rhsuperfly

I think one of the best arguments against getting involved with Objectivism can be deduced from noting the pissy character of the majority of posts at Objective Living. In this thread, only the post of Michael Marrota (26 Sept 07) stood out as different - normal, gentlemanly. I know your type, Objectivist hissy pissers. Others know you type too, and we talk about y'all when you're not around. You are a type, and your type determines your perspectives. You likely do not have some kind of "urge for truth" or "reality", as you claim, and if such existed it would only be a trait, with no particular gilding. Normal people who make the world go 'round, who invent things and make art and music and commerce conduct themselves quite differently, more civilized, less childish. I know of a man in India, a minister from delhi, who is an atheist and member of CPM party (Communist Party Marxist), who is such a gentleman, so well spoken, so smooth, even elegant, that I would like to be his pupil. He was sent last year with a few others by PM Manmohan Singh to mediate the Kashmir crisis (Hindu vs. Muslim) which was getting quite out of control (over 100 killed in a few months). He and his team seemed to have been effective, as the violence subsided soon after. That man as skills - he deals with realities as a gentleman. If the Objectivists at Objective Living represent Objectivists generally, then I have to conclude that diplomacy is not an important part of the program. Infantile egoism - that seems to be the mark of an Objectivist. I can't stand to be here - the smell of urine is offensive. I think I will go now and read the newspapers of India - far more interesting and real.

Yes it is. The only relevant answer to "How did Hamlet come to exist"? is "A guy named William Shakespeare thought it up and wrote it down." The Big Bang and how it putatively led to the appearance after billions of years to a Mr. and Mrs. Shakespeare is irrelevant, because it fails to explain what we requested: how did Hamlet come to be written? Answer: William Shakespeare created it. That's the First Cause and the only relevant answer. Same for computer programmers who wrote Windows 7. The occurrence of a Big Bang 12 million years ago, and the supposed evolution -- guided or unguided -- since then, has zero to do with answering the question. Bob: Shakespeare was not an entity unto himself - he was a mind in time that was influenced by other minds, and some historians of Shakespeare lore claim that not only did he hire ghost writers, but some of the stories were "floating around" and he collated, embellshed and published. Shakespeare was also, if not primarily then equally a businessman who supported himself by staging plays. There is so much more to consider about the how and why of Shakespeare than that a man named Shakespeare was once alive and wrote plays. To inquire further we can get a sense of the times - what themes were popular - and from that we can make conjectures, supported by other facts about the times, as to why the themes were popular. To arbitrarily declare Shakespeare an entity that needs no further investigation is to arbitrarily throw down a peg for arbitrary reasons, which we can guess at, but which only you know for sure, if you know why you do it, and it is not likely you will tell us as we all know that when someone arbitrarily throws down a peg they are not usually going to tell us why. You are playing a game, as is everyone else. Some of us like to play by a different set of rules, one of which is that pegs can't be arbitrarily thrown down, but instead every curiousity and lead is pursued to discover "why" such and such happened, though we don't know if we will discover the "why" of it or how long it will take. The scientific spirit which has given us the modern world is the result of continually asking "why" and pursuing the quest like some crazed hound dog. So we have not accepted the atom as a pegged entity, but taken it apart to some extent, and then attempted to take apart whatever was found in the atom, and so on. At the same time, stars were not taken as pegged entities, but studied and studied until we know that they are fiery suns, and have all sorts of unexpected qualities and behaviors, none of which are pegged but still under investigation. That the mind (some minds, anyway) want to keep asking "why" is the case, but why that is, who knows? Then we have undertaken the study of the brain, but still it is a mystery as to why we ask "why". But we do. And some don't, that is also known, but can we be sure that there is anything wrong or bad about brains or minds that are not all that curious? we can also ask "why" would someone want to throw down a peg, instead of saying "I'm not curious about that". I think the average Bollywood star would quite honestly say they are not curious about this or that. But I don't think too many of them would throw down a peg. Do you throw down pegs in your private life, like for instance if your spouse or a friend is doing something you find unpleasant, do you accept that as a peg, and not inquire into the matter or wonder about it? Would not inquiry lead, possibly, to a solution? I don't understand pegging. I was asking "why" since I could talk, and it drove my parents a bit mad. Since I began asking why so much at so early an age I am not opposed to thinking it a genetic trait, and thus thoroughly beyond my control. I not only ask why with regards the physical realm, but also with regards people - why did so and so do that? Why does such and such a group hold that political perspective? Of course I am not alone in this trait. I have found that the writings of Buddhists reveal a lot about human nature - in their explanations, pegging would be a "clinging" to something that gives comfort because it brings the feeling of psychological closure, and then the mind can rest from constantly turning in circles - a kind of rumination. If I understand the scientific spirit as it is most often described, and as I feel it in myself, there can be no pegging allowed, but at the same time no discomfort felt by not pegging, because instead one just lets it go.

Reidy: My guess is that no Objectivist old enough to need viagra and geritol would be flattered by my post. Teenagers: remember that for the most part, you can't trust anyone over the age of 40. Ask yourselves if human history, human societies, follow a straight line, a single discernable direction, or is it a curve, perhaps a curly line? Regress yourself to any past point in history, and ask yourself if, knowing what you could have known then, if you could have predicted the many large and significant events that did happen. The geriatric generation is usually wrong because they have kept to their straight path, while history is curving. I am not suggesting that those using canes and walkers have no wisdom, but as the world is becoming Yours to own, you have to pick and choose the ancient's bits of wisdom as they seem to fit the unfolding situation. example: In India, government usurpation of private property is fairly common (gasp!). The property is handed over to industrialists or real estate developers. This method is a key to the rising prosperity of India, which now has a permanent junior seat on the UN Security Council, and will likely have a senior seat in 10 years or less. India is a socialist/communist nation and is full of brilliant scientists, mathmaticians, engineers and chess players. Of course they also allow capitalism to operate within their socialsist/communist framework just as China does now. One does what one can, one does what one has to. Simple thinking frameworks, like "Capitalism is good, Socialism is bad" don't hold true in the objective reality of what is happening now. One might think that India will one day jettison socialism and communism, but then they may not. They will likely prosper anyway, and may even be able to hold on to their somewhat polite society, and continue to ban pornography and "recreational" drugs. Based on the way things are going, it will not be uncommon for todays teenagers and children to find themselves working for an Indian or Chinese. Life is not the simple, cold, sterile, calculated world of the Objectivist, except perhaps for the Objectivist fortunate enough to live in the comfortable West. For instance, I suggest teenagers and anyone not yet calcified, review the Maoist insurgency in Eastern India. Which side is right, which is wrong? Or might both sides be right and wrong? (Paradoxical Duality) A thinking exercise: would you rather be, for instance, a professor of philosophy (most of whome are rent-seekers) or PM Manmohan Singh of India, or how about Pres. Mahinda Rajapaksa, now the virtual King of Sri Lanka, and an expert at global poker-power play, whose days are filled with ribbon cutting ceremonies, whose path is strewn with flower petals, and to whom ambassadors and heads of state pay homage? Even the USA tip-toes around him. BTw, the second and third most powerful men in Sri Lanka are his brothers - what a great gig! And Sri Lanka is a great piece of real estate! http://www.defence.lk/english.asp additional exercise: Why are some European nations pushing for a war crimes trial against the Rajapaksa Brothers, for civilian casualties, and not pushing for the same against the USA, when any good student of war knows that the USA has caused far more civilian casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan? And was the USA justified in attacking Iraq - was that Objective self-defense? Is the best defense a good offense? How can these matters be decided, really - with science? Math? Will you not ultimately decide based on an emotional feeling on the matter? Power is real - some can get it , others can't. The philosophers look on, praising or condemning as they see fit. Or, on the other hand, maybe Singh (Hindu) and Rajapaksa (Buddhist) are philosophers-in-action. Cheers

Michael: May I point out that instead of offering comment or insight with regards any of my comments or statements, you simply resorted to a really weak tactic - game maneuver - which is similar to the retort often given to the claim "nothing is true, all is relative" : "then that statement can't be true". Only those who are predisposed to dislike my commentary will be flattered by your response, and certainly one might consider that you were flattering yourself. Paradoxical Duality allows for the statement "nothing is true, all is relative" to be an acceptible expression that does not claim to be true in the same sense as simple truths, like analytical truths, but expresses the idea that any one entity or system exists in some relation to another, and they basicly judge (assign value) each other. certainly I can understand that one whose identity is fused with "Objectivism" would feel defensive at a perceived slighting of such, but that is the way the ego functions. The bait was set, not intentionally I assure you, and you (your ego) went for it and then, surprise, validated some of my commentary. I hope the teenagers grasp this learning moment. You could have commented on a particular in my post, but chose not to. How exactly was your decision to comment, and how to comment uncoiled? Might that decision process have involved many currents, including an emotion? Objectivism may be an integral part of your identity. It is only a minor sub-part of mine. I think it is clear to most, and more so to the not-yet-calcified, that there are many paths in the life of a person, which differs from another person, and the matter is made unpredictable primarily because the future is unpredictable. What works for one will not necessarily work for another. I would be curious to know your opinion of the LTTE/Sinhala conflict? Was Prabakaran wrong to pursue civil war, since non-violent means were unproductive? Compare and contrast with USA war for independence from Britain. I would say that in both wars, each side acted rationally - pursuit of what they wanted. One could argue that if they were "reasonable" then they would have comprimised prior to violence. But then The Game would develope the tactic of threatening war or violence in order to get compromise, and that would lead to a never ending situation of threats being issued in order to get at least some of what is wanted by way of compromise. It is far from true that Mohandes Gandhi's non-violence movement gained India it's Independence. A violent insurgency had existed since the 19th century, and after WW2 England was broke and could not afford to keep it's regiments in India. Gandhi came along at the end and stole the fame. So, would you choose the path of violence to obtain what you thought of as your "rights"? Might the answer depend on both genetic dispostions and the particular socialization that has formed your self, ego, identity, etc? And then there is the strategy, employed by many of the colonists during the USA war for independence, of remaining aloof and then siding with the winner. Do I need to mention the irony that 13 colonies of Objectivists would not likely have chosen aggression, if they kept to their Objectivist morals? Where then would Ayn Rand have gone to to seek her fortunes? The sufferings of the colonists was greatly exagerated in post-war literature - many were quite content. So IMO it really would not be honest, or historically accurate, to make some kind of claim that Objectivists would have chosen to fight, citing self-defense. And then there is the issue of property rights - the colonies belonged to King George! And what about the aborigines - did they not have property rights? Cheers

As someone who is only partially an objectivist I will give this advice to a teenager: One size does not fit all. When reading philosophy, always remember that the philosopher is decribing him or herself, while claiming that their way, their perspectives are best for all. Of course what they mean is that they think it would be best for him/her if all others adopted their ways, perspectives, judgements, etc. every person not only has different physical talents, but also different cognitive talents. Some people will not be able to play the mental chess game of philosophy very well, or they may be able to but not care to, and some will care to but not be able to. Same with sports. Same with theater. and so on. You have an ego, but you have not created your ego directly, in the sense that you say "today I will add to my ego". Your ego, combined with your talents, will determine your place in hierarchical society, and that is true even in India with it's caste system, however being born lower caste will hinder your rise in the hierarchy. The objectivist disdains religion, or wants it contained and confined, but if you were a dalit (lower caste person)in India switching to Christianity would improve your net worth and place in the hierarchy better than objectivism - and that is an objective fact - Christians in India are rarely poor by the third generation. No one system makes the most sense in every instance. If you are an abandoned street child in India, objectivism will be of little use to you. You will fare better by stealing, that is, if you want to eat real food rather than garbage, and wear clothes rather than go naked. And nothing other than the feeling of destition (emotional despair) might be needed to convince you to, if you were lucky enough to have the chance, take a bed in a Hindu or Christian charity hostel (most street urchin hostels in India are operated by Christians), and have regular meals, nice clothes, education, vocational training and a path to a better future. And as for education by religious institions, a large percentage of the Indian elite, the top caste Brahmins, have been educated by Christian, mostly Roman Catholic secondaries and universities. In India, the Christians have been chipping away at the caste system for several hundred years. As I write, the world's chess champ, two years in a row, is an Indian educated at a Catholic secondary. Much of the increase in prosperity in India is due to so many Indians being educated by Christians for many generations - the tree is now making fruit. Any perspective is created by the ego, for egotistical reasons, by limiting the field of information. The perspective is then identical to the filter that limits. In other words, a perspective is a filter. The mind has to filter to avoid processing breakdown, and the filter is created by the ego according to need fulfillment. No one is in control of the filtering process, not even by rationality or reason (whatever those metaphors actually mean), rather, as the ego seeks fulfillment, in some cases cautious thinking through the matter will lead to what is traditionally called a "rational decision". But as the future is unpredictable, a rational decision(s) to pursue an ego goal may come to naught, or the goal may be realized serindipitously, for instance, by marrying rich. And one can get rich in other seridiptous ways, not involving the mystery of falling in love, for instance, the Rolling Stones, at the very beginning, were not following an rational or reasonable course but were jamming on their instruments out of boredom, or to get chicks, or perhaps because they just "loved" the blues. And it was not particularly rational for Keith Richards to take so many drugs, but then one day he got clean, married a young hottie, and lives happily ever after. While he was in his drug phase, one might have made the argument that he should have been more rational all along, and never pursued a music "career", which is such a long shot, and instead learned a trade and found steady employment, bought a house, etc., etc. And he was hardly a virtuoso on the guitar. But he did what he did. "Life" does not actually make sense, which is why we make filtered perspectives - often that does lead to better results, or at least it is like a safe bet. Like all perspectives, Objectivism is a rationalization chosen by certain individuals because they think it will work best for them. In some cases, claims made by objectivists may be good for others or society, not because such claims are Objective or rational, but because certain game maneuvers and strategies work better over time in order to win, like the way the casino always wins in the long run, but may lose from time to time. The Game is not itself rational or comprehensible. Any attempt to explain the game ends up being a filter that leaves out some info. In fact, any attempt to explain anything is a filter. As a teenager whose mind has not yet calcified, I recommend to you, thinking along the lines of the Paradoxical/Duality. One can't really make sense of for instance selfishness/altruism, and word based arguments for either simply reflect the ego needs of the author. Reducing the ideas to words is a filter in action. Strange currents exist in the human mind, in societies, and in physics and math, and sometimes seem contradictory. The contradictions do not always have to be resolved. The issue may not be a matter of selfishness or altuism, but both, and there is no need to define one by the other. It is hard to make sense of the life and work of Giovanni Melchiorre Bosco (St.John Bosco) who was a bright, happy and energetic poor Italian child raised without a father, and who took it upon himself to teach virtuous values to poor italian street urchins, and persisted against much adversity, to establish the Salesian order, which is huge today and is aimed primarily at educating youth in impoverished nations, or marginalized youth in developed nations (such as Hispanics in the USA). (the recent salesian pedophfile scandal is limted mostly to a few in the USA) Was Giovanni being selfish, or altruistic? Most people will decide according to how they are egotisticly predisposed to decide. Or one could choose not to decide the matter. The many street urchins and destitute poor (probably hundreds of thousands to date) whose lives were dramaticly improved by Salesians will probably decide "altruism", but who knows, really? Do some research on Don Bosco India. I know a little about street urchin rescue in India. One would think that every urchin offered a bed in a hostel would jump at the chance, but that is not the case. Frequent street contact must often be made to convince a child to leave the streets. the urchins are feral, and come to "like" their freedoms - between scavenging and stealing, and some menial work they scape together enough to get by and buy tobacco and solvents for huffing, and attend the cinema, and watch "blue" (porno) movies in the slum shacks of drug dealers. Convincing the kids to leave the streets is an art, which can be learned, but some do it better than others. In Kolkata, a guy from France comes to town often to talk the kids off the street - he is an expert, an artist. Why does he do it? try to make sense of this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/4184493/I-founded-Future-Hope-not-out-of-pity-for-the-street-children-but-admiration.html Final thoughts: when reading or listening to words, think about the metaphoric size of words, and the extent to which they have simple referents, like "pebble", or complex fuzzy referents, like "reason". See what happens if you try to unpack the metaphor. "Pebble" describes size, and possibly smoothness, but does not tell anything about the type of rock. An adjective could be used, like "granite" pebble, but then "granite" has to be unpacked. And "granite" can also be a noun, so why is it that nouns can be advectives? Unpacking "reason" is really hard to do, as attempts to explain the word will use other fuzzy words which themselves have to be unpacked. Two people may have an argument, and each may implore the other "to be reasonable". What each really means is "see things my way, as I want to dominate you with my will, rather than be dominated by yours". Conflict is natural and normal, and sometimes requires compromise. But sometimes one will not compromise, when the cards you hold seem overwhelmingly favorable. But can you be sure that non-compromise will not come back to bite you in the unpredictable future? Will you play it safe, or take the chance? And what is it in you that actually makes that decision? While it is probably true that Capitalism is a better system over the long run than Socialism/Communism (I am using these terms in their broadest and crudest sense), in debates over the matter it is often best to ask a question that will trigger some more complex thinking, rather than make claims that the other party will interpret as an affront. Then you have to allow 1 to 2 weeks for the question to sink in. After posing the critical question, it is best to change the subject and to do something that will ingratiate the opponent, such as offering food or drink, or a compliment. Changing minds is not always possible with "logical" or "reasonable" argument, but sometimes requires a more clever manuever. Asking a question that does not require immediate answer is a tactic common in India - in some cases it is asked earnestly in others it is an evasion. How can the same tactic have different intentions? Don't we have to project the possibility of an evasion on the other person to begin to consider if they are being evasive? Is that scientific method? Such is The Game. The Objectivists say that violence is never permitted except in self-defense. But how is self-defense to be defined? review the LTTE/Sinhala conflict in Sri Lanka - the hopelessly impoverished Tamils (LTTE)tried non-violence, but it simply brought them nothing. So they reverted to civil war - a really ghastly, bloody war. In 2009, after 30 years, the Sinhala won, thanks largely to an infusion of money and weopons from China. Now the Tamils are getting some developement and political inclusion from the victorious Sinhala - so they are getting at least some of what they wanted all along. Agression was the only path for the LTTE. Note that the war was prolonged and made more bloody - many civilian casualties - by Europeans and Canadians who sympathized with the Tamils, and sent them money and "negotiators". Certainly the sympathizers and negotiators thought they were being rational and reasonable. Which side was rational and reasonable and objective? Did the Chinese government act rationally? Now it is claimed that China is building a naval port in Sri Lanka - maybe the Chinese are playing The Game. You might want to read up on Ontological Undecidability and Polynomial Theory of Value at the Friesian School. Life doesn't actually make sense, and the objectivity of the Objectivists is only a reportage of how they are, a rationalization of how they are, and probably not a general recipe for societal success, I mean, do we all want to be like Mr. Spock of Star Trek? Cheers