Dan9999999
-
Posts
31 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Dan9999999
-
-
I'm a Yankees fan and as much as I would really like to see a Johson Shilling game in the post season, I would really like to see the Sox pick up some one also so the games could be better, dosn't really matter the Yanks win in the end. What ever happened to the trade talks for Rocket, I'd like to see him go back to Boston.
-
I was just thinking about the possibility of Randy Johnson going to New York and I started wondering how many other baseball fans there were on this board?
-
There is no real threat of a draft, besides how wildly unpopular it would be, and the parallels that would immediately be drawn with Vietnam, the many pentagon officials believe that the draft was never a particularly good idea, as it got them a lot of people who didn’t want to be in the military.
-
Nice use of sic Betsy :-)
-
First on the subject of the Golden One. While at least with the main character we see a gradual process that leads him to assert his individuality, though 50 pages is hardly gradual. With the Golden One she with very limited contact with the hero decides to run off and join him. Considering the extent to which Rand pushes the point about social conditioning in the book this seems very unlikely. During the book we get some limited insight into what the protagonist is thinking to help explain his transition, but without any real insight into the Golden One she comes across as very flat. Flat because the only sense of her in the book is that of the main character’s desire for her. It is hard to get a sense of the Golden One as a real person and not just of an image in the protagonists head.
My point that Rand’s works are much better philosophically the literarily, is a more complex one best made on a book by book basis. So to limit the scope I’ll only deal with Anthem and won’t draw any lager conclusions.
My single biggest problem with Anthem is the incredibly obvious way the plot unfolds. Almost as soon as the book begins it’s fairly obvious that the protagonist is going to eventually rebel against and leave the society. Furthermore the book is far to obvious in its criticism of the society. While Atlas Shrugged slowly draws out how some ideals lead to the ruination of society Anthem tries to work backwards, to much less effect. It is harder to see that this would happen when you start with a world already in shambles.
-
Don't quite your day job.
-
It is surprising to see such a strong negative opinion of a character played out in a spark note, but Anthem is a fairly mediocre literary work. All of Rand’s works are much better in terms of philosophy them in terms of literary quality. A more apt idea of The Golden One would probably have been to call her a poorly developed character, who we seem to have no real sense of throughout the book, and who acts in a fairly inexplicable way.
-
I’m not sure you're right about Socrates' views on civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is a process to bring about a democratic change in laws. Socrates being a citizen of Athens certainly supported the democratic process as a way to change laws. While civil disobedience usually involves a violation of a law it's not intended to bring about a defacto destruction of the law, it's just a way to show your lack of support.
P.S.
"Does civil disobedience somehow fit within this framework? To find out, we must first define civil disobedience. My trusty desktop dictionary lacks an entry, so I will resort to making my own." --Ouch
-
Bush is much more religious then his father ever was. PBS ran a great documentary on how during Bush I's term in the White House his son actually pressed him more toward religion. To see evidence of his religious nature one needs to look no further the his snap answer to the question of favorite philosopher during the republican primary 4 years ago, when he answered Jesus.
-
There is one factual mistake in this thread, the idea that jury nullification is illegal. Juror’s cannot be charged with contempt with court for nullification, and cannot discuss what was said so as to incriminate anyone even if it were against the law. One of the odd contradictions of the American legal system is even though jury nullification is legal, it is not always legal for the lawyer to tell the jury they have such an option.
-
The second article said that some one had lodged a complaint, I just think it would be funny if it had be Castro complaining.
-
Now if the basis of objective law is to only harm those who have done harm, then should things like perjury and impeding a police investigation be crimes as no direct harm is done?
-
My difficulty comes in considering the fact that I think the crime she was charged with, impeding a police investigation etc, should be crimes but what she was charged with covering up shouldn't be. I believe I would find her not guilty because while I would usually find someone guilty if they committed a crime to cover up what shouldn't be a crime, ex: committing perjury to cover up an affair. She was only scared into committing this crime by unjust government regulation.
-
My question is more along the lines of If they could prove her guilty of lying would you convict her?
-
The trial and recent conviction of Martha Stewart got me thinking, now the laws against insider trading might be unjust but most of what she was charged with was lying to the investagators, wich persumably should be a crime. So my question is if you were a jurior in her trial would you have found her guilty of comitting a crime to cover up what shouldn't be a crime?
-
While I agree that different theories need a framework for evaluation the fact that quantum objects may simply not act in what we would a rational framework in the non-quantum world could invalidate selecting between formulas based on principles for the non-quantum world. Moreover in response to the article suggested just as I am suggesting philosophers should not consider themselves physicists, physicists should not consider themselves philosophers.
-
Well you seem to have me there. Maby the best point I have left is what happens when physics contradicts Objectivism. In quantum physics, a science that has proven extreamly accurate in all tests, the rules of objectivism are contradicted. Causes have different effects based on notheing more then probability, etc.
-
Philosophy is essentially a creation of man mind. It only exists because people exist. Physics is not. The speed of light would be the same whether we where here to measure it or not. While there may be some crossover, the idea that we uses experiments to test hypothesis in physics rather then mysticism, could potentially be called philosophy. But when the laws are universal and only our methodology is in question physics becomes independent of philosophy. Philosophy could be different if people where different, while physics would remain the same.
-
A claim that has bothered me for a long time is the idea that a theory of philosophy can be used to explain physics. While everything we have seen so far, at least in anything lager then a molecule, conforms to the law of identity, this is not to say everything will. When dealing with physics, an area where there is the possibility of determining an absolute unequivocal truth, any rule must conform to physics not seek to conform physics to it. More importantly while the truth of quantum physics has not been totally proven, many sections seem to go against the "laws" of objectivism. This is not to say that we should adjust morality to encompass quantum mechanics, rather it is to say leave the physics to the physicists. Physics is essentially an experimental science and laws will eventually be proven or disproven.
-
The essential problem is the unique destructive capacity of nuclear weapons. Just as Rand suggested that in emergencies we need to slightly alter ethical standards, while not compromising general morality, we must have special ethical standards for WMD. The situation I imagine is that a person with no provable intent to use a weapon, but a secret desire, obtains a nuke from a failing nuclear power like Russia, and by the time he has it, it's already too late to do anything.
Yes, the logic for banning nuclear weapons sounds like the logic for banning all weapons but the unique destructive ability of nuclear weapons means that there must be some restraint on acquiring them.
-
A machine gun 200 or even 500 years ago doesn't compare with a nuclear weapon today. It seems that the government must prevent people from acquiring nuclear weapons, and possibly some chemical and biological agents, under the idea that the only possible use is to harm others and the idea that they are simply too dangerous and could uniquely destabilize society.
-
If individual citizen's are allowed to own nuclear weapons the result would be chaos. People would be unable to stop a lunatic from aquireing a nuclear weapon even if they strongly suspected that he would use it. Moreover if the government bans nuclear weapons isn't this equall to a use of unporvoked force?
-
[Mod's note: Merged with earlier thread on a similar topic. - sN]
Government Financing:
Rand seems to shrug off the idea of government financing as a later issue that could be easily resolved but the problem could be much greater. Even core government services are extremely expensive. The army is one of the largest expenses of our government today. The argument is made that a defensive military would be cheaper, but in modern warfare keeping any army, because of the necessity of technologically advanced weapons, is always expensive. People have said that other countries keep much cheaper militaries, but that is because of large U.S. guaranties of security. The government through military and police would in any society run an enormous cost, which has never been achieved without mass taxation, though it was done by tariffs at a point. What I don't understand is what would be so harmful about a flat tax, that is to say a flat amount not a flat percentage. By living in a country we receive protection from aggressors, why would it be out of line to force people to pay for it? Further isn't it unrealistic to think that we can basically achieve protection without paying for it?
-
Now it seems very clear that it is immoral to advocate of demanded that the government pay for you're college, but would it be immoral to accept money the government offers you? This is to say if you don't believe it is your right to have this money can you still morally accept it. If the answer to this question is no then can on ever attend a state college since they are heavily government subsidized.
Falling Asleep
in Psychology and Self Improvement
Posted
I was thinking about this recently, I have always, as long as I can remember, fallen asleep by essentally daydreaming. I make up some story in my head about really anything. From me playing centerfield for the yankees, to some imaginary character fighting crime, or something even more ramdom. It recently occured to me that not eveyone else does this. So what do you do to fall asleep?