mrocktor

What you describe is not a man. EDIT: Man is, by nature, rational. Reason is man's only means of survival. Man has no instincts, though you probably meant "acts on whim" or "acts on emotions". More importantly, a "code of conduct" (meaning a set of rules or commandments) only makes your whim or emotion guided idiot into an idiot that can be used - it does not make him more rational. And finally, there is no choice between "religion or philosophy". Religion is just bad philosphy, wrong philosophy, evil philosophy. Bad because it doesn't actually solve any problems, wrong because it is based on faith - and faith is the antithesis of knowledge, evil because it requires one to sacrifice one's life.

I would dodge a draft. And I would volunteer in a country that didn't have a draft. Think about it, it makes sense.

Good. I suggest reconsidering the word "imagine", to make that clear. If this is not the thesis of the essay, I suppose this can be accepted as a hypothesis. But it sure seems like petitio principii to me. I wouldn't love being a transgendered freak either, and would be capable of achieving less. So no, it would not be a good choice. Okay. It would be good to indicate that this is what you are trying to define and validate, instead of using the term in a positive assertion as if the reader were supposed to know what you are talking about. One can argue that sexuality is a value, but being of a particular sex is not. True! False! I imply no such thing. I am saying that you should love the elements of self that enhance your life and realize that these elements are what matters (benevolent self premise here? hehe). You should also be aware of the aspects that are not life enhancing and do your damndest to change them. Its wise to love the diseased hand that can paint wonders. It is insane to love the disease. I agree entirely. But the "positivity" of the integrated evaluation comes from positive particulars, in no part does it come from "because its me". I don't intend to argue, really. Just trying to point out some assumptions that are not explicit and things that seem to me as gaps in your logic. Which adds up to arguing, I guess

Here are my comments on the essay: A poor introduction for an argument. "Imagine your ideal" anything is not a basis for deriving any principles or anything useful. I would suggest "remeber the last time" and go with that, grounding your introduction in actual experience of the reader. "There are times when you love being a man" looks like a complete non-sequitur. What is "being a man" in this context? Do you mean "being male" or "being a rational animal"? Personally, I can't say I ever "loved being male". It is what I am, I act accordingly and I love life. But I no more "love being male" than I "love being left-handed". They are facts I have no control over - I can only choose to act accordingly or evade them. I think trying to invoke emotion in your readers to "get them in the mood" for your argument is not really the best way to start a rational derivation of important principles. Inviting them to remember experiences and introspect is. It is a tenuous but significant difference. What does that mean? Are you implying that there is some value beyond "a valuable human being that values me back and has compatible sexual organs"? If so, what is that value? Man-ness, what does that mean? How is it valuable? This is really an absurd argument, but it is not the strongest argument you could choose to oppose. I have argued myself that there are reality-based masculine and feminine traits, those that are derived from the biology of being male of female, and that there are cultural or traditional masculine and feminine traits. I have argued that all the "behavior" traits, such as submission for women, are culturally based, since at the root both men and women are rational animals and that is what their behavior derives from. I can't help but see a straw man in picking a gross generalization to argue against. I strongly disagree. This amounts to saying "this is good because it is me", your long argument notwithstanding. It is rational to value life-enhancing elements of the self. To use a reductio, imagine two virtuous men, extremely similar in body and ability. One of them has a treatable disability, the other does not. Applying your principle consistently would mean that the disabled man not only should not treat the disability, he should love it, since it keeps him distinct from his twin. Being distinguishable from others is certainly a value. If I had a bunch of clones running around I would certainly consider some sort of tattooing or dressing a particular way, something to "individuate" me. This does not mean that the specific traits that make one distinct are values though. Having a limp makes you distinct - it is in no way a value. For normal people, there is no need to worry about being confused with others. There is certainly no basis for a man to love his arthritic hands because they are his. Your artist should love his hands because he can paint with them, and this enhances his life greatly. Removing scars from them, curing arthritis or any other ailment don't diminish their value in the least - quite the contrary - even if they look a lot more like other people's hands afterwards.

An argument can also be made that government functionaries or contractors electing the government is a conflict of interest.

Someone who can't see that +"death to America" = threat really shouldn't be president.

Ayn Rand and Objectivism are virtually unknown in Brazil.

No. Both humans and apes evolved from some more primitive primate. The evolutionary split happened a long time ago (in fact, our "line" split again more than once since then, though the other hominids have died out). So no, we did not evolve from apes.

Ah, but there lies the essential point! Reality (be it an asteroid, a bad season or a plague of locusts) changed the terms of the debt in a manner not wanted by the lender. That is not a moral issue. The fact that the debtor can't pay according to the original terms is just that: a fact of reality. What is being contested about Bankruptcy is men (the government) changing the terms - or invalidating them altogether. The obligations assumed when one signs a contract cannot be shed without the consent of the other party. If reality impossibilitates the fulfillment of those obligations as contracted, they don't cease to exist. If the parties can come to a new agreement as to how the obligation will be fulfilled, that is that. If they cannot come to such a mutual agreement, the government, in its role as contract enforcer, has to stipulate those terms. What the terms should be (i.e. total or partial liquidation of assets, how much of the debtor's income goes to fulfilling his obligations etc.) is open to discussion. The obligation to fully compensate the creditor can't be cancelled by the government though. The fact that one can't (and may never be able to) pay the total does not remove the obligation to pay as much as you can, whenever you can.

I think I'll pass.

I didn't post on the other thread, but I'd like to say I pretty much agree with your thoughts so far. Here is my understanding of the relationship between BUP and BPP: The benevolent Universe premise is not and expectation that the Universe is in fact sympathetic to the existence of man (it is non volitional, after all) rather that it just is and, man's reason being effective, that success, happiness and life are achievable and expected. I have always seen the BUP more as an affirmation of reason than a statement about the Universe itself. When we shift the focus to people, what I get for the benevolent people premise is that it is not the expectation that individual people will in fact be helpful to my existence rather that, man's reason being effective, friendship, mutual trade and love are achievable and expected. Again, more an affirmation of reason than a statement about specific people. This fits even when the culture is such that most people don't act rationally: the rational faculty is still there and good is still possible - that is the nature of man.

That is just advocating the legal enforcement of social norm. Your argument supports muslim countries legally forbidding women from showing their faces as much as it supports banning of nudity in shopping centers. More importantly, the fundamental point has not been adequately addressed: why do your expectations create an obligation form me? Is the definition of fraud not providing that which is promised, or is it not providing that which is expected? Should a guy be able to sue the cute girl who he bought a drink for at the bar because she didn't sleep with him afterwards? By making "what is expected" the standard, justice is rendered non-objective.

I didn't so much forget it as not post it because you can't really take a quote from it and preserve the message and impact. Your solution of quoting pretty much the whole thing works for me though Counterparts is my favorite Rush album, the lyrics are powerful and inspiring and the music is pretty much Rush at peak performance - which is saying something. The level of creativity that went into composing those songs is fantastic - as is the musicianship (is that a word?) that it takes to perform them. Anyone interested in the band would do well starting with Counterparts.

No, that is not ir at all. I fully advocate Objectivism as a completely closed system, any new applications may be consistent with Objectivism but are not Objectivism. Any errors found in Objectivism would make it not true (as a whole, parts of it could still be true). My argument, in the most succint form, is for the proposition that Objectivism is all the philosophy Ayn Rand created and integrated herself. That means her thoughts on special sciences (such as about female psychology) are not part of Objectivism, and that her philosophic statements that she did not integrate herself (such as her views on "public decency") are not part of Objectivism. I never advocated that Ayn Rand would want people to "correct" her and keep calling the "corrected" version of her philosophy Objectivism. I do believe, though, that she never intended anyone to take thoughts of hers that she did not provide supporting arguments for at face value - and bunch those up with her painstakingly argued and integrated philosophy. Correcting your misstatement of my position was necessary so that it would not be attributed to me, I'm done here for now.

My tone only matched that of the person who addressed me. And the unhelpful hostile digression is the post I responded to, not mine. I will stand out of the discussion as it seems I have nothing to gain by putting forth my argument. Seeker, if you are still interested in discussing this with me (since that is what this thread was started for) - I'd be glad to do it via PM, or in the debate forum where the discussion can be kept to certain standards.

Hell no! It is a matter of voicing and acting on the right principles. If America said "we believe in individual rights", allied with countries that do so and fought those who don't - this issue would go away. Now when you say "we are going to war to help Iraqis" all you get is all the blame for the Iraqis own errors! If America upheld the principles it was founded uppon, and acted accordingly, only the nutcases would hate her.

I saw them in São Paulo (their largest audience ever at 60,000 people!), that was something - way better than the Rio show that ended up on DVD. If you think the crowd was wild on Rush in Rio, you've seen nothing! I'm hoping they bring their Snakes & Arrows tour here, but it doesn't seem likely right now

I disagree. Most people I know who hate the USA (and there are many here in Brazil) feel that way because of one of the following two things: 1. Imperialism: "The USA deal with the rest of the world as subjects, we don't accept being controlled or used by an outside power." 2. Hypocrisy: "The USA claim to be defenders of freedom and liberty but support tyranny and oppression in other countries." Now, (1) is blatantly false. The USA is probably the first military superpower ever to not use the threat of physical force as a means to enforce policy among its allies. American "threats" are of the "do X or we withdraw our help/support" type - and this is not dealing by force, but by trade. (2) on the other hand does have a (pretty significant) grain of truth. America does have a hystory of supporting tyrannic regimes (in the name of "stability") and promoting rights-violating policy in other countries. Here in Brazil, American trade policy is a pretty sore point. America demands Brazil remove trade barriers in the most stringent terms, but the orange juice, cotton and steel industries and the other few where Brazil has a comparative production advantage are heavily "protected" by the US government. Pure envy certainly is what drives the seething hatred of the Islamist crazies, but there are other causes, and not all of them entirely unfounded.

I will address all the points already raised by others, as soon as they provide their definitions. If I seem uncooperative, that is because I know I'm going to get challenged from every direction for supporting the dissenting opinion. I'm unwilling to attempt that multi-sided discussion while having to deal with unessential tangents or people questioning my motivations - as exemplified by David's response. If we are to discuss what is Objectivism, and Objectivism is "the philosophy of Ayn Rand", the definition of "philosophy" is essential. I won't waste my time with people who are unwilling to state their definitions and premises. I am no longer considering David's input to this discussion.

Because I am debating you, not Ayn Rand. And because I don't assume that you, or any of the other participants in this discussion, actually went through the trouble of applying the criteria from ITOE to this discussion, and what your conclusions are - if I did so I'd be debating what I think you are defending, not your actual position. So, define your terms or stand out of the discussion (with me, I mean).

I'll go with: The guy is too good...

What is a philosophy? Seeker says that "there is nothing about the concept "philosophy" that demands correctness, nor is there a requirement for it to be integrated into a coherent whole". Before such a statement can be made or accepted, the definition of "philosophy" has to be presented. I would like you to provide yours before engaging in this discussion.

How about asking whether you have to clear things with them before they see them? (And I wonder how we clear things with them before they hear them, since we'd have to speak with them to do that!)

I don't want to see purple!

Ah! There is that... as with water, try to put the cat in and it will maul you - leave it to its own devices and it will go right in