mvir9

Yeah. It is a false alternative. Two of the best writers in the English language, Hobbes and Hume were also leading philosophers. Thomas Paine who was also one of the best writers (in English) was very philosophical in the way he propagandized for the American Revolution. One the other hand, being a philosopher is not guarantee of writing skill. Look at the output of Immanuel Kant! No one can really be sure of what he is saying, at least not in his -Critques-. Bertrand Russel was not a bad writer, but he was a crashing bore. J.S.Mill wrote well enough, but his material does not emit lightning flashes and strike sparks. The Rambam, Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, was one of the leading Aristotelean philosophers and sages of his time and was the role model for Thomas Aquinas in the following century. His Hebrew writing was gorgeous and pellucid. If you do not know Hebrew it might be worth you while to learn it just so you can read the Rambam. One of the best writers of all time (and it even shows through the translations) was the philosopher Plato. You might not agree with his philosophy, but he was witty and playful in his writing. Ayn Rand was a top notch novelist in English which was not her native language. Unfortunately she let her polemic trip up her logic at times, which is why she is not a top grade philosopher. From a purely logical and technical point of view, her philosophy (exciting as it is) is really full of holes, somewhat like Swiss Cheese. Let me leave the following for you as an exercise: why is the Benevolent Universe principle prima facia absurd? Ditto for the Malevolent Universe principle. What is Rand assuming and why is her assumption wrong? Ba'al Chatzaf Yes, I agree that Plato was a tremendously gifted writer . . . and, yes, I disagree with his philosophy. As much as I would wish it otherwise, the two just don't always go hand-in-hand (*wink). I would also put Nietzsche in this category, however. Kant is a wonderful example of a gifted (again, I disagree with him) philosopher, but horrendous writer. You missed John Locke, though. We used to have a competition in the Honors Program to find Locke's longest run-on sentence. If I remember correctly, his longest run-on was over 350 words long. And, I see that you set off some controversy regarding Rand. I think I fall somewhere inbetween the two camps on this one. First, I would separate her fiction from her non-fiction. Her fiction is philosophy-heavy, of course, but that doesn't make it any less fictional. From this point of view, I have always adored Rand's gift for telling a story. Her primary characters are wonderfully intricate, and she had the perfect mind for concretizing abstract concepts in her fictional works. So, yes, she was a wonderful writer. Regarding her non-fiction works: they were very well-written. Were they philosophically sound? You state that her knowledge in science and mathematics was lacking. Honestly, I can't judge this -- I am sadly lacking in those departments myself. Nothing has stood out to me as obvious "swiss cheese" holes, however (and I would hope that I am intelligent enough to see the difference between sharp cheddar and swiss)! I can say that the majority of her philosophy (at least the parts that I grasp fully) is logically sound (otherwise, I certainly wouldn't like her as much as I do). If there are any "swiss cheese" holes, I would say that they are in her psychological theories. From the time I began to research Rand and her philosophy, I have turned elsewhere for psychological theory. I am certainly a believer of mind/body integration, yet I question Rand's full integration. Of course, being led by whimsical emotion is an irrational thing -- but experiencing rational emotions derived from automatized evaluative judgments that are derived from reason is human (and, therefore, good). In many instances, it seems to me that Rand prefers to deny emotions in certain cases rather than to experience them rationally. My criticisms of Rand are few and far between, but there are a few.

I appreciate your sentiments about my essay -- very much so. Regarding Mr. Walhout: The year I entered college (2000), I believe, was Rockford College's first year without him. I was honored to win the Philosophy prize in his name several years later, however I heard good things about him, but I couldn't imagine being happier that I ended up with Dr. Hicks as my professor and academic counselor. It should be noted that sometime around my junior year, Dr. Hicks hired a second philosophy professor (Dr. Flamm). He is a pragmatist with a wonderfully open teaching style. I initially balked at taking his courses (I was aware of how difficult it could be to take a philosophy or philosophy-related course from someone you vehemently disagree with), but Dr. Hicks insisted -- and I'm glad for it. Dr. Hicks hired a third philosophy professor after my graduation, Dr. Klein. From what I have ascertained, Dr. Klein is a capitalist, Aristotelian sort with a strong background in classical philosophy. I think I would have enjoyed his classes as well Sincerely, Virginia

Hello Ms. Branden! Michael posted my essay in the MidEast section of OL (under "Milestones -- the Intellectual Battleground"). Or, here's a direct link to it at the website of Dr. Stephen Hicks. I hope you enjoy reading it. Virginia

Several Points: 1. It was mentioned that if a person isn't willing to hunt and kill his own meat, then he shouldn't eat it. I couldn't disagree more. Thankfully, we live in a wonderfully advanced barter system that allows individuals who enjoy meat but prefer not to kill it to pay someone else to do it for them. I love milk, but I don't fancy milking cows. I also enjoy meat, but I don't want to kill my dinner. The exception is if I (or my loved ones) were starving. I would absolutely kill if I had to . . . but I don't, so I won't. 2. Regarding fishing: My grandfather took me fishing when I was twelve. I was pretty proud that I "snagged" a couple of fish. We took the fish home, where my grandfather showed me how to clean them. The smell and mess made me physically ill. I found no joy in the experience, but I love the taste of cooked fish. I am glad that there are people in the world who are willing to fish in my stead. 3. Mr. Vick's behavior is disgusting, and as previously mentioned by other posters, I am concerned that he and his friends enjoyed watching and participating in such senseless violence. I don't approve of senseless violence, even if someone is beating the hell out of a wall. However, senseless violence towards living beings speaks of a dangerous psychology. 4. Thankfully, Mr. Vick will serve time in prison and he will certainly suffer some repercussions in his career (even if they are not permanent repercussions). Should the NFL take him back? It is up to the private owners of his team or any other team that may consider hiring him. If they keep him on payroll, will their organization suffer? I believe it will, but my beliefs have no bearing on what the organization should or should not do. I can certainly put my "vote" forth by no longer supporting their organization, but that is as far as my control over Vick's future goes. I am content to leave the free market alone so that it may function properly.

Michael, You and I agree that in order to clearly define the rights of a child, supplying a definition of a child is paramount -- and, as you aptly stated, we also need to define the value of a child. So far, we seem to agree that a child is: 1. A human entity 2. Dependent 3. An individual I also posit that a child: 1. Has an undeveloped rational capacity 2. The potential for independence 3. The potential for volition based on a developed rational capacity Sum: A child has the potential to become a productive, rational adult. This conclusion also means that a child cannot be a parasite. A parasite, by definition, has no potential for independence -- or volition tempered by reason for that matter. Like you, I am filtering through a variety of ideas as we discuss this. So, please feel free to add to (or subtract from) this list. It is, however, a start! From a slightly different angle, I have been wondering why there seems to be so much difficulty in outlining a child's rights. One possible conclusion is that a child's rights, due to his dependence, are much more complex to sort through than an adult's rights. The complexity arises from the child's dependence on other (adult) individuals. The rights of the child and the rights of the adult are inextricably linked. Binding one person's rights to another's seems antithetical to individualism.

I've spent time training with Krav Maga practioners, and I've cross-trained in several other styles. Based on my knowledge, I can say the following: In a nutshell, Krav Maga is the self-defense training system of the Israeli paramilitary. The system was a "closed" system until the 1980's. In other words, like the samurai, the Israeli's protected their training system from foreigners. In the '80s, however, they began to teach their system to outsiders. Krav Maga is a physically demanding self-defense system that requires more work with a partner than most martial arts (an exception would be Ju-jitsu). Although most of its techniques are nearly identical to those of Karate-do and Ju-jitsu, Krav Maga focuses solely upon physical self-defense. If you are interested in further information, there is an informational video at Black Belt Magazine. Or, if you wish to make a financial investment into your research, a book was published by Ulysses Press (May, 2007) that has several introductory chapters: Complete Krav Maga: The Ultimate Guide to Over 200 Self-Defense and Combative Techniques by Darren Levine and John Whitman.

Are you saying that the lot of us should be presented with the bill for the misfortunes of the few which the lot of us had no part in making unfortunate? Are you proposing that we should be compelled to be our Cousin's keeper (all mankind are Cousins, not Brothers). Ba'al Chatzaf Goodness, no! I am definitely not saying that my last paragraph (or your proper interpretation of it) is my opinion. Rather, I am fleshing out an argument that would hold that a child has full, protected rights as adults do. I am sorry that my "if, then" statements weren't clear enough in that regard. I must remember that, unlike on many forums, I am surrounded by intelligent people who will not allow intellectual laziness on my part!

Michael, There is a danger that this thread will soon require a dissertation First, let me say that I absolutely acknowledge that ethics is derived from human nature. You stated: " I start wondering about the words "responsibility" and "duty" on which you base your observations. Responsible? Have a duty? To whom? In some metaphysical systems, monotheism for instance, a person is responsible to God as a metaphysical fact. To the religious, metaphysically speaking, God created man to serve Him and for His amusement. But is a person responsible or have a duty to a child that way? If so, why?" I don't care how underdeveloped a nation is, its citizens know that unprotected sex creates (or, can create) a dependent human life. There are two important points to this statement. First, the individuals who partake of the sex act (assuming willfully) each have full knowledge of their actions and the possible consequences thereof. As rational beings, we are responsible (to ourselves) for the knowledge we have and the actions that result from that knowledge. If we have unprotected sex and acquire VD, we must suffer the consequences of our actions. A child is a different type of consequence, but from the same action. The responsibility to accept the consequences is no different, since full fore-knowledge is established. It is a matter of self-responsibility, not "enforced" responsibility. Responsibility and knowledge are bound very tightly in my book. Secondly, the child is dependent -- this is part of the foreknowledge. The creators of this child know that once he is born, he will require full care in order to survive. In a somewhat stark view, this is no different than if I plant a garden. I must make sure that sunlight is available to my flowers and I must water it, otherwise they will die. I knew this prior to planting the garden. So if the garden dies due to my negligence, I have nobody to blame but myself. The idea of "dependency" is crucial when discussing a child and his rights. A child, although born with a rational capacity, is incapable of using his rational capacity to help him survive. His is physically, mentally, and intellectually underdeveloped in the scheme of human life. This lack of development requires that a more developed human (hopefully a responsible adult) step in and pick up where the child's underdevelopment leaves off. A baby cannot feed itself, so a human that is capable of feeding must feed him. Who shall step in? The people that created a totally dependent being are the only people that should be required to do so. I say "should" because these people willfully chose to create this dependent being. You didn't, I didn't, my neighbors didn't. Hell, if I am going to be responsible for the consequences of someone else's sex act, I would at least like to enjoy the benefits of the act (*wink). This goes back to the self-responsibility issue discussed above. It is clear that the definition of a child is vital to this entire discussion. Otherwise, any determination of rights is impossible. What is a child? Yes, a child is a human being. A child is also an individual. Beyond these simple points, I believe, the issue can get somewhat controversial (as mentioned by a previous poster, we teeter on the edge of abortion rights issues here). As I mentioned above, a child has a rational capacity. Yet his rational capacity is not sufficient to sustain him at birth. The child, rather is dependent. Usually when we discuss issues of rights and responsibilities, we presume the the person is independent. So, what rights do dependent humans have? If we say that he has full rights, yet he is incapable of exercising these rights, we must decide who is responsible for exercising his rights for him. If he has full rights, then, in the absence of responsible parenting, society (as the protector of individual rights) must exercise his rights for him. This, in turn, would make all individuals (collectively) responsible for all children. If this is true, then shouldn't society have a say as to the number of children born when and where, and by whom?

The info online is sadly lacking. I will pull together some of my martial arts information later today so that I can give you more sufficient references.

Krav Maga is one of the neatest Israeli creations.

I am curious to know if there is anyone else here that participates in the martial arts? I've been in karate for a very long time (almost 27 years) -- and I still adore it! Not only does it keep me fit (which is very helpful at 33 years of age and after giving birth twice), but it is great to know that I am capable of defending myself should the need ever arise. Aside from all of the obvious benefits, I adore the fact that karate is such an individualistic activity. Whether sparring, practicing ippon kumite, or simply doing kata -- my success depends solely upon me.

Yes, Michael, you are evil for encouraging independent thought and for not bashing those who disagree with you . . . (*wink)

I love the harmony in the humanities! History and philosophy are (like English and philosophy) quite complementary. Do you have a particular historical focus? I enjoy reading Greek history and I am firmly dedicated to researching failed socio-political systems (with the goal of trying to understand where things went wrong). Thanks for the kind words about my Qutb essay. As horrible as it was to research (I always felt like I needed a shower . . .), it really was a labor of love because it fed my intellectual curiosity.

Sorry to break up the digression to the foundations of science . . . Sticking to my promise not to torture the members of OL with my lack of scientific knowledge, I must turn back to the original discussion. I have spent the last hour reading through this thread. First, I am struck by an interesting deontological bent. It is important to distinguish between responsibility and duty (which I will attempt to do in this post). Secondly, I couldn't agree more with Ms. Branden's point that the parents of a child have chosen to bring said child into existence. The import of this statement is much more complex than the conciseness of the point may imply. As with every choice, personal responsibility for the consequences (whether good or bad) of one's actions is a part of the package. Parents have foreknowledge that the impending child will be incapable of caring for itself (mentally and physically). Therefore, by bringing a helpless, living child into this world, they know that they will have to provide for that child. Of course, this doesn't mean that the parents are capable of caring for the child, but this fact doesn't negate their knowledge nor their responsibility for their decision. If they make a bad choice (bringing a child into this world when they have no means to care for that child), they are responsible for the suffering that the child will inevitably endure from not being provided for. "Duty" implies self-sacrifice (as in the trading of a greater value for a lesser value). The parents have a responsibility toward (not a duty to) their child. The responsibility comes from the adults' rights to choose their actions (having a child). Since a positive action was taken in order to create the child, there is an implicit value placed on the creation of that child. Therefore, the care of this child by its parents is a responsibility rather than a duty. On the other hand, if I am forced to care for a child that I have not chosen to bring into this world, thereby I have no responsibility toward, then this "care" becomes a duty. Not only am I duty-bound to a child that I have no responsibility toward, but I am, by default, required to clean up the bad decisions of other adults. I would be required to give of myself for a value that is not mine. This makes my "care" of this child a duty, not a responsibility. Since when are we, as individuals, required to subsume the responsibilities of our fellow individuals? Yes, the fact that we are discussing poor, uncared for children living in totalitarian societies is heart-breaking, to say the least. However, the parents should not have brought a child into this world knowing what kind of suffering that their child would endure. As individuals, if we find that helping another person's child is not a sacrifice, but a value, then we have every right to help that child. I have no qualms with people who volunteer their time and/or money to children in need. The problem arises when this individual's decision becomes a moral imperative. The deontological bent to this thread comes suspiciously close to a moral imperative.

Herein lies the crux of the problem (well stated Chris). I have several good friends that are police officers, and they readily admit that too much cash is an indication of drug distribution. For example, if a man gets pulled over after having cashed his work check and he has the smallest amount of marijuana in his possession, the police will, at minimum, attempt to charge him with distribution. Their evidence that he is distributing is the amount of cash that is in his possession. Sadly, in the case posted here, the primacy of a lot of cash as evidence has taken over, and drugs are no longer necessary to instigate further investigation, seizure, and/or charges. Frustrating, indeed!

In certain areas this is true. The Objectivist movement shines in the areas of politics and economics. Unfortunately this is not so true in the technical areas of physics and mathematics. True Blue O'ists tend to gag on quantum theory and their grasp of mathematics rarely gets beyond simple algebra. As long as you stay away from science and mathematics (that is where I live) you can be happy with Objectivism. The Founding Fathers/Mothers of the movement had a very crude understanding of science and mathematics. For support of capitalism, private property, individual rights you could hardly find a more comfortable place. That is the good news. The bad news is that some of the adherents to the philosophy do not react well to those who have reservations or disagreements with the basic philosophical concepts. There is a fervent quasi-religious hostility to intellectual opposition. That is why there have been purges in Organized Objectivism. They bear an uncomfortable resemblance to the rooting out of heretics from the Catholic Church (but without burning at the stake, for which we can be appropriately grateful). Ba'al Chatzaf Alas, my mathematical skills will certainly prove disappointing to you. I am a word girl. The good news is that I am well aware of my intellectual deficiencies and have no problem admitting to them. Therefore, I will not torture you with irrelevant mathematical assumptions -- I'll save us both from the agony . . . I must say, however, that I am thrilled that there are people out there that are well versed in mathematics and scientific inquiry.

I am contemplating usurping the name "Dare" -- what a great surname!

My husband says the same thing . . . Thank you for such a nice welcome!

Michael, I was a bit tardy in introducing myself, wasn't I? And, yes, you do owe me some references! I am glad that you came across (and enjoyed) the Qutb essay. I was pleasantly surprised to see it referenced here -- so, thank you. Sayyid Qutb is an amazingly important figurehead in Islamism (I say "amazingly" because so few Westerners know who he is). It is wonderful that you have brought attention to his influence on Islamism.

Thank you studiodekadent . . . and, yes, the Qutb essay is mine. I'm glad that you enjoyed it.

I thought I would start with a false alternative -- just for fun My name is Virginia Murr and I adore writing as well as philosophy. I married young (19), had two wonderful little girls, then entered college after my youngest started kindergarten. It took 7 years, but I graduated last May with a B.A. in Philosophy (minor in English Literature). Interestingly, it was Rand that changed my major from English to Philosophy. One of my professors in the Honors Program (Dr. Stephen Hicks) placed Atlas Shrugged on his syllabus, which I asked for before classes began. I read the book almost straight through (a few hours of sleep and caring for the kids were my only "interruptions"). On the first day of class, I approached my new professor and asked, "Who is this woman and what else has she written?" Little did I know that Dr. Hicks was an Objectivist who adored Rand's work as much, if not more than, I did! Within a year I switched majors and never looked back. Luckily for me, I learned more about writing from the Philosophy Department than I ever did in an English class. Since then, I have become an avid reader of all things Randian. A number of Objectivists have also entered my radar, including David Kelley and Nathaniel Branden. As a matter of fact, I quoted Mr. Branden several times in my senior seminar project on The Philosophy of Sex (yes, it was a fun project). When I'm not with my family, writing, or reading, I teach karate (I am a 6th degree black belt with almost 27 years of experience). Karate helps to keep this proud geek in shape Why am I here? Well, Rand is the obvious answer. That is not the only answer, though. Often I find myself frustrated with arguments that quickly descend into ad hominem slug fests. So I have been seeking a haven that encourages independent intellectual inquiry and civilized debate. Considering my affinity toward Objectivism, and its devotion to individualism, I believe that this may be that haven. I should also note that I have been lurking around a few of the Objectivist forums in an attempt to find a place that wasn't filled with angst and polemics. During this time, Mr. Kelly's posts struck me as reasonable, interesting, and sometimes humorous . . . It seems that Mr. Kelly and Kat have put together a site that I will find informative as well as enjoyable. Thanks to both of you!

I certainly should have introduced myself in the "new member" area first, but I must thank Michael for posting my essay -- and for the kind comments. Several years ago I traveled to Ground Zero with the Philosophy Club at Rockford College. After visiting the site, the entire group was silent for about an hour -- we were all overwhelmed with sadness and disgust. My personal reaction was quite fierce. All I could think was "why did this happen?" Then and there I knew that I had to find the answer for myself. I didn't want to listen to political opinions, whether from the media, politicians, or the highest members of academia. I needed to formulate my own opinions based on hard core research. I'm so glad I did In all of my research, Qutb's work was the most pronounced view of Islamism that I could find. For this reason, I have no problem stating that Sayyid Qutb's Milestones is a wonderful place to start an investigation into Islamism. He was a well-educated, well-connected martyr that still holds a place of reverence in the Islamist world (with personal connections to al Qaeda). Unlike his ideologue predecessors, Qutb was able to identify a grand philosophical battle between Islam and the West. This apocalyptic battle leaves an all-or-nothing choice to Muslims. Either they are with the Islamists or they and their families will die as members of "The House of War." The House of War, according to Qutb, is any and all societies that reject Shar'iah. Any rejection of Shar'iah is seen as both a rejection of God and an implicit acceptance of Western modernity. And, of course, Western modernity is the enemy of Allah . . . I look forward to hearing other opinions of Qutb and his work! Side Note -- What do I love about Objectivism? I love the fact that it encourages independent thinking, sound research, and rational thought to reach conclusions.