KorbenDallas

Trump might get re-elected by dropping taxes...

This was from back in Nov 2017:

Trump sez it's the 'biggest in history'... is it? Hhmm: The biggest tax cut in history? Not quite. http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/15/politics/is-trumps-bill-largest-tax-cut-in-history-no/index.html [...] The Treasury reports found that, since 1968, three other tax cut bills have been bigger: Reagan's 1981 cuts, and two bills passed by Obama to extend the Bush tax cuts. Between 1940 and 1967, when the data is less reliable, three tax cuts were larger, two of them after the war, when rates were lowered again. The Treasury measured the sizes of tax cuts by looking at the revenue effects of the bills as a percentage of gross domestic product -- in other words, how much federal revenue the bill cuts away as a portion of the economy. Reagan's 1981 cut was 2.9% of GDP. Obama's tax cut extensions in 2010 and 2012 were 1.3% and 1.8%, respectively. [...] So is it the biggest? No, but it's one of the biggest.

I wonder how many of the 400 are altruists and want to donate their money to the government so it can waste it. I wonder how many of the 400 want to keep what they've earned, but under social pressure or scrutiny they want to donate it to keep the altruists off their back. Neither is too far from what Rand spoke about long ago...

Baal, Yoda says, "Baal sounds like an Objectivist, he does."

This is a good identification. It seems that a snarl word would have a connotation/denotation difference, or can perhaps become 'fuzzy'. Rand did seem to 'snarl' at enemies, and perhaps that's one reason why her enemies despised her so much. Is it okay to use them? I'd just say to not lose sight of the denotative meaning, not lose sight of essences. And for whatever/whoever the term is being applied to, to keep objectivity in mind, that the term actually fits. This goes back to what Rand says about language, that it's primary function is for cognition, not communication.

President Trump's first pardoning of a turkey: And Cenk, with a covfefe shirt, has a little fun with it: Happy Thanksgiving!

I post there and I like it. It's on Reddit so sometimes there aren't Objectivists who post, but it's part of the platform and adds variety. It's not over moderated which allows some discussion to happen, it's good in my book. edit: Seeing now this is a 3yr old thread... anyway it's still there and active

Heck of a list---but Chuck Norris? NO way, he kicks too much ass. Ted Nugent, okay he was kind of annoying. Kid Rock? Expendable. Feminism is more fundamental than political affiliation. Feminists are not only progressives, but independents, conservatives, and non-political. The progressive feminists aren't saying much because they don't have to, the allegations will strengthen them in the long run. A purge, a cleanse right now. They'll end up with more Tapper-like feminists in the long run, be in a better position in both the media and entertainment for the next election cycle. Weren't there supposed to be more Trump tapes out there?!?

And another... Richard Dreyfuss is accused of exposing himself to writer Wondering if there aren't demonstrations because the feminists think they are winning right now? The narrative definitely seems to be on the offensive... I'm also reading that on some college campuses there are more initiatives to adjust the lines of what is consent and what is not consent. The accusations in the media could be used for cause to pursue adjusting the feminist's agenda to even more anti-man, anti-masculinity. In the past it's been more about women empowerment, today it's more about cultural emasculation.

A is A?

Sure, but when you say "based on" in your sentence upthread, "The whole point of the article is that ethics must be principles based on human happiness as the purpose," your terms are fuzzy because if you were to ask me what morality should be based on I would say "the nature of man". The purpose of morality is to tell man how to live, and that is as man qua man, in which that means at once a standard and a concept of what Rand called man's life, which is based off of man's nature, who is a thinking, rational being, who has free will and is meant to think and act freely both independently as well as in society. To me this is more fundament than what you have stated and in the way you have stated it.

What about reason?

Onkar Ghate and Yaron Brook provided a discussion a few days ago that I liked with the topics free will, Sam Harris, determinism, and materialism. I'm posting two videos, one is the entire discussion which is just under and hour and the other a shorter clip where Sam Harris is discussed. Here is the 6 minute Sam Harris clip: Here is the complete discussion, having more topics:

A bear is a good spirit animal

I stopped at 31 seconds with the jar of dirt analogy

Dealing with distractions from your values, I think has to do with having a hierarchy of values. Distractions affect your life, values, purpose(s); so having a hierarchy of values can help a person know (identify) when a distraction is taking place, and what to do. Relatedly, Rand's Playboy interview came to mind, this question and answer: Q: If a person organizes his life around a single, neatly defined purpose, isn’t he in danger of becoming extremely narrow in his horizons? Rand: Quite the contrary. A central purpose serves to integrate all the other concerns of a man’s life. It establishes the hierarchy, the relative importance, of his values, it saves him from pointless inner conflicts, it permits him to enjoy life on a wide scale and to carry that enjoyment into any area open to his mind; whereas a man without a purpose is lost in chaos. He does not know what his values are. He does not know how to judge. He cannot tell what is or is not important to him, and, therefore, he drifts helplessly at the mercy of any chance stimulus or any whim of the moment. He can enjoy nothing. He spends his life searching for some value, which he will never find.

I hold more of a Branden view of the importance of emotions in life, he places more of an emphasis on them than Rand does. I cannot reconcile Rand's view of emotions in the context with my own personal experience when playing music for performance, or practicing it. You said upthread that you agree with Rand's "hard-nosed insistence that feelings, emotions, and sentiments have no cognitive content and only ruthless objective reason is the way to determine what is true, false, right, or wrong." That's not what I personally experience when playing performance music, and upthread I stated my conclusion about this experience (and also from researching the subject) is that emotions can drive a performance, and some of the best performances are done this way. Does this contradict Rand's view of emotion? It seems to. But what is strange is how Rand indicates in the Romantic Manifesto she doesn't quite understand how music affects the emotion of the perceiver---so how would she understand how the performer creates? I don't have the answers to that, but I know one must have an epistemological/values foundation or it would be a mess. I think I see what your view on feelings are, and also how it integrates with music performance. I'm not sure if I agree with it exactly. But I think there is agreement that emotions are not a shortcut in life, or in musical performance.

And what of the role of emotion in performance?

Branden does cite a philosophical/moral definition for pride in the 6 Pillars, it is the sentence that follows the definition for psychological pride. He says pride in the philosophical/moral sense is moral ambitiousness. He definitely speaks of a primacy of reason over emotion. I didn't mean to mislead by only quoting the psychological pride definition. How does this apply to musicians? Some of the best performances are driven by a person's emotions, though I don't agree that emotion alone can do it. A person needs an excellent epistemological/values foundation to allow their emotions to drive a performance without being a mess. "Playing a wrong note is insignificant, playing without passion is inexcusable" - Beethoven

Where's Waldo?

Branden does not say that self-esteem is something one pursues directly, in the copy I have of the 6 Pillars he says on page 65 that self-esteem is a consequence (italics are not mine): Since self-esteem is a consequence, a product of internally generated practices, we cannot work on self-esteem directly, neither our own nor anyone else's. You seem to be saying above that self-esteem is the recognition of achievement, is this your definition for self-esteem? This is actually similar to what Branden defines as psychological pride in the 6 Pillars. From page 41: Pride is the emotional reward of achievement. It is not a vice to be overcome but a value to be attained. So have I identified a specific point of disagreement between you and Branden of what self-esteem is? Here is Branden's definition of self-esteem from page 27: Self-esteem is the disposition to experience oneself as competent to cope with the basic challenges of life and as worthy of happiness.

So The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem is a gimmick? What are your reasons?

By the way, I judge and think about what Rand says, so I don't accept her as authority, but I find she is right about a lot of things.

Yes, I think we can agree then, that quoting Rand directly to illustrate what she wrote can be beneficial. I looked this up, what you are referencing is in the ITOE Appendix under The Role of Words, Words and Concepts. But why do you say "There is no such thing as "conceptual" consciousness"? Rand definitely did not say that in that section.