dark_unicorn

hehe, to each his/her own, but I would refer to it as: Theology = speculation of universal origin and speculation of universal origin = utilizing the power of abstraction through a combonation of mathematical principles and metaphysical axioms to conceptualize a beginning. I don't seek to avoid or even question reality, what I seek is to put it into order, starting with the axioms and building off of them into complex theory of universal phenomena. Each entity has onto itself a specific nature and thus an identity (A is A, 2+2=4, things are what they are) and what I seek is the full extent of that identity. What is the origin of it's identity, how did it evolve into it's current state, what surrounding phenomena may have affected or stimulated the process. Aquinas' "Shorter Summa" has a better explanation of it than what I can provide at this time. I obviously won't advertize Thomism on here since it is not within the guidelines of the forum, but at some point I may entertain a debate with whomever wishes to discuss this. Ayn Rand and myself draw influences from the same philosopher, thus our views on most things are very similar. As a believer in the axiom of free will, I mirror her views on politics and do not consider government compulsion to be moral in any given senario. As a believer in an objective universe, I don't subscribe to the Kantian principle of intuition (interchangeable with non-rational faith, which is not compatable with Thomism and has been rightly condemned in the Catholic Encyclopedia as erronius) or Plato's obscure concept of a special means of "communicating" with a non-existing realm of ideas, which is basically a manifesto for the tyranny of intellectual elites. Consequently you will find that I am regularly launching polemics against most of the same enemies that all the Objectivists have. To simply state how I define any concept of "faith" is as a speculation that is built off of reason (as opposed to an avoidance of it, which is where the term "blind faith" comes from). On the other hand, it is obviously not something that is scientifically demonstratable, at least not yet. Such theories as evolution, the big bang, or Aristotle's concept of an eternal universe is not in contradiction with this viewpoint. P.S. - Just to add an additional wrinkle, I am not a supporter of Intelligent Design. One of the weakest arguements that many theologians have come to argue is the idea that because something is complex that it just magically pops up from nothing. The arguement from incredulity is something that I never engage in, because it is akin to surrendering your rationality and defaulting your arguement out of the bounds of any further logical discussion.

As far as I can gather this can't be done, such values are relative to the individual in possession of both types of property, hense any laws past would be irrational. I reserve the right to my opinion that people who irrationally destroy their own property are immoral because of their actions, but there is no way I can justify "any opinion" being made into law without becoming a tyrant in the process.

The primary proof that I have (which obviously is far from 100% proof of course) of caused causality is written about in Aquinas' Shorter Summa, it is a combination of the way he interpreted God in Catholicism and the way Aristotle speculated why things were moved. Whatever would be the given cause of causality (since causality is not a material object, it's origin is speculated to be a concept of action without matter, something which has not yet further been elaborated on, but could conform to some energy based phenomena) It is pretty much a given that causality dominates physics. But what I am specifically after is it's origin, what was the first thing to exist that established causality by way of precedent. Perhaps causality is not specifically caused, but I have speculated that at some point it started and developed. One of the things that I've found interesting in Objectivism is that causality and the universe sort of pick up the slack that is left in God's absense. If indeed it is the case that the interaction of causality and material reality created man's unique ability to contemplate on such a deep level, I am curious to know how and hope that at some point the sciences will bring forth more answers. One of the things that makes me a bit sad is that I visualize all of the accomplishments that will be made after I'm gone, and that I will not have any way of seeing or knowing them. One of the risks in getting into metaphysical speculation and even issues of faith is that you run a heavy risk of being at error and you often have less to go on than you do when you are using logic to categorize phenomena that is right in front of your face. Aquinas often referred to theology (as opposed to blind religion, which was the way of the old tribes preceding civilizaiton) is that it is a science that utilizes the other sciences to predict the nature of things that are beyond the current scope of reason. Sometimes such speculations can be made to serve reason by preparing it for analysis of newer phenomena when we become capable of studying it. (an example being speculation on potential life forms that could exist on other planets that are inorganic, or more plainly not based on Carbon) As to the Spagetti monster (which sounds like a humorous satire based on what I would call the "Creator Octopus" senario, sort of my own little satire poking fun at the multi-apendaged Hindu Gods), I will look it up. But one of the things to remember about Aquinas (whom is my inspiration on this) is that he did not allow for things contrary to reason to infect his view of God. He used reason to isolate what God could potentially be by a process of elimination, until all absurdities such as an "Egg and Cress Sandwich" or the alien "Zenu" of scientology were eliminated and one coherent theory of why man contemplates eternity and yet is made of a non-eternal body. For Aquinas reason and his faith never contradicted, for me it is taken a step further and reason becomes a tool to rule out the poisonous forms of faith, what I see as erronius forms of guilt mongering which exists in various religions, and to seek a clear path. Undoubtedly this unique position is why I made my way here, I have the highest reverence for reason, and likewise I fear nothing when I am among others whom share this reverence.

I understand and appreciate the perspective that you have shown JMeganSnow, but in this particular case (as in all others so far on this thread) I've spoken my mind on the issue. No one has defended capitalism as effectively as Rand has, and that's one of the reasons why I read her. Capitalism has been a benevolent system that has always rewarded the mindful and the diligent, and every time I hear it attacked by some in the Vatican in favor of some "Strawman" better system that still carries no name, it angers me. You may actually find that I'll sound like an Objectivist at times, particularly on issues of Esthetics, Politics and most of the Ethics. This is not that I seek to advocate Objectivism in some sort of way of paying hommage to the others here, I believe what I say.

This is not what the film presents, although the ending would seem to suggest this at first glance. The entire film is built around the premise that seeking one's happiness will come at the expense of others, and their wives are the primary victims of this philosophy. It presents some very unfortunate senarios that come with the action befitting moral cowards. As opposed to the ideal of jamming their pursuit of happiness down the throats of other individuals whom choose not to acknowledge or celebrate their method of attaining it. This is not romanticism, this is egalitarianism under the guise of romanticism. The only silver-lining in this film is that it is not required viewing enforced by the government, althought the current tide of political correctness may make it so. In the minds of some, the wrong ideals are precisely the ones to laude and sometimes we must push them regardless to the consent of those whom we push it on. P.S. - Freedom is wherever you choose to pursue it, it matters not whether it is sought on the cold side of a mountain or any other place.

I just finished reading "The Ominous Parallels" and I found the part about emotionalism in the Weimar Republic rather intriguing, and I now know why, because every time I have encountered people whom write garbage like this I was thinking exactly what Peikoff described, I am speaking to future intellectual advocates and storm-troopers for what could be the future tyrant of Fascist America. The unfortunate thing about this is that you can not force-feed logical thought into people, because that would probably be the only way to solve a problem like this. The greenfreaks, enviro-mystics and animal nazis get these kids when their early, and the result is "I think therefore I am not". May Mother Gaia burn in hell, and may all her worshippers discover their true nature, as my emoticon reveals it to them.

Sooner or later people will realize that the anti-trust laws are a sword without a hilt, everyone is cut by it. And when they do, hopefully they will realize that when they place a hilt upon this sword, that they will have ended the law and understood that it is the state, not the businessman, who has become the enemy of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. I wish to give my blessing to Gary Hull on the good work he is doing on this issue. Hopefully he will see these laws done away with in his life-time and I will be able to go into business for myself without fear of my neighbor sticking a gun in my face and telling me that I have no right to a better businessman than him.

But this assumes that such a consciousness would be super-natural, something that I've been debating with myself for a long time. As someone whom leans towards Naturalism in terms of theology (the dash of Deism), I question the very premise of the need for a separate universe in order to justify a belief in a first consciouness, or the idea that consciousness neccesarily ends with the death of the physical body. I accept the possibility that I am at error in my metaphysical speculations and that Leonard Peikoff could very well be right. However, exploring the origin of man's unique rational faculty, his ability to ask both "Why" and "How" about all the phenomena both inside and outside of the reach of his senses. Where does it come from specifically? I am pretty much certain that the nature of it's origin is natural, rather than supernatural. Furthermore, the very nature of the supernatural can be thought of as a misnomer that applied historically to everything outside of the reaches of man's reason at the time. Any concept of life beyond this planet as existing would have at one time been considered supernatural, but by the more correct powers of reason today, this is obviously placed in the category of a blatant absurdity. But out of curiousity, what scientific theory have I refused to accept? I view science as a self-correcting practice, one that reproves or affirms our premises. My pursuit of God is not some blind crusade for an afterlife in another dimension, it is a search for divinity, my divinity. I am seeking answers to questions that are quite answerable, ones that matter to my own life and my personal quest for knowledge. I may indeed come to find that the God I've sought is, in fact, the better me that will greet me in the future, and if that be the case then I will accept it as any man of reason ought to accept the truth that he finds.

Being someone whom is of 75% Irish ancestry and has a fairly good sense of history, I will tell you that Ireland had it's reasons for engaging in Guerilla warfare with your country, going all the way back to the time when my ancestors were forced out of their homes by the potato famine. From your point of view Ireland has been a terrorist nation, and by their point of you England has been a collective Liege Lord whom has plundered their nation's wealth for centuries. Whether or not they send troops to Iraq or Afghanistan is not my primary concern, I'm more interested in their economic developments, which are far more Capitalistic than Socialist Britain. I've been tempted to move there because I'd have a lower income tax rate if I did. Ireland is not offering to open bank accounts and hold assets belonging to Iran to help shelter them from economic sanctions for developing nuclear weapons. You may be a bit worried that a plastic bomb might be set off by an IRA splinter cell on your island and injure or kill a few dozen people (and I by no means support the IRA), but Iran seeks to wipe out the entire country of Israel. You do the math on which country is doing more to injure America and the rest of the world. Norway's trade with America (particularly Oil) has been rather good, and they did send troops to aid in Afghanistan and Iraq. And although their government is proving to be a tiny bit weak on first Amendment issues, their press is clearly showing some signs of moral strength by defending their right to cover the news, no matter who it offends. My criticisms of Germany have less to do with their lack of a foreign policy and more to do with the way they structure their government. I don't hold high stock for countries that have regularly voted their socialist party to power. I don't care how much they kiss our fannies, no socialist party is a friend of the US, and I will never acknowledge a socialistic country as a greater ally than one that is more economically free. I don't approve of America's current foreign policy, so this is falling on deaf ears. And I'm not a person whom really cares what anyone in any other country thinks of me or anyone else, I am who I am, you can take it or leave it. But I will tell you that my country has been philosophically deteriorating for the past 150 years because of people in Europe (Germany in particular) who took pen and paper and wrote despotism into the laws of reason. Considering the philosophy that is taught in many European schools, all of them could be made to be my enemy, because their erronius views of the rights of the individual are contagious and will eventually be visited upon me. The issue has nothing to do with rights, because no state or country can possess rights, only individuals can. Collective opinions, held for their own sake, amount to nothing more than mob rule, be it American or otherwise. The American state has the obligation to protect the rights of the people it represents, it is the servant, not the master, or the citizens it holds.

It appears that the Libertarian vs. Objectivist war of words continues with the bad advice of Jack Boulogne brings to question "who are the true advocates of Laissez Faire". Mr. Boulogne's comments start off with the right idea in having a sense of outrage towards John Paul's final statements before dying (unfortunately the man did not understand the nature of the world he lived in). But then concedes the false premise that self-interest is automatically a turn-off to the public. The reason why people were silent at John Paul's statements was because they didn't make any sense. John Paul II has been what I consider one of the greatest tragedies of the Post Vatican II Papacy, whom began with the utterly collectivist Populorum Progressio (Populorum Malefactum would be a more appropriate title, I've spoken out against this doctrine many times) and final sputtered into oblivion with this statement of sheer intellectual vacancy. The man fought to free his home country from the grasp of soviet Communism and with his final breath he may have uttered the words that will deliver the entire world to such a fate. How in the hell are people supposed to escape poverty if they feel it wrong to make money? It's a contradiction in terms. Unfortunately Plato's ghost is still haunting the Catholic Church, while most Thomists seem to be faltering under the pressure to cozy up to the new tone in the Papacy. My efforts for the sake of profit feed my ability to donate to the Church, would the church have me stop my donations by swearing a vow of poverty? They have abandoned reason, and the few Capitalists left in their ranks such as myself risk much by attempting to offer a contradictory view of what Rome has been uttering. Ayn Rand has been the only philosopher that I can turn to from recent history whom makes me understand that there is goodness in this universe, and that people can seek greatness through their works. Aquinas is still my preference for the exploration of my soul, but his ethics are of the 13th century, and have no place in the modern world. P.S. - I apologize to the moderators here if I crossed the line of what can be considered advocating Objectivism. I needed to vent my opinion on this matter and unfortunately there are no other forums for me to do it in.

This movie, if you really wished to call it that (it's synopsis seems more befitting the depravity of "Naturalistic Literature"), is nothing more than Egalitarian propaganda. I didn't have to see it to understand what it's goal was, though I did just to confirm my suspicions, but all I had to do is see the way Hollywood puts forth the advertizing. Romantic Art is supposed to project an image of what man "ought to be", and even if we acknowledge the obvious right of an individual to associate romantically with whomever they choose, the substance of the plot reeks of doom-and-gloom cynicism. I'm not going to give my personal opinion on homosexuality because quite frankly it has nothing to do with this work's lack of value. But I am going to voice my complete disgust for the fact that such movies as "The Chronicles of Narnia", "Star Wars, Episode 3 and "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire", movies that have clearly defined heroes and ideals which are reached for (though not achieved in all cases), are being passed up for this garbage at the Oscars. This movie is equally as functionless as the art from Soviet Russia depicting the struggle of the prolitariat. It is propaganda put forth by an increasingly Egalitarian community in Hollywood that wishes to shape how people form values by attempting to project sympathy onto non-sympathetic characters.

The State Department has always placed looking good in the eyes of the formless entity of world opinion then it has standing up for the American state and what it is supposed to stand for. Although Condelezza Rice is clearly not what would be considered a liberal and she is echoing the sentiments of the linguini-spined left, most of the state department is hold-overs from previous, less principled administrations. (Although Bush has proven to be a friend to pragmatism at times also) The state department could be analogized as a samurai sword and the U.S. could be seen as a practicer of a traditional Japanese honor suicide, impaling itself and waiting for the Islamic world to behead it and hasten it's death to repay the debt that it never earned yet felt it needed to pay. It would be tragic if it wasn't so utterly senseless.

It's a shame that moral cowardice is still par for the course, and that the few who have the courage to speak up against what is obviously a disease in the heart of the middle-east find themselves alone and staring down the barrel of a gun. Unfortunately these days in order to have a right to free speech, you also need to be packing heat.

I spent a half-hour observing my 2 month year-old nephew and I saw some definate patterns in the way he observed various objects around the room. Most of it was probably the perceptive stage that precedes actual abstraction, but all of it seemed very purposeful. Life is a very complex set of equations that begin with a single choice of affirmation or denial, though it seems that at that early of a stage the affirmation is almost a given.

Or the various monarchs that preceded them. Tyranny is something that is all too common in human history. Individual rights, by way of contrast, has been a short-lived island in an ocean of collectivism, tribalism and statism.

The one thing here that is interesting is that you have not defined exactly what constitutes a terrorist. Most of the Likud party people that you are accusing of commiting acts of terrorism were waging war upon an enemy that was invading their country. And as for the non-combat civilians in Palestine whom were probably victimized while Israeli troops tried to hunt down Hamas and Islamic Jihad members, most of those people supported the attacks on Israel, wich gives me little sympathy for them. But even considering that, there is obviously a clear distinction to be made between intended civilian targets and colateral damage.

Contradictions are common in most forms of irrationalism, be them secular or religious. Plus, I've also read that alot of the Soviet Marxists (Josef Stalin included) were also heavily influenced by Czarism, particularly the doctrine of absolute power, which would explain the arcane nature of alot of these statues. Although these statues appear heavily romantic, they also have a tinge of a "tyrannical" soul about them, something which I don't personal think is fitting of Romantic Art.

1. The key is that they be blended correctly and that there is a clear goal in mind. The end of education is not merely to socialize kids with students (in fact, that would be more of a side-effect of education, not a primary goal of it) but to educate them. Most pragmatists tend to think that throwing a rag-tag bunch of kids together an having them play with chemicals automatically produces a productive lab lesson, which is troubling since this philosophy is so prevalent nowadays. 2. I would actually favor excluding kids who are known slackers from participating in lab groups and have them instead do more book work. And if they are still a problem, you send them to a different, probably remedial class to find out if it's their attitude or a geniune lack of knowledge that is causing the problem. If it is their attitude that's the issue, you find them a field of study that they are interested in because obviously the one they are in isn't, if it is a lack of knowledge, you send them to where they can obtain it.

1. I think there has been one, because I was under the impression that you were in agreement with Canada's current policy towards Howard Stern and Satelite Television. This not being the case, I think we've both made our points and can move on to a different subject. 2. I'm not one to condone making fun of any group of people because it pre-empts the belief that people of one race, religion, or other association are automatically of a monolithic being, which is the absurdity of all absurdities as far as I'm concerned. However, if others choose to believe such nonsense, the worst thing to do by means of correcting them is pointing a government gun in their face and telling them to shut up.

This is true, and I don't adopt a "one-size-fits-all" approach in reverse by suggesting that all children are capable of concept formation on a given level at a certain age. However, in my experience at least 70% of the elementary children I work with (as young as 1st Grade) are highly capable of differentiating such complex concepts as translucence, transparency, and opacheness in various objects (I gave this science lesson to a 1st grade class and 95% of the students got it immediately, many even pointing out the trans-link between transparency and translucence as being related to whether or not one could see through the object to any extent). This is something that most of social constructivists tend to either ignore or gloss-over. The amount of children that are not capable of doing this most often have problems with basic concept formation due to various brain-disorders, and are usually segregated out of track 1 and track 2 classrooms, which is the proper thing to do both for the sake of the more advanced kids and the one that is behind them. I am a big opponent of most forms of standardized testing, however, the active-learner approach is often not effective unless it follows a good amount of information transfer from teacher to student. Lecture always precedes Labs, just as eating always precedes energy replenishment and 2+2=4 always precedes 2x5=10. I would not classify myself as a utilitarian in any respect because it often involves evasion of standard principles, and also it can come at the expense of educational outliers (be they gifted or challenged students). I follow a more absolutist approach, absolute in the sense that things work for a reason, and that understanding that reason leads to a more successful approach. One of my absolute principles involves my support of tracking, which is done for the sake of each individual student for the sake of both their cognitive and social development. Gifted children in particular do not cope well with the ridicule that comes from jealous track 2 students (the so-called middle level) and conversely the track 2 students develop the habit of what I refer to as "the mob of intimidation", which plays into Ayn Rand's "Arguement from Intimidation" principle. A key in social development is understanding that no person is in any position to attack someone else based on an unearned advantage or disadvantage in any given respect, for such a practice is the height of social evil in today's world. My area of expertise is primarily music (though I am diverse in my studies of other fields) so I tend to favor alot of humanities in educational curiculum (granted, I oppose public education so my preference would be to teach in a school specializing in Asthetics). My problem is not so much how much of the humanities is taught, but what is taught in those classes. I have a great deal of disdain for both Literary Naturalism and Dadaism, and both of these are given equal standing or even superior standing to Romatic Literature. The result is open hositility towards logic and reality, and creates alot of the broken people that you see in the world today.

Howard Stern has regularly derided most Americans, the difference is that alot of us (though clearly not all of us) are not as thin-skinned about it. Granted, the FCC is acting as a fascist agency by stating that Howard Stern should be forced into obscurity by way of law. And Nationalism (Canadian or otherwise) is never a healthy thing, I'd suggest less of it and a little more common sense in your diet. There is a fellow in South Carolina named Bob Jones III who runs a university by the same name and regularly refers to the Pope as being the anti-Christ and the Catholic Church as being the occult. This obviously would imply an insult and an attack on my identity as a practicing Catholic, but I am not going to seek to censor his opinions (though distorted and clearly erronius) through censorship, partly because censorship never sticks to being an attack on what one man considers indecent, it comes back to haunt everyone. I'm not going to lie and say that America has been perfect on this issue either, but on principle, this is exactly the wrong way to go about preserving a National identity. The best way to do such things is to drop the government controls, and encourage commerce with other countries without unneccesary government filters. I come from the school of thought that "no one can do everything well, but everyone can do something well", all Canada would need to do is find it's stock-in-trade and you'll have yourself an established identity (although that alone does not determine it). Besides, protectionism is more likely to hurt Canada's economy than help it.

I actually remember Al Gore going on a rant about the fairness doctrine a few weeks ago during one of his "hellfire and brimstone" speeches where he sounded more like a southern-baptist preacher than a politician. He basically eqivocated the fairness doctrine expiring with democrats being run out of power. Naturally the fact that Al Gore's home state of Tennesse is now very hostile to his ideology has probably gotten him a little angry too. The day that the fairness doctrine gets re-established is the day that free speech in America takes the backseat to government tyranny.

Obviously moral appraisal and interpretation are not the same thing, and besides, this kind of goes off-topic anyway. Religion is something I usually tend to keep out of most discussions precisely because it always leads to dead ends. Hense my Thomas Jefferson quote.

Note: I believe most of Genesis is to be taken as a figurative description of events that actually did occur, the development of man's free will in concert with his rational faculty, and thus the consequence of choosing to do good or evil, two things which I believe we all agree actually exist as actions for a given end. I've often speculated (being a Catholic) as to the implications of the result of the consumption of the fruit of knowledge. The Bible seems to treat it as being negative because mostly wrong choices are identified by the early actions of the first people with the ability to choose. Essentially we can treat the pre-Original Sin (this term is often misunderstood by fundamentalist Christians) as a period in which man was a being whose choices were automatic (much the way animals are). Once knowledge was attained about choosing to either act in a way that keeps one alive versus choosing to be self-destructive/destructive (one essentially becomes the other), we are no longer solely pushed towards the good choice of sustaining one-self. That is the so-called negative result of what Christianity calls Original Sin (oddly, certain sects. of Christianity take the Pelagian path and deny the existence of Original Sin). However, obviously the positive of this act is the ability to manipulate nature and thus create wonders of greatness, which I believe more than makes up for the potential to err. One could essentially argue that by being aware of the possibility of doing evil, we are in fact more strongly capable of realizing the good. This of course being my interpretation of something that was written in several historical texts (Yahwehian, Priestly, et cetera), all of which have some slight variations, in complete disregard of any notion of fundamentalism. So how does this all tie into Why live? Naturally I'm stating a Non-Objectivist doctrine, but the gist of it all is the pursuit of the good, and the forsaking of evil, which becomes choosing to live rather than not to live.

Perhaps, however the problem for me is that although the universe itself may be eternal, I have not been convinced that causality is something that has been eternal. The law of identity states that all entities have a specified nature, however, no matter is subject to action without causality (be it external or internal). Basically this is where I revert back to Aristotle's view of God, a universal consiousness that moved a motionless universe. It's a speculation that axiomatic truth was applied to existence, and thus life began. The time in which such events occured is obvious indeterminate, but one day science may take us there. The other problem I have is the nature of man's specific identity, which of so far that is known (potentially there are other life-forms beyond our planet that have similar faculties to employ) is the only one capable of contemplating the universe. While it may not be neccesary that this ability be "caused", I do question whether or not the sum of an individuals accumulated experiences (his soul) is non-eternal. Ergo, I question whether or not the end result of a human soul after death is a return to zero. Granted, until science is capable of reaching the point when we determine the origin of what is known as sentient life, this is all speculation and hense I am not in a position to either prove or disprove it. My mentor-in-spirit Thomas Aquinas knew this 700 years ago, and I understand completely why that it is still true today.