SaulOhio

What I should say is that Ayn Rand often argued against a common useage of a word without providing a valid alternative concept in its place.

Objectivism fits in very well with the way I've always thought as long as I have been old enough to think on my own. What Objectivism and Ayn Rand did was to give me the words to explain and justify the way I think. I always believed that reason was the way to know reality, through natural explanations, but I couldn't have properly ariculated a proper defense of it without Objectivist metaphysics and causality based on the axiom of Identity. As long as I have known about the issue of self-interest vs. altruism, I have believed that if I didn't have the right to my own happiness, if another person's suffering created an obligation to give up my own happiness, then nobody could morally be happy. This would mean that there could be no happiness in the world at all, and life would not be worth living. I realized I had the right to my own happiness, and that I would have to learn to find it despite any feelings of pity or sympathy for those who are suffering. Objectivism provided me with a much more solid rational basis for my self-interest. The one big thing about Objectivism, besides the dogmatism of some Objectivists and the schizms, is the tendency of some Objectivists to reject a concept entirely if Ayn Rand, or some Objectivist, argued against its popular useage. One example is the principle of falsifiability in science. The concept originated with more pragmatist thinkers, I think Popper. (I haven't read Popper, so I can't say first-hand he was pragmatist.) It is part of the school of thinking that in order for an idea to be valid science it has to be able to be useful in explaining phenomena and making falsifiable predictions. This has been interpreted as pragmatism, and that may be how it is interpreted by a lot of people. But it is still a valid test for the scientific validity of an idea. IF an idea corresponds to reality, then it will be usful in explaining it and making predictions. This is actuallya necessary part of the scientific method. You make predictions based on your theory, and any discrapancy between the predictions and observation allows you to either refine the theory or replace it with a better one by showing how the theory fails to correspond to reality. This whole discussion might even cause some Objectivist to accuse me of accepting a theory-practice dichotomy. The same is true of other concepts, such as toleration and benevolence. I think Ayn Rand herself promoted this attitude, maybe inadvertently, by the forceful way she often argued against the common useage of certain concepts. I'd have to go back to the literature to find examples.

I have heard the argument that industrialized nations export their environmental degradation to third world countries. To some extent, I think this may be true. I heard the example that used computer equipment has been shipped to be used in 3rd world countries, then once they break down they end up dumped in rivers where they cause pollution. It may also be that factories built in 3rd world countries don't have to deal with the same environmental restrictions as in America, so we buy our manufactured products from them and cause the environmental damage there instead of here. To some degree that may be true, but I really think that the improved technology we have is a much stronger factor, and if these thierd world countries were allowed to have it, they could afford to avoid importing environmental degradation. The question is, how do you measure it? How can we really know how much the air and water in America has improved because of technology versus exporting?

The answer is obvious, of course. Chavez is a "new socialist", and actually has the best interests of the people at heart. :yes: Yeah, right!

I am not doubting you on this, but I'd like to know what your source of information is concerning Venezuela's oil industry. I have heard this before, and it would be consistent with the behavior of socialists, who in my experience, have little understanding of the concept of capital, even if you try to explain it using the metaphor of seed grain. I would like to know more about Venezuela's oil industry, but all I can find on the internet is news stories that repeat what you have sais as conclusions, without references to the primary sources of information.

And why does this matter? For one thing, Dr. Ball is capable of reading the peer-reviewed literature, and making his own conclusions, AND as he explains, the peer-review process on global warming has been corrupted. There are a few examples I have heard of where skeptics presenting their work for peer-review have been treated unfairly. Even wiuth all this aside, why does someone have to have their work published in the peer-reviewed literature in order to express his opinion? Is Al Gore held to that standard?

I am addicted to wind powered sports, windsurfing, kitesurfing, and kiteskiing. That last one I am going to be doing tomorrow, on a frozen bay in Erie, PA. with about a dozen or so friends. I love being out in the elements, out where a human being really shouldn't be, using my mind as much as my body to use the forces of nature for my own purposes. I occasionally get my ass kicked by those forces, but when things really come together, and my gear and I are in tune with the conditions, it feels like I should be wearing blue tights and a red cape. Windsurfing: http://www.putfile.com/downloadfile/SaulLaydown http://media.putfile.com/MeHeadlands1 Kitesurfing: http://media.putfile.com/SaulSalvo1 Kiteskiing: http://media.putfile.com/Kiteskiing-Presque-Isle-Feb-2007

I just recently finished reading Tracinski's article and found lots or reasons for hope in it. What astounds me is that Peikoff is so able to dismiss it and its conclusions, but was able to create a fine taped lecture series like "Objectivism Through Induction". "What Went Right" and OTI seem to share the same approach to philosophy, and Peikoff makes some of the same observations such as that Rand could not have created her moral philosophy without the previous achievements of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution. I think OTI was taped before the Kelley split, and probably before Barbara Branden published "The Passion of Ayn Rand". Are such experiences really enough to change a person's basic philosophical style and method? OTI was intended as a cure for randroids, but since then, its as if Peikoff has become the Supreme Randroid. :hmm:

Absolutely hilarious parody of God. I think someone's going to hell! :devil: :hyper: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=misterdeity

I was (partly) joking. I don't know if there is any extended limited edition of the movie. I do own the soundtrack. Great music, even if I do get kidded by my friends for listening to that "80's music".

You own a copy of the extended version, special edition Ladyhawke DVD, don't you? Its alright. I feel the same way about Michelle Pheiffer.

I have read Reisman's Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics, and have no idea what Salsman is talking about. In fact, he clearly states that profits are determined by the level of capitalization in an industry and the supply and demand of its products. There are passages where he talks about the consumer spending of rich capitalists, but it is to show how inconsequential it is relative to their capital investment. Reisman has a couple commentaries online right now that say that present high profits are the result of environmental regulation, which limits access to natural resources and discourages capital investment.

I agree with a lot of what both of you say, but Victor, this kind of a rant doesn't mean much if you can't concretize it. Tell us what particular intellectuals think this way. A good place to find this kind of vitriol against Ayn Rand and Objectivism is reviews of Objectivist books on Amazon.com. Many of these reviews make me think "Did this person actually read the book he is reviewing?" Because the review has very little correspondence to the book. They often sound like the critic who said he read between the lines of Atlas Shrugged, "To a gas chamber-go!" People who so obviously misrepresent a book or idea are clearly dishonest, and we can often identify their motives from what they say. However, I have no idea if these reviewers are professional intellectuals or not.

And my response to those reviewers is the same as my response to the author of the article in question. Are we talking about the same Ayn Rand, and the same Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead? Is there some other author with the same name that wrote novels with the same names? Because the reviews bear little resemblance to what I read in those books.

Are they talking about the same Ayn Rand that I have studied? Is there some other Ayn Rand that actually IS a Social Darwinist?

Leonard Peikoff must be throwing a fit.

I think its time to concretize this subject. The question is: How many American soldiers actually died because of our policy of avoiding civilian casualties? As I remember, defeating the Iraqi army was a piece of cake. Very few Americans died to defeat Saddam's forces. I remember only one standoff where Iraqi soldiers used human shields, but that only caused a delay while sharpshooters arrived to take out the Iraqi forces without any American casualties. Of course my memory is three years old, and I am no expert. Can Dennis show that our policies actually caused more American casualties than just mowing through civilians to get to the enemy military? Another question is: What is "reasonable effort"? The quote from TOC doesn't specifically say. Might it be that the limit of reasonable here is risk to American soldiers? It doesn't sound like Kelley is necessarily advocating that Americans take any additional risks. I'll have to go back to the entire position statement to find out what effort they mean.

I have been following the work of the TOC, including that of David Kelley and especially Robert Bidinotto. I have not noticed them implicitly sanctioning altruism. Can you clarify on that? Which official statements?

I have read David Kelley's "Truth and Toleration" (New edition is "The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand") as well as Peikoff's and Schwatz's articles on the subject, and agree entirely with Kelley. If we do not excercise tolerance as a virtue, the alternative would be to withdraw from society and become hermits, or form objectivist colonies apart from the rest of society. Either way we would be forgoing the great value of dealing with mostly good people who have some mixed premises. I know very few Objectivists personally that live in my area, and most of my friends that I meet through the hobbies and sports I enjoy are mostly DEFINITELY not Objectivists. Most of them have at least some belief in God, and they have a wide variety of philosophical and political beliefs. I have let them know what my beliefs are, but the thing is, while I am windsurfing, kitesurfing, or flying radio controlled airplanes, I am NOT talking politics or philosophy. I have to tolerate their differences in order to enjoy the very great value I gain from dealing with people who love certain activities we have in common. It would actually be very unselfish of me to try to proselytize when doing so would likely accomplish nothing much, and only cost me some friends.

George Reisman has been posting on the subject a lot lately, saying that there will be climate change no matter what we do, and the correct response is to produce more energy in order to adapt through industry and technology. http://www.georgereisman.com/blog/

I really enjoyed the essay, and think it really brings home the fact that benevolence, manners and civility are a sense of life issue, and an epistemological one, too. We learn a lot from other people, even from those we have our differences with, or even from strangers on the street. We act that way because we love life, and being friendly with people we don't even know is part of enjoying life. I remember one morning when I was going out to enjoy one of my favorite outdoor activities. It looked like a perfect day for it, the right wind, comfortable temperatures, sunshine. I was feeling good, eager to get out there and have fun, when I stopped by one of those gas station/convenient stores for supplies (Snacks and softdrinks). There were two little old ladies going in at the same time, so I held the door, smiled, and said "Good morning". It seemed the natural thing to do, but they seemed so surprised that a complete stranger would be so polite. Later in the parking lot, one of them handed me some literature from her church, I think some Baptist congregation. This woman was so terribly religious, but something like common courtesy seemed to be almost unknown to her. Could it be that a religion that preaches universal love for all mankind actually fosters the opposite attitude, simply because of the altruist moral code at its base? Does the damage that faith does to a person's rational faculty have that much affect on their sense of life?

I would definitely say that numbers are taught inductively. You show a child five blocks, tell them this is "five". You show the child five sticks, say that is "five". You repeat this with different numbers and objects till the child gets the idea of quantity.

I've just recently been catching up on this thread, and there is one comment I think I can contribute to the matter of Peikoff vs. Kelley (and the Brandens) as well as the problem of people learning the answers to philosophical questions before they know enough to as them. I have a copy of Peikoff's taped lecture series "Objectivism Through Induction" which I have found very valuable. In it, Peikoff offers what he calls a cure for rationalism, which he had noticed was a problem among "precocious Objectivists". Strudents would be able to repeat the words and catch phrases of Objectivism, but have a poor grasp of the concrete reality the principles represent. And like the title of the lecture series says, its all about induction. Peikoff goes through a number of basic Objectivist ideas and demonstrates how they are derived inductively from empirical data from the real world, all the while explaining and warning about the dangers and pitfalls of rationalism. But then we get to the Kelley controversy about toleration. Kelley's work defending his ideas on the subject, in "Truth and Toleration" are themselves a wonderfull example of inductive reasoning and argument. But the only critiques of Kelley by Peikoff and Schwartz (Who contributed to the "Objectivism Through Induction" series) aside from presenting strawmen of Kelley's position, strike me as the worst kind of rationalism.

The word "abstract" in art has come to mean formless, non-represenational art, basically smears on canvas, and meaningless shapes in sculpture. This isn't what the word means in philosophy, and it isn't what it should mean in art, either. Watching the Pixar movie "The Incedibles", I was very much struck by the sculpture in the courtyard of the home of the character named Edna (E). I couldn't find a link on the internet to post on this forum, but I am sure most here have seen the movie. It was a much larger than life representation of a superhero. It was very low on detail, just suggesting the shape of a human figure in a heroic pose, with broad shoulders, and if I remember correctly, a fountain flowing over the shoulders representing a cape. It didn't represent any particular superhero, it could have been almost any superhero. It had no facial features, no emblem on the chest, no indication of what superpowers it had. All that it had to suggest the concept of superheroism was its vaguely human shape, its pose, and its context within the home of a superhero admirer (almost worshiper). It abstracted the concept of superheroism from any particular superhero, but it wasn't abstract in the modern artistic sense.

Yes, I noticed that. Interesting to see a local Objectivist. It would be great to have a local RC event. I already belong to an informal RC flight club, the North Coast Electric Flyers. Euclid Square Mall should have enough room for some of the smaller electric planes. I would definitly love to attend, and might even do some flying, if you don't require an AMA membership. When you have schedule information, you are welcome to post it on our forum at http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=258 If you want to see some of my RC, windsurfing, and kitesurfing videos, they are at www.putfile.com/SaulOhio