Free Thinker

What do you guys think of this?.

Here's a link that may be helpful.

I am swamped with work at present, so I am unable to contribute anything or participate.

Right. I just find it a bit un-nerving (or is it unnerving?) when someone already has a conclusion, then reads about the facts to support it. It isn't a big deal (on this thread, I mean), I just wanted to point it out. I think you should read what AR says, consider it (on face value), then go read as much about the issue as interests you. I personally would find myself (for instance) talking about Israeli history and their right to exist (as a nation) without having read anything on the issue (aside from ARI's Op-Eds). This is another one of those issues that is rehashed over and over again, it seems. I also do not want to come across as presumptuous, but as long as Elysium brought it up, I thought I'd better explain myself.

No, I don't have a specific question in mind. Thanks though. I will do that as a last resort, but I suspect it will take a while to hear anything back (which is why I created this thread).

They weren't. They were just a section on ARI's main page; when it got redesigned, I guess it was taken out.

So, ARI decided to remove their SSGs from their website a while ago. Unfortunate, I know. Luckily, I know someone on this forum was clever enough to have saved a copy of them on to their computers. Takers? Ehh? Ehh?

Thanks!

Forget it.

No problem. I think it would be more accurate to say they were obsessed with THE good. Subtle, but important. Also, I don't think you are wrong, but be sure you know the facts before you conclude that. Don't take Ms. Rand's words as necessarily absolute. Sorry if that came across as patronizing.

I haven't seen the movie (I intend to); but you know why it will be awesome? Because Scarlett Johansen is really hot.

I don't think he is assuming the existence of other Greek or Roman philosophers; he is asking if anyone knows of any. Anyway, I do not know of any explicit references Ms. Rand made to such people, but I know that Socrates talked a lot about values. For more, I would suggest going here and browsing about. Check out Peikoff's lecture (the first one listed on the page). Also, and this is the one you should definitely check out, Jones' History of Philosophy Volume I. It has all the Greek philosophy you would ever want, and is highly recommended in O'ist circles. You can probably find what you're looking for there. Did that answer your question? (Oh, and you should also PM Burgess Laughlin. He knows a lot about that sort of thing )

Great idea. I take it 164a is aout 15 pages in your text?

Good thoughts all around. Like I said earlier, I would rather err on the side of laxity then have everyone drop out because it is too much reading. 60 pages? Wow, I was off. I still say 15 pages a week is solid. It should then take us only a month to read it. To answer EC's question, the plan is read the selection for the week, then post your thoughts whenever you feel like it (during that week). If you guys are up for it, we can have a live chat session on Sundays or something. I can ask SoftwareNerd how to set that up (if you guys are interested). Tommorow will be the official start. You guys will have until the following Sunday to get a hold of the text (at a library, bookstore, or using David's links), and read the first 15 pages. No, I think it is better to read the text first and then analysis. On harder books analysis may help us explicate the text better, but Plato is pretty straight forward.

True . I don't have the book in front of me, but I remember it was about 100, maybe 120 pages long. 15 pages a week sounds reasonable, so about 8 weeks. (March 14, to answer your question) Hmm...that seems like a long time. Well, let's stick to that for now, and we can adjust it later. Good.

Well, do you think a three person study group would be very fruitful? (no sarcasm intended) I suppose we can get started, and perhaps attract more people later. That actually sounds good. Okay, let's begin! First up, Plato's Theaetetus.

I recently started H.W.B. Joseph's "Introduction to Logic". The first chapter was great, but the second is where I began to hit some problems - mainly with the terminology he uses. Did anyone else hit this problem? Any tips in general?

[Mod's note: Split from another thread. - SN] Did we watch the same movie? (I mean this sarcastically and literally - I watch the 2005 version). First off, the capitalist that you mentioned (the filmmaker I take it - Jake Black's character) wasn't protrayed as "evil", in fact in the begininning I felt sorry for him. Secondly, even when Black was on the island trying to get the ape home (in most of his scenes), it was more comical than "evil". Thirdly, the ape wasn't protrayed as "savage"; the idea was that he was misunderstood. He did a lot to establish that he wasn't your ordinary ape. And lastly, I wouldn't say the entire movie was devoted to "the condemmation of the human mind". Do you have specific scenes or dialogue to illustrate this? Now, I suppose that your interpretation could sort of be made, but I don't think that was the main idea of the movie. Was this post nasty? Sorry if it was. I just thought the movie was well done.

Oh, my mistake. It just sounded like you were. Anyways...sure, we can cover him. Are you able to commit time then?

Are you being sarcastic?

I want to make this study group as managable and as fun as possible. I am probably going to be amazingly busy when school starts, so I am trying to construct a light schedule. I am thinking; once a week (Sundays work great for me) and small assignments each week. Instead of formal answers to pre-assigned questions, I think just reading the material and posting one's thoughts is best. I wouldn't be able to commit if the demands are too great, so I would rather err on the side on too little control. That way, people are free to come and go as they please. People's posts, of course, could/should be highly moderated; so they can't just say things with no referent in a particular work. Sound fair? I think that if at least 5 people (including myself) commit or at least express interest, we can get started.

Good! (All) Here is some info suggesting possible topics for "Current Controversy". See sections titled, "Contemporary approaches", and "Epistemological theories" esp. .

Let me first say that this is probably a deviation from your discussion(s) above, but I didn't want to star a new thread on the same subject matter. I have been hearing a lot over the months about the type of audience/membership this forum has and their influence on this forum's atmosphere. For instance, this thread, and here, here, here, and I could probably find a million more. But hey, don't get me wrong. If that's what's on your mind, then by all means post away. To me, however, this debate is getting kind of tired - and I really don't see what it is practically trying to accomplish. A forum, by definition, will attract many different types of people, with a wide variety of temprements, personalities, philosophies, etc., etc. That's to be expected. This forum, as I understand it, is here to facilitate specifically study in Objectivism. So, people who do not facilitate that goal (either by trolling, or being rude, etc.) should rightfully be banned or warned. The problem for me, however, is this uncomfortable line between having healthy debate about things, and still having the focus be on developing knowledge in Objectivism. Okay, so here's what I am getting at. Suppose you are on a thread, and someone is annoying you. Instead of trying to get more restrictions, let's say, on the types of people who can participate on this forum, or here they can participate, etc., etc., why don't you remind yourself on what options you DO have? You can ignore him (an option I think is often forgotten), you can report him, you can send him a stern PM, etc., etc.. Why hasn't that worked? I say "hasn't worked", because I see the same issues rising up again and again, and people trying to solve it. I hope I don't come across as angry, because I'm not, but I am just curious. Thoughts?

I have an idea for (yet another) study group. This one pertains to the study of epistemology. I plan on dividing it up into several sections, but here is a tentative list: Part I - History (prior to 20th Century) Plato - "Theaetetus" Aristotle - "Posterior Analytics" René Descartes - "Meditations" John Locke - "Essay Concerning Human Understanding" David Hume - "An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding" Immanuel Kant - "Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics" Part II - Objectivism - ITOE - relavant OPAR sections - Binswanger's articles and lectures Part II - Current Controversy (20th Century - now) - Phenomenology - Logical Analysis (to be decided) Thoughts?

Felipe - I would be interested in being a part of this study group; as time permits.