Xray

Nothing new under the sun. "God has gave [sic] you special power", the politically indocrinated kid faithfully recites. For ages, political leaders have been claiming the power of a god helping them. Which raises the question: "Do there exist any rational arguments to give religion a voice in politics?" Imo, no. But maybe 'rationaliity' for a politician means to suck up to powerful religious groups in the electorate? After all, his goal is to profit, i. e. to come out the winner. In other words: can any President of the USA afford to ignore the power which religious groups have in this country?

But a major characteristic of Rand was her passion. She was passionate about her ideals, passionate in her persoal relationships. Her own passion is also reflected in her fictional heroes and heroines - they too are very passionate. As for the stoic attitude toward passion: isn't it very different from Ayn Rand's philosophy?

Pathocentric ethics indeed has a lot going for it. It is based both on empathy and rationality.

Plenty. But the philosophical question is whether my (or anyone else's) "oughts" refer to 'objective' moral values ...

I said that an "ought" does not necessarily follow from an "is". Big difference. Which means that the mere existence of a fact (= an "is") does not imply the necessity that one "ought to" act in a certain way in relation to that fact. Example: Does from the fact that ultrarich people exist necessarily follow that they "ought to" donate a large part of ther wealth to charity? One could even argue that telling others what they "ought to" do is the very opposite of individualism.

Imo there isn't, because an "ought" does not necessarily follow from an "is".

In Wikipedia it is translated as "eye": an eye is a hole. the word also applies to a well. You will also notice our symbol for zero (which goes back to Sumer) is a round hole. Ba'al Chatzaf "Ayin" ('eye'), can mean 'hole' then? ("Eye" of a needle comes to mind, or "window"). For in your July 13 post, you wrote [bolding mine]:

Your post made me think of Shakespeare's words: "Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" William Shakespeare

In Wikipedia it is translated as "eye":

From the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

Battles about the 'true doctrine' are fairly frequent among ideological groups. If I were a Randian, I'd look for some basic 'denominator' which all groups have in common, and take it from there.

#22 might refer to the "never ending fractal shapes" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benoit_Mandelbrot

Quite ironic that Obama once praised whistleblowers and promised to protect them: http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/06/30/obama-s-war-on-whistleblowers/

We've had a cold spring here in Europe this year, and summer has begun just as cold. That's why Chris Rea's "Looking for the Summer" really hits a nerve with me right now!

What is your opinion on "full Torah observance"?

Oh, I've overlooked that typo - thank you, Ellen! "God created the 'word' in seven days", lol. Good one!

Genesis 1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" The whole thing is a cascade of contradictions. No surprise there. But what else can be expected, given the many different authors?

Angela: Speaking of inappropriate metaphors ...Jesus and hitting the nail on the head! Adam, Maybe may subconscious mind played a role my choice of that specific metaphor. I'm an ex-Christian, after all.

I could listen to Pat Condell forever, and just love it how he hits nail on the head with every sentence!!

Yeah, but that was based on a true story. Like for example God created the word in seven days, yeah right.

Sharpton about the philosophy in Atlas Shrugged: "That's s okay for a book but it has no place in reality". So he attacks people who advocate what it says in a book, but he himself doesn't seem to have any problem preaching about stuff that is also only in a book: The Bible.

Reading Barbara's fascinating biography of Ayn Rand has my via regia to understanding Ayn Rand. Happy birthday, Barbara, and thank you so much again for having written this inspiring and deeply insightful book about AR!

Do logic and reason have more 'ancillary' qualities then, which humans will apply if it helps them to fulfill their desires/reach their goals? (Example: the desire for faster and easier movement led to the invention of the wheel).

There's a lot of food for thought in what Lakoff says here.

George Lakoff is a famous linguist, who was once a student of Noam Chomsky's. Especially Interesting is the recent controversy between Lakoff and Steven Pinker. Pinker wrote a scathing review of Lakoff's book Whose Freedom, calling it "a train wreck": http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2006_09_30_thenewrepublic.html Lakoff's equally scathing rebuttal ("When Cognitive Science Enters Politics"): http://web.archive.org/web/20080517092902/http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/whencognitivescienceenterspolitics The battle about "the nature of language and the mind" (G. Lakoff) rages on.