dream_weaver

If you are looking for a "one size fits all" solution as couched, then yes — if the deaths of your country's own soldiers is the only mitigating factor taken under consideration. If the loss of one life is unacceptable in defense of upholding the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I would suggest, so close to the day that the "Declaration of the Causes & Necessity of Taking up Arms," was issued in 1775 and the American Declaration of Independence announced on front page of "PA Evening Gazette" in 1776 that there might be other relevant factors that need be taken under consideration. For one, why is your unspecified country being invaded with ground troops? What is the unspecified level of threat? How many of its citizens pose a viable military threat? If you're only going in to neutralize one enemy combatant, a nuke is rather indiscriminate in this regard. If the entire country is actively working to finish building navel transports to invade your country with every man, woman and child available, then you have a rather different set of criteria to consider.

A Wall Street Journal exclusive. Read an Excerpt of Ayn Rand’s Novel ‘Ideal’ By Jennifer Maloney “Ideal” tells the story of a screen actress who is accused of murder and visits six of her most devoted fans to ask for help. Rand wrote it as a 135-page novel in 1934, when she was in her late 20s. She was dissatisfied with it, however, and the same year, she rewrote it as a play. The theatrical version didn’t have its premiere until 1989 – 55 years after she wrote it. Rand, the author of “Atlas Shrugged” and inventor of Objectivism, has sold more than 25 million books around the world. The original version of “Ideal” was rediscovered in 2012 by Richard Ralston, publishing manager at the Ayn Rand Institute. According to the article, the book is coming out next week (July 7th), via Penguin Random House imprint New American Library, Rand’s longtime publisher.

The transcript in ITOE was selectively edited, and while the responses are indicative of one who has a command of the issues being discussed, it leaves open what material may have been omitted. The interpretation you cite is easily followed from the Conclusion of The Power and The Glory — pg. 247-249 In the spirit of remembrance, Burgess used to attach the following note to his Facebook entrees: Etiquette for My Comment Threads Most of the individuals who comment in my threads are respectful of others and focused on ideas. A few individuals are not. This set of guidelines is for them. I may delete any comment that violates the rules of etiquette. - I welcome support, questions, and criticism. By "criticism" I mean pointing out an error and then offering a superior alternative -- especially by linking to an essay of your own on the same subject. - If I make a special request, comply with it. For example, if I say please don't comment unless you can suggest or link to your own better alternative to my point, then respect that request. - Address the topic, but of course challenging particular concepts or statements within an argument is appropriate. Also welcome are further examples and elaborations of the topic. Don't hijack the thread. - Deal with the issues, not personalities. If you dislike someone, ignore them or block them. Do not fight personal battles in my comment threads. - Avoid foul language and other symptoms of profane culture, particularly democratic culture. I value the sacred in my life; I reject the profane. http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com/2011/05/what-is-profane-culture.html - Do not comment if your screen name is a pseudonym. I want to know who is participating. With some exceptions, already known to me, I do not accept as FB friends anyone who hides behind a pseudonym. - Avoid sarcasm. It is easily misunderstood, especially by the very people who most need straight-forward descriptions -- sincere, rational individuals who are new to the subject under discussion. - Be exact. Do not say "objectivism" if you mean "Objectivism." Capitalization is important. ("Objectivism" is the proper name of a philosophy, the one Ayn Rand created; "objectivism" is the label, in traditional history of philosophy, for one tenet, the idea that a reality exists outside of consciousness.)

Q1. Describe Rand's career plans, and what she did to achieve those? A1. Her general career plan was to become a screenwriter, and "graduate into literature" later. She moved to Hollywood and worked as a junior screenwriter as a researcher. Later, she would rise early in the morning to write prior to going to work. She read serious literature in English —pg. 223, 224 Q2. Describe methods and motivations of Ayn Rand, while she was writing initial novels prior to “The Fountainhead” and “Anthem”? What role did the writings play in her achievement of “Central Purpose of Life”? A2. She outlined and wrote "We The Living" using "Airtight" as a working title to keep focused on the subject and theme of the book. The sale of two plays "Red Pawn" and "Penthouse Legend" later re-titled "Night of January the 16th" allowed her to work on the novel full time. These writing were stepping stones to the full implementation of her central purpose of life. —pg. 223, 224 Q3. Describe her initial success, before the point where she started writing “The Fountainhead”? A3. The submission of "We the Living" met with opposition by a member of the American Communist Party. Passed by the other members on the editorial board, the novel received more reviews than any subsequent novel she released after. The majority of the reviews were positive, especially in Britain, about both her style and ideas. —pg. 225 Q4. Describe theme, plot theme, and main character of “The Fountainhead”? How does the theme represent Rand's overall progression as a writer? A4. Howard Roark was her first portrayal of an ideal man, while the theme was ethical, a defense of rational egoism, specifically the virtue of independence. This represented Miss Rand's move down the philosophical hierarchy from political level to the more fundamental level of ethics. —pg. 225 Q5. How did study of Ethics and Politics contribute to Ayn Rand's central purpose in life, presenting ideal man that is? A5. Ayn Rand had to define and present a rational code of ethics. —pg. 226 Q6. How was the method of writing “The Fountainhead” different from writing “We The Living”? What preparations did she do for “The Fountainhead”? A6. "We The Living" was written as a historical period, where "The Fountainhead" forged the characters as literary abstractions. She researched architecture as a field and took a job in an architectural firm as part of her preparation for writing the novel. —pg. 226 Q7. What was the theme and style of Anthem? A7. The theme of anthem was egoism. It was written with a prose-poem style. —pg. 227 Q8. What was her purpose of writing journals? A8. They were a place for her to think aloud about emerging philosophical and literary issues. In essence, they provided a means of editing her thoughts. —pg. 228, italics mine. Q9. Why did she join political campaign in 1940 presidential election, and why did she later abandon it? Which intellectual skill did she start developing here? A9. Miss Rand joined the campaign to support Willkie against the reelection of an increasingly statist Roosevelt. She became dismayed with Willkie's unprincipled presidential campaign although she developed some public speaking skills. —pg. 227 Q10. How Ayn Rand engaged and expanded her social network? A10. After discouraging encounters with conservatives and businessmen, she wrote other intellectuals letters and developed a core group of young readers of "The Fountainhead" that had expressed an interest in the philosophy behind it. —pg. 227-203

In my teen years I held three jobs that interfaced with random sampling of the public. The first was with a gentleman farmer, a retiree that farmed three acres and operated a roadside stand selling fruits and vegetables. The clientele was a mixture of a several repeat customers along with people who happened to be driving thru the area and decided to stop it. With food, it is not that you need to sell it. People need food. What's to sell? They would pull off to the side of the road and exit their vehicle. A simple "Hi, how are you doing to day?" was enough to let them set the course of the conversation. Let them bring up whatever is on their mind, and chat about it for a spell. At a point when the conversation lags, you simply ask, "What is it that brings you in today?" If the conversation doesn't lag, usually the client will let you know the reason they stopped in. Moving to the city, I answered an ad for a canvasser for a carpeting store. The job was not to sell, but to canvass areas, door to door, looking for leads that would be given to the salesman to follow up with. It started with a script, something along the order of "Hi. I'm here on behalf of Clyde's Carpet. We're out looking to see if you would be interested in getting a free estimate on what it might cost to re carpet your home. If you're interested, we can have a representative drop by and bring some samples and measure to give you an accurate quote." Again, after using the script for awhile, you tossed the script away, knocked on the door, and started the conversation with "Hi, how are you today?" Then let them guide the conversations until either a lull occurs, or they ask what brings you by. Commissions where how the canvassers were paid over and above the flat rate for canvassing. This approach netted me, according to the spiel I was given, the highest bonus check given without a backlog of leads. (I had only worked for them a little over a month.) The third organization I used a similar approach was for the Kiwanis Club. We were making calls, using a phonebook that listed telephone numbers by streets and address. In retrospect, instead of going thru the phone book and having 1000 calls addressing Mr. and/or Mrs. Smith, it mixed the names with which you dealt. Again, there was a script. The problem with the script was that it was one size fits all. Nice for breaking the ice to a potential phone solicitor, but to be good, the delivery can't come across as canned. Again, bonuses were made, not on the number of confirmations made in a night - although it was used to keep 'score' on a daily basis, but on the number of tickets that were actually processed. Even in this case, the calls went from "Hi, Mr. or Ms. Smith, I'm calling on behalf of . . ." to "Hi, Mr. or Ms. Smith. How are you this fine evening?", once again, letting them provide some material to work with, setting them at ease, and eventually turning the conversation to the purpose of the call. These were all considered entry level positions. In retrospect, I can see how one might use it as a stepping stone into a higher position The key, if you will, would be to be comfortable in your own skin, so to speak. These were all positions held prior to discovering Objectivism. I would not often argue or disagree in the conversation, but learned to ask questions that would elicit input or insight for mulling over. From a sales perspective, to do likewise might be detrimental to your bottom line, depending on the product.

"My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in · single axiom: existence exists — and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason — Purpose — Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge — Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve — Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man's virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride. — Galt's Speech Can you achieve your values without arguing and trying to spread Objectivism? If so, do so. I would suggest that any credit you offer to Ayn Rand and/or Objectivism for surrounding yourself with the values you seek, would be an act of arguing for and/or spreading Objectivism. If you find no positive impact in donating to ARI, you would be surrendering a value to do so. See self-sacrifice, selflessness, and altruism. Or in another word, don't. The intellectual battle, far from being an end in itself, is the battle for the mind. Are your own personal values worth fighting for? If you are fighting for them as an egoist, you are in essence fighting for the mind — your mind. Is the cultural and intellectual inertia stacked against you such that you have no chance to prevail at achieving your values in your lifetime? If so, the hour is later than you think.

Nice find. Great exhortation near the end. 5:20 "Let's celebrate what we know is good, and ignore what we know is not."

I looked up the portion of Galt's Speech regarding Stadler. I can see elements of both idealism and pragmatism. The pursuit of knowledge for knowledge's sake, and the disregard for how it gets funded, just so it can be funded. I'm seeing pragmatic in that he couldn't be bothered with issues that might keep him from his idealist pursuits, perhaps a misuse of pragmatism on my part. The one instance where "absolute correspondence" comes up (on the searchable cd) is in the same section (Measurement, Unit, Mathematics) later on; AR: Yes, in the sense of going beyond the point where more minute measurement is possible. Because then you would say that under any circumstances there will be sub-subquantities which you can't measure by the same ruler. In that sense it would be an improper switch of the term "measurement." When you speak of measurement, you always have to define contextually your method of measurement. So that if you say it is so much measured by a ruler, or it is something else measured by some fancy apparatus, you have complied with the requirement of absolute correspondence to reality. You have said it measures so much by such and such means. This is quite fine and dandy when it comes to cutting a two by four, or using a micrometer to confirm a process of machining is yielding the desired result. It is when the subject of the investigation requires an inference to arrive at, how can it be ensured that the same inference is derived at the same time and in the same respect? In conjunction with this is the more contentious issue that keeps arising with this topic: Is the inference correct?

New Buddha, First off, encountering a difference of 0.3 lbs, between two scales, a metrologist would attempt to verify the accuracy of the two devices by applying a known weight to both to verify their calibration. Two scales, accurate to 100 decimal places, would not have produced a difference of 0.3 lbs. As Corvini aptly points out, you would not use a bathroom scale to try to determine the postage on a standard first-class letter. If an idealist or materialist expect a measurement to be absolute with infinite precision, it is the expectation that is outside the scope of what must surely be a reductio-ad-absurdum. In Atlas Shrugged, Dr. Robert Stadler was portrayed as the consummate pragmatist. while John Galt was portrayed as being principled on principle. With regard to which scale is correct (if either), the process of identification of such a fact should include a confirmation of the instruments to determine if they were operating within the designed specified tolerance range. Rand clearly indicated what she thought the outcomes should/ought be via the fates of Stadler and Galt respectively. The 4 points you bring up thereafter (esp. no. 4) would be technological challenges to be overcome in order to minimize or exclude from any variation that might be observed. No. 4 is just a variant on Aristotle's view of infinity.

Q1. The section lists positive and negative elements in Russian culture around the time Ayn Rand was born as Alisa Rosenbaum. Separate and list these elements. Try labelling the lists as Political, Economic, and artistic, apart from positive and negative. A1. She was born 1905 under a czarist regime, an autocratic government guided by a mix of Christian orthodoxy and Russian nationalism. In 1917, the czarist regime disintegrated into a republic. In 1918, after the communists closed her father's pharmacy, they moved to Crimea prior to, thus escaping the civil war. The more positive of these would have to be the republic. Economically statist, jobs were scarce, and even starting a business was difficult. Unions were prohibited. Even so, her father was a prosperous and ambitious individual. Artistically, Rand was positively influenced by both film and literature, inspiring her to write early and often. —pgs. 217-219 Q2. List interests and methods of Ayn Rand as a child? A2. Reading and writing stories, as well as analytical writing — formulating her likes into generalizations i.e., "thinking in principle", by chronologizing her observations and listing the evidence — a process she identified as "going by reason". —pgs. 218-220 [General note : In your posts, try to put references mentioned in footnote] PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES Q3. What subjects Ayn Rand majored in and why? A3. She majored in hirsotry to aquire facts about man's poast development, and also studied philosophy to develop clear definition so f her broadest values. —pg. 221 General Question: Requires reference to section other than the one being studied Q4. What according to her later writings was the purpose of philosophy? How did she discover importance of metaphysics and epistemology? (Hint: 229,230 page numbers) A4. [M]en need philosophy for the purpose of living on earth. —FTNI pg. 51 In the 1940's she was discussing the issue of concepts with a Jesuit, who philosophically was a Thomsit. It was from this conversation she identified as the source of her groundbreaking work of concept-formation. —ITOE2 pg. 307 She recognized the "unit" served as a bridge between metaphysics and epistemology, —ITOE2 pg. 7, She also indicated that metaphysics and epistemology serve as the cornerstones of man's later sense-of-life. as well the abstract base of ethics. —TNL pg. 57, —RM pg 169 Q5. What were Ayn Rand's influences in college? A5. Burgess Laughlin indicated she admired Aristotle's support for the rational mind. She also initially liked Nietzsche's praise of the outstanding individual in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, later rejected his assault on reason in The Birth of Tragedy. She also studied operetta and cinema. —pgs 221, 222 Q6. List positive and negative elements of Rand's life during her college years? A6. When the communists established their firm rule at Leningrad State University, anyone who were not proletarian was expelled. Embarrassed by adverse reactions in Western Europe, Rand was reinstated to classes after which she graduated with honors. Enrolling in the State Institute for Cinema Arts would later serve as a stepping stone in her life. —pg. 222 Q7. What role do you think college life played in her development as an intellectual? A7. By providing her with a wide range of concretes about man down through the ages. From the age of 12, she taught herself to distinguish between generalizations and the concretes which substantiated them. Separating the concretes from the generalizations that accompany them in a classroom setting had to be second nature to her by the time she entered higher academia. An adaptation of this approach was probably utilized on the philosophy side as well. — hypothesized Q8. Why she decided to leave Russia? How did she do it? What is the relationship between this decision, and decision to change her name? A8. Rand realized she would not be able to write freely in Russia and made plans to flee to the United States. She petitioned the government to go abroad under the guise of studying American film first hand. She changed her name to protect her family who would be remaining behind. —pg. 222

So Kant thought he could get around this, but it was not to be so, given the nature of reality, and the nature of how it is to be apprehended by a conceptual consciousness.

The first point is complex. As laid out, the first part comes across as two ifs, so the claim at issue is: 1a1) if Kant indeed sought to have knowledge of objects apart from the way objects appear to us. or 1a2) if Kant thought was the problem with other philosophies was that they sought to have knowledge of objects apart from the way objects appear to us. Then it is restated as two questions: 1b1) Did Kant desire to "see without eyes" as it were, or 1b2) Did Kant reject the very notion that it was even possible to see [know?] an object apart from any means [i.e., the senses] 1a1 and 1b1 correlate, as do, 1a2 and 1b2. Claiming the latter, 1a2 and 1b2, you formed: Kant would agree that seeing is seeing in some form and that for him was a problem that could not be gotten around. If he viewed this as a problem, doesn't this imply that he had the desire to do so, and indeed sought to, as put forth in 1a1 and 1b1? Contrast this with: Kant would agree that seeing is seeing in some form and that for him this was a fact that can not be gotten around.

Is the error in the referenced discussion with regard to Kant was a realist with regard to "things in themselves", because one would be trying to develop an intellectual conception of a thing as it is in itself, not as it is known through perception, i.e., without the aide of the senses?

The first one is trying to figure out what it is that Kant means by it. The source selected was because it resonated with my essential take on the matter. The second was after looking up metaphor, after Jack's post. I've read this before, and perhaps that is why the definition resonated with me. Of what has been discussed so far, is what you are getting at with delving into "a thing in itself"?

As Reidy pointed out earlier, I don't understand the desire. Normal, however, is not a function of quantity. Gay marriage/relationships are can be more firmly founding in Rand's notion of values and virtues with regard to what we esteem in others. This runs counter to the idea that heterosexual relationships are the norm because, well . . . that's the basis for a sexual relationship. If social metaphysics is basing your view of the world is from what others think the world is, then this would be basing the view of what sexual relationships ought to consist of because others think that this is what they should be. The point I think Peikoff was trying to make is that when everyone has had one eye plucked out, this is not the basis for what is normal. People will still continue to be born with two eyes, which is normal. Plucking an eye out is a man-made condition. Being born with two eyes is metaphysical one. Marriage is a man-made institution. Mankind, as moral beings, have to choose what to value, and on the basis of how it furthers life and its enjoyment thereof. Morality is not man-made in this sense, it is metaphysically given, although it had to be discovered. By only permitting couples that consist of a male and female to enter the institution of marriage, it creates an us/them situation. It says if you want to value another because of their virtues and enter "our" institution of marriage, the prerequisite is that you do so with a member of the opposite sex. Hopefully this is more clarifying. Edited: Former, latter.

After plugging "metaphor" into the Objectivism Research CD, Miss Rand even comments on "a thing in itself", or more specifically, using "reality in itself" in the ITOE appendix Measurement, Unit, and Mathematics <ITOE2, pg. 194> Everything that we discuss, everything, is done from the human viewpoint and has to be, because there is no such thing as "reality in itself." That is one of the concepts of Kant's that we have to be very careful of. If we were omniscient like God, we would still have to perceive reality by our God-like means of perception, and we would have to speak of exactitude from that viewpoint. But "things in themselves"—as separated from consciousness and yet discussed in terms of a consciousness—is an invalid equivocation. That would be my widest metaphysical answer to any construct à la Kant and Bergson. One mathematical metaphor she uses is conceptual awareness is the algebra of cognition. The process of reducing concepts back to their basis in perception would be akin to checking the math.

While searching for "a thing in itself", this result captured a rather succinct statement on the matter. the intellectual conception of a thing as it is in itself, not as it is known through perception To arrive at an intellectual conception of a thing as it is in itself, not as it is known through perception, is, by definition, a sense-less approach. Is this essentially what Kant is trying to bury underneath all his verbiage? If so, it is senseless as well.

Recollecting Peikoff's example of normal, that if you plucked one eye from every man, woman, and child - would that make one-eyed people normal? No. While two-eyed people would be rare under such an action, it would still be considered normal. Under this ruling, gay marriage will be come more common-place. Miss Rand's identification of the role values and virtues play between individuals esteem for one another lays a solid foundation for what ought be considered normal.

From a poetic perspective, "I now pronounce you spouse and spouse" doesn't have quite the same charm to it.

Entire article: Pioneer known for 'Collins Method' of teaching... By Shantell E. Jamison Chicago education activist Marva Collins has died. She was 78. According to the school founder’s son, Collins died Wednesday night in South Carolina. Collins started West Side Preparatory School in Chicago Garfield Park neighborhood in 1975. She also founded the “Collins Method,” a style of education that focused on phonics, math, reading, English and the Classics. Unfortunately, West Side Prep closed its doors in 2008 due to a lack of funds. Collins’ work at Westside Preparatory was turned into a movie in the 1980s. She was sought out for her expertise in the field of education by parents, fellow educators and even President Ronald Reagan — who courted her for secretary of education. The school, which focused on high-risk children, garnered national attention for its soaring achievements. Our condolences go out to Ms. Collins loved ones at this difficult time. The school closed its door when she was 71. A Google search on "West Side Prep" indicates that the school's namesake still persists though many come across as tarnished from the portrayal of the 1981 movie based on her story shared in the "Africentric" School thread. Other honorable mentions on Objectivism Online include Education and Objectivism, Wanted: Tutor/Teacher - Florida (Ft Myers), and Racism or Correlations of Race with IQ/Physical Attributes.

What do you do when your help-wanted ads go unanswered? Necessity is the mother of inventions. Hadrian the robot bricklayer can build a whole house in two days Hadrian could take the jobs of human bricklayers. But its creator, Mark Pivac, told PerthNow that it was a response to the lack of available workers — the average age of the industry is getting much higher, and the robot might be able to fill some of that gap. “People have been laying bricks for about 6000 years and ever since the industrial revolution, they have tried to automate the bricklaying process,” Pivac told PerthNow, which first reported his creation. But despite the thousands of years of housebuilding, most bricklaying is still done by hand.

With some scathing remarks about John Roberts, Dr. Hurd adds this excerpt from his article: The morality, or lack thereof, in the concept of gay marital unions should not be an issue for the law. The law is supposed to define rights, not determine what’s morally correct or not. In upholding the right to marriage for same-sex couples, the Court is not “making up” a right as it does, for instance, when it makes up a “right” to free medical care, or free education, or free housing. These made-up, false rights actually violate rights, because some are forced to pay for the goods and services of others. A right to a private contract, as in a marriage, is not a violation of anyone’s right. It’s simply a recognition of a legal right that always existed, only it didn’t come to the forefront because most people did not wish to face the fact that same-sex relationships exist.

From a standpoint of individualism, it seems pretty straightforward. No force is involved. It is an activity between consensual adults. Here's one older thread that discusses gay marriage. There are other threads that discuss it, but this one came back with a search for marriage using a filter on the title.

The no-win scenerio was only meant to be a description of the ethics of emergency.

The ethics of emergency tries to upend an ethical principle by framing in a no-win scenario. Consider a lifeboat that can only carry four people when six are present. Consider a run-a-way rail car that will kill one person or many. (Why is it most of these scenarios are always focused on what you would decide for others what the outcome should be? Altruism? Isn't ethics primarily concerned about the actions required for sustaining life, in particular in application to one's own (under normal conditions)?) The introduction of a mentally disabled person into the mix, as pointed out, disregards that they have a guardian, and that such a contract would not be upheld by a court of law. This would be an ethics of omitted consideration. An appeal to ignorance, if you will. It counts on your ignorance of how mentally disable folk are not emancipated agents in a free market. The ethics of emergency is, in a way, an ethics of omitted consideration. It omits the consideration to which the field of ethics applies. It omits the consideration of the normal conditions under which the field of ethics applies.