Aggrad02

http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publis...ticle_448.shtml I was going to put this in the Articles and News section but figured that it wasn't worthy, so I placed it here. This article is such a piece of trash it is highly humorous. Especially since the website slogan is to provide uncensored and accurate news, articles and commentary. One bright piece of the article is that the author, as a way of trying to prove his point, actually ask his readers to pick up a Ayn's Virtue of Selfisness. Hopefully some of them will.

Phillip was trying to better explain what Ms. hsieh was saying in the first part of her statement: "I regard homosexuality as unfortunate and suboptimal". I think the best word that could be used instead of unfortunate (which I think is a horrible word because it implies fortune and luck) is unsuitable. That would take care of the problems of unfortunate and include suboptimal. The statement "I think homosexuality is unsuitable, but but I do not think any case can be made that a loving homosexual relationship is immoral." is alot less contradictory and less negative. I would also solve the problem of natural, because something that is only represented by 10% of a species could be considered unsuitable. Dustan Edit: Upon further consideration I am revoking my above statement. Any action that is moral cannot be also unsuitable. Therefore the original statement by ms. Hsieh is a contradiction no matter how you improve the wording.

Phillip, I agree with the part of your post that it is counter productive to engage in the four topics you posted. I'm new to this board and the online objectivist community, and I don't know any of the players involved and have never read anything by Hsieh or Chris, but I went to solo passion to read the article by ms. hsieh, and I can see no value she could obtain by posting that article. Even if everything in the article is true and all of the claims are valid, it is still a piece of trash. From the tone and the content of her article she seems to be a very sour souled person. Someone I would never want to have any interaction with whatsoever. I am not sure how it works in academia but in the real world (except in politics) such a person would be ostracized. Criticizing someone's work is fair, but attacking them personally is so low I wouldn't even do such a thing to my worst enemy. How can anyone ever trust her again. What was the point of the article besides attempted assasination. Objectivism is about the producer not the destroyer. Dustan Costine

Barbara, My name is Dustan Costine. aggrad02 is the user name I always use when leaving post on boards or blogs. Usually I try to sign my name after the post but many times I get in a hurry and forget.

Franklin's Autobiography is great, there is alot to learn from him. I try to read it once a year. Try to read it when you get the time. Also, I just got my copy of PAR in the mail and will begin it shortly.

In Texas we have seen a huge increase of nonMexican immigrants coming over the border, especially from South America and Central America, but even from Asia as well.

Im not sure about other states but in Texas public education is paid by for with property taxes. Since illegal immigrants have to live somewhere they contribute just like everyone else by paying rent (which goes to the owner and who pays the taxes). Also in Texas this issue is not that big a deal, we have lived with immigrants both legal and illegal in Texas for hundreds of years and everyone gets along, it is part of life here. We have a booming economy (proof is that we took in probably 200,000 Katrina victims, and any of them who wanted jobs were able to find them). We don't really have any unions in Texas and pay no state income tax, and no one is really complaining about "losing jobs to immigrants". Also the immigrants are extremely valuable to our economy. I have 5 business locations in South Texas and I would say about 15% (maybe more) of my business there come from illegal immigrants. In general these immigrants are not criminals and work very hard.

Who do y'all (sorry I'm from Texas) think should play Rearden? Maybe they can get Noam Chomsky for Wesley Mooch, he is the person I always imagine when reading Atlas.

I was just fliping through the channels with nothing to do and I found Pulp Fiction on. It is my favorite movie and Ive probably seen it a hundred times, so the night just got better.

What will be really interesting to see is if they capture the whole concept behind Objectivism in the first place. Hollywood has been know to take a book and basically rewrite it.

Good post Roger.

Like some of the other posters here, I am also new to objectivism and especially to participating online with the objectivist community (this is the only site I visit because I don't have that much time). This fighting between parties is the saddest thing that I have found. When I read Ayn's books I finally found justifications for alot of the thoughts I was having about the world, morality and individuality. I came online to find similar types of people since it is hard to find them on the street, and all of the bickering is very unfortunate. I aplause Barbara for standing up for her friend (I do not know anything yet about Chris, but from the impressions about his writings that I get on this board I certianly will read his work in the near future) and she is right to do so. I donot see how any of these attacks will do any good. People should be judge on their work, and if their work is not adequate it will be obvious to the individual thinker. Also if anyone new to objectivism takes another person's word on the character and ability of another person and their work without reading and finding out for themselves then I would highly doubt their understanding and commitment to objectivism.

That was pretty funny.

I read this this morning and wanted to scream in horror. I don't have alot of time today but if some of you feel as strongly about this as I do please write a response letter to the editor of the USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/edito...tters-oil_x.htm Here is the article in full: Big Oil pumps profits at consumers' expense Posted 4/25/2006 9:48 PM ET "As oil prices reach new high, consumers face new reality" is right: We, the consumers, do face a new reality, in more ways than one. And if we believe everything we read, the editorial seems to justify the high prices we're paying for gasoline by discussing the markets and risky U.S. oil policies (Friday). Despite these reasons, I believe there is another side to that coin. Big oil companies today are making the highest profits in the history of the oil business, as consumers are paying the highest ever prices for gasoline. ExxonMobil, for example, had a record $10.7 billion profit in the fourth quarter of 2005, and it recorded the largest annual profit in U.S. corporate history — $36.1 billion for all of 2005. This year will no doubt be a record setter for ExxonMobil, too. All of the oil companies are making huge profits. Now, I don't begrudge a company the right to make a profit, but to me, something is definitely wrong with this picture. If these oil companies are making such an immense profit, why are we paying record high gasoline prices? I'm beginning to see Robin Hood and his Merry Men robbing from the poor to give to the big oil companies. Personally, I'm choking on $3-a-gallon gasoline in Michigan. Newton Van Koughnett Sterling Heights, Mich. He thinks that oil companies should make a profit, BUT JUST not too much. He thinks that he is getting robbed (that is what Robin Hood does) by oil companies even though he agrees to buy the gas (no one is pointing a gun at his head). But what he is really wanting is to call Robin Hood out himself and place a gun at the head of Oil companies because he doesn't "like" their current prices.

I was watching the Texas Rangers tonight and the commentators told a story relayed to them by Rangers conditioner/trainer. The trainer said his son was walking in downtown Seattle and saw a homeless appearing person with a sign that said the following: Need Help! Family Killed by Ninjas. Need Money for Karate Lessons! The trianers son thought that the sign was hilarious (which I agree) so he gave the guy $20. Is this justified morally or do think this is just Altruism.

Thanks David for the welcome and the information. I have read two of Nathaniels books, Judgement Day and Six Pillars of Self Esteem. I found him through reading Capitalism The Unknown Ideal. Under every article that Nathaniel wrote there was a disclaimer stating he was no longer associated with Ayn and Objectivism. I wondered how someone who wrote so well and seemed to promote objectivism and reason so well deserved such a disclaimer. I looked him up and read Judgement Day and then found SPoSE in a used bookstore. I thoroughly enjoyed and respected it. Like not learning about Ayn in Phil class I had never heard about Nathaniel in Psyc class either. I have since ordered about 5 more of his books. It may take me a while to get through them all adequately, but I have so much to catch up on. I wish I could have found out about Ayn and Nathaniel much early in my life (before I started college) instead of after I graduated. Thanks, Dustan

Michael, I agree with you and your friend. I think that reproduction is part of human nature and part of living for yourself. What is more egoist than wanting to pass part of yourself (your DNA) on into the future.

Thanks for the information. You probably wrote this as I wrote the edit on my last post. I clearly agree that if your response is triggered by an unconscious physical phenomena of the brain then it cannot be judged. Just to give a little background on myself. I recieved my BS in Psychology with a Minor in Philosophy. Unfortunately in my 21 hrs of philosophy I never recieved any discussions of Ayn Rand or Objectivism (which I now think was a crime). During my senior year I started my own retail cell phone accessory business and continue business and investing today. I am an avid reader and had to discover Ayn on my own, her philosophy was a great relief to me as it cleared up alot of questions that I had. I haven't really studied psychology since then but am still very fond of it.

Thank you very much, I is really hard to find people to have discussions about philosophy with as I am not a student and do not make a career in academics. Dustan

What do you consider a healthy mind and unhealthy mind? Some people would consider an irrational mind as unhealthy, or do you mean a medically unhealthy mind (such as schizophrenia, bi-polar, alzheimers)? I don't think that an unhealthy mind can be rational consistently, while a healthy mind can be irrational. A person does not have to be irrational all the time to be considered irrational, just some of the time. Ayn Rand considered rationality as "the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge; one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action". Basically recognizing reality and using reason to make decisions. I don't think you can make an unhealthy rational decision. If the mind is not healthy enough to either grasp reality or use reason, then it cannot be rational. If the decisions are truely rational (knowledge gained through reality and decisions made using reason) then they shoulded be judged black or white. Since philosophy is the base of all sciences, it should follow that psychology should be integrated on a foundation of philosophy. A psychology that fights philosophy would be a psychology founded on a different philosophy than the one it is in conflict with. In reality this would be a clash of philosophies and not psychology/philosophy. Edit- I just read again your explanation. If what you mean by an unhealthy mind = loss of volitional capacity, then that person is no longer able to make decisions freely (there is some physical disturbance in the brain that affects decision making). If that is the case then that person's decisions could not be considered rational, nor do I think that you could consider their actions as moral or amoral, as to judge an action it must be freely chosen. If would be the same as judging a person who is being commanded at gun point to do a certian aciton, since that person no longer has free will, then they no longer can be judged morally.

Thanks Michael for the clarification on the example and the context of the discussion. I think in that situation a morally right person would have to value life and help the child. Someone who purposefully didn't help the child for sadistic reason would cleary be acting with evil intentions, while someone who doesn't want have to deal with the situation and ignore the situation would be blanking out. I haven't studied alot about rights (or too much for that matter), but I don't think that the child's rights would oblidge the stranger to help him. I don't think one person's rights can obligate someone else. I think that the child's right to life comes more from the parents responsiblity to care for them as the parents chose to reproduce. -- Dustan (That is my name, I graduated from Texas A&M University in 2002, so that is the screen name I use for various things, it is easy to remember when you have just one.)

Michael I have to disagree with you. If being moral is seeking values to promote rational self-interest, then there can be no grey. There are only four scenarios: Either someone is being rational and pursuing his self interest. or He is being irrational and pursuing his self interest or He is being rational and pursuing his destruction or He is being irrational and pursuing his destruction. Only one of these decisions is white and the other three are black, the middle two are not grey. That does not mean that a person can never make a wrong decision. That person may have inadequate knowledege, but as long as he acts rationally with the knowledge that he has it is a morally white. If a person comes to a rational decision that he is emotionally uncomfortable with and which is a really tough decision considering the situation, the decision and the alternative are not grey, one is superior rationally and white and the other is black. Rationality is not an extreme. Existence is not and extreme. Life is not an extreme. Their is no middle between rationality and irrationality, existence and nonexistence, or life and nonlife.

This is a little ranting and one of my first post, so excuse me if any of this is off base. I just began reading this board this week and have tried to not join this conversation because it was apparently started long ago, but I think that I must. I haven't been able to find Michael's moral dilemma, but from the first couple of posts seem to get the idea. A man is walking in the wilderness and spots an unattended baby that is apparently hungry. The man has some food, so the question is whether he should feed the baby or continue on his way risking the baby dying of starvation. "Ayn Rand upholds rational self-interest. This means the ethics of selfishness, with man's life as the standard of value defining self-interest, and rationality as the primary virtue defining the method of achieving it." (From Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff, p.234) To determine how he (the food man) should act ethically, he would have to determine rationally what is in his best interest. And it does not seem that given this problem the way that it is presented you can accomplish this. If the problem stated above is the correct one, then I think that it is not specific enough to be analyzed rationally and objectively. Instead of a possible real life situation, it seems only a mere painting of one, a snap shot of time. There is alot of context missing: Where in the world is this wilderness? In a state park in the US? In the middle of the Sahara? In the jungle? How far it is from civilization? One day? Two days? 10 Days? Where is the man going with the food? On a day hike? Is he lost himself? Going to feed his family of 20 likewise starving children? What condiiton is the food in? Is it edible for a baby? Maybe it is posionous and the man is trying to keep it from harming anyone? What is the food for? Does the man just have it? Is it for his family? If he is lost does he need it for himself? What does the man know about babies? Is there any other context missing? Maybe in the area there has been several robberies involving stranded babies, that when travelers try to help it they are ambushed by hiding thieves. Without knowing the answers to these questions and many more we cannot adequately help this man make a rational ethical decision. Are there possible situations in which the man can pass on helping the baby and still be morally good? Of course, since an ethical man must value life. And there are many possible situations in which passing the baby is morally evil as well. If the man has to take a self destructing or value sacraficing action to help or pass the baby then the he has made a unethical decision. In Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Peikoff says that: "As to helping a stranger in an emergency, this is moral under certian conditions. A man may help such a person if the concept "emergency" is properly delimited, if no sacrafice is involved on the helpers part; if the recipient is not the cause of his own suffering, i.e., the helper is supporting not vices but values, even though it is only the potential value of a fellow human being about whom nothing evil is known; and, above all, if the helper remembers the moral status of his action. Extending help to others in such a context is an act of generosity, not an obligation. Nor is it an act that one may cherish as one's claim to virtue. Virtue, for Objectivism, consist in creating values, not giving them away" p. 239. On another note about this delimma, dying of hunger is probably the fourth thing that will kill this child if left unattended. The baby will die of dehydration, exposure or wild animals long before it dies of hunger, making the man's food useless and act of assistance what is crucial to the survial of the baby, not the man giving up food (which may be a value to him). --Dustan

This is just an idea but... Do you think that there is a possibility that the tobacco companies are happy that they are able to advertise in some form on t.v. since they have been banned in the '70's Smoking is an irrational habit. I do not know of anyone who smokes that doesn't know that it will eventually kill you. (I am sure there are some exceptions), but people smoke anyhow. So it would seem like the message (which is intended for smokers) is ineffective while the company gets to get thier company name in at the end. (Boy those cigarettes are killing me, but those people at Phillip-Morris really care about me!)