Sesklo

I really enjoyed this movie. Although I approached it as an amusing flick, I went away thinking hard about the theme as stated in the movie, "Oh, no, it wasn't the airplanes. It was Beauty killed the Beast." Kong was killed by his desire to protect the thing he valued most. He pursued something good in his world and was destroyed as a result of his action to pursue it- because he loved the good that he found. In this way, it's horribly tragic- pursuit of beauty leads to destruction. I haven't fully thought through this, but it's a quality that I respond to very emotionally in films. I can't think of anything I consider more tragic than someone being destroyed by his love of good/beauty/virtue. Two other places (there are more, but these are the two I thought of right after the movie) come to mind where I've found this idea explored. One is the movie Edward Scissorhands (and probably other Tim Burton movies. He seems interested in the idea of an innocent faced with a world that tries to destroy it). The other is the character of Dominique in The Fountainhead. She (for quite a while) doesn't believe that good can survive in the world, specifically because it is good. There are huge differences here, but I think that King Kong is an illustration of this belief. I don't think that Jack Black's character was a stab at capitalism. He saw greatness and believed that if he stripped it of its power and presented it as a slave, it would still maintain its value. It was not just greatness he wanted to show the world- it was his dominion of it. He was content with the faked presentation of the beast's fierceness and the awe it inspired in others. I'm not completely sure how to take this character- I suppose that the discussion of Heart of Darkness in the movie sets him up as a sort of crazed explorer who, in his exploration of savagery, becomes savage himself. Oh hell- I liked it for the action, and came away with something to think about it. It's worth seeing for both.

I hear ya, Inspector. That makes sense- I just wanted to rule out that one. I think that as long as the "rational purpose" is maintained, my main objection would be my second one I listed.

I just want to make a comment on this because it came up during a discussion with a professor. He argued that Mother Teresa achieved happiness through helping people, so she was actually being selfish. I disagree with this because I think that happiness has a specific nature, and can only be achieved in certain ways. This is the flaw in the idea of the "selfish" person who goes around stealing and killing because all he cares about is his own happiness. It's like trying to argue that you want to achieve wealth by eating alot of carrots. Even if you really feel that something would help you achieve happiness, that does not necessarily make it so. I don't think that the above quote is intended in this sort of relativist way, so I'm really not arguing against it- I just want to point out that in some circumstances, helping certain people can contribute to my happiness, but I don't think that it makes sense to generalize that it makes me happy to help other people. It seems that 'random acts of kindness' are sometimes against my interests, so I can't really count the general practice of helping people as a rational self-interested thing to do. Because happiness is specific in nature, I don't really think I can achieve happiness by doing what gives me pleasure, or whatever I choose. I think that happiness is not the goal- it is a product of success at life, so self interest is primary, happiness is secondary. I discover first what is in my interests, then I pursue that, instead of thinking of what would make me happy and then calling pursuing that self-interested. I would be interested in hearing what people think about this.

I agree with Tommy also in his view that Jefferson can be blamed for his actions. I don't like the idea that slavery was a vice of the times, not of the man. There were people who opposed slavery and were not racist during Jefferson's time. Abolition was a debate during Jefferson's lifetime. I also find it hard to believe that one could live in close proximity to slaves and be incapable of identifying them as humans. I admire Jefferson very much, but I think it is completely proper to be able to admire someone yet condemn some of his actions. The thing is, slavery really isn't an important part of the reasons we admire Jefferson. It is a contradiction in his ethics, but as with Aristotle, the mistakes don't invalidate the achievements. I definitely don't think that it is worth the time educators spend on teaching kids about Jefferson owning slaves.

I think there is a problem with torturing convicted murderers for two reasons. If it is torture for the sake of torture and is allowed because they, like animals, have no rights, then it is immoral on the part of the torturer for the same reason it is immoral to torture animals: the torturer is getting pleasure from destruction, and this just isn't a good way to spend your time because it doesn't benefit you. I'm not sure that this is a reason to outlaw it, but it is an ethical reason against it. If it is torture in the name of science, for experiments for new drugs or procedures, then it runs the same risk as the death penalty. The US doesn't have a completely objective legal system, so it is quite possible that the person being tortured is innocent. There have been people who were sentenced to death, only to be later shown innocent. I think it would be wise to refrain from allowing death row inmates to be tortured for any reason, since there is the real possibility of innocence.

The last presidential election was the first time I was old enough to vote, so I researched the candidates and decided who I wanted to vote for. For local offices, there were a few candidates that I at least felt comfortable with, even if I didn't agree with all their ideas. I did not vote for president because I found all options to be so lacking. So, this time around, I am again wondering if I should vote for president or abstain. Third parties don't have a chance (and who am I supposed to vote for- Nader? Heh). Kerry's ideas about socialized healthcare and Bush's religious fervor both scare the hell out of me. I don't like the "lesser of two evils" strategy, but I think Kerry scares me more. What do you guys think? Should a person vote only in elections when there is a good candidate? What do you think about the "lesser of two evils" strategy that so many people follow when voting? Just curious to find out what other Objectivists do on election day.

Is there anything other than physical force that the child can't undo as an adult? I suppose that this is more in the realm of psychology, but it seems that even severe emotional/mental abuse could be overcome as an adult (I think that a strict religious upbringing could be classed as this).

I don't think that giving to charity is an obligation, but I think that it falls under the category of benevolence in the exact derivation of the word. Benevolence, understood as "willing good," not some form of altruism, seems to be simply wanting good things to succeed, like cheering for a great athlete or compimenting a co-worker who does a good job. Giving to a charity which promotes good things (like a scholarship for gifted musicians) is a way of acknowledging that good. I somewhat Aristotelian in my thinking on this: you should give the right amount to the right person. I don't think it's right to give to charity if it is going to damage your own life, but only if you have such an abundance of wealth that you won't miss the money, and you find a person or foundation that supports a cause you admire. I am editing this to include my source for Aristotle's ideas on giving: Nicomachean Ethics, Book IV, section i. must...remember...to...cite...sources!

I just wanted to second Bryan's endorsement of Adaware. It is very very good - I have found it far superior to other programs of this sort for removing junk from the registry and data miners. I occasionally do computer repair as a side-business, and I install it on all the computers I fix. A note about this, however- if you have certain internet service providers, such as SBC, Adaware can interfere with some of the extra features of the ISP's software because it sees them as spyware. Just Google Adaware and you will find the free download.

Hahah. Ok- I won't associate with Hitler (even though I think that he is teaching my ethnic lit class). Unrelatedly- I just realized that I called Betsy "Betty." Erm... sorry about that.

LOL, Betty, I didn't put together the last names until now. Thanks for the response. Hmmm- that is what I thought. Also, I have read the essay which Stephen referred me to. I understand the relationship between justice and the rejection of tolerance. This essay is very helpful in understanding why ARI and TOC have so many negative things to say about each other. (Although one wonders why followers of an organization that is allegedly commited to tolerance of others would be so mean to followers of ARI, yet so nice to communists. But I suppose that question answers itself.) This essay does raise more questions for me. I have many professors who, although not Marxist scolars, do hold some very bad ideas. I have a biology professor who is, on sundays, an enthusiastic Christian, and an Ancient Greek (language and archeology) professor who teaches multiculturalist theories in her other classes (sociology classes). I have gained a great deal from listening to both of these professors in their areas of expertise, even though they hold (and teach) some terrible ideas in other areas. There are many many people who are like this. I am not sure I understand whether Peikoff suggests that good people should refuse to associate with these types of people. If I determine on the basis of some of their ideas that these people are bad, then it follows that I should avoid associating with them in any way, but if I do this, there are many people who have so much knowledge and brilliance that I will miss out on. (Bill Gates is another example of this- amazing producer, but advocate of the "Death Tax.") What should be done in regards to associating with these people? Is it hypocritical to accept benefits from bad people?

Hi Stephen- I have a question about Rand's ideas about femininity. After some thought about my disagreements with several things she has said about women, in her books and in her answers to readers, I began to wonder what part her ideas on this matter play in Objectivism. If we take Objectivism as addressing the basic areas of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and politics, then where do these sorts of Gender Studies ideas fit in there? Do you think this should be viewed as a personal preference or opinion, or as an actual part of Objectivism? It seems to me that it isn't really a part of philosophy, but should be addressed by empirical investigation of biologists or psychologists. What do you think?

Harald, I'm not really sure of what you mean. Are you asserting that all biological entities have a value structure, or that they are of value? If the former, I would say that perhaps such a structure could be thought of in terms of those entities having a telos, but I don't really see how that helps us, since they really can not be said to hold values as a human does. If the latter, then we must say that they do not necessarily have value, since value is not intrinsic, but in terms of what a human values. I already understand that, according to Rand, life is the proper standard of value, but I'm not sure that this give me the answer to my question of what is meant by the premoral state and whether this is a hypothetical thought experiement or an actual state.

Eddie, could you expand on this statement? I am not sure that I fully grasp the implications of the premoral period being hypothetical on its fact/value integration. Are you saying that if the premoral period is hypothetical rather than actual, then choices proceeding from this would not be made on the basis of empirical investigation? I understand that you are working towards a deadline, so don't feel that you need to answer this right away- it can wait. Thanks!

Hmm. It appears, according to the help article I just read, that I can no longer edit my post, due to the time restriction. Well, I apologize, but I suppose it must stay. If anyone knows how to remove it, please let me know.