Ursus

This is exactly its problem, for one it denies the necessity of basing a political philosophy on a moral basis. In this respect it is morally relativist in that whatever justification its members want to advance for their political ideas, libertarianism considers them equally valid, if only because it considers them equally irrelevant. Lib: People should be free Man: Why? Lib: Well, because freedom is good Man: Why? Their failure to be able to offer a coherent answer to this question precipitates a number of other problems, for example the various and often-contradictory definitions of liberty and freedom advocated by the Libertarian party.

By far one of the more dangerous effects of excessive coffee consumption is the damage it can do to your stomach. I have to drink excessive amounts myself in order to stay awake at work (I work third shift). After working nights for a while I noticed that no matter how much sleep I got, I still never felt totally rested. (If anyone can offer some advise in respect to that I'd appreciate it). Coffee is very acidic and so is tea, but to a much lesser extent. After switching to green tea I noticed that I felt better and I think it is even more effective than the coffee. I have however never experienced anything like coffee withdrawl...

Yes I meant rational in the way which you explain. Its an amazing thing the mind, and I was only musing about its origins. I wonder if in my lifetime they'll ever get any closer to finding out about how it works (chemically), Objectivism has done a perfect job of figuring out how to operate it I suppose that these folks here have the best chance of answering the question, which was mostly refering to the chemical and physical makeup of the mind. What about the simpler minds like those of animals, how are they similar and different. I know animal rights activists constantly whine about how animals have "feelings", for whatever its worth I'd like to know what gave them that idea. Not that I'll ever stop eating tasty tasty meat products though These here most certainly do not help answer ANY questions, although its fun to try to decide which is the most offensive to man's mind. I pick the first one!

This touches on several questions that have come to my mind while contemplating the subject. I’m not by any means well acquainted with the material here presented and this is more another question than an attempt to answer. So by all means those who know better, please correct me where I am in error. There are many theories that attempt to explain the origins of life, and of those a few are supported by empirical evidence. One of which says that life began on earth from a mass of organic compounds which when excited by electrical discharges in the atmosphere began to form complex molecules which amounted to self-perpetuating chemical reactions. Those which performed their functions more efficiently were able to consume greater amounts of available reactants and therefore continue to function. After a period of time it seems to indicate that these reactions gained a kind of complexity through the process of elimination that we call the Theory of Evolution. Those that were most efficient and better protected from the environment were able to sustain they and I gathered make more copies of themselves. I'm certainly no expert on the matter, and this is my laymen's interpretation, but it appears that this created a condition of competition among these various reactions that after many generations produced simple bacteria, viruses, and algae’s. As the process continued the chemical reactions became recognizable as organisms and kept evolving over the generations into the many forms of life that we see around us today. Now, what I would like to know is at what point and defined by what specific criteria does a self-perpetuating chemical reaction become recognized as life, as conscious, and as sapient? It would seem that if something is not a contained self-perpetuating system, it can’t rightly be called life, and even then I am sure there are other criteria I am leaving out.

I'm not trying to hijack the thread here, but this is a comment that I simply cannot leave untouched. Chaos and civil wars are not "an interesting show." These things do not occur for the amusement of observers, as if such a position is even possible. Chaos and civil war discriminate between right and wrong about as much as an atom bomb. They are horrible things which leave untold destruction and suffering in their wake. Especially when one kind of wrong fights another. In this case the war is but a prelude to barbary, slavery, and terror. Freedom loving or not very few people outside of Objectivism can even explain what freedom is, let alone provide a justification for it. While they are busy figuring it out you can bet someone will come along and settle the argument, and not in the way most people find desirable. Think hard about this country and protections it still provides for the good just people who live here. Think about all of the scum and villians which hide now in the shadows of those good just people, just waiting for everyone to turn their attention to this "interesting show" of yours long enough. There is a kind gross depravity the like of which most decent people find difficult to visualize lurking in the underbelly of any decaying civilization. A civil war and chaos is their clarion call to rise. No, they're not the kind of thing you sit back and watch while nibbling on biscotti and sipping herbal tea. If civil wars are a show then the whole nation is the stage and all of its people players. Sorry to interrupt the discussion on currency...

The race between Barak Obama and Keyes isn't even the worst of it for us here. For a random sampling of the kind of thing we get on almost a daily basis: Here's a story from the Chicago Tribune, our local pinko rag: State Violating Medicaid Laws On top of that we get treated to the occasional dogfight between Gov. Blago and Speaker Madigan on the senate floor. Thats when Blago is even in the capital, most of his time is spent wallowing at the feet of Daley - Tyrant King of Chicago.

Before I dropped out of engineering school (long boring story) I was introduced to Tesla while looking for material in the local library, and I have to agree with Loki here. Tesla was the man, he had some pretty interesting ideas. That electrical induction motor in AS for example. I wonder if Miss Rand had been inspired by his idea? Or am I just being stupid.

Full time Security Officer while my wife finishes law school (2nd year) and engineering school (starts next year). I can't abide taking out more loans for at least another year so in the meantime I shall practice my writing and artisitc skills as a prelude to professional instruction.

About the only thing I can say is that you are correct. Again correct. Both things which I know to be true. For some reason I have yet to identify, it is not something I have completely internalized. You are right, and I am wrong. Pardon my ignorance, though it is doubtless something I have no right to expect.

In this way I have gained valuable insights even from terrible movies. So the experiance isn't completly a waste. In the same sense that when I go to a restaurant at the least I learn more about my tastes and whether I will return... This is the line that makes all the difference. Upon reflection I see that if I judge some travesty to be out of context and isolated I can ignore it for the duration, if it is intrigal, cannot. That was the distinction I was not making in my previous analysis of the problem. Thank you!

I agree. But in the context of this film, I don't find the specific conflict an inspirational subject. The director's focus on violence for violence's sake is also at best highly dubious.

Good plot structure does not equal a good plot. It is simply an attribute. If those values are contemptable the story is meaninless. So again, if the criminal is conflicted over shades of grey, what should I care?

In a sense I agree with you. Yet there are some items upon examination that I don't quite understand myself. For example: You said that you ignore explicit philosophy and even plot holes and concentrate on the story and sense of life. In a way I am able to isolate those features of a movie that I find compliment my values, and can even focus on them, but never to the exclusion of the plot holes and explicit philosophy. In fact this type of thing only accentuates my displeasure with a movie that could have been otherwise good. I don't go to see movies much anymore for this very reason. I am often unable to walk away satisfied with the experiance. Imagine that you were to go to a restaruant and order a meal. When you are served your order it looks fantastic. When you take your first bite you discover something isn't right. The main ingrediants all go together well, but the spice they chose doesn't blend with the rest of the meal. I can isolate those tastes for sure, and seperate those aspects which I enjoy from the one that I don't, but that one that I didn't like is still there. You can't subtract it from the whole meal and experiance only that part of the flavor you liked. When you walk away from the restaruant you will sure be able to tell someone what part you liked or didn't like about it, but the fact remains that as a whole the experiance was displeasurable. All the more distressing when the meal could have been good, should have been good, but it wasn't. I don't go to a movie or even out for a meal with a mind to analyize and pick it apart under a microscope, but my it is impossible not to evaluate every aspect of what your senses recieve. Believe me, I want to be able to simply enjoy a movie. For the most part however, I can't. If I see something or hear something which does not agree with my values I cannot help but reject it. The more it diverges from my values the more violent the rejection. Compare the meal I spoke of above with some chinese food left out for a couple days. Even if superfically it looks good there is no way to ignore the other attributes. I can no more not taste food than not pay attention to what is presented in a movie. Now if there is something wrong with my reasoning, please I would like nothing more than to know.

I suppose if I tried I could think of something less inspirational, though it would be difficult. The first part sounds like justice the second sounds tedious. Why should I care that someone who has led the life of a criminal is killed?

Whoops! Thats a SERIOUS semantic error on my part. I meant to say concepts based upon directly observed percepts without seeming to have formed a seperate extension to relate to concepts of a purely abstract nature (i.e. future), for example -ta vs. -ru with -ru representing both the present and future tense. Which to me is a strange grammatical choice, unless of course there is some bit of information I am missing. A distinct likelyhood Both of which I am grateful for! Another question I would have is in regards to never having made the shift to a completly phonetic alphabet despite having access to one, and the distinct advantages it had over a pictographic one.

She will be applying to the Illinois Institiute of Technology, if you are familiar with this school. I don't know much about it myself, science is more of an interesing hobby to me than a profession. IIT is the only school in the state other than U of I which offers the degree she is looking for (B.S. Aerospace Engineering) Thank you for your careful consideration of my request. I will be sure to refer her to your post. Again, thank you. You have been more than helpful!

If I understand your argument correctly, yes, the Japanese language does not rely on concepts but rather percepts when communicating time and event relations; and that this is independent of the kanji writing system. My confusion arises when one considers the history of the written language. The kanji system was inconsistently adopted from Chinese, and required the later development of hiragana and katakana. Although the language doesn't have a consistent relationship to the written component would this not be the cause of a host of cognitive problems? Would it be logical to believe that the spoken language influenced selectivity in the adoption of a foreign writing system? And if so, how?

No, not really

Yes, I can imagine that I was pretty vauge, sorry, allow me to clarify. The books are not for me but rather my wife will be returning to school soon and would like to refresh her mathematics knowledge especially, but also her physics. She will be working on an undergraduate degree in engineering. She hasn't taken a science or math class for years now and wants to make sure she has what she needs when she walks through the door.

Thanks!, I most certainly will. Does this club allow non-students to attend their meetings? Or students of other schools?

Is anyone familiar with the Sengoku period of Japanese history? (I am also interested in the Heian period and the dynamic of Kyoto, but thats not really connected to the main topic here.) I am particularly interested in the various intellectual cross germinations that occurred between European and Japanese cultures. It seems like a fertile ground for exploring what happens to scientific knowledge assimilated into a society without any significant philosophical base to speak of (except the militant nihilism of the pseudo-philosophy of Buddhism). I know for example that the brief mitigated contact between the Dutch traders and Japanese thinkers produced a rather brief miniature renaissance in Japan, but that it was brutally and quickly snuffed out. As well it looks like a good point to start tracking the Eastern mystics’ influence on Western thinking (Even the corrupt concept of “sustainable development” seems to have had a place in 16-17th century Japan). Where did signs of this corruption first appear? It doesn’t look like Art was affected until the 19th century (unless I missed something), I can then only assume either other fields fell victim first or at some point a tide of mysticism was unleashed upon Europe. Was this infiltration a pre-Kantian development? Also, is anyone here familiar with the language? There are some aspects of it I would like to discuss, mostly revolving around some strange omissions and methods of communication. It seems like the language is tailor made for speaking in the present tense on the perceptual level. Is this a feature common to pictographic languages? I fully intend to put up some concrete examples as soon as I can gauge whether anyone is even interested in talking about this.

Does anyone have any suggestions on a good book(s) for someone preparing to enter the field of engineering, but who has little in the way of advanced technical background knowledge? This would include preparatory mathematics as well as some general engineering principles. It can be difficult to shuffle through the great volume of work out there with a critical eye when one isn’t quite sure if the sources can be trusted, especially when one wouldn’t necessarily know if they were being duped. Since it seems like there are a great many of you here who have pretty extensive scientific knowledge I was hoping I could find some help. Thanks!

I am a pretty big fan of Charles Trenet and Edith Pilaf. I like the upbeat optimistic tone of the music in general of that era, and the lyrics themselves seem pretty innocuous. It’s the cheerful rhythm that I am looking for more of, perhaps some selections with the flavor of the music of Antonio Carlos Jobim but much less depressing (and much less Avant-Garde). My question being, is anyone familiar with similar artists? Maybe even ones who sing in English though this is not essential to my enjoyment? I also would like to locate some good classical Spanish guitar for keeping my calm in traffic.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact nothing most assuredly destroys the concept of art than to equivocate it with every other human endeavor, except perhaps to equate it with everything, manmade or not. By the same reasoning applied to the various categories of art one could say that USA Today is literature or Football a ballet. Aesthetic and artistic choices and skills may be employed (and to great effect) in the fabrication of various utilitarian objects but Art serves a specific purpose aside from these considerations. To blend Art and Utility is a conceptual traffic accident. Serving no specific purpose it becomes neither art nor useful. Rather than run the risk of being unnecessarily redundant I will simply refer you to the same source as was cited above. On a separate note, can anyone suggest any books that might be helpful in assisting me in developing my technical artistic skills? I have a reasonably good one on drawing and sketching, but am not certain there aren’t better ones out there. I have nothing on painting or sculpture. Since I have little in the way of experience, I need to start on a pretty basic level, with learning the various techniques, materials, and mediums available.

At some of the schools around where I live in Illinois they have "experimented" with this method. One of the children of someone I work with was selected for one of the test classes which selected students on the criteria of being typical children their age. After the year was up he could barely read. The woman I work with said her kid understands maybe every third word in a sentance and is practically illiterate. Most of the parents complained of similar or worse problems, apparently more than a third of the children who went through the "Whole Language Education" now require special remedial attention, but that didn't stop them from adopting the program school-wide the next year. I guess the teachers were satisfied with the results...