Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Gabriel_S

Regulars
  • Posts

    112
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gabriel_S

  1. Actually, I think we are asking you to clarify your points because, frankly, they're not too clear. You repeat that you think Ayn Rand's statement is problematic, and seek to mitigate it by adding that it was made near the end of her life. Again, you've not really offered any sort of argument for your claim other than, as far as I can tell, an emotional appeal. This amounts to something along the lines of "can't we all just get along." At the time the statement was made, neither ARI nor TOC existed. It most certainly can be appropriate to label something a hodgepodge or flight of fancy, if that's what it is. Why the devil not? That it's not "helpful?" What do you mean by that? It strikes me that it may be quite helpful to accurately label some phenomenon or individual, even if it hurts their feelings. Yes, that would be one way to view the debate: the wrong way. It's wrong because they don't represent two different schools of the same basic belief-system. One is a compromised corruption of the other. I'll let you decide which is what. I'm not sure how this relates to the more fundamental point regarding disagreements with basic principles. The examples you cite, and there are many others like them, involve disagreements in the application of agreed-upon principles. Sincerely, Gabriel
  2. How does your first sentence above follow from the passage you quoted? I'm not clear on the connection. You say that [according to the passage you cited] Ayn Rand "didn't contradict herself or change her mind throughtout her whole long career as a novelist and philosopher." What do you mean by that? That she never contradicted herself or altered her view on anything for any reason? That would seem a bit bizarre to me. Do tell who holds such a view of Ayn Rand. I don't think I've ever met them. I think you are constructing an unusual interpretation of her words. After all, didn't Ayn Rand change her mind early on about her estimation of Nietzsche? Didn't she change her mind about Goldwater? About the right-wing in America? Didn't she modify her evaluation of particular individuals and organizations? Etc. And isn't it the case that she did all of this while simultaneously defining, holding and living a consistent and integrated philosophy? That she did (on both accounts) should neither surprise nor bewilder. They are not mutually exclusive propositions. You see, I've never met someone who truly believes the above strawman depiction of Ayn Rand, but I have met people who concoct the boogey-man Ayn Rand sycophant who supposedly believes in such a dogmatic portrayal. The individuals who create this fantasy, at least the one's that I've met and read, have a vested interest in such an enterprise. But, it's pretty clear to me (and despite protestations to the contrary), this venture is not based on an unfettered search for the truth. Well, a view that borrows from several sources is an amalgamation of sorts. Why not call yourself an Objectivist sympathizer or a fellow traveler or a tolerationist, and so on? There are plenty of options open to those who wish to borrow elements of Objectivism and discard others. However, it would be disingenuous to label your self an Objectivist. Finally, if you believe that your disagreements are honest or appropriate, then say that you're an Objectivist sympathizer who disagrees with this particular position or other. Something like that should be sufficient; just don't say you're an Objectivist. Remember that "Objectivism," isn't synonmous with "that which is true." Sincerely, Gabriel ps, perhaps I'm being a bit stuffy but it strikes me as odd that you refer to Ayn Rand by "Ayn." You never knew her personally, on a first name basis, did you?
  3. I do appreciate the lesson, but I understand the fallacy of the frozen abstraction. My statement reflects the fact that many people do not subscribe to the fallacy strictly, but are instead influenced by it in a somewhat watered down form. Thus, while they sometimes acknowledge that doing things for self has some merit and may be required to some degree, the real essence of being moral for them means doing things for others. Since, we were addressing a very new person to Ayn Rand's philosophy, I thought it best to focus on a broader and more understandable (while less technically precise) point. Perhaps I should have used consequence rather than instance.
  4. As someone has already mentioned: basically right idea, but poor (no pun intended) example. I'd like to add that, while charity can be fine thing in the right context, one of Ayn Rand's points in this regard is that you don't have to buy your life off one charitable act at a time. Charity, in other words, is a morally marginal issue. It's not the central issue of ethics. Incidentally, the idea that altruism is the central or only proper concern of morality is a tragic instance of what Ayn Rand calls the fallacy of the frozen abstraction. Principally, you should be concerned with how to live your life rationally, so that you may enjoy the fruits of your efforts.
  5. Actually, hooking up a criminal to a polygraph (there's no such things as a "lie detector"), would not prove anything. Polygraphs are notoriously inaccurate and easy to "beat." The sort of individuals who are most adept at beating them without instruction in counter-measures are criminals, as they often lack a conscience. Given their psycho-pathology, the stress patterns that the polygrapher takes as indicative to deception would be useless. The criminals lying and truth teller will appear identical on the chart and often fool the test giver. Now obviously this isn't the case across the board. Within certain contexts a polygraph can be useful in generating a confession, etc., but that's because the suspect is being fooled in to thinking that the polygrapher can actually tell that he's lying.
  6. And, I should have ended my previous post by noting that despite everything I've said that you may love it! Sounds like you are going in with a purpose, a decent amount of consideration and your eyes open. You'll probably be fine. Good luck!
  7. If I'm not mistaken, the book is published by The Ayn Rand Institute Press.
  8. Mr. Mover, I certainly wouldn't want to rain on your parade, but there are few things you might consider before you fully commit to the career of an attorney. First, being "very good at arguing," has little to do with the day to day workings of a lawyer. And, it really isn't that relevant for going to law school. (What is? Well, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.) I know that's a shock for most who don't know anything about how the law is actually practiced and how law school works (other than from TV, the movies and Grisham). What you'll find on nearly any TV show that I've seen that involves the law is about as realistic as Star Trek: Enterprise is to your engineering studies. I can't emphasize this enough - how it's portrayed on TV and the movies isn't anything like what a lawyer does. I'm not saying this to insult or belittle, but as a forewarning. It's a very common and mostly understandable mistake. Many people think because they are good at and love to argue, that they'd be good lawyers and enjoy the profession. From my experience, that doesn't correlate. That should be at the bottom of your list of reasons to go to law school, but unfortunately it's often at the top of the list for would-be jurists. Your engineering background can definitely be of benefit in law school as logical thinking and analytical capacity is mandatory. But, that's not nearly enough. Having said that, the fact that you did good on the LSAT is better than if you did poorly, but it doesn't really mean a heck of a lot more than that (at least as a future predictor of success in law school, success as an attorney, and most importantly as an indicator of satisfication in practicing the law). Needless to say, getting a good score on the LSAT is indispensible to getting in to a good school. Now I think you mentioned being interested in Constitutional law, which is fine. However, you'll likely not know what you're really intersted in and good at until you're quite immersed in law school. Actually, it's good odds you won't know what you want to do until you start practicing a bit. You should ask yourself: do you want to possibly incur a tremendous amount of debt that will be exeedingly difficult to work away (unless you are graduating at a top law school at the top of your class and working at a law firm, work which will eat up most of life - nights and weekends included)? Do you want incur this debt in lieu of working for the three years you're in law school? Do you love to read a tremendous amount of material all the time? Do you love to think hard and write for hours on end, hour after hour, day after day? The law most of the time isn't socializing, arguing and shmoozing. It's reading, reading, reading, thinking, thinking, thinking, and writing, writing, writing. Oh, and maybe a little sprinkling of arguing and going to court here and there. Now, of course, this all depends upon what area of the law you dealing with and who you are working for, but do yourself a big favor and talk to some attorneys and ask them what their typical days are like. Maybe work as an intern at a law firm, if possible. Read a few cases from a Contracts, Torts, Civil Procedure or Property casebook. Do try to sit in on a few classes at a nearby law school to get a flavor of what's to come. And then decide if you still want to take this road. At least you didn't say you're doing it for the money because that's about the biggest recipe for unhappiness you'll find.
  9. Hmmm...well, I don't have a heck of a lot of sympathy for you. Did you order it online? From a brick-and-mortar bookstore? If it was online, was it from Amazon.com or from the Ayn Rand Bookstore? In either case, I would think with a smidgeon of effort you would quickly realize how the book's contents are distributed. In fact, you could have spent under 30 seconds before you placed your order and found out the exact table of contents on www.aynrandbookstore.com. In any event, I would imagine you need only return the book for a refund, if you feel misled. It just seems you are being pretty nitpicky and looking to complain for the sake of complaining.
  10. This is essentially Lenin's 20th century update to Marx. As we know, Capitalism didn't collapse from it's own internal contradictions as Marx predicted. Lenin "explains" this failure by claiming that Capitalism avoided self-destruction by exploiting the Third World, i.e., by imperialism. Of course, your teacher has conveniently ignored the remaining history of the 20th century, which witnessed not the collapse of Capitalism but instead of Communism... While I'm quite hesistant to recommend anything by Rothbard, you may find this useful (it's a book length treatment of the cause of the Great Depression from one Austrian's perspective): America's Great Depression PDF Of course, I would highly recommend reading the appropriate sections of Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal that deal with subject.
  11. Have you seen the early Law and Order? McCoy is okay, but the early seasons with Moriarty (and Sorvino, Noth, et al.) were significantly superior IMO. You might want to check them out if you haven't yet. (It's too bad Moriarty was kicked off for political reasons.)
  12. This puzzle is known as The Ship of Theseus. It dates back to antiquity. It goes roughly as follows: Theseus' ship was on display in Athens, after returning from distant lands. While on display, when a plank of the ship would rot, it was replaced by a new plank. Over time, it was supposed, all of the ship's original planks were replaced with new ones. Question: once all the planks have been replaced, do you still have Theseus' ship on display or a new one? Modernly, you may have heard it said (not sure the truth of this) that every molecule in your body is exchanged about every seven years. So, after seven years, your physical composition is completely different down to the molecule. Are you the same person you were seven years ago or a different person? Certainly, you seem to be the same in many important respects (just as the ship of Theseus does), but you are also different. How do we reconcile this alleged contradiction of identity? Additional twists can be added to this basic puzzle (The Ship of Theseus) to make it even more "entertaining." I'm sure this is enough for now... ps, this traces back to Herclitus' philosophy of the flux. That should be a hint.
×
×
  • Create New...