Randrew

A few questions regarding the "Whom to you plan to vote for in the upcoming election" poll: 1) What is the "Constitution" Party? 2) What is the "Peace and Freedom" Party? 3) What is the "American" Party? 4) Why is Nader's ticket called "Reform?" I don't know much about the Reform party, but my impression was that they were a group of ultra-conservatives led by Pat Buchanan et. al. 5) Isn't there supposed to be a Socialist Party here in America? (Perhaps that was the one "Other" vote. Good god.)

That's because he's no ordinary inspector: "That's CHIEF Inspector Clouseau!" OK, I guess this thread is done. You win again, Excluded Middle!

Inspector, eh? Go, Gadget, go! The anecdote I mentioned was quite amusing for the entire group involved, and no one was mad when we found out. I wasn't thinking about doing this myself, but I was curious to see if anyone had pulled it off successfully here or elsewhere (if so, then I've caught you!), and I was also wondering what the administration here thought about it (e.g. dislikes it, doesn't care, etc.)

Just out of curiosity: What's to stop an individual on this forum from creating multiple users, each with a different "personality," and then having them "argue" against one another? The reason I thought of this is that, while an undergraduate, I was on a Philosophy discussion listserv, and a guy on the discussion list named Earl decided to create an alternate personality for himself ("Pearl," a woman much older than himself), and had the two argue against one another. It took the rest of us a while to find this out (and only because someone he had told spilled the beans.) I think he was trying to emulate an idea of Kierkegaard. What do you guys think of this (esp. administration)? I doubt anyone on *this* forum would do such a thing, as it would run contrary to the Law of Excluded Middle

I haven't been keeping up with the arguments make since Charlotte entered the scene, but at this point it might be logical to begin a new thread on Secession.

MF, Your story is very similar to mine. I had known about Ayn Rand for many years, but her ideas didn't really interest me that much. (I used to think "Ethical Egoism? Doesn't sound like a very interesting, unique philosophy to me.") But then, when I was 21, I met an objectivist who convinced me to try Atlas Shrugged. The first chapter didn't interest me much; I wasn't familiar with Rand's literary style, so I wasn't immediately aware of the archetypes that Dagny and James Taggart were supposed to represent, and their argument over the Mexican railroad (name?) didn't seem all that exciting. But then came chapter two, the introduction to Hank Rearden, and I fell in love with him immediately. (Of course, when I first met his family, I wasn't immediately aware that Lillian was an evil character, and I felt a bit sad that she and Hank weren't getting along well. I eventually got over that.) My advice to you: 1) If you get a little bored in the middle of "This is John Galt speaking," don't be afraid to just skim it on the first reading, finish the book, and then go back and read it thoroughly. 2) Get to FH (Fountainhead) soon after AS: you'll *love* Howard Roark, possibly more so than any of the AS characters (which is the case with me.) As for the other novels, Anthem is great for a short read (1984 with a happy ending), but WTL is a bit depressing (albeit with an interesting ending), so don't read it with the expectation that it will be an uplifting novel, as the rest were. Have fun!

Betsy, As an Objectivist matchmaker, you must have some idea of the ratio of females to males in the Objectivist community. So, my questions are A) What would you estimate this ratio to be, and What advice to you have for males such as Durande and myself who have trouble finding good Objectivist females? Fortunately, one characteristic of an Objectivist is a mad obsession with one's work, which keeps me distracted enough from trying to find female companionship

No, most use only pencil, paper, books, and their own creativity and ingenuity as their research tools. In other words, most number theoriests are considered pure mathematicians, rather than applied.

Hello, all you "Pithemovie" fans. IAMNAPIV and I incorrectly began this discussion under the thread "Life of Pi," so I will paste our discussions here and encourage further contributions. First, from me: I loved the movie (as you can probably tell by looking at my profile), but I'm not sure that its ultimate message is compatible with objectivism. I can adduce one argument that it is, and one that it isn't, and I think the latter is stronger. But here goes. First, the argument against: Max Cohen, the hero of the story, was a genius who poured his *life* into his work, working himself to the brink of insanity, and finally triumphed, finding an amazing pattern that connected natural processes. But, in the end, he had to give up his work and destroy his results, as the knowledge that he had found was too great to be beheld by a "mere" human. Hence, the message of the movie is incompatible with objectivism, as it says that some knowledge is not meant for men to know, i.e. the truth may be too much for you to handle, it may destroy you, so ignorance is bliss (as can be seen in the look on Max's face in the last scene.) Now, another interpretation of the movie, one that is more pro-objectivist: Max Cohen's nature and fate can be more or less summed up in two words: Robert Stadler. Like Dr. Stadler, Max was the greatest genius in his field at the time, but he worked under the premise that there is a realm of "pure" knowledge that is somehow above the "petty materialism" (as he put it) of those working on Wall Street. In the end, he shared the same fate as Dr. Stadler: he was ultimately destroyed by his own work. Notice the strength of the parallel: he was not destroyed by the work *in and of itself*, but by those whose hands he let it fall into: the Lancet Percy analysts and the religious fanatics, who all wanted power over men in some way or another. Now, the second intepretation would be not at all obvious to a non-objectivist (or, at least, to anyone who hadn't read Atlas Shrugged.) In fact, it only came to me *just now*, as I was writing this post. The former interpratation seems to be the one most people would take away from the movie, so it is probably does more harm than good as a work of art. Now, to quote IMNAPIV: Same with me! Up until the ending, the movie was tremendously inspiring to me and remains one of my favorites, even in spite of its shortcomings. Chaos theory my ass. Max was attempting to apply Number Theory to the stock market, to look for patterns. The patterns he sought were not the same as those that statistical and financial experts look for: he was looking for some mystical properties of INTEGERS, of WHOLE NUMBERS within a system that is fundamentally continuous. I admit, I don't know much about mathematical finance, but my friend, a Harvard mathematics/economics major who is interning for a hedge fund, says that this is a crock of shit, and I don't think it takes much more than common sense to see that he is probably right. On the other hand, Number Theory is already starting to find applications in theoretical physics (http://www.maths.ex.ac.uk/~mwatkins/zeta/physics.htm), so maybe we're not so far away from number-theoretical wonders as it may seem...

Annalouise -- Just to make sure, are you referring to Objectivism: the philosophy of Ayn Rand (as expounded in the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged), or were you thinking of the "objectivism" of W.V.O. Quine and other such analytic philosophers? Also, where is it that you are from, where you seem to have such a strong cultural bias against Americans? I'll be sure to keep on my best behavior if I ever visit there IAMNAPIV -- I am going to start a new thread so that we can continue our discussion of Pi the Movie without intruding on the rest of the folks here.

I loved the movie (as you can probably tell by looking at my profile), but I'm not sure that its ultimate message is compatible with objectivism. I can adduce one argument that it is, and one that it isn't, and I think the latter is stronger. But here goes. First, the argument against: Max Cohen, the hero of the story, was a genius who poured his *life* into his work, working himself to the brink of insanity, and finally triumphed, finding an amazing pattern that connected natural processes. But, in the end, he had to give up his work and destroy his results, as the knowledge that he had found was too great to be beheld by a "mere" human. Hence, the message of the movie is incompatible with objectivism, as it says that some knowledge is not meant for men to know, i.e. the truth may be too much for you to handle, it may destroy you, so ignorance is bliss (as can be seen in the look on Max's face in the last scene.) Now, another interpretation of the movie, one that is more pro-objectivist: Max Cohen's nature and fate can be more or less summed up in two words: Robert Stadler. Like Dr. Stadler, Max was the greatest genius in his field at the time, but he worked under the premise that there is a realm of "pure" knowledge that is somehow above the "petty materialism" (as he put it) of those working on Wall Street. In the end, he shared the same fate as Dr. Stadler: he was ultimately destroyed by his own work. Now, the second intepretation would be not at all obvious to a non-objectivist (or, at least, to anyone who hadn't read Atlas Shrugged.) In fact, it only came to me *just now*, as I was writing this post. The former interpratation seems to be the one most people would take away from the movie, so it is probably does more harm than good as a work of art. Comments?

Perhaps I am now guilty of some bad wording of my own ( ). I, too, want objective law to be established. My inquiries about objectivist attorneys working on this were not attempts to challenge this position, but simply to learn more. Ok, now I understand and I agree. Thank you. You must be in quite a pickle at the voting booth. I think I'll check out the various threads on "How should objectivists vote?" to see how others resolve these conflicts.

No, I am not trying to defend Libertarians at all costs. All I seek to do in this thread is for Objectivists to judge the LP not on the basis of individual examples or bromides, but on the basis of the statement of principles. So far many of the responses I have received to my original inquiry have made me look closer at the LP platform, and I am viewing the party with increasing skepticism. But I haven't made up my mind yet. Their stance, plain and simple, is pro-CHOICE. Choice is essential to liberty. You're right, they need to include an explicit condemnation of religious fanatics who bomb abortion clinics. On this, they are guilty of chickenshit. That's too bad. I think that attacking the LP stance on law and juries is a just form of critism. It is mainly for this reason that I am becoming more skeptical of them. However, if I were to address, say, a group of Libertarians and tell them that there can be no room for whim-worshipping juries in a system of objective law, they would probably laugh at me (at those last two words), saying that there is always room for "re-interpretation," and I would be hard-pressed to defend myself, as much as I believe in it. That is why I am very interested in reading the works of Objectivist lawyers: I wish to see how they would go about establishing such a system. I assumed that the Native American clause was included because they were not only oppressed by the "new" Americans (as were the Africans), but their land was also taken from them. I actually don't know what oppression they still face today, if any. If there is none, then they should probably be told to "just get over it," as the real oppression and broken treaties occurred so long ago that no one today is accountable. (Kind of like the "slavery was two centuries ago, get over it!" argument.) My god, I can't believe what you're trying to argue here. If we go into this one too deeply, we should probably start another thread, but I'll continue the argument for now: You owe no obligation to your friends. They cannot dictate what you do for recreation. As far as family goes, if becoming an addict causes you to become a negligent father, then your proper indictment would be on charges of NEGLIGENCE, as that would be the particular crime that harmed another to whom you were responsible. How would you propose to fight the war on drugs anyway, save through education? I assume you already know the argument from economics against trying to reduce the supply, which is how the war is currently conducted, but if not, I would be happy to explain it to you. I still can't understand how this argument of yours works, or even what it is that you wish to argue. Please state it more simply, or give an example or something. And the triple negative "false-false-un" combination seems a bit redundant I'll keep this in mind as I continue to judge the merits and weaknesses of the LP. As for the mentioned clauses in the Constitution, I'll have to check up on this later, as I'm pretty busy right now.

My first response is to David Odden: Ok, you're reading into this too much. What was implied in the statement was that individuals should be free to make their own choice for which they are personally responsible. Bad wording? Perhaps, but only someone with an overly-critical eye could interpret it as you did. You're dropping the context, Odden: you just read the outline, without considering how the LP determines what information the public "should" have. If you read on, where they elaborate on this, you'll find that they believe the government has a right to classify information if it will protect the lives of citizens: "We favor substituting the present secrecy system with one in which no individual may be convicted for violating government secrecy classifications unless the government discharges its burden of proving that the publication...disclosed defensive military plans so as to materially impair the capabilities to respond to attack." What they are doing here is allowing women to terminate any pregnancy, but stating it in an indirect manner so as not to offend those who don't like abortion. I, too, wish they would just simply say "we condemn any government intervention that would deny a woman the right to terminate a pregnancy" instead of beating around the bush (no pun intended ). But as it stands, if the government is "kept out of the question," then they cannot condemn a woman for having an abortion. The reason that they even MENTION the "other side" of the issue is that they condemn state-funded abortions, which force those taxpayers who don't agree with abortion to pay for it. Again, you would have realized this if you had read on. Ok, here I might be inclined to agree with you. On the one hand, I think all they're doing here is encouraging juries to question established laws if they think those laws are unjust. Note that they still adhere to the principle of Justice: it is established laws, not justice, that can be changed. They encourage juries to *think*. On the other hand, this statement may be too general, leaving room for a "whim-based view of justice," as you put it. I would have preferred if they had said "We support a system of justice based on Objective laws." But trying to establish an "Objective law" seems like pretty tricky business. Out of curiosity, do you know of any Objectivist lawyers who have attempted this? I would like to see a sample of how an Objectivist attorney would state and apply such laws. Native Americans can determine their own form of government, but participation in it would be voluntary. They are still a people (or, various groups of peoples), who do not wish to have their way of life disrupted by outsiders. Good point. If there is no surplus of government money, then I don't see how the national debt can be paid off unless by individuals. I'm not sure how they would answer this one. God damn it, you're just trying to create a problem where none existed in the first place. Yes, the statement is redundant, as the "replacement" would be enacted automatically by individuals wishing to save for their retirement, but in no way does it imply the right of the government "to create such a system"--the words "private" and "voluntary" should have tipped you off to this. Once again, you need to read on to where they elaborate on this. Later in the document, you will find the statement: "Exercise of this right, like the exercise of all other rights, does not remove legal and moral obligations not to violate the rights of others." This explicitly precludes the creation and secession of a dictatorship within the US. That said, this statement bothers me a little. In a truly free, Objective government, why would anyone want to secede in the first place? Perhaps this statement was included to please the anarchists I agree with you here. Under some circumstances, Libertarian forgein policy turns laissez-faire into laziness. I don't understand what you're trying to say here. The Libertarian (and, I hope, the Objectivist) stance on the War on Drugs is that children should be educated about the harm drugs can do in their lives, but once they become responsible adults, use of drugs becomes their decision. It is not the government's place to use force to prevent someone from making a bad decision, especially if he should have known better. I assume I am missing the point of what you were trying to say. On the one hand, it seems hard to imagine being a strong nation without having a loyal, committed military. On the other hand, if "enlisting for two years" means that for the next two years the government has the right to order you to use force regardless of the judgement of your own reason (i.e. your mind has no say in the actions you take), then I don't see why any Objectivist would sign such a contract that would surrender his mind. It's probably more complicated than this, though, and I'm more inclined to agree with you. Right now, the only reason I can see to not vote Libertarian would be for the sake of national defense. On moral grounds, you can complain all you want about the Libertarians' lack of a base, but their stance is infinitely preferable to the theocratic mysticism of the Bush administration. Unless you prefer to just not vote at all.

On this forum, I've seen Libertarianism attacked on various grounds (e.g. Libertarians lack a consistent moral base, Libertarians do not have good defense policies), but I'm still not convinced that there is nothing good about the party or even that voting Libertarian is not worthwhile. Consider the following statements from lp.org: "We want a system which respects the individual and encourages us to discover the best within ourselves and develop our full potential." Sounds familiar, eh? "The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics based on the moral principle of self-ownership. Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud." They have laid out their complete statement of principles at http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html. On individual bases, it might be better to support, say, a particular Democrat or Republican than a given Libertarian candidate, but, in general, I saw nothing in the statement of principles that would be contrary to Objectivism. If I am wrong about this, please point out any inconsistencies (between the platform and O'ism.) If not, then what is wrong with supporting the party that adheres to these principles?

Any SJs or NFs out there? No? Why not? Well, I'll TELL you why: 1) It's impossible to be an Objectivist and an F. Period. 2) As far as SJs go...it might be possible to be an ISTJ or ESTJ on this forum, but SJs, called "Guardians" [of tradition] or "Concrete Cooperatives" by Keirsey, generally don't like to deviate from accepted cultural norms. It is in the nature of Objectivists to question these norms, and SJs are not generally comfortable with this. Then again, if one considers the rational, individualistic principles upon which this country was founded as its "norms," then I suppose I could see how an SJ's views could be completely compatible w. Objectivism. Another problem/question: are there any SJs out there who are also *decided* atheists? The NTJs, Keirsey's "Coordinator Rationals," are probably the personalities most *naturally suited* to Objectivism: not only are they NTs, their J function is much more compatible/comfortable with making and sticking to with moral decisions/moral *judgement*. Now for a breakdown of MBTI personality types of characters in Rand's novels (these are based on my analyses; feel free to question my conclusions and offer counter-reasons): Howard Roark: INTP. Then again, perhaps I'm biased by Keirsey's description of the INTP as an "architect," which Roark is in the concrete sense of the term (and perhaps in the abstract, as well. Is there any evidence that Roark is a J? I've only read FH once, so I may be misjudging him.) Dagny Taggart: INTJ or ENTJ. Francisco: ENTJ Rearden: INTJ Ellis Wyatt: ENTP?!! John Galt: INTJ Gail Wynand: ENTJ/ENTP (ok, hard to say) Mike the Electrician: ISTP (Sean Donnigan) As you can see, I'm having trouble coming up with herioc characters of hers that are SPs or SJs. By the way: I am another INTJ, and Keirsey (author of the "Please Understand Me" series) is an INTP. And yes, some of the questions on the test are clearly biased, and others I think are unclear (e.g. both answers are equally compatible with one type or the other.) I don't have the questions in front of me now, but later I might give some examples to support this claim.

I was wondering if there were any serious chess players out there who have struggled with this question, as I have. Actually, I think I already have the answer, in the form of Ayn Rand's explicity-expressed opinion, although it seems that it could fit in with Galt's description of work. First, I present the argument against Chess-ambition. Here I quote Rand's "Open Letter to Boris Spassky" from PWNI (54-55): "Chess is an escape--an escape from reality. It is an 'out,' a kind of "make-work" for a man of higher than average intelligence who was afraid to live, but could not leave his mind unemployed and devoted it to a placebo--thus surrendering to others the living world he had rejected as too hard to understand. . . . Unlike algebra, chess does not represent the abstraction--the basic pattern--of mental effort; it represents the opposite: it focuses mental effort on a set of concretes, and demands such complex calculations that a mind has no room for anything else. By creating an illusion of action and struggle, chess reduces the professional player's mind to an uncritical, unvaluing passivity toward life. Chess removes the motor of intellectual effort--the question 'What for?'--and leaves a somewhat frightening phenomenon: intellectual effort devoid of purpose." On the other hand, recall John Galt's paragraph on the virtue of Productiveness (946): "Productive work is...a constant process of acquiring knowledge and shaping matter to fit one's purpose, of translating an idea into physical form, of remaking the earth in the image of one's values--that all work is creative work if done by a thinking mind..." (946) Although chess doesn't really have a strong connection to "the earth" or "matter," there are many kinds of productive work that also don't, such as the various and sundry abstruse branches of higher mathematics. In the case of pure mathematics, its creators work without an eye to specific applications, and may even die not having seen their work influence productivity. But it is still considered productive work. Thoughts?

Does anyone know if there is going to be a new edition of Atlas Shrugged coming out in 2007 to commemorate its 50th anniversary? I really want to get a hardcover copy of the book, but I'm wondering if I should wait three years or go ahead and buy the 35th-ann. ed. now.

OK, if they're going to make AS into a movie, they'd better do it RIGHT--and this means (among other things) no massive cuts. I doubt this can be done in anything less than a TV mini-series, so I am bracing myself for disappointment when a three or four-hour movie comes out. And the music had better be good, too.

“ ‘Look, Gail.’ Roark got up, reached out, tore a thick branch off a tree, held it in both hands, one first closed at each end; then, his wrists and knuckles tensed against the resistance, he bent the branch slowly into an arc. ‘Now I can make what I want of it: a bow, a spear, a cane, a railing. That’s the meaning of life.’ ‘Your strength?’ ‘Your work.’ He tossed the branch aside. ‘The material the earth offers you and what you make of it…’” (Fountainhead, 551.) And this, my friends, is the meaning of Ayn Rand’s philosophy. Beautiful, isn’t it? The courage and inspiration one gets from watching Roark perform a few such simple actions is enough to laugh away angry and hopeless words from centuries of snarling philosophers and religious leaders. Indeed, I do love my work. Mathematics is among the most beautiful of academic disciplines, and there is always more to learn, always more to create. But I am not a Gail Wynand or a Paul Erdos: I cannot put in twenty-hour days doing my work. I need something more, and I cannot figure out what that is. A few examples of my confusion about Objectivism: 1) I like David Lynch movies. But why? They are dark, irrational, and seemingly full of a postmodern sickness. Yet there is something magical, fantastic, about them: you never know what sort of quirky strangeness will happen next. I could also name some examples of books and music that I still enjoy after having studied Objectivism (and yes, oldsalt, I have read more than just the novels. I’ve read most of PWNI and VOS, some of Peikoff’s Objectivism (incidentally, a boring book—thank god for the novels), and some of Capitalism), but let it suffice to say that my inspiration from reading Ayn Rand has in no way altered my taste in art. 2) The Objectivist view on romantic love. Recall the words of Francisco, spoken to Rearden: “The man who is proudly certain of his own value will want the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer—because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement.” (Atlas, 1st ed. softcover, p. 460.) First of all, I have enough trouble as it is just finding women who are inspired by Rand and live, or at least want to live, the philosophy in their lives. Second, although these women do exist, that makes for a very small playing field for us men, which leaves us with two options: remain proudly single, or compromise. And, as Galt tells us, “in any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that wins.” What, specifically, influences my desire to compromise? 1 – I want to have children, and I don’t want to do it alone. 2 – I want to have sex, and I don’t want to do it alone. ;-) Furthermore, I don’t even completely agree with Francisco. There is something aesthetic about romantic experiences, from the first date through all of the courtship and lovemaking, and, as I said in 1), I am still just as confused as ever about my aesthetic tastes. That is, I am still attracted to many women who do not quite fit the bill of Francisco’s description, and I have a hard time understanding how it is that fixing my “bad philosophy” will suddenly make me attracted to “higher” women. 3) I still find inspiration from Nietzsche’s idea of the “Eternal Recurrence” (see Gay Science, #341, for an explanation.) Before I end, I will re-formulate my original statement, only with qualifications: 1) I have been greatly inspired by the characters in Rand’s novels as living examples of ideal human beings. 2) In the realm of the real world, I have great respect for anyone who honestly lives the philosophy and has managed to integrate it into every aspect of his psychology and self-understanding. Also, I commend the Objectivist movement for its fight for Capitalism and the individual rights necessary for Capitalism. 3) That said, I still find the philosophy boring (i.e., lacking) on aesthetic, romantic, and, to an extent, philosophical grounds.

Have you all ever heard this response to Objectivism? "It's not that I don't agree with Objectivism. I just find it to be...boring, that's all. Sure, I don't want to be a 'looter' or a 'moocher', so I will vote for whichever political candidate provides the most economic freedom for capitalism, and I'll try not to spread bad philosophy to friends and family. But in my personal life, meditation and spiritual mysticism (e.g. self-mastery and self-knowledge via Buddhism) are practices in which I participate and enjoy, and they don't seem to harm anyone, but actually help me." Unfortunately (?) I feel this way sometimes. It has been almost a year since I first read Altas Shrugged (and, subsequently, her other novels), and I have gone in and out of phases of feeling that I understand Objectivism and live it completely and disenchantment with the apparent dryness of certain aspects of it. I think my "discenchanment" stems not from a misunderstanding of Objectivism but from a failure to integrate it into every aspect of my living and my thinking. If I could find an Objectivist psychologist and afford to pay him/her for counseling, then I would be able to discuss in detail specific instances in my life for which Objectivism seems unneccesary to me. But I will stop, for now, lest I run the risk of losing clarity.

Just out of curiosity, which political candidate(s) *do* you all support? The Libertarian party is (or claims to be) the "Party of Principle, not of special interests," and at lp.org they have laid out a clear, concise set of principles by which they stand--they at least have that going for them, unlike Democrats and Republicans. I admit, though, that Radcap is right to be wary of the LP because the principles they state are almost entirely political, not ethical--in other words, they ignore the metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical bases for the principles in their politics. Perhaps you all generally don't vote, as support for one candidate entails all kinds of baggage (in the form of special interests, compromise of ethical principles, etc.) Perhaps I need to realize (and explain to my friends and family) that not voting is not a sign of apathy, but the result of a tremendous conscious (and conscientious) effort on my part. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that Objectivism is still in the early stages of propagation, and we have much educating (as Radcap said) to do before a strong Objectivist candidate has the money and the guts to run for president (or even a smaller office.) Am I right about this?