Proverb

This is a bit tangential but, having been to the movies lately, I had a distinct twitch of the heart when the trailer for M. Night Shyamalan's "The Happening" ran. It doen't really fit on all accounts but if you take it with a grain of salt you could imagine that whatever "the happening" is could be the event discribed by the disappearence of all the producers in the country ala Atlas Shrugged. I guess it's just neat that this disaster type angle could actually work for an adaptation of Atlas Shrugged. One part in the trailer has the protagonist asking a bunch of train conductors "What do you mean you've lost contact? Lost contact with who?" to which one of the conductors says "Everyone." heh I thought that was neat. >>>>>>MENTIONED TRAILER<<<<<<

I agree with this and wanted to comment on how much of an uphill battle it will be to change the corporate world in this regard. There is a very large amount of positive reinforcement of the idea of doing business anywhere despite philosophical dissonance. There are the shareholders who don't hold a discerning view on doing business in bad places and in my opinion the majority of which are too short sighted to understand the albeit subtle but ominous long term results of doing so. Then there are the business people who are rightfully devoted to increasing stock value, but only in the "dollar amount" sense, and not in a way that will the promote integrity and in some ways the lasting saftey of the business, shareholders, and their headquarters. I am tempted to say that a wellspoken CEO could hold a company to higher standards but because the nature of publically held companies the only way to change the philosophical foundation of a corporation is to change the philisophical foundation, namley the public. Though it could happen that an American company like Starbuck would take a stand and refuse to do business in places that largely contain bad people, I don't think corporate business people, however philosophically sound, have the power to promote ethical business practices across the board. (no pun intended)

It's important to understand when you are asking a psychological question as opposed to a philosophical one. To me it seems as though you are asking a psychological question in asking if your propensity for exercise in times of sexual inactivity is something that seems to be replacing sex in your life. As I both disclaim any training in psychological practice and offer advice in the area I have one thing to say: We are all rational animals. And in my view, though 'rational animal' is one concept, it's easy to lose sight of one half or the other. Namely, allowing 'rational' to totally outweigh and blind the 'animal' and vise versa. Which is what it seems you are doing in being nearly repulsed by sex unless you feel you have found your ideal. In other words, and relating to this subject, as I have found in my own experience it's easy to allow the thought of sex as a deep emotional celebration between two people become the only definition of the act to such an extreme that it makes enjoyment of any physical activity nearly impossible. This seems to me in most cases due to trying to judge whether any possible physical encounter is representative of one's ideal situation. Try allowing your judgement be a bit more realistic. It's not as though I'm in some way advocating a hedonistic outlook on sex, as in doing it just 'cause it feels good. I'm just saying for instance that it should not be as though you will only hug someone if you have an emotional connection to them, or that you are only going to kiss someone you love. In the same way it shouldn't be thought of as though it's immoral to have sex with someone who is not your "ideal life mate." Yes, there should be a rational and emotional catalyst but it doesn't necessarily need to be philosophically ideal.

The problem with your question is that it is acontextual. If you ask a question about a hyptheical that has two very different contexts invovled (in this case: knowing only that Trein was on a collision course, and then knowing that there was an astroid that would divert it.) you cannot attempt to ask the same question about the whole hypothetical and expect to get a meaningful answer. In other words: If you ask me, "was Trein ever on a collision course with earth, or not?" You are expecting me to know everything that there is, or ever was, to know about Trein. Which is impossible, I'm not omnipotent, I don't (read: can't) know reality as a whole and I don't know the state of being of all things at all points in time. I can only know about reality what I have observed. Your question about the astroids, in a more general sense, plays to the idea of knowing 'reality' as opposed to knowing 'what you know' which in fact is a false separation of the nature of knowledge. All knowledge is contextual. As far as 'we' knew in your hypothetical, at first, Trein was on a collision course with earth and we acted accordingly because that was the nature of reality as we knew it. However, as soon as the other astroid was discovered and the scope of our knowledge about the nature of reality was expanded we then knew that Trein wasn't on a collision course. It is incorrect to ask questions about reality, you can only ask one what he knows about it.

The Article in Question Things like this make me very happy. It's all to often that I dismiss the idea of anyone but a small group of people having rational ideals.

I understand the analysis going on here but I have to say that, if nothing else, the movie was the most visually stunning movie to date in my opinion.

There are very few things in life that come naturally. No one has to tell you how to breathe, be hungry, or cry for help. These are things that you learn because you are alive and wish to stay that way. Life is a constant adaptation to your surroundings and of your mind to stay in line with the necessities of life. Many people would think this list of things stops at a relatively young age. I contest however that there are far more significant things to think about that come at a later age. Companionship is one of them. No one has to tell you to not want to be alone. No one has to say that it is possible to find someone you can't get enough of. This is something that comes naturally, without warning, and reminds you that you are alive. Independence is another. There are multiple parallels in nature for the desire to 'jump the nest' as it were. The desire to be one's own captain is something that comes naturally. As if your body has had enough and wants to pull you off the cliff and force you to fly. I have found in the last couple months of my life that I have this undying twinge in my mind; this unrelenting feeling of flight in my heart that says simply "Go!!" It's really lifted me out of this hole I've been in the past year. I finally feel as though I can take to the world and find the things in it that are mine and have them. This has been especially acute lately as I have applied for job that I qualify for that if I get, will allow me to have a brand new car, a place of my own, and the freedom to go to school again. I honestly feel alive. As with every natural desire, be it hunger, the desire for a companion, or the pent up yearning to start one's life, one's actions must be tempered by thought. You can't go and eat mushrooms to quite your hunger, you can't sell your soul to have someone with you, and you can't live on your own without paying your bills. This is when it becomes important to remember all the trials and tribulations that one lives through before this course of nature. Remember the things that happened how they changed you and what the taught you about the nature of life so that when you finally decide to Go! you can do so with confidence and with the ability to drink it all up and quiet, if only for a moment, that thirst for life!

I like this post. I think that you could easily expand it and add a bit more artistic commentary to make it an effective Op-Ed piece. I agree with you in spirit but I'm curious as to what enemy you believe deserves the first strike. What justification do we have for attacking an enemy whom may be tyrannous though not against us? What is the direct benefit to the American people that is drawn from an all out war on an abstract such as "Tyranny and Injustice" which may not directly threaten us. I understand that fighting against these things can yield an overall benefit in the long term but, as you provide a call for, what is it that you think could rouse the world's freedom fighters to risk their lives and change the face of the planet?

Are you saying that a robust philosophical environment is necessary to a robust capitalistic economy?

I'm very interested to hear why you think the material itself is politically skewed. Yes, I understand that it is part of a philanthropic effort by bank of america and that the creators may have a bit of lean to them. However, I feel the show itself is very even-handed and served its purpose of inspiring awe and respect for nature if not simply for the sake of it. I don't think that the series intended to go into the history of the planet but more a view of the planet as it is now.

Ok, it dosen't seem like anyone has actually adressed the question that mb121 is asking, and I haven't had alot of time to read other threads to see if there is a place to read up on this. As I understand it, you're asking "Why is it bad/immoral/evil for a man to steal, cheat, or otherwise mooch off of anyone at anytime if he can get away with it and will not be wrought with guilt?" Bad/immoral/evil is a judgement of morality, which is the measure of an actions fulfillment or detriment to life qua man. Objective morality and judging it is something that requires the highest consciousness of philosophy one might hope to attain in order have any foundation to stand on. There are actually two issues to adress in answering your question. One, you're actually asking two questions. You're asking why is it "immoral [...]" ect. which I'm assuming, because you're on an Objectivist forum, that you're asking about morailty in terms of an objective moral ethic. In which case it is clear that in a social human environment, it is never in one's self interest to cheat/steal/mooch in any sense of the word and in any interval of time. Now, I didn't support the last statement becuase that issue is covered extensively in this forum and is again being rehased above, but that's not the crux of your question as I understand it. The second question you're actaually asking, and the issue I seem to think you want adressed, is why is it bad for the moocher to steal/cheat/mooch. Well in short, It's not. Again bad/immoral/evil is a value judgement. And again you need a standard by which to judge something. In terms of the moocher you're asking, "Is 'mooching' immoral for the moocher and the answer is no, because one would have to judge those actions fulfillment or detriment of life qua mocher. Which if you're a moocher to begin with, it's a good thing to mooch, that's a moocher's philosophy and is the basis of his life qua moocher. wow I suddenly don't like the word "mooch" lol Everyone's actions are a very clear window to their philosophy, becuase it is philosophy that guides action albeit sometimes not as a conscious effort. I think the main problem you're having is asking the right question. It's not immoral for the moocher to mooch if you're talking about a moocher's philosophy. If you want to as why it is immoral to cheat/steal/mooch in a general sense then ask it, and read up in multiple threads here. I feel this post could be alot less wordy but I haven't the time to rehash it. I hope I can help.

My initial thought process in trying to put a finger on how long intellectual copyright should last is thinking about tangible property as opposed to intellectual property. Obviously, ownership of land or objects is indefinite, or I more rightly should be. I can't however see on the surface why this shouldn't be the case with intellectual property. But, as I think about the progression of time in relation to property I begin to see a bit of a divide between the two types of property, tangible/intangible. If I own a plot of land, it is a clearly marked, tangible and finite object. As time goes by in terms of lifetimes the nature of that tangible property essentially stays the same. Any person to infringe on said property does so in a definite way. i.e. "Get off my property." My head starts spinning when I try to apply the same thought process to intellectual property. If I invent something, write something, and literally conceive of anything that is unique, for that moment and for as long as I keep it to myself, it is mine just as much as a plot of land that I own. But considering that, for the most part, I cannot reap any tangible rewards in a market by just keeping an idea to myself, I have to share and divulge said ideas inasmuch as I want to trade it for value. A contract governing that trade can be any legal contract and as binding or liberal as the trade requires and as long as both parties abide, said property remains as legally 'owned' as a plot of land; and any infringement of contract by either party is a legal matter. It seems to me that any contract relating to intellectual property could be indefinite, and the legal use of said property could be governed into eternity. As long as an explicit licence is used. But since this is not the case today in terms of protecting intellectual property it seems that the law has put a compromise into the process by introducing a concept of a time limit on the ability to protect a piece of intellectual property. So, I can't think of why there should even be a time limit on copyright if at every turn, the trade of intellectual property is governed by an explicit license; giving that property as definite limit as a plot of land. Can you? I mean, I guess if some work or idea becomes so prominent in a group of people that one would not be justified in limiting all derivitive works or the simple use of the idea, because you can't control what people think.

Welcome to the forum by the way!

It is never, in the context of one's entire life, in one's interest to violate the rights of others. Yes, there may be situations where, if one considers only the next hour of one's existence, it might be in your interest to violate the rights of others. But morality and ethics are the rulers of action in one's life which doesn't go by in one hour spurts but as an entire arc spaning from birth to death.

Ethics and morality are the requirements of maintaining a fundamental choice, to live or to die. A person who is not just sitting in one spot waiting for his body to fail is implicitly proclaiming that he/she wants to live. In as much as this is the case, one must follow the requirements of that life, morality/ethics, which are defined by the interests of one's life. If you go around shooting people you are denying that a right to life exists which forfeits your own claim to it. It is in your life's interest to respect the right to life of others and the consequential rights derived from it. The things in Objectivism that seem as thought they are categorical imperatives are often simply based on a more fundamental level than one might think or are used to in whatever topic is being discussed. I haven't posted in a long time. How is everyone???