LifeSimpliciter

“If you acknowledge that someone, through their own efforts at creating their own character, is of great potential value to you (which is what liking them means) and then you intentionally reject that value, you are nuts, you are acting against the furtherance of your own life, and towards your own destruction.” Suppose one such person were to argue, what need have I for another person, like-minded or not? Actually, I have two ready examples: First, my father is a simple man that likes drinking beer after a day of work. Our neighbor is the same way, but they never spend time together. They share a similar if not the same lifestyle and yet there doesn’t seem to be a need for them to be around each other. By contrast, he and my mother are entirely different and they spend all of their time together, and both are perfectly happy. Next, Aristotle said that one should not have too many friends, even if you all share a telos. This is simply time-management. Too many friends takes up too much time that would be devoted toward accomplishing your own goals. So it cannot be the following case: If somebody shares your telos, you must spend time with him. Where is the line? If it does actually accomplish anything, couldn’t a man spend his entire life away from other people even if he philosophically agrees with them on every account? “Determinism is self-contradictory.” I deny this and assert that I had no choice but to write this sentence. It is my view that the concepts of free will and causality are mutually exclusive, even when given an Objectivist definition. Like I said, I don’t wish to discuss this here and perhaps not at all.

That is true, but I believe it was you yourself who noted that society and tradition are man-made, not metaphysically given.

“Where does "subjectivity" figure in, if at all?” It is precisely what Kant was trying to argue against. He was trying to tell people that one should not mistake one’s subjective perceptions for objective reality. “This is what you get when you study the Kantianese translation of Special Relativity.” Actually, it is what was proved by Kurt Godel, best friend to Albert Einstein, and when Godel pressed his argument Einstein considered it a great contribution to General Relativity. “On an earthly scale, the differences between time measurements are negligible.” But, importantly, still existent. Aristotelian physics, for many earthly purposes, are quite accurate--but ultimately an illusion and false. “The theory presupposes the ability to make objective measurements of times and distances in one's own frame.” Quite true, and this is what separates my beliefs from Kant’s. I was using the Einstein-Minkowski model as a mere analogy to explain why Kant rejected the existence of time, but I believe it is an even better analogy between my own view and Kant’s for precisely this reason. “Time is not the instrument we measure with; it is what we measure. The instrument would be a clock. The microscope is to the cell what the clock is to time.” This may be true, but the point is this: We cannot think outside of the terms of time and space. Think of an object that does not exist at any time in any place, but still exists. You can’t and that is because it is outside the ability of the human mind to do so. Is this because such a thing cannot possibly exist, like a round square, or because our minds are limited--and how do you argue one way or the other? Say somebody were playing a joke on you and put an image of a cell on the lens of a microscope. When you look through it, you presume there is a cell, but you are mistaking appearance for being. On this much Kant and I agree. But what distinguishes us is that Kant throws his hands up and says, “Well, the game is hopeless. We can’t trust our senses.” I say wait, uses as many tests and senses and theories and forms of evidence that you can to produce the best theory of what exists in the real world. Maybe we’ll get it wrong--it has happened in the past. But if you don’t try, you’ll have no choice but to fall down and die of hunger because you don’t believe you really have food in front of you. “So, if I have air-fingered a circle, which of the following is true? A. I have air-fingered a circle B. I have not air-fingered a circle” You have air-fingered a circle--you have not produced the image of a circle. You have produced the circle itself. The image is in the brain, and it does not necessarily have the intrinsic properties of the circle itself but rather stands as a representation that is supposed to refer to the circle (or denote, or designate, whichever is your favorite philosophy of language). “1. Are you aware of the basic Objectivist refutation of Kantian philosophy: that it is invalid to reason from the fact that man perceives with certain certain organs, in a certain form - to the fact that his perceptions do not give evidence of the external world?” I am aware of most every Objectivist view, yes. “2. There is a distinction between the use of the terms "objective" and "subjective" on the one hand, in philosophy, and the use of the terms "absolute" and "relative", to describe space and time, on the other.” That is quite right and if I have accidentally confused the two then I would appreciate your point it out to me so that I can correct and clarify myself. However, I do not immediately recall confusing them in this post.

Jennifer, I still don’t believe people today understand society that way people in the past did. Localism is not nearly the same as it was, and it is a popular post-Lutheran approach to society to consider everybody as an individual collected on a single plot of land--even Marxists begin their analysis of society and politics in this way, and then bind the people by means of physical resources and government. Pre-Lutheran society did not conceive of people as individuals to be bound together, but began with the assumption of society. It is almost like an irreducible and unquestionable entity. A ‘telos’ is not quite an ideology, but more like a pursuit. Plato and Aristotle shared a very deep friendship which Aristotle consider the highest form of a shared telos, and it is quite clear that Plato and Aristotle did not share the same philosophy. “wouldn't someone that has no desire to interact with those that share his or her values and virtues be somewhat of a sociopath?” Would he? Or would he be independent? Yet another question about the proper role of society in a man’s life. “*sighs and shakes head* another determinist. Wonderful. ” Yes, I know we consistent thinkers sure are obnoxious. “Understand that "the philosophy of Ayn Rand" is not the same as "the summation of everything Ayn Rand ever said." ” True, and while you may discount homosexuality because Ayn Rand never discussed it, Ayn Rand believed that support for a woman president when there is a half-competent male candidate directly contradicted her philosophy. I also suspect Ayn Rand would have refused to recognize any homosexual as an Objectivist, considering how she thought it disgusting and improper for an educational institution to teach that it is acceptable behavior. “I found your disbelief in free will surprising. When you said that you believe in selfishness, it seemed to imply that you believe that humans have volition and can choose not to be selfish.” This is a very complicated matter that would be best served actually in a topic all to itself, and if I ever have a mind and the time to do so I will. But in all honesty, I have had this discussion with Objectivists before and found them entirely unreasonable on this matter. I know that it is the Objectivist view that free will is an axiom, and if it were left at that I would have no problem discussing the matter, but all too often the discussion turns into a personal attack and I don’t feel the need to get into that. “If you want to comment on Mr. Peikoff's party stance than I suggest you research the issue first.” I did note, explicitly, that I had seen no direct support of the Republican Party but that it seemed he took their position on every matter barring religion and drugs. “Regarding Iraq- it seems to me that the ARI made it clear that Iran is a bigger threat to the US than Iraq.” They do, but they also seem to believe the War on Iraq is an entirely justified expense of human life. “The fact that you mention looking through CapMag to find areas of Objectivism that you disagree with is concluding evidence that you are disillusioned as to what "Objectivism" means.” I wonder if you are confused by what ‘disillusioned’ means. If you mean to say I have illusions about what ‘Objectivism’ means, I don’t believe I do since I did distinguish between Objectivism and those persons and institutions associated with Objectivism.

“If so, does that mean we will never unlock the secrets of the brain and how it works?” Perhaps, perhaps not. If, indeed, consciousness is uniquely in humans that cannot be scientifically reproduced, then it seems like something mystical and I have to reject that out of hand. If, on the other hand, consciousness is not a result of physical matter but is still an objective existent (say, it is a second and distinct form of existence that interacts with physical matter), then we should still be able to study it. I have always rejected the notion that there is anything we can even talk about that is immune to scientific research. If there is any way that a particular thing interacts with us so that we know about it, there must be a way to analyze it. “The Primacy of Consciousness and the implications of free will. As I understand it, consciousness is a primary, an irreducable.” I believe you are confusing the Primacy of Consciousness with the axiom that we are conscious. The Primacy of Consciousness is the idea that Consciousness is primary and, as a corollary, existence is secondary--that is, a result of consciousness. This is to say, consciousness dictates reality. That consciousness is an axiom is the idea that it is a primary, irreducible truth. “Actually, the burden of proof is on the one claiming that thought can exist without a body. He's the one who's seen it! (or has he?)” Actually, the burden of proof is on anybody who stakes a claim. That includes the person who asserts that consciousness is a result of the physical body. “Consciousness is a product of the brain” Hopefully.

You mean the old trick, clubbing her and dragging her by the hair to your cave isn't a good strategy? Bah, if it was good enough for my old man it's good enough for me. I was thinking more along the lines of dating tips, though. What to do and such. Movie and a dinner is nice, but it is a little unimaginative.

JMegan, you may be right, I don’t know. If somebody said on public television that we all exist for the sake of the community, I would be taken aback, but perhaps I’m not in touch with American society enough. I always conceived of America as more ruggedly individualistic than that. I know we have our patches of collectivists, but they always appear to me as fringe groups that hold only a little intellectual sway in this culture. As for my post count, I'm not quite sure what that would do for me. “Ok, but my question was a serious one. When I see you say "...I do believe in the general themes of reality, reason, selfishness, capitalism, and romanticism" but that you are not an Objectivist, I am intrigued as to which aspect(s) of Objectivism you do not agree with.” Well, for one I don’t believe there is a problem with having a woman president. I have no problem with homosexuality, and I do not believe in free will. There may be one or two other matters, most likely small ones, on which I disagree with Rand. But I figure one disagreement is enough to invalidate the title of ‘Objectivist’ since Ayn was rather specific that nobody ought to high-jack her philosophy and call it their own. If you don’t completely agree, then you don’t agree, and you’re not an Objectivist. Then there are issues which the Ayn Rand Institute and Leonard Piekoff support which I do not. For instance, it seems to me that they both support the Republican Party though I have never seen this stated explicitly. It just seems that they always support Republicans on any matter other than Christianity and drug legislation. Also, I don’t think it was right to attack Iraq. I don’t believe it was wrong to attack them because they should have been left in peace--I believe it was wrong because it unnecessarily killed American lives over something that was not such a great threat to us, and that greater threats exist in Saudi Arabia and Iran than in Iraq. And I could probably come up with more if I looked through the ARI and CapMag websites.

Oh, but Volens brings up a point I've concerned myself with long and hard last year. Did Kant create his self-destructive philosophy on purpose or by accident? He was an intelligent man and must have known what he was doing, but at the same time he said that Hume was the inspiration for his activities in philosophy. Kant envisioned himself as a savior of metaphysics, keeping it from wandering into claims it could never support, and protecting it from the pit-fall of Hume's problem of induction. And yet, everything falls together too perfectly. Man cannot truly know anything, moral good is intrinsic, god is fundamental to everything. He wrote in obtuse language, but part of that can be blamed on the fact that his publisher demanded a copy at a time sooner than Kant was prepared to deliver. So he had to rush his writing and couldn't take the time to review and edit it thoroughly enough. I assume all of this is true for the second edition, which is often taken to be an entirely different philosophy than that which is found in the first, and the second edition is generally what people equate with Kant's philosophy. Another problem is that it's a German translation, obviously, and yet another problem is that it is written in the continental tradition, which people in the analytical philosophical tradition (Americans and British, namely) find difficult to access. At the same time, I have often found myself thinking, "If he were to really lay this out in the open, in a few concise paragraphs, he would have been laughed off his soap-box if humanity had any vestige of pride left in it." I really don't know if he was intentionally evil or not.

“OK, I think I'm beginning to get it. "Time flows differently in different frames of reference, therefore time is not objective"--would that be the basic idea?” Well, we’re heading in the right direction, but we aren’t quite there yet. It’s more of an analogy than it is a literal connection between the Einstein-Minkowski model and Kant’s. In the Einstein-Minkowski model, our very means of perception causes us to believe a falsity--namely, the objectivity of space. Now if we come to correctly understand our perception and how it relates to the rest of the world, it actually tells us that time is not the same everywhere, nor that it is distinct from space. Kant did not believe that time existed in different frames of reference, he was a Newtonian and thought it was objective. What he did believe, however, was that time is built into the very way that we think and perceive and so it should only be thought to exist in us and not in the thing-in-itself. It would be similar to, though not the same as, thinking that because we perceive time to flow the same everywhere that it is objective and not relative. Another analogy would be a person with poor eye-sight believing that things at a distance become blurry--not just that it would appear blurry, that it would actually be blurry. “Is that Kant's position, or yours?” Both. But don’t take this to be a statement that we cannot know the thing-in-itself. We aren’t there yet either, in respect to this particular quote.

I love Clint Eastwood. He’s a good-looking guy but what I love most is his integrity. He is perhaps the only actor to have ever asked for fewer lines because he wanted above all to make the art what it should be, even at the potential expense of his own career. But more than Clint, I am in love with Sidney Poitier and his amazing glare. Never have I seen the very image of masculinity, sensitivity, assertiveness, confidence, defiance, and intelligence displayed openly in a single face. He has starred in several of my favorite movies, such as A Raisin in the Sun, In the Heat of the Night, and above all, A Patch of Blue. He was also good in his small part in Sneakers. I haven't seen No Way Out, Look Who's Coming for Dinner, or To Sir, With Love, but I desperately want to since I've heard he is so good in them. I consider him one of my greatest personal heroes, perhaps third only to Aristotle and Ayn Rand. But moving on. Another I love is Kirk Douglas because he is gorgeous and full of hubris. I remember a scene from Ulysses in which he looks up at the cyclops with a face as if to communicate, "I'm a speck of dust to you, but I have you just where I want you. Nobody is bigger than Kirk." And then there was Spartacus, which was just a fantastic epic adventure. Kirk is the ultimate pagan, even though he's Jewish. Young Brando was such a pretty man it makes a straight guy think twice, and an insuperable actor. In A Streetcar Named Desire he frightened me through the TV screen. I have a grudge against Johnny Depp since he beat me out for most attractive man alive (the day he over-doses, I'll have my place in the sun *shakes fist*). And his movie selections are quite interesting. And then there's James Stewart. I save him for last for the sake of contrast. He's a really handsome guy, but he is not at all like the others I like. He is not the domineering, forceful type, but there's something in his character that I find so sweet that I can't help but find him attractive. I think everybody should watch Carbine Williams, a true story about a man that tries to make an honest living in the prohibition era, but gets arrested. While in jail, he invents the first gas-operated carbine rifle, which was adopted by the US Army for service in World War I and II, probably saving innumerable American lives. And after James Stewart himself served in World War II he began choosing more challenging acting roles, developing a love for Hitchcock films who, surprise, surprise, was one of Ayn Rand’s favorite directors.

I was mostly just screwing around.

If Marilyn Monroe existed today, I'd have a crush. She was stunning, and from what I've seen she seemed extremely sweet. My heart also goes out to her because she was so depressed and tortured in her life, from childhood to suicide--none of which she deserved. Also, she had hips. They don't make hips like that any more. I also think Jessica Alba is gorgeous, but that's the only good quality I've seen in her. Also, Elizabeth Taylor. Stunning, curves all over, and she was a terrific actress who choose very challenging and edgy roles. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof is one of my all-time favorite movies, partly because it hits close to home. And Jane Fonda. She had a great on-screen personality, even if she went too far in the Vietnam protest. When she did her little fertility dance in next to nothing, in the movie Barefoot in the Park... magnificent. She also did some good work in On Golden Pond and The China Syndrome. And then Raquel Welch. Just plain old sexy, especially in 100 Rifles.

Hello there. I think I differ from most Objectivists too. Hopefully it won't be too much of a problem. I think the response that you will or should get about fitting in is, why bother? If someone doesn't like you, there's no sense in paying attention to them. Be yourself and hopefully you'll find people you like. Also, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly was fantastic. I love Clint.

I've been mulling over how proper relationships ought to go myself, since I just got out of a relationship with a Jewish communist. At first I was hesitant because of the obvious reasons: She believed in a god, and a state that would direct my personal and professional life. After almost a month I ended it for several reasons and I now realize that I should have heeded the warning signs. In my defense, however, I am a man and she practically... no, literally jumped on top of me. So I figure that any contradiction in one of the two fundamental philosophical fields, metaphysics and epistemology, should entirely rule out a romantic relationship. Now for the bigger question, mostly for the benefit of my gender: What to do once the appropriate female is in your sights?

As I look over my previous post, I see a couple mistakes I made. "For instance, according to Kant, the relationship of distance between two points--call it relationship R--is actually a property of something as it exists in itself, but we should assume that the property is the relationship R as we perceive it." This should read: For instance, according to Kant the relationship of distance between two points--call it relationship R--actually represents a property P of the thing-in-itself., but we should not assume that the property P is the relationship R as we perceive it. And as an a fortiori to my example of a circle, keep in mind that the image of a circle tilted on its edge is an oval. Thus, the image of a circle (the oval) will actually not have the essential property of a circle (an infinite set of points equidistant from a center-point). So what appears to us in our eyes is not itself the same thing as the thing-in-itself but a representation of it. The difference between me and Kant is that I exclude the Insanity Clause--I assert that the representation actually tells us something about the thing-in-itself, even though it is not the thing-in-itself. "I don't think anything makes sense in a Kantian world, so I wasn't going to single out "revolve" and "around."" Cute and Kant somewhat had it coming. Fair enough. "If Kant thought that science had discovered a "revolving-in-itself" of the Earth around the Sun, which he could gladly seize upon as an example of how our geocentric picture was only an appearance, then he was dumber than I had thought." He was dumber than you thought. He actually believed that a priori logic necessary gives us Newtonian physics, and that it one could not argue against it and make good sense. Remember that, in Newtonian physics, there are absolute positions. "Did he flunk logic too? "If it is objective, then it is universal. It is universal. Therefore, it is objective."" Actually, I tried to stress that he did not make this logical error. He recognized the following: If NOT universal then NOT objective. So if a moral system has universality then you must at least be on the right track. But he did think that he had proved his morality objectively, from first principles, in the same way that he thought Newton had proved his physics from first principles.

“I am familiar with it--and also very curious about what it could have to do with that Kantianese sentence. So let's give it a go!” Okay, good. Then we know that our perception of the “flow” of a unified time is simply an illusion created by the fact that we perceive one flow of time, B-series time, as well as time in relatively similar frames of reference, such as that in which the planets move. Because time is built into the very way that we think, it is taken to be ideal--that is, not real. As Kant stressed, we should never mistake our instrument for the object under observation. It would be like believing the microscope were a part of the cell, or the ear a part of the music. But they do have significance in this regard: Changes in time, space, and the various other properties observed in an object do have objective causes--we simply cannot know what they are (that is what I call his Insanity Clause). For instance, according to Kant, the relationship of distance between two points--call it relationship R--is actually a property of something as it exists in itself, but we should assume that the property is the relationship R as we perceive it. It is similar to the following: What is the image of a circle? You might be tempted to smack your forehead, air-finger a circle and say “Duh!” You’d be wrong. There is no intrinsic image of a circle. The circle is a shape that exists independent of representation and an image is nothing more than a representation which, though it may contain similar properties as that which it represents, does not capture the essence of the object but merely refers to its essence. The word ‘circle’ refers just as much to a circle as an image does, but we do not confuse the word ‘circle’ for a circle. Likewise, we should not confuse any representation of an object for the object itself. The problem, as I understand him, is that Kant declined to acknowledge that our representations are significant. Like the relationship R, he took it to be the case that knowing the relationship R was a representation of some property P in the thing(s)-in-themselves did not actually tell you about the property P. Again, the Insanity Clause. I have to go do roofing work (yay), so I’ll let you chew on this for a while and answer the rest when I get back.

Sounds like a man looking for a fight. Okay, even though I'm a capitalist, there ought to be a law against Kubrick. I'm all for personal freedom, but in this case I think an inconsistent, ad hoc law preventing him from access to any recording devices ought to have been legislated. Seriously, you'll find out what I agree and disagree with as I engage different posts. I'm busying waging intellectual war on several fronts, the last thing I care for is global nuclear war in the introductions page. Student, LET'S GO FREAKIN' RED SOX! Yeah, I'm kinda diehard too, but I can't believe the price of the damn tickets. I couldn't get a single seat this year in Fenway, not even standing-room. Oh well, Yankees still suck and I think I'm taking my ass to a Paw Sox game this year. Hiya Dagny, I know what you mean. I've seen A Clockwork Orange, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Full Metal Jacket, and Dr. Strangelove. That's a combined total of about ten hours of my life that is now dead and gone, and I can never get it back. Each time I watched one of those movies, afterwards I would just stare at the screen and think to myself, "... F***! Why did I just do that to myself?" And then I remember it was due to the memory of Spartacus and Paths of Glory, both of which were probably good only because of my boy Kirk Douglas.

“He said more than that. He said that nothing was what it seemed to be.” That’s why I later go on to say that his theory led to insanity. “I'm trying to make sense of that, but it's too Kantianese. "Time is just a means of human perception" ... what on Earth does that mean?” It would help--though it’s not necessary--to have a common background of understanding. Are you familiar with the Einstein-Minkowski 4-dimensional spatialization of time? If not, I’ll skip it and try to explain the whole deal without that crutch, since it is probably harder to explain that than it is to just talk about Kant. “You assume that Kant would accept a "top-down view" of the solar system as how it "really" is. He would not. He would still say that it is just a view, tainted by its "top-down-ness."” Actually, Kant saw the Copernican Revolution as the scientific application of his metaphysics. You’re right, I use a “top-down” view as an aid to help people understand what I’m saying, but Kant did consider the realization that the sun does not revolve around the earth but that the earth revolves around the sun. I’m guessing that you are going to tell me terms like “revolving” and “around” make no sense in a Kantian world and, while they don’t mean what we would think, they do have some significance. When we tackle the above, this will become more clear. “Actually, Ayn Rand did not accept the distinction between "a priori" and "a posteriori."” That’s why I say that she used them in conjunction, or combined them, that is, did not distinguish between them. “Universally, yes. Objectively, no.” Actually, he intended it to be objective, too, because he thought that there could be no morality that was objective without being universal. That does not mean--and Kant was distinctly aware of this--that this does not then imply that if a moral system is universal then it is objective, but that if it is objective then it is universal. But he did think that his moral argument followed from first principles and could be demonstrated in terms of a purely formal system, which he took to constitute an objective proof.

“Can anyone point to other common and key elements of Sikhism and Lutherism?” I wish I knew more about Sikhism, but I can point out a few typical qualities of Lutheranism, many in relation to Catholicism: Lutheranism is taken to be a more “earthy” philosophy, though I think this is an over-simplification. I can explain my reasons, but for now I will simply assert that it is actually more ephemeral and ascetic. People are to work to the point of exasperation (more than six hours of sleep is considered out-right sinful), for the sole purpose of keeping themselves away from sin. It stresses the ugliness of human nature, and argues that few people are actually moral and good. It rejects volition and, according to Calvin, all but a handful are going to hell by god’s providence. It is supposedly a more consistent application of the letter of the Bible. It rejected the church’s authority over the Bible, and it’s exclusive right to read and interpret it. It is highly individualistic philosophy, so individualistic that “radical” does not suffice to describe it. The proper Lutheran, and even more so for the proper Calvinist (the intellectual and historical heir to Lutheranism), is so intellectually and emotionally disconnected from everything that it is as though they lived in the cold emptiness of blank space to contemplate their own moral worth. Still, they were highly organized. In spite of the fact that, at a generous estimate, during the Religious Wars in France protestants (mostly Calvinists, some Lutherans, a few others) constituted 10% of the population, they were able to occupy entire portions of France and obtain treaties that guaranteed their sanctity from Catholics. They fought battles ferociously because they hadn’t the slightest fear of dying, and believed that god’s providence favored their side of the fight. The whole dynamic changed after the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, but in principle this illustrates their dedication to their community. I have heard that Sikhism is highly militant compared to mainstream Hinduism, and likewise Lutheranism was virulently aggressive in its first 100 years, though Protestantism in general has since lost some of its fervor. Some demographic characteristics of Lutheranism in its early stages was the fact that the vast majority of people who converted were middle-class merchants (which probably helped make England and the Netherlands convert so readily). This is partly because they were not as susceptible to threats by their government, since much of their wealth was potable. Many wealthy people converted to Protestantism because it was an excuse to rebel against and extort the national government. Well, I’ve exhausted much of the relevant trivia I know about Lutheranism. Whatever parallels this runs with Sikhism, let me know.

I'm a bit confused. I am getting my names from A World without Time by Palle Yourgrau. The direct quote is: This is all under the chapter "Vienna: Logical Circles" which details Godel's relationship in the Vienna Cirle. The book seems to imply that these were members of the Circle, but does not state it out-right so you very well may be correct. But elsewhere Wittgenstein is mentioned as the very center-piece of the Vienna Circle, and mentions at least one time that he was amidst them so I take it he actually was a member.

I see in this no contradiction of what I have said except the first sentence. The idea that virtues are means of obtaining values is in no way inconsonant with the idea that they are properties and not actions. In her article concerning emergency ethics, Ayn Rand specifically rejected the Judeo-Christian formation of ethics that defines morality in terms of actions and rules without context. Instead she affirmed Aristotelian virtue theory, which I take to implicitly acknowledge Aristotle’s conception of virtues, though I have never seen her treat this explicitly one way or the other. If you have any excerpt I should be aware of, let me know. But if we are to assume the Aristotelian framework, then it is explicit in The Nicomachean Ethics that virtues are properties, some of which may include rationality, productiveness, and strength, as strength is not a good in itself but a means unto other goods. The health that is often derived from strength may be considered a value, but simultaneously a virtue as it is a property that allows one to lead a happy life. For the most part, agreed. This is all part of the discourse that goes into understanding the precise role that society and tradition play. While society is man-made, it is also in a sense metaphysically given--that is, it is an ontological fact. That does not mean that one must agree with it, or even treat it as just, but simply that one must identify and recognize it, and form one’s philosophy in light of it. I find that many Objectivists are intensely hostile to the very mention of society, but I have a different conception of society than is traditionally intended by the word. I see the modern world, in the wake of the relativism and emotivism that is a result of the widespread and often unconsciously accepted Judeo-Christian formulation of ethics, has a very splintered and confused society. By “society”, I speak of the different forms of friendship that one obtains, either by mutual interest in a particular activity, mutual goals, and similar philosophies. Anything outside of this, such as a national society, I don’t actually recognize as society. And when I speak of society, I am not speaking of government, which often tends to be the case with communists. That I believe society is important in developing one’s hierarchy of virtues does not mean that I believe it should be enforced for the common good by a statist and dictatorial government. I find this proper sense of society to play a central part in the way that one defines his own role in the world (for instance, if one sees a need in his society for a new technology, it becomes his telos to be a good technician, which requires the virtue of scientific intelligence). It is also central for a person’s ego, since man is a social animal. He needs companions and sexual relationships, which is--hopefully--good society. “Social relationships are no different today than they were a thousand years ago.” This, I must say, is entirely incorrect. The similarities begin and end with the fact that people had language, family, and nationality. But societies 1,000 years ago were by today’s standards radically localized and far more interwoven. The advent of Lutheranism was an initial break from this tradition, the likes of which had not been seen since perhaps the Sophists. Before this, it was believed that each person had a personal stake in the lives of all the others in the town’s community, and it was taken for granted that each may impose his will in particular ways (these ways would vary from nation to nation, town to town) on the others. In ancient Greek societies, each town was its own nation, with each citizen sharing a common goal. In Athens, the goal was wealth, culture, and intelligence. In Sparta it was strength, courage, and war; and what's more is that people then did not want any such liberal society for themselves or for others. They wanted to be bound together in pursuit of a common telos. That kind of society is entirely alien to modern Americans in particular.

This is precisely what Kripke demonstrated cannot be the case, unless you are going to assert that the phrase "your thoughts" and the phrase "some particular organization of chemical and electrical impulses" denote the exact same thing. Yet it seems apparent that "your thoughts" denote that visceral thing that your consciousness experiences, and not the matter that we suspect is its mainspring. I get the sense that I am going to have to give a fully elaborated refutation of this idea. Not to be too cynical, but have you tested this theory or do you believe it is true by dint of what you mean (i.e. a tautology)? While I believe you are right, I have not seen proof of it and the whole question asks for solid evidence. We all know what seems intuitively true, but what is at stake is the verification of this intuition and a precise delineation of the relationship between mind and body.

A collection of intellectuals that flowed through the University of Vienna before the Anschluss--probably the single greatest thing Hitler ever destroyed. Their ranks included Godel, Strauss, Freud, Mahler, Schoenberg, Klimt, Kokoschka, Popper, Wittgenstein, and Hitler. It was not just a tradition, but a society and an identity for those who took part in it. Some, like Godel, even refused to leave after the Anschluss, though he did decide to leave in 1940 (39? 41?) when he was nearly beaten by a pack of kids for looking Jewish. But it had long been suspected of "Jewish" tendencies in philosophy, physics, music, et. al. So Hitler thinned its ranks over the years after '38.

Well, in Objectivism, virtues are not actions but properties, as is the case in Aristotelian virtue theory. More specifically, they are properties that equip a person to achieve their telos or end, and you are quite right that one's end is understood by a process of identifying reality but tradition and society are part of reality and for which one must account--which is the central thesis of one of my favorite books, After Virtue by the said MacIntyre. For instance, the virtue of strength (which, under strict definition and in the view of ancient Greeks, was an actual virtue) was a property that allowed one to be industrious on a farm, which allowed one to be a good farmer, which is the telos of a farmer. But this system cannot exist outside of a society, since farming presupposes some sort of economy even if it is a pre-market one. Yet, for an aristocrat, such was marginally a virtue since it did not lend itself towards making one a good aristocrat, and to spend time cultivating such a quality would arguably make it improper. In today's society relationships are much more fluid and I have been lightly mulling over the new role of society in providing the stage in which one chooses and develops a particular hierarchy of virtues. So I am playing with a more social view than Objectivism tends to admit but a more individualistic view than MacIntyre's. And really, I don't believe it contradicts the letter of Objectivism at all, whereas it does contradict MacIntyre. Like I said, it intrigues me.

Well I do say that I am awed and compelled by Kant's ideas, but not that I completely agree with them. I believe that we ought to make the best interpretation of the world that exists outside of ourselves by means of the information provided by our senses. So while we should take our perceptions to be reflections of properties that exist in the things in themselves, we should not take the positivist view that our directly seeing them is the only means of percieving them. We should realize that the senses may provide indirect proofs, but all the same we are relying upon the senses.