Altruism

[Laure]

You would never get this level of confusion down at Sunday School. Religious people have a complete definition of human nature, not one for adults only. Their morality reflects it, too.

Oh, no, never any confusion from our religious folks. They've always been in complete agreement about moral issues. Take slavery. They were always against it. Except earlier when they were for it. Homosexuality - always a sin. Except when liberal congregations decide it isn't. Baptism? Got to be full-immersion. Unless you're in a church that goes for the sprinkle method.

As to this:

So the following must follow by logic:

1. Individual rights as defined by Objectivism do not apply to children, only adults, or

2. Children are not human beings;

or worse,

3. Individual rights derive from human nature and do not derive from human nature (A is A and not A).

There is the logical fallacy.

So, your issue is that individual rights logically follow from the nature of normal adult humans, but that does not prove that children or incapacitated adults have rights. I take it that you are bothered by this because you want to be able to say that children have rights. Can you confirm this?

I agree that it doesn't prove it, but there is nothing contradictory about saying that children or other "wards" have rights, too. And it makes a lot more sense to see children and adults of diminished capacity on a continuum, where they are able to exercise some of their rights, rather than to arbitrarily have a cutoff point, where on one side they have no rights, and on the other they suddenly have their full complement of rights.

Regarding the logic details:

#1,2: (Adulthood -> Rights) does NOT imply (Non-Adulthood -> No Rights) (that would be the fallacy of inferring the inverse)

#3: You're talking about two aspects of human nature. Rights can derive from Aspect A but not from Aspect B. That's not contradictory.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Laure,

You can have your fun, but what do you really feel when you look at the statistics of church-goers as opposed to Objectivists and libertarians? Especially at voting time? Does that make you laugh, too?

(Reality's a bitch, ain't it?)

I don't think you understand yet what I am discussing, because your comments go in and out of it. I do appreciate, however, what I perceive to be an effort on your part to find out what I mean. You, at least, are touching on the issues I am trying to put on the table for discussion.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

See how it goes?

You would never get this level of confusion down at Sunday School. Religious people have a complete definition of human nature, not one for adults only. Their morality reflects it, too.

I'm not saying I agree, but I have to notice that their premise is more complete. They don't leave out stages of life. This is what holds individualism back. This is why the majority is rarely convinced by the logic of individualism.

Only a certain kind of person seems to be attracted to individualism. It appears to be more of an emotional draw dressed up as an intellectual one than an attraction actually based on logic.

I don't like noticing that fact. In fact, it bothers me. But I can't ignore it, either.

Michael

You are accepting responsibility for some of this "confusion"? I'm not confused.

Individualism is illogical? Collectivism isn't?

Maybe it's an emotional draw because it's so logical.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Individualism is so logical that you can tell a church-goer that under its immutable laws of logic, it is perfectly legal for a stranger to encounter an abandoned baby and leave it to starve to death. The adult has the right to do that, you know.

On purpose.

Inalienable.

And the kid? Well... he has the right to action, so long as he does not violate the rights of another. He can feed himself. Nobody will stop him.

He can't act, you say, because he is too young? Irrelevant! Not a problem of rights. The immutable laws of logic say so.

As to the kid starving to death in that situation? Sorry. He's just out of luck.

Heh.

Go try and convince them with that logic. Ain't gonna happen.

Ever.

(The polite ones are going to say you don't know what the hell a human being is. You know it, too. That's one of the reasons this issue gets Objectivist and libertarian people so wound up all the time.)

Michael

[cjsmall]

I don't think you understand yet what I am discussing, because your comments go in and out of it. I do appreciate, however, what I perceive to be an effort on your part to find out what I mean. You, at least, are touching on the issues I am trying to put on the table for discussion.

Michael:

You said earlier in this discussion that you had been wrestling with this problem for over three years now. And after all that time, you are apparently still struggling with these issues and cannot make a cogent summary statement of the problem, let alone provide a rational defense of a particular position. Lacking that, it is really unfair to accuse people of not understanding you. I don't think there is a person here who has any desire to undermine, belittle or verbally spar with you. The simple truth is that we really don't understand what you are saying and don't see what the purpose of your inquiry is in search of. It is clear that you take offense when we head off on tangents that you don't believe are relevant to your purpose, but each of us has done our best to address what we saw as issues or implications raised by the things you have said. We raised these points because we actually thought they were important and directly connected to your comments. If you are frustrated that we are not trying to make an "effort ... to find out what [you] mean", you should realize that it is equally frustrating on our part because you also "go in and out" of what we are saying as well, often simply dismissing all of our comments as irrelevant. Well, maybe they are. I have no idea, because I don't have any framework against which to evaluate the relevancy. I once thought that I did, but no longer.

If you want to construct a new theory of human rights upon what you consider to be a better foundation than has been done up to this point by Rand, other Objectivists or Libertarians, fine. What is stopping you? Why don't you do your thinking and then either present your observations for critique or simply publish them for others to digest. But I don't see anything useful emerging out of discussions like this. Are you expecting that the other list participants are going to do the thinking, all or in part, required to develop this new theory? Are you looking for others to provide the necessary insights to guide you towards enlightenment? I'm not saying that you are, but if not, then what is the purpose of these discussions? We are not moving towards any points of understanding that I can recognize, but I do see many people becoming frustrated and angry as things progress. I know with certainty that this is not what you wish to cultivate. So what do you think should be done about that?

Regards,

--

Jeff

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

Individualism is so logical that you can tell a church-goer that under its immutable laws of logic, it is perfectly legal for a stranger to encounter an abandoned baby and leave it to starve to death. The adult has the right to do that, you know.

On purpose.

Inalienable.

And the kid? Well... he has the right to action, so long as he does not violate the rights of another. He can feed himself. Nobody will stop him.

He can't act, you say, because he is too young? Irrelevant! Not a problem of rights. The immutable laws of logic say so.

As to the kid starving to death in that situation? Sorry. He's just out of luck.

Heh.

Go try and convince them with that logic. Ain't gonna happen.

Ever.

(The polite ones are going to say you don't know what the hell a human being is. You know it, too. That's one of the reasons this issue gets Objectivist and libertarian people so wound up all the time.)

Michael

You haven't established that an adult has the right to do what you've said. It's simply beyond law for the adult can get away with it. But what kind of adult would do that? Scumbag adult. What law could stop a scumbag from being a scumbag? Law and morality won't make perfection real in human-land. We will never get rid of criminals, only reduce their ranks. We will never get rid of the adult-who-abandons-babies-in-the-wilderness--and just how many are there who we need to address in legal philosophy? Might we more effectively worry about men who beat their wives and wives who beat their husbands? It is you, not I, who is demanding perfection in philosophy, law and society. Are you attacking philosophy as such?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And after all that time, you are apparently still struggling with these issues and cannot make a cogent summary statement of the problem, let alone provide a rational defense of a particular position.

Jeff,

I stopped reading your post after this comment.

Are you talking about my exposition or your understanding? There are plenty of people who understand me. They are not discussing this because they are used to seeing those who do get these kinds of insults that you just made. They don't feel like bickering.

And I have made a rational exposition covering the concept formation of rights from metaphysics on up according to the system of forming concepts given in ITOE.

Now I will finish reading your post. I just want to make sure you understand that I know perfectly well what I think. Despite you telling me otherwise.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You haven't established that an adult has the right to do what you've said.

Brant,

No I have not. I never will. Others have alleged this. I contest it.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

You haven't established that an adult has the right to do what you've said.

Brant,

No I have not. I never will. Others have alleged this. I contest it.

Michael,

I didn't make myself clear: I meant under Objectivist rights' theorizing.

--Brant

Edited April 2, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I never read Rand postulate such an absurdity. There are plenty here on OL who have stated that such an act is immoral but should not be illegal (and on other forums). They claim that this would infringe the rights of the adult.

Therefore, the only conclusion to draw is that the adult has the right to do that.

I disagree. I am working on why.

EDIT: I started by checking the Objectivist premise that rights are derived from human nature. I found a problem there, a logical one. In reality, rights postulated like that are found to be derived from the nature of some humans, but not others—or better stated, from the nature of some humans during a specific time in their life cycles. Yet rights are supposed to apply to everyone.

Why should a right apply to a person if it does not derive from that person's fundamental nature? And why should a person's fundamental nature be excluded from the derivation of human values, which are the bassis of rights? I think those are good questions. So I am looking into them.

Doing so and insisting on staying on target seems to tick people off, too.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

I never read Rand postulate such an absurdity. There are plenty here on OL who have stated that such an act is immoral but should not be illegal (and on other forums). They claim that this would infringe the rights of the adult.

Therefore, the only conclusion to draw is that the adult has the right to do that.

I disagree. I am working on why.

Michael,

Nor I. But this "emergency" is an absurd triviality and should be dismissed as such, not out of philosophical theory. Those are "Objectivist fundamentalists" and one should not get down in that pit with them in the first place. Rights' theory can neither be justified or negated out of such examples. Try to pass a law and get laughed out of town by half the people while the other half rush to rescue the baby. I also suggest you differentiate between moral and legal rights. Moral rights don't have to be legal rights, but all legal rights have to be moral. Morality is about control, BTW. Suasion or the club.

--Brant

Edited April 2, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Wolf DeVoon]

all legal rights have to be moral. Morality is about control, BTW. Suasion or the club.

Eeek! Double eeek! (runs away with hair on fire)

:frantics:

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Because of my studies in Internet marketing, I have had occasion to look at some other sites on the Internet that have extremely high page ranking. I have been seeking search engine optimization and places to place backlinks to my study sites, not philosophy, but I often end up in the wrong niche and reading some of that stuff. (I try to stay away from philosophy and political sites because there is no money in them. But I am a creature of habit and even piss myself off at times, so off I go to them before I realize it. )

The perception these people have of Objectivists is precisely what I have been complaining about. The general view is that Objectivists don't care about children, old people and sick people unless they are one of them. I am not talking about small sites, either. These are sites with huge amounts of traffic.

I have thought about engaging some of these people and pointing them to here to show that this is not true. I know what will happen, though, so I don't do it. They will find great quotes here to provide grounds for their criticisms.

OL is low traffic. These places are high. Who will gain by this?

That is one reason (not the main one, though) why I bother to discuss this issue and insist on keeping the focus on human nature under Objectivism. I want to do that, too, until the concept becomes broad enough to include children (at the very least).

Probably the most frustrating part of all of this is what I see to be a HUGE misunderstanding. Rand's philosophy is a hymn to the glory of human potential and a call to personally strive to attain higher and higher achievements.

I do not take this to mean that one should feel contempt or indifference for children, old people and sick people. On the contrary, my reason leads me to understand that these people are to be loved and cared for. One day that was or will be me.

Contempt should be reserved for the person who claims that children, old people and sick people have more value to human existence than heroic producers. That person should be the target for contempt, not the person who claims that children, old people and sick people need to be cared for and should be. We all go through these states in our lifetimes so I think it is silly to belittle them or ignore them in our ethics.

Yet I constantly see flack on Objectivist forums being given to those who stand up for children, old people and sick people. And the critics constantly miss the point and usually misrepresent the views of the person they criticize. (I have followed several discussion on other forums where this is blatant, with nonstop mocking and so forth thrown in for effect.)

Maybe an extreme comparison would be of value to illustrate this. If I had to make an impossible choice between saving the life of a productive genius or an infant, I would save the productive genius without even thinking about it and not feel a twinge of guilt, although I would probably be devastated by sadness or grief for the loss of the child.

I value both.

Greatly.

I simply value the productive genius more.

Just because I am now working on how to frame an infants rights or clarify the "animal" (genus) part of human nature to help frame it, this does not mean I value the productive genius any less or wish to stifle him. This is not an either-or issue. But I have seen it treated as such more often than not.

I don't intend to back down. And, as I mentioned before, I will probably end up publishing a theoretical work on this somewhere.

Michael

EDIT: I can't resist a barb, although it is a tangent. You should see the trainwreck James Valliant's participation was on the Richard Dawkins forum. Valliant was there as a self-proclaimed spokesman for defending Objectivism. He was almost laughed off the forum. (He also had a little push from some of the people who post here. But the few scientific people who engaged him didn't take long to dismiss him as a crackpot.)

[Ellen Stuttle]

The simple truth is that we really don't understand what you are saying and don't see what the purpose of your inquiry is in search of.

In regard to the purpose of Michael's inquiry, he did say plainly in one post, answering Ethan Dawe, what he'd like to achieve (easy to miss this statement because he writes many long posts).

Color emphasis throughout is added.

So let's be clear about what I claim. On a personal level, I hold that reasonable care in our country has to be assured for a child to survive and this care comes from somewhere, basically the parents or legal guardians, and lacking them, the government, and lacking that in an emergency (and depending on the emergency and extenuating circumstances at that), whichever adult is near. That's on a personal level. I haven't reasoned all that out, just merely speculated on some things that were thrown at me.

Doing a search of his posts on this thread using the keyword "ensur*", I find three posts:

post #86: "to ensure the child's right to life."

post #186: "[in his ideal model, government orphanages would only be used if needed as] a back-up to ensure the right to life of abandoned or abused children who fall within the jurisdiction of that country."

post #239: "ensuring [children's] right to life [...]."

He also speaks of children's rights as having to be "assured" in two other posts besides the one I quoted above. Here is the search link.

In post post #186, he also uses the term "guarantee" in regard to his ideal model.

Here's a longer excerpt from that post:

[...] government orphanages would be needed if they are needed (meaning if no private orphanages are avaliable, like I wrote). If not needed (meaning that the private orphanages were sufficient to guarantee the right to life of the abandoned children), then not. Thus there would be no reason to spend the money. It's a back-up to ensure the right to life of abandoned or abused children who fall within the jurisdiction of that country. The government would be protecting the rights of its citizens, as is its function.

On the other hand, in a long post to you, post #103, he writes:

I fully understand that according to the positive-negative rights model that the right to life is not a guarantee of success.

Something clicked for me while I was researching the links for this post. I've been trying to understand why Michael reacts so strongly against discussion of positive/negative rights. (In the next post, I'll pose a question to him on that.) He says in the reply to you that he understands that "the positive-negative rights model" doesn't provide a guarantee. In the other posts quoted above he's stated that what he wants is precisely a guarantee; he wants children's care to be assured, or ensured.

Hmm.....

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In the other posts quoted above he's stated that what he wants is precisely a guarantee; he wants children's care to be assured, or ensured.

Ellen,

sigh...

It is not about what I want. I was clear about separating my personal wants from the philosophical issues.

It is about a contradiction in the premise of the concept in use.

It is a logical inconsistency in Objectivist concept formation to use one concept as a base for another, then exclude the original concept. In "rational animal" the genus (animal) is not only poorly defined, it is usually excluded. In fact, in arriving at the concept of rights, animal is excluded. The idea of "animal" is nowhere to be found within the concept of positive and negative rights.

(An infant mammal needs care, not its adult skills, in order to survive. That need of care is its mechanism of survival and one of its distinguishing characteristics. This pertains to the "animal" part of the definition and it is a fundamental part of the concept "mammal," which is basically what I understand "animal" to mean in the standard Objectivist definition. I certainly do not see the possibility of a rational fish, if one ever came about, ever being called a human being.)

If that is the concept of human nature used as basis for rights (i.e., rational without the animal), that basis is very problematic in logical terms.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael,

Numerous times during this thread, you've made remarks about "positive" and "negative" rights which have left me mystified trying to imagine what you meant.

Here are just two examples from your posts to me. There are many other examples.

btw - Do you have any opinion about the derivation of rights, or do you prefer to accept the positive/negative rights model as a predigested metaphysical given that needs no thought?

Ellen,

I have no idea what you mean by rights except the predigested positive/negative form you use without qualification. Better stated, I have no idea on what basis you derive your concept of rights.

I hadn't a clue what you meant by your descriptions "predigested metaphysical given" and "predigested positive/negative form you use without qualification."

It's starting to glimmer that somehow you see the division of rights into "postive" and "negative" as a threat to your ideal goal pertaining to the status of children.

But how else would you suggest rights be divided? What other type-category is there in your view?

Rights 101 again:

A "right" of one person imposes a corresponding "obligation" on others. There are only two types of such obligation which could correspond to a right: Either to do something FOR or refrain from doing something TO the other person, i.e., positive and negative forms of rights.

This division holds no matter what specific rights are considered to pertain in a given approach. If we're talking about the supposed divine rights of kings, there are still positive and negative possibilities. If we're talking about the paterfamilias system of ancient Rome, there are still positive and negative possibilities. If we're talking about Islamic law, likewise. Whatever specifics a given group of people lists as their rights.

So I see no threat to your goals simply from the division into positive and negative. The threat for you is the embargo in O'ist/libertarian/classical-liberal rights theory against positive rights, not in the categorization itself.

Ellen

___

[Brant Gaede]

all legal rights have to be moral. Morality is about control, BTW. Suasion or the club.

Eeek! Double eeek! (runs away with hair on fire)

:frantics:

Wolf, we have to get together someday and buy each other a drink.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

What is this business about threat?

There are no threats with me in this issue. What on earth are you talking about?

I am discussing definitions. What threat can exist in defining things? There is only identification. Anyone who is threatened by a proper identification is being irrational. Threat is about the furthest thing from my mind at the moment.

Qua definition, it is meaningless to define an organism (infant) as needing care, then derive a positive and negative rights model from that, with positive being the equivalent of evil. By definition, the organism needs care to survive.

It is a contradiction to claim that negative rights are based on its means of survival when negative rights and nothing else would kill it. (Hello... certain death is not survival nor any means thereof... ) Those negative rights do not derive from the infant's means of survival. They derive from the means of survival of other organisms (adults).

Once again, there is that stolen concept. One concept (rational volition as means of survival) is used as grounds to derive another concept (negative rights), then the original concept (rational volition) is excluded when we get to the negative rights of infants, which is said to include the right to life. But that is not looking at reality. In reality, in talking about infants, negative rights only include the right to death because the infant's means of survival is not part of the concept. Life and means of survival (of the infant) do not enter the picture as a value on which to base rights at that moment. Don't forget that the Objectivist definition of rights includes being based on human nature, which is defined fundamentally in terms of means of survival.

Another standard needs to be found for the logic to work in this case.

If you want to stay on the NIOF level, instead of saying an infant has a right to life, knowing that such a right is not based on the infant's nature (means of survival), but on the adult's instead (rational volition), why not say the infant has a right to be protected against invasive aggression and only that? And while you're are at it, if you want to go whole hog, that this is merely a courtesy provided by adults? (I'm serious. I am talking about logic.) If the infant starves to death, that is not a proper issue of rights.

It sounds terrible and I do not see this convincing many people, but it is now logically correct in terms of developing without contradiction from a premise. (I do not agree with such a premise, but that is another issue.) I bet it would convince more people than the present contradiction does—due to logical consistency alone.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Contempt should be reserved for the person who claims that children, old people and sick people have more value to human existence than heroic producers. That person should be the target for contempt, not the person who claims that children, old people and sick people need to be cared for and should be. We all go through these states in our lifetimes so I think it is silly to belittle them or ignore them in our ethics.

Yet I constantly see flack on Objectivist forums being given to those who stand up for children, old people and sick people. And the critics constantly miss the point and usually misrepresent the views of the person they criticize. (I have followed several discussion on other forums where this is blatant, with nonstop mocking and so forth thrown in for effect.)

Michael,

Your description is so insulting and so unfair. You have loaded it in a way which presents a narrow and false picture of the options. Who here is saying that "children, old people and sick people" don't "need to be cared for"? Or that they shouldn't be cared for -- by those personally related, or whose work it is to provide care? What we're saying is that persons shouldn't be forced to provide care, unless they're in a contractually obliged relationship to those in need.

And your going on with your "those who stand up for children" description. You mean you? Your manner of conducting yourself in the RoR threads was pretty poor; the flak you were getting wasn't because of your standing up for children. Had you not come at the whole thing the way you did, even in that group you wouldn't have received the reception you got.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael, re your post #267, my head is back to swimming reading that. What ARE you talking about? I will re-read it tomorrow and see if I find it comprehensible then, but on first reading it's like a mish-mash of assorted terms thrown together attempting to say what, I do not know.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And your going on with your "those who stand up for children" description. You mean you?

Ellen,

What part of "followed several discussion on other forums" was difficult to understand? Did I say I was talking about myself? I no longer post on other Objectivist forums, except very rarely. (I didn't choose that, either.)

I am talking about other people in much more recent discussions than two years ago on back. Is that clearer?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, re your post #267, my head is back to swimming reading that. What ARE you talking about? I will re-read it tomorrow and see if I find it comprehensible then, but on first reading it's like a mish-mash of assorted terms thrown together attempting to say what, I do not know.

Ellen,

Give it the old college try. Once it hits you, you get a "eureka!" moment.

You might even discover that I am talking about logical consistency of definitions and not preaching.

(Sorry. I couldn't resist...)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

The perception these people have of Objectivists is precisely what I have been complaining about. The general view is that Objectivists don't care about children, old people and sick people unless they are one of them. I am not talking about small sites, either. These are sites with huge amounts of traffic.

I have thought about engaging some of these people and pointing them to here to show that this is not true. I know what will happen, though, so I don't do it. They will find great quotes here to provide grounds for their criticisms.

OL is low traffic. These places are high. Who will gain by this?

That is one reason (not the main one, though) why I bother to discuss this issue and insist on keeping the focus on human nature under Objectivism. I want to do that, too, until the concept becomes broad enough to include children (at the very least).

Probably the most frustrating part of all of this is what I see to be a HUGE misunderstanding. Rand's philosophy is a hymn to the glory of human potential and a call to personally strive to attain higher and higher achievements.

I do not take this to mean that one should feel contempt or indifference for children, old people and sick people. On the contrary, my reason leads me to understand that these people are to be loved and cared for. One day that was or will be me.

Contempt should be reserved for the person who claims that children, old people and sick people have more value to human existence than heroic producers. That person should be the target for contempt, not the person who claims that children, old people and sick people need to be cared for and should be. We all go through these states in our lifetimes so I think it is silly to belittle them or ignore them in our ethics.

Yet I constantly see flack on Objectivist forums being given to those who stand up for children, old people and sick people. And the critics constantly miss the point and usually misrepresent the views of the person they criticize. (I have followed several discussion on other forums where this is blatant, with nonstop mocking and so forth thrown in for effect.)

Maybe an extreme comparison would be of value to illustrate this. If I had to make an impossible choice between saving the life of a productive genius or an infant, I would save the productive genius without even thinking about it and not feel a twinge of guilt, although I would probably be devastated by sadness or grief for the loss of the child.

I value both.

Greatly.

I simply value the productive genius more.

Just because I am now working on how to frame an infants rights or clarify the "animal" (genus) part of human nature to help frame it, this does not mean I value the productive genius any less or wish to stifle him. This is not an either-or issue. But I have seen it treated as such more often than not.

I don't intend to back down. And, as I mentioned before, I will probably end up publishing a theoretical work on this somewhere.

Michael

EDIT: I can't resist a barb, although it is a tangent. You should see the trainwreck James Valliant's participation was on the Richard Dawkins forum. Valliant was there as a self-proclaimed spokesman for defending Objectivism. He was almost laughed off the forum. (He also had a little push from some of the people who post here. But the few scientific people who engaged him didn't take long to dismiss him as a crackpot.)

Michael,

You are confusing generalities with particulars. My 93 year-old mother is unlikely to live another 3 months. She is alive today because of me, but I can't make her heart do a better job nor can her doctor. I talked to him today. If he really could help her he wouldn't have said bring her in for her next appointment (in three weeks) instead of bring her in now unless she worsens. I value my mother more than the "productive genius" you allude to. I've been steeped in and surounded by genius all my life--I may even be one myself, I honestly don't know, but not particularly "productive." Aren't you being little utilitarian here? As for the child, your child?

You may be smarter than me, I don't know, we are certainly different, but your fingers are sometimes faster than your brain while the opposite is true of me giving me the advantage. But I don't seek, need or want an advantage. That's not my focus. I wish you'd slow down a bit and make room for more contemplation and evaluation. You've always struck me as a man with too much food in his mouth not realizing it. Not only is there more in heaven and hell than in your philosophy--there is more in your head than you can adequately deal with spontaneously or off the cuff. We are both generalists, but I am more modest. The older I get the more modest I get. And the better I get, frankly. This is not necessarily saying much, for the content needs good independent evaluation.

As for the amount of traffic, it means no more than the peak circulation of The Objectivist eventually meant much of anything. For instance, I am not not on that other forum. I doubt Ghs is either. Life's too short and I'm too good. You need a higher opinion of yourself and OL.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

My 93 year-old mother is unlikely to live another 3 months. She is alive today because of me, but I can't make her heart do a better job nor can her doctor. I talked to him today. If he really could help her he wouldn't have said bring her in for her next appointment (in three weeks) instead of bring her in now unless she worsens. I value my mother more than the "productive genius" you allude to.

Brant,

I should have qualified my example. I was talking about strangers, not loved ones. Obviously there is a lot of love accumulated over time and this weighs much more heavily in value judgments than intellect.

(I think I will just let the rest of your post be... )

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

My 93 year-old mother is unlikely to live another 3 months. She is alive today because of me, but I can't make her heart do a better job nor can her doctor. I talked to him today. If he really could help her he wouldn't have said bring her in for her next appointment (in three weeks) instead of bring her in now unless she worsens. I value my mother more than the "productive genius" you allude to.

Brant,

I should have qualified my example. I was talking about strangers, not loved ones. Obviously there is a lot of love accumulated over time and this weighs much more heavily in value judgments than intellect.

(I think I will just let the rest of your post be... )

Michael

Too much too drink. I didn't hit the "post" button but it posted anyway. I thought (hoped?) I'd lost it. Tomorrow I'll probably delete it. Good nite.

--Brant