mrocktor

I think that may not be it. Realistically, if he had run the guy over it is very likely that the driver would have been treated like a criminal.

I know this to be factually incorrect, from personal experience.

That still does not address BD's central question. Why is it impossible to compartmentalize one's vices as you claim? Personally, I think that holding such a position underestimates the power of evasion. I have no doubt that it is impossible to be rational (in some context) without being honest (in that context). I have no doubt that it is impossible to be rational (as an integrated being) without being honest in every context. I have seen no rational argument supporting the idea that, for example, it is impossible to be fully rational and honest in a limited context, while evading dishonesty in another.

Objectivist Epistemology has concepts as mental representation of existents. Rationalism is based on "pure reason", ideas disconnected from reality.

This is how I relate them: Rationality is the primary virtue - living according to man's nature, a rational being; Honesty is a corollary of Rationality - you can't apply reason to things that don't exist and still call it reason (since reason is the process of grasping reality), you can't be honest except by applying reason. You can't be Honest but not Rational, you can't be Rational and dishonest. Independence is a necessary condition of Rationality - the human mind is irrevocably independent, there is no "shared thought" or "shared decision", one must think for oneself if one is to be rational. You can be Independent but not Rational, you can't be Rational and dependent. Productivity is Independence applied to physical life - you can't be Independent in mind if you are dependent in body. If your physical existence depends on another, can't be your own, since you must always consider the reactions and opinions of the person you depend on to provide your physical needs. Those are the primary virtues and the way I understand them to "tie in" with each other.

Well Atlas has dropped a bit on the Amazon ranking (around #80 now) but, on the bright side, it sold out. Availability is "one to three weeks"

A concept with a single referent. But the meaning of the concept is not "Abraham Lincoln", in fact the concept is so useless we don't even have a word for it. And the meaning of "Abraham Lincoln" is not "The U.S. President who occupied the office during the American Civil War". That is why it is a bad example.

Proper names are not concepts. Bad example.

Guys, I don't even consider "masculinity" and "femininity" as they are usually defined (traits typical of males, or females) to be valid, useful concepts. My beef is not with sexuality as a value (it is) but with drawing up this silly blueprint of "manlyness" and "femininity" and holding it as an absolute. Needless to say, I consider seeking traits merely because they are traditionally related to your gender to be foolish (at best). Frankly, the modern man in his pressed business suit, with his Armani perfume, groomed hair and smooth cheek would be considered a complete pansy just about anywhere 1000 years ago. But women seem to be attracted to him just fine. I got into a lengthy debate about this on previous threads, which I don't intend to revsit at the moment. Sorry for not engaging you, I do realize you are sincerely interested in discussing the matter - its just that I'm not (for now). I guess once I'm no longer "burned out" with regard to discussing this, I'll write an article of my own (following Dan's example) restating my understanding and opening it to debate.

The point is that the value is sexuality, not masculinity or femininity (the particulars). Therefore, if a man is happy with the values he has and can achieve in that area, it makes absolutely no sense to "grow a beard or develop an interesting body scent", as I was once instructed to do in another less polite discussion about this issue. "Manliness is a value because I'm a man" is not a rational stance, since it subjects the individual (that man, with his particular traits - whether you would consider them "masculine" or "feminine") to the collective ("men", your "template" for what masculinity is supposed to be). I believe each individual should evaluate each of his or her traits, develop those that are valuable and suppress the ones that are not. There is no "package" of traits that is necessarily good or necessarily bad for a person based on their gender. You simply cannot ignore each individual's context and make blanket statements such as the one I indicated in my last post.

It makes perfect sense, but does not support your point. Here you are comparing "having hands" to "not having hands", where for a valid comparison with sexuality you'd have to compare "having hands" with "having something just as good as hands, but different" - since we agree that there is nothing intrinsically better about being a man or being a woman. No, thats not what I'm saying, though I understand your interpretation. I'm saying that many physical characteristics are values, because they do promote your life (in a myriad ways). But that those that don't are not values - even if they are exclusively your own. A corolary of this fact is that if two life promoting features are equally valuable, they are equally valuable (one of them does not become more valuable because you have it and not the other). Really? That is a very powerful assertion, which demands very powerful evidence. And it demands a definition of feminine and manly (I suspect yours differs from mine). But that is not an argument I want to get into again, you can search these forums and find my ideas on the subject if you are interested.

Because of what I can do with them, not because they are mine! Value comes from what they add to my life, not from simple being there.

No, that does not make them valuable. You may feel attached to them, but they are not values. That is fundamental. Now that certainly is a value, so you'll get no argument from me.

Well, as I have argued before, you argument for the value of "individuating elements of the self" is fundamentally flawed. Things that make you different, qua things that make you different, are valueless, except in a context where there actually is a risk of being mistaken for others (identical twins, for instance). Your argument is a convoluted defense of the "its good because its me" premise, and is wrong. About "psychological visibility", there may be some worth to the concept but it looks darned second handed if presented as a "need" (which it obviously is not). Can't say I found your argument compelling there either. The rest of the work falls on its own weight once "individuating elements of the self" is taken out. It looks like a big rationalization of something that "everyone 'knows' intuitively", instead of a body of knowledge built from unquestionable basics to complex integrations through clean and faultless logic. This is not an accusation of intellectual dishonesty or of willful evasion, just the impression the article caused in this reader. I know you can take criticism Dan, so I hope the fact that this is not personal is clear. I do appreciate the fact that you worked hard to put your ideas "on paper" and construct a properly structured argument - that is worthy of respect even if we disagree.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that his actions are despicable and that being ostracized by individuals and businesses is fully moral and justified. Jail? No way. EDIT: Okay, I actually paid attention the second time over. "While I don't support laws against dogfighting" is as clear as it has to be.

It is clear to me that Rudolph Giuliani, his past mistakes notwithstanding, is the best presidential candidate in decades. This is clear if one looks at the principles implicit in his ideas. I won't go as far as to say that anyone who disagrees knows nothing about Objectivism, but the issue is pretty straightforward.

And next in line, CFCs.

We must take it to the logical conclusion of using the most effective weapons (including nuclear) against any country we know is a threat to us. Most effective at ending the threat. Most effective as in "with minimal loss of American life and values". No, there does not. Those boundaries are entirely on what a government can do to its own citizens - the ones being protected. The enemy, the agressor, has forfeit his rights until the war is ended. Until he capitulates or is destroyed.

While this is true of many, and more of the current crop than of their predecessors (as you said), it is in stark contrast to the "founding father" of the school. I'm talking about Carl Menger. I'm in the middle of his "Principles of Economics" and recommend it highly. Here is the opening sentence of the book:

Not true, it may be done with arbitrary speculation. "There are no intelligent space aliens" is supported by all the evidence we have (we have not detected life native to anywhere but Earth, much less intelligent life). "There could be intelligent space aliens in some part of the galaxy we still didn't observe!" does not contradict any of that evidence, but denies the first statement. So, are you certain there are no intelligent space aliens?

This makes you wrong twice. First, no evidence is needed to "prove" god does not exist. You don't have to prove a negative. Second, you actually can, in this case, prove that the very concept "god" is self contradicting and therefore cannot exist in reality. Do a search here, you'll find the explanation.

First of all, Objectivism (specifically Objectivist Metaphysics and Epistemology) is incompatible with faith. Any sort of religion, therefore, is completely incompatible with Objectivism. If something is "Christian" it can in no way be "Objectivism", Neo or otherwise. You can call it (whatever "it" is) Christian Un-Objectivism or Christian Anti-Objectivism if you want to. Second, Reason and Conscience are not "symbiotic" (what does that even mean?). Consciousness is a necessary condition for Rationality. Reason is a means to discover and understand existence, of which consciousness is a part. Consciousness, on the other hand, can't "give" reason anything. Being conscious is just a fact (either you are or you are not), not a process. Third, consciousness does not "value" anything. Reason is the tool used for valuation. And finally, here we discuss all sorts of philosophical issues, to find the truth, to better understand the truth, to discover error when we are in error. And no Objectivist thinks truth has anything whatsoever to do with his or her wishes.

While I understand and agree with the argument presented by Ayn Rand, this is one quote I often see abused. Isolated from the context it seems like she is saying "we can't trust the individual to decide objectively" or, in other words, that the use of retaliatory force by the individual is necessarily arbitrary. But we all know that truth does not come from a comittee. An individual can know, without a doubt, that another is guilty of a crime. The real issue is that there needs to be one "rule of the land", the real problem is not determining if force should be used against an individual (if he commited a crime, it should) but how much and how. Those are the standards that must be defined. This is a great post by DavidOdden that addresses the "single law of the land" point, which I consider one of the strongest arguments for a monopolistic government.

An ultimatum is a demand that another act, with ones own action (or inaction) conditional to their compliance, and typically a time limit. "If it rains by Tuesday I will kill you" is not an ultimatum, it demands no action of the other (although it is conditional and time limited). "Mow your lawn by Tuesday" is not an ultimatum, there is no consequence conditional to compliance (though one could be implied by intonation, body language or previous history - making it an ultimatum). "Paint your house blue or I'll kill you" is an ultimatum, despite not having a time limit. The case in point is an ultimatum of the third time: demand, consequence, no explicit time limit. Although the consequence is not a threat (of force), although the consequence is a negative (I will NOT engage you), it is still an ultimatum. For comparison, if America states "Palestinians, you will disavow Hamas and Fatah or we will interrupt all american aid" - that is an ultimatum, of the same type. EDIT: having read Myrhaf's post, being "non negotiable" is certainly an essential characteristic of an ultimatum - the essential, perhaps. My previous argument remains as a study on the form they usually take.

I'd like to preface my following comment by saying that I greatly enjoyed the book, and the series as a whole, and that the sense of life depicted is very positive, very good. And that this series has done more for education, by reviving the habit of reading, than all the money ever poured into public school systems around the world. And that is the one thing that made me scream. She blew it, big time. The book was good. The series was good. The missed opportunity to spread such an essential message throughout our culture is PAINFUL.