Xray

Are you serious about this, Bob and not just being sarcastic? You really mean it?

Paradoxically, to say "I'm certain" contains a seed of doubt, however small. For if one is not in any doubt about a fact, one does not use "I'm certain". That's why we would e. g. not say, given the state of contemporary knowledge, that we are "certain" that the earth revolves around the sun.

Indeed it often pays to let an issue 'stew' for some time in one's mind.

Another horrible tragedy happened yesterday at a Connecticut elementary school: http://abcnews.go.com/US/connecticut-school-district-lockdown-shooting-reports/story?id=17973836#.UMx043eP-eY

Tragic cases like suicide also pose a challenge to philosophical tenets. Objectivism may reject what you have called "causation from man to man" - but isn't t rational to take into account the possibility that even purely verbal actions can have devastating effects on the psyche of others? And wouldn't it be irrational to deny this?

But one would not use the phrase "I'm certain that 2+2 = 4. One would simply state it as a fact.

It is true that to say "I'm certain" has a different touch to it than the more definite "I know", but the factor 'emotion' is not always required in phrases which refer to the state of being certain about something. In criminal cases for example, an investigator (drawing inferences from the circumstantial evidence) could say: "I'm certain that the suspect staged a scene to misdirect the police".

Ludwig II of Bavaria is called "Mad King" in English? That hits the nail on the head of course! Mad King Ludwig used to squander the money of his Bavarian subjects to build his 'fairy tale castles' Neuschwanstein, Linderhof and Herrenchiemsee. Ironically, these castles today have become a veritable bonanza for the Bavaria state because they attract visitors from all over the world.

Well, I guess it's that simple then... You give a very general definition and a very general motive. So they are hiding the truth to avoid negative consequences; I guess that's true. But do they understand the consequences and do they understand why they believe them to be negative? Not always. I'd even say rarely. I could just as easily say overeating is eating far beyond necessity, the motive being to enjoy the taste. The general definiton and the general motive provide the groundwork in that they are applicable to all types of lies, without exception. What precedes every lie is always a 'mental prognosis' in the mind of an individual regarding the possible outcome of a) telling the truth about a fact. versus b) lying about the fact. The decision ln favor of the lie is made because the liar believes that the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging than telling a lie. As to whether the liar is correct in assuming this is another issue. But this example does not address the issue of lying, not even the issue of 'lying to oneself' (which, strictly speaking, is impossible). So the overeater either knows that he/she is eating far beyond necessity or (in case the person really does not know this), he/she is in error about a fact, and being in error about a fact is something else than lying.

Dglgmut said (in #5): "No, not all liars are aware or sure of why they are lying. Lying is like doing anything else, it can be have different motives." (end quote) A lie is always an attempt to hide a truth, the motive being to avoid negative consequences.

deleted by me

A lie is always an attempt to hide a truth, the motive being to avoid negative consequences. This principle is at work universally.

Could one say then that all liars are "true to themselves" due to the fact that every liar is aware of the truth he/she wants to keep hidden from others because the liar believes that hiding the truth serves his/her own purpose?

Indeed it's the dad himself who is whinging (whining) throughout in that letter ... From the letter: "We are constantly regaled with chapter and verse of the happy, successful lives of the families of our friends and relatives and being asked of news of our own children and grandchildren. I wonder if you realise how we feel — we have nothing to say which reflects any credit on you or us." This seems to be a very image-conscious type who is 'narcistically wounded' because he can't brag to others about his offspring's 'achievements'.

Imo in the dilemma you have described, there exist rational reasons for each decision.

Carol, I can only speak for myself of course, but empathizing with your uncle's situation (the bracelet mattering very much to him as a son who never knew his father) would tip the scale for me toward giving the bracelet to him.

[i don't know if it's some glitch, but I can't get the 'quote' function to work.] PDS wrote in post # 23:"It's just that I find the Objectivist theory of humor almost comical." (end quote PDS) Parts of the AR Lexicon article on humor almost read like satire but I'm afraid Rand was serious about it.

Here is the full article on the Objectivist concept of humor Jonathan linked to in post # 11 Oh my. Humor is regarded as a "destructive element", and laughing at oneself as "the worst evil that you can do, psychologically". Quotes like the above give me the feeling that such a rigid take on humor does not grasp reality.

But mere introspective experience is not sufficent when it comes to issues dealing with proof. Proof also requires elements of objectivity, like observation and analysis from an 'outside' standpoint, Collecting scientific data and making detailed observations is not irrational at all. On the contrary, it can prevent the construction of an ethics built on false premises. Why not advocate a constant exchange between philosophers, biologists, neurologists, etc.? Exactly. The 'kind' and the 'mean', we all have it in us as 'survival equipment'. Ethics deals with how to handle that equipment.

Is this something similar to "serves him/her right"? We all know them, those stuck-up types who think they always have it right, the "my way or the highway" types. If those then land on the floor of reality with a bang because what they have done to others backfires on themselves, having a 'serves you right' feeling toward them is only human. As for "hubris", there exist several German terms. In elaborate speech, one can use "Hybris", the Greek loan word. Hochmut ('haughtiness') is also still in use, but sounds a bit old-fashioned nowadays. Arroganz ('arrogance') is used frequently. In familiar speech, one often uses adjectives like hochnäsig ('stuck-up') aufgeblasen ('full of oneself, 'pompous'), Another French term is ordinateur (instead of "computer") which sounds like it was also created as an official word by the academy. Is Gesundheit! ('health!') still used in English when someone sneezes, or is (God) Bless you! more frequent? A while ago, y, it was declared in the German 'good behavior bible' (the "Knigge"), that it is no longer a requirement of politeness to say Gesundheit! when someone sneezes, but people don't seem to care because they still say it, at least in informal situations.

The richness in vocabulary of the English language is awesome indeed. I veritably "fell in love" with English from the moment I heard my first English word as a kid. To this day, that love has remained as 'passionate' as ever. I don't really know why that is so, but quite a few non-native speakers of English seem to feel the same way. Despite the irregularities in spelling, where pronunciation and orthography often don't match; despite certain grammatical intricacies (like for example the many forms in which the future tense can be expressed), and despite its many other 'subtleties', English often has a clarity which I find most appealing. One single English term often suffices to express something 'right to the point' for which in German one would need many more words. 'Sugar Daddy' for example would have to be expressed in German by a long cumbersome sentence like "Ein älterer, wohlhabender, großzügiger Mann, an dem eine junge Frau in erster Line wegen seines Geldes interessiert ist." ('An older, wealthy and genereous man in whom a younger woman is mainly interested because of his money"). Even a philosopher like Kant (whose writing style in German is quite arduous to read) sounds somewhat 'clearer' in the English translation.

All forms of grief are connected with a loss, and in the most tragic case of losing a loved one, the grief is about wanting him/her back to life. One can also grieve deeply about a loved one not having had the life he/she could have had. My heart goes out to you, Brant. Angela

I'm always a bit embarrassed that a term like "schadenfreude" is a German loan word. It literally means [feeling] joy ("Freude") over someone else's damage ("Schaden"). I just looked up some English translations in the dictionary, like "mischievousness", "malicious glee", "gloating"; but not even "gloating" (which is quite 'heavyweight' already) has that connotation of absolute spiteful nastiness to my ears which "Schadenfreude" has. I try not to feel Schadenfreude toward others. I believe in the power of thought, and think that how we feel toward others will affect our own mind as well.

Re Post # 45: Thanks Peter Taylor for bringing Barbara Branden comments on the issue over here. If Rand perfectly well knew about the dangers of smoking (and I think this was indeed the case), the real issue was not about her being unaware of the dangers of smoking; it was about her not wanting to admit what she knew about those dangers. The logical cosequence was that, whenever she was confronted with evidence that indicated dangerous effects, she had to play it down, or even deny that it qualified as evidence. What fascinates me is that Rand, who was such a heavy (and also very passionate!) smoker, managed to quit cold turkey from one day to the other. For by no means everyone who gets the diagonisis of smoke-related cancer manages to quit smoking, let alone doing it cold turkey. Patrick Swayze comes to mind as a counter-example to Rand here.

Shakespeare's "speeches" aren't unrealistic or preachy, and they don't burst the microcosm of his plays. They don't interupt the art so that viewers can receive a message/lecture from the author. They don't break the "fourth wall." They are not artistically awkward, jarring or verging on propaganda. J 'O for a Muse of Fire', powerful prologue to Henry V: