Michelle

Methinks these people don't know the good book very well, because if they did, they'd surely be aware of this passage... Rev 22:18-19 (KJV) "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Uh-oh.

What on Earth? Oh, and... "Obama, who art in D.C. Hallowed be thy Name Thy Acorn come Thy will be done, in America as it is in Venezuela Give us this day our daily speech And forgive us our whiteness, as we forgive those that murder our citizens And lead us not into capitalism But deliver us from freedom For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever" Thanks for nothing for relaying that to this thread, Ted. I'm sick right now and that made me laugh so hard that I nearly died from the ensuing coughing fit it produced.

"Christian Objectivist," huh? Having a passable understanding of Objectivism and a deeper understanding of Christianity in its various forms, I can only say that this term is self-contradictory rubbish. If someone wants to identify as a Christian Objectivist, I won't give them a hard time about it. I'm a 'live and let live' sort of person to the extent that someone doesn't get in the way of my life. I will not, however, pretend that their self-designation has any logical legitimacy should they choose to bring it up.

I don't personally see a problem with ridicule or negative criticism as long as it is legitimate (i.e. focuses on ideas and actions) and contextually appropriate (it is meaningful within the given conversation and has a purpose other than sheer malevolence). Many will claim that character assessments are legitimate (i.e. a person makes a habit of lying, so you call him a "liar"), but I think that most of the time this is not contextually appropriate. If a person's personal honor is the point of the discussion, then noting that the person is liar is legitimate and contextually appropriate. Most of the time, however, it is done out of sheer mean-spiritedness. I won't instruct others how to behave when it is their business and not mine, but I don't see why I should treat a person who constantly ridicules out of a pure spirit of malevolence any different than I treat a bratty child that throws a fit.

"(For those scoring at home, the radio interview in Atlas between Dagny Taggart and Bertram Scudder is re-rendered by Nader as a clash between Ted Turner and somebody named Bush Bimbaugh.)" Oh, good lord, that is lame.

It's a well-written article, but it really just states the obvious for people who have read the works of Ayn Rand. This, I think, is primarily the result of timing: had ATLAS SHRUGGED been published in 2008-2009, it would have adequately mirrored reality, but done nothing more for those unsold on her philosophy. What is so impressive (and tragic) is that life is resembling literature more and more: not a day goes by that modern America does not look like the socialist nightmare of America in ATLAS SHRUGGED. It's sad that conditions in America have to start resembling the conditions in Rand's fictional futuristic America for people to start paying more serious attention to her ideas, but at least, should this take hold, we might not see things get indefinitely worse.

This was rather surprising news... for a brief moment. That initial surprise settled into a more permanent amusement. Does anyone of any significance take the Nobel Prize seriously any more?

She wasn't lying. She was merely misunderstanding by thinking about it in a different way than the Buddhists do. You can (and should) rationally evaluate the tenets of Buddhism, but you must change your mode of thinking entirely when attempting to understand it as they do. It took me quite a while to accomplish this feat. Not too hard compared to Taoism. Now there is a doozy. Not the modern voodoo-cult it has become, of course, but classical Taoism, as seen in works such as the Tao te Ching. It's largely the same with Hinduism. It is an Asian style of thinking. The classical Asiatic religions are not concerned with the actual metaphysical order of the Universe. In the case of Buddhism, you have a multitude of sects that believe different things. Some disavow Gods entirely, while others have several Gods. But these are only vehicles toward enlightenment. They're not contradicting one-another because they ascribe no importance to the truth-value of a proposition. Buddhism is neither a philosophy nor a religion. It is a lifestyle. Of course, it isn't odd for the lower classes to literally adopt belief in these Gods.

I'm done with this conversation. But I'll post one final thing on Buddhism. You will never understand Buddhism as a Buddhist does until you stop using analytic logic to evaluate it. The approach Buddhists take toward their beliefs is summed up in the concept of upaya, or skillful means. The ultimate goal for the Buddhist is what you call "nirvana," or "awakening." This is not something which can be understood intellectually, according to the Buddhist, but only experienced. To this end, the Buddhist adopts beliefs which will aid him in achieving this state. There is absolutely no concern at all about the factual nature of these beliefs. That is beside the point for a Buddhist. Beliefs are only skillful means to an end, to be kicked off when they are no longer needed.

Right. Killing innocents DOES NOT MATTER because they are the ENEMY. In fact, bombing them was NOBLE, because it was JUSTIFIED, and what is JUSTIFIED also has to be GOOD and RIGHT and NOBLE and you should feel pride for killing those Jap Bastards. Anyone who says otherwise is a goddamned tree-hugging commie. Fuck them! Make them glow in the dark! ALLAH AKBAR! DEATH TO THE AMERICAN INFIDELS! THEIR STREETS WILL BE SOAKED WITH THEIR BL--woops, sorry, got carried away there. The bombings can be justified, but not with this kind of lunatic thinking.

The first time I heard a person use the phrase "anti-conceptual mentality," I actually laughed at him. Right in his face. It sounded like the most bizarre thing ever. Look at the phrase in my sig and you'll see that I am still amused by a lot of stiff Objectivist terminology. Over the years, though, I have learned through experience that this mentality is alive and kickin'. And no, I'm not going to discuss this with you in the epistemology thread/forum. Why keep bringing in Roark's dynamiting Cortlandt when it doesn't pertain to the discussion? My brother-in-law is a Christian. But he clearly, in most respects, holds life as his ultimate value. He's also an incredibly rational person, outside of that uncritical acceptance of a belief in God. Almost everybody holds life as a value. They have to. They couldn't survive if they didn't. A philosophically pure theist would let God take care of all their needs and die in the process. Life is not explicitly devalued in Buddhism. Consciousness and individuality are. The goal of a Buddhist is to attain a state of pure oneness with the present and separate himself from the world around him. Now, underneath it all I do believe there to be a wish for death, because the Buddhist wishes to reduce himself to the level of Being-in-itself, to be one with nature and not an intentional being. The only effective means of achieving this would be to kill himself. A corpse IS being-in-itself, and death transforms the human being from subject to object. Also, what do you mean when you say "nihilism?" Political nihilism, like the Russians had? Mereological nihilism? This is all beside the point, however. Philosophy points to how a person should live. A philosophy which values death will always eventually self-destruct.

Bites his tongue! Your own very tongue, good sir? Both you and Ginny are just so dangerous for a smart ass like me to be around. Adam Oh yeah? Why is that? I know myself. Don't you love that quote feature! Haha. Too little self-restraint?

I think you mean objectively healthier. 'Superior' is quite vague unless you specify superior for what purpose. If you like.

Bites his tongue! Your own very tongue, good sir? Both you and Ginny are just so dangerous for a smart ass like me to be around. Adam Oh yeah? Why is that?

Bites his tongue! Your own very tongue, good sir?

I'm almost positive she would have said that. I had to decide between that and "I'm not cantankerous. I'm just looking for the truth. " She is more predictable than a chatterbot.

"Please list the reasons why you think I am cantankerous. tia"

What anchor, Xray? Everything is subjective, remember? Don't evade the question I asked, Michelle. Not everything is subjective, only values are. Aside from that, your comment was related to epistemology. You wrote: "Of course, this is again you revealing your anti-conceptual mindset. You cannot see beyond the concrete to the level of principles. A role-model is judged by the abstract nature of their personality." So if you would be so kind to explain to me the "anti- conceptual mindset", the "level of principles" and the "abstract nature of a personality". I'm not being dishonest. You are repeating Rand's words, that's all I know. Life as the standard of value does not apply to e. g. a nihilist, a buddhist or someone choosing to end his/her life. Nor does it apply to governments sending soldiers out to kill other people. So much for life as an "objective value". I'm not going to educate you on Objectivist concepts. Read the entry in the Ayn Rand Lexicon if you want to know what it is. Oh, for god's sake! I'll speak more simply, since I don't want to waste time explaining things to you. Instead of considering the qualities of a personality (self-confidence, independence, etc.), you get stuck on the immediate concrete nature of a person/character. Instead of considering Roark's personality traits, you consider his specific, contextual actions, and so conclude that Roark is only a suitable role-model for a person who thinks it is proper to blow up a building because someone violated a contractual agreement. A person who does not hold life as their basic standard of value is not going to be alive for too long. If you want to live, you will hold it as your proper standard of value, since it is a value which makes all other values possible. It is the foundational value, if you will. Food is an objective value to a person who values life. If you value death, then the next proper step is clear: to kill yourself. Philosophy is only the concern of people who value their lives.

My mother is awful with stuff like this. She'll go to some boring diabetes convention for hours just to get a bag full of free pens and other useless crap that only ends up cluttering her living space.

Yeah, I ordered stuff from deepdiscountdvd.com (now deepdiscount.com) for years because of their free shipping policy. It's a capital aspect of psychology that smart online businesses have been playing off of for years now

I've not. Should I? What is it?

What anchor, Xray? Everything is subjective, remember? You said: "The objective nutritional analysis of the food has nothing to do with the act of attributing value. Good or bad refer to the evaluation of means in respect to a chosen goal. IF my goal is to work toward staying healthy, then eating vegetables is valuable. IF other values have more weight to me, jelly beans may be the food of choice." The standard of value is life. You know this. You're just being dishonest at this point.

The binding, specifically, comes from the objective nature of humans. There are certain patterns of human behavior and thought that repeat in all societies and time-periods. A Japanese countess who lived a thousand years ago is needless to say very, very different from a modern American woman. But both will encounter the same things in their lives. Passion, hope, love, fear, anger, sadness, joy-- these aren't merely words, they're the glue that holds the binding of human history together. We have traditions and heritages because of this basic level of interconnectedness between humans. And it is probably why there don't seem to be any generational ties between lower animals. Literature records this for us.

That's right. But suppose.............................. But suppose what? "But suppose premises are false and the epistemology is flawed, doesn't it logically follow that all conclusions and beliefs dependent upon the flawed empistemology are likewise in error?." From post #58. It is the type of argumentation [for lack of a better word] that xray employs when confronted by conceptual issues. As you pointed out Michelle: "Of course, this is again you revealing your anti-conceptual mindset. You cannot see beyond the concrete to the level of principles." I was not clear that I was referring to xray's original statement in Post #58. My error. Adam Ah. OK. One thing I really like about Rand is how she explored the relationship between fiction and philosophy. If, as Xray thinks, everything is subjective, then the Humanities would collapse. There is a very specific reason why I can read something written by a Japanese countess one thousand years ago and still relate to it on some level. There is no room for literature or writers in xray's universe either.

That's Xray speak. There is no real meaning in Xray-speak for objective other than what objective is not and maybe "consensus of experts." I believe the advertising concepts of "perceived value" as opposed to "real value" are totally lost on her. (Real value is objective value, of course.) Just imagine, if the world were made according to Xray-speak, we would not have television because there would be no commercials. Michael If the world were the way Xray thinks it is, we wouldn't have tools anyway, because we'd have no concept of how they objectively function. Imagine how the invention of the wheel would've gone: Inventor: Because all points are an equal distance from the center, it will allow us to effectively increase the speed at which we can pull our loads. It'll save much time and energy! Xray: Says you.