Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I think you are dropping the context. Yes, once upon a time ago there was a minor renaissance due to the influence of Islam, which had accepted some of the teachings of Aristotle. It didn't last very long because the religious Imam killed it and re-asserted the primacy of the Koran and Islam. So, no, I do not accept the idea that Cordoba House was intended to represent the minor renaissance of Islam -- something they abandoned many hundreds of years ago in favor of Islamic theocracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Added a paragraph to my original essay to further clarify the day to day applications of Objectivism and keeping it tied in with how to handle disagreements and valuing someone as important as Dr. Peikoff:

Some other examples of applied philosophy are using broad principles to guide on in one’s daily life, such as getting up and going to work due to the fact that productiveness is a virtue – even if one is having a bad morning and don’t feel like getting up. Also, if you have a disagreement with someone, then go to the facts in an integrated manner – the principle of rationality – rather than just going by rules or procedures or traditions. For the virtue of honesty, I think it would be important not to use a discredited method of ad hominem to tear down a co-worker or a friend just because that is the typical thing guys do these days. Honesty is the recognition that the unreal is unreal, and that ad hominem means that your comeback is unreal in terms of showing the other person is of value to you.

http://www.appliedphilosophyonline.com/applications_of_philosophy.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Added a paragraph to my original essay to further clarify the day to day applications of Objectivism and keeping it tied in with how to handle disagreements and valuing someone as important as Dr. Peikoff:

You should also mention valuing someone as important as Aristotle, too. Oh yes, and Copernicus. And Pascal. And Darwin. And Einstein. And Paul Revere. And Bill Gates. And Marie Curie. And Abraham Lincoln. And George Carlin. And Ray Kroc. And Issac Newton. And Cesare Beccaria. And the Write Brothers. And....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should also mention valuing someone as important as Aristotle, too. Oh yes, and Copernicus. And Pascal. And Darwin. And Einstein. And Paul Revere. And Bill Gates. And Marie Curie. And Abraham Lincoln. And George Carlin. And Ray Kroc. And Issac Newton. And Cesare Beccaria. And the Write Brothers. And....

I know you are trying to be a smart ass, but, yes, the principle applies to all of the above -- it applies to all those people who have been greatly beneficial to you, such as teaching you a new rational philosophy. Even though Objectivists would disagree with Aristotle's account of the Unmoved Mover, since it is rationalistic and very Platonist, it would be improper to use ad hominem against him for this mistake due to the greater value of logic and an objective method. Similarly, even if Dr. Peikoff was wrong on a particular topic (say in his podcasts), one would be dropping the context if one doesn't keep in mind that he further clarified many of the principles of Objectivism. Like I've emphasized in this whole conflict, if you disagree with him, what are the facts and what is your mind doing with them? are you being objective? or are you simply not accepting something that ought to make sense to you? if he is wrong, can you show why by reference to integrated facts? etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are dropping the context. Yes, once upon a time ago there was a minor renaissance due to the influence of Islam, which had accepted some of the teachings of Aristotle. It didn't last very long because the religious Imam killed it and re-asserted the primacy of the Koran and Islam. So, no, I do not accept the idea that Cordoba House was intended to represent the minor renaissance of Islam -- something they abandoned many hundreds of years ago in favor of Islamic theocracy.

Well, they claim that they want to revive this renaissance. I don't know whether or not this is a honest claim, but if we blast this mosque we'll never find out. BTW, this renaissance wasn't that minor. It lasted more than 250 years, almost as long as modern civilization.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they claim that they want to revive this renaissance. I don't know whether or not this is a honest claim, but if we blast this mosque we'll never find out. BTW, this renaissance wasn't that minor. It lasted more than 250 years, almost as long as modern civilization.

I'd have to confirm the 250 year time period. As far as I know, the Islamic renaissance was caused by three Islamic philosophers: Averroes, Avicenna, and I think someone named Ibn (though I'm not sure). But it was killed by the Islamics re-asserting religion the way the Christians re-asserted religion (Augustine versus Aquinas), only Aquinas had made too many very good arguments in favor of Aristotle integrated with Christianity to kill it off.

Edited by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another integration on this general topic Re Peikoff:

* Man’s knowledge works by means of differentiation (from a background) and integration (of the items considered), focusing on a particular set of facts that are first set apart due to their difference from all other things considered. In this regard, Dr. Peikoff places a sex change under bodily mutilation. In other podcasts, he has talked about the spectrum of bodily mutilations including tattoos and body piercings, so a sex change would be in that category on the extreme end of the spectrum. There may be exceptions to this principle, such as if one is born with XX chromosomes and a penis or XY chromosomes and born with a vagina, but these would be exceptions of the idea that a sex change would be bodily mutilation, and therefore immoral, as man’s life is the standard of a rational morality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't fully trust Wikipedia, but according to them the Islamic Golden Age extended from 750 AD to 1257 AD. The problem is that if one is talking about a rational philosophy leading to a cultural renaissance of Aristotelianism, then one has to mean the influence of Avicenna (980-1037) and Averroes (1126-1198). So given the fact that it takes a while for a philosophy to have influence on a culture, we'd have to say roughly 1100 - 1250, and I don't think these Islamic philosophers had quite the same impact as Aquinas, who brought about the Renaissance leading to The Age of Enlightenment (and the eventual founding of America). The reason is that these Islamic philosophers did not re-integrate Aristotle as thoroughly as Aquinas, and that there was a backlash from Islamic Imams who reverted the culture back to the Koran and Islam, and it never recovered from that standing.

Now, if there are Imams or Islamic intellectuals who seek to return to the teachings of Aristotle and form a cultural revolution, I am certainly all for that, but I don't think "Cordoba House" in commemoration of 911 was all for that. Given recent riots in the Islamic world over things like "Draw Mohamed Day" and the potential of burning Korans in protest and the accidental burning of a Koran in Kabul, and these leading to very large groups of Muslims wanting to kill Westerners, it would be a very long time before something like The Golden Age could return in the Middle East.

By the way, my previous post about someone named Ibn was mistaken. Ibn is part of a title for son of so and so, like my name would be Ibn Thomas Miovas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't fully trust Wikipedia, but according to them the Islamic Golden Age extended from 750 AD to 1257 AD. The problem is that if one is talking about a rational philosophy leading to a cultural renaissance of Aristotelianism, then one has to mean the influence of Avicenna (980-1037) and Averroes (1126-1198). So given the fact that it takes a while for a philosophy to have influence on a culture, we'd have to say roughly 1100 - 1250

Wow, here’s textbook rationalism on display. You don’t know the facts, but you’ve already determined what they have to be! Try some reading, sorry it has to come from a heretical source, but be consoled! At the time this material was first presented, the word from the papal throne was that the author was, on the subject of religious history, “omniscient”. However, since OPAR hadn’t yet been written, I suppose you can withhold deference to that opinion.

The reason is that these Islamic philosophers did not re-integrate Aristotle as thoroughly as Aquinas, and that there was a backlash from Islamic Imams who reverted the culture back to the Koran and Islam, and it never recovered from that standing.

Your source says 1257 for the end, I haven’t looked at it since you didn’t provide a link, but I know what happened in 1258, and it had nothing to do with backlash from Imams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't fully trust Wikipedia, but according to them the Islamic Golden Age extended from 750 AD to 1257 AD. The problem is that if one is talking about a rational philosophy leading to a cultural renaissance of Aristotelianism, then one has to mean the influence of Avicenna (980-1037) and Averroes (1126-1198). So given the fact that it takes a while for a philosophy to have influence on a culture, we'd have to say roughly 1100 - 1250, and I don't think these Islamic philosophers had quite the same impact as Aquinas, who brought about the Renaissance leading to The Age of Enlightenment (and the eventual founding of America). The reason is that these Islamic philosophers did not re-integrate Aristotle as thoroughly as Aquinas, and that there was a backlash from Islamic Imams who reverted the culture back to the Koran and Islam, and it never recovered from that standing.

Now, if there are Imams or Islamic intellectuals who seek to return to the teachings of Aristotle and form a cultural revolution, I am certainly all for that, but I don't think "Cordoba House" in commemoration of 911 was all for that. Given recent riots in the Islamic world over things like "Draw Mohamed Day" and the potential of burning Korans in protest and the accidental burning of a Koran in Kabul, and these leading to very large groups of Muslims wanting to kill Westerners, it would be a very long time before something like The Golden Age could return in the Middle East.

By the way, my previous post about someone named Ibn was mistaken. Ibn is part of a title for son of so and so, like my name would be Ibn Thomas Miovas.

The Golden age apparently started in 9th century AC and finished in 13th century. I don't think that modern Islam is going to incorporate the teaching of Aristotle , even the modern Western philosophy failed to do so.But they may to adopt certain Western values, at least those who live in the West. According to the Cordoba initiative motto this is their intention.

"The name Cordoba was chosen to symbolize the time in history when Muslims, Jews and Christians lived together in peace and harmony and created a prosperous center of intellectual, spiritual, cultural and commercial life in the city of Cordoba in Southern Spain."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we were talking about two different time periods. Granted, the Muslims were more civilized than the Christians during the 9th-11th centuries, but the big battle came with the Islamic philosophers I mentioned, who took on Islam qua Koran more directly and would have led to a more Western style Renaissance if not squelched by their religious leaders. Like I've said before, the only reason why Christianity (Catholicism) didn't squelch the rebirth of Aristotle is because Aquinas made far too many good arguments in favor of Aristotle (calling him "The Philosopher") which shifted the thinking from Platonism to Aristotelianism (more focused on the facts of reality rather than on ideals not based upon the facts). Otherwise, one is talking about floating abstractions not applicable to daily life and directing man's mind away from existence in favor of Heaven or some other version of the world of the Forms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is the real take away from this fascinating conversation over the views of Muslims as seen through their history, as well as modern Muslim interpretation/acceptance of it? Is it that the Cordoba House is symbolic of Muslim conquest or their enlightenment period?

Or perhaps it is that Muslims accept or reject their history as individuals and they need to be judged accordingly, not by some collectivist one-size-fits-all idea that they all are at war with us because their race or religion somehow deposes of them to do so. I think we all agree that Hegel was wrong on human action. Certainly we don’t need to give Obama the unchecked and unlimited power to violate property rights without review of an individual’s provable crimes against American’s, or links to those who have done so.

That is how you avoid repeating the tragedy of FDR’s relocation of Japanese American’s during WW II, by properly applying justice to individuals versus collective action to groups.

Edited by Spiral Architect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do you come up with this stuff? who has been talking about collective action against groups and who has said anything at all about rounding up all the Muslims in the USA and relocating them to camps? Ain't been nary a word about that. What Objectivists advocate is morally evaluating the ideas that people accept and thinking it through and finding out if those ideas comply with the enemy's ideas and will they act on those ideas during a war against Muslims? One reason why this war is going on so long and is very ineffectual is that our political leadership (including Bush) refuse to do this -- they refuse to see the danger of Islam, especially in its political form of Theocracy, as any type of threat against the United States. When Cordoba House was first proposed, the leadership of the NYC Mosque was NOT advocating a return to reason as part of his message regarding what he would be preaching, but rather getting along with those who do not agree with Islam -- to **some** degree -- without advocating that one dismiss the idea that infidels ought to be killed. He also had a lot of associations with Muslims being watched by our government as associating with and possibly being Islamic terrorists. He was a bad guy...a really bad guy...and no, he should not have been permitted to run a mosque dedicated to Islamic Theocracy during a time of war against Muslims (even though our government is too cowardly to call it that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Added an edit to my original essay due to someone stating that a principle must apply to all of the facts without exceptions:

Since proper principles are integrations of facts, there is no principle stating that one's principles must cover all the facts without exceptions. Exceptions indicate that either one has not yet properly identified the primary cause or that there are other factors involved that account for the exceptions. Dr. Peikoff in one of his courses gives the example of compatibility of blood types. Normally speaking, the different blood types are compatible with one another (O and O, for example) but there are cases where it is fatal to receive a blood transfusion of the same blood type. Turns out there is something called the Rh factor that makes them incompatible. But since this is yet another factor involved, it does not invalidate the principle that the same blood type is compatible with the same blood type. Similarly, since it does seem possible that one can be born with XX chromosomes and a penis, then something else is involved in the development of one's sex, which may not yet have been identified. It still doesn't mean that a sex change is in order according to the principle that one ought not to mutilate one's own body, but rather that the other factor ought to be identified and perhaps corrected. But it all does depend on how well a sex change operation is performed and if they can connect up the appropriate nerve endings and so forth.

http://www.appliedphilosophyonline.com/applications_of_philosophy.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other podcasts, he has talked about the spectrum of bodily mutilations including tattoos and body piercings, so a sex change would be in that category on the extreme end of the spectrum.

I am curious, does this mean he thought that tattoos and body piercings are immoral to get? If they aren't immoral to get, then that means the category of "body mutilation" isn't even the problem, or body mutilation is being equivocated with any notable physical alteration, including body modification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, in that podcast, he indicated that getting a tattoo and getting a body piercing would be immoral. Trouble is, his search engine is really bad and I tried to look up that podcast, but couldn't do it. Maybe using Google specific to Piekoff.com key word "tattoo" would do it, but I don't know how to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do you come up with this stuff? who has been talking about collective action against groups and who has said anything at all about rounding up all the Muslims in the USA and relocating them to camps? Ain't been nary a word about that.

It’s just taking a principle and applying it. You can argue that your opponent has done so improperly, but there’s nothing wrong with it as an approach to discussing and testing ideas.

“I think we should nationalize the steel industry”

“Next you’ll be nationalizing the coal industry”

“I SAID NOTHING ABOUT COAL!!!! WHERE DO YOU COME UP WITH THIS STUFF!!!!”

Yes, in that podcast, he indicated that getting a tattoo and getting a body piercing would be immoral. Trouble is, his search engine is really bad and I tried to look up that podcast, but couldn't do it. Maybe using Google specific to Piekoff.com key word "tattoo" would do it, but I don't know how to do that.

There’s also the index here on OO, it has lengthier descriptions. I didn’t notice until now, but it hasn’t been updated since the date rape retraction.

http://forum.objecti...ic=17019&st=200

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There’s also the index here on OO, it has lengthier descriptions. I didn’t notice until now, but it hasn’t been updated since the date rape retraction.

http://forum.objecti...ic=17019&st=200

The index was mostly the work of a single volunteer, who has stopped doing it. If anyone new would like to volunteer to maintain the index, please PM me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, in that podcast, he indicated that getting a tattoo and getting a body piercing would be immoral. Trouble is, his search engine is really bad and I tried to look up that podcast, but couldn't do it. Maybe using Google specific to Piekoff.com key word "tattoo" would do it, but I don't know how to do that.

So pierced ears are immoral?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The index was mostly the work of a single volunteer, who has stopped doing it. If anyone new would like to volunteer to maintain the index, please PM me.

Now that Peikoff's site has them broken out into single questions, with the text of the question provided and searchable, the separate index seems redundant. It was certainly useful before.

So pierced ears are immoral?

I think he might be referring to this one:

http://www.peikoff.com/2008/10/27/what-right-does-a-parent-have-to-alter-a-childs-body/

In other words, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't find specific podcasts using Google, oo.net, or other search engines, but from memory, he's not against ear piercing in moderation (small earrings) and not against inconspicuous tattoos (small ones). The principle is that one ought not to mutilate one's own body, that one's own body is oneself and that one ought not to do things that harm or mutilate oneself. Remember that man's life is the standard, not doing anything you feel like doing because you believe it is cool (which would be subjectivism).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example of this "other factor principle" is the orbit of Mercury. Newtonian gravitational mechanics is a simple principle relating the mass of an object and the square of the distance from the object. With this principle, one can predict orbits of planets quite accurately. However, the orbit of Mercury would not fit within the margin of error of measurements taken, even in Newton's time. Was he supposed to scrap the whole effort of understanding gravity, or state that something else might be involves, though he doesn't know what? Turns out it took nearly 300 years to find that other factor, and that came about with Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which accounts for Mercury's orbit. So, it is not very efficient to hold off stating a principle that has identified the causes, and yet may not have covered all of them, since it might be quite some time before the other factor is identified.

The point is that we have not yet identified all of the factors involved in the development of one's sex while in the womb, though one's chromosomes are the main causative factor. But because one's sex is integrated all the way down to the molecular level (chromosomes are molecules), then just changing the genitals will not actually change one's sex down to that level -- at least not yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I've searched and asked around, here and on FaceBook, and no one seems to remember a Peikoff podcast on tattoos and body piercings. It must not have been asked directly in the question because only the words of the question are searchable. So, I have asked him the following question, though it will be a while before we get an answer:

I thought you had done a podcast on tattoos and body piercing stating that both were a type of body mutilation and shouldn't be done, but I can't find it. I would think that these would be on a spectrum at the low end with a sex change on the greater end of body mutilations. Can you clarify?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

The point is that we have not yet identified all of the factors involved in the development of one's sex while in the womb, though one's chromosomes are the main causative factor. But because one's sex is integrated all the way down to the molecular level (chromosomes are molecules), then just changing the genitals will not actually change one's sex down to that level -- at least not yet.

Fascinating. I don't know much about molecular biology, but I know enough to know you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

I mean, yes, you've definitely explained to us that you've read all of the works of Rand and Peikoff and obviously that background should give you a very strong education in molecular biology, but you haven't demonstrated it here.

Yes, you have chromosomes in every cell. No, they generally don't do anything by just sitting there--the cell needs to ask the question and almost all of the cells in your body "don't care" what the answer is. Also, there these things called "mutations" which generally speaking make chromosomes completely non-predictive at the margin.

Anyhow, I suggest you re-read all of Ayn Rand's works on molecular biology. It won't take very long, I promise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do you come up with this stuff? who has been talking about collective action against groups and who has said anything at all about rounding up all the Muslims in the USA and relocating them to camps? Ain't been nary a word about that. What Objectivists advocate is morally evaluating the ideas that people accept and thinking it through and finding out if those ideas comply with the enemy's ideas and will they act on those ideas during a war against Muslims? One reason why this war is going on so long and is very ineffectual is that our political leadership (including Bush) refuse to do this -- they refuse to see the danger of Islam, especially in its political form of Theocracy, as any type of threat against the United States. When Cordoba House was first proposed, the leadership of the NYC Mosque was NOT advocating a return to reason as part of his message regarding what he would be preaching, but rather getting along with those who do not agree with Islam -- to **some** degree -- without advocating that one dismiss the idea that infidels ought to be killed. He also had a lot of associations with Muslims being watched by our government as associating with and possibly being Islamic terrorists. He was a bad guy...a really bad guy...and no, he should not have been permitted to run a mosque dedicated to Islamic Theocracy during a time of war against Muslims (even though our government is too cowardly to call it that).

I was simply pointing out that you guys can’t even agree on Muslim history since they are a complex land with a complex past, just like most cultures in history, then bridged that over as an example of why you can’t evaluate Muslims collectively for the same reason. That was FDR’s mistake, thus the Japanese reference. There has been no attempt to properly discover if the Mosque is in fact linked to people the Congressional Act of force allowed for the President to claim military action. Now, today we are finally asking these questions but I have yet to see credible information on it. My concern here however is how this started and the thinking up front. I agree that if there is a link to the terrorists or funded by like minded groups they would need to go. To bad no one said that the day it was announced. To bad Peikoff did not clarify it. Evidently knowing someone’s race or religion predisposes one to revealed knowledge about any individual. Thus the Hegel reference (which I’m surprised you didn’t pick up on). If you go from Hegel and do some reduction from there I think you’ll get where my concerns with this lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...