softwareNerd

Hernan, When you introspect, do you find that your ideas about instincts, learning, hormones and such are simply the product of something that was innate in you anyway? If not, what was innate in you and what wasn't?

According to Objectivism, altruism is not good. The more truly altruistic you are, the more evil you are (ceteris paribus). So, for instance, someone who holds an explicit altruistic philosophy but really helps people only because he thinks it'll get him into heaven, is -- in that regard -- less evil than a person who sacrifices himself "because it is right to sacrifice and to suffer". Therefore, if a person's altruism is superficial, I'd question why he needs even that much; however, I would typically give him the benefit of the doubt.

Why single out psychology and physical therapists? How about teachers, personal trainers, and steel-workers. For instance, an architect might say he wants to help people live in affordable, beautiful, functional houses. Bill Gates might say he wants to help people use computers easily. You'd have to dig below that first statement to see if it is a superficially altruistic formulation or if the person is truly altruistic.

Not again! We had Joebialek's sister... now an actual ghost! Someone is surely selling a forum-spamming service! Or maybe someone is just spreading the idea ... this topic, for instance, was started in the correct forum.

A related example is the Soviet sport teams. A lot of people use a similar "preponderance of resources" to explain why the Soviet teams did so well at the Olympics. Yes. When I read Jennifer's post I did a search for "Miverva" and for "Ares", and realized that she's said it all

An earlier thread (link) discussed the relationship between evolution and philosophy.

As Gideon said: the context is human knowledge, a.k.a. conceptual knowledge.

No it is not knowledge in the tabula rasa sense. As you can see from the Dr. Peikoff's quote: (emphasis is mine). So, when an Objectivist speaks of tabula rasa, they not saying that man is born without senses.

Hmm! Did you see some evidence of bias. In fact, let me ask this: what is "bias"? How would you define it? As for your explanation of who constitutes and Objectivist, a similar view has been presented earlier in this thread and has been answered.

I just went through the "Philosophy" sub-forums, looking for topics that were discussed unendingly (I defined that as 150 replies or more in a single thread). Here is the list of "hot topics" I came up with, prefixed with the size of the topic: 589: Homosexuality 460: Determinism 363: Abortion 304: Hume 240: Favorite Music 177: Abortion (contd.) 167: Illegal Immigration 167: Libertarianism (contd.) 166: Poems you like 161: Libertarianism 159: Choose your poison: Bush or. Kerry 159: The Unbounded Finite Universe 158: AI, Robots, etc. 158: Porn 156: Death Entertainment 150: Atheism There are probably more hot topics that simply ended up as multiple threads. (As evidence see what happened to "determinism" after Jennifer merged the threads. Also see the repetition in the list above.) These aren't the "highest quality threads", but they are hot topics. I don't know exactly how they can be made useful to newbies, but I think there must be a way, if we put on our thinking caps.

Whew! Finally, something we can agree about Not true. You started the thread. Then, in the very next post itself, Gideon replied thus: In most uses of the term tabula rasa, Ayn Rand clarifies that she is talking about man's knowledge. Man's is not born with knowledge. And again, to quote Dr. Peikoff, ...

Tabula rasa does not mean humans do not want to avoid pain. Death is different... knowledge of death is not part of "the rasa", so to speak. Only a tabula rasa human can write over "the rasa" so eloquently that he goes to his death willingly. This ofcourse begs the question: what is "the rasa"? How non-blank is blank? What is a human in the rasa state? It's extremely easy to see in a human infant. A human infant younger than about 9 months will not scream when he sees a doctor with a needle, only when the needle pokes him. When a little older, the sight of the needle is enough. A little later, mention of next weeks doctor's appointment can get him going.

A lively discussion about the ethical status of drug-dealing has been split into a seperate thread (link)

Suppose I take my tabula rasa child and imprint on him that when he comes of 18 he must jump off a cliff, and that will lead to great happiness. He sees other people try this and be smashed to pulp. So he doesn't. Does that imply that he was not tabula rasa?

To following is true: Man is born tabula rasa. The following does not follow (and is not true): Man, being tabula rasa, can be "molded" into anything we wish in denial of reality. Communists love to claim that it was simply the nature of man (e.g. the fact that he is not tabula rasa) that led him not to be a "good communist". It was not. It was the impracticality of being a "good communist" that led to the downfall of communism.

The question about the removal of native americans is similar to the one about colonialism, in a recent thread. There's no short answer, because the historical context has to be presented as part of the answer. Consider this: there are two neighboring monarchies, neither of which fully respects rights. From time to time, people on the borders of the two nations fight with each other. Sometimes the kings get involved and there's a real battle. After one battle, one kingdom forced the other to retreat and cede some land. Was that moral? An Objectivist reading the above example might be prompted to point out that the above example is different because the settlers' political sytem was far more moral than the aboriginals' one. However, if anything, that simply strengthens the case in favor of the more moral "kingdom". I am not saying that we simply excuse the two kingdoms for their ignorance. However, if one wishes to pronounce moral judgement, look at both the kingdoms. If one looks at the details one would surely find that there were specific injustices by settlers and others by natives. What of it? An answer such as: "yes, there was a lot of injustice on part of the settlers", is incomplete because it leaves out at least half of the story. Back to the future: in the Amazon jungles, there are tribes that live ...well, like tribes. Loggers want to go in and cut the forest down. The loggers are more modern and well armed. So, in a battle between them and the tribes, they're bound to win. The BBC has a story about this. If today's Brazilian government had to decide the matter using the concept of individual rights, how should it do so? If we assume that the Amazonian tribals do not have a concept of property, it does not follow that they can be exterminated. Nor does it imply that they can be evicted from their land, purely for that reason. I think the right approach is to give them formal property rights. A legal scholar (David ? ) , could use the principle of property rights to determine what specific rights the tribals have and do not have. Their historical usages should be appropriately (i.e. not excessively) converted to legitimate property rights, with the appropriate "easements" within those claims.

I wonder if one (only one) characteristic of defamation is that it must be such that a "reasonable man" would be expected to trust it. Whether it is outlandish is one sub-part of this. Another is that the same thing said by one person may be defamation but said by another it may not be? I might have a case against an investment advisor who gives me bad advice, but not against my granny who told me to buy stock in Harrah's casino! Sometimes one sees a disclaimer on a web-site, saying "this is not legal advice" or "this is not investment advice". The disclaimer seems to be saying: do not trust me enough that you'll sue me if I'm wrong. The above could also be converted to a "third party" example, where a writer tells people to sell stock of a particular company and the company then tries to sue the advisor.

Since there was significant interest and discussion on the issue of defamation , I've split it into a thread of its own, here.

It is a matter of degree as well. But also this... There is a crucial moral difference between an artist (Mr. X) who cheers the NEA, supports its establishment, wants to increase its funding, etc. and a second (Mr. Y) who does not want the funds to be government-dispersed, tries to have the NEA scrapped, etc. but takes its funds because he judges it as the only way to counter the advantage delivered to Mr. X. The difference is not simply a state of mind. If everyone was like Mr. X, the NEA would be all powerful; if like Mr. Y, there would be no NEA. I'm using the NEA example merely to indicate how to judge the people morally. I do not imply that this particular concrete (i.e. taking money from the NEA) is a moral one. In this particular case, my understanding is that artists have a lot of opportunities outside the framework of the NEA; also, in this case, one good artist using the NEA might be supporting its cause more than hurting it. On the other hand, if the context was one in which the NEA controlled most art then the situation would be like that of a scientist in a particular field who finds that all the labs in that field are government funded. Now, reconsider the unemployment compensation case. One person pays 15% of his income in tax, another pays 20%. One person gets money back from the government because it deems he earned too little in that year. One person gets a credit because he has a child. Now, suppose someone were to get a credit from being unemployed -- it is no different from the other cases. The unfairness is inherent in the system. It cannot be fair. Part of the benefit to the statists is that we all feel like undeserving bums. In summary, the fact that a person claims unemployment from the government is insufficient information to make a moral judgement about that person. I would have to know more to figure if this is a moral man or an undeserving bum.

I assume this was meant to be sarcastic: like calling a garbage man "guardian of cleanliness". If so, instead of a sarcastic remark, feel free to start a thread in the relevant sub-forum if you think the moderation guidelines are wrong or wrongly applied.

And That's fine. However, since man is born tabula rasa, it is not obvious to some people. They still need to figure it out. Hence this thread.

..and the forum software leaves a note too. I think the reference is to this post here. (There's another similar one in the same thread.) The mod's notes and the software's automatic note are in both. Personally, I don't care what font and color are used. I wouldn't use a specific color myself -- rather let the default ride. The reason: if I use Emerald Green and David decides to change the background to Emerald Green, my posts will suddenly be rendered "invisible"!! As invisible as this word is (use your mouse to highlight).

Another reference is the following... Ayn Rand presents her criticism of behaviorism in a two-part article: "Ayn Rand Letter, 1972 : Issue of Feb 14th and of Feb 28th".

This is true. However, it easier said than done when you think there is a conflict between what is right and what makes you happy. This thread has some examples of the mistake people make about the moral and the practical. The forum has many other examples. It ends up being an issue of understanding what is philosophy and what is optional, of understanding one's own specific values, and of working through any apparent conflicts.

Using the Amazon link you provided, I looked at the first few pages of the book. The author defines tabula rasa as: This is opposed to Ayn Rand's formulation of the mind having no innate ideas. The human mind does have a specific a nature... a specific identity. So, if the author ends up proving that the human mind can only do certain things and not others, then -- at that abstract level -- it does not contradict Objectivism. To continue the metaphor of a "blank slate", I would put it thus: You can write anything on a blank slate, but you cannot do anything with a blank slate. The nature of the slate could even determine what kind of writing is possible: e.g. black chalk won't work on a black slate. If you want to check for Objectivist material on this, take a look at Dr. Binswanger's books and tapes at the Ayn Rand Bookstore. I do not know if any of them addesses the topics, but that would be a good starting point.