MisterSwig

What process of abstraction does one go through to arrive at the concept of "universe"? I'm not closed to the idea that "universe" is an abstraction, but I do not see how that is achieved, and I am very doubtful. "Society" is a collective noun, yes. But it does not name a unique set of concretes. There can be more than one society. "Universe", however, names a unique set--EVERYTHING. There can only be one "everything." That is why I characterized "universe" as a name. A name for "everything." A name for this world of existents. A name for this entire place, where everything exists. Also, "society" is abstracted from the broader abstraction "group." But is there a broader abstraction from which "universe" could be abstracted? I don't see how that is possible, which is why I don't think "universe" is a conceptual abstraction. It seems to me that "universe" is both a collective noun and a proper name. On one hand it designates the totality of existents, and on the other hand it designates this world, this place, this realm where everything is.

"Universe" is a name. It is like any old name you might give to a collection or group of concretes. I have a lot of baseball cards in boxes. I call it my "baseball card collection." Los Angeles has a basketball team of individual players called the "Lakers." Well, "universe" is the name we have given to the "existent collection"--the collection of all the things that exist. "Universe" is not an abstraction. It is merely the name for everything that exists. If only Earth existed, then the universe would be called "Earth." If only you existed, then the universe would be called "Joe."

Very limited contact? It is important to keep in mind that Ayn Rand wrote in the first person, and the main character was a heavily brainwashed collectivist throughout the first part of the story. Chapters 2 & 4 are devoted to the Golden One. For many days Prometheus and the Golden One exchange knowing looks and gestures. When the finally speak, she responds positively to Prometheus. She gives him the name of "The Unconquered." She is obviously his match in intelligence, thinking similarly to him, and having been attracted to his uniqueness and boldness in pursuing her. Out of the whole damned society, Ayn Rand supposes two truly heroic souls, and you think that is "unlikely"?

I suggest you study poetic meter. You have a healthy appreciation for rhyme and stanza, but you seem to lack a good understanding of meter, which is really what distinguishes a poem from prose. As a work of rhymed free verse, your piece is confusing and overly abstract. As an attempt at poetry, it is too wordy (unessentialized) and non-metrical. Here is a quick attempt at your first verse--but in tetrameters with assonant rhyming: These power-wielders must not sleep. For, the goal set forth before them shall not be easy to achieve. Good luck with your poetry!

I found this passage in Section 130: 14-17 of the D & C: "I [Joseph Smith] was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: 'Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.' I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face. I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time." That "revelation" came in 1843. Smith was murdered the very next year, when he was only thirty-eight years old. I guess God forgot to mention to Smith that he had no prayer of living to eighty-five. I think it's funny that the one thing God wouldn't tell Smith was the time of the Second Coming. Here we are, 161 years after that "revelation", and still no Jesus. How long are these "latter-days" supposed to last, anyway?

I think the Golden One is a well-developed character, whom we have a real sense of throughout the book, and who acts in perfectly understandable ways.

Thanks for pointing that out. I knew there were other texts that Mormons used. But I wasn't sure about their relative importance. I consider the Book of Mormon to be important, because it is what most concretely distinguishes Mormonism from traditional Christianity--just as The New Testament distinguishes Christianity from Judaism. Having a religious text of substance and craft is important in that it concretizes the belief system and makes it permanent. For many people, it is harder to deny the arbitrary when it has been eloquently written down in a long book, cross-referenced with other books, placed in hotel rooms across the nation, and sold by the millions in bookstores. I'd be interested to know what you think is the most important aspect of the religion.

Randi does a lot of good in debunking certain claims made by con-artists like Uri Geller. And he has properly placed the burden of proof on those making the claims of supernatural abilities, with his $1 million "Paranormal Challenge." His career as a "skeptic" seems to arise from a genuine respect for the truth and desire to expose fraud in science. His skepticism, as far as I can tell, is not the insidious "there is no truth" type. It is the sincere, "where's the evidence" type. I don't know how familiar Randi is with Objectivism. But I think he is somewhat misguided when it comes to ethics. On his Web site he writes: "A species has an obligation to survive. That's brought about by the application of greed and selfishness by every individual of the species. In homo sapiens we like to modify that procedure by considering the well-being of our fellows, not to the point where we ourselves will suffer unduly — though admirable and memorable examples of genuine altruism certainly exist and would seem to deny that prime directive — but (from a practical view) that practice does act to preserve the species as well as the individual." http://www.randi.org/jr/040403.html It is difficult to understand how selfishness and altruism both "preserve" the individual, as Randi seems to believe.

As for Fahrenheit 9/11, I think it lacks an ideology of its own. To call it an example of liberal fundamentalism would be wrong, unless you consider "hatred for Bush" a strong ideology. I think The Day After Tomorrow, which grossed $181 million, is a better representative of the fundamentalist liberal movement. That movie actually offers more than a mere hatred for Bush. It offers a metaphysical worldview message: "global warming is real and we need to stop it or suffer the consequences."

I think Christian fundamentalism has gotten worse recently. For awhile now I've suspected that the modern surge in Christian fundamentalism has a lot to do with the Mormons. Mormonism is the fourth-largest and fastest growing religion in America--soon to overstep the Methodists. They call themselves Christians. They believe that Jesus visited Joseph Smith in New York. They believe it is their duty to tend to the flock in the latter-days before the Second Coming. They believe that they are the one true Church of God. But most importantly, they believe in not two, but--count'em--three religious texts: The Old Testament, The New Testament, and The Book of Mormon. In the Christian marketplace, Mormons are the innovators; they have a New Religious Book for a New Religous World; they are the fresh, good-looking new boys and girls on the block. You are probably familiar with their vast pro-active missionary endeavor around the world. Mormons are threatening the classical notion of Jesus Christ. Unlike traditional Christian belief, in Mormonism Jesus Christ is his own personage, separate from the Father and the Holy Ghost. Mormons do not believe in the Trinity. In fact, they believe there is also a Heavenly Mother, who is the sidekick to the Heavenly Father. Mormons have created a modest Heavenly pantheon, yet still claim to be monotheists. Mormonism is fundamentally unique in the Christian world, and thus highly intriguing to the more abstract (perhaps brighter and hungrier) religious minds. Traditional Christians, at some level, tend to be aware of the Mormon trend and often express bitter hatred for Mormons, saying they are not really Christians or worse. Many traditionalists probably fear that Mormonism will ultimately supplant traditional Christian beliefs. This may be a just fear, because Mormons are very strong now and only getting stronger. The Mormon movement is spreading very rapidly. This kind of direct threat to the existence of traditional Christianity is, I suspect, the primary cause in the rise of outspoken, cross-worshipping, Passion of Christ-type Christianity. After all, there is a major--perhaps irreconcilable--difference between traditional Christianity and Mormonism. On top of not believing in the Trinity, Mormons focus on Christ's Resurrection and human salvation--not Christ's Crucifixion and human suffering, as fundamentalists tend to do. Mormonism threatens to replace traditional Christian theology, and I think this has a lot to do with the rise in Christian fundamentalism in general. We are witnessing a competition for dominance in the world of the Christian religion. On one side are the fundamental Christians (Catholics, Baptists, Methodists). They don't have much new to offer and have fundamental beliefs about Christ in common. And on the other side are the progressive Christians (Mormons), who have a sparkling new faith in Christ, wrapped up in a pretty new box that says "Made in America."

One's moral status should not be determined by what one thinks of one's actions. One's moral status is determined in relation to a moral standard. An objective moral status is determined in relation to the standard of man's life.

What idea(s) are you having trouble with? Or do you believe that it is impossible to determine from held ideas whether someone is evil?

Yes. Take a look at what ARI is doing. Just one example: approximately 15,000 high school and college students submit essays each year for ARI's essay contest program. ARI also has a curriculum book project where they have sent tens of thousands of Ayn Rand books to teachers across the country--teachers who have pledged to teach the novels in their classrooms. That is one way to morally create a rational culture. I suggest you visit ARI's site to learn about their other programs.

Interesting line of questions. I guess if you start with an unshakeable faith in homogenization, then you eventually get around to revealing your dislike for the "non-homogenizers."

Am I to assume that you have now sanctioned an evil theater owner who is in bed with Michael Moore?

If you can prove that Ayn Rand made one single mistake during her lifetime, then I promise to stop sacrificing chickens in her name. Okay?

Essentially, I think these two terms can be used for the same exact concepts. However, a case might be made for a certain distinction. My dictionary claims that "freedom" is the more general term, while "liberty" applies to free choice. "Freedom" might be used to describe a non-human condition, such as the freedom a bird has to fly through the air. "Liberty", it seems, is mostly used in human political contexts. "Give me liberty, or give me death."

I wasn't equating "religion" with the Religious Right. Religion manifests itself in many forms, including radical environmentalism. It just so happens that the Christians are in power now.

"Can't we all just get along?" Is that your understanding of this situation? Do you yearn for homogenization in the Objectivist movement? Do you think Dr. Peikoff is a "dogmatic moralist"?

I'm not clear on who you mean. Are you saying that the educated never come in contact with the uneducated? That rich people never deal with poor people? Capitalists never talk to socialists? Objectivists never date non-Objectivists? What kind of non-racial classes are you talking about?

Who's worse: the theater owner who spreads Michael Moore's movie to the masses or Michael Moore?

Your argument, as written, is formally invalid. However, tinkering with it a bit, I get this: If money stolen from you [by government], then public education. If public education, then Fahrenheit 9/11. ------ Thus, if money stolen from you [by government], then Fahrenheit 9/11. Technically, this is a valid hypothetical chain argument. However, it suffers from its unstipulated premises. I, and others, believe your premises to be false and have tried to prove that to you in previous posts. (Also, my reformulation assumes that your stolen money automatically leads to public education, which may not be the case, if a government chooses not to engage in such a program.) Now, if you concede the reformulation, then I concede that you are acting on some logic. However, I cannot concede that you are correct or applying reason correctly, because you have not proven that your premises are true. And I believe that I, and others, have proven them to be false.

I'd guess half or more are forceful. Every time you buy something, the government forces the seller to charge you taxes. That is force. And we live with it every day, not thinking twice about it. And that doesn't even include all the other things that government forces people to do on a daily basis. But if you consider all the economic transactions in this country, nearly every single one, in some direct or indirect manner, involves an element of government force upon the citizenry. I won't nitpick your other arguments. I think force is the essential issue here.

It is actually the successful association and exchange of ideas among the social classes which has led to the divide. It is not the communication that is the problem. It is the ideas that are the problem. If you don't want to balkanize people, then don't teach them balkanizing ideas like multiculturalism and socialism.

I can't know whether to concede until I fully understand your logic. Is this your basic argument: If public education, then corrupt society. If corrupt society, then Fahrenheit 9/11. ---------------- Thus, if public education, then Fahrenheit 9/11. Is this your argument? If so, how does that prove that it is correct to steal from Michael Moore? If not, what am I missing? Also, do you believe that you have a right to Fahrenheit 9/11, as Ragnar and others had a right to reclaim their own money from the pilfering government in Atlas Shrugged? Or do you simply believe that it is morally proper to steal from Michael Moore?