Selene

Good one! LOL

Rand was saying that one needs his wits to survive when one is the only agent around. Doh! I never would have known if she hadn't said. What this has to do with morality is beyond me. Moral or not, one needs someone who can think in order to survive. If not one's self then someone else. On a desert island there is no one else, hence one either uses his wits (if he has them) or he dies. It is rather sample. The connection with ethics and morality eludes me. Ba'al Chatzaf Ba'al, do yourself a favor and try not to understand her, it is way below your pay grade.

This passage is bewildering to me - I cannot even begin to imagine what she is talking about. Rand was not a competent forensic persuader. She was a romantic novelist with a semi-fleshed out philosophy that I believe is true, to a high degree. I will hazard a guess, and it is a guess, about what she was attempting to assert as an axiom. I am doing this in the crystal of my official Ayn Rand Crystal Ball which is like a decoder ring you used to buy from Madison Avenue commercials in the 1950's. I think she was making a reference to her "question" what is the nature of man? His "nature" which separates him from all other creatures is his ability to think and act in his own self-preservation. Then there are about another 20 proofs and examples that she has used, but I don't have the time now to even attempt it. I can totally understand everyones confusion with some of her leaps, but they are the result of insight and she did a poor job in this quote, if that was the point she was making. However, the Official Ayn Rand Crystal Ball is very misty on some days. LOL

Selene, I am sorry. I did not understand this. Are you saying that I am refuting statements that Rand did not say and did not mean? My second paragraph was merely to show Bob where he got Rand's ideas wrong at the outset, by illustrating with the first idea. So I stated what he claimed, then stated what Rand actually said (and meant). Of course, she did not say that an error of judgment is not necessarily a breach of morality in the section that was referenced (p. 1018 of AS), except implicitly by hammering on the theme that the moral is the chosen, but she did say that many times throughout her writings. Those familiar with her writings know this. Maybe she did not say it as much as "A is A," but she did say it quite often. Still, maybe this was not a good presumption to make. Was this the lack of clarity you are objecting to? If so, I agree that I should have qualified that. I sometimes write too fast. Michael Not at all. The Straw Man argument about what Rand allegedly meant was not accurate. It was Ba'al's Straw Man which you refuted by stating what she actually meant when she said those words and you put them in the broader scope of her thought. I thought it was a perfect refutation. It reminds me of a question that was raised out of the audience at one of the hugely attended first sessions of the NBI - Objectivisms 1st grade class on the "ABC's of Objectivism" is my name for the Intro Course. I would attend the first sessions each year to recruit people for politics. I young wide-eyed boy, raised his hand and got called on by Ayn. He tremblingly asked her a hypothetical about a town with only one pharmacy that is closed on Sunday and a woman's baby is very ill and the Dr. gives her a perscription and she knocks on the pharmacy[conveniantly, the pharmacist lived on the premises] and he refuses to open the door because it is Sunday and he is closed. And the student said, but Ms. Rand he has no right to deny that medicine to the child! I cringed and covered my mouth because I knew I was about to start to laugh because I knew how she would answer. She of course said, in her throaty cigarette enhanced voice, something to the effect that the poor patsy had mixed premises, etc., [we've all heard the tape if we ever went to NBI in the early years]. And, essentially, she was right in stating that yes the man did have the "right" to refuse to open the door and use the time she spent berating the poor fool[suffer fools wisely does make sense to me] to place it in context. My statement on the Straw Man was a complement. Maybe I should learn to type faster! LOL

Michael you evil hope monger!

Socrates said, "Know thyself." Michael And I do. In a previous life I -was- Socrates. My last words were: "I drank what!??!". In this life I have a better nose. Ba'al Chatzaf Ba'al, the problem is that now you have confirmed that you relied on one sense once and died, but you are willing to count on one sense again, hmmm here's an idea all the senses are connected to the brain - maybe you should work on this section in this re-generation.

Bob, Be underwhelmed if you like, disagree if you like, but please do a better job of representing Rand's ideas. You've got them all muddled up. The error starts with this sentence and what follows simply compounds one error on top of another. Rand does not "conflate morally right/wrong with factually right/wrong" as if they were synonyms or parts of the same whole and indivisible from each other. (She has gone to great lengths to show how a person can be mistaken but not morally wrong.) Sorry, but you are disagreeing with something in your head, not in Rand's writing. Michael Nice! Michael you "nailed" the logical error of the "Straw Man", essentially, Ba'al equate's another person's actual words or statements as being the way he selectively distorted or selectively "retained" and then you attack the selectively distorted statement and refute the statements that the person did not say and does not mean. Too many people fall into this "comfortable" trap. Ninety percent [90%] of current main stream media cover political discourse exactly this way. Compare it to the C-Span debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza on the existence of God.

That would have been my response. I would force the questioner to put "training wheels" on the questions. When I was a kid, my mother asked me what color dress a women across the street was wearing. I told her it was red on the side facing me. She smacked me upside the head for being a smart ass. I was not being a smart ass. I was being accurate. Later on I decided to be a smart ass (in a manner of speaking). Many years later, I asked my oldest son, who was in his fifth year of life at the time, what color a car across the street was. He answered blue on the side facing him. I praised him for his accuracy. He has grown up to be as literal minded as I am. Intelligent lad, my eldest son. He came by it naturally, just as I did. He was, and still is a "Fair Witness" as in Robert Heinlein's -Stranger in a Strange Land-. I am not closed minded. I am literal minded. I probably had (and probably still do) Asperger's Syndrome to some extent. I have learned to compensate rather well so I am not socially dysfunctional and it is very hard to detect that I do not think like other people. Think of me as being like Dexter in the ShoTime series, except that I am not a serial killer. I am just a pain in the ass (in a manner of speaking). I try to kill other people's most cherished beliefs, if these beliefs are in error. Other than Reality Lite, I do not have many cherished beliefs myself. I believe what works. The closest thing to religion I have is my adherence to the principle or law of Non Contradiction. My Mission From God is to vex inconsistent and mistaken folk with counterexamples. If I lived in ancient Athens, I probably would have been Socrates. Ba'al Chatzaf That is a fair response. You actually used a perfect example from Heinlein. My complements. I am also smart and was raised with the fact that reality is. It will not change merely because you wish it to change. If their are 10 questions with 10 correct answers and an infinite number of incorrect answers and you choose only 9 of the correct answers you receive a 90% on the "objective" test. Makes sense to me. When I read Atlas at 13, it gave me a broad based philosophy[not complete and not perfect] which verified precisely what I knew to be true. I have not changed and like you, I never blame the hammer, or society or my parents for missing the target and hitting the proverbial thumb. Finally, I am exactly like you in terms of opposing, logically, with the "emotional" arguments [which as Ayn pointed out stem from values and what you value because as you astutely noted, it works] in support, having analyzed my audience and established my credibility [Aristotelian Ethos as opposed to logos and pathos]. Therefore, I rarely "lose" an argument, when I do, it is usually because I made a mistake in reasoning. Maybe there is hope for you yet! LOL

That is a fair comment (did I mean just or did I mean attractive?). Did Francisco utter the word "context" to James Taggart when he was putting Taggart down? As I said he should have stuck with copper smeltering machinery and should have left semiotics and semantics to the experts. Exactness in language is important to clarity of thought. Ba'al Chatzaf "That is a fair comment (did I mean just or did I mean attractive?)." I am unsurpised that you do not know what you meant to say. You = message sender. It is a fact that you selected a multi-nuanced word. It amuses me that you would use one of the favorite words that an attorney [your prior profession wide condemnation of them comes to mind] uses in direct and cross examination - "fair". For example, "Sir, would it be fair to say that you did "x" when "y" did "z"? The person being asked that question should only answer "I don't know." because the word has, as you pointed out, "...17 exact meanings." Or, as I have trained witnesses to respond, "My answer would depend on which one of the seventeen (17) different nuances of fair you meant counselor." Brant underlying statement was well stated. Unfortunately Brant, in my short time on this forum argumentation with "Ba'al" is useless when he has closed his mind on a specific issue. I guess you just have to pick only Ba'al's post that you agree with to engage in quality argumentation.

Brant, I agree that the "in between" people probably number in the billions, and that many or most of them are better than what surrounds them. But I'm not convinced that we all are capable of taking the sort of evil actions I referred to, despite free will. The fact that I don't understamd what makes such actions possible is why I sometimes wonder if humanity truly is a single species with a similarly evolved brain and emotional capacity. But I realize that my wondering is not evidence that such is the case. Barbara Just because one has the capacity doesn't mean one has the capability. The real question is why are some people sociopaths? Nature or nurture? I also think that criminal thinking leads to criminal actions, which I believe Robert B. wrote a book about, and that with practice criminality leads to more criminality along with a lessening of the moral sense. It also means a great deal what kind of friends one has for criminality can go tribal as with the Thugs. Etc. Lastly, speaking biologically if a male and female can produce fertile offspring they are the same species. --Brant Good points Brant. I question the "criminality" statement. Criminality can be defined by the group or what is known to be "humanly criminal" [i'm stretching the language here, by that I mean what all moral, ethical people know to be wrong, e.g. "malum in se" which means "a wrong in itself; an act or case involving illegality from the very nature of the transaction, upon principles of natural, moral, and public law." Black's Law Dictionary; 5th Ed. In other words a person who grows marijuana is a "criminal" which I believe is insane.

Congress (both houses) is a haven of crooks, scoundrels, liars, thieves and (in some cases) sexual perverts. The nation is in its greatest peril when Congress is in session. The game is fixed. Americans love their welfare state and their handouts. The Constitution of the Founders is dead and has been dead for some time. I am not going to play a game I cannot win. Let someone younger and stronger than I try their luck. I will simply stand here and tell the Emperor that he is bare ass naked. That is my Mission. If someone listens, good. If not so be it. You go and play the game and see where it gets you. Rots of ruck. Ba'al Chatzaf Excuse me, I don't think in your tautologies. I was merely attempting to enlighten you as to your poor argumentation. I added the two options. I did not suggest that you pick the second. I understand your anger. However, being involved in electing an "open-minded Objectivist" [which I understand is a phrase heavily disputed on this forum] to the local school board will slow down the rush to collectivized statism. All politics is local. Finally, I believe I remember on your profile that you are active with a special needs situation. When I was on my school board we began the concept of mainstreaming and special education. I tried hard to put sunsets in the resolution, so that the program would be reviewed and re-passed every three years[length of time of the elected school board], but I couldn't get that 5th vote. Unfortunately, special education has become a fiscal nightmare. However, when we started the program, children with special needs were basically locked up in basements. Therefore, I understand your disgust with the political processm, but as Alan Drury pointed out, it is capable of honor. It is like any arte or techne as Aristotle divided them, you make a choice as a professional to practice morally and perform excellently. That applies to the arte and the techne of politics.

I selectively pick out the really rotten parts. Where am I mistaken? By putting the central power of taxation in Congress and removing the States from the election of Senators the -Federal Republic- as envisioned by the Founders was undone. It was a gradual process that got into full motion following the Civil War. We have had National Government since the post Civil War period. This is antithetical to -Federal Government- which spreads sovereignty and puts only global national powers in the hands of Congress. Under National Government, Congress and the burocrats are not only into our bank accounts but up our rectums. Going for the essentials is not over simplification. It is identification of the central problems and issues. We don't need no steeeenking lawyers and journals for that. Ba'al Chatzaf And spoken with such a calm manner! Last time I checked, Congress passed the law on the evil progressive income tax. The Amendment process was ratified. As a representative Constitutional Republic both of those actions were completely proper as to the authority and power that was delegated to the Congress and the Amendment process. I blame each of us for continuing to comply with immoral laws. A less radical and dangerous method would be to actively begin repealing the Congressional Act or starting the Amendment process to repeal those amendments. It is so easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize instead of putting on the pads and getting in the game.

You left out The Bilderburgers, The Illuminati and The Free Masons. And the Constitutional Republic has been dead since Woodrow Wilson's administration, if not sooner. The last nail was hammered into the coffin with the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments. The latter removed the last vestige of the Sovereignty of the States. Ba'al Chatzaf Ba'al it is amazing how you selectively pick out pieces of one of the most complex Constitutional systems in history and attempt to squeeze them into a generalization. FYI - the Federal Rules of Civil Proceedure in use for over 100 years which recognized a "federal common law" was overturned by Eirie Railroad vs. Thompson 1937 [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Railroad_Co._v._Tompkins] many Constitutional experts consistently see this case as the nexus of the elimination of elements of common law and our representative Constitutional Republic. Moreover, is not the amendment process what made and makes our Constitution a "living breathing document?" Word do have meanings and in any argumentation, the first part of reason is identifying and defining terms from which to argue from. I would also refer you to Charles McElwain's Constitutionalism Ancient and Modern.

Excellent post sir. "You ought to learn that words have an exact meaning." is one of my favorite Francisco quotes. As an original Goldwater person, I was infuriated with the "cutsey" slogan, "In your heart, you know he's right." and working the trenches in NY City in 1963, we left ourselves open to a very logical counter-attack which was "Yea, but in your mind/brain you know he's wrong." Having lived through the Giuliani administration, I will state that he was effective and efficient in changing my city into a reasonably safe, clean and functioning city. My very smart Grandmother used to explain to me that Mussilini was also effective, he did "make the trains run on time", but she explained that that was not a sufficient trade for freedom. Using "fascist" to describe Rudy is patently false. His "plan" for America is certainly not fascist. He does raise legitimate concerns as to where he would consider subordinating certain "individual" constitutional rights, but it does not even begin to rise to the level that the "Manachurian Candidate" Hilarie Rodham Clinton would reach with her communist assumptions. Well done.

The Eloi were small, childlike, fragile and friendly vegetarians, dancing in the fields with many beautiful flowers, making cooing noises, in short, some kind of Teletubbies. They were the descendants from the higher classes, but had degenerated in the course of time while they knew no hardships and had no problems to solve. The Morlocks were in appearance much less human, white spidery beings with huge eyes, that couldn't stand light, living underground. They were the descendants of the labourers, still working with machines and indeed treating the Eloi like cows: taking care of their needs, but also eating them. I think the Eloi community looked exactly like an Earth Liberation Front party.

"An example of this is the quasi-alliance being seen with the Catholic Church and evangelical Protestants using the cloak of Intelligent Design to bring creationism back into educational institutions as well as their active and hostile activities towards social issues like abortion rights." Interesting observation. There are a number of words in that statement that cry for clarification, e.g., 'quasi-alliance' [a mouth full of concepts bouncing around]; 'evangelical Protestants' [i have good friends who are evangelical Quakers, are they the Pro-test-ants that you mean???]; "the cloak of Intelligent Design to bring creationism back into educational institutions" [hmm - clever phrasing, but it means...?]; "their active and hostile activities towards social issues like abortion rights." [a social "issue" means...? and why should I, as a thinking individual care about a "social issue"]; finally, "abortion 'rights'". Roe v. Wade and the underlying case notwithstanding, the "right" to "abort" exists where in the Constitution? Define the terms please.

Understood. I will read your article. My point was for folks to "see" the words and the "context" of the "message" and the "medium" wherein the "message" is being transmited as part of how they may "asimilate", "translate", "incorporate", etc., "data". Michael, general semantist can translate. Lol.

This sounds like fiction, a twisted version of H. G. Wells' The Time Machine. Yep. Nice pick-up. Us old "fogeys" remember the Morlocks and the Eloi. The best part of the entire movie was the last scene with the incredibly inept, overacting lead and the solid housekeeper actress telling the equally well acted friend of the lead, after he asked her: "Is their anything missing?" She pans the library and notices three (3) books missing. His friend, balefully looks off into the camera and into the future and says: "Which three (3) books would you take?" [to build a new world]. Great values clarification exercise. And the answer is...

Ahh! Where are you Ronald Reagan? TRUST, BUT VERIFY! "Tear down that wall! Seriously, I would seek at least three (3) independent verifications of anything that comes out of CBS.

There is no way that this list can be nearly so long, and so full of US citizens, unless the Feds have simply dumped names of people suspected of all kinds of unrelated stuff onto it. Given recent Federal law and policy in the US, I'll bet that every "deadbat dad" is on it, for starters. What's more, as per an expose on 60 Minutes a couple of years ago, the list apparently consists only of first and last names. No dates of birth, no other information, not even a middle name or initial. Every time I go to an airport in the US, a worried-looking counter person has to run a security check on me. The last time I returned from overseas, I was kept in La Migra's waiting room at O'Hare airport for 45 minutes while an ICE agent spent 45 minutes trying to raise someone in Washington on a Sunday afternoon to confirm that I was not the guy that they were after. I was not in a cell, but my passport was taken from me and they could have made me stay right where I was long past the time when my flight home was due to leave. Let's see, how many Robert Campbells are there in the US? We're probably talking in the thousands. And is the one Robert Campbell that they're after really suspected of helping out Hezbollah, or running guns for Al Qa'eda? Think of what happens to every Joe Smith or Eduardo Gomez or Brittany Jones, if one person by that name gets dumped on the "terror watch" list. Robert Campbell I agree with your concern over the basic incompetence of government and government "lists", but please do not use 60 Minutes as a source for anything, without some outside verification.

And a genetic pun. The best part about being a test tube baby is that you have a womb with a view.

Well at least there will be bigger penises and pert breasts for the haves. Michael Yep. Those Italian genes are pretty strong!

Welcome Jen, keep dry and keep thinking rationally and selfishly. I read Atlas Shrugged when I was about 13ish in 1959. You will find that it is difficult to have an objective discussion of ideas with a hardcore altruist. They, as a group, rarely think individually. There is a collective mindset that sneers, condescends and will punish individual thought socially and professionally. However, what is infuriating to these philosophical fascists is that they cannot stop the spread of solid ideas especially when it is spread by books from one individual to another. I have always marketed Rand's ideas by asking a question or having Atlas on a table or in my attache case. Socratic questioning is an excellent way to create cognitive dissonance in the mind of an altruist. Leading the questioning to a personal example of what their assumptive base would mean in a real life situation for them over something that they value is an excellent way to shake them from the "party" line that they spout by rote. Again, welcome. As a fellow NY City person, it is good to have you aboard. Adam

Yeah, at Amazon it says: "Currently unavailable. We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock." The last time I checked was back in mid August, I think, and it wasn't available then either. It seems that it hasn't yet been available, despite the "will be back in stock" comment at Amazon, which would imply that it once was. J That was not the question I asked.

"And did they have to choose a chemical plant for the cover illustration?" Yes. Is your objection, [minus the absurd price] to the "art"?