bmacwilliam

Will you dignify it by explaining why you consider it irrational? I'm merely curious; I'm not planning to argue with you about it. You sound as if you think that cigarettes and/or eating paper should be banned. If that is what you think, then I think that you don't understand what freedom means. (Btw, I am not an Objectivist, but I am an advocate of political freedom.) Ellen ___ Tobacco(nicotine) is a freakishly addictive substance sold by companies with an extraordinary history of deception. To compare this substance with "eating paper" is astonishingly irrational. FWIW, and I don't want to get into a tobacco discussion, but I'm all for allowing people to smoke if they choose to be so stupid or cannot kick their addiction or whatever. But allowing a toxic, highly addictive substance to be manufactured and sold to the public is not logical. Bob

As it happens, I know some case details about the particular person Scott was talking about. Significantly more was involved in her emotional difficulties than Objectivism. Likewise with a couple other cases some of the details of which I know wherein an Objectivist or ex-Objectivist committed suicide. I'd say it's obvious that there has to be more than angst over not being a worthy Objectivist operative if someone is so distressed as to commit suicide. To blame Objectivism for the suicides does, as Michael says, go "way over the fence." Ellen ___ Yes, I agree. But my point is that I think it's evidence that Objectivism attracts troubled souls. I honestly do not think an intellectually and emotionally healthy person can be an Objectivist.

Well Michael, I'm quite frustrated. Mostly with myself for the foolish endeavour of investigating Objectivism, but also at the people who make up the "movement". To me, it evokes the same feelings in me as when a homophobic preacher who preaches against sin etc. gets caught in a homosexual prostitution bust. Objectivists are so quick to denounce the rest of humanity as irrational losers (one of Rand's favourite passtimes) yet themselves continually commit the most heinous crimes against reason. I tried to give the ideas (Rand's ideas) a chance to stand on their own, but they don't. I tried to re-read Rand, but I cannot get through it. Her writings are so pathological and hate-filled, I just can't justify the effort. More on that later. Now concerning your (MSK's) post in another thread... "I also don't like cigarettes. I have a problem with banning them, though, just as I would have a problem with legally banning people from eating paper." This is a completely irrational statement and I will not dignify it with a response. You write: "and being aggressive in general going to change anything or anyone's minds? " I am fed up with this foolishness. You would need a logical mind to see the truth and change your mind. Not much evidence of that in these circles. I have come to conclude that anybody who finds any significant value in anything that Rand has produced is either mentally ill, intellectually deficient or both (that's an argument from intimidation, but unlike Rand's intimidations, the conclusion is justified by evidence). Here's why - let's look at some facts... 1. Rand/Objectivism is not taken seriously in academic circles. The philosophy itself is full of holes and errors. 2. The entire diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder fit Rand like a glove (and only 5/9 are needed) - I could provide multiple concrete examples of each and every line item here 3. Rand uses the argument from intimidation so often in her writing it's unbelievable (and unacceptable). 4. Differences of opinion are viewed as moral offences (see #2) 5. The Hickman "thing" - She's completely sick and twisted. This is horrible. Any one of these items taken on their own should be enough to stay away. This is partially why I'm frustrated with myself for not coming to the proper conclusion sooner. Why on earth would someone continue to defend or study her? The only logical conclusion is that they share the pathology, and/or are extremely gullible and lured by her very authoritative style. You (MSK) accused Nyquist of an anti-Rand bias. He concluded... "No one who is educated in these matters and is endowed with the ability to think critically can ever regard Objectivism as anything other than a mistake. (p. 367)" I would agree, but would change the "and" in the sentence to an "or". Put another way, I had just as much chance of becoming an Objectivist as not when I first began reading. It is Rand's writing and ideas that produced that conclusion. Bias has nothing to do with it. You then write: "As to the quotes above, these kinds of sentiments and evaluations are highly insulting. They did not have to be presented in that manner. I agree that Rand could get pretty insulting" Or.... They're true. And the insulting manner is perfectly appropriate because Rand continually insulted anything, everything and everyone that disagreed. So much so that her consistent arguments from intimidation pre-insulted the reader even before they had a chance to disagree. The consistent attitude of "reason and reality imply Objectivism" is very insulting to anyone with even basic critical thinking skills. You quoted Scott Ryan: "However, an acquaintance of mine (who was associated with the Objectivist movements during the early 1970’s) lost his first wife to suicide because of her belief that, by Objectivist standards, she was a flawed specimen of humanity who did not deserve to live (or in Randian terms, had not “earned the right” to hold herself as her own “highest value” by “achieving” her own “moral perfection”.) And she was not the only Objectivist or ex-Objectivist to commit or attempt suicide. (p. 378)" You write: "Of course, I feel deeply for the person who lost his wife and I do not wish to make light of his loss, but to insinuate that Objectivism is a philosophy that leads to suicide goes way over the fence" However, this is further evidence that Objectivism attracts other narcissists who at their core believe that they are unworthy. It is a magnet for this type of person. Just look at where this Jeff kid here is heading as one quick example. You write: "I regard Rand as a brilliant thinker who wrote the foundation of a practical, efficient and easily learnable rational philosophy for individuals for living on earth. Her emphasis on production and happiness strikes young high-achievers like an oasis in the desert. Her moral validation of reason was probably one of her greatest legacies to mankind that will far outshine all of the rest down the centuries. " I obviously do not share this viewpoint, and, because I conclude the evidence clearly supports something much more sinister, I have little respect for those who do. I am clearly of no benefit to anyone on this forum who holds Rand in any esteem. For that reason I may defend any comments/arguments against what I have written, but will make a voluntary departure soon afterward. Bob

To me all of these comments so far on this thread make no sense at all. Banning trans fats has no real relation to consumer choice. Trans fats were developed only for their physical, not nutritional properties. It makes perfect sense that when they are discovered to be harmful that they be banned. It is not "nanny-state" to prohibit sale of goods that have no value and are dangerous to health. You generally cannot sell a product that is dangerous to the public, or at least that has no corresponding positive value (there are exceptions, but they also need to be removed). Cars kill people, but they have a clear value too, so it's an acceptable trade-off. Trans fats have no positive value. You cannot make a parallel to something like sundae's either. Sugar is not bad. Too much sugar is bad. ALL TRANS FAT IS BAD - big difference. "People should know what they are eating and the labeling goes far enough." Wrong. They don't, and it doesn't. Whether they should or not doesn't matter. The fact is that they don't know and that's why public health is required. "There is no further need for government intervention beyond food safety standards" What the??? Banning trans fats IS food safety standards for crying out loud!! There is no fundamental logical fucking difference between somebody selling a food item that is guaranteed to give you botulism and a trans fat laden item. The only difference is that one makes you sick immediately and the other takes a few years. Use your brain dammit! "for as we all know NYC has been infested with liberal scum for quite a while. " Right, it's all about politics isn't it? Screw logic and reason. For what it's worth, I will make a final post or two outlining why I no longer choose to investigate Objectivism so in a short time I'll leave you all to your folly in peace. Bob

"PS: *I* think it's both sexist and demeaning to use the word "pussy" to refer to a weak man." Agreed. Earlier quotes... "but run like little girls from the prospect of having a splinter removed with a needle In contrast, I see a lot of men unwilling to go to the doctor, undergo needed but unpleasant tests, pop a pimple, put peroxide or iodine on a cut, etc. when in the same situation women simply do it without a thought. which is that most men simply aren't WILLING to endure pain in situations where women are willing to endure it. There's a saying that if men bore children, there'd be a lot of only children and abortion would be a sacrament." Then you write: "I don't intend to be sexist in a derogatory way" Evidence doesn't support this statement. I'm sorry, but I don't believe it. Bob

Right. Look at the following sexist remarks... _____________ Women, on the whole, are pussies when compared to what men deal with body-wise. Total, goddamn pussies. Most women can't even handle a little punch in the face. Try playing hockey girls. But none of that is really the point, other than me just saying most women are little wimp-shit whiners. There's a saying that if women were allowed to vote, we'd all be living in identical pink houses and it'd be against the law to hurt someone's feelings. _____________ Just changing a little bit and flipping the genders around on comments made by others here regarding men. It's not acceptable, it's offensive. Bob

The fact that some men are wimpy does not lead to the conclusion you originally asserted: "which is that most men simply aren't WILLING to endure pain in situations where women are willing to endure it." Evidence suggests the exact opposite. Anecdotal doesn't cut it, and your point does not hold well. At least we agree on the main point about the abortion issue, and I find your comments on that very reasonable. Bob

What? This is what I mean. This is just wrong - absolute BS. If you have a hunch that men are pussies, prove it. Evidence please. What about violent sports? Men play them much more than women. Men are MUCH more likely to put themselves in positions where great pain is likely by a HUGE margin. Who takes more physical risks? Young men or young women? Do you know what the proportion of male to female spinal cord injury victims is? Ever actually think about evidence before spouting on about nonsense and being highly offensive? Bob I don't have proof -- only observations from daily life. And I'm not trying to be offensive -- I'm just entering into the discussion. As for violent sports and risk-taking, men don't EXPECT to be hurt when they undertake these activities. Especially young men believe, "It won't happen to me." There's also the factor of peer pressure; looking wussy is far more intimidating than the risk itself. In contrast, I see a lot of men unwilling to go to the doctor, undergo needed but unpleasant tests, pop a pimple, put peroxide or iodine on a cut, etc. when in the same situation women simply do it without a thought. Especially in the area of what one is willing to do for cosmetic improvement: how many men would be willing to have a hot wax bikini line treatment, or even tweeze their eyebrows? Women do it on a regular basis. Judith Ok Judith, but look at what's happening. We have a gender-based maligning of men - calling them wimpy. It's offensive. Think about it the other way round. And in fact, the opposite is true, men are not wimpy. "In contrast, I see a lot of men unwilling to go to the doctor, undergo needed but unpleasant tests, pop a pimple, put peroxide or iodine on a cut, etc. when in the same situation women simply do it without a thought." I could argue that seeking a Doctor is about relieving pain. My hunch is the fact that more men avoid Doctors is more about avoiding admission of frailty, and that men don't seek Doctors is actually evidence that they are MORE willing to live with pain. Bob

What? This is what I mean. This is just wrong - absolute BS. If you have a hunch that men are pussies, prove it. Evidence please. What about violent sports? Men play them much more than women. Men are MUCH more likely to put themselves in positions where great pain is likely by a HUGE margin. Who takes more physical risks? Young men or young women? Do you know what the proportion of male to female spinal cord injury victims is? Ever actually think about evidence before spouting on about nonsense and being highly offensive? I am really trying to understand the motivation for believing such nonsense. I guess women want to feel that's there's some physical element where they're superior to men. Well there is, but it's not pain. There's some evidence to suggest that women might have an advantage in ultimate endurance type activities like ultramarathons. Bob

Aversion to vasectomies is one thing, but men are not pussies. Assuming this is true as the basis of your argument when it's false is what I'm objecting to. Your argument is false AND offensive. That's why I "spew" _____________________________ "Laboratory studies show a clear difference in pain tolerance levels between men and women. When healthy men and women are subjected to heat and other types of pain tests, women almost always report feeling discomfort first. "It takes a lower temperature for a women to tell you that this feels painful," says Roger Fillingim, PhD, associate professor in the college of dentistry at the University of Florida, in Gainesville. "The laboratory studies show rather convincingly that women have a lower pain threshold and pain tolerance than men. That has been fairly consistently shown in the experimental studies that have been done." _____________________________________ I am not advocating that men make decisions over women's bodies - quite the opposite. I am arguing that SINCE men have no claim over women's bodies, they MUST be allowed the right to disagree with the woman's choice to continue with the pregnancy and should not be held financially responsible if the child is unwanted by the man. To put it another way. To argue pro choice for a woman, but in the same argument also promote anti choice for men is logically inconsistent at best and overtly offensively anti-male at worst. Bob

Do a little background work before spouting foolishness. "Men, on the whole, are pussies when compared to what women deal with body-wise. Total, goddamn pussies. Most men can't even handle the thought of a vasectomy. Try shitting out a bowling ball for additional perspective, boys. But none of that is really the point, other than me just saying most men don't have bragging rights in this area, because, once again, they are little Nancy-boys." This is false. FYI, pain tolerance in men is significantly HIGHER, not lower. "Reproductive rights?" You want rights, don't fuck without a contract, then! " Goes both ways, BOTH ways... Bob

Been a while since posting here - really busy but been lurking a bit. Decided to chime in on this issue though. I am pro-choice, but Fran's ideas here are wrong and in some ways insulting to men. "but I am pro-abortion for this reason: pregnancy can happen despite all my best attempts to prevent it." Then your reason for being pro abortion is wrong. Best effort would mean no sex if pregnancy is unwanted. You MUST assume a non-zero risk if you are sexually active. This is a fact, not an opinion. I am not saying you should abstain, the point is you must accept responsibility for risk though. "Then the pregnancy would be within my own control and thus I would be responsible for it happening." Other than rape, you are ALWAYS 50% responsible. What's with the avoiding responsibility thing? "It is easy for you to condemn an act as immoral because pregnancy and all that this entails will never affect you." Wrong wrong wrong. This is convenient excuse to deny men reproductive rights. The fact is that up until conception men and women have equal rights, but afterwards men have none. Fathering a child is hardly something that "will never affect you". Often the most vocal proponents of pro choice are the biggest complainers when men refuse to pay support for an unwanted pregnancy. Can't have it both ways. If we are pro choice, then men must be given a choice too. Refusing to care/pay for an unwanted child is acceptable for a woman (abortion), it also must be acceptable for a man (walking away from an unwanted pregnancy) Bob

Bob, It sounds a little to me like you are trying to make intuitive sense of physical reality. It is clear you did not complete your training as a physicist. The fully trained physicist would know there is no need for explanations about the fundamental nature of matter beyond what observation and mathematical laws can describe. You have not come to see the world exclusively through the physicist's lens. You seem to be wondering what is happening on a physical level that you might be able to picture in you imagination. What actions and interactions of things could account for "billiard ball" collisions, on the one hand, and annihilation on the other? There is a simple dynamic system, which we observe everyday, that can produce a hypothetical model suggesting a causal explanation: vortices. <vortices stuff snipped for brevity> Might the rotational direction of matter, that causes it to be matter rather than anti-matter, not be caused by some greater motion on a galactic or intergalactic scale? Might not this greater motion also keep matter and antimatter separate so we witness no annihilations? Can we take any of this to be more than just a hypothetical model suggesting a causal explanation of the nature of matter and antimatter? NO. We have stepped purely into the realm of imagination here, and are disconnected from the evidence. This is the world of the aether. The view of matter being vortices in some material substrata is the view of aether theories of a bygone age. In the late nineteenth century the Michelson-Morley experiment demonstrated that the aether does not exist. In 1905 and in 1915, Einstein said we don't need it. As seductive as it might be, the aether theory was wrong. The aether theory still has a strong underground following because it can make sense of some things like charged particles. Unless it can overcome the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, it is dead. And it can't. When the aether theory died, so too did our belief in our ability to imagine the fundamental nature of reality. Imagination gives us aether and requires that we imagine physical entities in motion. Aether is wrong = imagination is wrong = physical entities in motion is wrong. All that is left is to stick to observation, measurement, mathematics, and logic. Why do I continue to see vortices when I think about the physical world? And why do I continue to see causation beyond randomness? I guess I'm just too attached to my imagination. The aether is dead but my imagination has not given up on a causal understanding of an existence with physical entities in motion. The problem with the aether is rooted in a problem with Newton's Laws of Motion. Newton's Laws of Motion got causation wrong and made the failure of its baby, the aether theory, inevitable. The failure of aether theory was the failure of the epistemological principles of identity and causality behind Newton's Laws, not the failure of the imagination. We shouldn't give up on imagination. We should change causation. Paul Whew, it's been a while and there's lots of side topics going on but I'd like to comment a bit on the above - so little time. "You seem to be wondering what is happening on a physical level that you might be able to picture in you imagination. " Well, not exactly. My main point is that intuition/imagination is often wrong and even more to the point, that one must at least temporarily release macroscopic preconceptions to gain understanding. I am not trying to "grasp" fundamentaly physical reality other than to point out that it is complex. Assuming that simple causation is at work behind all of it (not accusing you of this, but others I have come across) is premature at bese. Your vortex explanation is an example of this too. Matter is not what we think it is. Causality is a separate question. What makes us think that we can make definitive statements about causality when our imagination cannot even grasp matter very well? So, all I'm saying now is that causality is a valid ENDPOINT of scientific investigation as Dragonfly has pointed out as well. We'd be arrogant I think to assume any causal model at this point. More comments later. Bob

Chuck, Here's a little question(s) for you to think about. If Objectivism offers "the one true way" to solve society's problems, have a quick look at the history of what has happenned internally in the movement and extrapolate that (logically, rationally of course) to what would happen if an Objectivist political party were to win power. Or, go to a stricter Objectivist forum and voice dissent and see what happens. Extrapolate that to a hypothetical disagreement you might have with an Objectivist government. What does that look like to you? One time, I had the nerve to suggest to a forum moderator (highly respected apparently in the particular Objectivist community in question) that I didn't think her argument was terribly rational. She had just finished a "rational" argument justifying her choice to remain morbidly obese and to do nothing to improve her health. I was instantly banned after expressing a little concern for her "logic". Harsh irrational and emotional decisions are very common. I'll give you one guess who also made many of these types of decisions. Bob

Seeker Wrote: "Much of what I do see and understand of Objectivism seems to me to be the only philosophy that offers solutions to these fatal flaws" I think this is one of the most dangerous positions you could possibly take. Rand has a forceful and convincing tone and I see where this conclusion might come from, but I for one do not share it. If you are interested in philosophy, read other philosophers as well. Read about what others say about fatal flaws in Objectivism. Then make up your own mind. Despite what Rand might say, Kant is not evil. Bertrand Russell wrote something that I truly believe, (even though I can't remember the exact quote) He said something about fools and despots (or something) having such certainty while the wisest of us seemed to have so many doubts. I believe this. If somebody has "THE" answer, they're probably wrong and have sinister or at the very least narcissistic motives. For this reason I do not like Rand as a writer at all. I have an intellectual interest in the content of her writing and philosophy, but disagree with a substantial amount of her ideas as well. I must say that many Objectivists are really an angry intolerant lot. However, this is not the case here it seems. Bob

Well, I must say that your description makes sense to me. It certainly does not dictate the nature of causality that has been argued follows from Rand's ideas. And as Micheal outlined, it leaves the details of causality squarely in the realm of physics. Bob

Why? Do you mean that man cannot know for certain that fire will burn him and animals with big pointy teeth will eat him until a scientist lets him know that? Those things are entities and are causes of specific results. Man can know that for certain because it works every time. Once again, you are thinking causality in terms of physics, not philosophy. For philosophy, causality is another animal. Michael You're right, I definitely thinking of causality in the physics sense. So while this is outside the range of philosophical discussion, there seems to be great discussion in Philosophy forums on this very topic. I'm all for the philosophical position of letting the physicists figure it out. But there seems to be a lot of philosophers who are telling the physicists that they must have it wrong. As you might guess, I don't really agree all that much with that position... Bob

Ok, to be consistent with this position, Philosophy should then make no claims with regard to causality at all. Bob

Paul Wrote: "What are you going to do with them when you get there?" We'd have arrived!! We'd have the Unified Theory and we'd see where it takes us. "If we consider the core of our being, that which is conscious and that which wills, to be, essentially, a perpetual kinetic machine, initiating an impulse to begin a causal chain of action, without being necessitated by a prior chain of actions, is conceivable in principle." I cannot conceive of a chain of events that is continuous other than the first "impulse" as you've decribed it. I think your perpetual kinetic machine concept is accurate at least in the sense that the human body has little if any thermodynamic mystery to it. The chemical energy to kinetic energy process and vice-versa is well understood. It seems to me though that you have a somewhat normal causal chain, with a somehow special first cause going on that has no connection to prior events. "I actually think physical is exactly what we imagine it to be. Physical entities occupy volume in 3 dimensional space through time." I think it NOTHING like we imagine it to be. If the entire earth was collapsed to the density of a neutron star it would occupy the space of a small marble. Physical matter is not simple - huge hidden complexity. From another post: "It's something to do with the rates of mutation that cannot be accounted for by random action. " If I recall, there was some realy questionable theories on this topic. Random mutation is one thing, genetic drift is another. The latter is FAR from random. Very specific, and sometimes very high external adaptive pressures apply to organisms and the change rates can be very high unmysteriously. There was other theories out there that speculated that intricate biological machinery like advanced eyes could not spontaneously evolve. These theories are basically totally shot down. "If my view of causality is mistaken, I want to know how and why. If my epistemology is leading me astray, I want to know how and why. I want to be right so much, I want to know when I am wrong." I understand what you mean. The only thing I feel fairly certain about is that I think we do not understand causation very well, and that we need to undertand more. I think causation has some type of circular or other multi-dimensional component that we do not understand yet. I do not think it is a simple chain in simple time, that's for sure. However, I also believe that the while the simple causation idea is incompatible with free will, quantum effects are insuffient to explain free will as well. Randomness or acausality also gives us no easy way to understand our apparent control over outcomes any more than billiard-ball causality does. However, I also understand that our perception of free will is totally insufficient as evidence that we do indeed have it. I remain unconvinced. Occam's razor would seem to indicate the simple solution that we "think" we have free will, but we actually don't. THis is not a guarantee of truth though. I keep an open mind. Quite honestly, logic would seem to dictate that at this point that free will does not seem likely. Of course, this could change with more info. Bob

Just wanted to say I had an extremely busy weekend and just finished reading the new posts. Will reply as soon as I can. Bob

Paul Wrote: "I think Rand held a view of causation with regard to human behaviour that was non-deterministic but not acausal. " I think there's a logic problem here though. Truly non-deterministic means truly impossible to predict. Truly impossible to predict means algorithmic randomness. Algorithmic randomness implies that no laws govern the outcome. No laws means acausal. I think this position, if indeed this is the positon of Rand/Branden is contradictory. You can't have a view of causation that is acausal. Bob

Are you asserting free will or consciousness as first-cause here? Not really sure yet what you're getting after, but very interesting. Bob

Good idea, I think we might be talking about very different things. Bob

Just to be clear though, my God comment was only to try to illustrate what I mean by incompatible ideas. You can't talk about causality and "physics-centric" randomness being compatible any more than you can argue that God is an atheist. The ideas are essentially opposites. "On randomness, I asked Paul if "life" could be a fifth dimension. The element of randomness could be an attribute. There is one random thing I see perfectly in life. That is the question of free will. I have no problem at all in including randomness in a definition of free will at the fundamental level - not randomness of existence, but randomness in what the organism can and often will do." Ok, but what I'm saying is that you have to let go of fundamental causality then. I'm asserting that any notion of fundamental causality and "in including randomness in a definition of free will at the fundamental level " are not compatible. Bob

Damn! It's been a while since I dug into this stuff, but I suppose it's good for me. Nothing helped me understand physics concepts more than when I had to teach it (and anticipate tough questions), but it's been a while and the gears are rusty, but let me try to dig deep and remember here.... So, if I get something wrong, please correct me. Here goes: If a simple theory predicts a huge range of observed phenomena then that's a good theory. If a simple law can predict a huge range of data we have a good law - like Newton's laws - the simpler the better. They predict/explain a whole lot of stuff. In this sense they are good laws. In what's called algorithmic randomness, there is no "law" or explanation, or formula, or "algorithm" that is substantially simpler than the data. This is an english summary of a precise mathematical definition of algorithmic randomness that I once understood. I think I have this right so far. There's no way I could remember the math, but I don't think it's important right now. Basically, what we have is a situation where nothing simpler than the data explains what's going on. In other words, nothing that could be called a "law" explains what's going on. That is randomness - the mathematically and fundamentally unexplainable. Here's the kicker. Quantum randomness is not a mathematical deduction of the standard model of QM. So we're left with trying to figure out what the nature of the randomness is. If I remember correctly, we have no mathematical proof that the randomness is algorithmic but we do have tons of data. Some good arguments conclude that quantum randomness is algorithmic. Or in other words, physical reality is irreducibly random. Of course there is opposition to this too. That's about all I remember right now. So it's a long winded explanation of what I mean by causality and randomness (the real kind) are not compatible concepts. Fundamental causality goes out the window if quantum randomness is algorithmic. Comments?