Avila

But she could expect a heavenly reward.

What "writings of the supporters of altruism" do you have in mind? Clearly it's not any orthodox Christian writing: the orthodox Christian, far from deriving no benefit at all from their benevolent actions, has three benefits: one, the "feeling good" aspect that the researchers document; two, the fulfilling of meaning and purpose (because the Christian is called upon to care for others); and three, a heavenly reward of happiness. The "meaning and purpose" aspect is very important. Happiness is very much tied to a sense of purpose and meaning in one's life. I once met a group of Mother Theresa's sisters, the Missionaries of Charity. A more joyful group of young women I have not met. Clearly part of their happiness and joy stemmed from their sense of purpose and meaning. In the secular world, this shows itself by the attachment to various causes, such as environmentalism, Marxism, and various other "isms". I think what you mean by "altruism" has more to do with a psychologically unhealthy attitude of personal "martyrdom". The classic Christian view of this sort of distortion is that it is a warped kind of pride ("look at me and how I sacrifice myself for all those around me").

On what basis do you conclude that the various researchers do not define altruism "properly"? The basic dictionary definition (Merriam Webster) ought to suffice: "unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others". That's a basic, general use of the term that the researchers would be using. If you have a different definition, or you're referring to a debased kind of altruism (more of a psychological problem), then you're simply referring to something different than the researchers are. In which case, you've no grounds for asserting that they're not defining altruism properly. I'm not intent to show that altruists are happy so much as I am intent on questioning the premise (expressed here in various forms) that they aren't. Facts are facts, and the research doesn't support the assertion that they aren't.

Actually, research shows that altruistic people are generally happier than others: http://www.pbs.org/thisemotionallife/topic/altruism/altruism-happiness http://www.wholeliving.com/article/giving-is-good-for-you http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0725/p13s02-lire.html There's a sort of debased kind of altruism, I'm sure, but I doubt it applies to most people. As for Mother Theresa, that's not quite accurate -- what she describes in her diaries is what is known, in Catholic circles, as the "dark night of the soul". It's a phenomenom that's been described by other religious (St. John of the Cross, etc.) and is not to be understood as unhappiness.

Because they aren't white and they aren't historically a part of Western Civilization. Western Civilization is the real target of multiculturalists. In this country, European discoverers are routinely demonized, and the virtues of this country are ignored while its sins -- slavery, Indian suprression -- are trumpeted. Europe doesn't believe in anything anymore, and so is particularly vulnerable to mass immigration of people whose philosophy is inherently foreign to it. Breivik was initially described as a "Christian fundamentalist", but there's no evidence of that -- he did not belong to any church. Rather he saw Christianity as a potentially unifying force.

That's not what I meant by the term. "Logic" includes inductive reasoning -- that is, the process of deriving a reliable generalization from observations. It is logical, then, for me to derive a reliable generalization of what Muslim actions might be in the future by observing what they've done in the past. We agree about the first part, but not about the second: individual Muslims may not be a problem, but their belief system is, as it is emphatically opposed to a number of freedoms that we maintain. For example, the separation of church and state; religious freedom (conversion from Islam is punishable by death); women's rights. First, it is indeed a problem when a majority of the citizens of a European city decide that sharia law trumps the civil law. You do realize, don't you, that that is happening in Muslim enclaves in some European cities where Muslims are now the majority? Secondly, you are ignorant of the Christian view of homosexuality. It is regarded as a disorder. The person who suffers from the disorder is not evil, but homosexual acts are considered sinful. I speak here of the Catholic and Orthodox view, which make up the vast majority of Christians. There might be some nutcase Protestant wierdos who think homosexuals are evil, but it is not a common or orthodox view. I might add, by the way, that homosexuality is punishable by death in Islam.

Sorry -- don't know why that happened. Try this instead: http://pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Orphan_Migrated_Content/Muslimpopulation.pdf You have to scroll through several pages, but it does list the percentage by country. Note, by the way, that Pew is skeptical of the "Muslimization" of Europe. There are analysts who conclude quite differently: Philip Jenkins, Demographics, Religion, and the Future of Europe, Orbis: A Journal of World Affairs, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 533, summer 2006 . See also: http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2003/03middleeast_taspinar.aspx?p=1

I did not say "necessarily" -- that's your term, not mine. I said "logically" -- that is, it is reasonable and rational to base future projections of what Muslims are likely to do, in majority status in Europe overall, based on their actions in European cities where they have reached majority status. The introduction of sharia law is a stated goal of many Islamist movements. In European cities, muslim enclaves have sought to introduce sharia law to act in place of existing legal structures. Because of multiculturalism, many European cities attempt to accomodate them, in full or in part (for example, Britain's sharia courts -- read here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5675166/At-least-85-sharia-courts-operating-in-Britain-says-Civitas-report.html ) Here's an interesting report: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/oslo-car-fires-highlight-threat-to-norways-future/ The political aim of Islamists is ultimately the formal establishment of Sharia law, with or without modern adaptations. You can claim that it is "collectivism" (what a strange use of that term...) to reason that it is likely that a Muslim majority would bring with it a reduction of personal freedom, but you don't have history on your side.

So you honestly think that concerns about the nature of what will logically happen to Europe, based on birthrate data, is up there with nutty scientists who can't duplicate their computer models with actual data? Well, it's a positive sign that you're actually interested in data. This is a welcome change from an earlier post of yours wherein you claimed that Timothy McVeigh was a conservative and a Republican, as well as a practicing Catholic. No data supported your claims. But since you ask: http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2007/11/muslim-population-in-european-cities.html. This blog references sources.

That's Europe as a whole. Germany, which is where the OP is posting from, already has a Muslim population about 5%. Soem cities, such as Amsterdam and Marseilles, are expected to have Muslim majorities in 20-30 years. Brussels isn't too far behind them.Obviously not every Muslim is a danger to freedom, but enough of them are -- quite apart from the violent ones, European cities with large numbers of Muslims have had sharia law become the de facto law.

I disagree with your breezy assertion that they will integrate, "even if it takes 50 years". I wouldn't be so sure -- in 50 years, Muslims will likely be the majority, and they will call the shots. Unless Europeans decide to have large families again, it's unlikely that Europe will survive as part of Western civilization -- it will change to something else.

What??? McVeigh was a registered Republican in the eighties, yes, but there is simply no evidence of his being a mainstream conservative. And though he was raised Catholic, he himself said he lost touch with it as an adult, and described himself as an agnostic (though he did ask for last rites from a priest before being executed -- no atheists in a foxhole, I suppose...). He was not a "practicing Catholic" at all. He didn't attend Mass as an adult, which is the bare minimum for being a practicing Catholic.

Most people here don't, of course, but since the majority of the earth's population are Christian or Muslim, and a fair number of the smaller religions (Judaism, some forms of Hinduism) also believe in ex-nihilo creation, your statement is untrue. You can find them here: http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/5ways.html A basic explanation of the first cause argument can be found at the following address. The author is Peter Kreeft, Ph.D.. He's a professor of philosophy at Boston College and at the King's College (Empire State Building), in New York City http//www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

Thanks!

I was on topic when I pointed out that the explanation I was given as to what made an concept or assertion arbitrary (which was: unable to be proven true or false) would thus render arbitrary the various alternatives that had been offered to a caused universe, as well as moral positions, and gave Rand's assertion about putting work above family as an example. Not off topic yet.... This prompted numerous questions by those patient members. If you don't want to go off on a tangent, then don't ask questions of me if, in answering them, I will then be told I'm taking this topic far off onto a tangent.

I noticed you're from Los Angeles: check out these ateliers -- http://www.gottliebstudios.com/ http://www.laafa.org/

It's quite possible that you didn't receive much if any serious art instruction in your youth. As I noted earlier, good art instruction is hard to come by. I've been teaching for that last few years, and some of my students are driving over two hours -- one way, mind you -- because of the lack of good art instruction closer to their homes. So I see it as quite possible that you had some degree of talent that lay undeveloped. The role that effort and dedication is obviously tremendous. But to rise above mediocrity, or at least above good to great, one needs a great deal of talent, a great deal of effort, and good instruction in the formative years. Do you have any atelier programs in your area? I would suggest looking into them.

Well, obviously the struggling art student CAN'T get more talent; he or she has whatever amount they were born with. Obviously more effort will produce at least some improvement.

I'll second that Charles Bargues recommendation! I also share your observations and reservations about "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain". Although certainly the student examples show improvement, I think it's largely because they're getting at least some direction. Good art instruction, suitable for the serious art student, is hard to find.

No, not all. I think we're getting off the subject, though. Probably the subject for another thread. Maybe you can just give me the definitive demonstration that proves that a man who puts his family above his work is immoral, and we can get off this tangent.

The choice isn't between doing the "bare minimum" vs. putting one's own work first: it's between putting one's family first and putting one's own work first. Doing the first requires, of course, that one work to provide for the family -- hardly the "bare minimum". However, putting one's own work above family is a recipe for divorce and estranged children. I don't think Rand understood this, never being a mother. But that's not really the crux of the matter: it's that she makes the assertion that it's immoral. Since it's been explained to me here that that which cannot be proven true or false is arbitrary, why would Rand's statement be given any credence?

Thanks, that helps. It was some of the ideas presented about the nature of existence that prompted my initial questions.

From her 1964 Playboy interview: PLAYBOY: According to your philosophy, work and achievement are the highest goals of life. Do you regard as immoral those who find greater fulfillment in the warmth of friendship and family ties? RAND: If they place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral. Friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man's life. A man who places others first, above his own creative work, is an emotional parasite; whereas, if he places his work first, there is no conflict between his work and his enjoyment of human relationships." A man who places his work above his family is, in my opinion, a stupid jerk. But that's just my opinion. Rand asserts it as an absolute, but based on what scientific experiments? How can one PROVE that it is immoral?

Ah yes, ex-atheist Antony Flew's main argument... I was thinking of all the things that are arbitrary by Objectivist standards. Some Objectivist ethicical position can't be proven. For example, Rand believed (I can find the quote somewhere if you're not familiar with it) that people who place family, friends, and human relationships above creative work are immoral (her exact word). Since one can neither falsify or prove that assertion, it is reasonable to say that Rand's opinion on this matter ought to be dismissed as arbitrary.

Based on this, then, your "alternative" -- that energy is eternal, has always existed -- is equally arbitrary. Then the alternatives presented here to Aquinas's argument are equally arbitrary. Which means that you, as an Objectivist, really ought not to waste any thought on subjects as interesting as the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the nature of existence,......on and on.