musenji

Please note that hippies did/do FAR worse drugs to destroy their brains--acid, PCP, cocaine, heroin, the whole gamut. On a side note, you might want to ponder whether you're substituting Rand's judgment for your own. Wikipedia is very available to you. Research marijuana! [edit] on a personal note, I have a friend who smokes pot and tobacco, about which I do not judge him--but whenever he mentions listening to illegally copied music, I give a good "booooooo! boooooo!"

This book should add to the discussion. It tells the story of (as the subtitle says) US interrogators who used non-torture techniques to bring down possibly the most dangerous Iraqi after Saddam. It's a fantastic and captivating read, regardless of the present argument, and I'd recommend it to anyone. http://www.amazon.com/How-Break-Terrorist-Interrogators-Brutality/dp/1416573151

Shoot, I was pretty tired last night and put this in the wrong forum. Could a mod move it to wherever it is most appropriate?

I just finished Peikoff's book, the Ominous Parallels. I want to process it in some fashion, and I thought here might be a good place to do it. So I'm going to try, from memory, to reconstruct as much of his argument as I can. It'll be a bit disorganized at first, I'm sure. My goal is to make it organized. What I want to know is, is this an accurate representation of his arguments? I am sure I've left key things out. It's very possible I've gotten some things wrong. I want this to be a place to discuss the book, to hash out the ideas. I welcome any comments from people who have read the book and believe they have a firm grasp on a germane aspect of the content. (no pun intended) Recommendations for further reading on the subject are welcome as well. (By further reading I mean good books about pre-WWII Germany, Hitler, etc etc.) Without further ado: ****** One of the major premises of the book is that ideas matter. Philosophy is what shapes the path of a society, from the politics it will create, all the way down to little "side comments" that people make. Another premise is that most people are not explicitly philosophical. Another is that man needs ideas to guide his life, and will use them one way or another. From these premises comes the sub-conclusion that the majority of people in society, not being explicitly philosophical, but needing ideas to function, absorb the ideas of those around them and those who came before them--said ideas being traceable to key thinkers in history. Nazi Germany was an atrocity the kind of which the world had never seen. The level of violation of humanity in the society, and concentration camps in particular, is simply shocking. The common understanding is that the Nazis were all just very racist. But how did they get to be so racist? Why did Nazism rise in Germany, and not some other country? Many explanations have been given. The one I remember learning most prominently in school is that Germany was basically screwed over by the post-WWI treaties. Iirc, Peikoff rejects this as an explanation on the grounds that similar things happened to other countries. I learned in school that Hitler really did help the economy for a while. Peikoff argues that the appearance of improvement was false, that the economy was based on inflation and other unsound economic measures. His main thesis regarding the rise of Nazism, as I understand it, is that what made Nazism possible was philosophy. "Weimar" (Post-WWI) Germany had a culture based very strongly in a certain type of philosophy, from metaphysics, to epistemology, to ethics, to aesthetics...and the whole of this philosophy paved the way for Nazism. Specifically, the philosophy came (at the root) from Plato and (more specifically and directly) from Kant, a "descendant" of Plato. Metaphysically, the belief was that the world is not a primary. Mind--consciousness--is the primary which creates reality. Or, reality in fact is a mystical realm outside of the senses, of which this world is a mere reflection. Epistemologically, the belief was that truth was not known by reason. Rather, it is mystical and the province of faith. Plato started the trend--as reason is based in the senses, it is only a mystical insight which can truly see into the nature of things. I don't remember if there was a method attributed of verifying the veracity of someone's mystical claim, but apparently Plato's grand state was to be ruled by a leader who was endowed with this insight. Kant put forth the idea that the reality we perceive is merely a construct of the mind, and not "things as they are". Things as they are can't be known by us because we have to perceive them through the senses and a set of pre-made constructs. This idea divorces man from reality and renders reason, if not inoperable, "untrustworthy". Kant said he had to rein back reason to make room for faith. Peikoff draws heavy connections with Hitler, quoting Hitler as being very pro-faith (of course, faith in himself). He also made note of a contradiction existing in the minds of the German public, whereby they could believe absolutely in the Fuhrer's statements, and believe absolutely in later statements which contradicted the formers. Ethically, the belief was that man is not a sovereign individual. He is an accessory, a cell of the national body, a tool for the hand of the state. Selfishness was decried very virulently, by Hitler and the pre-Hitler culture. Willingness to sacrifice for the state was paramount. Aesthetically, the culture was that of modernism, abstract expressionism. It was a culture of "hate" toward man, toward his ability to reason, and a total lack of belief in man's competence to direct his life. The result was visual art that depicted an unintelligible horror of color, music that shocked with atonal dissonance, novel characters who were misanthropes that learned in the end to stop believing in anything (nihilism). Science was teaching man that the universe cannot be truly known. All of this Weimar culture was praised as the highest of intellectual achievement. It was regarded as the exponent of reason. It still is--I checked the wikipedia entry on Weimar culture, and within the first few paragraphs is a glowing summary of the "intellectual achievements" of the era, and it lines up directly with Peikoff's assertions about what the culture consisted of AND how people felt and feel about it. (This was the only direct fact checking I've done so far. At many points in the book I thought, in response to some assertion he made, "Wait, really? I should check this for veracity." I have no particular reason to distrust Peikoff--I assume this is actually a healthy and normal thing to do, checking facts--only I've never felt quite as driven to check them, and to make sure I understand the arguments, as I have with this book. "Parallels" has challenged me to realize that philosophy really does matter, and that we really could be heading in the same direction. Which brings me to a last note. Peikoff argues that the same kind of culture, the same attitudes about metaphysica, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics, are affecting American culture today, and as that philosophy is the soil of politics, we are bound to be headed down the same road (and he draws some parallels between the advancement of laws in this country, and what happened in Weimar Germany). We will need to explicitly change the country's philosophy to one of reality, reason, rational self-interest--if we wish to avoid the same fate. America has become "anti-intellectual" because the "common people" still carry the remnants of the ideas of the Enlightenment. But if a conscious rebirth is not forthcoming, eventually those remnants will wear away and we will be left with the perfect Fuhrer fertilizer. ****

Do you equate beating with a spanking? I think a punch in the eye is qualitatively different from a slap on the rear. (It's certainly QUANTitatively different.) At any rate, you're speaking of legality, rather than morality, but you may still find this thread worth a read: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=17362

The Platonist's answer: "Only what I've experienced here."

DEFINITELY agreed. Who knew that Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman was a total goddess in the 70's? And on Battlestar Galactica to boot.

It's occurred to me that "you'll understand when you're older" must be a logical fallacy. Is it simply argument from authority with a little spice?

This movie was the first movie I've seen in the theater in five years, and it was well worth it. Fantastic.

Most of our forefathers also believed that there was a Heaven waiting for them after death, where they would live forever in bliss, for living up to their principles. Patrick Henry, whom you quote, also said, nearing his death: "I have disposed of all my property to my family. There is one thing more I wish I could give to them, and that is the Christian religion. If they had that and I had not given them one cent, they would be rich. If they have not that, and I had given them the world, they would be poor." It's a lot easier to be willing to die when you don't think you're really going to die.

...Don't you mean, bonus points if you didn't make it all the way through? haha... Unless, of course, you're looking for motivation to finish it, and the prospect of discussion would motivate you.

Yeah, that's pretty much an instant recipe for disaster. If I told 10 deliveries that the cooks "may not have washed their hands", there's a 99.99999999999% chance that the boss in question would hear about it several times and yell at me. Update though, I have reason to think she may have relented to my request that she cough into her arm. It does seem like a rational request. Unless, perhaps, you factor in that it's like an Ensign calling out an Admiral. Still, truth is truth. I've pretty much let go of the drivers not washing before going to makeline (or at least let go of the idea that I'm going to affect it*), and I'm working on letting go of the fact that the GM has told managers to skimp on some toppings if we're overused on food costs (another thing I imagine people would tell me is "not my responsibility to worry about", and maybe they're right). *Though when in front of me, that guy who once got really pissed off at me for asking, does wash now before making things. Maybe partially because I've helped him out several times since then, when it came to locating streets...

This is a pretty long post, an update since the last time I posted. SNerd, you were right to view this as an opportunity to learn. Well, I've observed for a couple of months. My general manager had said, when I brought it up, that "yes, sanitation is very important" and she had hinted vaguely that she would say something about it, or post something to that effect. I have seen no evidence that she actually discussed it with anyone, and I know she hasn't posted anything. The more important revelation is that since I brought it up, I have not seen her once wash her hands. And I have seen her cough into her left hand on many occasions. I believe I have also seen, out of the corner of my eye, her coughing into open air directly over the makeline. It has been hard for me to see this--hard not to evade it--and I think that if I opened my mind and paid closer attention I would see more direct evidence. The reason it is so difficult is that she is not only a natural leader, but a scary person to try to disagree with. And I'm scared that if I get on her bad side, she'll give me horrible reviews whenever I try to get another job. Though I suppose I could point to the undeniable fact that within a year, I went from being a small part-time opening driver who had never been in the business, to being the head closing driver, the highest driving position in the store. Whatever else she would say about me, I HOPE that fact would speak for itself. (Side note, she's been promoted, she's actually the area supervisor for three stores now, but we don't technically have a "general manager" so she fills that role as well. I see her less often, usually just once a week for a couple of hours.) Melissa, the shift manager I have the most contact with, has actually started washing her hands when she realizes she ought to, but I think this is mostly because outside of our disagreements, we get along very well, and are actually pretty close friends in some ways. I hate to turn all Peter Keating, but it seems that when a person likes you or wants you to like them, it's easier to get them to do the right thing. ...Though she still doesn't ask other people to wash their hands, either because she doesn't notice, or is afraid to. Just on my last shift, a driver came in off a run and went straight to the makeline without washing, and she didn't seem to notice or care. She did, however, "bug out" when she thought she saw someone overusing product, which brings me to the best conclusion I can come up with based on the facts. It is the general manager of the store who sets the tone for what things are considered "little" or "big" deals. I know that she "puts the fear into" shift managers to keep food costs equal to or under the expected amount--which often results in those managers skimping--but she apparently does not do anything of the sort for handwashing or general sanitation. And she seems to care a lot more about things we get caught for than things we don't. Because she sets the tone, if my general manager actually cared about hand sanitation, so would everyone else in the store, almost by default. I think she just said "yes it's very important" in order to pacify me, as I know she is capable of lying to "make it better for a while" (since she's told me to do the same). I recently asked her if she could cough into her arm when she has to cough, but I did it in a very non-confident, cute, cowardly manner, and I think it didn't take. She said "sure", but I think it's possible she did that because she knows I'm not standing behind my words (as I think I ought to, if I speak). My options right now are to 1. talk to her in person about it again, but in a more direct and factual manner, 2. express my thoughts in writing, 3. go to the next level up to express my concern, or 4. to just ignore it. First I have to open my mind more, though, and see the truth for what it is without fear, and that seems very difficult. If I solidly see her cough into her hand and then go straight to the makeline, I believe that obligates me to say something to someone about it. I think that's probably why I haven't paid close enough attention to see such a thing, yet. But I feel like it's eating away at me, anyway. Part of me wants to have the courage to do what I think is right and confront her openly about it, and risk losing my job, knowing that I'll have my self-confidence when I leave (and I've kind of wanted to move on anyway). The other part of me doesn't want to lose my job and is scared, not only of being unable to find another, but scared of some other form of retribution from my manager if I anger her. She's dating a guy who is very large and just scares me in general as to what he's capable of in terms of violence and dishonesty, based on what his daughter has told me. (This daughter is actually Melissa, the aforementioned shift manager. There's a pretty big family connection contingent in the three stores of our area, which gives me a bit of a creepy Mafia feeling.) Any thoughts are welcome and requested; I thank anyone who cared to read this far!

...Though I'll present it simply. I have this belief, which probably a lot of you share, that I can make my life better. That's the normal thought I have. Every once in a while, however, I get this glimmer of a thought: I could make my life extraordinary. And it's my job to do it. My problem is, I keep forgetting this. Seriously, I can forget it for days or weeks at a time. The question: how do you all remind yourselves of this (probably crucial) fact? I'm looking for ideas, here, because what seems to hold me back the most in life is simply forgetting how much I really am in control, and have the potential for great happiness and fulfillment. How do you remember to push yourselves onwards towards great things? How do you keep in mind--in those moments when making the right choice to keep momentum going seems too difficult--that there is a greater gain to come?

If it wasn't an attempt at a trick question, I suggest you say "no, it wasn't a trick question. I actually want to know how you would feel." And maybe ask him to actually answer the question, which he didn't do? It seems like maybe we're missing some context of the discussion here, whereby his answer would make sense. Or I'm just failing to see how his response to you is coherent in any way.

You say in your first post that you got banned when you said that Catholic priests produce nothing of value whatsoever. So you didn't get banned over "this", if by "this" you mean your unwillingness to call a priest "father". I would suggest checking the forum rules there for rules against blanket discriminatory statements. It may be true that, as priests, they produce nothing of value to you, or of objective value to anyone. Although I expect that some do produce good rational thoughts, or help organize community events that are beneficial aside from their connection to the church. They also produce lots of scandal for media moguls. (Oh now he's just being facetious... ridiculous...)

We have, in addition to three sinks (by the makeline, by the ingredient prep area, and in the bathroom), one hand sanitizer dispenser underneath the phone counter. There's no need for me to bring an extra container, if I want to make a show of sanitizing. Maybe it wouldn't hurt to get one for the driver's station, though. I think all of the employees wash at least occasionally, but I have not paid attention to it until just recently. I agree that the risk of someone transferring something to a customer is almost nil. It's simply that I think customers would expect washing immediately before food handling--and I'm taking deliveries to those customers and being tipped. The fact that they are a source of money, money given directly from them to me, makes it more of an issue for me. I thank you all for your thoughtful comments. SNerd, I do find it interesting to look at it as an opportunity to learn, and as mentioned before, I certainly didn't go about it the best way given my circumstances, but I think that's partially in hindsight, as I really didn't know how to go about it at the time, and it felt urgent. Maybe I'll be patient for a few shifts and see if change disseminates. Or, maybe I'll just replace all the peppers on my deliveries..

Yes, the trouble is that I am serving to delivery customers some of these pizzas. @Elysium: what I value is that trust between myself and a customer who is probably assuming we all wash our hands every time we go to handle food. @Grames: Yeah, I think maybe I screwed up there, what with the assuming a "higher" position. Also just a week before there'd been a bit of a clash, so it was also bad timing. ...I just saw a decent opportunity to say something nicely, so I tried that. Didn't work. And yet since then we've been friendly. I helped him out on a run, finding the right street when the map had faulty information. He got a $5 tip and gave me $3 upon returning. I told him I felt horrible, he said "don't feel horrible, you did right by me, you deserve it." (The reason I felt horrible was because I hadn't said everything I wanted to say to him re: the hand washing...I heard him flush and exit the bathroom, with no space inbetween for washing, and when he said he washes when he goes to the bathroom, I felt like I should've mentioned this. I still haven't.) @RationalBiker: she's a pragmatist, in almost the full sense of the word. She's a very competent pragmatist at that. Suffice to say she knows very well how to get the job done. I just don't know how much she cares about things we'll never get caught for. And she's not entirely honest, of course. She had me lie once, at the tail end of a botched up phone call. I was too flustered to refuse at the time, but I went and called the customer a few days later about the miscommunication. I then went to my manager and told her I was not comfortable lying to a customer, that that was something I couldn't do. She was pretty silent, and I certainly felt like I was risking my job. Fast forward a few weeks, she has pissed off another driver (his fault, not hers) and he retaliates by doing a bad job. She tells me "You know, he does this but when he talks to me he acts like everything's alright. At least when you have a problem, you tell me." (Well. I do on occasion, but far from every time I have a problem. She is a hard person to confront. She just has that power.) Anyway, yeah. Unemployment in my county is around 20 percent. There pretty much aren't any jobs anywhere that I could take, unless I moved...which is not altogether unappealing. I think I'm going to see if I can find out more information tomorrow, because I thought I heard her saying something to SOMEone about it, but I don't know who or what. Another factor is that I was just made head closing driver, which is the highest position. A position that I wouldn't want to lose, but it also shows that I'm a valuable employee. So maybe I have more bargaining power. I'm thinking along the lines of saying something like "I feel like I can really improve my performance, but this handwashing thing knocks back my enthusiasm, and even has me doubting whether I should be taking deliveries. If this was taken care of, I'm certain that I could be even better than I've been." Does that sound too much like I'm trying to control things?

Oh. Other pertinent information, my bad. I already told the boss it was a concern, she agreed it was very important, but she also said when she was in another store and saw a driver clock in and go straight to loading breadsticks into boxes, she thought "well, time for me to leave!" when she would be the one to say something about it. I also made a side note to one of the drivers, right before he got on makeline, saying, "Not to make a big fuss, but after coming back from a run, could you wash your hands before going on makeline?" He got really pissed off, saying, "I wash my hands when I go to the bathroom. Is that all you had to say to me? Yeah? That's all? Yeah." I said, "Why are you so angry? It's what we DO." "Dude, I wash my hands." There have been better interactions between us since, and I have on occasion (but not consistently) seen him wash before going to makeline. He didn't yesterday, and I didn't say anything because between talking to him, and my boss, and a shift manager, I think any clout I had is spent. If I call the health department or corporate, everyone will know it was me, of that I can be sure. And I can be pretty sure that if my manager wants to fire me, she will do it. She has said before, of a different employee, that she'd rather train a new employee than keep one who pisses everybody off. I used to be so positive, working there, too...and I think I could be again, if I just get this one thing changed.

I work at a Papa John's pizzeria as a delivery driver. In addition to delivering, we are required to help make pizzas, pull from the oven and cut/put the sides in the boxes, take phone calls, and pretty much anything else that needs done. Recently I have noticed that not all of the drivers wash their hands after returning from a run, before they go to help make pizza. Nor do all the managers wash their hands after coming back inside the building after going for a smoke break or some such. It turns out this bugs me quite a bit. I feel like I am deceiving the customers I bring pizzas to, because I assume that customers would expect someone who has left the building would wash hands before touching food again. I have been told by some people that sure, it's bad, but it's "not worth losing my job over". I have tried to tell myself that it's not that big of a deal, that it's not really hurting anyone (pizza goes through a 430 degree oven, a fair point made to me by a shift manager. However, the little peppers we put in the boxes to go with the pizza do NOT go through the oven). Coincidentally I am also currently reading Tara Smith's "Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics", and am on the chapter about honesty. About how honesty is "not attempting to fake reality in any manner whatsoever." And me telling myself it's no big deal feels like a lie half the time. I am considering telling my boss that I can't ignore it, I can't act like it's no big deal, and I might have to leave, unless everyone starts washing their hands. Which is unfortunate because there are basically no other jobs out there in my city/county, but there you have it. So I ask you, as customers, would it bother you to know that a driver wasn't washing hands after coming back from a run? Is there any pertinent information I am missing?

@Brian: and he misrepresents the "spiritual exchange" as a consciously decided trade, when Objectivism acknowledges love is a sort of payment, but it is automatic, not chosen. If someone represents your highest values, without any contradictions, love for that person is automatic, not deliberated. Excepting that a person is capable of repressing love, as any emotion, of course.

So you're defining it in purely subjective terms? Every use of the word "one" here is incorrect, and should be replaced with "me".

Have you ever created something you were truly proud of? A thing which no one had ever thought of before, but you created because to you it was a good idea, and when you finished the project, you felt you brought that good idea to life? If you have known that sort of pride, then you know the answer. Roark gets that kind of pride from creating/designing his buildings, and seeing them constructed. He could design as much as he wanted in a room by himself, but he would not be able to see the buildings erected. That, I think, is the meaning of "I have clients in order to build".

Does your family situation involve a spouse? Have you had a discussion about your situation?

Wow, I sure didn't read that as devil's advocate. I read that as pure sarcasm. "Heck, a couple of victim support group meetings and the raped woman is fresh for life, ready to trust guys and have a healthy romantic life again!"