm where we sit with our relatives and friends and have an eternal vacation. Also heaven is usually depicted by preachers and christian writers as a wonderful place were everything is perfect and good, a place of no responsibility. Just the other day I was talking to two friends who are Muslim about my aethism and the first thing that they asked is "If your aethist what do you think happens when we die" and my reply that we are just dead and cease to exist kept them silent for about a minute before resumming the conversation. The avoidance of responsibility is probably the single most important thing that I think is wrong about our society. I believe that it is also the major reason behind the philosophy of Socialism and Statism. The idea that I don't have to be responsible because everyone else or the government will be responsible for me is the key idea behind Socialism. That is why Ayn Rand believed that there were not much philosophical differences between what she called mystics of faith and mystics of muscle. This is also the reason why I think that objectivism is a tough sell to the masses. On one hand you have religion which says that you are not responsible for yourself and that when you die you will live forever in bliss, or on the other O'ism which says that you must make the most out of life yourself and when you are dead you are dead. To the no thinking human who doesn't have the will to be responsible for themselves this is an easy choice. Also it isn't a bad wager, if someone who is Christian is wrong when they die they are just dead, on the other hand if they are aethiest and right they are still just as dead. But if the Christian is right they go to heaven, while the aethist goes to hell. There is alot more to this, this is just a summary of my thoughts, religion versus reality and responsibility is something that I am very interested in and want to write about someday. Human psychology plays a huge role in religon. Other things to think about is: How religon controls people and helps keep the status quo, one reason that most religous people are conservative. How religon is taylor made for the poor (the majority of people) so that the religous can stay in power. The powerful stay in power but the poor are promised a good life in the after life. (what a cruel joke) How religon's purpose is to explain the unexplainable and that it has evolved from trying to explain everything (Greek paganism and their deity for everything) to explaining less and less as we found out about the world until we came to one god which explains things we can only be put to doubt (what happens when we die?) and (what should we do?). Because of the type of psychological comforts that religon affords,and the fact that the majority of people need that security blanket, the majority of people chose sometype of religion. Others decide to be responsible for themselves and become aethist, this later is the pool that O'ism has to draw from which is small pool, also this is the reason that most of us have become self sufficient and rational on our own first then found objectivism not the other way around and why most people who aren't reject objectivism. Objectivism doesn't have anything to offer to the poor of spirit who lack will. What would they get from objectivism, that they are responsible for thier short comings and situation in life, that if they want change they must pull themselves up and do it themselves, that life is short and they are running out of time, that they have no omnipotent force to turn to for justice and hope. It is much easier for them to blank out and put the responsibilty on God's shoulders or societies shoulders and then wait for their prayers to be answered and for the afterlife. Dustan

If I believe some one has made an error of judgement or reason I am as just as critical. And Ph.d's do not come out of cracker jack boxes, especially ones from NYU. They are called credentials for a reason, for example, Noam Chomsky has a Ph.d and I usually do not agree with him, but I do deeply respect him for what he has accomplished in academia. Also, isn't not being able to imagine Peikoff reading Sartre worse than claiming that he didnot. When claiming you actually have to have some basis for the claim, while "not being able to imagine" ignores reality (Peikoff is a human with the abliity to read, Sartre's work is readily available, therefore it is easy to imagine him reading it). If you truely want to be critical of a work, criticize it, doen't conjecture, you know the saying about assuming. I haven't had a whole lot of time lately to critically read all that has been posted because I am having to work/travel alot, but I was glancing over the all of the articles for future consideration and when I see such a comment in a discussion it sticks out and discredits the whole thing before I even begin to analyze it, the comment did not do anything to further your argument. It is irresponisble because it does not do justice to Peikoff and attempts to discredit him by conjecture and it is also irresponsible to yourself because most intelligent readers will not be fooled by the remark, and instead will negatively attribute it to some flaw in you. It is the type of tactic that politicians use. And lastly, I'm not sure if you want to obtain a Ph.d or not. But please do not use anything as an excuse to prevent you from doing what you want. If you do want a Ph.d either find the funding through loans or grants, or research ways to make money then use that money to pay for your Ph.d. Even Sartre said that we are responsible for who we are and that we create ourselves, what ever you want there is a way to do it more than likely. Dustan

I could. I generally like to have discussions out in the open, where there is a gallery of spectators who might notice when someone is committing a fallacy or making a mistake. I am trying to take a public stand and correct some public remarks Peikoff made. If he wants to come here and present his side, I would welcome it. He is also welcome on my board. bis bald, Nick Actually there is a big difference between discussing what someone wrote and claiming that they did not read something and then critizing them for it. It is very irresponsible to claim that you believe that someone didn't read a certian author/book that they themselves are writing about. Between Dr. Peikoff's resume (Ph.d in Philosophy from NYU, Professor of Philosophy, and foremost Ayn Rand scholar) and your backless post, and unless you have information otherwise, then it is prudent to believe that he probably read the book as that is the protocol for academic writing and research. Dustan

leonard@peikoff.com Why don't you email and ask him?

There is a difference between everyday skepticism (such as a used car salesman telling you the car you are looking at is sound mechanically, but you still wanting to take it to a mechanic) and philosophical skepticism which claims that knowledge can't be known. It is the second that Peikoff is talking about. There is a difference between not taking a position because you haven't investigated yet or your research hasn't led you to an answer yet, than saying oh well knowledge can't be known therefore I don't have to think. I'am not sure what you consider wealthy (especially since you are in the Northwest and I am in Texas, one of the cheapest states to live in with the lowest gas prices, I paid $2.57 yesterday) but I do al'right. I own my own business and have to travel a lot for it, this isn't a vacation but there is always time to find fun in a business trip. Dustan

You can believe anything you want. Do you claim as knowledge that they have done this? If you can't, are you a coward? If you can, are you going to prove it? Copy and paste the exact argument. Show your cards. I call. bis bald, Nick I am on the road right now, as soon as I get home I will try and do that. Dustan

If I said that there is no way for me to know the color of your car, then yes I would be a skeptic and a coward. If on the other hand I said "where is your car?" and looked at it and said it was blue or not blue then I would not be agnostic about it. Dustan

There is a difference between claiming knowledge about a concept (circle or circular) than claiming knowledge about God (an entity). To answer your question circles do not exist as an entitiy but as a characteristic of entities as being circular. Dustan

I believe that Peikoff and Rand have both done this. Dustan

These are just my experiences and my opinions. But since I have lived in both places, Texas for 24 yrs and Annapolis, Maryland for 1 year, and my wife is from the Dominican Republic, I would like to weigh in. I personally feel that there is less racial tension in Texas than there is in Maryland. While growing up in Texas I have very rarely witnessed racism, almost nonexistent, and neither has my wife who looks to most as african (she has african ancestory, but is from the dominican republic), nor did I experience any when I lived in south Texas when I was in the minority. Most people in Texas are rather friendly. Also there is very little segregation in Texas (the big cities might be different) and people of all races were friends in school. Also there is not that many private schools in Texas and people rarely send their children their but instead send them to public school. On the other hand, I felt that the racial tensions were rather higher in Marlyand, racism was in the news and the way that people treated each other, especially people of different races where different. My wife also noticed the same thing in regard to the way people treated her. Also I would not call the majority of people in Marlyand as friendly, they are polite but not friendly like people in Texas. For example, our daughter was 1 when we lived in Maryland. When my wife was alone and had difficulties in opening a door at a store or getting the stroller down a difficult curb, people were very reluctant to help, while in Texas she has people always helping her out. Also people rarely greeted you in passing there and I never even me my neighbors, the one who I did meet and was what I would call friendly was from California. Lastly in Maryland it seemed that people segregated themselves by race, most people of the same race lived in the same place, as well as worked at the same places. Like I said before, this is not scientific and is only my experience and how I felt in both places. One reason that Texas may have less Racism is that in about 10 to 20 years, Hispanics will be in the majority in Texas. Maybe it is because people are more friendly, I am not sure. Also one thing that I think that people mistakenly do is to lump Texas into the South. Texas is not part of the South, that starts in Louisiana. Texas is where the South meets the West, the Plains, and Mexico. Texas is just Texas. Well that is my rant. Dustan

I don't think you are being clear. atheist = one who believes that there is no deity agnostic = (1) a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable (2)one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god One can't be both. If someone is agnostic as in the first definition then they are a skeptic and Peikoff's claims have some validity, if they are as in the second definition it depends why. I am not necessarily supporting or condemning it, but if you read how Peikoff defines agnostic (he uses the first definition, and the first definition only, I don't have his book here now or I would try and find the quote), then you would see that he is not lumping the same people together that you are saying he is. Besides, You cannot make a knowledge claim about a negative, you can only make a knowledge claim about reality, what exist. For example, if someone says that they know their car is not blue, they are not actually saying they know that it is not blue, but that they know that it is another color instead, red for example. You can only know that something exist, not that something doesn't. Dustan

I think it depends on the type of agnostic. For a very long time I considered my self agnostic because I hadn't made up my mind on the issue. I considered my self still reasoning through the problem and collecting evidence. Now I feel certian that I have found the answer (there is no God) and have no problem. But if the agnostic is agnostic because he is a skeptic or believes that you have to disprove a negative to be athiest then Peikoff has some valid arguments. Dustan

I don't think that rational people who have studied science think that the sun is going to last forever. But they do know that it is going to last a long time. Anyone who thinks that it will last forever is going to have to have faith because that would be a belief in contradiction of the nature of the sun. It would be the same as believing in God or fairies. I was just trying to give an extreme example of what happens if you play the "well it may always be that way but it may not tomorrow" game. Saying just because the sun is their everyday doesn't mean that it will tomorrow may sound logical but it is not, so that is why I gave my turkey analogy (BTW that was the first thing that "popped" into my head, I guess I created it, and thought that it was at least slightly humourous, we need that every once in a while in philosophy, I wasn't making fun of you). Dustan

And using this type of thinking you could say that one day it might turn into a giant turkey and gobble up the earth and fly away into the milky way. Neither proposition make any sense (logically they are the same). And I have read your article on perception and plan on addressing the issues raised in a larger essay on the whole existential/subjectivist and objectivist issue.

Hello, and Welcome Donna and Danny. Dustan

(Nick) Existentialism is subjective. The mind makes reality what it is. I know some existentialist believe this, but after reading Sartre I don't believe that he would agree with you. He believed that the outside world was independent of the mind. Most of his philosophy dealt with the individual realizing himself and reacting to the outside world which he could not control but had to take responsibility for because man puts himself in the situation that he is in, whether he can control it or not. The only thing that Sartre believed that a man could make was his own self, his own self that was in a world he couldn't make. (Nick) Plato uses the mind to discover, but it doesn't make, create, what isn't there to begin with. The forms are already there and not dependent on experience. We can only match them up with what we experience when we get a glimpse of that ideal world, when we get an "ah ha!" moment of clear understanding. This must be what Rand means when she says to know truth is simply to recognize reality for what it is, by means of reason, the faculty that perceives, identifies, and integrates the evidence of reality provided by man's senses. Plato is just using an other-worldly metaphor which makes him sound mystical, and Rand accuses him of being a Witch Doctor. When we get past that, they sound remarkably similiar. Just because a conclusion is the similar does not mean that their premises are and this is where they are different. Besides I don't believe that there conclusions are similar either. Plato is subjective because it is the mind which must determine reality(whether through experience or memory), not reality itself.

Once again I am almost at a loss for words. Something that is self evident means that it is outside the bounds of provability by evidence or reasoning. When you open your eyes in the morning there is (existence) something (identity) you see (consciousness). There is no evidence that I can tell you for that, there is no reasoning. You must look around for yourself. All I can say is "LOOK". Dustan

The fact that reality is objective in the sense that it exist prior to being known, does not make knowledge a priori. A prioir means (Merriam-Webster dictionary) in this context: (B) relating to or derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions Rand does not believe that her axioms derive from reasoning from self-evident propositions, but that her axioms are self-evident from the moment that you open your eyes. In Objectivism The Philosophy of Ayn Rand Peikoff explains: Being implicit from the beginning, existence, consciousness, identity are outside the providence of proof. Proof is the derivation of a conclusion from antecedent knowlege, and nothing is antecedent about axioms.