Unconquered

Ah, ok. I like a lot of the movies with Hopkins, but I haven't seen that one.

The C. S. Lewis-written, Disney released movie "The Chronicles of Narnia", which was recently released, caused me to investigate Lewis a little further, given my recollection of him, in a few random readings and from comments by some Objectivists as a very religious Christian. Apparently there isn't much of his work that's in public domain yet, but I ran across this interesting bit, 3 letters that he'd written that are in P.D. The site is here. Here's an interesting example of the "thought" process of an "intellectual" Christian. I emphasize the part in bold. The letters, overall, provide interesting material for philosophic detection. -------------------------------- I don't agree with your picture of the history of religion. Christ, Buddha, Mohammed and others elaborating on an original simplicity. I believe Buddhism to be a simplification of Hinduism and Islam to be a simplification of Xianity. Clear, lucid, transparent, simple religion (Tao plus a shadowy, ethical god in the background) is a late development, usually arising among highly educated people in great cities. What you really start with is ritual, myth, and mystery, the death & return of Balder or Osiris, the dances, the initiations, the sacrificies, the divine kings. Over against that are the Philosophers, Aristotle or Confucius, hardly religion at all. The only two systems in which the mysteries and the philosophies come together are Hinduism and Xianity: there you get both the Metaphysics and Cult (continuous with primeval cults). That is why my first step was to be sure that one or the other of these had the answer. For the reality can't be one that appeals either only to savages or only to high brows. Real things aren't like that (e.g. matter is the first most obvious thing you meet: milke, chocolates, apples, and also the object of quantum physics). There is no question of just a crowd of disconnected religions. The choice is between (a.) The materialist world picture: wh. I can't believe. (b.) The real archaic primitive religions; wh. are not moral enough. (c.) The (claimed) fulfillment of these in Hinduism. (d.) The claimed fulfillment of these in Xianity. But the weakness of Hinduism is that it doesn't really merge the two strands. Unredeemable savage religion goes on in the village; the Hermit philosophizes in the forest: and neither really interfaces with the other. It is only Xianity which compels a high brow like me to partake of a ritual blood feast, and also compels a central African convert to attempt an elightened code of ethics.

I wonder who the "good guys" are supposed to be? Toontown just reinforces my view that Disney really sucks. They did good work a long time ago, but all of their recent movies have a distinctly Christian/altruist message. They just put out "The Chronicles of Narnia", written by C.S. Lewis, who was rabidly Christian.

Either Hussein should have been shot on sight, or, as you suggest, he and his henchmen should have been subjected to the same tortures they inflicted on others, which fits the definition of justice. In any case, Iraq is a red herring. It's diverted attention from the real problems: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc., and an enormous amount of political capital was wasted on the Iraqi war. Iran is receiving ongoing help from the Russians in constructing nuclear reactors (intended to create bomb-grade nuclear material) and in acquiring missiles, among other things. It needs to be stopped immediately, but Washington is too busy telling everyone that Islam is not the problem.

I wasn't going to say it, but I actually had the same thought.

Ayn Rand on privacy, from Roark's speech in The Fountainhead:

John Ridpath immediately jumps to mind as the logical man to run it.

The universal evaluation of the feeling of depression (assuming that it isn't primarily caused by a serotonin imbalance, in which case medication is called for), is: hopelessness. That translates an emotion, which is automatic, to an evaluation, which need not be. You can then ask yourself: Why do I think that life, or some aspect of my life, is hopeless? Keep asking why and dig at the answers. Hopelessness means a sense that some, or all, of one's life has no future, that you will be unable to attain some or all of your values. That leads to many possible conscious, pro-active responses once you understand the specifics of that (helped by introspection.) For example: your judgement that it's impossible can be rationally mistaken. You might just have to work harder or smarter to get it. Or, it might be that the value you want, shouldn't be so important. Or it might be that the value you want is impossible for anyone to achieve currently (say, to live for 500 years), in which case it's foolish to be depressed about it. On the other hand, if somebody is 25 with an expected 4 months to live from terminal cancer, that's a good reason to feel depressed, though they shouldn't spend that time just sitting around being unhappy. The vast majority of depressed people are not anywhere close to that kind of situation.

Just going by his description, it was a conversation intended to pay to replace the fellow in line, which would have no effect on anybody else's position. But in any case, since when would even cutting in line justify the threat of using deadly force? Not that it should be tolerated, but it's hardly a life threatening event.

He didn't indicate that there was some big commotion, and simply talking to somebody in a line doesn't pose a sliver of an objective threat to anybody. If that's all it was, the cop should be fired, and possibly sued. Wearing a uniform and working for the government does not give somebody the right to initiate force, though I am sure that some cops believe so. Putting your hand on a gun as though to indicate that you mean to use it, *is* force, period.

The thought occurs to me that there might actually be a market for some cheap chemical liquid that's not toxic, but tastes incredibly bad, for groceries/restaurants to pour onto food waste, to discourage the wackos.

My opponent asks if I reject testimony "-- for example, in the journals of explorers of the American West, or by witnesses in murder trials, or in advertising by capitalist manufacturers, that is, advertisements that quote the testimony of satisfied users or scientific researchers?" Testimony, in the sense of a statement sworn to be true by another person, can never take the place of the fundamental role of the senses and logical reasoning in determining the truth. Even with human history, one interested in truth cannot simply take the word of one men or even many men without attempting to integrate their statements with as many other facts as possible, and for consistency with each other, though internal consistency of testimonies does not necessarily make it true. Even in a court trial, eyewitness accounts are notoriously inaccurate and incomplete. One piece of solid physical evidence linking a criminal to a crime is better than any testimony. Of course, it is ultimately men who do the tests and men who present the evidence, but if they are rational, they do so according to logical standards that are open for all to see. And, scientists ultimately create repeatable experiments, because their object of study, the real world, is out there for everyone to see and deal with for themselves. They present the results and "give testimony" about those results to other scientists, but their word alone would never be enough, in the long run, to convince other scientists, and scientists found to lie about results are considered the lowest of the low. But such cases are rare, since the truths that scientists write and think about are ultimately accessible to any man who is capable of doing the work, directly from existence. A logical man can still make errors in thinking, but because logic demands integration with reality, using the evidence of the senses ultimately, his errors will soon be apparent and the clues provided to point him towards the truth. The "man of faith" has no such corrective mechanism, because his "ultimate truth" is that testimony, not the facts of reality, and concern with whether the testimony fits the facts is not his primary goal, or even a goal at all. My opponent asks what I mean by "second-hander". By that I mean somebody who fundamentally lives through other people, rather than choosing their own personal values and using their own mind to decide truth and falsehood. It is clear that a man who bases his philosophy solely on the claims of others, without reasoning of his own to tie them to reality, is second-handed in the most fundamental way, given the importance of philosophy. Of course, any man in a society must deal with other men, including, at times, taking into account the "testimony" of others, but no rational man mindlessly accepts another man's words. Because even a close friend that we know to be honest can be honestly mistaken, it is always an obligation of the rational man to integrate even his closest friend's statements with the rest of his knowledge. Regarding my opponent's "description" of his word God, I would note that something without identity, does not exist. And certainly, existence does not require a creator, because there was no first cause. Existence, or the universe, is eternal, outside of time. Time is only within the universe, the universe is not in time. I would also note that any claim of a "God" creating the universe only begs the question - what made "God"? And what made the thing that made that? And so forth. My opponent asks if Ayn Rand wrote philosophical works. As I recall, he asked for a single book, so I chose her single most powerful one, but if he wishes a more complete bibliography, I would refer him to this site: ARI bibliography of Ayn Rand . Her work on epistemology, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, is her most "purely" philosophical, where she explains the connection between the perceived real world, and our abstract concepts, thus providing a firm basis for our abstract, reasoning minds in reality. Her protege, Leonard Peikoff, also wrote a philosophic work, OPAR (Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand), which presents her philosophy in a systematic fashion. Ayn Rand was a philosopher but her primary focus was writing about heroes, so in that respect, Atlas Shrugged, the book I previously and still recommend, combines both elements, a unique feat in history. It is true that it's a novel, but it is a philosophic novel, and her ideas are abundantly expressed throughout it. And I, as well, thank my opponent for his patience, given the lengthy time for my responses. He brings up unexpectedly complex, but interesting, issues. I would also be interested in others' comments on this thread, eventually - as long as they're reasoned ... Regarding the poll results, I will take the opposite side, as is fitting, and note that it implies that 60% *are* Objectivists - and it is more likely for the remaining 40% to become an Objectivist, or at least a more rational person, than it is for them to become a convert to Christ. God help us if not ...

My opponent brings up the issue of, in essence, what constitutes the foundation of knowledge. In the philosophy that I accept, Objectivism, the ultimate foundation is sensory evidence, which must then be integrated into a whole by a process of logical reasoning. Testimony means, in essence, claims made by men. But it is common sense to know that men can lie and men can be mistaken. Our eyes and ears, and other senses, do not lie, nor does logic. That does not make a process of logical reasoning infallible, because men are indeed fallible - but errors made are not due to deficiencies in the method of logic, but in errors of application by men using it. Testimony is also inherently second-handed, meaning that it encourages men to *not* look at the real world with their own eyes and mind, but through other men. It undercuts reason at the root by disconnecting reasoning from valid data and replacing it with the claims of other men. My opponent keeps referring to "God", but I will admit that even as a boy, I could not make this word real to myself and therefore rejected it - because nobody could actually explain what this word is supposed to mean in reality. Perhaps my opponent could attempt to define and explain this word, in terms which relate to the real world. On the subject of history, I will have to grant that, if my opponent is as knowledgeable on the subject as his brother, that his knowledge, in detail, exceeds mine. However, certain important historical facts seem quite clear: the period of the greatest domination of Christianity in Europe was just that period of great ignorance and suffering - and the introduction of logical reasoning in Europe, I have heard from Thomas Aquinas, marked the start of what was to become the Renaissance, the reflowering of reasoning in the world and the decline of Christianity's influence, especially politically. The fact that there is so little history of note from Christianity's period of greatest influence underscores its appropriate identification as a Dark Ages, in stark contrast to the rapid, well recorded explosion of human activity in the arts, sciences, commerce, and overall life after the decline of Christianity's influence. Regarding feelings, my opponent does make a valid point regarding their importance in judging personal importance and in possible clues to higher level consciousness in which area to focus conscious attention. Emotions may also play a part in the retrieval mechanisms in the subconscious for existing knowledge to be integrated further with a question at hand. But this is not a central issue in epistemology; you could say that it belongs to a nascent, little developed field identified by Ayn Rand: psycho-epistemology. In any case, the point remains that conclusions of truth and falsehood are arrived at, properly, by a process of logical reasoning, not by emotions. Emotions may help in recalling relevant material to fuel the logical process, and in helping to decide what subject to focus upon, but do not constitute the logical process itself. Simply feeling an emotion does not provide knowledge, beyond the introspective knowledge that one is feeling that emotion. Regarding your question, Ayn Rand was an advocate of reason, but she would have considered it a false alternative or false dichotomy to put reason at war with any other aspect of a healthy human life, including emotions. To her emotions are an automatic part of consciousness, which reflect immediate responses based on subconsciously held value judgements. For example, one would feel anger in response to an event which one perceives to be injust, with the level of anger proportionate to the level of injustice. Ayn Rand was a passionate valuer, and reason was not an end in itself to her, but the essential means to achieve life's values, including happiness. If I were to recommend only one book for her ideas, it would be Atlas Shrugged, which integrates her philosophy with a fictional story in breathtakingly brilliant writing.

Yes. There's an old maxim in business - "a thing is worth, what that thing will bring." An uncoerced sale *is* a market price by definition. A cold water machine 100 miles out in the desert might charge somebody $5 for a bottle of water that would cost $1 in the middle of a city. Nobody has to buy it, but if they do, nobody forced them, and in context, it might be a very good trade to pay $5 to avoid dehydration.

Ah, automatically, like an axiom, a law of nature, eh? Guess what, Objectivists do not see the initiation of force, and existence of parasites, as an unquestionable axiom - try again. Incidentally, income tax was unconstitutional in the U.S. until 1913. Are you suggesting that the U.S. did nothing and did not exist until 1913? Or were you just ignorant of the fact that people actually create human laws, and that they can be repealed if necessary, they are not like E=mc^2? Out of curiosity, what is it that you claim to have read by Ayn Rand?

Out of curiosity, apalazov, what country are you in? I sense that you are not in the U.S. and that English is not your native language.

What's an "average depression"? And why is "mere" depression to be approached by strictly psychological approaches rather than "obviously" biological issues such as Alzheimers, Schizophrenia, etc? (Autism is a major brain structural issue, apparently, and no drugs can treat it to my knowledge.) SSRI drugs *work* in some cases precisely because the depression in those cases in related to low serotonin levels in the brain. The brain is an organ just as much as the liver, kidney, and heart. Some kinds or levels of depression are related to those levels, and treatment removes the depression to a large degree. Cognitive therapy is most logical *after* some physiological issue like that has been addressed.

I belonged to Mensa for a number of years, and was not impressed. I went solely in order to try to socially meet some smarter people. Many of them however are really, really neurotic. That said, you can sometimes meet interesting people, if you don't mind the concept of weeding through a lot of chaff to get the wheat. I have always been far more impressed with the intelligence, and nature, of people at Objectivist clubs/conventions, or technical conferences, or venture capital meetings/conferences, than with Mensa.

Some kinds of depression are certainly treatable by drugs, commonly the SSRI class of drugs, and frankly I have contempt for any self-described psychiatrist or psychologist, regardless of their self-description as an Objectivist, who thinks that somebody can just "think their way out of depression". That is on par with stating that a severe diabetic can think their way out of diabetes without insulin. That isn't to say that cognitive issues aren't very important, but the evidence that appropriate drugs that target imbalanced brain chemistry (depression as well as bipolar and schizophrenia) can greatly assist somebody's mental state, is overwhelming. Fortunately, most of the Objectivist psych professionals that I've met, are not so nutty as to dismiss the efficacy of these drugs.

Perhaps I'm just a dyed in the wool C++ programmer but that's the very part of Python that drives me nuts. Whitespace as syntactically significant? That's just annoying, to me.

This may sound trite given the source (a Dooby Brothers song), but it actually has philosophic significance: "You'll always have a chance to give up - so why do it now?" Dying removes all options, including the ability to try again. Only life gives you that. The existential conditions of your life do not define your character. i.e. Ayn Rand being a waitress, which she was for awhile, certainly did not "degrade" her, and she certainly went on to bigger and better things. If it's an issue of something such as depression, a feeling that you can never be happy because of some crushing feeling of hopelessness, then I suggest that the person see their doctor or a psychologist and try some of the anti-depressant medications, because such feelings can sometimes be due to brain chemical imbalances. (Contrary to various rationalists who think that every aspect of the body and even consciousness is a direct product of "Man's will" - which is a Nietzschean, not an Objectivist, view - you can have brain problems which lead to things such as depression, which are now fairly fixable.)

More than a bit rude and presumptuous, but he has a habit of that. From a rational (vs. derisive) perspective, I'm sure there are millions of overweight people who would love to lose the weight, who are in no way claiming that they would rather have it or that it's attractive or healthy. A sensation of hunger, and metabolic issues (including insulin and HGH levels, etc.), are not so easily "willed away", despite the nitwits who never had any such problem (and think that their genes are some proud product of their own will) but who enjoy their second-handed derision of others. I agree that a "Fat is attractive" campaign is stupid, but that in no way changes what I'm saying.

Probably not, though there's a relatively new interpreted language called Ruby that's becoming popular for websites via a package called Ruby on Rails, because of how concise the code is compared to e.g. J2EE. Every element of the language is OO, including things normally considered as basic atomic elements in most languages (such as integers). I haven't used the language so I can't say whether this works well in practice, personally. That might work in conjunction with the Mono project, which implements a fair bit of .NET in a portable way, including for Linux, though I haven't kept up on its progress. i.e., compile VB.NET on a Windows machine and run it on other platforms using Mono.

I'm asking you to think about the logical consequences of you seem to be scared of (man-made global warming.) If it's true that man-created CO2 emissions are causing this (fairly doubtful), then what exactly do you think could be done to stop it short of destroying humanity? The real answer is: Nothing. So what is the point of this supposed concern?

Oh - so even if mankind were responsible for "global warming", then it's so horrendously terrible that anything that could be done to stop messy humanity from emitting CO2 would be justifiable, including bombing the human race back to the stone age or spreading a nastier variant of 1918 flu virus? Is that about the "logical solution" coming from the environmentalists? Actually it is - see my website (environmentalism.com). Here's a clue: If you think the earth being warmer is so awful, try an ice age on for size, and hope that you don't live anywhere north of the latitude of about Indianapolis, Indiana, otherwise what used to be your home (or your country, Canadians), will be buried under an ice sheet over 1 mile thick. Preferable?