mvir9

Michael, you are always welcome to dinner with me! Okay, okay . . . I promise not to cook! As for the rest of you, well . . . I'd cook for you! muhahaha (that is my "evil" laugh . . . corny, but evil)

That was wonderfully sweet! Admirable, indeed Michael. Happy Belated Birthday, Kat!

Good for you, Virginia! I would have bet good money you would have a cat for a daemon. Cat people are the best people, don't you think? I just finished the first part of Pullman's trilogy (btw, in Britain, it was entitled "Northern Lights") and now I can go see the movie which I will do either this afternoon or tomorrow (G-D willing and the bridge don't collapse). I hope it will do justice to the book, which is the best page turner fiction work I have read in the past five years (I don't read all that much fiction). Whoooweeee! It is a blast. Ba'al Chatzaf The fangs give me away every time! Damn! :yes:

I'm Lutheus, the Tiger. In my estimation, this is a befitting daemon! Regarding the movie: I'm looking forward to seeing it, even though I am not much of a movie person. I have kids who are often bombarded with the likes of C.S. Lewis. Religion, collectivity, humility, duty . . . as values?! It will be very nice to take my kids to a movie that encourages non-conformity and intellectual investigation. edited for a typo . . .

It was based on a philosophical commitment that was perilously close to a religion. In the The Real World, some of the Objectivist movement has an uncomfortable resemblance to a cult complete with purges excommunication and assertions of anethma. For example; David Kelley. The onlything missing was Bell, Book and Candle. Anytime people commit to the Abstract they are practicing a kind of religion. In the case of Galt's Gulch it was pagan. I am sure that if any second generation Galt Gulcher expressed an altruistic sentiment he would be shown the door and the rays screen would be closed behind him. Think of Adam's expulsion from Eden. Ba'al Chatzaf "Perilously close to a religion" doesn't constitute a religion. I disagree that ANY commitment to the Abstract is practicing a kind of religion. This commitment, when mediated by reason and individuality, always leaves room for a change in commitment (even if it is only a matter of degrees). When I know better, I do better. If reason and individuality are not considered in a commitment to the Abstract, then blind faith becomes the crux of one's commitment. Blind faith is the hallmark of religious thinking . . . regardless of the subject (for instance, scientists used to religiously believe that the earth was flat even when someone disproved their theory). Yes, some of the Objectivists treat Objectivism as a religion. Is it right? No (on the contrary, it is hypocritical to what they profess). Do I actively support Objectivism as a philosophically-based religion? Nope! I apply the same set of principles to Objectivism that I do to everything else.

If a thousand Jews found an uncharted, but habitable island and set up a Jewish state on it, would you object? The found the place, they collectively own the place, so they can, as a body politic, set up any kind of state they wish. If they can do it on an island, why not on the region between the brook of Egypt (a wadi in the Sinai) and the Jordan River? In Atlas Shrugged, Midas Milligan and his friends set up an Objectivist mini-state in the middle of Colorado. Is there a problem with that. Ba'al Chatzaf I'm not saying that they can't do it . . . rather, I am objecting to the idea that we should actively support the idea of ANY state (or island) that embraces a religious-based government. Regarding Midas in Shrugged: Galt's Gulch wasn't based on religion.

Congratulations on the Bachelor's Degree -- and in economics, no less! The world would do well to have a few more people like you in it . . . ;)

Excellent questions, studiodekadent. I agree wholeheartedly. The reason that Islamic states are labeled as such is that they actually enforce religious rule (Shar'iah). Therefore, religion (not civil order) has primacy. Of course, for the most part, the violence and civil abuses we see in the Islamic states are a direct result of religion as law. If it is not good to have religious laws dictate civil order, then how can it be okay for the Jewish religion to dictate civil order? I can't see why the separation of church and state should be a relative issue.

As unpopular and pessimistic as this posit may be, I agree. This is the intellectual emptiness that Rand fought against, and it is the same intellectual emptiness that causes me to shake my head in frustration on an almost daily basis. Why do people go to church on Sunday? I would confidently suggest that at least 7 out of 10 people do it because that is what they are "supposed" to do. Actually, I would be thrilled to find 3 people that could explain to me WHY they go to church without relying upon "because the Bible tells me to" or because "it's what my parents did." The same thing applies to politics. I would be happy to find 3 out of ten people who could explain to me why they vote they way that they do -- without resorting to "I like him, he seems like a nice guy" or "he wants to save the children" or "my parents voted that way." Even though I may disagree with him at the most fundamental levels, I have much more respect for the person that understands why he thinks and acts as he does then I ever would for someone who agrees with me but doesn't know why.

Libertarian voters, or those with libertarian inclinations. I know many people who hate the anti-drug laws (for example) but would not vote libertarian. I know many people who are live-and-let-live types who do not oppose government programs like social security. The are probably many more Americans with a libertarian streak than their are libertarian voters. Ba'al Chatzaf I agree that the distinction needs to be made. In my experience, some people hold libertarian ideals, but they aren't familiar with Libertarianism. As well, a number of Libertarians will not vote Libertarian because it is a "wasted vote." Instead, they choose the person that fits their political beliefs as much as possible from either of the two mainstay parties. Ah, politics . . . (edited for a typo)

Kudos Chris -- You said it before I could! ;) Virginia

By "goth" I am referring to the subculture known for its taste in dark clothing, angry and/or depressing and/or deeply personal music (including genres like Industrial, Darkwave etc), and the like. The problem I have is inferring someone's philosophical beliefs from their music taste. My allegation was that Rand would say I have incorrect beliefs owing to my music tastes. Since I am an Objectivist and agree with Rand's philosophical principles, the practice of declaring music taste as indicative of philosophical principles (exclusively) is severely flawed. Since I find Rand's "Tiddilywink Music" (as described in PAR) to be annoying, I probably would be accused by her of psychological perversion. studiodekadent: I know exactly what you mean, and I agree with you on your assumptions. As a "rock" girl, several Objectivists have deemed my taste in music as inferior, denoting some philosophical weakness in me. Honestly, I think it is amusing that they would presume to understand my philosophical depth based on my musical tastes. Little do they know that I adore many genres of music . . . including classical, musical theatre, etc. Actually, I would probably be accused of being schizophrenic if these people saw my CD collection. Having read Rand's Romantic Manifesto several times, I also believe that she would denounce your musical tastes (yep, mine too). Then again, as wonderful as Rand was (and is in legacy), she is not a god. The one thing she had absolutely correct, and something that would override her presumptions on our musical tastes, is that every person should use his mind to its fullest capacity. Never act without thinking; never assume that another person knows better than you. You have used your mind to determine your musical interests. Now -- don't assume that Rand would know better than you about what your musical interests say about you. The only point that matters to me (regardless of what the Objectivist hard-liners think) is that I'm different for well chosen reasons -- I'm not simply different for the sake of being different. Obviously, your case is much the same. Oh . . . Happy Thanksgiving! (Quick edit for a typo) ;)

This is wonderful news! I had my doubts that the Supreme Court would be willing to tackle the case, but I am happy that I was wrong.

I'm absolutely delighted! Considering our common interests, I have no doubt that we will have the opportunity to meet in the near future. It is simply lovely knowing that people such as yourself exist. Thank you for that. And yes, as Brant pointed out, I do kick . . . but only when it is deserved ;) It is wonderful to hear that your PSA has dropped so significantly. Keep getting better (that is an order!). Virginia

I'm curious, since I'm still learning this stuff myself. What exactly did you say and do in these confrontations to get the bullies to back down? Multiple anecdotes would be most welcome, as well as summaries and conclusions! Judith First and foremost, I always look the bully in the eye. I am happy to know that I am more than capable of defending myself and that the bully would be at a disadvantage should he engage me physically. So, I have no need to show hesitation. I'll give a couple of examples, but keep in mind that the people I confronted had at least some information about my martial arts background. 1. High School -- A guy friend of mine had been forewarned that a bully planned to attack him after school. My friend asked for my assistance. After school, I found the bully and asked what his intentions were. He wanted to know why I cared, so I explained that the guy he was about to attack was a friend of mine. I asked him if they could simply ignore each other, since nothing had actually happened between them yet (they simply didn't get along). No kidding, he agreed to it. We shook hands and he left my friend alone after that. 2. High School -- Another friend of mine (this time female) told me that there was going to be a gang fight after school. I hate gangs and violence, but I happened to know the "leaders" of both gangs (one of them was in an honors class with me!). I separately spoke with both of these guys before the end of the school day. I told them that they were, in a nutshell, being idiots. I told both of them to call it off. The honors student was easier to convince -- the other kid needed to be informed that I would be happy to call the police. The gang fight never happened. Interestingly, both of these guys ended up treating me with a great deal of respect. 3. Post High School -- My mom worked with a guy that had an annoying habit of thinking that he was every woman's dream date. Once a woman began to date him, however, he became abusive. One night, I attended a Halloween work party with my mom. This fool was there (quite drunk). He walked up behind me when I wasn't looking, grabbed my breasts and lifted me off of the floor. I was pissed beyond belief. Due to my training, I was able to stay reasonable -- and focused, however. I tilted my head to the side so he could hear me very, very clearly, then I confidently stated: "If you do not let go of me right now, I will rip your balls off and shove them down your throat." He must have known that I meant it, because he put me down and never (literally) came near me again. Several years later, I heard that he had been arrested for domestic battery . . . In every example, I had no problem speaking directly with these individuals. They didn't scare me, and they knew it. I have no doubt that it was my confidence (exhibited by body language and verbal skill) that convinced these people to change their minds. Keep in mind that every situation is different. It is important to do your best to talk them down, even if it requires threatening to call the cops. However, it is also important to "read" the bullies -- sometimes they are intent on violence regardless. In my last example, I was mentally prepared to fight, because he was drunk and known as a woman-beater (I was pleasantly surprised that my threat worked).

Chris, As you know, I'm fairly new around these parts, so I had no idea about your health issues. I am thrilled that you are staying strong, and you have my best wishes with you always. Virginia

Mike11: First, I will say that I would normally adore a debate about the value (or lack thereof) of Kantian philosophy, but I think it is prudent to go back to the original question. Mike, Welcome to OL. I appreciate your frustration with Randroids. Dogmatism can be an ugly thing, regardless of the belief system behind it. As well, your second post was much more civil and well worth my time reading and responding to -- so, thank you. It seems to me that you are, putting it simply, asking which came first, the chicken or the egg? First, let me point out that (although they were published by the Peikoff brigade) the notes Rand kept during her writing of Atlas Shrugged are available in print, and they are an interesting insight into her thinking process. She was able to use broad philosophical concepts, which she clearly delineated in her notes, to create characters representative of these concepts. Therefore, the philosophy came first -- even if she had not expounded upon it in a treatise before then. Secondly, you stated: "Literature speaks to the sense of life, not to our higher level abstractions." Is it correct to say, then, that literature must be divorced from philosophical thought? (I wish to be clear on this point so that my future responses are on point).

Do you really think so? I read a poll recently that shows fifty three percent of the American public believes in Angels and ghosts. What do you propose to do about that? We have a school system that is designed to destroy the ability to think critically about anything. What do you propose to do about that? Short of a total breakdown of the nation, nothing major is going to change. Even in -Atlas Shrugged-, the country had to grind to a halt and break down before there was even a chance of change. How much harder will it be in the Real World, where there is no sign whatsoever of grinding to a halt? Atlas is NOT shrugging. Ba'al Chatzaf I largely agree with you, Ba'al. It is often mind-boggling to me how prolific religiosity is . . .! Why is it a necessity to Republican and Democratic constituents that their candidates attend church? It is telling that all of the presidents since I have been on this earth have made marketing opportunities of attending church. It is almost a prerequisite . . . like kissing the baby in the crowd. As well, I currently live in a small, farming community in northern Illinois. Whether it is secular or religious, collectivism is the dominant town theme. Disagree and burn in hell; or disagree and hate the earth (there are many environmentalists here). As a strong individualist and atheist, I am not very well liked here My children attend public school . . . and they are drowning in collectivist ideals (both religious -- yes, religious -- and secular). For example, in one of my daughter's science classes, they had the students read some first wave environmentalist's manifesto (which included a resounding denunciation of mankind and their sins against the earth). This work was taken as a scientific fact. Regretfully, I don't recall the man's name (I'll look for the book and post later if I find it), but I do recall that that he adored Jack Kerouac (this should give you a hint about the tone of his work). I read the work with my daughter, then I gave her several essays to read that told the other side of the story. I simply told her that she needed to get all of the facts, then to make up her own mind. In this, I completely agree with the folks who say focus on yourself and your children. Collectivism is prolific enough that I find myself combating it in my own home on an almost daily basis. It is very tough to explain to a 13 year old and an 11 year old how an entire town can be wrong . . . Regarding Atlas shrugging, I thought some of you would find this article about the talent exodus on Wall Street interesting: Talent Exodus

Hmm, we could even take a blue ball and hang it around our necks! It's 5:55 a.m and everyone in my house (except me, of course) is asleep . . . but I can't quit laughing! That was wonderfully amusing!

Members of mammalian species other than humans sometime suffer from cancer. Dogs and cats, for instance, can get cancer. Ba'al Chatzaf Yes, you are correct. I apologize for not being a bit clearer. My point is that cancer is one of the diseases that humans suffer, regardless of gender, or any other differentiation. This isn't to say that other species don't also suffer with cancer. As a matter of fact, a friend of mine has a cat that is currently receiving chemotherapy (in an attempt to make her life a bit more comfortable in her last days).

This rather serious thread became hilarious . . . I love the grammar Nazis! Regarding the original post: I guess I don't see why the gender issue is important here. Cancer is a disease suffered by humans; Breast cancer is a human cancer -- even men suffer from it. Yes, pink is associated with women, and mostly women suffer from breast cancer, but cancer is cancer. Curing cancer (of any stripe) would be a great step forward for humanity. So, the breast cancer groups have a better "marketing strategy" than other cancer groups. Who cares? Rather than embracing the negative (complaining about gender bias), this man should stand by what he believes, and begin to spread the word regarding some other cancer (i.e. prostate cancer). This would be embracing a positive. As I woman, I would have no problem embracing a blue theme in support of prostate cancer awareness and research (actually, I prefer blue over pink).

I sympathize with people who admire Trump for his virtues -- for I once did as well. My primary reason for posting the case was to inform those individuals who hold Trump in high esteem, without the knowledge of his not-so-virtuous behavior. Once the information is known, then every individual can decide whether or not Trump is still worthy of his/her respect. In my case, the flaw was severe enough to kill my respect for him. Some people, like yourself, will find enough good in Trump to "trump" the bad. I understand and respect that. You're right about the classic heroes of entrepreneurship (non-political-pull "Robber Barons") -- many of them weren't perfect. I judge them individually, though. Some committed deeds worse than others. Some misdeeds I can accept, others I cannot. Whether or not these men would have taken advantage of eminent domain is supposition, so I won't judge them on an issue I can only suppose they may or may not have done.

Virginia, Thank you. This is exactly the kind of underhanded crap Trump would try to pull. Jim Your welcome, Jim. I was actually a bit distraught when I discovered this fact about Trump a couple of years ago. Until then, I had heralded him as one of the great entrepreneurs of our time -- I admired him. Disappointment is such an ugly feeling . . .

Sorry guys, I need to interject one fact about Donald Trump -- the one fact that ruined my respect for him: Trump rather second-handedly attempted to use the government and its eminent domain clause to take a woman's private property from her (luckily, it didn't work and Trump lost the case): Coking Case

Would you mind being more precise in what you're saying? Would you mind repeating, "for the record," the following: "I, Virginia Murr, believe that it is fair, civil, and perfectly reasonable to claim that those who think that Schipperheyn's Zarathustra sculpture is technically masterful, but don't like it, are cynical, angst-ridden victims of an American dark age of art." I just want to be very clear on what you think is civil and acceptable when it comes to judging people based on their responses to art. In my first post, I asked Michael why he believed that people rarely connect art to what they live for, since my experience has been the exact opposite. That's not a vicious attack, but a simple question. In the second part of that post, I mentioned to Michael that it was good to see him posting an example of a contemporary work of art that he thought was awesome and which was created by someone other than himself, and that I was looking forward to seeing which painters he admired when he identified the artists who he thought were "worthy but unrecognized," which is something that he had mentioned that he was going to do. My comment was not an attack, but an expression of recognition and relief that he's finally posting samples of what he thinks are good art instead of focusing most of his online efforts on griping about the works that he thinks are bad. And that is just one example of where your having a little knowledge of our history would be relevant. There have been times when Michael has expressed frustration that no one understands where he is coming from, and that he has felt that he has been in a "no-man's" land when people have reacted strongly to his criticisms of their favorite artists. I've suggested to him many times in the past that frequently posting some positive criticisms to go along with his negative ones -- posting examples of contemporary art that he thinks is great, other than his own, that of a couple of sculptors, an ex-student of his and her husband -- might help to demonstrate that he's actually passionate about great art, as he claims to be, and not just looking to tear down others while promoting his own work. I've suggested to him several times during the past five years that there are countless realist artists worthy of recognition. It's honestly good to see him finally posting images of contemporary art works that he thinks are good. And if you didn't notice, almost everyone who commented here, including me, agreed with him that the Zarathustra sculpture is good, and that Schipperheyn is very talented. Well, hey, I'm not totally clear yet on your rules about what constitutes an insult, incivility or an utterly disappointing comment. I mean, from my perspective, your comfort with the idea of someone labeling others cynical and angst-ridden based on their tastes regarding a single work of art is an "utter disappointment." My suspecting that you might be less than deeply interested in aesthetic ideas seems quite mild in comparison. In general, I agree, but not when it comes to ideas about art and aesthetics. I'll cite Michael's one-fifth review again as an example of where I'm coming from. When Michael posted it, the Objectivist-types who praised it as a great and important article had seen even less of the work of art than Michael had -- in fact, I'd be surprised if any of those who congratulated him had even heard of the art work or its creator before Michael posted his article. They had no clue what they were talking about or whether or not Michael did either. They uncritically accepted what he said about it and cheered him on. That's not what I would call an independent approach to ideas about art. Don't get me wrong. It's not that I think that any of those people are bad or generally careless about ideas. I might even categorize some of Michael's fans as among the brightest people that I've met in my life. But when it comes to ideas about art, most of them are just not that interested. I think that many of them basically see art and aesthetics as either a mostly frivolous topic or as something akin to the propaganda department for the spreading of Objectivism. I'll "agree to disagree" with Michael on the condition that you, starting right now, will "agree to disagree" with all of the people whose ideas you currently disagree with. Sound fair? Thank you. J Maybe I am an anomaly . . . maybe it is strange to believe that calling someone a "jackass," sarcastically referring to him as "Supreme Master," telling him that he lacks a "sense of security" are not words that are conducive to a productive debate. Anomaly or not, I stand by my belief. I stand by what I said regarding Michael and his posts. It is what it is, therefore, clarification isn't necessary. I certainly won't accept another person's dictum regarding my views. You are correct to point out that not all of your posts were negative. Do me a favor, though -- look back through them. Your most interesting and productive posts were in response to anyone other than Michael. For instance, one of your most enlightening posts (for me, anyway) was #111 in response to Ms. Ellen Stuttle: QUOTE(Ellen Stuttle @ Oct 22 2007, 02:55 PM) I didn't get a feeling from the sculpture of "begging from below," etc., of supplication; instead a feeling (or attempted suggestion) of jubilation, of victory, of some kind of breakthrough. I see the hands as being forcefully struck together -- HA!! That!, there it is!, as I said before "a major Eureka experience," but not just of discovering an answer to a thought problem, instead an emotional breakthrough, a liberation. I can see how you'd see that. Where you see the victory of an emotional breakthrough, I see spiritual or emotional preparation for a victory that is yet to be achieved. I wonder, is there much of a difference, visually, between how a person might look while experiencing a "HA!! That!, there it is!" moment versus how he might look while psyching himself up by appealing to his "god" to convince himself that he will be victorious, or good, or true, etc.? J You disagreed in a most civil way (even respectful), then you proceeded to give a wonderful explanation as to why you disagreed. This is the kind of debate I admire. (By the way, I disagree with your point, but it certainly gave me something to think about!) I also discovered something very interesting when I looked back through the thread: you and Michael actually had a wonderful exchange of ideas regarding the arc of the sculpture -- but through third parties! Your clarification on your feelings about Michael's fans is a relief to see. I happen to know that Michael does have fans that are experts in aesthetics, though I am not one of them. So, for that reason, I will agree that not all of his fans have aesthetic backgrounds. Maybe you and I differ here in our approach to art. Let me explain my approach to art (in my artistically un-informed, yet philosophically informed mind): One does not have to be an expert to appreciate art. I am intelligent enough to grasp whether or not a work is optimistic or pessimistic, whether or not it is driven by love of humanity or hate for humanity, whether or not it embodies my view of reality or not. I am also intelligent enough to ascertain whether an artist has talent (in general . . . not specifically), or if he must rely on imitation or installation to present his ideas. I am also intelligent enough (and honest enough) to admit that there is a great complexity to art that I do not quite grasp. Michael discusses triangulation and light often -- these are ideas that I only grasp to a certain extent. However, his infectious optimism in his work, and art in general, has encouraged me to learn more about art (history, technique, etc.). I don't apologize for my lack of knowledge, nor do I apologize for my appreciation of artists like Michael. Whether I agree with him all of the time or not (and, no, we don't agree all of the time), I love the fact that there is at least one artist in the world who is exploring the philosophical necessity that art is. If you disagree with me on my approach to art -- I will agree to disagree with you (in all fairness). Your approach to art may be the exact opposite of mine, and I don't have problem with that. However, if you were to respond by saying "you are such an unintelligent, insecure louse," I wouldn't agree to disagree. On the contrary, I would disagree forcefully (yet, with as much civility as I could muster). Because, those words wouldn't be conducive to a productive debate. Virginia