Dikaiosyne

Ok, point taken, I should have said professional. In my defense, from my point of view, one of the key lessons of Objectivisim is that the personal and philosophical realms are not divorced in any sigifinicant way. So, while personal and profesional maybe a valid split, It is easy to imagine that opinions from one, can form feelings in the other. So if professionally you disagree with everything a person has to say, looking at it from a personal point of view, and Objectivism is deeply personal for Rand, the word "hate" comes to mind. That may be a tad strong, considering the connotation of the word, I defend my choice. That said, I have not read Rand's specific essays on Kant, but at least from the lexicon, the impession of a personal distaste can be given.

Just a Note: The Wiki system, while normally excellent, is liable to vandalism and missrepentation. That last sentence (...does not contain some philosophical truths...) just seems to be a short smear job by some random coward. I would be interested to know what truths or "truths" they are talking about, in the name of constructive debate. But the Wiki system is not place for constructive debates... thats what Online Forums are for

Gee I guess I have a suggestive name Whatever You're Into, Get Into Dikaiosyne Show Me The Dikaiosyne! Clunk Click, Every Dikaiosyne. The Dikaiosyne Effect. Do You Eat The Dikaiosyne Last? For That Deep Down Body Dikaiosyne

This is just my memory, from who knows what History Channel special, but I remember that her maid/caretaker washed the sheets she died in before the police arrived on the scene. Although forensics are not what they are now, I am pretty sure that certain chemicals could be detected in blood-vomit-urine-sweat etc, if the y where available. Now what would have been found, we will never know, but they may have painted a different picture of the cause of death. So the maid was either in on it, or EXTREMELY disguided. That is all that I can remember, it was stashed away in the strange, funky details section of my head. I know too little about her death to otherwise to speculate.

This is the exact opposite problem I have. I am currently at a "Public Ivy" University and I have moved my major from psychology to philosophy. Good Luck finding anybody who will say that human beings have free will, or that there are any values independant of the subjective. As far as a specific degree, Look for Biopsychology and "Cognitive Neuroscience" classes, this is the true science side of psychology, away from the absurdist veins that run through some sections of the discpline. Avoid "Social Psychology" like the plague, and make sure to determine what is the "philosophy" of any Abnormal Psych proffessors you may have. The Culture surrounding my psych department was very leftist, and Anti-Objectivist, and I simply could not live inside of it. The Philosophy department at least recongizes that humans can have thoughts, and act in a moral way, even though there is much disagreement and conflict in the whole, but there is lots of room for that disagreement and conflict to lead to the truth, and much less chance a dissenter will be punished for their beliefs.

<--- Video Game Addict Definition of Addiction: Food, Sleep, Social Contact, "Real Achievement" < Game I love RPGs and Strategy Games, plus Some Sports Games The My Newest Addiction is Civ 4, still need to mod it to have a Philosophic/Industrial Civ Past Favourites Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic 1 and 2 Vampire: The Masquarade Bloodlines Rome: Total War Galactic Civizations EA's Madden Series, NHL, and MVP Baseball Baldur's Gate Civilization 2

This kind of hit me in a roundabout way. First of all, I picked up Civilization 4 and it has been consuming vast portions of my time. My only complains so far is the lack of a "Philosophical/Industrial" Civ to flex my Objectivist muscles on, and that Alexander (the Macedonean) is the only leader the Greeks have to offer (Where is Perocles!). One of the things this game has is a magnificent soundtrack, and when I reached the Industrial Era, it started playing Dvorak's New World Symphony and I remembered just how much I loved that piece of music, and has re-opened my thrist for classical music, in addition to the modern pop music I love so much. So I was just wondering what some of the people on this board, who seem to have very good taste in everything else, favourite pieces of classical were. I know there is a "Favourite Music" Thread, but I was wondering specifically about that of a classical variety. Mine: The New World Symphony by Dvorak (as mentioned above) Beethoven's 7th Symphony Wagner's Die Walkurie

Wow, Who saw this coming? Paul DePodesta and Theo Epstein both out as the GMs of the Dodgers and the Red Sox, respectively. I know that all things have their season, but is a purely analytical mode of thought in Baseball going to survive? Is this a huge blow to the "Moneyball" camp? Will these two teams be successfull after the departure of the regimes? Will Superman get to Lois Lane in Time! (Sorry getting a little melodramatic here). My Take: If there is a winner here, its the Diamondbacks, inheriting most of the Red Sox Front Office below the severed neck. So take one step forward, and two steps back. Also the Toronto Blue Jays have to be happy, considering a key piece of the puzzle of the Yankee/Red Sox Hegemony of the AL East is gone, maybe we can have some more variety in the race in future years, with Epstein gone as GM, Leo Mazzone (another really, really piece of an off-the-field puzzle) Pitching Coach in Balitmore, the AL East is one of the more interesting divisions in baseball.

I personally love Hamlet, the classic hero who thinks too much. I have read Othello, Romeo and Juilet, and the Taming of the Shrew, all good, but Hamlet is my favourite.

I really cannot resist: In America, you can take a picture of the bridge. In Soviet Russia, Bridge can take a picture of you!

Ok, For Peak Oil Scenerios, It was my understanding that the problem was more or less a technological/economic one. I will more or less attempt to report in plain language what the theory is. For all Oil Fields, it stands to reason that the oil easiest to get out of the ground will be pumped out first, then the oil that is second most easy to get out of the ground, then third, etc, etc. The Same can be said of Oil Finds. The Oil that is Easiest to find will be the first tapped, the Oil that is second easiest the second, and again so on and so forth. The Economic Problem is, after a while it will not be rational and or cost effective to find any more oil, that is when the total costs of pumping one more barrel of oil exceed the price of that barrel. Now, supply and demand can only take care of the situation for awhile, with costs increasing and the price going skyward, before oil reaches a price that consumers are no longer willing to buy it at. And with the huge energy demands of our society, Energy is Life. A popular "factoid" of advocates of peak oil is that we are now more or less literally eating oil. That is, that the total non-renuable (non-solar) energy input from growth, manufacture, and transportation more or less equals the calorie output of whatever foodstuff is being manufactured. Energy interruption would be a death nell for the entire system. End Report The Problems with this scenario is that technology is assumed to be a constant, or at least (and most generously to the theorizers) develop at a constant rate. Say someone, lets call him Ellis Wyatt , makes oil much, much easier to find and to pump, then the model is broken and the peak pushed back 20 years. Also the problem is a demand side one as well. The model assumes an almost constant demand for fossil fuels into the near future. Development of alternative power sources can stem demand for fossil fuels, and eventually replace them like Rock Oil (petroleum) replaced Whale Oil.

Been Giving This A lot of Thought: I would like to Second Diane Kruger for Dagny, that is the perfect choice http://ads.skins.be/pics/DianeKrugeroXo008X1024.jpg <- Reference, its perfect, with the Jewelery, Furs, etc As For Hank Rearden, I would like to put the name, Loren Dean in to the mix. Kinda of a Character Actor Type, but with his rolls in Gattaca and Mumford I think he has the face and the actor moxie for the role I would also like to second Kevin Spacey as Jim Taggart, just the right bad-vibe is this for him. On the Same Note Cheryl would be perfectly played by Jewel Staite, the women who played the techinian in the film Serenity. Again its just Right Note of Knowing Innocence / Street Rat, but I might be Type-casting her. As for Galt, thats a Tall Order, Being basically the image of human and Masculine Perfection. Even with Bale, Its not quite there. Its nerve-racking even thinking about it. Other Characters/Actors will be posted when I come up with them

Pretty Much what I expected, Yeah For Kant and Bentham being less than 50%! 1. Ayn Rand (100%) <- Seems like Par for the Course 2. Nietzsche (86%) <- Has more in common with Rand then you may think 3. Aquinas (83%) <- The description given by the site seems like Aquinas was an objectivist through a Christian Lens, not bad 4. Aristotle (83%) <- Yeah! Have not read him but this seems like an indoursment 5. Jean-Paul Sartre (66%) <- I am sure that we have all had our Extenistial Moments 6. Epicureans (65%) <- Yeah Pleasure! 7. John Stuart Mill (64%) <- Probably comes from the "No, we need liberty statement" 8. Spinoza (63%) <- Determinist? Not my cup of tea 9. Cynics (53%) 10. St. Augustine (50%) 11. Kant (49%) <- Another Winner from the Objectst Bench 12. Plato (49%) 13. David Hume (47%) 14. Stoics (47%) 15. Ockham (46%) 16. Jeremy Bentham (43%) <- Evil Son-a-bitch 17. Prescriptivism (43%) 18. Thomas Hobbes (43%) <- Go away and take your Leviathan with you! 19. Nel Noddings (13%) <- Who? Reading the description, seems like a choice to placate any PC impulses It mostly comes from Rand's Personal Distaste (Hate?). Quoth Rand: "On every fundamental issue, Kant's philosophy is the exact opposite of Objectivism" (The Ayn Rand Lexicon page 235, original quote "Brief Summary," The Objectivist Sept. 1971) The Lexicon itself has 5 pages of Rand's Venom toward Kant if you want to check it out

Judging by a Wall-Street Journal Article Slashdoted awhile ago, Vista will have a lot more in common with Win 2k3, than XP. I think they have the same guy running this project as 2k3. Basically, they are desperately trying to avoid the quality problems that have plagued Windows in the Past, and trying to make a better product than either Mac's OSX, or the Open-Source Linux. They know they have a big credablity problem, and want Vista to address this. Although parts of the article seem like Report-o-tizing (kinda like what they did in Time with the XBOX360), it seems like they have their heads in the light instead of whatever nether regions they have been accused of them. (http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB112743680328349448,00.html?mod=todays_us_page_one is the link to the article, but its only for subscribers to the Journal Now)

Yeah! A mixed blessing: A. Finally an ALCS without the Yankees or Red Sox. Change is good. B. Considering what has already been said, announcer and media-wise, the Angels/White Sox Series is going to be a big bully-pulpet for "faith-based" baseball. C. Assuming the Astros beat the Cardinals this year, The 2005 World Series may set a record for most games decided by one-run (considering the offensive weakness and superior pitching of both the Angels and White Sox)

On That Note, who actually does "read" Playboy?

I have to throw my 2 cents in to the ring, to mix metaphors... Personally I love very pretty faces, the rest is simply a bonus , but the face is a must. And of course having a rationally creative brain behind that pretty face would be a dream come true. As far as particulars, Two of my personal favorites for feminine beauty are Keira Knightley and Estella Warren Knightley: http://ads.skins.be/pics/KeiraKnightley99vv_14_1024.jpg Warren: http://ads.skins.be/pics/EstellaWarRrr_-_04_1024.jpg Also Elizabeth Hurley and Maria Sharapova are very beautiful as well [Edited to replace a link. Matt]

Anybody have a favourite for the World Series? Philosophical or otherwise. Personally I was hoping for an A's / Yankees ALCS all summer, that is, two sucessful businesses in baseball competing for the American League Championship. It erks me when people say that the Yankees shouldn't win because they "buy" all their players. Money does not spend itself wisely, and for most of these players (A-Rod and Jason Giambi come to mind) they are being paid the market rate for their services. If these players can draw 4 million fans a year, why not spend $200 million dollars on them and compete for a championship every single year? The A's, infamous for their "Moneyball" philosophy, are the posterboys for "smart baseball." Although the religious war that that book started has become more a running joke to announcers and press, they are still one of the most cost-effective businesses in baseball. And they have also expanded on their intial metrics and still run their team based on exploiting market inefficiencies. I admit I don't know as much about the NL as I should, other than the Dodgers (run by former A's wunderkind, Harvard Grad and media whipping boy Paul DePosdesta) had their team fall apart on them. But just curious. Baseball seems to be the most intellectually digestable sport out of the Big Four (the others being Football, Basketball, and Hockey), and I think there are probably baseball fans lurking out here somewhere. Oh, and GO YANKEES!

For further reading on this subject for your own edifacation, try The Mating Mind by Geoffery Miller, probably it is available on Amazon. Its basic premise is that the human brain was the driving force of late human evolution, and is a very accessable resource on the subject.

I was wondering what people thought about this fantanstic movie. I am reluctant to talk about its philosophical implicatations for most of what is overly philosophical is revealed at the end of movie and is the pay-off of all the action and tension built, so I don't want to wreck it for anyone who has not seen the movie. Personality, I thought it was a very well put together drama and action movie, with plenty of value just in and of its art. The dialogue is masterfully done, with depth, irony, and wit. The characters are smart and not archtypal nothings plastered in a visually interesting universe. Instead they are interesting characters that make the story interesting despite relatively (to Star Wars and other modern sci-fi blockbusters) special affects. Also the heroes are motivated not by altruism, but by personal and logical motives, which goes a long way to spending disbelieve to allow the movie to work its charms. Again I don't want to wreck a wonderful movie, but when Kaylee says, "Screw this, I am going to live!" you know you are philosophically home. Anyone else have any critiques, praise, or just plain love for this movie?

Ok, as a First Time Poster, Ayn Rand-Fan and student of philosophy and economics, I have a question I want to pose that has been bothering me for sometime. Its one of those big, meaning of life style doosies, and I wanted to get some opinions on it. I don't claim to know everything, but this is what I have worked out so far. Ok, lets begin with the premise. The only way a government functions through the use of force. Laws, Taxes, Police, Military, Tariffs, all more or less legitimate tools of government are force. I believe that Ayn Rand made this point herself. I don't believe that any overly compansionate or irrational government can stand the test of time. Now, here is non-Randian part of my argument, which I believe that I can support. Actions to not take place in vacuum, and must have an object to act upon. But not all actions have just one object of action. Probably the best example here is pollution. Joe's Factory Poison's Bob's Farm, or in a less cliched example Bob's Farm (through pesticides and fertizilers) posions the water supply of a center of population. Although the product of the action (food, cars, whatever) maybe desirable, the affects of the action harm the neighbors of the actor through no ill-will, malice, or even sanctiion on the part of actor. Can something be done about these negative externalities? Wheras blowing up, or buying out the offensive actor maybe a wise individual action, but it may be immoral or impossbile. How is offensive actor's wants taken into consideration, and how can the actor's actions mediated so the other individuals are not harmed? Clearly some action must be taken. The Wise Action would be to insure individual's rights are protected without undo harm to either side. When somebody's actions are limited force is being used against them. So would the solution to this problem be the action of a Wise User of Force? So can Government ("good" government) be defined as the wise use of force? I believe this argument can be extended to law and foreign policy, the main arenas of traditional government. Wise Force can be used to protect the citizenery from their threats both public and private, and it would be in the best interests of the citizenary to yield to that Force? The main argument I can see is that Absolute Power (and governments do wield considerable power, both offically and unoffically) REVEALS Corruption (instead of breeds it) absolutely. Is the failing of government that there is too small an available supply of Wise Actors and "Force Users" to staff such an apparatus? Can no government be practically wise because of this, and just succum to second-handers and despots? No crucible of virtue exists for the use of governmental power (if you consider the trickery and falsehoods used in elections) can any moral government really exist? I know most talks of power, force, and government will bring up the Nazis of Germany, but they are an example of this failing, they were EXTREMELY immoral and unwise uses of governmental force, therefore directly causing the destruction of their country. The only available solution I see the training of governors in the use of force as prerequite for their appointments to power. The most redeally available example of this would be Heinlein's Starship Troopers, a timocracy only run by soliders, by definition trained in the use of force. Would this be the only government recificable with Rand's Private Ethics? Government could then be described as "The Business of the People," (I see the socialist overtones but bear with me) creating the "product" of the state, maximizing the net gain of the society. And it would then be accountable for its actions, and able to use objectivity and reason, by realizing what its actions really are, not any touchy-feely we are all in this together, but knowing force and using it wisely. I am guessing that most people here are in favor of minimum government but I would like your opinions on my observations. Thanks