wishbone

This philosophy says "Sex is Good". Discuss the morality of sex. And much more at objectivismOnline

A Princeton philosophy professor has written a book named "On Bull...". He claims that a disregard for the truth is rampant in today's culture, at least in the US. Do you think so? Very briefly, this intellectual thinks that this indicate an "amoral" attitude, not an "immoral" attitude. People are not really lying these days, he seems to claim, they are merely making up whatever they like reality to be. This, according to him, is immoral. Does his own evaluation bear the seeds of the problem?

Does anybody know how liberal or conservative the current pope has been, in the context of the popes who preceded him? In the inevitable opening of the church to modern culture, was this pope more receptive than his predecessors were (to the modern ideas of their times)? Does anyone know about the short-list of successors? Who is the favorite, and what is the chance that the next pope will soften the church's stand on abortion and contraception?

You really should move to Ann Arbor. That way, you achieve a short-term goal of associating with other Objectivists. You can continue your longer-term plans. Ann Arbor is a little expensive, but not exorbitant. Also, one can stay in some outlying communities that are very affordable (by SE MI standards). There are a good number of jobs around AA, and one can always commute down I94 to Ford. Schools are safe (if you have kids). The politics are very left-wing, but this does not have to be your final place.

This is an example of humor that -- while funny -- is disrespectful. If you disagree with Mr. Laughlin's idea that humor has no place in the life of an objectivist, then explain why.

I found some statistics on the site of the US Labor Dept. that indicate the the :participation rate" of all people above 16 years old has fluctuated between about 66% and 69% between 1994 and now. We are indeed at the low end right now, but were also around this point in 1994. I could not find statistics for before that. I also found this article on the web that calculated what the unemployment rate would be if the participation rate had not fallen after the year 2000. I think there is a "qualitative" aspect to employment that is not captured by all the statistics. From my personal experience, the employed people around me are far were far less sure of their continued employment last year than they were three years before that. Now, they are beginning to be a little more sure that if they lose their jobs they can get another that pays about the same. All this does not detract from the main point of the thread that there are jobs out there that are way, way better than welfare.

I've also read the following (which I intend to research myself too); does anyone know if it is true: The unemployment rate is the number of unemployed as a percentage of those who are looking for work. A lot of people stopped looking for work after the 2000 "bust". They decided to do more college, or to use the down time to start a family, etc. They are going to come back into the workforce at some point, sending the unemployment % back up nearer 6%. I figure that a good rule of thumb would be to look at the number of people who are employed as a percentage of the population of a certain age-range. Any thoughts?

Today, the quotation on the home page of this forum was: "In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." -- Thomas Jefferson Fits in well with this thread.

A movie version of Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice" was released this year (starring Al Pacino as Shylock -- ought to be fun). Warning: I guess I should warn that this post contains spoilers for anyone here who does not know the story. Disclaimer: The story is based in the past and I am not criticizing the play nor trying to crtiticize the different standards of the past. The play was mere a catalyst to make me think about this issue. Having said that... In the play, "a pound of flesh" is given as security against the repayment of a debt. The debt is in default and the creditor demands the pound of flesh. Question 1: Should such a contract be legally enforceable? In the play, the technicality used to let the warrantor off the hook is that the contract did not stipulate any blood being given. So, the creditor could be allowed his pound of flesh only if he could figure out a way to take it without shedding a drop of blood. Since this is not possible, the creditor could not get the flesh. Question 2: If shedding blood is a necessary condition for extracting a pound of flesh, shouldn't any contract stipulating the payment of a pound of flesh can be presumed to imply the shedding of the necessary amount of blood?

This thread raises an interesting issue: how do we judge the extent of a crime? Suppose I consider the following crimes: 1) Robbery 2) Rape 3) Murder 4) Slavery Is there a way to rank them from least evil to most evil? If it is possible, but not with just this limited information, then what other information is required to make the judgement? If we base the extent of evil on the extent to which rights are violated, then how to we measure the extent to which rights are violated?

Perhaps I'm misinformed about Luther's message being an encouragement to use one's mind and a tool of cognition superior to the edicts of the church. I will have to study more to make a judgement. What would you say would be a "standing on one leg" summary of Luther's message? (While I could believe that an aspect Luther's message was "listen to me", I find it implausible that "Listen to me" can summarize the crux of his teaching. In other words, when he said "Listen to me when I tell you to do the following...", what was he telling his followers to do?) BTW: Are you implying that being "tolerant of divergent viewpoints" a good thing, regardless of what those divergent viewpoints are? I apologize for the imprecise formulation. When I said "imperfect to perfect", I could also have said "perfect to imperfect". All I meant is that History does not move in a smooth progession. I suppose that if you considered the typical subjectivist college philosophy professor and compared his thought with "all past forms of understanding reality", the modern will lose. So, you'd have to consider a particular genre of ancient thought and a particular genre of modern thought. At any rate, there is a certain progession of ideas that build upon each other, or revolt against the other, but are still linked in a historical progression. Glad to see you agree with me that this is an oversimplification.

Yes, I suppose that is another negative of an "anti-establishment" movement like the reformation. By saying "don't listen to the church, think for yourself" one is offering an epistemological approach, not an alternative ethics. In absence of a new ethics, it is not surprizing if subjectivism rules. So, Luther may have "fathered" Kant. However, we see this from our modern perspective. History doesn't move from imperfect to perfect in one jump. I think it is probably more correct to view Luther's ideas as a positive. It was up to subsequent generations to develop them further, and to show that one can have individual thought without subjectivism. Incidentally, I see a similar development in the deism of the founding fathers. I think they moved further into the modern world, by assuming that God made the world and that 's it... it is up to humans now... The Deists had no basis for an ethical theory. Benjamin Franklin comments on this in his autobiography. What I beginning to see, as a picture in my mind is this: a line running from Catholics, to Luterans, to Deists, and then... branching out to Kant. Meanwhile, another branch goes out and ends at Ayn Rand. This is over-simplification -- the reality is probably far more complicated, but I'm trying to picture the "essential" history.

Dr. Peikoff has spoken about the "DIM Hypothesis" and has illustrated it in a few fields, e.g. Physics & Education. I see signs of "DIM" in the theories of software development. I think the "old school methodologists" represent the "M", the "modernist extreme programmers" represent the "D". I do not think a theoretical "I" has been expounded. However, some implicit "I" is what is practiced from day to day. I will post more on Software-development DIM as I develop my ideas further and will also try to make it so that people other than software developers can understand what I am saying. For now, I have a different purpose. I am interested in aspects of "DIM" in fields that I have not considered and that Dr. Peikoff has not mentioned. Do you see DIM in the theory surrounding your area of work?

Nearing 50 years old, I cannot say that I have a CPL. I chose a career in software development. I find it satisfying, but I lack some "social skills" that would take me to the next level of management; and, I do not have the motivation to gain those skills (But, that's a different thread...)

I agree that Elian should have been kept in the US. However, for illustration, if we were to modify some facts of the Elain case, it would be a good case-study to examine parental rights. I estimate that Elian's father would rather have let Elian be in the US (and would have loved to join him). I estimate that he said he wanted Elian back in Cuba because he feared his government. What if the father genuinely wanted his son back in Cuba? Would that change things? Would one it still be right to keep him in the US because that was obviously his mother's wish? What if Elian was clearly a minor (not a borderline case) and both his parents were alive and wanted him back in Cuba, but he had been brought here by a rational aunt? Would it still be right to keep him in the US because parental wishes is not the issue here, individual rights is the issue. Does keeping a child in Cuba amount a grevious harm of the type that negates rights that the parent may ordinarily have? In other words, would it be right for anyone willing to support a Cuban child to abduct that child and bring them to the US? I am hesitant to force others to accept my ideas of right and wrong, for themselves or for their children, except in the most serious of cases. Yes, it would be right to abduct a child if their parents were about to cut their arm off! I am uncertain if living in Cuba would rise to the same standard.

Some posts by BigBangSingh prompted be to check out sites on Sikhism. I now understand Sikhism to be a Hindu "reformation", much like Lutherism was for the Catholic church. The similarities are: 1. A rebellion against priests, with a corollary democratization of the religion. 2. A "back to basic philosophy" approach to religion, which does away with "excessive" rituals, idols and other physical symbols. In summary, a more abstract religion. Can anyone point to other common and key elements of Sikhism and Lutherism? I think there is some good in these types of religious movements. Often, religions are formed around core philosophical ideas, but as they get popular they get a lot of added baggage. Priests become powerful. Some people become priests for the power and money rather than for the philosophy. While people like Martin Luther may have been motivated by a desire to "clean up" the priestly class, they acheive a secondary effect of empowering individuals and affirming the validity of individual reason, even if this is a limited type of reason constrained by the beliefs of the religion. In this sense, while Sikhism & Protestantism are far from being advocates of reason, they are *steps* along the way toward a more reason-based philosophy. Politically, these movements are a move closer to democracy. Again democracy is a bad basis for a political system, but perhaps it is a *step* along the way to a system based on individual-rights. People speak of the Protestant "work-ethic". I think there is a certain amount to truth to this. Historically, the people in Protestant countries of Europe seemed to have approached life and work in a more rational non-emotional way. This resulted in relative economic prosperity. Most Indians would testify to a Sikh work-ethic, with similar effects on Punjab (the state in India that is predominantly Sikh). What about the negatives? I am not so sure here? Does a move to abstract philosophy make people stricter altruists? Does it lead to repression as a way of life? I look forward to hearing from anyone who thinks that Catholic philosophy is superior to the Lutheran one. (Hindu philosophy is harder to pin down. There are many who think that ancient Hinduism was relatively more reason based than later Hinduism.) I also look forward to anyone who has an explanation other tha Luterism to explain the cultural differences of Northern and Southern Europe. I am particularly struck by the cultural similarities that Ireland shares with the Catholic countries, when one would assume it would be more English, if one ignored the religioius influence. (Ireland is probably a mixed case, because of the two major influences.)

I love the way you played with the common question: is the glass half-empty or half-full?

How I got here... very circuitiously. Brought up religious, but with a very "pro-reason in everything non-religious" bent (no rituals, no superstitions). My earliest memories are that I was not too sure about God. Around my early teens I dismissed the idea of God, and began to move to a mix of communist, "I am God", and nihilist ideas. Read Rand and was converted. Gave up Rand for a year and immersed myself in some of my previous books, to see if I would "re-convert". Didn't. So, read Rand again, and again, and again. If there is interest in Sikhism/Sikhi, it would be better to start a separate thread on the topic. (If I read BigBangSingh's reference, I might start one myself.)

What is "indentured servitude"? One aspect is that the person will serve for a specified duration? What else?

I'll try defining "fashionable": it is to adopt the style in clothing, accessories and the like which is considered to be current and beautiful by one's cohort. I consider "being fashionable" as a hobby. Its fine not to be fashionable, just as it is fine not to collect stamps. Under ordinary conditions, one should try to be as neat and clean as one can afford. Being fashionable is an optional value. If other things interest you more, that's fine. Don't waste your time on reading about what's "in". Some places expect people to dress fashionably. That's fine too. Going there in last year's outfit would be like coming to a stamp-collector's meeting with blank pieces of paper. Within the context, scorn could be appropriate. People are not thinking "this is a bad person", only "doesn't she know how to dress for this night club". Sometimes a host may ask people to dress up specially -- e.g. black tie -- as a way to highlight the importance of the occassion. In that context, not dressing up as expected would be rude. It would be similarly rude to disobey an employer's dress code. If the host (or employer, or night-club owner) does not care what you wear, and neither do you, then feel free to come in your rags.

Private banks could print and mint money. They have done so in the past. It would mean going back to a 100% specie (gold, silver, etc.) standard. A "dollar" would be defined as a certain amount of gold (or silver, or some other such commodity).

The case against fashion:Many aspects of the fashion business are purposelessly "fickle". If pink is "in" this year, then another color must be "in" a few years from now. If being fashionable means being current, then change for change's sake is part of the business. Fashion is not simply a quest for an objectively-best look. If comfort is "in" this year, it may be "out" next year. If straight lines are "in" one year, curves may be "in" next year, and rough edges may be "in" the year after. A few people --- designers, models, actresses -- decide what is "in". People who don't follow the trend are "out of fashion". So, following fashions is simply foolish. The case for fashion Looking good is an affirmation of oneself. Fashion may be fickle, but it is a lot of fun. One does not really need to spend a lot of money on designer names. One can be pretty up-to-date on a budget, if one is creative. Also, there is never just a single fashion of the day. There are usually a few "looks" to choose from, and one can choose one. That way, you "reward" good designers. I'm not dismissive of people who do not follow fashion, but for me it is like a hobby. I don't think less of them, let them not think less of me. But, I do think less of people who label me a "fake" simply because I am fashionable. I like my up to date haircut, handbag and car!

Argive99, thanks for the informative post. Since #1, #3 and #4 would be present in civil case too...like a simple misunderstanding on a contract that causes harm to one party, I figure that , using the above characteristics, "Mens Rea" is the key distinguishing factor that makes a violation "worthy" of punishment rather than simple resitution. I look forward to it.

"Punishment / Restitution" could be the purpose , but that still does not give us a standard or principle by which we can decide what types of rights-violations are worthy of punishment. I understand Betsy to be saying that intent is the crucial determinant here. This is not in opposition to the idea of "Punishment / Restitution". "Intent" becomes the key determinant. If there was an intentional violation of rights, then it is worthy of punishment, else justice demands simple restitution. Argive99 points to two other aspects: the size of the violation and whether it is a first violation. So, if it is a small first time violation justice may not require punishment. If it is a repeatet violation or a firt time serious violation (all intentional) then we wantn to punish, thus we use criminal law.

I'm not a Kudlow fan. I find him to be more of a Republican cheerleader/spin-doctor than an unbiased observer of reality. This is true. All it means is that the Dollar has fallen against the Euro, but it has not yet fallen against the asian currencies. If one looks at Gold (the favorite yardstick of objectivists) the dollar has fallen a huge amount. While I am no expert in this field, the opinion of experts I trust can be summed up thus: the dollar has fallen against gold and euros, but not against the dollar. The fall against the euro may be overdone, and the dollar may rebound relative to the euro. These investors I trust believe that the dollar's fall against asian currencies is yet to come.