exaltron

bizarre but cute. Ironically it seems to be filmed in Europe or Canada (?) How did you find this?

I think it depends on the type of boasting going on, if it's just yapping about every little thing you've done (some of which presumably is outstanding only by virtue of that fact that most people are thoroughly mediocre) to anyone who will listen is clearly less than heroic. However, wanting to exalt your greatest achievements among people you respect and admire, and reveling in their admiration of you, is fully consistent with rational principles. The only way it would be second-handed is if you based your decision to pursue your goals and dreams on whether or not you received positive feedback. Frankly, I don't know about other Objectivists, but I find this to be somewhat of a fine line. I do find myself once in a while in danger of crossing over into second-handed territory when I get too hung up on enjoying the admiration of others. The power of having a gorgeous woman who shares your principles staring up at you on stage, grasping the full meaning of your work.. it's definitely not something to take lightly. While I know in my heart that I will always make music according to my own vision, there are moments when I need that extra lift to overcome my inertia, when thinking of a woman like that makes me peel my ass off the couch and get to work. To get back to your question, I think Galt was happy to talk at length about the value of his invention to those who deserved it. But I assume he would see the pointlessness (even the destructiveness) of parading it out to those who couldn't grasp the principles that made it possible.

Just in case anyone was racking their brains for stocking stuffers, I put my CD on super bargain-basement sale with a special discount for multiple copies (eg, get 10 copies for $40). Don't all your loved ones deserve to experience how exaltron "undermines the spineless with sublime rhymes and basslines"?

Welcome, and I have to say that is an impressive achievement to have gotten through all that in 19 mos. It took me almost a year to digest Atlas Shrugged (I think I read it through once and then had to go back and pore over each page considering the philosophical implications). It reminds me of an encounter I had with Harry Binswanger: I ran into him in a Starbucks and introduced myself and he was asking about my history with Objectivism. When I told him I had been a student of Oism for seven years, he responded to the effect of "Oh, so you're really new to it". I remember thinking of what an odyssey the past seven years feels like, but I guess in relative terms I am still pretty new to Objectivism. Incidentally, I think We the Living is the hardest book to read, at least having grasped Objectivism at the point that I read it. I practically bawled when I got to the end.

Agree. I would say Rand called homosexuality immoral because she believed that it was harmful to the practitioner, which is why she always stated emphatically that like other immoral acts- say for example worshiping some imaginary deity- homosexuality shouldn't be prohibited. The question is, is it harmful to anyone, or in any way incompatible with man's nature? I honestly don't think that being homosexual necessarily represents any obstacle to rational self-interest and happiness. But that's probably a question for the homosexuality thread..

That's weird, I always wondered why I end up sleeping with guys whenever my nose was stuffed up. *air ball*

Exactly what I was thinking when I read the original post. What would actually lead to some conclusion or causation would be to compare readers of longer, and preferably intellectually hefty novels, eg Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, etc. I wouldn't compare readers of AS with readers of other reportedly "influental" novels like Siddartha, which most teenagers can plow through over a weekend. Simply having the discipline to get through a 1200-page novel might show some aptitude for success completely independent of the philosophical content or personal inspiration in the novel. I would like to see an exhaustive studies of the 100 most-read or most-influential books mapped to success, happiness and other measurements. I think this would go along way to empirically proving that ideas matter. As far as the passports go, I think intellectual hunger and wanderlust tend to go hand-in-hand for most people. When you read about the world you want to see the world. I have never made more than $60,000 a year, but I have traveled extensively outside the US.

Not sure why I was compelled to click on a thread titled "26.2" (must have been some mystical forces at work , But congrats!! I can remember when you were blogging about doing 3 miles! As an added bonus, you missed one of the most abjectly miserable karaoke nights in recent memory. We waited over 2 hours for our songs to come up (finally figured out there was some hijinks happening with the cue) before finally giving up and vowing never again to beam down to Planet Rose.

Wow, I only listened to half of it, but the implications are amazing. The nature of perfect pitch- the relationship to language, etc. is really fascinating. It's funny, I've always heard people say that my ability to pick up languages and my musical talent were related, but I had no idea how much. That explains why hearing someone speak mispronounce spanish has the same effect on me as hearing an instrument played out of tune

As someone who has been bisexual in the past, but whose membership has pretty much lapsed, I've never been able to assign much more meaning to this than to say that it's simply a matter of taste or preference, and probably has a lot more to do with genetics than psychology. Of course, I've always been open minded and willing to try new things, so perhaps a genetic predisposition is not a sufficient condition, but just a necessary one. I would have to say that while I've enjoyed sex with men and women, there is something about being with someone of the opposite sex that for me is infinitely more satisfying. I think that while most are not, some values are gender-specific (Dan Edge has written extensively and eloquently about this subject in an OO thread). Being with an extremely feminine woman who shares my values and also values me as a masculine man, seems categorically different than being with a man who does not have this capacity. Another way to look at it is that all values, gender-specific and otherwise, come together in a heterosexual encounter, whereas in a homosexual encounter you have all masculinity or all femininity. I suppose the element of psychological visibility is enhanced by being admired by someone who is not of your same gender. Definitely not a simple issue by any means, but I think the ability to "walk the fence" as the native americans say, only can make life richer.

This reminds me of a story I blogged last year about Canadian doctors being persecuted for going outside of the state system to help patients in a similar fashion. I hate to sound cynical but it seems based on the current climate (with a healthy dose hot air provided by Michael Moore), socialized medicine and the shackling and persecution of health care workers who dare try to "shrug" is just a matter of time. In the short run, I wonder if it is feasible to try to skirt the current semi-socialized system by joining a concierge service and writing off the expenses (so as to avoid paying into the government-subsidized system).

Well put, and I would add that ironically, this is how many people view Objectivism: That pursuing your own self-interest (or advocating selfishness) means that you advocate screwing over the other guy wherever possible. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. I would definitely recommend the prudent predator thread for more on why sacrificing the rights of others necessarily means sacrificing your own rights (since you become a moral advocate of selectively applied rights, which means you destroy the concept of rights).

My understanding of her position is that she is "Secular Muslim" which I interpret to mean she identifies herself as coming from Muslim culture but is not religious. Of course if she were an objectivist she would simply call herself an rational individualist, but hey, nobody's perfect (and between you, me and the emoticons, this chick has stared down more intimidation than most of us will ever deal with).

Hey Stella- welcome to Oism online! Looks like you're off to a good start with the new blog- The Abbot piece is excellent. I'm encouraged that they didn't cave in to the Thai government's bullying, a rarity in this industry unfortunately. What really floors me is the thought that if the AIDS epidemic had not hit the free-market US as it did, all of these life-saving drugs most likely wouldn't exist for them to loot. Hence the demand that the Pharma industry spend billions on tropical diseases, even though it is almost guaranteed that they would not be able to market such drugs on anything resembling mutual terms. Reading all the press/comments about SICKO it's becoming clear that more and more people are adopting a "loot first, ask questions later" philosophy in regards to health care. Moore himself has stated openly that he would like to see the concept of profit completely eradicated from the health care industry (see video). The guy is plucked right out of Atlas Shrugged: who cares about profit, self-interest and innovation, we need health care for everyone now, so let's just freeze time and technology where it is until we can get it all figured out. I haven't checked in on this in a while, but last I read, my predictions about price controls following closely on the heels of the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit seem to be materializing. [edited to add link to Moore video]

Crap, I didn't see your response (was that really almost 5 months ago??) until today. I'll try to type up that recipe in the next few days and post it somewheres.. Of course it's not the best season for cooking chili, but hopefully you'll try it out at some point.

The Randroid, eh? I wasn't aware it was a dance. Sort of like the robot, but more heroic? And is that a quote from a Daft Punk song? I was sure I was the only one who appreciated that vocoder lyric on a spiritual level. There has been a LOT of discussion on this board towards a more detailed Objectivist music theory, though I haven't heard much from the "official" Objectivist institutions. One of my favorite (probably because I rap) is this discussion of whether rap music qualifies as music.

Sure you have, albeit in a sleight of hand: There is a clear implication there that you are questioning the universality of ethics by bringing in what is clearly a post-ethical preference. Please to explain. As to your other comment, Rand's ethics neither apply to a given individual, or to "other men", but to man generally. There is a huge difference. The ethical question is not whether a given man can avoid destruction by doing X, but whether X generally leads to destruction for man, based on his nature as a rational being. Please provide examples of a fundamental ethical principle you would advocate beyond the meta-ethical "do whatever furthers your life".

But looting is not a profession. It is an ethical choice. If you're claiming that not all people are suited for it, then you're calling it a preference, in which case no ethical statements can be made about it. The point of ethics is to formulate a code of conduct that applies to man generally (which, as with all principles that apply to man generally can have exceptions; these need not invalidate the principle). That is precisely why we don't say that deciding to be an astronaut is an ethical decision. It is a post-ethical preference that depends on the individual. Deciding to be a producer, however, is within the realm of ethics, it is something that can be recommended to all, with universally good results (as you have observed politically and historically, but failed to connect with ethics).

Your response to my question about ethics. What you're implying is that one's preferences (also a species of the good, granted) are the same as one's ethics. So: Vanilla vs. chocolate Gay vs. straight Looting vs. producing Pursuing Law vs. pursuing Medicine Carrots vs. peas Murdering vs. not-Murdering No fundamental difference between any of these? None have the capacity to be universalized?

If you want to live and be healthy, then certainly practicing good hygiene would be a principal that would help you achieve that goal. Washing your hands with contaminated water, however, would generally be considered bad hygiene. Seems pretty simple to me. The point is, ethics must be contextual. As referenced several times in this thread, in an emergency situation, the general code of conduct can't be applied, so some exceptions msut be made. That doesn't mean that the general code is invalidated in normal circumstances.

The point of ethics is not to tell you what you should do based on whether or not you can get away with it. The point of ethics is not to have to worry about what you can get away with, because your ethics is generally consistent with reality, so you don't have to keep making endless calculations about what your general approach to life should be.

It is not rational to expect to evade reality indefinitely. That would require omniscience.

Ethics does not require omniscience.

1. If you choose to live, you must live as something, ie, man (according to your nature as a volitional, rational being) or animal (against that nature). To the extent that you live in accordance with that nature you are morally good. 2. If you choose to live, you must choose to live as long as possible, regardless of the state of your existence, your happiness or misery. As long as you have a heartbeat and can mouth the words "I exist", and/or complete a moderately hard Soduko puzzle, you are alive; Ethics has nothing to say about the type of life you are living. Does one of these sound just slightly more logical than the other? Or are they both just completely arbitrary to you? The only pre-moral choice is the choice to live or die. If you choose to die, then morality is not for you. Morality by its very nature only applies to people who want to live. It cannot apply to people who do not wish to live. If you think that is arbitrary, please explain why. Once you have chosen to live, the question of how to live is certainly within the scope of morality. If morality can't tell you why should choose 80 years as a rational, free, fulfilled human being over 120 years as a mindless animal, what the hell good is it?

No one is saying there is a "natural right" to anything, but neither do we assume that rights don't exist until our "fellow man" recognizes them. As I said before, if your right depends on the consent of your fellow man (and doesn't exist without it), then it is in fact a permission, not a right. The legal right may require laws and a government, but as I'm sure you're aware, our government is expressly charged with securing our rights (not granting them), that is, our moral rights, which exist independently of any government to formally recognize them. Perhaps you disagree that we cannot fully exercise our rational capacity without rights and freedom? No, and I don't think it is within the scope of ethics to be a "silver bullet" that guarantees that no one will ever run astray. The point of ethics is to derive a universal code of conduct that applies equally to all men. That is why if you advocate a "society" or a code of ethics that values honesty, integrity and production, you will end up with wealth and prosperity. If you advocate the opposite, you will end up with the opposite. I think the problem is you see a dichotomy between what is good for "society" and what is good for a given individual, where ethically, there is no difference. When you get into personal preferences, that's where the context of a given individual may come into play. There is almost nothing at that level that you can argue won't benefit someone to some extent, and that is precisely why it is outside of the realm of ethics, because ethics is only concerned with the universals, what applies in the general case.