Alfonso Jones

I don't agree that "to be mistaken is the equivalent of being evil." Not at all. I do think it interesting to find that connotation in an otherwise compellingly interesting Rand quote, however. For clarity, I should have begun my last sentence in the original post with "However." Alfonso

Was browing through old posts on Objectivist Living and came across this one by Barbara Branden. Note the last sentence . . . A very significant point is made there. Look at the fundamental ratio: SLC = (mindless invective)/(substantial contribution) It's pretty high for some . . . Alfonso (SLC = So Little Content)

I haven't been here for a few days, and Bob (Ba'al) has addressed a lot of the points I would have made. I'd like to emphasize a few points: --the Jews who emigrated to "Palestine" BOUGHT the land on which they settled from Arabs who were more than willing to sell it to them. It became theirs by right. They didn't take it by force. --the land in the Middle East was all part of the Ottoman Empire. The land was divided up between Britain, France, and I forget who else, who then arbitrarily divided it up into Palestine, Iraq, whatever. (Does present-day Iraq make sense, given the tribal identities of its inhabitants? Of course not. The Europeans didn't care when they created it.) Palestine was Britain's. --Britain was originally going to give ALL of "Palestine" to the Jews. Then they changed their mind and gave over 75 percent of it to the Arabs, and less than 25 percent of it to the Jews in response to Arab outrage. The Arabs still weren't satisfied and went to war over the issue. (many items clipped from quote to save space...) A good book on the subject is Alan Dershowitz's "The Case for Israel". Judith Judith - Many thanks for an excellent and fact-based post. Alfonso

And that brought a big smile to my face. Thanks, Roger. Alfonso

I was browsing through old posts on Objectivist Living and found this. I say a belated "Bravo!" to Barbara Branden. Alfonso

Those interested in Michael Milken would do well to browse to: http://www.mikemilken.com/index.taf and to read, in particular, the "Myths" section. Alfonso

From Philosophy: Who Needs It (page 10): "The best way to study philosophy is to approach it as one approaches a detective story: Follow every trail, clue and implication, in order to discover who is a murderer and who is a hero. The criterion of detection is two questions: Why? and How? If a given tenet seems to be true - why? If a given tenet seems to be false - why? and how is it being put over? You will not find all the answers immediately, but you will acquire an invaluable characteristic: the ability to think in terms of essentials." Beautifully written. Sometimes I think Rand "raised me" intellectually. Advice such as that above - very helpful. Note the connotation of the analogy - philosophers are murderers or heroes - not just dispassionate people playing intellectual games or engaged in disinterested enquiry. Alfonso

If someone made up this sort of stuff and put it into a novel, they would be told that was absurd. Wait a minute - that happened! Alfonso

Thanks. Will give them a read. Alfonso

My guess: twenty billion. Maybe more. The crowed lifestyle may not be to your liking or taste, but it is possible. Ba'al Chatzaf By the time we reach 20 billion on earth, I hope some of us will have started to go elsewhere in the universe. Jim Agreed on that. But the sort of thinking in the article I quote is of the form "If man doesn't invent anything to improve the situation, if all things (except population size) remain constant, then what will happen..." And "what should THOSE IN CHARGE WHO HAVE ABSOLUTE POWER do to constrain population growth, consumption, through force?" Stuff for the Horror File. Alfonso Alfonso

My guess: twenty billion. Maybe more. The crowed lifestyle may not be to your liking or taste, but it is possible. Ba'al Chatzaf We have 1.5 billion in China, in area about the size of the USA. And many regions are severely underpopulated (in the northwest, primarily). Alfonso

I was reading in Significance yesterday. This is a magazine sent to Fellows of the Royal Statistical Society. Therein I found an article titled "The sustainability of human populations: How many people can live on earth?" I thought I'd share a short excerpt from the article: "Humans will not willingly sacrifice their comfortable lifestyles for the greater good (especially for the greater good of other countries), so it must be taken from them, either through legal restrictions or, failing that, by nature through the misery and deprivation tha must inevitably follow decades of collective waste and overconsumption." Someday I will cease to be amazed at what people will say or write in seemingly polite language. I don't look forward to that day. Alfonso

Many thanks, Michael. Alfonso

I'd be interested in soliciting a suggested reading list on Objectivist Epistemology. One might thing of organizing it as: 1) Writing or Speeches by Rand: 2) Writing or Speeches by other Objectivists 3) Writing or Speeches which criticize Objectivist epistemology I'm of course aware of ITOE, and of Kelley's Evidence of the Senses. I've got easy access to The Objectivist Newsletter, The Objectivist, The Ayn Rand Letter, The Objectivist Forum, The Objective Standard, The Intellectual Activist and the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, among other likely sources... Alfonso

Many thanks for posting this! What a first post! Alfonso

Yes, Michael. The sheer drama of the story has always left me breathless. Nathaniel and Barbara amaze me - as survivors. Alfonso

He probably used "that" while pointing "over there." And in many cases, that is sufficient precision of speaking to meet the operational communication needs of the moment. Alfonso

If you try to define all your terms you will eventually define in circles. For example, if you define 'wind' as 'movement of air' and then 'air' as 'little bits of matter' and 'matter' as 'something with mass' and 'mass' as 'a property of matter' etc. do you see how it goes on forever? But if I say to you "do you know what I mean by 'wind'?" and you say 'yes' then we can leave that and move on to learning about wind. My concern is that the ground seems to keep shifting. First we hear that the term "wind" is just a symbol, without content. I object to that - how can we discuss such a nothing? The response comes . . . all we will ever do is talk if we try to define the velocity of the air to the 3rd decimal place before we reach resolution. But that's not what is being suggested either. I suspect that the "wind is just a symbol" may not really be what you mean. But please understand - I have not read anybody suggesting that we need to define in infinite detail all aspects of something before moving on. This is a straw man. If you think Rand said that (and I am open to correction) please cite the specific place, in context. Alfonso

Just saw this one, Michael. Thanks for posting it. Good one. Alfonso

Of course it is a typo. In the earlier version of MYWAR, Judgment Day, it is correctly written as "sanctity". It's unbelievable, but apparently Valliant really missed this... a real contradiction between two of Branden's books! If that doesn't prove what an evil scoundrel he is... Dragonfly - Thanks. I was beginning to fear that folks were finding it extremely difficult to see the obvious. Alfonso Jones

Good post, Barbara. Alfonso

The 1958 is from Branden, page 227 --- "In December 1958, Ayn received her advance copies." I think it quite natural to take Branden at his word, and to assume that though the advance copies got to Rand in December 1958, the official publication occurred in 1959. I don't have a copy of a first edition, so I don't know for certain if it said sanity or sanctity, but it seems far more natural that sanctity is what was intended. Alfonso

Alfonso, GS just means that we should try to avoid our arguments resting on special definitions for our terms. That's all it is. If you want to get the situation clear in your mind, here's an example. Let's say we want to study the effect of wind on a sand dune. (Caricature of obsessive detail in definition of wind deleted to save space) And so on and so forth. This example is of course exaggerated, but...not by much. You will have observed that our philosophers have not even begun to address the actual problem they wish to study. In fact, as we leave them they have not yet completed "precisely defining" the first word they chose. As Popper remarks, this method, which promises precision and better arguments, in practice leads to neither. It does not work as advertised. It forces one to spend all one's time sharpening one's pencil but never writing anything. It even leads, eventually, to frustration and disillusion with even the quest for knowledge itself. We contrast this with the scientific method. Here, nothing rests on the terms "wind", "sand" or anything else. If greater precision is required, features such as height, wind velocity, or type of sand can be simply added. The words "wind" "sand" etc are merely convenient labels, and do not aim to capture any "essential truths." Truth is a function of the theory in question, (say, does wind displace sand proportional to its speed?) not of the particular words involved. The former approach is the remains of the Aristotelian method. The mistaken belief in its precision seems to be no more than a prejudice due to Aristotle and Plato's enormous influence. The latter is the scientific approach. The amazing progress of science compared to philosophy in the past centuries can be attributed to the degree to which Aristotelian method has been abandoned. (It still lingers in the social sciences, regrettably) Does that clear it up somewhat? It makes the problem more clear. I must respectfully differ - "wind" is not merely a convenient label. There is content there. How can we discuss wind, or the question of whether "does wind displace sand proportional to its speed" in the absence of knowing what we are talking about, at least to know that when one says "wind" they do not mean "sand?" Wind is not merely a convenient label which might be applied to ANYTHING. So, regrettably, I do not know how we can completely avoid having to have MEANINGS for the words. Alfonso

I agree with this sentiment but I find it a curious way to express it. In GS it would be called pathological behaviour to pray instead of using knowledge to save yourself, but you would never say it was 'good' or 'bad'. Don't you find those terms rather simplistic? Not at all simplistic. Obviously, there is something about the use of "good" or "bad" which bothers you. Can you articulate what it is? Perhaps by understanding why you "would ever say it was 'good' or 'bad'" we can understand the divergence between views (if there is a divergence) here. Alfonso

I heartily agree with this statement, we must start with some mutually agreed upon undefined terms. Please help the communication here. What does it mean, in your view, to "start with some mutually agreed upon undefined terms." In what sense can we AGREED on terms while those terms are UNDEFINED? What did we agree on? Only that we will not attempt to define the terms? What is the use of this, as a starting point? Alfonso