softwareNerd

There's nothing wrong with being angry at the state of the world, as long as that does not ordinarily dominate your life. It's the same for most "negative" emotions: sadness, worry, loneliness and so on. Similarly, it is not second-handed to be happy when someone understands and acknowledges one's virtues, as long as you are not doing things for approval. Mary Ann Sures, in the book "Facets of Ayn Rand" says of Miss Rand: "When she died, someone made the following comment: now anger has gone out of the world. And I thought, it's true, and it's the world's loss, and mine." On the other hand, I think it was Dr. Peikoff who said how, after an evening where the conversation had been dominated by negatives (e.g. the bad state of the world), Ayn Rand would often not want to close on that note. Instead, she would want to change the topic to something of value: to end the evening on a positive note. [if someone could provide a reference to this comment, I'd appreciate it.] It is not surprising that students of Objectivism are angry at the state of the world and at the things they have been taught all their lives. Also, it is not surprising for some to wonder: can I practice a philosophy that is so radically different, without being in constant battle with people around me? From what I've seen, for serious Objectivists the negatives only "go down so far". They realize that it is their life that is primary, and they must figure out how to make the most of it. In a 1997 Objectivist conference, there was a panel discussion about the economy. A question about the practicality of Objectivism was put to John Allison. As a CEO of a company with a market cap of over $ 20 billion, he is an imminently practical man. Here is what he said: "I sense that a lot of Objectivists view their belief in Objectivism almost as a burden." He then comments that one might be able to make such a case if one were choosing to be an evangelist for Objectivism or if one were entering academia, though he believes it is exaggerated in those contexts too. Then, he said this: "I think in business it is a huge advantage... when you make logical decisions...you have a huge competitive advantage." (Emphasis in original) [source: "The State of the Economy: A Panel Discussion" - Allison, Brook & Salsman] In summary: feel the occasional negative; then, get over it... and put the huge competitive advantages to work.

I realize this thread is about the purpose of a blog, but I wanted to ask if anyone here has compared different blogging sites. I looked for comparison charts on the web, but could not find any. Mainly: what features would one get by choosing Blooger over BlogLines, or LiveJournal over those two?

The government would "call upon" the property of its citizens? What does that mean? Would the government ever have those resources in its possession? Would the government ever have cash that it is "calling upon", before it gives it to its contractors? Would it ever possess property? Would the government simply be setting up some barter between its donating citizens and its contractors? Whatever else your suggestions may be, they have nothing to do with Objectivism! Eric, I'll ask again, because you probably missed it the first time:, I'm not certain what you're getting at. Are you saying that AR was inexact in one particular sentence? Or, are you saying that she actually meant that government must operate with an institutional balance sheet that always strictly has all its assets exactly balanced by an equal amount of liabilities -- that anytime someone gives the government money, the government must immediately give it away or take on an equal liability? Or are you saying that Ayn Rand did not say this -- but that you do?

Because this is not the essential. The context is this: how do different political systems vary in their ideas of property-ownership? In a monarchy, all rights flow from the monarch. All property is owned ab initio by the monarch. The monarch may give some of this property to private individuals and institutions. In a socialist/communist system, all property is ab initio owned by the "public". The government, in its role as public representative, may give some of this property to private individuals and institutions. In a Capitalist system, all property is ab initio owned by private individuals or private institutions. These owners may then give some of this property to the government. In a socialist system, the govenment has a claim to the income you earn. They can take any amount of it away in the form of tax. Whatever you keep is by the wish of government. In this sense, all property is owned, ab initio by the government and disposed off by the discretion of government. In a Capitalist system, the individual has sole claim to the income he earns. It is owned by the individual. The individual has the right to give it to the government, or to any other institution, voluntarily. In the context of an explanation of property rights, and in the context of Ms. Rand's explicit support for a functioning and effective government, the meaning appears clear. Indeed,it is similar to saying: "Morally, all property is owned by the producer." Understood in the context of an explanation of the fundamentals that give rise to the right of property, this statement is true. It does not imply somehow that a producer's mooching child may not inherit his property. Eric: I'm not certain what you're getting at. Are you saying that AR was inexact in one particular sentence? Or, are you saying that she actually meant that government must operate with an institutional balance sheet that always strictly has all its assets exactly balanced by an equal amount of liabilities -- that anytime someone gives the government money, the government must immediately give it away or take on an equal liability? Or are you saying that Ayn Rand did not say this -- but that you do?

There'll always be opportunities for someone to be evil.

As asked the answer is simple: according to the Objectivist ethics this is specifically immoral because the Objectivism says it is immoral to initiate violence against another person. This is regardless of the existence of a government or other retaliatory force. Frankly, for a religious person, the above answer ought to be sufficient. This is our edict. So there! However, some religious people have this habit of taking their edicts on faith, while asking us to validate ours.. very odd! However, for your own understanding, it is pretty important to understand why Objectivism says what it does, and how it validates it. David gave you one pointer. It would help if you could give us some background (perhaps in the "Intros" sub-forum) about what material you have already read. And... welcome to the forum, Daniel.

Ariana, Your reply is really a critique of Objectivist polemic rather than of Objectivism itself. This is different from the issue raised in your original post. Which of the following are you saying (if either): 1) That Objectivist writing talks a lot about the evil in the world and did not show you enough of the good. (I'm sure there is scope for a more explicitly "self-help" book for students of Objectivism; perhaps, someone will write one some day.) ... or ... 2) That Objectivism -- after you have understood it to the extent you have -- does not give you any ideas of how to pursue the happiness. Are you saying that Objectivism convinced you to stop doing some things that used to bring you happiness, but you do not know what else to to instead? Why not just do anything that makes you happy, as long as it is rational too? Is it conflict you feel ("everything I like is irrational") or is it emptiness ("I don't know what will make me happy")?

Here is how I understand Objectivist position: 1) Property is not ab initio "public" in the sense of being owned by "society" until some individual rightfully claims it. (see "The Property Status of Airwaves" - in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal"). Property is ab initio either not owned by anyone or owned by individuals. It may be legitimately disposed of only with the consent of the owner. 2) Capitalism requires a government, with a certain legitimate role. Objectivism rejects anarchy and the idea of "competing governments". ("Nature of Government", mentioned above). Government is not simply an institution that is tolerated under Capitalism, it is an institution that is required. 3) Government financing should be voluntary. Considering the entire context, let's ask this question: If I volunteer to give the government $1,000 and they take it, who owns it? Do I continue to own it, or is it owned by the institution? If the transaction is legitimate, the money is now the property of the institution: i.e. of the government. Philosophically, the government may use the money collected in the form of tax in any way that contributes to its legitimate function. Separately, the philosophy of law would need to work out how to implement a system of voluntary contributions and of government expenditures. Sadly, we're far away from the time when we'd have to consider the details of this issue. perhaps after we have rolled back the last 100 years of increasing government control and ownership, we'll have a hearty debate of just where to stop.

Did someone contend that the U.S. dropped the bomb in order to kill the children of Hiroshima? If so, they're mistaken.

Actually, this is not unique to Capitalism. Under any system all property would be privately owned except for the property that is not privately owned.

I agree that Objectivists sometimes have to "work off" their old habits and automatized feelings. At the same time, it is important to question every perceived "life vs. philosophy" conflict to ensure that the issue is really a question of philosophy. My previous post in the thread might have been slightly abstract. So, I thought it would be useful to compile a short list of some examples. Discussing the specifics of any particular example would deserve a separate thread. Indeed, some of them have already threads of their own. So, these examples are meant to highlight the types of issues, not to discuss any particular one. Here they are (written in the first person to add a tone of introspection): [ begin conflicts ] "I've always hated big cities. I really don't want to live in a skyscrapers. I appreciate what went into making this city; but I really don't like the city-experience. Does that make me anti-achievement? anti-man?" "I like Beethoven or Zappa or Heavy Metal. Is that wrong? I like some Rachmaninoff; but much of his music leaves me cold. Does that mean I have not integrated a proper aesthetics?" "I've always admired adventurers. It has long been my ambition to climb K2. But, it's risky and it really isn't productive. I could even die; does that make it anti-life?" "I've always been quite happy with my minivan, but an Objectivist I respect says that the only men who drive them are hen-pecked husbands who have subjugated themselves to the needs of others. Is this true? Am I being selfless?" "Am I dishonest if I accept a government scholarship? What about the public library? Am I a hypocrite?" "I don't exercise much. I never go to the gym. I even have the beginnings of a belly. My parents and grandparents were all overweight; compared to them, I'm doing well. But, there is no reason why anyone must remain overweight. Am I evading?" "I really want to be an inventor, but if I follow my dream who will profit? Won't I be helping the moochers? Should I give up and shrug?" "I like certain porn, but what rational reason do I have to do so? I can stop looking at it, but that still does not stop me wanting to. Is it okay to view it until I find a real woman? Am I rationalizing? Evading reality? Being irrational?" "I'm homosexual. I don't know if I can change. I agree with everything else about Objectivism. If man is born tabula rasa, surely my lifestyle is a choice I make. Then, how do I justify it?" "I've always wanted to be a prosecutor and help bring criminals to justice. Now that I've read Ayn Rand, I wonder if I have to change the central purpose of my life so as not to enforce immoral laws." "I just read a list of 'top 10 things Objectivists say...', and thought it was funny. But, humour is a way of mocking something, so I probably should not have found it funny if I really respected Objectivism. Is my laughter destructive? Do I harbor an unacknowledged contempt for my philosophy? For myself?" "I wish there were more Objectivists I could talk to. Sometimes, it feels I'm all alone. I wonder if I am the problem. Isn't loneliness a sign that I need others? Am I being second-handed?" "I've been depressed lately. Does that reflect on my character? I finally saw a doctor about it and he prescribed some pills. Should I take them? If I'm rational, wouldn't I be able to resolve this myself?" "Objectivism has some wonderful premises and very logical and rational principles that one ought to follow. But sometimes I wonder, just how realistic is it?" "When I go out with my friends, they never want to talk about anything serious. It's all small talk or worse. I'm always arguing with them. They want me to 'chill out sometimes'. Are they evil? Am I being needy in associating with such people? Is it practical to expect I can deal with such a non-Objectivist environment? " "My teacher is always saying something stupid, and I'm always arguing. I tell myself it will hurt my grades and that I should back off. Isn't it wrong to back off? Don't I need to stand up for what I believe in. Isn't silence a sanction? Even if I decide to keep shut, I end up seething with anger. Surely, Objectivism is not practical for getting an A on an English paper." "Ever since I understood Objectivism, I no longer enjoy novels and movies the way I used to. Previously, I could enjoy a well-made movie and not notice its minor flaws. Now, so many movies have little things that rankle. Even if I know, intellectually, that the movie is pretty good, it usually contains something that spoils it for me." "I thought it would be great fun when I heard there was a group of Objectivists in my city. Yet, it felt a bit empty. The discussions were useful, but I often felt I could not be frank about my questions. And the party our club organized was a let down. Instead of simply having fun, it was one long rant about the evil state of the world." "I really don't know what I should do about this. Should I ask for advice in such an important issue? Roark wouldn't. Am I being a Peter Keating?" "I did something wrong yesterday -- a white lie. I was embarrassed about something I said to X and I lied. I said I didn't meant it that way. Then, Y and Z turned on me and said it I was showing a terrible psychological weakness. I felt hurt, but I guess I deserved it. I wish they could be more polite, but I suppose it's wrong for me to expect that. They were right to be brutally honest -- they're Objectivists too." [ end conflicts ] [Caveat repeated: The above is to demonstrate types of issues and not meant to prompt discussion of the specific issues themselves.] Some of these issues are addressed in Objectivist literature. Others have been addressed in forums such as these. Some may be real conflicts and something a person must change about themselves. Others are simply an issue of optional values. Still others are misunderstandings about Objectivism. Thanks to a Forum such as this one, folks can (sometimes) work these things out more easily, because others may have thought through the same issue already. With all that said, I'd like to ask the original poster, Ariana, this: you are not sure if Objectivism has made you any happier. Well, what has been its impact? Has it had no impact at all? Has it made some aspects happier and others less happy? If so, what are examples of the latter?

When I saw it, I did not think "this is beautiful". The form itself didn't "speak to me". What I felt was: "Wow! What audacity to have conceived of this!"

Welcome! Love the mouse!

Mr. Salsman also wrote a 3-part article titled "The Causes and Consequences of the Great Depression" in "The Intellectual Activist". The issues, and sub-titles of the parts are: June 2004: "What Made the Roaring 20's Roar" July 2004: "How the Welfare State Caused the Great Depression" Aug 2004: "Roosevelt's Raw Deal"

Seeing a huge barge-like ship go through a lock (e.g. in the 'Great Lakes') is pretty neat. You see the ship come in one end and then this huge object is lifted up (or down). Some locks even have trips where you can take a boat through them. I like some bridges too: Golden Gate is "passe", but I do like it. The Chesapeake Bay bridges/tunnels were cool too.

Ofcourse not! To deny existence and reality, you deny your existence. Is that so hard to understand?

Imagine someone deletes a post by Allen. Imagine the conversation: Allen: "Who deleted my post?" Mod: "Post? What post?" Allen: "My post. Don't you know what a post is? Who deleted it?" Mod : "I'm not quite sure what a post is? Is 'posted' a verb for post? Are you sure you 'posted', whatever that means?" Allen: "Ofcourse I'm sure. Are you blind? I have several posts in this thread. But, the last one is missing." Mod: "Sorry, my faith shows this thread mostly has water-melons, and a few dots. Ofcourse, you might see posts. Be patient, maybe someone will come along and have a faith that matches yours. All the best." Allen: Sure you didn't see any? Mod: I wouldn't be able to recognize them if I did, but I tried various colored glasses, and see nothing outside my own known reality. Allen: Well, thanks for trying! I guess I'll have to wait. Mod: You might try the Kantian forum. Legend says that threads that exist in this world have a form that exists there too. Who knows, maybe it works for "posts" too. Allen: Thanks for the tip.

This earlier discussion (over 5 pages) about orphans is probably relevant to your question.

They "publish" many articles by conservatives, not just by Objectivists. If you understand that context, you'll be fine.

Welcome to the forum, Sascha. What Objectivist books have you read?

No, but it's the same issue, expressed differently: what is logic? If you think of it as "a thingie" or some game played with propositions... well, it is probably best not to discuss it. But then, what is "it"...how can I say "it" if I assume reality does not exist.

Ariana, That was a very candid statement. You have not said whether you were happy anyway, before you discovered Objectivism; or if you were looking for happiness and did not find it in Objectivism. Take an example of a happy person who lives his life pretty much in accordance with an Objectivist ethics. What could Objectivism give him? I think that by making the implicit more explicit, it would give him a certainity and understanding that he previously lacked. I think such a person would be bound to encounter situations in life where his implicit philosophy would be insufficient. Having an explicit philosophy gives him immense confidence. On the other hand, there could be an example of a person who has a more mixed reaction to Objectivism. He agrees with the philosophy. However, he discovers what he thinks (rightly or wrongly) are conflicts between the philosophy and himself. Previously, "ignorance was bliss", now that he is "wise", he is obliged to change. Perhaps he liked some movie; now, he realizes that it espoused many evil ideas. Suddenly Objectivism acts as a killjoy. The perceived conflicts may be real: maybe the person needs to stop stealing music, stop using LSD, or whatever. Sometimes, however, people mistake the line where the philosophy stops and optional values begin. It would be odd not to encounter such perceived conflicts. The only question is how one deals with them. Ideally, one resolves them. On the other hand, one might repress the "real you". Alternatively, one might guiltily continue doing something that one thinks is wrong. If the conflict is not real, the repression or guilt will necessarily decrease one's overall happiness. The other type of "conflict" or "alienation" that one might experience is with other people. One now has a newly acquired sense of right and wrong, coupled with a validation of the idea that one should judge people. This can impact relationships with previous friends. Again, the perceived conflicts may be real or not, and it can take time to resolve them. Resolving these issues can take time: a year, more than a year, less... I do think, however, that as one starts to resolve a few such issues, it becomes progressively easier to resolve others. In that way, one moves from ignorance, through conflict, to understanding: toward the pursuit of happiness.

What is proof? As I understand it, to prove something is to demonstrate that it is true (i.e. that it corresponds to reality). Proof does not always require demonstrating that a proposition is valid, based on other propositions. That is only a special case of proving something. For Allen, "proof" means something else. It means: demonstrating that something corresponds to his faith.

I've got that covered. Sure. And, I do not really disagree about the cigarette case. I really do not have the facts a jury would need (for instance, I had no idea of the "cough in a carload" slogan.) A related issue is the whole idea of suing firms who did something in good faith and with the best science and knowledge of their time, only to discover later that they were wrong and their product was harmful. The question becomes: can a person be called negligent if they acted in a way that a cautious, rational man would act. Perhaps that's a different thread.

This is an unfair representation of Allen's posts. He denies the existence of reason as such. Allen denies the existence of reality and truth. In effect, he is denying the existence of argument. So, I have no idea why he is here. Do not say this is an ad hominem. To be such, we'd have to assume the existence of a person.