AmbivalentEye

I believe a fact is as true as you can get. A fact is basically an extremely reliable theory, but once again, it is never 100% true. Also, "A TRUTH" is something one has accepted as a reliable theory "THE TRUTH" is a collective acceptance of something that must apply to everyone, everywhere, in all cases. Which can never happen. Thus, if "The Truth is out there", then the universe is expanding much too rapidly for us to ever find it. And: Yes, I do believe my senses are substantial evidence because they are the only tools for cognition that I have. My perception is a compilation of what my senses acquire and what my brain is then able to analyze. Obviously I would never depend on somebody else's judgment to accept that anything is true. I don't trust people. I trust myself, and that is enough for me. Just because there is no known reason to doubt it, doesn't mean that we can accept it as a certainty. I don't. I don't love science because of the hope that I might find an answer to anything, but rather that as long as I keep asking questions, I'll keep acquiring more information about it. I like thinking that the information is endless, because I don't see a point in living if "you know everything". That's why I don't accept certainties. I like knowing I can always keep looking for more, or perhaps a better explanation. I don't believe in ultimatums.

You will obviously recognize which one is me. Text of argument: Reasonable. But you have forgot one thing, one person doesn't bow, they both bow. It is not degrading, it is showing a deep level of respect. But because you are a narc, you won't put yourself at the same level with other people. You think you are better in every possible way. I won't say anything about because that is just you. I accept that. The thing is, to get things done, it requires effort. I see that your narcisism is a biological don't. You have undermined the key component to your entire existense. Humans would never have been able to achieve what they needed if not for them banding together to get things done. One man can't build the pyramids. Bowing shows your mutual cooperation. Sure you may prefer to handshake, but I see bowing as a way of keeping people doing what they are supposed to do. It all comes down to how you want society...efficient or inefficient. Also, humility is not degradation. It is courtesy to other people, to understand yourself and your limits, and to make sure you don't make an ass of yourself. My biggest fear for when you get older and become an activist, is that you will not be diplomatic...and die in vain. Humility is a strong diplomatic tool. Success is not individual effort, it relies on other people, whether you like it or not. >>> You're right in one sense: I never put myself on the same level as other people, but I deal with them on mutual terms. I don't presume to imply that I am greater, but rather that I am myself and by volition choose not to refer to or associate myself with a collective. Society is composed of individuals. Besides, all great acheivements were conceived by the minds of individuals, for which they were scolded and attacked brutally until the collectives stole those ideas and called it their own. Besides, you can't say that everything was a collective effort, when truly each part or each task complimented the whole. Its merely individuals with a common purpose, whether it be productivity, or human survival. They all work for their own interest. Also, its true: I would never even think of sacrificing myself for anyone, but where the loop comes in is that honestly, I have no problem in dying to defend on of my principles -the role of the selfish martyr. And: Humility is not a diplomatic tool. It is a weakness. Diplomats should always deal with each other on objective terms, and solely in that matter.

If you ask me, its true (because my cognitive faculty tells me its true). If you asked another person, it could be true under the same premise, but then again, that other person could be imagining me. You'd have to then prove that the person can perceive my existence and that it is substantial. You'd also have to make sure that the person doing the study isn't "imagining" me as well.

Wow, that's scary. I suppose I have no definition for it. I accept everything as theory. If anyone ever said something was 100% fact, I'd just laugh hysterically. Sorry if this wasn't the response you were looking for. Ok, fine. If I had to give you a definition, I'd call it a misconception. There is no such thing as THE TRUTH, but I suppose its perfectly reasonable for there to be A TRUTH, such as: "I am male", "I have 10 fingers and 10 toes" I guess A TRUTH = Fact THE TRUTH = Illusion

Since everyone appears to accept alernate beliefs, can we call anything truth or fact? Why not theory? Theory works for the believer and defines reality much better. What do you think? On another note: -Is there such a thing as truth? -Is truth simply relative? -To what extent must a theory be validated in order to be given the credit of reliability, or otherwise, to be considered truth?

That used to be my method, back in the day when I still had the luxury of going to sleep when I wasn't really tired, but now I'm up until 1 in the morning every night studying for school, and I know I have to be up at 5:00 AM, so I guess my body has already gotten accustomed to falling asleep immediately after I hit the pillow or very shortly after in order to get a maximum amount of rest. Aside from this, sometimes I like going to sleep while listening to music because it helps me to relax. One of the main problems in sleeping disorders is that a person has difficulty in releasing the tensions of their day in order to just rest. When I was little, I liked to oppose this in the most dramatic ways I possibly could: I'd extend my body like that Da Vinci sketch of man and I'd remain utterly motionless, focusing only on the pull of gravity and allowing my body to give into the pressure of the atmosphere above me. I remember that I could get to a point where all my limbs felt so heavy (yet soothed), that I felt it would be better not to move again. Legs also tend to be a problem because for the longest time, I couldn't fall asleep if my legs weren't comfortable. I am 6'1'', thus, for most of the day, my legs are constantly in some form of discomfort. It's funny/disturbing, growing up, I would say up until I was 8 years old, my stepmother would tell me that if I went to sleep face down, that I would inevitably suffocate and die. So until the age of about 13 or 14, I had a psychological phobia of ever sleeping face down. Somehow I came to accept that she was wrong and may have been referring to babies who still don't have the strength to turn their bodies over onto their back if they fall asleep on their bellies. Another thing is that growing up I used to LOVE going to sleep without a pillow. I could fall asleep anywhere for this reason. I guess that from a young agae I was adapted to having to sleep in any environment, so there were times when I was very little that my mother would find me sleeping on the carpet, tiled floor, wooden floors, pretty much anywhere. It isn't until recently (in the past month) that it has begun to bother me not having a pillow to support my head.

After the court had inaugurated, the judge sentenced that his death penalty would be commuted to serve only a 20-year jail term, due to his deep-regret. The fellow who is now holding an inauguration is a man of deceit. The history of why be became a foxy man can betraced back to his teenship. I'm not even sure I know what this one is trying to say: One of his character is (prone to foxy?), after 2-year of the journey of a porter, he has gotten into the habit of always treat others with deceit.

How could you say that Love of Life could be represented by a desire to murder out of vengeance??? I feel that such a premise goes against all of my morality and I don't accept it in the least. I thought someone else might comment on this too because, I mean, isn't objectivism supposed to represent a mintenance of one's life WITHOUT the expense or sacrifice of others? Vengeance can never be justified. This is why I loved the movie Seven. It revealed our nature as humans, but ultimately also that we have a choice. Free will is what has saved us all. On a second not, I didn't think it "sucked" at all. I actually enjoyed it a great deal because it isn't like any other movie I have ever seen before and I really like how it was structured. I like that it is a movie that makes you think and that you have to pay close attention to for links and symbolisms. Its been a really long time since I last saw it though. -J.

By my second contention, I’d like to once again point out that in the “Social Contract”, it also states that “the act of association creates a moral and collective body, composed of as many members as the assembly contains votes, and receiving from this act of unity its common identity, life, and its will.” Thus, the aforementioned collective body, already identified as the People, is represented by the nation through means of democratic principles such as a citizens right to vote, it is thrugh these votes by a national majority that the terms of a society’s common good is established. Therefore, by the terms of the resolution, because representation of the people is determined by a maximum amount of votes sanctioning a ruling, doctrine, or legislation of he state, it is the common good which must always be regarded primary over any other interest that don’t have the collective (the people) as priority. By my third contention, the social contract says “as soon as the multitude is united in one body, it is possible [to identify as a collective or whole]. Duty and interest, therefore, equally oblige the two contracting parties [the individual and the Sate] to give each other help; and he same should seek to combine all the advantages upon that capacity.” In other words, by taking part in the social contract, to reveice and be assured protection by the state, one incorporates the self to a collective people and according to the social contract, participation in the collective body instills the responsibility to represent, defend, and provide for such a union. For these three premises I have stated, I affirm the rsolution on the priniciples of communitarianism that place the community as the axis of a nation and to instill the good of communities is to advocate common good, which should have take presidence over any personal interest. Negative: “This I believe: that the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world. This is what I am and what I am about. I can understand why a system built on a pattern must try to destroy the free mind, for this is one thing which can by inspection destroy such a system. Surely I can understand this, and I hate it and I will fight against it to preserve the one thing that separates us from the uncreative beasts.” - John Ernst Steinbeck To go even further, Ayn Rand once procalimed that our “Life is a process of self-generating, self-sustaining action.” Both of these views express a fundamental perspective of man; man is a rational creature, and thus must survive through rational selfish means to provide for his/her most basic needs as well as to protect its own interest. Once these needs can be sufficed, and only then, can an individual deem the prospect of providing for any other being. Resolution: For the resolution that “as a general principle individuals have an obligation to value common good over their own interest,” I stand in firm negation under the conviction that no such obligation can exist without first fulfilling the basic needs of the individual. Thus, out of this negation to the premise presented by the resolution I would like to clarify that the common good cannot be valued above personal interest because human nature requires an individual to seek fulfillment of personal interest first. I shall use individualism, the philosophy of personal liberty and self-reliance, as the value to support my stance, with the edicts of Abraham Maslow’s Heirarchy of Needs as my criteria. For my first contention I would like to present the principle of perserverance. The principle herein represented as a natural impulse of an individual to mantain a standard of existence which includes personal protection and the use of rationally necessary selfish means to fulfill the primary needs of Maslow’s pyramid. According to Maslow’s pyramid, those needs include the fundamental factors of survival such as: food, air, shelter, and clothing. What this means is that for the sake of perserverance individuals naturally act on behalf of their personal interest in order to ensure their own survival. By the second contention, I would like to uphold the virtue of selfishness. As decribed by philospher Ayn Rand. According to Rand the virtue of selfishness is a form of rational selfishness that seeks personal benefits and fulfillment of personal needs in coexistence with the rational, selfish will and needs of others. Thus, by seeking to perservere the individual is capable of garnering its own basic needs without the necessity of common good or social altruism. Convereslely, if, by general principle, all individuals strived for self-reliance and productivity, the needs of the community, the State and essentially, the People are undoubtedly met without the need of valuing common good. In this manner, all individuals and even minorities have the capacity to meet the demands of the 5 levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy without obstruction to pursuits of others. Finally, by my third contention I would like to point out that the third level of Maslow’s Heirarchy, Love and Belongingness, can be rightfully corellated to the fifth level, Self-Actualization. In saying that Love and Belonginingness represents a need to seek sanction for personal values and ideals, rather than the opposing view that communal livelihood is of higher credit. Thus, Love and Belongingness as bound to Self-Actualization rather than altruism or communalism. What this means is that in seking Love and Belongingness an individual seeks understanding and support for his or her own ideals, therefore isolating the entire Heirarchy of Needs from any collective interest. Then, in order for a person to even think of valuing common good above their own interests they are principly required to satisfy all 5 levels of the Heirarchy, which includes Self-Actualization, and not the value of common good.

I agree about the Hugh and Andre switch. But I still feel Ragnar had a greater significance than Hugh. Maybe I'm being biased when I say this, but then, why don't most people in this site support Hugh, when they go on about how great Danneskjold was? Is this suddenly a popularity thing? Is it because he's "old"? Suddenly I want to delve into this. I might even start a new forum topic for it. hehe. BRAVO! I agree 100 percent!

I've always felt that John Galt represents the epidemy of idealism. When I read Atlas Shrugged, I couldn't believe such an amzing person actually existed or could exist, even though through my own idealism I like to think he may be out there. John Galt just seems like a "perfect objectivist", which brings up the question, is there such a thing as a "perfect" anything? In a way, I like the comment above the most because it is the closest to my own ideology. I like to think that through my own efforts I could someday grow to represent and ideal as powerfully as John Galt did. I felt the same way while reading about Howard Roark, but Howard Roark is someone I think I can definitely grow to be. John Galt is like a standard one strives to reach but never attains. If I could put the characters in order by how I see them ideally it would be (excluding females- for nonsexist reasons): least -Eddie Willers -Leo -Hugh A. -Andre -Ragnar D. -Henry Rearden -Francisco D. -Howard Roark -John Galt most

Affirmative: (Take into account that I don't know the exact debate "lingo") "Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and recieve each member as an indivisible part of a whole." -Jean Jacques Rousseau: Social Contract: Book 1 As is explicitly stated here, it is our duty as human beings bound by the links of society an coexistence to determine the worth of our values under public assembly. The focus here being, the People; the American People, which have been historically known to thrive best under social unison. "United we stand. Divided we fall." For the resolution that, "as a general principle, individuals have an obligation to value the ccommon good over their own interest", the statement may be upheld by stating that the common good is primary to society and essential for a nation's future as well as its present state. To deter any misinterpretation of the terms, I offer definitions for the following terms: (As set in previous posts) -Altruism -Personal Interest -Common Good -Selfishness -Citizenship -Communitarianism I hereby declare that the common good is primary to society under the principles of communitarianism which states that "the improvement and good of the community comes first because it supports all its constituents and represents the basis of a nation". To defend this value, I shall use the edicts of Jean Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract, and the principles of social altruism. By my first contention, I would like to ppoint out that in the Declaration of Indipendence, signed on 1776 by oour forefathers, commenced with the infamoous phrase: "We the People". The "People" there implied alluding directly to Book 1, Section 6 of Rousseau's Social Contract, where it is scribed, quote, "Those ho are associated wwithin the State take collectively the name of People, and are severally called citizens, as sharing in the Sovereign Power and subjects under the laws of the State." I therefore would like to emphasize that saidd document establishes "the People" as a ccollective, and should thus be responsive to a collective interest andd a collective (common) good. Contentions 2 and 3 will come later...

I have edited my cases. What I plan to use for my constructives and the debate itself goes as follows: >>Affirmative: Value: Communitarianism Why? -It holds that the improvement and good of the community is primary because it is the support of its constituents and the basis of the nation. Value Criterion: -Social Contract --Altruism --Citizenship Definitions: -Altruism: Concept in philosophy and psychology that holds that the interests of others, rather than of the self, can motivate an individual. The term was invented in the 19th cent. by the French philosopher Auguste Comte, who devised it as the opposite of egoism. (Columbia Encyclopedia) -Personal Interest: Also vested interest: refers to a special interest one has in protecting or supporting that which is to one's own personal advantage. (Wikipedia) -Common Good: A specific "good" that is shared and beneficial for all (or most) members of a given community. (Wikipedia) -Selfishness:A vice utterly at variance with the happiness of him who harbors it, and, as such, condemned by self-love. (Sir J. Mackintosh) -Citizenship: Virtue of working towards the betterment of one's community through participation, volunteer work, and efforts to improve life for all citizens. -Communitarianism: Doctrine that humans have a need to experience life as bound with the good of communities out of which their identity has been constituted. (Wikipedia) Criterion: Social Contract: Main: “Each of us puts his person and all his power under the supreme direction of the general will, and in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of a whole.” Premise 1: “Act of association creates a moral and collective body, composed of as many members as the assembly contains votes, and receiving from this act of unity, its common identity, life, and its will.” Premise 2: Constitution: Declaration of Indipendence: “We the People” Ø As derived from: “Those who associate in [the State] take collectively the name of People, and are severally called citizens, as sharing [rights], and being under the laws of the state.” Premise 3: “As soon as the multitude is united in one body, it is possible [to identify the multitude as a whole]. Duty and interest therefore equally oblige the two contracting parties (Individual and Sovereign) to give each other help; and the same should seek to combine, in their double capacity, all the advantages dependent upon that capacity.” Under Communitarian philosophy: Premise 1: “Central to Communitarian philosophy are Positive Rights. These may include free education, affordable housing, safe and clean environment, universal health care, social safety, or even rights to a job.” Premise 2: “Standards of justice must be found in traditions of particular societies.” Premise 3: “Communitarians are inclined to sustain and promote communal attachments as crucial to our sense of well-being.” Premise 4: “Altruism, in the sense that constituent members have the good of the community in mind and act on behalf of the community’s interest.” Premise 5: “To protect and promote ties to the family and family-like groups.” Collectivism and Social Contract: “Collectivist political philosophy: Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “social contract”, which maintains that each individual is under implicit contract to submit his own will to the “general will” and that the state should enforce this general will.” (Wikipedia) >>Negative: Value: Individualism Why? -Holds LIFE as the ultimate standard of value and requires constant process of self-sustaining action; Emphasizes individual liberty. Value Criterion: - Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow) -- Life (Ultimate Standard of Value) -- Rational Selfishness …Libertarianism? Definitions: -Value: That which one acts to gain and/or keep.(Wikipedia) -Personal Interest: Also vested interest: refers to a special interest one has in protecting or supporting that which is to one's own personal advantage. (Wikipedia) -Common Good: A specific "good" that is shared and beneficial for all (or most) members of a given community. (Wikipedia) -Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property as long as they allow others the same liberty, by not initiating physical force, the threat of it, or fraud against others. (Wikipedia) -Rational Selfishness: The way of living your life in such a manner that your own happiness and hunt for various benefits in life can co-exist with the same will of others.(Wikipedia) -Altruism: The primary concern for the welfare of others, or the devotion to the interests of others. (Merriam-Webster) -Collectivism: A term used to describe any doctrine that stresses the importance of a collective, rather than the importance of the individual. (Wikipedia) -Citizenship: Membership in a political community (originally a city but now usually a state) and carries with it volitional rights to political and social participation. (Wikipedia) -Individualism: Moral, political and social philosophy which emphasizes individual liberty, the primary importance of the individual, and upholds the virtues of self-reliance, and personal independence. (Wikipedia) Criterion: Abraham Maslow: Hierarchy of Needs Main: Requires that one fulfil all intrinsic personal needs, before deviating to seek extraneous gains or to pursue altruistic purposes. Premise 1: Perseverance - Natural impulse to preserve one’s existence and maintain a personal standard of life; including personal protection, and using the means necessary (Rational Selfishness) to fulfil the primary needs of the Hierarchy. Premise 2: Rational Selfishness/Virtue of Selfishness - Self-Esteem and Self-Actualization coming before any other act or value (not on Hierarchy) because human beings are selfish by nature. Premise 3: “Love and Belongingness” as taken to represent a certain level of self-actualization that involves sanction of personal values/ideals, understanding and the freedom to exchange ideas as well as function out of mutual exchange with other Individuals. As opposed to the antagonistic view that communal perspective is of higher credit and that “Love and Belongingness” represent a need to be a part of a collective. Under Libertarianism: Premise 1: “Liberty as the proper basis for organizing civil society.” Liberty: A condition in which an individual has immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority. (Wikipedia) Under Natural Rights: “These rights commonly include the right to life, the right to an adequate standard of living, freedom from torture and other mistreatment, freedom of religion and of expression, freedom of movement, the right to self-determination, the right to education, and the right to participation in cultural and political life.” (Wikipedia) Please do not hold back on any commentary. Very Much Appreciated, -J.

I hope no one minds me collecting information here, but here's some of the research I've been doing: "Positive rights: Central to many communitarians' philosophy is the concept of positive rights; that is, rights or guarantees to certain things. These may include free education, affordable housing, a safe and clean environment, universal health care, a social safety net, or even the right to a job. To this end they generally support social safety programs, free public education, public works programs, and laws limiting such things as pollution and gun violence. A common objection is that by providing such rights, they are violating the negative rights of the citizens; that is, rights to have something not done to you. For example, taking money in the form of taxes to pay for such programs as described above deprives individuals of property. Proponents of positive rights respond that without society, individuals would not have any rights, so it is natural that they should give something back to society. They further argue that without positive rights, negative rights are made irrelevant. For example, what does the right to a free press mean in a society with a 15% literacy rate? In addition, with regard to taxation, communitarians "experience this less as a case of being used for others' ends and more as a way of contributing to the purposes of a community I regard as my own" (Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, 143). Alternatively, some acknowledge that negative rights may be violated by a government action, but argue that it is justifiable if the positive rights protected outweigh the negative rights lost. communitarians argued that the standards of justice must be found in forms of life and traditions of particular societies and hence can vary from context to context." "communitarianists are more inclined to argue that individuals have a vital interest in leading decent communal lives, with the political implication that there may be a need to sustain and promote the communal attachments crucial to our sense of well-being. This is not necessarily meant to challenge the liberal view that some of our communal attachments can be problematic and may need to be changed, thus that the state needs to protect our powers to shape, pursue, and revise our own life-plans. But our interest in community may occasionally conflict with our other vital interest in leading freely chosen lives, and the communitarian view is that the latter does not automatically trump the former in cases of conflict. On the continuum between freedom and community, communitarians are more inclined to draw the line towards the latter. To remedy this imbalance between rights and responsibilities in the US, political communitarians propose a moratorium on the manufacture of new rights and changes to our ‘habits of the heart’ away from exclusive focus on personal fulfillment and towards concern with bolstering families, schools, neighborhoods, and national political life, changes to be supported by certain public policies. Notice that this proposal takes for granted basic civil and political liberties already in place, thus alleviating the concern that communitarians are embarking on a slippery slope to authoritarianism. Still, there may be a concern that marginalized groups demanding new rights, e.g., homosexual couples seeking the right to legally sanctioned marriage, will be paying the price for the excesses of others if the communitarian proposal to declare a moratorium on the minting of new rights is put into effect." "Communitarians begin by positing a need to experience our lives as bound up with the good of the communities out of which our identity has been constituted. This excludes contingent attachments such as golf-club memberships, that do not usually bear on ones sense of identity and well-being." >>>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/communitarianism/#Rel This is all good information, but I really hope I'll get to do the negative. I understand that the affirmative basically determines the course of the debate, but I'd like to defend something I actually believe instead of all this stuff. But so far, do you think I'm on the right track?

Hmm. I found a couple relative excerpts that also link into the Communitarian philosophy I'm now analyzing for my constructive. It said: "The Argument From Intrinsic Value: Each ethno-national community is valuable in and of itself since it is only within the natural encompassing framework of various cultural traditions that important meanings and values are produced and transmitted. The members of such communities share a special cultural proximity to each other. By speaking the same language and sharing customs and traditions, the members of these communities are typically closer to one another in various ways than they are to those who don’t share the culture. The community thereby becomes a network of morally connected agents, i.e., a moral community, with special, very strong ties of obligation. A prominent obligation of each individual concerns the underlying traits of the ethnic community, above all language and customs: they ought to be cherished, protected, preserved and reinforced. " "Communitarians can reply by casting doubt on the view that choice is intrinsically valuable, that a certain moral principle or communal attachment is more valuable simply because it has been chosen following deliberation among alternatives by an individual subject. We ordinarily think of ourselves, Michael Sandel says, ‘as members of this family or community or nation or people, as bearers of this history, as sons or daughters of that revolution, as citizens of this republic’, (Sandel 1981, 179) social attachments that more often than not are involuntarily picked up during the course of our upbringing, rational choice having played no role whatsoever. Most important is not choosing our own life-plans; rather, liberalism founded on the value of self-determination requires only that we be able to critically evaluate our ends if need be, hence that ‘no end or goal is exempt from possible re-examination’ (Kymlicka 1989, 52; Dworkin 1989, 489; Macedo 1990, 247)" All this from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/#3.2

hmm... I was just making a statement at the end, but I guess I see why I'm not supposed to apply it to myself. I forget that language is so technical here. So are you saying I should have just chosen Life alone?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but wouldn't the only inherently valuable ones be: 1) Pride 2) Independence 3) Honesty 4) Productiveness 5) Integrity 6) Justice and 7) Rationality I had seen this in another discussion a while back and it stuck to me. I really like it. They seem to encompass anything that truly matters to me and what I think should be the primary aims of society. -J.

That's perfectly reasonable. Yeah, I've been thinking a lot about all of this stuff, and I agree, but then I'm not sure what to use as the value because what I would like to defend is our selfish desire to want to mainatin ourselves primarily and further our lives, with benefit to society as a secondary byproduct of the personal drive for productivity. I'd like to say that while personal interest should come first, by supplying all of your own needs, you help to maintain stability within society. If everyone strives to better themselves, the state of the nation naturally improves respectively. Now I understand what you're saying about altruism. I actually had a discussion about it with my coach and she said pretty much the same thing. So, I'll have to do a lot more analysis on Communitarianism, but I'm starting to see why it is better. Thank you for putting it so clearly. So far I know: 1) Philosophical communitarianism considers classical liberalism to be ontologically and epistemologically incoherent, and opposes it on those grounds. Unlike classical liberalism, which construes communities as originating from the voluntary acts of pre-community individuals, it emphasizes the role of the community in defining and shaping individuals. Communitarians believe that the value of community is not sufficiently recognized in liberal theories of justice. 2) Ideological communitarianism is a radical middle ideology that emphasises the community, and is sometimes marked by leftism on economic issues and conservatism on social issues. I'd still like to keep altruism to support it, and I might cut out Utilitarianism because that branches off into completely different things and I want to keep from deviating off the context of the resolution. >>Q: By putting, "need to coexist", isn't that kind of redundant, because that's basically communalism anyway, or should I use communalism? The reason she asks us to have 3 criteria is because she wants us to incorporate various sources of philosophy into our argumentation. It's really just like "supporting ideologies" for whatever our points are, which I still have to work out. Also, I'm reading books 1-3 of the Social Contract, and I'm finding a lot of great stuff. I'm just a bit overwhelmed by the prolific amount of data out there on all this. I have many classes, half of which are AP, so I'm constantly absorbing information. The good thing is that we don't have to have our constructives ready until next Wednesday, so I can still breathe... Thank you again for your time, -J.

I already knew this stuff cause it wall all in the info packet (no offesne). Are you saying that the values and criterion I have chosen are ineffective? why? About the memorization: We have to debate this first in class and becauyse half the students in the class are a bunch of slackers that couldn't give a damn about public speaking, our coah likes to make us memorize things whenever she gets the chance. I don't really mind. I prefer memorizing it because that way I can guarantee that I'll always retain the information. Aside from this, thank you very much, your suggestions at the end are very helpful. The only problem I have with the values of: individualism vs. communitarianism, is that I don't feel communitarianism is really accurate enough for what I want to oppose, and individualism is one of those values that every 3rd person uses in this case. I'm tired of people using "equality", or "natural rights" as their values because it gets really tedious and it seems like they don't really take the time to even think about what they are arguing. I think its alright for me to use altruism as long as I have it defined properly. I'll comment some more tomorrow. It's getting late.

Nope, can't say that I have, but I'll check it out.

I love this! I'll start using that question on people I know now.

I always felt the same way. I discovered Ayn Rand very young. I would say I read Atlas Shrugged for the first time at the age of 12 or 13 and prior to that I had been in massive levels of emotional and psychological turmoil due to many extreme personal circumstances of my life until that point. I was never a "normal" child. I was expected to begin thinking like an adult at the age of 7 and also expected to find ways to strive for my own perseverance. A lot of things were a conflict to me because I devoted myself to volitional use of my mind for every aspect of my existence, so it was rather quickly that I began to be troubled by the principles of my father and most other influences around me that thened to match those of Elsworth Toohey, Peter Keating, or Jim Taggart. At the age of 8 I made the moral desicion to renounce anything they (my family) ever taught me, and held the conviction that I must find my own answers with my own tools of analysis and cognition. I didn't really know what any of this meant or what I was striving for until I read Atlas Shrugged. I can honestly say that I cried a couple of times throughout the course of the novel and I was so amazed at the fact that such wonderful literature existed that I read it the first time in 2 weeks -staying up every night and reading through every meal. In fact, the second I finished the book, I flipped back to page one and reread the first 3 chapters the same evening. So, in this sense, I can admit that Objectivism did bring an immense amount of happiness into mylife in the form of understanding and relief, which I desperately needed. I finally understood why I didn't have to succumb to common standards and why I could survive without being a slave to the will of my father. Now, since then, it has been an extremely difficult journey. I have had to reanalyze many aspects of my mentality and have had to wrestle with any contradictions I discovered in my ideology. This struggle, in a sense, has been very vexing and emotionally draining (having to denounce religious premises that had once been a foundation to my life, and having to break off bonds with people in my life that relentlessly advocated self-sacrifice and altruism). But, I know it will pay off, because I'm still working toward my goals and I still have a very long way to go. I have no doubt that life through the use of Objectivism will make me happier, but like many have stated here: Objectivist Philosophy are the tools I use to pursue my prospect. Sort of like a means to an end, but its definitely not the end. This is pretty much how I function as well, and I don't regret living this way either, even though very few are able to comprehend why I take on so much for a dream. :-)

Hello everyone, Once again, I'm about a week away from going to another debate tournament, but this time, I will be doing Lincoln-Douglas, and I was wondering if any of you could help me come up with and organize my points for the discussion. I have to give 3 speeches throughout the duration of the debate. The first must be entirely memorized (6 minutes), and the other 2 I must have valid arguments for but the context of the speech depends heavily on the points of my opponent which I must counter or disprove. The Resolution for the debate goes as follows: "As a general principle, individuals have an obligation to value the common good over their own interest." First, I must determine the following: -Who/What: The Individual -Context: Society -Argument: Common Good vs. Personal Interest >>Affirmative: Value: Altruism Value Criterion: -Need to coexist -Utilitarianism -Collectivism Definitions: -Altruism: Concept in philosophy and psychology that holds that the interests of others, rather than of the self, can motivate an individual. The term was invented in the 19th cent. by the French philosopher Auguste Comte, who devised it as the opposite of egoism egoism (ē`gōĭzəm), in ethics, the doctrine that the ends and motives of human conduct are, or should be, the good of the individual agent. It is opposed to altruism , which holds the criterion of morality to be the welfare of others. (Columbia Encyclopedia) -Personal Interest: Also vested interest: refers to a special interest one has in protecting or supporting that which is to one's own personal advantage. (Wikipedia) -Common Good: A specific "good" that is shared and beneficial for all (or most) members of a given community. (Wikipedia) -Selfishness:A vice utterly at variance with the happiness of him who harbors it, and, as such, condemned by self-love. (Sir J. Mackintosh) -Citizenship: Virtue of working towards the betterment of one's community through participation, volunteer work, and efforts to improve life for all citizens. >>Negative: Value: Perseverance Value Criterion: -Rational Selfishness -Individualism -Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow) Definitions: -Value: That which one acts to gain and/or keep.(Wikipedia) -Personal Interest: Also vested interest: refers to a special interest one has in protecting or supporting that which is to one's own personal advantage. (Wikipedia) -Common Good: A specific "good" that is shared and beneficial for all (or most) members of a given community. (Wikipedia) -Perseverance: Value of striving to preserve one's own existence through rational and selfish means without detriment to oneself or others. -Rational Selfishness: The way of living your life in such a manner that your own happiness and hunt for various benefits in life can co-exist with the same will of others.(Wikipedia) -Altruism: The primary concern for the welfare of others, or the devotion to the interests of others. (Merriam-Webster) -Citizenship: Membership in a political community (originally a city but now usually a state) and carries with it volitional rights to political and social participation. (Wikipedia) This is the preliminary writing I had to do, but I still haven't begun my speeches and am not exactly sure how I should approach each argument. As you can see, there is always the chance I may have to debate either side, so there is no guarantee I'll be promoting Personal Interest. I've given you my intended values and my criterion. If you know any good philosophers/philisophies/premises that could help to found my arguments, I would greatly appreciate it. I'll try to post my speech before I have the actual debate for any extra feedback. I appreciate this very much.

I love them!!!!!!!!

Christian: How can human beings live without faith, my friend? What meaning does life have without faith? What is the purpose of life? Why are we here in this world then? Why do we go through everything that we go through in life? Why do you wake up every morning? Why, why, why, why did we all come to this world? Logic is not always correct my friend, and sometimes you need a little faith to live! AmbivalentEye: Okay, let me answer your questions from my perspective: AmbivalentEye: Re: "but how can human beings live without FAITH?" faith isn't essential to life because faith cannot KEEP you alive. Logic and Reason are your primary tools for survival as a human being. AmbivalentEye: Re: "what meaning does life have without faith?" I don't understand what you mean, because without faith, I am still capable of being unbelievably happy. You don't know how I see the world, and I don't know if I could explain it to you, but I KNOW that Life is wonderful. My entire life I have looked to world around me and have not only seen all of the wonders of nature (existing as scientific proof of every chemical and physical process ever discovered), and not only do I see that it is there but I also see that there is MORE. There is always more. There is the promise that things can be greater, for society, for nature, for ourselves. I refuse to believe that we are all just doomed to an unstoppable demise. I believe we can always DO SOMETHING. We can always create, and improve, and be productive. We can play our part in the span of evolution. What meaning does life have? It means everything. It is the single greatest thing that has ever existed in our universe and we should always not only defend the fact that it exists, but enhance that abilities we have in order to go beyond our own expectations or anybodys expectations of what the world CAN BE. AmbivalentEye: Things are an end within themselves. A is A. I don't exist for the means of someone else's survival. I exist for my own. I do what I can, and challenge what people believe I cannot. Christian: So you believe that logic and reasoning are the only reason why we exist? That you exist for yourself and not for a reason, my friend? Why is it that you believe that? How do you find meaning in life without hope and faith? EVERYTHING IN THIS EARTH my friend IS destined to the undeniable demise of the end of its existence, even you and me! And, there's nothing that either you nor anyone else in the universe can do about it, except God! AmbivalentEye: Re: "What is the purpose of life??" You can't just ask that in generalized terms as if its supposed to apply to everything and everyone, because once again, we are not all the same substance or entity. The purpose of a root may be to support a tree and provide it with food and water. The purpose of a bee may be to produce honey. My purpose as I see it, is to be productive, and to never give up on my aspirations. That is why regardless of how depressed I may be at any given moment, I can find joy in knowing that I'm producing something with all of my efforts in school, and if that ever fails to reach my conscience then I still see that promise all around me, and I know that Life is amazing and it is worth living. Christian: Are you sure that those are not your goals and your ambition rather than your purpose in life?? Because purpose and ambition, drive, traits, and character are very different things buddy! AmbivalentEye: Re: "Why do you wake up every morning?" I wake up every morning because long ago I chose a course of action for myself which has been my primary conviction until this day. I wake up to carry on with what I know I am capable of doing, and finding my payment in all of the great things I collect along the way: friendships, knowledge, values, etc.. Christian: I know life is worth living, that's why i live it to the max and try to be the best person i can be everyday, because I do not know if I'll be able to wake up tomorrow or if I'll still be here an hour from now! Christian: So you do not believe that we all have a mission in life then? That we were sent to this planet for some reason and that life is not all about what you accomplish or how much of something you have but about how much you enjoy it and how much love and joy you give to everyone? AmbivalentEye: I guess in the end it all just comes down to idealism. I was born with the belief that I can make the world better if I use everything in my mind and my potential to achieve it, but whether or not we do make it better....I guess that's relative to the observer. Christian: Yes, you CAN make it better, you see, that's your purpose, your MISSION!! Do you not see it?? everyone learns from you my friend. look around you! :-) AmbivalentEye: No, not the joy I give to everyone, but the joy I am able to attain for myself. Our forefathers were right when they mentioned our unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. If there is any central purpose to humanity, it is the pursuit of happiness, in a manner that never demands the sacrifices of others, or the betrayal of your own ideals Christian: Don't you sometimes feel that there's something missing in your life?? and you just can't put your finger on it? So you don't believe me when i tell you that's your mission, or that's why you came to this world then? AmbivalentEye: I know I really want/need to be with someone. That's the only thing that has never made any sense to me. No one ever wants to be alone. We somehow require someone with whom we could mutually exchange values. Christian: right, everyone feels that way, that's normal, but have you never given God a chance in your life? like it has never crossed your mind that God maybe really exists? that logic and reasoning is not always right? AmbivalentEye: I know that I have flaws in my thinking. I am not perfect. I do believe there is a "God", but only to fill in the tiny gaps that science has not been able to resolve yet. the biggest being "the beginning of time". I think he could have "set it all off", but that's pretty much it. He's so "grand", that he could care less about us. I don't believe in miracles. I don't believe in "divine intervention", sometimes, I don't even believe in "judgment" or "salvation". It isn't that hard to accept that maybe this is just it for us. I don't HAVE to go on for eternity, and I don't want to. I want to do the best that I can in the time that I have. AmbivalentEye: As a child, I was raised around many Christian ideals and customs, but like thousands of people out there in the world, I spent nearly a decade of my life praying to something that may very well be an illusion, and I eventually just came to the conclusion that prayers aren't answered. The universe does not rearrange itself when you pray and ask for something because you believe you "need" it. Things happen....and you live with it, and if you have earned it, then nature will always balance itself out and give you what you deserve. Christian: of course prayer works my friend. Prayers are answers. remember the saying... Dios tarda, pero no olvida. Miracles do happen in this world Surreality, everyday. how would you explain that out of all of the miners that were in the accident that happened in west Virginia, only one survived?? why is it that people who go through unthinkable situations or through things where death is certain, they beat all odds and come out alive?? how can you explain that?? AmbivalentEye: I respect what you do and what you believe. I'm not going to ask you to change. So really I just hope you could respect and accept who I am and my ideals as well. Christian: Of course I do buddy! I respect your ideals and who you are, and i agree with most of what you say, except when it comes to faith, God, and the meaning of life!