Rodney

Cute, but in my view none of them hold a candle to this one: http://www.bofunk.com/video/838/sleepy_kitty.html

I assume you're disagreeing with this quote, as would I if it is attacking math-based prediction as such. Its logical implication is that concepts (also abstracted) are just as powerless--that the universe cannot be described! For my full views on the relation of math to reality, I would refer you to the essay in my signature, except that it essentially builds on Rand's ITOE--a book you say confuses you. (I find this a bit surprising, because I experienced the book as basically a description of my own mental operations. In my teens I had arrived at the AR's idea of measurement-omission independently.) But anyone else who is interested in the application of Objectivism to mathematics, is willing to listen to a theory different from that of Ronald Pisaturo and Glenn Marcus, and has $5 to spare, might want to click below.

My example is, I think, much better, because it shows that moral choices are essentially not between competing logical chains, but between thinking and wilfully not doing so.

Come on, Darrell: it's more to the point, and more realistic, to say that he might simply kick back and be lazy. And that would be just as objectively wrong.

It's the evasion of logic that is the root of immorality--when you know something is right, but still talk yourself into not doing it.

Of course it's more subtle than the movie--I agree. In fact, I could hardly make out the book's title on my screen, suggesting that the reference was very incidental. And it is always possible that someone who likes Rand handed the actor that book as a prop just to give it publicity (unwisely I think). I am just saying what my best guess is. Consider: Also remember that modern TV goes for the short-range effect. In sitcoms, it is considered funny nowadays to have a character brag about some virtue and immediately have him contradict it in action. John Cleese complained about this in North American comedy, the practice of always going for the cheap, immediate payoff, and not for jokes that are more subtle and that depend on context and nuances of character. Similarly, the short-range significance of Sawyer is that he is almost pyschopathically self-centred. That is the "tag" on him that substitutes for serious meaning in this show, and that (I think) is the reason why Rand's book is shown. Modern TV writers need and use "tags" a lot. Obviously, the accepted "tag" for AR is wacko advocate of heedless selfishness. We'll see how this plays out in the show. And if it never comes up again, I think it supports my interpretation. But I would really like to be worng!

Yes, that's correct. Since epistemological theorizing involves a great deal of introspection (I know you might disagree, but anyway), if she fails in this component of her investigation she might well be wrong in her theory of concepts and right in her ethics, metaphysics, politics, esthetics, and even the broad outline of her epistemology. For the most part Rand tackled problems as she became interested in them. First she wished to present her vision of the ideal man. But for this this she had to define her concept of individualism, which led to The Fountainhead. She became interested in politics, and a conversation on this topic triggered the idea for "the mind on strike," which led to Atlas. That novel's plan expanded more and more as she worked out the plot and implications, until finally Galt's speech became the near-treatise it is (it's not really a treatise because as a spoken passage in fiction it had to have drama, color, clarity, and simplicity). After Atlas she was drawn to nonfiction explanations of her thinking, and often only considered an issue when it was raised by someone. Her way was to continually refine her ideas, introducing qualifications when she thought them called for (this even happens within the expanded edition of IOE). That is why it is best not to take everything she has said as graven in stone, but to regard her whole corpus as a living expression of a constantly active mind.

Not as conclusions follow from premises. More like as good results follow from intelligent methods. Remember, she is not so much prescribing man's methods as describing them. She is saying that any knowledge of any of us flows from this epistemology. For example, Feynman's insights into subatomic interactions. But, of course, a good description and understanding of man's conceptual faculty in action can obviously give man more control and lead to better and faster results--hence the somewhat prescriptive aspects of her monograph. By the way, recall that she put her entire philosophy in Atlas Shrugged long before turning to the theory of concepts. She probably only had a few ideas on the subject before writing the monograph. So there couldn't have been the type of logical flow I take you to mean. Daniel, this time I'll take your winking emoticon as non-taunting, and thank you for the greeting. I extend the same to you.

Don't bother. It does not affect my point that I can see. Then this confirms something I suspected, that the statement "she regarded her chief original contribution as being in this field" is also wrong, since it was others who said something similar and not her. I don't think she would have said it or thought it. Or if she did, she rather thought it to be her most important contribution.

As usual, I don’t have time to participate in these highly interesting debates (especially right now), but off the top of my head I’m sure this is false. All Ayn Rand ever maintained (as far as I know, and I think I’ve read everything she ever formally said on the subject) was that she used her epistemology to arrive at the rest of her conclusions. But since she was to a large extent merely describing man’s manner of awareness (along the way necessarily making some prescriptions), this means that she merely claimed to have reasoned correctly, applying logic to experience in the usual manner of any thinker.

It was not random, but why do you suppose the writer chose Sawyer and not some other character? To me it's all too obvious. The book was referenced in exactly the same way in Dirty Dancing. Of course Sawyer will turn out to be a hero, but unless it is indicated then that he used Rand as inspiration, or he is shown still reading Rand, or that somehow Rand is not repudiated in some way, I will continue to think the only intention was to make a subtle point against the book.

Well, Sawyer is the stereotype of the selfish person, though he is presented as having some good impulses. All in all, he is a likable character, but you can't get around the fact that his "selfishness" is presented as evil. Just look at his past, and at how self-centered he is--in the bad way!

Think again. I view this as on the order of the mention of the book in the film Dirty Dancing.

I'd put it this way: You should strive to reach the point where your realism is optimism. MSK's injunction to "be hard to love" is a profound one. Consider Lillian Gish: All I'll say is that this girl never married--and a case could be made for the idea that she never even had sex. (Though that seems unlikely, I admit, and not just because of her beauty.) She was extremely "hard to love." For details, see the biographies by her and others.

Only in the sense that it illuminates in a flash, and puts in relief, the author's lack of comprehension of AR's argument.

Let's be fair, AR did hold that it is possible to separate the purely esthetic value of art from the value of the "emotional universe" it reflects. However, I would say that sometimes the former is so overwhelmingly great that it more than compensates for the latter, all told. I find this is true for Beethoven for me. I do not identify with his metaphysical values as I perceive them in his work, but I study his scores and marvel at his music and his genius.

Hi Steve. Re your signature's epigraph, "There is only one way to come into this world; there are too many ways to leave it"--I would comment that there is, rather, only one way to leave this world. However, it is one too many--so I have to say I agree!

I have a pretty good memory for all things verbal, and my recollection is that it said "... with everything that [or "this"] implies"--i.e., the return to Russia. I have all my ARL's in storage but I'm sure I could find it.

I've always greatly admired the writing in Passion, so perhaps Wolfe could benefit from the pruning of adjectives. As it is, although I love good poetry no matter how lengthy, I could not endure reading a novel written in Wolfe's style.

And I guess, when spelling it backwards as jokesters like me are wont to do, "RAP" would connote the wrong kind of verbal music!

Whose was the unreadable name?

Hi there. Do you mean that old show Golden Girls that is in reruns?

Here's what I love about females.

Same here, actually. I figured you might know. It's like a Steven Wright joke: it's funny ... and no one knows why!

By the way, Kori: .