Xray

Dear William, Belated birthday wishes from me. Many happy returns of the day! Angela

Göttingen also makes me think of the famous Brothers Grimm, who were university professors there.

But one can also interpret the question as a hypothetical mind-game (= suppose X is the case [God exists]. What question would you ask)? My question to God would be: "Why do you exist?"

Just curious: what is the name of that forum "full of theists"?

Speaking of unearthly musical performances - here's another genius: guitar virtuoso Paco de Lucia. (If were an Objectivist, I'd call him 'The John Galt of the Guitar' ... ) Paco de Lucia - Entre dos aguas. Enjoy:

I share your admiration of Fritz Wunderlich, Carol. 'Unearthly' really is the word for his incomparably beautiful voice and his interpretation of the music. Each and every piece of music sung by Wunderlich just blows me away for the sheer beauty of that voice, and the authentic feelings he could convey in his interpretations.

Writing a companion piece to ITOE would be difficult because the book contains many passages which create confusion instead of clarity. A more economic and practical approach might be to just distill from ITOE the basic epistemological ideas Objectivism rests on. Imo trying instead to fit each statement made by Rand in ITOE into a non-contradictory system is an impossible task.

Each time I listen to those wonderful BVSC songs, I regret having let my Spanish become 'rusty' due to lack of practice on my part. ¡Feliz año nuevo a ti, mi amiga Carol, y a todos de la 'cybertertulia' OL!

"El Cuarto de Tula" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHmOYzyB2bw Just plain Irrestistible music!!! And the 'double entendre' of the text is presented in such an easygoing and uncontrived way ...!

Yes. But how is this supposed to work in practice? Let's flesh it out with an example. Imagine you live in such a community and John Doe owes you a hefty sum of money which you have lent him and which he is long overdue in paying back. So far all your 'payment reminders' to John have fallen on deaf ears, and you have finally lost patience with him. You've had enough, you want your money back. Now. So would you walk over to John's home, armed with your gun and try to get your money from him at gunpoint? But since John has a gun as well, he might be 'prepared' for your visit. What do you do?

i'm still glad that so many geniuses have had the gift of laughter however, I think it made their lives easier. I know. --Brant Does the above answer mean that you speak from your personal experience as a genius then, Brant? Glad to see you posting OL again. I've always liked your special sense of humor, which manifests itself e. g. in the short, witty comments you often put under your name at the end of your posts.

In listening to all of the discussions since the shooting, I think that people's having "not grown up with guns" is their primary reason for fearing and opposing them. Those who live in societies which are very strict about controlling access to guns seem to have become broken to the saddle, and so much so that they see their personal defenselessness and reliance on the state as virtuous, while seeing others' freedom and independence as shocking, threatening, and, more importantly, uncouth. More than anything, their mindset is a sort of programmed, snobby proselytism driven to spread submission as fashionable. I get the sense that if they had grown up needing permission from the state to speak, they'd be as disturbed at our freedom of speech as they are at our freedom of self defense. J This 'gun ownership' issue is clearly a 'loaded' (pun intended) topic, which makes it virtually impossble to discuss it sine ira et studio i. e., without one's personal set of values influencing the argumentation. But being aware of our respective biases does not necessarily preclude a fruitful exchange. A question I'd like to ask you in reference to post # 526: would you prefer living in a commuity where they don't dial 911 but regulate conflicts with the helpf of guns instead?

About a week ago, I watched a short report on German TV about a US rural community (it was in Texas, I think), where virtually everyone is a gun owner and would not hesitate to use it as weapon. They proudly told the reporter that they don't need the police to regulate conflicts. They also have a "WE DON't DIAL 911" sign well visible to visitors. I just googled a bit and found a whole collection of "WE DON'T DIAL 911" signs: https://www.google.de/search?hl=de&gs_rn=1&gs_ri=serp&tok=x7PcUXvzZ7Tryf4K7iZ1FQ&pq=we+don%27t+dial++village+in+texas+&cp=14&gs_id=8p&xhr=t&q=we+don%27t+dial+911&client=firefox-a&hs=Y8E&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.bGE&bpcl=40096503&biw=1280&bih=894&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=9FrcUMLBPMTTswbChIG4CQ As a European who has not grown up with guns, it is difficult for me to assess whether those "We don't dial 911" signs are just some 'rough and tough' Texan variant of "Beware of the dog" signs, or if the people there really mean it. From the short snippets I've seen on TV, I had the impression though that they really were serious about it!! A. Rand wrote in TVOS, The Nature of Government", p. 127: "The use of physical force, even its retaliatory use, cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful existence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed agaist him by any of his neighbors at any moment." Ayn Rand probably thought anarchic chaos would be the result if citizens had the monopoly on the use of force.

How about Marxism? Marx regarded Communism as historically inevitable, enough so that one wonders why anyone would ever die (or even, perhaps, kill) for it. I too had been thinking of Marxism as a classic example, with its 'prediction' that the capitalist system would inevitably perish, and be replaced by a new Communist paradise on earth. Ideas of 'revenge' on those who happen to have the 'wrong consciousness' is also frequently present in dogmatic thought.

I think you are getting things mixed up here. For if, according to your premise, hatred is the result of empathy, then an unempathetic person would not be able to feel any such thing as hatred. But one only has to look at a few criminal cases to see that this is not the case. Quite the contrary - it is often the intense feelings of hatred on the part of the perpetrator which then override possible feelings of empathy for the victim.

I don't recall any funny lines in AS, but then my memory might fail me. Could you give some examples?

It would be interesting to examine whether the idea of an apocalypse shows up in all dogmatic thought systems.

While it is true that all human actions have a purpose, i. e. they are goal-directed, pleasure and enjoyment in achieving the goal are not necessarily involved in the action.

I think it has to do with the 'evolutionary baggage' we humans still carry around with us. For if one looks at the issue from the perspective of cosmic time, not that much time has evolved since the 'magic thinking phase' our stone-age forefathers lived in. Imo this magic thinking is part of our evolutionary heritage (although it does not manifest itself in all people). But the unbroken success of astrology, tarot cards, the use of lucky charms and much other esoteric stuff is ample evidence that the inclinatinon to use magic thinking is still quite vivid in the human brain. All superior to modern philosophical education. --Brant I can't see much evidence of "modern philosophical education" showing up in official school curricula - therefore pushing this educational goal forward may well be worth the effort. As a teacher of the young, I know how impressively even children of kindergarten age can reflect about the world, and always encourage their 'philosophial inquiries' as much as I can.

I think it has to do with the 'evolutionary baggage' we humans still carry around with us. For if one looks at the issue from the perspective of cosmic time, not that much time has evolved since the 'magic thinking phase' our stone-age forefathers lived in. Imo this magic thinking is part of our evolutionary heritage (although it does not manifest itself in all people). But the unbroken success of astrology, tarot cards, the use of lucky charms and much other esoteric stuff is ample evidence that the inclinatinon to use magic thinking is still quite vivid in the human brain.

jts wrote: (post # 1) Correct. But doesn't this occur very frequently when politicians (no matter what 'camp' they are in) 'promise' something?

J, Checking: Is that your serious opinion? Ellen According to info in The Huffington Post, Lanza's mother was in the process of having him committed to a psychiatric facility:

[double post deleted by me]

That a mind is "focused" on something does not automatically make it moral. It depends on what the focus is.