dondigitalia

Please define "masculine" in your own words, using genus and differentia please. I have trouble seeing how this is a contradiction. Knowing your definition might help others to concretize what you mean. Note: Please do not use a dictionary definition. I just checked two, which had a total of nine definitions, every single one of which was circular, making it impossible to concretize.

No it wasn't. It was a mish-mash of well-reasoned statements combined with concrete-bound non-essentials and a heapload of dropped context. The principle behind that essay, properly applied, says that it is not immoral to be employed by NASA, provided one believes that NASA should not exist, and that one would rather be employed by a private organization doing the same kind of research. Space exploration is not immoral as such, but government financing of such exploration is, regardless of how the money is obtained. Even under a system of voluntary taxation, it would still be improper for the government to finance space exploration and research for non-military purposes. The government's purpose is to protect individuals from the initiation of physical force. Non-military space exploration does not serve this purpose. Moose's principle says that it is ok to be in favor of the existence of any government agency provided the agency itself does not directly intiate force and one disagrees with coercive financing of the agency. Ayn Rand's principle says that it is ok to accept support from an invalid government agency provided one disagrees with the existence of such an agency, as well as coercive financing. See the difference? Personally, while I disagree with the existence of NASA, it is far from the top of my list of agencies to get rid of.

I did; I just didn't direct my response specifically at you, since your main point is a common one that I take issue with.

I agree with everything Tae said, but I want to add some to it: There are two main arguments that people usually make for why it is not selfish to initiate force against others: You might get caught (by other people). If you want people to respect your rights, then you have to respect theirs. They're both true, but I don't think either one of them is really the strongest argument out there. The first one is answered very easily by saying: But what if I don't get caught. And sometimes, people get away with wrong-doing. Tae's variation of this argument is one of the best I've seen, since she points out that it is reality, not necessarily other men, who will always catch you. The second is a weak, weak argument. For one, it is non-fundamental, since it relies on the first. If you do wrong, and nobody catches you, they will still respect your rights. But does that mean it's in your self-interest to initiate force against someone, as long as nobody else finds out? NO! You will always get caught--by yourself. And that's really the key. There are three fundamental values that must be achieved before any other value is possible--reason, purpose, self-esteem. Tae has already demonstrated how initiating force is a negation of reason; I will now show how it negates self-esteem. Self-esteem is a positive appraisal of oneself which says: I'm good. Good for what? All sorts of things. It says: I have all the tools necessary to live. I'm good at getting values. I'm good at life. I've been successful thus far, and I did it all myself. The person who gains values by force is implicitly saying: I can't do this for myself. I'm no good at living. I can't get my own values, because I don't have the tools necessary to create them, but I still want values, so I'll just take them. Gaining values by force is negating self-esteem. It is telling oneself: I'm not a good person, which means: I am not a value, which translates to self-loathing, not self-esteem. Sure, in the short-term, a man might be able to get away with suppressing the guilt from minor transgressions, but in the long-term it will always catch up to him. Suppressing guilt doesn't make it go away, it just makes it compound, and get even more deeply embedded in one's value hierarchy.

If you don't quote me out of context, you'll see that that is the exact point that I was making.

That's my favorite one. IMO, he is the greatest science-fiction writer of all time.

It's accurate, but not in the Newtonian sense. Actions must have causes, but that cause need not be a physical one (as we see in the actions of consciousness). The fundamental cause is the nature of the entities which act.

To explain something is to cite its cause. Objectivism does not and cannot explain the cause of the physical universe and of consciousness. They are questions for Cosmology and Neuroscience, respectively, and are highly advanced scientific questions we do not have the means to answer at present (as far as I know). Now, I'm certain that there is a causal relationship between the physical processes of the brain and consciousness, and that neuroscience may someday be able to answer that question, but I'm not so sure where the physical universe is concerned. There is no reason to believe anything exists outside the (physical) universe. It is true that the existence of a physical universe is not explained by the axioms--it is a (very primitive) scientific discovery, not a philosophic one. Since existence is: everything which exists, and we have no evidence for anything outside the universe, it would be completely arbitrary to posit some existent outside of it. Ayn Rand tends to use the terms "existence" and "universe" interchangeably for that reason; she discusses the two terms in the Appendix of IToE. If the physical universe comprises all of existence, then it is meaning to talk about explaining it. You are talking about citing some cause that is outside of existence, i.e. citing the existence of a non-existent. There is no explanation for existence, and there need not be one for the existence of the physical universe either. They just are. What concerns me most is the dichotomy you are setting up between the empirical and the self-evident. There is no split between the two. The self-evident is the directly percieved, i.e. the empirical.

That's exactly what he meant. Out of context, I can see how the quote can be misunderstood. The context of the book the quote is from, "Time Enough For Love," and the rest of the body of Heinlein's work leaves no doubt of his meaning. The entire book centers around a man who loves everything life has to offer, and is set in a world where death can be delayed indefinitely, making it possible to enjoy literally everything. It's a pretty decent book. Not his best, but decent.

You forgot these: Crayons vs. Chapstick: Which tastes better? Morphing the Hamburglar with Michael Jackson Are there (straight) men who see Cirque du Soleil on their own, not because of a girl?

You're distinction between the two concepts is basically correct. I explained the relationship between the two concepts in this post from another thread. That's what I meant when I said that if the Big Bang actually occured, it would be a change in the universe, not a beginning.

I was understanding that China took pretty much a hands-off policy to Honk Kong all the way around, not just regarding their economy. I'm rather uninformed about these kinds of things, though.

I commented on that ranking in another thread a little while back. I think its important to take into consideration that it refers to "economic freedom," rather than freedom as such. I don't know exactly what differentiates the two, in the eyes of the Heritage Foundation, but there surely is a huge difference. Hong Kong is undoubtedly one of the freest countries in the world. From what I understand, they have a nearly lasseiz-faire government. Andy Bernstein discusses Hong Kong briefly in The Capitalist Manifesto, which I confess is my only source of information on their political atmosphere--other countries' governments aren't really a huge area of study for me. In Singapore, however, which is ranked #2 on their list, it is illegal to possess chewing gum, and they'll cane you for crimes which would be more justly punished with a fine, like vandalism. That is not a free country.

Excuse the French, but: ARE YOU EFFING KIDDING ME?! A 2-bedroom apartement here costs $1600-$2000/month. I pay $650 to share a house with 4 people, and people are usually shocked at how I found such a good deal. Edit to add: And $1600-$2000 will only get you a place in a so-so neighborhood. If you want to live in the Gayborhood (which is universally the BEST neighborhood in every city), i.e. the Castro in San Francisco, it's even more expensive.

The SFSU Spring 2006 Objectivist Video Series has begun! Each semester (at least while I'm running the show), the SFSU Objectivist Club will be hosting bi-weekly viewings of video-taped lectures/debates on Objectivism and related topics. This semester's schedule is as follows: March 2 Objectivism: Ayn Rand's Philosophic Revolution by Harry Binswanger March 16 Why Should One Act on Principle? by Leonard Peikoff March 30 Bridging the Is-Ought Gap: How to Derive Morality from Facts by Harry Binswanger April 13 DEBATE: Selfishness: Moral Offense of Moral Ideal Harry Binswanger vs. Harvard Law Professor Randall Kennedy April 27 Your Professors' War Against the Mind: The Black Hole of Post-Modernism and Multiculturalism by Gary Hull May 11 TBA We will always begin at 4:00 p.m. in one of the Rosa Parks conference rooms in the Cesar Chavez Student Center. The room number will change from week to week, so keep updated by checking our website or join our e-mail list to receive reminders. Attendance is always open to both students and non-students. Hope to see you there! Dave Zornek [email protected] http://sfsu.objectivismonline.net

I don't think I could commit to a regularly scheduled chat time anyway. I do a lot of stuff and have a schedule that's kind of all over the place.

These aren't in the NW, but they're still pretty close: CalTech is an excellent school, but I'm not sure what they have going on as far as a business program goes. UC Berkeley is great in both areas, but is a little pricey for out-of-state students. My own tactic has been to attend a smaller school in California for all the GE classes, and then transfer after getting legal residency. Edit: I don't think a 3.2 GPA is high enough to get into Berkeley as an out-of-state student, but if you went to a smaller school first, it doesn't matter.

Are you sure about that? I am currently in the process of planning a speaker event for the SFSU/Berkeley O'ist Club, and it's not as expensive as I thought it would be. I'm honestly not sure how much of what ARI is estimating is speaker fees, and what is travel/hotel expenses, but I can get a list of who might be available for this and what their fees would be. Of course, I can only give a very rough estimate of how much cash your sitting on based on the number of patrons, so if you've already looked into it, ignore everything I've said. I'm against the idea of a regular chat room that's open for general usage mostly because I don't think it would be used and it would end up being a waste of money. Personally, I'd rather see the fees I've paid be used as a donation to ARI or just into your pocket as payment than see them be spent on something that won't be used. The reason I don't think it would be used is because the chat room on THE FORUM is barely used at all during the hours it is open every day.

I have participated in moderated chats in the past where it wasn't just a free-for-all of everyone talking. There is usually a "raise hand" feature built in to avoid everyone trying to talk at once; sNerd will have to tell us if that is feasible. Also, on THE FORUM, Betsy ran a moderated chat a while back, and then they posted the transcript up in its own thread, so everyone was able to see it, whether they attended or not. The big benefit I see of a chat is that it allows for immediate follow-up questions. More often than not, a good answer to a question leads to more questions. Would a regular forum format with pre-submitted questions be able to accomodate those?

I have a variant of Jennifer's idea. Does this forum have chat capabilities? How about a moderated live chat with one of the bigshots?

That's not true. According to most cult experts, a cult is a species of religion characterized by deceptive recruitment methods, brainwashing, forceful interference in the lives of its members, and (in some cases) complete separation from society. As far as I know (and I've researched Scientology a lot), Scientology fits the bill on all four counts, so Moose was right on target.

There are some "theories" which are safely accepted as scientific fact. Relativity (which is entirely valid within its context) and evolution are two such theories. It is a philosophical issue. It belongs to Philosophy of Science. The universe did not begin at all--it just is. A beginning to the universe (where universe is used interchangeably with existence) presupposes one of two things: 1. A total non-existence prior to the beginning. 2. Some existent which is outside of existence. Both are a violation of identity. Furthermore, to talk about the universe as having begun, or having an age, places the universe "in time." But the universe is not "in time;" time is in the universe. It is a relationship between existents.

You must not be familiar with Scientology. They believe that 75 billion years ago the Galactic Overlord Xenu intiated an event which caused human bodies (which existed 75 billion years ago) to be inhabited by alien spirits called Body Thetans, which are the cause of all human psychological ailments. Click on my blog. I've posted about the Scientologists twice--once about their ridiculous beliefs and another time telling the story of my visit to the Church of Scientology to recieve one of their "personality tests." Oh yeah, and when they get high enough up in the Church, they learn that L. Ron Hubbard is God, and that Jesus was a pedophile. Agreed 100%. An Objectivist is one who understands an agrees with the entire body of Ayn Rand's philosophical thought. Atheism is part of that. Someone who believes in a god is not an Objectivist, and it is dishonest to present oneself as one. It would be more proper to say, "I agree with most of Objectivism," which is perfectly fine.

Most Objectivists that I am aware of reject the Big Bang. Even if the Big Bang happened (and it is far from universally accepted as fact among physicists), it would not represent the beginning of the universe, but a tremendous change in a universe which existed prior to the event.

Some people might, but they'd be wrong (although not horribly so). An intrinsic value is a value absent any standard. A value which has a "whom" always has an implicit standard, which is that person's life. If the person says, "It's a value because it's a value," then you have an instance of intrinsic value. If they say, "It's a value to me, because it's a value to me," then they are implicitly making use of some purpose--themselves. In otherwords, it's not really possible to have a value with reference to a valuer, but absent a purpose.