Laure

Interesting post, Ellen. I've noticed this in some of the participants on The Forum and oo.net, too. Instead of asking "what do I want" they ask "what should I want." Not "what do I feel" but "what should I feel," etc. I wonder if some of it could be a vestige of a religious upbringing. Looking at the masthead here... is it possible that some people are living a bit TOO consciously? I like the centipede example.

Rearden is asking him to fake reality. What utter balderdash. Every time I suspect you have a subtle understanding of some of the psychological insights in the Objectivist milieu, you wreck it with saying something like this. Rearden is portrayed as knowing what human fortitude means, from how it enabled him to build up his industrial success and persevere with his discoveries, when the whole world had been telling him to stop and to give up. He clearly knows what determination can do for a sinking human spirit. He's not telling the wounded and dying Tony to pretend that those pieces of lead and spills of blood don't exist. He's telling the boy that the determination, the focus, the clarity of intent and of knowing who the real heroes are, all of these are achievements on his part — for however long, or short, a time. He's not asking for pretense during the boy's last moments. He's asking for focus, for choice, for trying to make his mind hold his body together long enough to have a few moments of experiencing that he made the right decisions. He wants to know that the boy, in turn, knows that feeling of success, for more than fleeting moments, before he expires — as he does, shortly, in Rearden's arms, after showing that he had made a moral victory of self-awareness. The boy was being asked to fake nothing. That you can suggest this — or put it within striking distance of an anecdote that exalts a false lesson about reality, on which I entirely agree with Laure and the others — astonishes me. Rearden made "a command to rise," if only for the last two minutes of one's life. Those in the other story (if it happened) were the fakers and liars, erecting a false achievement. Only the former signifies love. Or, for that matter, kindness. AMEN, Greybird! As I read the scene with Rearden and the Wet Nurse, Rearden is saying "I'm asking you to LIVE for me", NOT "I'm asking you to live FOR ME". It's totally unrelated to Galt's Oath. No frickin' kidding!! I don't know what you're on about, Michael. It's like you're trying to piss us off.

Exactly. It's not about kindness. I think we would seek a way to be kind without being dishonest.

Reminds me of the story Barbara Branden wrote about telling a comforting lie to her mother on her deathbed. I didn't like that either. Intellectually, I can see that it doesn't matter if you lie to someone who's going to be dead in a matter of days anyway; they don't have time to make any mistakes in life because of having an inaccurate picture of reality. But, for me, there is a visceral "ick" reaction to the idea of planting a false idea in someone's mind. Even if the false idea probably can't lead to any bad consequences. George, do you have the same "ick" reaction?

I agree. I would've felt a lot better about the story if they'd let him have his turn at bat, since they sort of promised that, but when he struck out, reacting with a "that's OK, good try," since it is "only a game." The way they did it was just lying to the kid. Now he might have a false impression that he's actually good at baseball, and I find that disturbing, not uplifting.

Bob, I understand the distinction between a useful diesel engine, and a useless cigarette. But, I really, really don't want the government deciding what is "just a hedonistic pleasure" and being free to ban such things. What if we get some real Puritans in office? There goes our ice cream, our motorcycles, our hot tubs, our movies, etc., etc. Eventually, something you like is going to be on the list of banned hedonistic pleasures. Why not just let everyone "pick their own poison"? What's it to you?

First, I can't resist - an addition to the "for dummies" series, "Thinking for Dummies". (I don't think there is one yet, although "Logic for Dummies" is taken.) Other ideas, "The Thinking Man's Guide to Thinking" "Thoughts on Thinking" "Mind your Thinking" "Thinking: A How-To Guide" "Thinking for the Do-It-Yourselfer" "Thinking: A Do-It-Yourself Guide" (my favorite)

"What has been needed is a balance to the smears and trolling about PARC so people can make up their own minds." Michael, people can make up their own minds without your help. "In fact, I am tired of seeing Nathaniel called a scumbag." By your definition, he wasn't a scumbag because he didn't continue to deny everything AFTER he got caught? Like Gov. McGreevey or Elliot Spitzer? Not scumbags? I'm not questioning that you've known worse scumbags, but that's not the point. The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if you and Linz are in cahoots to increase traffic on your sites with this topic. :ermm: *edit* Phil, please stop me, I can't help myself, Someone is Wrong on the Internet!

Barbara, do you think part of the reason for no more fiction after Atlas Shrugged was the feeling that there's no way she could "top" that? I remember reading that some Apollo astronauts felt that way after going to the moon. I wish I'd been there to tell her, "Don't worry about 'topping' Atlas Shrugged, and don't worry about not being able to write a story set in the present-day. Why don't you try your hand at science fiction? Wouldn't that be fun?" (My ulterior motive in wanting more Rand fiction to read would be pretty obvious...)

I take strong exception to this. Who can immigrate to Israel? Who? Do you dare to pretend that Israel is non-discriminatory? Bob Now Bob, Barbara's not the Prime Minister of Israel, so let's not hold her responsible for their immigration policy. The more I think about the Jewish State, though, the more confused I get. So, you have to be a Jew to get in. How do they decide that? I take it you can convert to Judaism and get in? What if I pretend to convert? What about people born in Israel who are atheists? Do they still count as Jews? Barbara, I agree that Israel has had stunning achievements. But in retrospect, was the idea of a Jewish State really a good one? *edit* Also, what constitutes a "secular Jew"? What's the difference between me and a secular Jew? Can secular Jews immigrate? Could I claim to be one?

Michael, I agree with most of Robert's post as well. I disagree with your evaluation of Jim H-N. To me, he seems reasonable on the PARC issue, and I don't think he "desperately wants Rand to be a heroine in the form he imagines her and not in the form she actually was" at all. Michael, you bring up this cognitive/normative thing a lot, but you should think about the possibility that you make this accusation when you disagree with someone's normative evaluations. I'm reminded of a scene that I think was in a Woody Allen movie. Husband and wife in their separate therapy sessions are asked, "How often are you intimate with your partner?" One says, "Oh, constantly, maybe twice a week" and the other says, "Almost never, maybe twice a week."

Well... OK, Bob, you win this round. Although I don't think it is necessarily racist to view present-day Jewish culture as superior to present-day Arab culture. But I can see where you're coming from -- if you replace "white" for "Jewish" and "black" for "Arab", the nasty tone of a statement like this becomes more obvious to me.

Any prejudice, positive OR negative, that is based all or in part on the genetic or cultural heritage of a person. Or in other words, drawing a conclusion regarding an individual based on a racial characteristic (true OR not). It ain't that tough. For example. 1) West africans are the fastest runners. (98 of the world's top 100 sprinters have west afican blood). (fact) 2) Joe is west african, therefore he must be fast. (racist) Do I really have to explain this? Bob But Bob, Barbara didn't make a #2-type statement, did she? She never said, Ahmed is an Arab, therefore he must be unfairly against Israel. And Brant didn't make a #2-type statement. He never said, Ira is a Jew, therefore I like him better than Ahmed (or whatever). I think both of them are making #1-type statements. Arabs oppose Israel's existence (doesn't mean they all do). Not sure what Brant's view of Jews is, but it could be something like, "Jews are fun-loving and place a heavy emphasis on intellectual pursuits." (doesn't mean this applies to every Jewish individual) It is very difficult for human beings not to create stereotypes of different categories of people. Sometimes they're accurate, sometimes not, sometimes they're based on our own limited experience with that category of people. I agree that drawing a conclusion about any individual based on his racial characteristics is always racist.

For the record, I'm still with James Heaps-Nelson on this. Here is his latest on SOLOP: James H-N Michael, methinks you've given PARC a little booster shot with this thread. :logik:

If I had a forum, I'd think about putting together a book, "The Best of the Internet Flame Wars". There is a lot of amusing stuff to be had! Unfortunately, I guess you'd need to get permission from everyone, including those that stormed off in a huff!

I think it's pretty well-known that Iranians don't like to be called Arabs. Not because it's a term of bigotry, just because it's incorrect. According to Wikipedia, only 3% of Iranians are Arab; 51% are Persians.

Brant, Yep, Tierra Antigua is super for part-timers such as myself. $25 a month, small transaction fee & you keep the rest of the commission. And they're big enough to provide good office support & broker advice. I have nothing against Long, though. They're definitely the ones with the buyers around here!

Michael, could you give us an example of a specific idea or strategy taught in the course? From your post, and from all the "information" on the Thirty Day Challenge website, it just seems like another get-rich-quick scheme about getting into the money-making business without providing an actual product or service. Let's say I have an actual Internet presence; maybe I have a real estate license & am trying to get visitors to my website & get clients that way (www.tucsonbuyersmarket.com, hint-hint). Does this course go into how to drive traffic to your site?

This is IT, right here! And I think this is where Rand's views on altruism originated. She saw the results firsthand in Soviet Russia. Rather than see her as a "sullen teenager", Bob, can't you cut her a little slack and see her as someone who saw altruism being used as a club by the Soviet thugs and who stood up and said "NO! I will not sacrifice." Perhaps Objectivism takes it to an extreme, going so far as to say that voluntary altruism is bad, too. But it's telling that when Phil Donahue asked her why it's wrong to be a self-sacrificing person, her response was "because they don't hesitate to sacrifice whole nations."

Robert, Glad someone else is seeing the article the way I do. One thing, though. You say, "There are people who do science in order to grab up government grants." I think there are very few of these, and they're far outnumbered by people who grab up government grants in order to do science! ("I have clients in order to build." ) Of course, I admit that some scientists tell the granting bodies what they want to hear in order to get more grants, and that's not a good thing.

Reese considers all theories invalid. It is unclear when he would ever be able to declare something a "fact". He makes no distinction between the scientific method and blind faith, and says that "theories" derived from either method are equally invalid. He never states that he personally has not studied the subject and thus has not come to a conclusion. His position is that NOBODY knows the facts of the origin of life on Earth, even those who have made a life's study of the subject. He is elevating his own ignorance to be on an equal footing with the partial knowledge of scientists who have devoted their lives to study. His characterization of scientists as being just like priests, dogmatic, and completely biased by their own personal agendas, leads me to believe that he's never actually met a real live scientist. He is totally, totally NOT on Rand's wavelength. (Not that that is relevant.) The whole article reeks of "we can't know anything", "who do these scientists think they are." Where do I get the implication that he claims that it is not important to learn the truth? He comes right out and says it, "I just simply don't know and frankly don't think it matters whether we know or not."

There are a couple of telling quotes from the article, though I would encourage people to read it in its entirety to see just how horrific it is! This guy is ignorant of science and seems to be very proud of the fact. On the origin of life: "I just simply don't know and frankly don't think it matters whether we know or not." On belief: "...there is also nothing wrong with someone believing that God created the first man and woman." There are several very bad implications from these statements. The author implies that beliefs of this type are on equal footing with scientific knowledge, just because the author is ignorant of the facts. He also implies that those who try to learn the facts of reality are not engaging in a noble pursuit, since it's just as valid to believe a fairy tale you were taught as a child. He also implies that it is not important to learn the truth. This reflects a naive view that scientific discoveries have no practical applications - that they fundamentally don't matter. It's sort of like the child who complains that he's never gonna use algebra so why does he have to learn it. (It's telling that the author actually makes this complaint in his article!) Would the author also agree that "there is also nothing wrong with someone believing that he can flap his arms while jumping off a cliff and live to tell about it" or "there is also nothing wrong with someone believing that he can build a skyscraper out of 2x4s and it will be just as sturdy as one made with steel beams"? Ayn Rand opposed the idea that philosophy was just a parlor game. She taught that philosophical ideas have a profound effect on mankind's well-being. This author is implying that even science is just a parlor game. I think it's disgusting.

There's a thread over on ObjectivismOnline entitled "Why do Smart People Like Such Terrible Music" or something to that effect. It seems you can never predict the type of music someone will like by examining their philosophy. It's much more of a personality thing. I like some classical music, although I don't listen to it very much. I like rock music that exhibits guitar virtuosity, and a lot of this type of music is "masculine." This afternoon, my car CD was playing Van Halen's Pleasure Dome, and I sat with my son in the car listening to the "good part" with the amazing high-speed guitar. Later, I said to him, "You don't really 'get' why I like that song, do you?" and he admitted that he didn't. I told him I liked it because it reminded me of the feeling you get on a roller coaster, that thrill when it's just starting its descent, and he said, "well, maybe I'm not into the song because I don't really like roller coasters that much..."

Huh? How so?

That is absurd. You act like you're wise in taking a middle road and then just totally distort and misrepresent. No one did any such thing. And I had just barely made it clear that the argument isn't about whether 14-year-old marriages should be illegal, it's about what methods the state should be free to use to pursue criminal activity. Incredible. Shayne *ahem* Shayne, here's your post where you accused William of being an instrument of statist enslavement. :logik: