sjw

You hit the nail on the head. And raised a good question too: what is the point of deciding that someone's drawing ability is innate? Is it in order to "help" someone figure out when they should give up? What's the practical purpose of knowing the answers to that kind of question? And that's what the talent people here are doing: deciding. They have no facts to prove their claims. They are obviously biased. E.g., Victor says that if someone doesn't become a good artist, then they must have had no inborn talent. The thing is you can't get inside someone's head (and a person that's inside his own head isn't necessarily good at introspecting). Maybe they used their minds to their fullest and that was as good as they could do, or maybe they had a bunch of hang-ups that in subtle ways made them less able to learn. Maybe some guy *would* have been the next Michelangelo if he had only dug a little deeper. You just can't know. But Victor presumes he knows and decides that the guy must not have had inborn talent. Shayne

Rand created Atlas. So what did you create that gave you such an edge over Rand, such that you could stand back and criticize her so deeply about her "linear processes"? You're either a genius or the opposite of one. Shayne

I thought I couldn't draw at all, Then I took an art class and really tried. By the end I came up with a drawing that astounded me. It was all about learning the method. (I have no idea if I retained the ability or not, it's been years since I tried). Talent is obviously not inborn because what people refer to by "talent" is always man-made. There is no natural selection in play for drawing or playing basket ball. What nature does give us are physical and mental capacities. Although we can measure these crudely (such as the height of a basketball player), for the most part the only way to discover your true capacity is give it your all. Lance Armstrong had no idea of his capacity for winning the Tour de France until he tried to become the best bike racer he could be. It turned out that his personal best was a best in class, but he couldn't have known that at the beginning, there's just no way to measure it. Mental capacities are even harder to measure than physical capacities. IQ tests are mainly a measure of acquired skill, not innate capacity. I think that most people who are called "genius" probably had ordinary capacities but just developed them to their utmost. The idea of "inborn talent" stifles development of talent, it makes people stick with what they are already comfortable with instead of growing, on the premise that it's not possible to grow since they don't have the talent for it; a vicious cycle. Shayne

Any position here can be made to look plausible, because there are plenty of facts to buttress all the positions. E.g., I could say that the dems won't get encouraged because they know that they're only in office because we're disgruntled with the Republicans for the moment; if the dems act too consistently with their own principles, then the Republicans will come back with a solid and coherent platform, win the presidency, and sweep them out. Or, one could argue that the dems will see this as an opportunity to get their ideas even more deeply entrenched, and even if they do get kicked in 4 years they'll be happy for what they were able to "accomplish" and set us back 50 years because hardly anything ever gets repealed. So why bother with this arcane art of rationalizing which evil we should put into office? We should be focussing on why we aren't doing what we can and ought to be doing, on how we can actually make a difference, not about where to send our few irrelevant votes. My opinion is that we ought to mostly forget about this current events crap that ARI and others like to fixate on and be more focussed on political architecture--designing the ideal government, and a transition plan to peacefully get it implemented. Spending most of your energy squawking about this or that current event as ARI and others like to do is sadly lacking in ambition; Objectivism has the power to do so much more. Shayne

Ed, Of course we need philosophy and of course it is the fundamental. But not merely philosophy, and not in some sort of rigid ordering as in "first make everyone an Objectivist, then introduce individual rights into politics." The real truth is that by solving particular political problems using an individualist philosophy, we can thereby introduce rational individualism. Many people came to Objectivism via Rand's fiction, many came from technical philosophy, and if we had Objectivism permeating other fields (including politics), they'd come to it from those too. The idea that things should be taught in lock-step logical ordering is very naive, and actually, collectivist at its root. It presumes that in order to have a valid field of research, we need to first convince everyone that it's valid. But it works in reverse: first someone defines the field, and then people become convinced. Shayne

It's mostly academic for Objectivists to argue over who to vote for. We make the barest sliver of a difference. Better would be to argue over how to change the fact that we are impotent in this culture. But here's my academic answer anyway. I lean to Peikoff's approach. The republicans are in general getting more and more rotten over time. Time to kick them out, and hopefully renew the party for the next round. If they take it on the chin, maybe they'll reject their "compassionate" neoconservatism. Painful, yes, but perhaps necessary. At this point I'm thinking I'll either do as Peikoff suggests, vote Democrat with the hope of teaching the Republicans a lesson; or vote independent/Libertarian with the hope of teaching the Republicans a lesson. Either way, I don't see how letting them carry on in the direction they've been going is a good idea, they need a serious jolt. Shayne

I wrote: I was thinking about writing something mostly complete, but it's just not interesting enough. Instead I'll give the highlights of what I think the right approach is. I am not going to cover the area of whether an attack of ours might be a rights violation or not. Clearly that's an issue: if we just drop bombs for the hell of it, then clearly we are violating rights and our government has no less obligation to not violate the rights of its citizens vs. those abroad. What I'm going to cover is the area where we might take extra risk and cost relative to the ARI approach of just nuking everyone if that's cheaper. Our current military is quite different from what a rational individualism based one would be. ARIians like to use terms like "to sacrifice our soldiers" for such and such would be wrong. In a proper military, there would be no sacrifice. Soldiers would be soldiers as a profession. A professional window washer or crocodile hunter doesn't "sacrifice his life" for his profession. Neither does a soldier. He trades value for value. If he didn't like the risks or goals, he'd change careers, or ask for more money. The military should in some sense be viewed as a business, where all military risks are translated into costs. So this issue isn't *in principle* about some emotional "our poor soldiers lives". It's about money. (In current practice altruism is indeed a large factor of the military--but then ARI should argue against altruism in the military instead of assuming it and then making altruistic arguments about "sacrificing" our soldiers--the ARI irony of being oblivious to Objectivism strikes again). So--in principle, this is only about money. Victory will cost money, it just comes down to what method costs what amount and how much we can spend. ARI declares "do what's cheapest", even if that means killing millions of innocents relative to a method that might cost a little more. So far, I've not solved the "pragmatic tradeoff", I've merely expressed it in terms of dollar figures. On the face of it we still have the issue: how much extra do we have to spend to protect the innocents? In a certain principled sense, I agree with ARI: zero. We have no inherent moral obligation to spend any more than what's necessary. Just as we have no inherent obligation to save a child who needs our help. However, although I don't think philosophy can prescribe that we must save a child in need in all circumstances, I think there are many circumstances where not doing so would be immoral. Supposing we pass a child about to run out into a busy street, if it's not our child then we have no inherent obligation for his safety. On the other hand, it would take a deranged person to claim that he therefore will not spend the effort to pull the child back. Time is money, and his time isn't worth the effort. Would we call such a person moral? Of course not. On the other hand, perhaps saving the child would involve significant danger and risk. We would call the death of the child tragic, but wouldn't blame the person. So even though charity is a "peripheral issue", there can be contexts where charity is the only moral action. I wouldn't throw the guy who didn't pull the child back in jail, but I surely would shun him. His lack of charity is so extreme it makes him inhuman. Likewise, going for the absolute cheapest military strategy while ignoring more expensive options that would save innocents precisely because they are more expensive is the same sort of immoral, inhuman calculation that we find repulsing about the ARI position. Surely at this point some ARIian would retort: "But you want government to decide for *me* how much charity to give to these people. That's not for the government to decide. They should just do their jobs and protect me." Which brings me to my final point. In a rational society, charity would run amok. We would be so flowing over in resources that we would be happy to stop suffering where we could. We would hate the thought of killing innocent people and would donate. I would. I know you would. (I wonder about the ARIian). The only question is: how to translate our individual charity into a military strategy. Well it's not that hard. The military would simply make a few different bids, disclosing how much it would cost to work to what standard of protecting innocents. Charity would be collected voluntarily, and the military would implement the corresponding strategy. Shayne

Good post Ed, though I'd say we need a Thomas Jefferson not a George Bush, and I wonder about the value of an organized Objectivist movement vs. a political movement based on rational individualism. Shayne

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/27/female.c...n.ap/index.html The question is, who's more barbaric, those who practice female circumcision, or those who practice male circumcision while being outraged about female circumcision? Shayne

The real irony here with ARI is that they are proposing military solutions to what is really a philosophical/political problem. Even in Iraq I think we could handily win, if we were concerned not merely with military issues but with philosophical/political. Surely there have to be good elements in Iraq, people who just want to live their lives in peace. Yet instead of giving moral support to those who want to pursue life, we quibble over who we're handing dictatorial power over to and when, demoralizing those who should be our allies; we promote the farce of "democracy" instead of individual rights. Americans are morally disarmed and paralyzed, and therefore impotent at the sort of activism that would be required to properly exit from Iraq, leaving it with a proper government. A proper government would require a constitution based on individual rights and sweeping education and culling out local citiziens who believe in individual rights for government posts, and enticing businessmen (potential and actual) to help by promising them an environment they can prosper in. It would require philosophers to practice what they preach and help convince those who want life to do what's necessary to stop the forces of death. What's happening in Iraq is something of a microcosm of what's happening in America: special interests clamoring over how they are going to spend confiscated funds, religious zealots clamoring for government power, government mandated monopolies... we are in no position to change a foreign government for the better as ours slides into something more and more corrupt than what the Founding Fathers set up. If ARI had any sense and wanted to fix things, they'd spend more time painting and selling the vision I'm hinting at above and less time trying to tell the military how to do its job. But ARI has no vision, they just react to what they see on the news. They have no vision in part because they interpret Ayn Rand as telling them to stay out of politics, so they skip that step and go straight to military tactics. In that sense they are less philosophical than the Libertarians they criticize. Shayne

I don't think Ayn Rand thought ahead very far or much at all about how or whether Objectivism should be organized as a movement. She had a lack of interest in this and just didn't think much about it. And I think she was the only one really qualified to do it. I think it's a tragedy for the spread of her philosophy that she didn't, though I certainly would not say that she ought to have done this work even though I wish she had. She was already an Atlas; to ask more of her would be the lowest form of being ungrateful. So what now? I have no comment at this time. Shayne

Sorry for the poor reading on my part. So, are there any good Republicans to vote for? Shayne

He said "votes Republican" not "votes for a Republican"; there's a difference. On can actually "vote Republican" by checking a box that means to vote for all Republicans, I assume that's what he meant. Shayne

Yes, you're right to cringe; "principled way out" isn't how I feel about it, it's how I imagine they do, or at least, how they ought to given their hideous answer. When I asked for a link, I was asking for a link to something on *this* site that someone else might have written that you thought was a good answer here. I was wondering if anyone knows of anything that addresses the issue properly (RCR's post that quoted George was good to help highlight the problem). Very good point. A comprehensive reply to Brook/Epstein should include the points you are making; my intent has been to focus on what I see as the root issue, the positive solution to the problem they in the end failed to solve. But if I'm right that this is the root issue, it certainly doesn't excuse or make irrelevant these other points you are bringing up. Shayne

That's a valid point. Of course, no one who succeeded primarily because of genetics would properly earn the designation "hero". But that's academic; there's no evidence that Rand (or any other genius) was successful primarily because of genetics. On the contrary, the evidence points more to nurturing parents than it does to genetics (often, though not always, one finds that the genius was highly educated starting from a young age). Shayne

I totally agree. I should have mentioned that. What I'm referring to is what the Brook/Epstein article was arguing against in roughly the first 2/3 of it. Namely that, contrary to "Just War Theory", we are not morally required to take great risks at loss of life on our side in order to prevent loss of innocent life on their side. This is where they were right but also why they were so wrong: They properly argue that it is immoral to require of ourselves to take great risks of defeat and loss of our own lives in order to prevent innocent deaths on the other side, but also in effect argue that it is immoral to take even a minimal risk or cost in order to prevent loss of innocent life. Clearly they don't want innocents to die, but by their method of thinking (simplistic deduction from principles) they could not figure out a principled way out, so they in effect said: To hell with innocents. Has anyone at OL posted the principled way out? On the face of it it I take it that it seems like a slippery slope to many; that there's only a pragmatic balancing of our lives vs. theirs possible. A few years ago I posted the proper approach to the old SoloHQ and Bidinotto and several others agreed with me about it, perhaps I'll share it here. If anyone thinks a good solution was posted to this forum I'd appreciate a link. Shayne

Barbara & RCR, I agree that they went too far, but they're right to be critical of the war philosophy the Bush administration is adhering to, and their criticism is for the most part right on the money. Shayne

I didn't ask for clarification because I was insulted; I asked because I don't know what point you're trying to make. I still don't know. In any case, the reason I admire Rand isn't for her inborn traits, it's how she chose to use them, and yes I'd argue that what people volitionally do is what's important when it comes to admiration. So if by "I simply take a different approach" you mean that yours is equally valid here, I totally disagree. And I don't think Rand was a born genius, I think she was self-made, starting from a very young age. She was born with a good brain, but what is important is how she chose to employ it. I think your emphasis on "how geniuses' brains work" is to turn genius into something mystical, when really it's more of a heroic ongoing devotion to some endeavor that makes a genius. Yes there's a basic genetic requirement, but there's no evidence that that's the important factor, and plenty of evidence that it isn't. Shayne

Not quite. I intend a much broader scope, and it most definitely includes Bin Laden. You'd say that he acts with certainty based on false premises, no? Shayne

Well I know I am ;) None of my comments are intended to say someone is a "bad guy"; I'm just responding to what's been posted. I was just in Philadelphia thinking about how I'd rewrite the bit about "we hold these truths to be self-evident", and came to the conclusion that a revised Declaration of Independence would include some statement about never promoting something in government without being certain first. Taking personal risks based on personal ignorance is one thing; passing laws without knowing for sure they are valid is quite another. There's a lot more to say about this, but let me just say that I think your parenting idea is very wise. I think I agree with what you mean here, but "thinking in principles" does not mean "thinking only in abstractions". Binswanger said it well when he said: "Concretization is not an aid to thinking, it *is* the thinking." You're right that many Objectivists think only or mainly in floating abstractions. Shayne

Along these lines: Has anyone at this site recognized the *good* that is in the Brook/Epstein article? Its target, Just War Theory, is a valid one, and most of the arguments they make are valid. They only go off track late in the article. (Biddle on the other hand seems to mostly have picked up on the bad parts). Shayne

I think one of the worst evils is to feign knowledge, whether explicitly in talk or implicitly in action. All of the evils of the world can be traced to people who characteristically do this. All of the good can be traced to people who characteristically take due care before pronouncing in thoughts, words, and deeds their certainty about some matter. Just look at the issue at hand. Do you think ARI can back up their raving with logic an arguments? Absolutely not. They're feigning knowledge. (On this count I think Peikoff did Objectivism a great disservice when he talked about "context" being an excuse for making false statements). Shayne PS: Google's a great tool for examining this radiation issue for oneself. Factors to consider: type of bomb, intensity and duration of radiation at a given radius, known long-term effects of radiation in terms of liklihood, comparison with natural occurances such as volcano eruptions.

Completely useless information. For one thing, it makes no mention of normal background radiation, necessary in order to evaluate the difference between the radiation a nuke would cause and what we get already. E.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation "Natural background radiation comes from two primary sources: cosmic radiation and terrestrial sources. The worldwide average background dose for a human being is about 2.4 mSv per year [1] (pdf). This exposure is mostly from cosmic radiation and natural isotopes in the Earth. This is far greater than human-caused background radiation exposure, which in the year 2000 amounted to an average of about 0.01 mSv per year from historical nuclear weapons testing, nuclear power accidents and nuclear industry operation combined [1], and is greater than the average exposure from medical tests, which ranges from 0.04 to 1 mSv per year."

Oh, well that's good to know. Thanks for the information. I'll make sure to keep your wishes in mind when I write my posts.

Of course, but I'm sure you'll recognize the same applies to you. The principle does, but unlike you I didn't violate it. Your bringing it up just demonstrates that you're confused. There's nothing wrong with mere assertions, what's wrong is irresponsible assertions, empty statements made in ignorance without real knowledge behind them, pretending to know what one is talking about while not admitting your own ignorance to yourself or others, i.e., faking reality. You made mere assertions and then later said you didn't have a clue about them. You've already proven yourself to be behaving irresponsibly. You now compound the irresponsibility by implying that it's my duty to educate you. Which just goes to show that you've not learned anything. Shayne