Danneskjold

I wouldn't even call what E has optimism. It's more confidence. If I were to be asked if you could have too much of either I would say yes, it's called being self-deceptive or delusional. I think the difference between confidence and optimism is that confidence is about yourself, optimism is about everything else. I find that I tend to fall on the confident and pessimistic side. I think that, in general, this promotes a good amount of independence so it works for me. This isn't to say you couldn't be independent otherwise.

Welcome to Oregon.

The Hulk Hogan Show. I hate it, but I think no list of crap would be complete without this show on it. Follows an x-pro wrestler around in his family life. Most entertaining thing that ever happened was when his daughter went on a date and Hulk Hogan decided to try to intimidate the kid. The kid says on-camera when he was interviewed later, "What's he gonna do? Fake body slam me?". Best line ever.

You mean the historians didn't point out that the Persians were also human? Also that the Persians were VERY lightly armed compared to the heavily armed Spartan hoplites (their shields were made out of wicker, like the chair stuff except tighter woven)? Also that the Spartan's speciality in combat wasn't as individuals but as units? An x-Spartan testified in the Persian king's court that one Spartan alone was a excellent warrior, but it was when they were in their battle formation with their group that they were unstoppable. How about that Sparta, after Thermopylae, was completely militaristic? I can point these flaws out after the trailer, seems like the History Channel isn't doing great research.

Kori, American Idol concentrates more on bad singers than good ones. It's just stupid.

1) The people who mix up those mini-yogurts with the cream on top, then plain middle, and flavor on the bottom. Why should they get to redistribute wealth?

2) Checkers, why should all the pieces be restricted to moving the same amount of squares? Whoever made that game was a fascist.

3) Solid colors, things should not be evenly distributed. Solid colors are the peak of immorality.

4) Cells, the process of cell-division (mitosis and meiosis) only serve to keep the stronger cells from surviving and thriving. Instead of letting them grow they keep splitting to make smaller and more tiny cells. This operates much in the same way as anti-trust laws and is clearly immoral. Why punish those who succeed?

5) Rowing (Crew) the sport, everyone has equal standing and no one is permitted to excel for the reason that they might disturb the social order/rowing rhythm.

Add your own!

I used to think I had Asperger's Syndrome. It was kinda funny because it seemed to fit perfectly. Turns out that it's everyone else that has the problem. Silly me.

I like the Jack Bauer part. American Idol sold out long ago, O'Reilly isn't that great and doesn't understand economics as well as he thinks he does (doesn't understand the futures market). Don't have a clue about the last paragraph. Move somewhere?

It's called rational egoism for a reason. If you want to do something well you should take the steps to make sure you can do it.

I could have used that "The Three Comprachicos" essay (or a simplified variance of it) in k-8th grade.

I don't know if I've ever really had a primary caretaker. I mean my mom has been around more to be sure, but I relate to my dad far more than I relate to my mom. Don't get me wrong, I love my mom. She is a wonderful person. However, I find that I think far more like my father than like my mother which is why I am not sure I would call either of them my primary caretaker. It was an equal effort and I'd say it turned out alright. I've never noticed any real mommy issues, then again around this age all my friends are trying to get as far away from their parents as possible.

Girls, well, it bugs me when they're over-emotional, but I can generally avoid that. Other random habits that bug me are when girls tell me about guys at their school (if I don't go to it) or talk about how hot movie star x is. Girls listen to crappy music (rap and pop is never a good combination). (Disclaimer: the above were intentionally stereotypes, but I do see them alot.)

In all seriousness, the worst thing about girls is that they lie to make you feel better. Girlfriends that tell you something because you want to hear it are doing you more harm than good. They just can't wrap their minds around that. If you don't mean it, don't say it.

Dragonfly,

If you claim to have the right to life, you must ask "What gives me the right to life?" The answer is that what makes you human gives you the right to life (we can debate exactly what/why that is later). If being human gives you the right to life then you must grant the right to life to all those that share the trait. So you couldn't torture and murder anybody without violating their rights.

Did I hear Yogi Berra? *peeks up and looks around*

In theory, theory is practice. In practice it isn't.

-Yogi Berra

That one?

Thanks, Chris. Yes, it's a little trouble focusing with three eyes, takes some practice, but you get used to it.

Objection (ii):

Premise 2 seems to be false. If I knew that I was inevitably going to get a million dollars tomorrow--there's no way I can avoid it--would that mean that the money will have no value? Again, Rand offers no defense of this assertion.

Perhaps her thought was that "good" is the same as "ought to be sought" or "ought to be chosen", and that since it makes no sense to say one should seek or choose what one either cannot get or cannot avoid, it follows that it makes no sense to say something one cannot get or cannot avoid is "good". But this simply illustrates why that definition of "good" is wrong. Nor does Rand offer any defense of this assumption (which she doesn't even explicitly state)--she seems simply not to have noticed that she was assuming it.

Let's try and find a situation where you will INEVITABLY gain 1,000,000 dollars. Well, I know that you still have the option to commit suicide in which case you would not receive it. So technically his premise is wrong in that there are still alternatives.

Objection (iii):

Premise 3 seems to be false. Rand claimed that living things face an alternative of existing or not existing but that non-living things do not. I can think of five interpretations of this, but all of them make it false:

First, it is not true that non-living things can't be destroyed. I once saw a house destroyed by flames, for example.

Second, it is true that the matter of which non-living things are composed can't be destroyed; but this is equally true of living things.

Third, it is not true that a non-living thing's continued existence never depends on its activities. If my computer ceases to function properly, this may cause me to destroy it.

Fourth, it is not true that positive action is never required to preserve a non-living thing's existence. A cloud, for instance, must absorb more water in order to continue to exist.

Fifth, it is true that non-living things do not possess free will. But this is equally true of almost all living things, and yet Rand claims that they (including plants, single-celled organisms, etc.) face an "alternative".

Thus, it seems there is no sense in which Rand's claim is true.

The faulty assumption here is that non-living things face things. They don't. They can't make decisions, the house did not face the decision of whether or not to burn down, the computer didn't choose to stop working, the cloud doesn't choose to absorb water. On the other hand, there are many instances where an animal will put itself in danger (protection of offspring etc.). Whether or not this decision is conscious, it is still an action where an alternative was available. The cloud can't self-terminate and the cohesion of water forces its growth.

If Rand meant "value" in the first sense, then her premise was close to true. (Not exactly, since it is possible to act to gain something even if you don't believe it to be good, but let's overlook that.) However, in this case, it has no ethical significance. In particular, the later steps 8 and 9 would not follow, since they claim that life is valuable--that is, good--whereas the premise from which they are derived is about what is valued--that is, held to be good.

Life is valuable because no value can be created without life.

If we read (6), as Rand suggests (p. 16n), to mean merely that the actions of living things result in the maintenance of their lives, then two problems appear. First, (7) will now be false. There are many things that living things' actions result in. For one thing, their actions result in the reproduction of their genes. For another, animals' actions result in production of body heat.

Second, it would follow, absurdly, that any object whose actions have results, has values. Thus, since when a rock rolls downhill, this results in its having greater kinetic energy, we must conclude that the rock acts to gain and/or keep kinetic energy, and therefore that kinetic energy is a value for the rock.

The reproduction of an organism's genes allow it to undergo mitosis. Without mitosis our cells would get too large and we couldn't function. The production of body heat allows us to maintain an optimal heat level at which to operate our bodily functions. How is that not necessary?

The second point ignores that the rock doesn't have the capability of valuing anything.

Objection (vi):

I have included 7, because it is necessary in order to get to 8. But 7 is false, however one reads it. If one interprets it as a claim merely about actual results of action, it is false as discussed above.

If one reads it as an observation about what organisms are evolutionarily 'programmed' for (that is, what traits are naturally selected for), it is false because the only trait that is selected for is that of producing more copies of one's genes. Thus, if anything is the ultimate 'value' for living things, it would be gene-reproduction (technically, 'inclusive fitness').

If one reads it as a claim about genuine teleology in nature, it is false because teleological physics is false.

If one reads it as a claim about the purposes or aims of living things, it is false because, for those living things that have purposes, they can often have other purposes. Rand frequently says that many human beings are aiming at self-destruction, for example. It is hard to believe that they are doing this for the sake of promoting their lives.

Consequently, conclusions 8 and 9 are unsupported, and in fact they are false. Many people value happiness or pleasure for its own sake, and not simply for the sake of further prolonging their lives. Rand herself, inconsistently, later declared happiness to be an end in itself. According to her theory, she should have said it was good only because it helped maintain your life.

Human beings that are aiming at self-destruction are missing the previous premise. So this one is inapplicable to them. Also, when she says that I would venture to assume that she doesn't assume that their intentions are self-destruction, just where they are aimed. Socialists really do believe that they are furthering their own life in many cases.

Happiness, on the other hand, is necessary for human life. People who no longer have the will to live are people devoid of happiness. So, steps taken in order to create happiness is in line with self-preservation.

Objection (vii):

This is probably the most egregious error. Premise 10 begs the question. Rand claimed to have an argument, a proof even, for ethical egoism. Yet 10 is one of the required premises of that 'proof'--and 10 essentially just is ethical egoism!

Some will dispute that this is really one of her premises. The reason I say it is is that without 10, the subsequent steps 11 and 13 do not follow. All Rand established up to that point, even if we ignore all the above objections, was that there is one and only one thing that is good for you, and that is your life. But obviously it does not follow that you should only serve your life unless we assume that you should only serve what is good for you. So, if 10 is not included as a premise, then Rand simply has a non sequitur.

Obviously, someone who held a non-egoistic theory--an altruist, say--would respond to the news of 8 and 9 (assuming Rand had demonstrated them) by saying: "Ah, so therefore, we should promote all life" or, "I see, so that means I should serve everyone's life. Thank you, Miss Rand; I previously thought I should serve other people's pleasure or desires (or whatever), because I thought that was what was good for them. But now that you've convinced me that life is the sole intrinsic value, I see that it was their life that I should have been serving all along." What argument has Rand given against the altruist, then? None.

This would be ignoring your life as value. If you ignore your life's value then you aren't following it at all. If I say, "life has intrinsic value, therefore I should serve everyone else's" that's ignoring the intrinsic value of my own life. If I say "life has intrinsic value, therefore I should serve myself," it still allows for everyone else to hold their life as intrinsic value. With self-sacrifice you cannot hold all life as intrinsic value.

Objection (viii):

Either 12 is false, or the inference to 13 rests on equivocation.

Rand explains that reason is our basic tool of survival. If her thesis is that any person who is not 100% rational, all the time, will die, then she certainly needs to provide argument for that. There seem to be lots of counter-examples, many of them pointed out by Rand herself.

If her thesis is something weaker, such as that any person who is not by and large rational will probably die, then 12 is plausible. But 13 does not follow. All that would follow would be, e.g., that one should be by and large rational.

The first part is a strawman, the part about 13 not following is just false. She says people should be 100% rational, that being the ideal. She does not say they need to be 100% rational to live.

3. General arguments against ethical egoism

Rand endorsed a version of 'ethical egoism': the view that a person should always do whatever best serves his own interests. I have discussed the following objections to this doctrine in my "Why I Am Not an Objectivist", so I will be brief here. Here is one general argument against egoism:

1.

If ethical egoism is true, then if you could obtain a (net) benefit equal to a dime by torturing and killing 500 people, you should do it.

2.

It is not the case that, if you could obtain a (net) benefit equal to a dime by torturing and killing 500 people, you should do it.

3.

Therefore, egoism is not true.

Well, he built a giant strawman right there and it still doesn't have a brain. He managed to completely leave the "ethical" out of the ethical egoism. In order to say that you have the right to torture and kill 500 people you must also grant other people that same right. Also, you must ignore the right to life. Both of those things are against your own rational self-interest. That's aside from the massive violation of those 500 people's rights.

That's all for tonight from me. I'm not sure how that is at all an effective refutation of Objectivist ethics.

Great show, I watch it because it's funny and because it's the most objective news source I know of. I figure, hey, he brings up topics and then gives positions on them that are so irrelevant that he really gives no opinion at all. So it's objective in the sense that it's in no way biased because the bias is so easy to disregard.

Well, I definitely agree with you to some degree. However, I just got a taste of what everyone calls the fascist side of the Republican Party when I was at Oregon's unofficial Republican Convention last weekend. We were talking about real ID, a system that would put a whole bunch of fun stuff in your driver's license including something that could be used as a tracking device. It would be necessary to enter certain buildings and such as well. It passed, narrowly, but it passed. It was confusing to me, how could people ever vote for that?

Also, I was looking at my Rome unit in History of Western Civilization, and the teacher was talking about how redistribution of wealth saved the Roman economy. He was right. The thing is that the need for the economic laws redistributing wealth were caused by restrictions on social freedoms.

As far as Guiliani goes, I'm really not sure about the guy. I don't trust him not to try to take everyone's gun away so long as he has a democrat congress.

All three of them.

My sister and I.

I got bored and played with my webcam.

John, sometimes you have to let go of the minor details to see the big picture in a movie like this one.

To some degree, it is true. However, America doesn't export our raw sewage to third world countries. Our industrialization has allowed us to deal with it in more efficient ways, therefore our environment is improved.

Sorry for posting this in the Living Room, I was just trying to get into a high traffic area at first.

The sportscenter segment was in regards to a football coach of mine who is confined to a wheelchair and can barely speak because of Lou Gehrig's disease. He writes speeches for our football team in order to motivate us once a week. His name is Jeff Young, he went to my high school and played fullback many years back. He found out that he has Lou Gehrig's disease in college, and was told he had three years to live. Today he's in his forties (I think, would have to check that).

His daughter is in my math class. She's a very down to earth young woman. Jeff raised her as a single parent. It was a beautifully done segment, and I hope they re-run it sometime. Jeff Young is a great man.

He writes a weekly newsletter you can get sent to your e-mail. I'm not sure of the link at the moment, but it should be easy enough to find if you google Jeff Young or Friends of Jeff or a combination of the above.

These rocks, the thought, are here for me;waiting for the drill, the dynamite, and my voice; waiting to be split, ripped, pounded, reborn; waiting for the shape my hands will give them

-The Fountainhead pg. 16 (second page of the novel) 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence.