Aggrad02

(Nick) Yes it is. Essence is just another word for nature, and Objectivism is a kind of essentialism. A is A, and everything has a pre-existing essence or nature which identifies it. It is what it is, and everybody already knows it. However, evil people deny it, accordng to John Galt. For Rand, Plato and Aristotle and others, essentialism is prior to existence. For the existentialist, existence is prior to essence. I don't know what else to say, I donot believe you are understanding Rand clearly. Here are the definitions of essence that pertian to the discussion from the Merriam-Webster Dicitionary: (B) the individual, real, or ultimate nature of a thing especially as opposed to its existence © the properties or attributes by means of which something can be placed in its proper class or identified as being what it is The first definition is metaphysical and has to do with attributes that a thing may have, the second is epistemological and has to do with definitions used by humans to classify. Objectivism rejects that things have essences in the metaphysical sense and this is not the same as its nature. It is the same for Plato becuase he belived that the nature of a thing is different from how it appears in reality, he believed that the nature was contained in an essence in an outerworldy demision or whatever. A is whatever its essence is which is in a outerworldly place. Nature is essence. Rand on the other hand rejects essences and claims that a thing is what it is. And that what it is is its nature. A is A. Nature is existence. There is no essence. Let me try and give you example I hope it is adequate. Take a builders nail: For Plato this nail has an outerworldly essence of what a perfect nail should be: a flat exactly round head, followed by an exactly straight and round cylinder that ends in a perfectly centered and sharp point. The metal is of unbendable quality and does not rust. And it is supposed to be used for hold two things together. But this nail that we see in reality is merely an inperfect shadow of its essence and is not perferct. For Rand this nail is this nail. It has a certian shape and ceritan dimensions for the head and cylinder that may be measured. The point is what it is, if it happens to be centered it is, if it happens to be off centered then it is off centered, if it is dull or sharp it is dull or sharp. Becuase it is made of a certian type of metal and is a certian thickness and length under a certian amount of pressure it will bend or break, apply enough heat and it will melt, expose it to water and if it is untreated it will rust. Though it was made with the intention by the designer for holding two things together, if it isn't and say used as a figer nail pick instead, then that is what it (that certian nail) is used for. For Rand the nature of a thing is what it is. On the other hand Rand uses the second definition when talking about essences. Once again essences are not the same as nature when defining a term. The nature of something is what it is metaphysically, how it is in the world in reality, this is very broad and includes all attributes of a thing. To define a term Rand believes that you must reduce it to its essential characteristics that differentiate it from other things. For the nail that we spoke of before the essential characteristics are that it is an object which is made of a strong enough material and is a long and thin shape that when hammered throught two pieces of wood it will hold them together. That is the essence of a nail, it doesn't say anything about its nature. It may be made of steel, copper, iron, gold, wood, aluminium... it may be cylindricle, rectangular, it is of a certian length and a ceritan weight, it may have a head and may not. Essence is not nature, the nature of a thing is not its essence. For example with the nail. Lets say that the head of the nail is oval, this is its nature, what it is, but not its essence since having a head is not essential to being a defined as a nail. Nature is what a thing is and is independent of consciousness (speaking metaphysically, not about how individual humans act/think because herein nature is implied by a thing's consciousness). Essence is used to differeniate between objects. For example the universe has a nature, it is what it is, but it does not have an essence becuase it cannot be deffereniated as opposed to something else.

Rand does not believe in a priori knowledge. Even her axioms of metaphysics are self-evident only through experience, ie oberserving/sensing. Also I am not sure what you mean when you say that Rand doesn't have an explanation for knowledge? Do you mean primary knowledge (existence, consciousness, identity) or do you mean knowledge in general (like my truck is grey). Dustan

I'm sorry, what I meant to say was that Skinner was a determinist not intrinsicist. I have to disagree with this. Subjectivism is putting the primacy of consciousness or the subject infront of reality/existence. Existentialism claims that the mind experiences/discovers reality and is one type of subjectivism. But Plato's theory that the mind remembers concretes as opposed to the reality we see is also subjectivism as it relies on the mind to remember instead of the eyes to see. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism Subjectivism is a philosophical tenet that accords primacy to subjective experiences. In an extreme form, it may hold that the nature and existence of every object depends only on someone's subjective awareness of it. From The Ayn Rand Lexicon p.368: Platonic Realism: The "extreme realist"or Platonist.... hold that abstractions exist as real entities or archetypes in another dimension of reality and that the concretes we percieve are merely their imperfect reflections, but the concretes evoke the abstraction in our mind. (According to Plato, they do so by evoking the memory of the achetypes which we had known, before birth, in that other dimension). Dustan

No problem, if I didnot enjoy discussing with you then I would not respond. I am still working on a larger answer to most of your posts on subjectivism. I have finished the Sartre book, have went back and reread Aristotle's Metaphysics and am rereading Piekoffs first 6 chapters of The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. When this is completed I am going to give an overview of my opinion on the whole debate. I found many things worth keeping from Sartre and I found that Aristotle gave many responses to the future Existentialist way before they ever formed. Dustan

A specific nature is not the same thing as an essence, this is the difference between Plato and Rand. Plato believed that things had essences, as in actually possed them. Rand only talked about essence when discusssing Epistemology and definitions. The difference Plato = Essence is Identity Rand = Existence is Identity Essence is not a metaphysical attribute in Objectivism. Dustan

(Nick) On a pragmatic level, most of us accept that there are things out there which are independent of us and we can agree on their natures enough to survive and make predictions. I would say to the contrary that most people know about reality rather than mere "accepting that there are things out there". (Nick)We can use concepts like cause and effect to develop technology and diagnose problems. However, we have to argue for first causes which are not completely controlled by these external things and laws of causation. Objectivism does not hold that all causes are results of other causes. To the contrary Rand holds that effects are caused by entities. (Nick) Objects have a fixed nature and are static, but subjects are in a process of becoming. It's the subjects that are free, but they are free within objective parameters. While I agree with you last statement, I don't agree that the difference between objects and subjects are that one is static and the other is not. All things are in a state of change. Trees are continually growing or decaying, rocks decay or are eroded, etc. The difference between the two is that subjects have consciousness (hence freedom.)

How can you say that Rand's metaphysical theory is the same as Platos. Plato view that truth is innate holds that things have true essences regardless of what they appear to be and that we gain these truths through some some kind of esp, while Rand holds that existence is identity, and that we use our consciousness to identify. Do you have any problems with Rand's three metaphysical axioms. Existence, Consciousness and Identitiy? Also you have on many occasions you have lumped Rand in with either the intrinsicist (example: Skinner) or the subjectivist (example: Plato), when her entire Metaphysical and Epistemoligical theory is different and distinct from both. Dustan

Ciro, It is really interesting that you posted this article. Two weeks ago I picked up the book Force of Reason (La Forza della Ragione) by Oriana Fallaci. I'm not sure if you know much about her, I had never heard of her but, the title of her book was very interesting. After having passed the book three or four times in the store I decided that I had to get it so I did. I read the book in about a day in a half and found it quite interesting. I am currently rereading it and taking notes so that I can write a review of it in the book section. She is an atheist but is strongly against the Muslim invasion (via immigration and fertility) of Italy, for the simple fact that they do not integrate and have no intention to do so. That they take over small communities within a city and then using mafia type strength control the area and apply Muslim Law. She sees it as a quite invasion not integration. In the book she mentions this situation (the book was published in Italian in 2004, just recently in English). P.115-118 "For almost a half a century, a feud of the Communist and consequently a stronghold of the sons of Allah. I mean, the case of Colle Val dÉlsa: the medevil town that Dante Alighieri mentions in the thirteenth Canto of Purgatory and which, blessed by one of the finest Chianti landscapes, lies ten miles from Siena. Because on the top of its hill, a hillthat seems to have been painted by Duccio Boninsegna or Simone Martini or Ambrogio Lorenzetti, the Center Left Council wants to erect a mosque comparable to the grand mosque of Rome. That's right. A grand, a grandiose mosque with dome and courtyard and palms, completed by an eighty-feet-high minaret and embellished by the buildings of the new Islamic Center that the local Muslims demand. Listen to me, listen.... It all began a month after September 11, when the rubbles of the Twin Towers were still smoking but a press-agency communique informed the world that the leftist mayor of Colle Val dÉsla had allocated a billion and a half liras (around a million dollars) to expand on public land the Islamic Center and transfer it to an area capable of accomodating the mosque. A mosque enriched by the over-mentioned minaret of which the Muslim Community of Siena and Province was in the most pressing needs. With the mosque, three hundred and fifty residence units that the community needed as much. With the resident units, an Islamic cemetery in perpetual property. All things of which the twenty thousand citzens of Colle Val dÉsla knew absolutely nothing and had not consequently expressed any opinion, given no approval. Well, the hell broke loose. Blasphemous yellings. Slanging machetes. Appeals to the Court of Justice. As well as furious debates and petitions to halt the triple project. The mayor had no right to give away public land and spend public money on enterprises which favored foreigners and damaged citzens, people said. Besides, how did the mayor dare to build a mosque enriched by a minaret in an environment that with mosques and minarets had nothing to do?!? There were only three hundred Muslims at Colle Val dÉsla, and one thousand in the province of Siena: so where was the "pressing needs"? As for the cemeterey, the municiple one was open to the deceased to any creed. Why did the Muslims had to have their own personal one, their own special one? Why should their tombs be in perpetuity while the Christians and the Jews and the Buddhist and the atheist were kept in their graves for no longer than a few decades? A Defence Committe was also formed. "Stop the mosque, stop the cemetery! Hands off our land". A committee composed of labor-workers, farmers, pensioners, housewives. Usually, the people who had voted for the Left. But it achieved nothing. And soon the mosque with the minaret will disfigure the landscape of Duccio Boninsegna and Simone Martini and Ambrogio Lorenzetti. A mosque witha minaret so high as ninety feet. And, as if it were not enough, another one will raise in Florence where the jealous and leftist administration has decided to rival Colle Val d'Esla inside the historical center of the city. Meaning into the homeland of Dante Alighieri, of Patrarca, Boccaccio, Giotto, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Lorenzo il Magnificio. And so on and so on... In fact now I ask myself through what negligence or stupidity or destiny people like me failed to realize in time that we were coming to this. " This is interesting to add to immigration debate. Can you still be for unlimited immigration when a group of poeple (who are fundamentally different than you) do not want to integrate but to invade your country by immigration and fertility and then proceed to use your own democracy to impliment their beliefs and unfree way of life. As to the action by the Mayor of Colle Val d'Esla, giving away land for religous purposes (or any other purpose)is clearly wrong. If the muslims of that region want a mosque why don't they do it the way that all other groups do and raise money, buy private land and build what they please. Here is the Wikipedia article on Oriana Fallaci: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriana_Fallaci Some interesting things from that article: "In 2002 in Switzerland the Islamic Center and the Somal Association of Geneva, SOS Racisme of Lausanne and a private citizen sued her for the supposedly racist content of The Rage and The Pride. In November 2002 a Swiss judge issued an arrest warrant for violations of article 261 and 261 bis of the Swiss criminal code and requested the Italian government to either try or extradite her. Roberto Castelli, Italian minister of Justice mentioned this fact in an interview broadcasted by Radio Padania affirming that the Italian Constitution protects the Freedom of Speech and thus the extradition request had to be rejected, the episode is mentioned in her book The Force of Reason" "In May, 2005, Adel Smith, president of the Union of Italian Muslims, launched a lawsuit against Fallaci charging that "some of the things she said in her book The Force of Reason are offensive to Islam." Smith's attorney, Matteo Nicoli, cited a phrase from the book that refers to Islam as "a pool that never purifies." Consequently an Italian judge ordered her to stand trial set for June 2006 in Bergamo on charges of "defaming Islam." A previous prosecutor had sought dismissal of the charges" If you can believe this she has an arrest warrant in Switzerland and a upcoming trial in Italy for what she WROTE about Islam. Another interesting thing from the article that I didnot know until just now: "A journalist from Florence, Tiziano Terzani, expressed disagreements with her approach in an open letter to her in Corriere della Sera while David Holcberg at the Ayn Rand Institute supported her cause with a letter to the Washington Times" Dustan

Well said Jenna.

Then this is the root of were I disagree with you, everything else follows from this. As for the issue of freedom. I would bet that we both agree on the level of freedom that man has to make choices and to act. I don't believe that man's actions can be broken down into natural effects that follow from natural causes (nor do I think that is what objectivism breaks down to), but rather that man's actions are conscious effects that follow from the world that he is confronted with. Thinking is not automatic, to think and how to think is where man's freedom lies. Also man is a creative being, so not all choices are prechoosen paths to be taken (nor do I think that i what objectivis is saying), by the act of thinking man can create ideas and choice never concieved before (I think that all of Ayn's heros do this). Also I don't think I have ever heard an Objectivist say that they have no control over the world. Objectivism does reject behavorism. To use a baseball metaphor, a batter has no choice as to who the pitcher is or what pitch the pitcher will throw or where it will be thrown, but the batter must make the conscious choice of whether to bat or not and whether to swing or not. By swinging and hitting the ball and running the bases, the batter changes the game. Dustan

Nick I am not attacking you personally. When I discuss a topic I want to be clear as possible and make sure I have a understanding of the ideas of the philosophers that are being discussed. There were alot of times in your post that I didn't think that you were not doing Ayn Rand justice, so I let her words defend herself. Dustan

Isn't that the point of ethics. To recognize guidelines for moral living. Earlier you said that Rand and Sartre agreed that man needs ethics. From the Ayn Rand Lexicon p.315: What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions--the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code. The first question that has to be answered, as a precondition of any attempt to define, to judge or to accept any specific system of ethics, is: Why does man need a code of values? Let me stress this. The first question is not: What particular code of values should man accept? The first question is: Does man need values at all-- and why? ["The Obejctivist Ethics", VOS, 2;pb 13.] Rand is not replacing God with Reason, but refuting theist and alltruism with reason. Dustan

Rand did say the existence is identity. But not that essence is prior to existence. She said that existence is first. For Plato and Aristotle existence is a metaphysical term, while in Objectivism essence is a epistemological term. From the Ayn Rand Lexicon p. 120 Definitions. Let us note, at this point, the radical difference between Aristotle's view of concepts and the Objectivist view. particularly in regard to the issue of essential characteristics. It is Aristotle who first formulated the principles of correct definition. It is Aristotle who identified the fact that only concretes exist. But Aristotle held that definitions refer to metaphysical essences, which exist in concretes as a special element or formative power, and he held that the process of concept-fromation depends on a kind of direct intuition by which man's mind grasp these essences and forms concepts accordingly. Aristotle regards "essences" as metaphysical; Objectivism regards it as epistemological. Objectivism holds that the essence of a concept is that fundamental characteristic(s) of it units on which the greatest numbers of other characteristics depend, and which distinguishes these units from all other existents within the field of a man's knowledge. Thus the essence of a concept is determinded contexually and may be altered with the growth of man's knowledge. The metaphysical referent of man's concepts is not a special, seperate metaphysical essence, but the total of the facts of a givin group of existents he designates as essential. An essential characteristic is factual, in the sense that it does exist, does determine other characteristics and does not distinguish a group of existents from all others; it is epitemological in the sense that the classification of "essential characteristic" is a device of man's method of cognition-- a means of classifying, condensing and intergrating and ever-growing body of knowledge. [ibid., 68] This is the difference between the two. Existentialist want to be free to create their own definitions in contrast to reality, while Objectivism realizes the facts of existence and define a term by its characteristics. Dustan

I don't think that Rand held that man's path is already forged. She believed in free will and that men could take any path they chose, nor did she believe in forcing anyone into a path they didnot want to go. She just held that a path which is rationaly selfish is the best morally. This is very challenging. You must use your mind to determine what is rational and what is best, instead of unconsciously going through the motions. You must think critically and for yourself. Then you must make the best decision possible and then amend that decision as more information becomes available. Objectivism does not hold that you must be infallible. And as to the last sentence, please explain how a path could be best if it may go too far in ignoring facts of survival. If a person ignores (blanksout) the facts of survival and leads himself towards his own destruction then how can this be best. Also what is that persons motivation in blanking out the facts of survival? Dustan

This may be a little nit picking but Rand was not a conservative capitalist, but a lassez-faire capitalist. From The Ayn Rand Lexicon p.95: Objectivist are not "conservatives". We are radicals for capitalism; we are fighting for that philosophical base which capitalism did not have and without which it was doomed to perish.... Politics is based on three other philosophical disciplines; metaphysics, epistemology and ethics-- on a theory of man's nature and of man's relationship to existence. It is not only on such a base that one can formulate a consistent political theory and achieve it in practice. When, however, men attempt to rush into politics without such a base, the result is that embarrassing conglomeration of impotence, futility, inconsistency and superficiality which is loosely designated today as "conservatism."... [Choose Your Issues.:TON, Jan. 1962, I.] Dustan

The major differences between Rand and Sartre apear to be in the area of Metaphysics and Epistemology. I donot consider Sartre's Marxism as relevant because as you pointed out it does not necessarily follow from his philosophy and it does not seem that he based his political views from his philosphical ideas. But because Rand founded her entire philosophy on Metaphysics (A is A), then I do not believe that any conclusional similarities between Rand and Sartre can be considered significant. Just because they came to similar conclusions does not mean that they came via the same argument which is very important to consider. As you point out Sartre was not systematic while Rand clearly was. Rand was systematic because that is rational, ethical theory must be formed on a foundation of metaphysics and epistemology, while Sartre's ethically theory is not that clear. Objectivism holds that A is A, while Existentialism holds that A is what you experience it to be. In Objectivism existence trumps consciousness as consciousness is the recognition of reality and dealing with it. In Existentialism consciousness trumps existence and is dependent on feelings and dealing with your experiences. Also it is not clear how you have incorporated Existentialism into your Neo-Objectivist theory. I have some other specific questions on your post above that I will put in following post. Dustan

Here is Williams James version of Epistemological Pragmatism from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James: James defined truth as that which works in the way of belief. "True ideas lead us into useful verbal and conceptual quarters as well as directly up to useful sensible termini. They lead to consistency, stability and flowing human intercourse" but "all true processes must lead to the face of directly verifying sensible experiences somewhere," he wrote. Pragmatism as a view of the meaning of truth is considered obsolete by many in contemporary philosophy, because the predominant trend of thinking in the years since James' death in 1910 has been toward non-epistemic definitions of truth, i.e. definitions that don't make truth dependent upon the warrant of a belief. A contemporary philosopher or logician will often be found explaining that the statement "the book is on the table" is true if and only if the book is on the table. In What Pragmatism Means, James writes that the central point of his own doctrine of truth is, in brief, that "truth is one species of good, and not, as is usually supposed, a category distinct from good, and coordinate with it. Truth is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief, and good, too, for definite, assignable reasons." Richard Rorty claims that James did not mean to give a theory of truth with this statement, and that we should not regard it as such. James seems to say incompatible things about truth. In addition to truth being what is good in the way of belief, he also says truth is correspondence with reality, or 'the facts'. But this may be interpreted as viewing the property of truth as correspondence with reality while maintaining that the concept of truth is whatever is good in the way of belief. True to pragmatist spirit, he never purported to be providing the necessary and sufficient conditions for truth. [edit] Cash Value From the introduction to William James's Pragmatism by Bruce Kuklick p.xiv. James went on to apply the pragmatic method to the epistemological problem of truth. He would seek the meaning of 'true' by examining how the idea functioned in our lives. A belief was true, he said, if in the long run it worked for all of us, and guided us expeditiously through our semihospitable world. James was anxious to uncover what true beliefs amounted to in human life, what their "Cash Value" was, what consequences they led to. A belief was not a mental entity which somehow mysteriously corresponded to an external reality if the belief were true. Beliefs were ways of acting with reference to a precarious environment, and to say they were true was to say they guided us satifactorily in this environment. In this sense the pragmatic theory of truth applied Darwinian ideas in philosophy; it made survival the test of intellectual as well as biological fitness. If what was true was what worked, then scientific investigate religion's claim to truth in the same manner. The enduring quality of religious beliefs throughout recorded history and in all cultures gave indirect support for the view that such beliefs worked. James also argued directly that such beliefs were satisfying—they enabled us to lead fuller, richer lives and were more viable than their alternatives. Religious beliefs were expedient in human existence, just as scientific beliefs were. The Wikipedia article on philosophical pragmatism is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism but incomplete. Pragmatics as it relates to linguistics is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics. But to be fair the second line from wikipedia about pragmatism is as follows: Given the diversity among thinkers and the variety among schools of thought that have adopted this term over the years, the term pragmatism has become all but meaningless in the absence of further qualification So basically it is who is using it and how which determines what pragmatism means, which is a little ironic :-)

There are actually people who believe in that level (you can't know anything) of skepticism. I actually met a whole group of them in college. Also we covered this type of skepticism in my epistemology class in college as well. David Hume and Descartes were two skeptics. Here is a link to Wikipedia about Philosophical Skepticism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism and an excerpt from it: "Absolute Certainty First of all, in all three arguments -- Hume's, Descartes', and the circularity argument -- the claim is made that we can't prove something or other. We can't prove that sense-data represent an external reality. We can't prove that we're not dreaming. We can't prove that perception, or memory, is reliable. But now ask yourself: just because you can't prove something, does that mean that you don't know it? Or that you aren't justified in believing it? Take Descartes' dreaming doubt as an example. Suppose you're convinced that you can't prove that you're not dreaming, not without begging the question. And you're even willing to admit that mere very slight possibility that you are dreaming right now. However, a non-skepticist might reply, who cares? So what if I can't prove, to Descartes' skeptic, that I'm not dreaming? Who cares if there is a very, very slight possibility that I'm dreaming right now? Does that really matter to my knowledge-claims? Now, Descartes himself thought it definitely did matter. Descartes wanted absolutely certain knowledge -- knowledge beyond any doubt. And so he thought that if you can raise the smallest doubt about something, then you don't really know it. For example, the dreaming doubt raises the very small possibility that you are not actually reading this article right now; you might be dreaming; and so Descartes would say (at that point -- later he thought he refuted this skepticism) that you don't know you're reading this right now. So this forces us to ask ourselves: Do we have to have absolute certainty, lacking any doubt whatsoever, in order to have knowledge? That would be the absolutely strongest grade of justification possible. And then we would be saying that knowledge is not just sufficiently justified true belief, but certainlytrue belief. Many philosophers don't think that such a strong degree of justification is necessary for knowledge. After all, they claim, we can know what the weather is going to be like, just by reading the morning forecast. Sometimes we're wrong; but if we're right then we have knowledge. So they are not particularly worried if they can't prove that they're not dreaming. They think it's extremely unlikely that they're dreaming, and they think they're perfectly well justified in thinking they're awake. And they don't have to know with absolute certainty that they're awake, of course, to be well-justified in believing they're awake. Note too that Descartes himself rejected his skeptical doubts in the end. Here's a second thing you might observe about skepticism: if the skeptic makes absolute certainty a requirement for knowledge, then you could reply that this observation should be applied to skepticism itself. Is skepticism itself entirely beyond doubt? Isn't it possible to raise various kinds of objection to skepticism? So it would appear; but then no one can know that skepticism is true. So then the skeptic can't know that skepticism is true. But this is actually a bit of a weak reply, because it doesn't really refute skepticism. The skeptic, after all, may be perfectly happy to admit that no one knows that skepticism is true. The skeptic might rest content saying that skepticism is very probably true. That's not the kind of claim that most non-skeptics will be happy to allow."

One reason that ITOE may seem to lack depth for you is that you may be asking too much from it. Epistemology and Cogn-Neuroscience are two different fields, even though Cogn-Neuroscience must ential a rational view of epistemology, similar to Metaphysics and Physics. Epiestemology is the study or theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge epecially with reference to its limits and validity (Merriam-Webster Online). There are actually philosophers who believe that you can't really know anything because the senses can't be trusted (skeptics), philosophers who believe that if a large majority of people claim something isn't true (even though in reality it is) then it isn't true (pragmatist), and philosophers who believe that everything has true essence that is only detectable through some vague form of esp (platonist). I think that the main ideas that Rand wanted to convey in her ITOE is that we gain knowlege by percerving with our senses (which are valid) and by rationaly processing this information with our mind. A is A and we can know it by consciously exploring reality. By studying Cogn-Neuroscience you already assume that the sense are valid and that we can gain knowledge from the world. It is up to Psychology and Physiology to find out how this occurs. Dustan

Thanks, I will look more closely at those pages when I get home and can get to my copy of ITOE. Dustan

How is Rand wrong about essentialism? Dustan

I will also try and pick up the book for discussion. But I won't probably be able to get it until next weekend. This discussion has turned very interesting. Dustan

When people say this it drives me crazy.

This is the main reason that I usually vote Republican. The evangelicalist are not trying to steal my production and redistribute it. They try to pass morality laws (such as the bans on gay marriage), but these laws will eventually be battled in the courts and overturned as the public grows less religous and more tolerant. And like Charles said, we have a long tradition of seperation of Church and State. On the other hand, the socialistic laws that have been passed are very hard to repeal, once the Government starts giving out money they can never seem to cut it off from fear of public backlash (social security, medicare, welfare). Also the Republican party is supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility. Even though that has not been the case for several years, at least they claim to want to be, while the Democrats openly state they will spend more. I have to agree with Charles that there is no protection from the socialist if the Democrats have power. On a side note to the last part of Charles post, this past February I volunteered to help a local lawyer from my hometown run for Congress in the 17th district in Texas. He was the former legal aid to Pete Sessions (a Republican Congressman from Dallas). While talking to him and his wife I found that they were huge fans of Ayn Rand (epecially his wife). I wouldn't call them objectivist, they were both very religous, but his wife had read alot of Ayn's nonfiction as well as Atlas and TFH and you could see her eyes light up everytime she talked about Ayn. This made me very comfortable supporting them, unfortunately he lost the primary to a very well funded opponent and the only Iraq veteran running on the Republican ticket. As I have met people who have admired Ayn's work they have almost all have been Republican/Libertarian voters.