argive99

Most people do not read Goedel beyond his most notable papers, and what he reveals about himself is sometimes astounding. Many do not realize that, aside from his work in logic and mathematics, Goedel also wrote five papers on relativity; three of which were published in his lifetime, and two previously unpublished essays now appearing in Goedel's "Collected Works." Thanks for this information. I was having a discussion with an aquaintance about this subject and this info will come in handy. I'd like to say for the record that I read every one of your sceince posts and look forward to each day's new ones with enthusiasm. Your knowledge is near encyclopedic. I really wish that you would write a book on physics and offer an Objectivist foundation for the discipline. In time you could be ranked up there with the very men you study and admire.

I'm not exactly certain how you are defining "faction" Burgess, but there are clearly at least two different organizations promoting Objectivism, each with a different understanding of the philosophy and different approaches. There is also another upstart Objectivist organization, namely SoloHQ. There is also an "independent" "Randian scholar" in Chris Sciabbarra (complete with his own philosophical journal, The Journal Of Ayn Rand Studies). Now for my part, as interesting (and amusing) as some of these non-ARI entities can be, ARI is far superior both in their grasp of the philosophy and in their strategy for promoting it. [see Diannah Hessiah's writing on her blog concerning her reasons for leaving TOC.] But that being said, both these organizations are legitimate institutions with an underlying support base. A support base that for the most part does not respect (to put it mildly in some cases) each other. In fact, I think if you put Leanord Peikoff, Nathaniel Branden, David Kelly, Chriss Sciabbarra, and Lindsey Perigio in the same room, there might be a mercy killing In my opinion, I would say if they aren't factions, they are pretty close.

I have spent considerable time in Rio as well as other parts of Brazil and South America. I have contemplated at length the why's of Latin Culture. I'll say this right off the bat, in many ways, Latin people are more fun loving and high spirited than North American caucasians. The dancing that was previously mentioned is but one example. In South America, even casual dancers seem like professionals compared to most "gringos". And even the sexuality in the way they dance is far greater than their American counterparts. Even such things as dress codes seem more natural and sexual. Now alot of this has to do with climate I'm sure, but there is an elegance to the way middle class and higher latinos dress that, again, is lacking in the average North American. If I had to get deeper, I would say (provisionaly) that Catholocism is a major reason for both the politcal statism rapant throughout the region and *also* the livlier social lives led by the people. Let me explain this apparant contradiction. Modern Catholocism, in practice, is actually far less oppressive of happiness than the dominant form of Christianity in America, which I believe has its roots in various forms of Calvinism. Catholocism allows for contrition, meaning in esssence that if you ask for forgiveness of your sins, in most cases, you get it. Thus, the hellfire and brimstone elements of the various Pietist movements is absent. Its actually somewhat ironic, that a city (Rio) whose main sculptural attraction (known the world over), Corcavoda (Jesus Christ), is also the city known as one of if not the most sexual city in the world. On HBL sometime last year, there was a discussion of how Catholic Europeans tend to be much more joyful and happy (at least in their demeanor) than Protestant Europeans (think the Italians versus the British). That same phenomenon exists throughout S. America. The people have alot of fun and yet economically they lag. This can be seen in the work ethic of many people as well. Nothing gets done and no one expects it to. Businesses have little incentive to excel and as a result most everything for sale is either North American, Asian (Japanese) or European. Things are the exact opposite in America. American Protestentism (as well as the other non-Catholic sects) stress hard work, industriousness and saving while simultaneously discouraging happiness and joy. American Puritanism can be found everywhere in the culture, one obvious and recent example being the outrage over Janet Jackson's nipple. Now, there is obviously alot of sexuality in American culture too, but its constantly under attack and having to defend itself and in many ways seems so forced and unnatural. I could go on for pages. Suffice it to say, I like many aspects of Latin culture; the people's friendliness, liveliness, desire to have fun, etc. I dislike the political climate which creates these bannana republics that have some nice tourist areas and then everything outside that is a war zone (ie the "Favelas" in Rio). Lastly I would say that this is a tough subject to write on without having seen it firsthand. Cultural assessments are not something you can really get from a book.

Why don't you just say what you really want to. Ie that Peikoff, Binswanger and the entire ARI wing of Objectivism are religous dogmatists and corrupting the "true" message of Ayn Rand, or that Kelly, Sciabbarra and Silber are Objectivism's best minds. Or maybe you should just say that you hate Ayn Rand alltogether and have done with it. Whatever one is your actual view or whatever mixture, come out and say it. Why attack Stephen?

Here is Jack Wakeland's view of Brook's argument. Its interesting, allthough I think he has exagerated Brook's views. Also, he did not mention Brook by name but I think its clear who he was talking about. http://tiadaily.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc...9192#7020009192 You may need to register. But I'll exerpt the relative parts: "I’ve grown tired of hearing arguments from good Objectivists (and even a few great ones) that the Muslims have given us sufficient provocation to morally justify a campaign of total war that would break the will of the entire Arab race for a generation... Even if it is a war without rules, we are in a limited war with a Muslim minority spread throughout the world, mixed in with a majority that bears no material culpability for what the minority has done... The majority are either oppressed by a local dictator or are terrorized into silence by the minority of militants among them, or both. For a generation or more they, like we, ignored the seriousness of the threat to life posed by the militants. The majority haven't been our enemies. They are, in fact, our strongest potential allies in this war. The moment we are able to suppress or kill the miniscule armed militant minority that lives in their midst, the majority will switch sides and police up the survivors, ending the conflict... Force is righteous only when it is retaliatory. It is retaliatory only when it is aimed against those who have initiated it and only when it is proportional to (or focused on) the rational purposes of self-defense. The fact that innocents may be cut down in the crossfire does not justify targeting them.* Only if no militarily practical alternative exists, it is moral to do so..." The last paragraph quoted is in direct contrast to Brook's views. Brook adamantly disagrees with the proportionality of Just War theory. He also does not agree with Wakeland's views of "innocents." I have no peace of mind with this issue. When I heard Brook's speech, I loved the non-comprimising aspect of it. And now Wakeland has forced me to question it. Emotionally, I like the argument for total war, but emotions are not tools of cognition. Perhaps Wakeland has a point. And maybe only a military specialist can truly know the extent of force needed. Maybe a philosophically enlightened civilian can only know broad points of policy and not such details. Once again I have confusion on this issue.

adamant: excellent summary of the current knowledge about hypertrophy and its use in the HST protocols. I too agree that to maximize HST a person needs to tweak the basic routine. But if you read Haycock's writing, he makes clear that HST is really a set of principles and encourages people to tweak it to their specific circumstances but after they have done a standard cycle or two to understand how it works. Many HSTers start with a 12 rep cycle and then go to an 8 and a 4. There are many ways to fiddle with it. I also agree that the overwhelming majority of scientific comentators (that I have read anyway) do not believe that HIT is grounded in a proper understanding of exercise physiology. The most frequently cited is HITs failure to address the difference between the stresses to the central nervous system and the stresses to the muscle cell. HST focuses on what science knows about muscle cells, knowledge gained and verified in the labs. To my knowledge HIT can claim no such thing. Does HIT work? Sure. I grew with it but the drain on my CNS as I moved up in weight wasn't worth it. I find HST much more user-friendly and far more reasonable given the realities of the gym. And it doesn't take that long. If you do the 3 workouts a week system, it averages out to about 1 hour to 1 hour and 30 minutes per workout (on 10s and 5s). For three times a week, that's nothing. Its very doable. After 2 cycles of HST with disciplined diet (about 4 1/2 months), my physique is in near competitive (unassissted) condition with far less exhaustion than I experienced with either HIT or Max-OT. Bryan Haycock is probably not an Objectivist, but I feel his epistemelogical approach was more rational than Mentzer's. As much as I loved Mentzer for his glorification of Ayn Rand, I do agree with BigBAngSingh that he approached strength training rationalistically. It appears his premises were not grounded in biological reality.

I am about to read this book on the advice of someone who I respect. Has anyone on this forum read it and what do they think of it. Is she a rational historian?

Dr. Brook actually made that point. But he was just mentioning the historical facts surrounding Patton's and McArthur's carreers. At one point in the Q and A he stated that at the end of WWII, Americal was the only nuclear superpower in the world. We could have done just what you said. But because of altruism we came up with the Truman Doctrine instead and well... You know how that turned out.

This is exactly Yaron Brook's point. He stated it several times. That in the history of warfare whenver one side appeases or allows their enemy respite and time to regroup, it alway eventually costs far more in terms of blood and treasure to defeat that same enemy later on. He made this point brilliantly with two of America's greatest WWII generals, Patton and McArthur. He pointed out that Patton had intentions of bulldozing straight to Moscow using German trained troops to fight the Russians and that McArthur wanted to attack China directly rather than fighting through proxies in Korea. He pointed out that if both those American warriors had been allowed to fight without their hands tied in knots behind their backs, the 20th century could have been spared two of the bloodiest regimes in mankind's history; Communist China and the Soviet Union. Hundreds of millions may not have suffered and died the way they did. I almost cried when that point struck home. Incidently, I have to add that I love this forum. It is such a valuable resource for philosphic and intellectual growth. Thank you all.

I've actually read that too. For every supernatural suggestion implied there is always a plausable explanttion offered as well. I guess that is the charm of the show. I too will keep watching as I am hooked. Not to mention that I am falling in love with Evangeline Lilly, freckles and all.

I want to thank you for your very insightful post. I really have to think about this more, but you did make some very strong points. Silber is thought provoking at times and I read him just to make sure I don't become intellectually complacent, but my gut reaction doesn't agree with him either. But as I said, he is good to expose the hypocracy of the Right which, speaking for myself, I am prone to overlook largely because I am so disgusted with the Left. Thanks again.

I think I see what you are getting at. You are looking for the conceptual foundation for what makes something criminal. I'll try to explain. At common law there were four elements that all crimes had to meet. They had Latin names and were as follows: 1) Actus Reus (guilty act) - an act or omission (which was defined as the failure to act in certain circumstances) 2) Mens Rea (guilty mind) - this is what is known as culpability states. There where four states: Intent (obvious), Reckless (when you should have known that a standard of care was required by a rational assessment of context and yet you acted in *gross* disregard that evinced a reckless disregard for human life and well being), Criminal Negligence (there was a contextual standard of care required and you did not live up to it, yet your actions did not evince a reckless disregard for human life), (ordinary) Negligence (failure to live up to a standard of care to an extent that did not threaten life or property). Note that what was offered here was a spectrum of culpability ranging from deliberate action to reckless indifference to oblivious carelessness. 3) Caustation - the guilty act had to cause... 4) Harm - ... a legitimate, verifiable physical harm to an individual or his property This was the amazing beauty and common sense logic of the British common law that we inherited. You can see how victimless crimes (drugs, prostitution, gambling) do not fit the common law defintition of a crime as they do not satisfy the elements (no physical harm to an individual victim). Also notice how this is entirely consistent with Objectivism. So for murder (generally speaking and avoiding degrees), you would need to show the act and that it was intended and that this act actually caused the death of the victim. Prove that and you've proved murder. The same follows for the other crimes; rape, robbery, assault, battery, fraud, etc. Some crimes don't need the mens rea of intent but only recklessness or criminal negligence. So say, for example, that you were driving your car on the sidewalk (with no extenuating circumstances like you're a cop chasing a villian in a really cheesy action film) and you accidently hit someone and kill them. Well, you would be tried for Manslaughter because you acted in reckless disregard for human life. Or say you were on a date and you brought the girl back to your room locked the door and wouldn't allow her to leave when she asked. She then becomes very quiet and doesn't say anything except she has a look of fear on her face. You proceed to have sex with her despite hearing her wimper very slightly. You will be tried for rape even though you will argue that you didn't intend to rape her and she never actually said "no." (an actual case) You acted with reckless indiferrence to her safety in a situation where you should have reasonably known better. So its not neccessarily "intent" that is the hallmark of a criminal case but a mental state sufficient to indicate dangerous behaviour combined with an action that physically harms a person or their property. And the criminal law should act as an agent of moral retribution for the victim. As a result of the perpetrator's actions, he must be tried according to rational procedural laws and if and when found guilty, he must be punished to an extent appropriate to the value(s) he robbed from his victim, or stated otherwise, the harm he caused his victim. This punishment will of course exist on a spectrum ranging to light fines for petty non-violent crimes to execution for capital murder. That is the essence of criminal law. It revolves around a dangerous minded harm committed against an individual (which can include a corporation) or their property. Civil law would address the compensation owed for that harm. But as for a more detailed discussion of civil law, that is a post for another day.

This is such an excellent description of President Bush. Its so sad. If I were to allow myself to obssess on how scary this is I wouldn't be able to get out of bed in the morning.

I think your problem is that you are not looking at the distinction between the two classifications of law in terms of their respective purpose. A criminal law action is intended to *punish* the perpetrator for violating someone's rights. This could be in the form of fines or imprisonment or death (capital punishment). A civil action is intended to *remedy* some injustice, whether it be intentional or accidental. The two can intersect. In your example (which incidentally is how 19th century capitalism dealt with insider trading), a civil action would be initiated to remedy the harm done. In this case to return the money defrauded from investors. Money that belongs in the company's retained earnings rather than in the CEO's bank account. Now whether or not this would involve a criminal action would depend on several factors not the least of which is how much money was involved. Basically, theft is a crime which warrants some degree of punishment (whether through fines or jail time). But this would depend on the severity of the theft. If the theft is in the form of armed robbery, a rational legal system would judge the perpetrator a physical threat to society and would incarcerate him. For petty corporate theft, the sentence might not require imprisonment (at least for the first violation). This really is an issue of rational sentencing laws. An easier example is the one Betsy gave of OJ Simpson. He murdered two people (unfortunately he wasn't convicted of it), so the criminal trial involved determining his guilt or innocence (or technically innability to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt) and then punishing him accordingly. The civil trial dealt with the financial compensation the families of the Brown's and Goldman's should receive for the loss of their loved ones (lost wages, pain and suffering, etc) as well as punitive damages for a intentionally criminal act. So one branch of law deals with punishment and the other with remedy. Intent is not a crucial factor in the two different classifications of law. There are elements of intent that need to be proved in some criminal actions (ie murder) but not in others (ie criminal negligence). There are elements of intent in some civil actions (common law fraud) but not in others (negligence). Its not a fundamental.

Thanks Ed_from_OC. Your comments reinforced the direction I was going in.

I am going to see this tommorrow with a friend. (I didn't want to deal with the weekend lines.) I am curious what Oliver Stone's spin on Alexander is in this film. Stone is such a collectivist ideolog that I can't help but believe that he had some motivation for making this film. Was it to show the folly of empire and to somehow turn that into a slap in the face of America? Was it too spit at achievement? Or did he make it to glorify a power luster? He is after all a big admirer of Fidel Castro. I have read that the movie has opened to less than steller financial box office receipts. Supposedly, American audiences are put off with the films preoccupation with Alexander's bisexuality. Stone himself said in an interview that he felt that the movie would do better in Europe which shows his contempt for "unsophisticated" Americans. However, it has not done better in Europe. In Greece there is also a dissatisfaction with the preoccupation with Alexander's love life. (As if that defined the man.) Anyway, I am curious what your views are on this. And by the way, how was Collen Ferrel?

Here is a link to a post to Arthur Silbur's Light of Reason Blog. I have been critical of Silber in the past but I am starting to think that he often (not always) has a point. One of his contentions is that the Moslem antagonism towards the US has not been *solely* due to the different Ideologies of each respective culture, ie the death worshiping culture of the Middle East and the life affirming culture at the heart of the West. He and others have suggested that Moslem death worship* in conjunction with* America's interventionist foreign policy over the past 50 years have led to the rise of modern terrorism. America has propped up one dictator or set of dictators after another. Thus it is not hard for Middle Eastern power lusters to stir anti-American sentiment. All they have to do is show a connection between the people that have oppressed them and American support. I was at first originally suspicous of this line of reasoning but I recently attended a talk given by Yaron Brook, The Morality of War. Brook described how the altuistic Just War Theory has come to dominate American foreign and military policy since WWII (and actually he showed how it even existed in that war which could have been won earlier if America's greatest general hadn't been so handcuffed, ie Patton.) While Silber doesn't get specifically into the philosophical core of America's foreign policy, he is very good at pointing out its concrete failures and the anti-reason and reality avoidance epistemology of its advocates and implimenters. I have come to believe if Ameirca had remained political isolationists, the spread of Islamic terrorism would not have reached the severity it has today. Here is one of his posts. There are links to all his voluminous writings on this subject all over his site. You may not agree with everything he says but he does make some interesting points. There are many Objectivist blogs that disect the irrationality of the Left. Silber spends his time vivisecting the irrationality of the Right which I have come to realize is more important. I have seen this in myself and in many Objectivists that I have read here and all over the net (especially Trasinsky at TIA), namely accepting far too many premises of and granting far too much lattitude to the Neocons. Incidently, Yaron Brook was asked during the Q and A if he agreed with Robert Trasinsky's support of Bush's Grand Strategy of Freedom as a watered down version of essentially the right policy, namely a colonial solution. He answered in one emphatic word; "NO". He went on to say that Trasinsky is a great guy but that he felt Trasinsky and other Objectivists have swallowed some of the altruism that the NeoCons have been serving. He did not believe that spreading "freedom and democaracy" had any chance of succeeding. He said that in 5 years if Iraq isn't plunged in a civil war (which he said might be a good thing), Iraq may very well be a client state of Iran. There are similarities between Brook and Silber allthough Brook is far more explicitly in favor of massive retaliatory force. Silber is far too sensitive. Anyway, its good food for thought. http://coldfury.com/reason/comments.php?id=P2403_0_1_0

No I didn't mean "rationalism." I meant a rational, pro-reason philosopical thought system. In other words, I know that Objectivism is a rational thought system but if we are going to define Objectivism as the system laid down by Ayn Rand (and possibly some other contributions in her life time that she ok'ed) then there has to be a concept that identifies something broader than just her ideas because she was not omniscient and she could not anticipate all the consequences and new knowledge her ideas will (and have) led to. So I was using "rational philosophy" to mean something like all philosophic knowledge which corresponds to or accurately describes reality. If you were to use set theory than Objectivism would be one set of ideas inside the larger set of ideas which is rational philosophy; which would have ideas laid down by other philosophic thinkers, most notably Aristotle and Aquinas.

But here's my question, can we say that Objectivism and rational philosophy refer to two different concepts? Would it be correct to say that Ayn Rand's Objectivism stands as the highest example of rational philosophy? And if at some point in the future it is realized that certain of Rand's formulations were imprecise or perhaps even wrong then that new knowledge will be part of rational philosophy and Rand's errors will be ommited? This subject always gives me trouble.

This is essentially correct but it could be more precise. I would describe the essential difference between civil and criminal law in terms of their fundamental purpose. Civil law at root is aimed at dispute resolution and *compensation*, with one of the chief themes being "to make the parties whole", ie to restore the parties (really the plaintiff) to the position before the violation (fraud, tortous behavior, etc) or as close to it as possible. But the essence of criminal law is *punishment* in proportion to the harm done to the victim or (stated in other terms) to the values lost by the victim. This is why I feel capital punishment is justified for intentional murder (as opposed to involuntary manslaughter), because the value lost by the victim is irreplacable (his life), therefore the punishment should be equally as extreme. I hasten to add that while what I just described as the essence of both branches of law are the implied base of our current legal system due to our better common law heritage, they are not the explicit philosophical base of modern jurisprudence. The moderns (and for the most part the modern left) have decimated jurisprudence (the philosophy of law) to such an extent that the stated purpose of civil law is "social justice" (witness the suits against "big tobacco" "big gun manufacturers" and soon to be "big fast food") and the purpose for criminal law is some cross between retribution and rehabilitation. A fully articualted theory of rational retribution for criminal law and rational compensation for civil law has yet to be written (perhaps some Objectivist William Blackstone will emerge to write it).

That's the flaw with the show, the fact that its appeal is to supernatualism. With each week the show moves farther and farther away from reality oriented fiction. But the shows producers wont do this explicitly so they stradle the fence about whether the island is mystical or not. For example, in the episode you mentioned where Jack thinks he sees his father, the show did not make it defiinitive if he really saw the ghost of his father or if the isalnd causes such visions or if he were just exhausted and sleep deprived. This is the method the show uses for each new development on the island. So even though the writers have introduced such philosophical names as Locke and Rousseau, it doesn't matter because the island the survivors are trying to live in is not part of reality but some Twilight Zone scenerion where they're confronted with polar bears (on an island in the South Pacific), ghosts, "whispers", and unseen monsters. Even if eventually the writers give somewhat plausable explanations for these they have been selling the "mystery" of the island and by implication its supernatural qualities. So the show seems that it will be limited by its science fiction elements. That being said, on its own terms its not badly written (sometimes the writing is actually excellent), and it is well acted. Its good entertainment.

Why must people resort to name calling when you don't agree with them? I notice that "Objectivists" are so quick to fight to the death to defend Mike Mentzer that they lose all form of civility. Look, I can be an angry Objectivist too, but it appears obvious to me that the debate between HST and HIT is a scientific one and not one solved by broad philosophical principles. I personally favor HST and have had far greater success with it than I did with HIT which I found physically draining. But I can't vouch for the precison of Haycock's research. To me it looks sound and I haven't seen anything resembling it from HITers but I'm not a scientist. It could be flawed. But I'm not going to call a peson who disagrees with me a "mystic of muscle". God, you guys are acting like the caricature of Objectivists made by Kellyites and some Libertarians (which for the record I am not one of and pesonally can't stand). This is not a debate for this forum. So grow up.

I can't find the link.

neuromancer: your post sounds like a leftist assault on money and property. Why should the athletes consider themselves "lucky"? Do you consider yourself lucky every day at your job? The NBA players earned their roles on the rosters and their wealth, there's nothing "lucky" about it (unless you want to say that they are lucky to be very tall). Your's is the kind of reasoning dominating the leftist sports media. I'm sick of it. I don't consider it relevant to the issue of the fight. hopeful: Your point is well taken. The coke didn't directly hit Ron Artes. Artes and the rest of the players could have simply pointed to security and had the fans removed from the game. I'll admit his reaction was emotionalist and uncontrolled but I still feel the fans bear the responsibility. For too long I have watched this uncontrolled rage brewing among sports fans. This year in Baseball, a outfielder on the Dodger's got into a fight with some fan's in the bleachers who threw something at him. Last year a father and son amongst the spectators ran out on the field of a baseball game and tackled the 1st base coach. At a Cleveland Browns football game last season, the game had to be stopped because the fans were throwing beer bottles at the players in the end zone. And fan/player fights are all too common in professional Hockey. My guess is that the leftist media has stirred up alot of this anger with their all too predictable class warfare rhetoric. In sports it take the exact form of neuromancer's post, ie "who the hell are these athletes to make millions of dollars when we the little people fans only make chump change by comparison. They should take all our guilt inducing crap and swallow it with a smile on their face." In this situation, even though the players acted like hooligans, I side with them over the fans or the cowards at league headquartes (David Stern types). Unless I can be proven wrong...

Is there a similarity between the way the media is denouncing this poor marine for shooting the wounded Iraqi in Faluja who was feigning death and the way the media is denouncing the basketball players who fought the fans in the Indiana - Detroit game a few days ago. To me it seems the issue for both cases is the popular media's disdain for self defense. In Urban warfare there is no time to ask questions first and then shoot. To condemn this marine for taking steps to defend his life is pure altuistic hatred for self interest. In the basketball game, the fans threw beer at the players. This has been going on for years in multiple sports. The players got fed up and fought back. I can't say I blame them. I think David Stern and the NBA are scapegoating the players and making nothing but a bunch of "role mode" speeches to appease the liberal sports media which by the way have been vicously attacking the NBA as the "slaves of corporate interests." It sickens me. Do others agree with this reasoning. I'm curious.