MisterSwig

1. To clarify, I think it is reasonable to assume that language started before there was any art (e.g., cave drawings). But I also think art served as an indispensable tool in the advancement and development of language. In my view, pre-artistic language must have been very simple, due to the limits of human memory. I imagine that, initially, many infrequently used concepts were easily forgotten or confused with each other. The only concepts that people could retain were basic ones for which they had a daily use. Then, those who had more brainpower and could retain more concepts survived and drove evolution. Then, at one point, a genius came along and invented art, which had the effect of visually concretizing concepts, and this led to better essentialization, retention and communication of ideas. 2. The conceptual faculty is a mimicking machine. It enables us, through all sorts of artistic mediums, to recreate reality like nothing else known to man. But, I think early man started by simply mimicking sounds in nature with his voice. A sound that a particular animal made might have become the word that early man called it, because he was associating the sound with the animal while mimicking it. Today, such words are called onomatopoeias.

Ayn Rand rightly says that the end result of concept-formation is a "word". Note that she does not say "a language". In order to form a language ("a code of visual-auditory symbols that serves the psycho-epistemological function of converting concepts into the mental equivalent of concretes" AR), you must first be able to create concepts.

I don't think any sound that any animal makes is evidence of conceptualization, including the sounds that humans make. If you were an alien, and you heard two humans jabbering to each other, would you take that as evidence for conceptualization? It would be evidence for communication, yes. But hardly conceptualization. I think the ability to create art is a good indication of conceptualization. I suspect that the ability to reproduce/record concepts in the form of visual symbols is key to developing a language. Otherwise, I believe it would be impossible to create a system of concepts, a language, of any magnitude. "Mimesis" (having the ability to imitate, mimic things) seems to be very crucial in language development. This would include mimicing or reproducing concepts. It seems that an animal must have a sufficient means of mimicing nature in order to develop concepts and language.

Concept-creation occurs before Language-creation. You can't have a language without concepts. As concepts are created, the language grows.

You know, ants are pretty clever folk, too. Scientists have recently discovered that ants could communicate with each other long before humans even walked the Earth. Long ago, prehistoric ants discovered the art of digging underground shelters, and this knowledge has been passed down throughout the generations. Modern ants have some of the most complex, organized societies known to exist. Ants stay in great shape, too, able to lift objects several times their own bodyweight. Needless to say, ants are great warriors and hunters. But they also understand the value of life; so they never have abortions. Ants are very smart, having figured out how to co-exist with humans. They are also kind and altruistic creatures, for they tend not to attack humans, even though we hate them so very much. I believe it is about time that we give ants the rights they deserve.

Premise: America is being defeated in war by militant Islam and is in danger of being overrun because of its self-sacrificial morality of altruism. If you are in agreement with the premise, then you probably feel as I do: WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING TO WAKE UP AMERICA!!! Otherwise, it is only a matter of time before we perish at the hands of our enemy. In my estimation, militant Islam is the worst enemy that civilization has ever faced. Our enemy wants to wipe all nonbelievers off the face of the Earth. They are not angry at one particular race, group, or ideology. They want to exterminate EVERYBODY! And they are in the process of doing exactly that. Our pitiful, ignorant, weak-bellied, altruism-riddled resistance is no match for their hardcore, principled, evil resolve and fury. Because of this, we are losing the war. Our leaders have no clue what they are doing. They can't even properly identify and name the enemy. I am seriously concerned for my future survival. From this day forward, I am conducting a T-shirt Campaign To Wake Up America. I'm going to make a conscious effort to regularly wear plain white T-shirts with political and moral slogans on them, handwritten in black marker. The slogans will: 1) attack altruism, endorse rational self-interest/egoism 2) attack militant Islam, endorse Objectivism and Ayn Rand 3) call for the declaration of war on Saudi Arabia and Iran 4) call for the nuclear destruction of Tehran, as a start to winning the war. I welcome any fellow activists to join me in this campaign. And if you have any ideas on how to improve this campaign, or if you have other ideas for helping to wake up America, I want to know them. If enough people think this is a good idea, maybe we can get together and form some kind of demonstration somewhere. Ideas for T-shirt slogans: 1. ALTRUISM IS DEATH / EGOISM IS LIFE 2. ALTRUISM IS TERROR / EGOISM IS FREEDOM 3. MILITANT ISLAM IS OUR ENEMY / DESTROY IRAN 4. DESTROY MILITANT ISLAM / BOMB SAUDI ARABIA 5. GOT AYN RAND? 6. READ AYN RAND 7. OBJECTIVISM / PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE 8. OBJECTIVIST / ANTI-MILITANT ISLAMIST

My first book was The Fountainhead. But what opened my eyes initially was, out of curiosity, attending an Objectivist club meeting at my university and watching a video of Dr. Peikoff's "Religion Versus America" speech. A week later I was an atheist and hungry for more Objectivism. Dr. Peikoff's opening line in that 1986 speech is: "A specter is haunting America--the specter of religion." Today that specter has evolved into a terrifying death-dealing monster.

1. "Truly harmful", as I used it, means: "in reality, what you are doing is harmful to your life, whether you know it or not." I realize that I'm not quite sure what you mean when you discuss "proportion" or "scale". However, I see a problem with using proportion as a kind of standard for determining either the "level of harm" or the "level of immorality" of a certain action--if that is what you mean. If you mean something else, please clarify. Proportion is merely an amount of something. It doesn't tell you whether that amount is harmful or immoral. That is determined by the facts of reality. For instance, injecting a lot of insulin into your bloodstream is probably not the greatest idea, unless you are a diabetic. Taking a heavy dose of morphine probably isn't good for your health, unless you just had your arm blown off and are in severe pain. So, as I see it, the context surrounding the proportion is very important in determining whether that proportion is harmful or beneficial to your life. 2. Again, the context of the particular action is important. The moral question here is not: "How badly did you burn your flesh? And what instrument did you use?" The moral question is: "Why did you burn your flesh? Did it benefit your life or not?" I can't think of an instance where burning yourself during sex would be pro-life. But I would not say that this act is intrinsically immoral. 3. I agree there are degrees of harm. But that is evaluated separately from proportion or amount, as I stated above. Also, I don't think "degree of harm" equals "degree of immorality", for the same reason proportion is not equal to harm. In all these cases (proportion, harm, immorality), we need to consider the full context of the situation. The problem I have with "degree of harm" is that it seems you are taking it to mean strictly physical harm. To be synonymous with "degree of immorality", I think it would have to mean, more broadly, "harm to your life."

At one point, I was in your position. But that was before I read Robert Tracinski's analysis of Kelley. If you have read Peikoff's "Fact and Value", and you still value Kelley's new work, then I suggest you read Tracinski's analysis. Notes on "A Question of Sanction" At the very least, I hope it will motivate you to re-examine the issue of tolerance.

Here is what the mighty John Kerry would do to one of the primary sources and greatest financial sponsor of militant Islam in the world. "[W]e must cut off the flow of terrorist funds. In the case of Saudi Arabia, the Bush Administration has adopted a kid-glove approach to the supply and laundering of terrorist money. If I am President, we will impose tough financial sanctions against nations or banks that engage in money laundering or fail to act against it. We will launch a "name and shame" campaign against those that are financing terror. And if they do not respond, they will be shut out of the U.S. financial system." "Fighting a Comprehensive War on Terrorism", a speech by John Kerry Oh, boy! We're gonna stop them from banking in the U.S. Get real! Pretty soon they will OWN the banks. This nation is toast.

I agree that another reason for Hung's success is because he was on American Idol. As to why him, and not a different American Idol reject, I believe that is simply a matter of some record company with money and an idea deciding that William was marketable.

I think William Hung's primary appeal is comedic in nature. A lot of people laugh at his bad singing. I seriously doubt that the majority of people who bought his album actually believe he is a good musician. Like the American Idol judges, they probably get a good laugh out of it. So, it isn't really fair to compare Hung's comedic success with the musical success of real musicians. Hung has not achieved musical success. He is a joke that some people enjoy laughing at.

1. I suggest you read and digest "Man's Rights" in The Virtue of Selfishness. In this essay, Ayn Rand thoroughly examines the nature and validity of individual rights. 2. A right to a piece of property must be earned. You can't simply say, "I want this piece of land", then it's yours. You must work or use the land in some manner. In a rational society, if two people want the same unclaimed piece of land, then they might go into a courtroom and debate over the matter, allowing a judge or jury to decide what to do based on the facts. It may be a simple matter of who got to the land first and started working on it. America used to have the Homestead Act, where citizens could claim a piece of land and the government would recognize their ownership of the land after they had lived and worked on the land for five years. I think that is a good example of how property rights are established. Now, if you are trying to claim land in the wild parts of the world, without the backing of an organized government and objective laws, you might have to fight evil people, not only for your valuables, but also your very life.

I'm sorry for the confusion. I edited out that comment about "proportion" from my previous post. I plan to address it after giving it more thought.

I think it's important to keep in mind the context. Eating one candy bar and flaying yourself open have different effects on your life. A candy bar provides a certain amount of nourishment, while tasting good at the same time. And, uh, flaying yourself open physically wounds you, placing your life at risk to infection or other problems. Now, if you stuffed yourself with candy bar after candy bar, that would cause you serious problems too, due to overdose of sugar. The "level of immorality" is subject to reality. Is what you are doing harmful to your life? If so, how harmful?

First, there is no strategic point in Iraq. Iraq is not the primary target in this war. Iran or Saudi Arabia, as the greatest sponsors of militant Islam, are. If we drop a bomb, it should be on one of those two nations. Second, we have already invaded Iraq and are about to install a puppet regime. Nobody is going to drop the bomb there. If Kerry advocated dropping the bomb on Saudi Arabia or Iran, I would vote for him in a heartbeat. I would send him love letters. But, judging from his track record and what he has been saying, Kerry is a spineless altruist, like the rest of our political leaders. If you can provide some evidence for his willingness to even glance at a nuclear warhead, I might consider him. I'll probably vote for Bush, because he, at least, can be held responsible for the "axis of evil" comment. And we can say: "Okay, Bush, it's time to invade Iran." My suspicion is that a President Kerry would hand everything over to the UN. Then it will only be a matter of time before all of us are either dead or worshipping Allah. If you don't think it can come to that, I urge you to seriously take a look around. Where do you see us defeating militant Islam? All we are doing is trying to defend ourselves, while they invade. Fact: militant Islam takes over much of the world and destroys the World Trade Center. What do we do? We conduct a half-ass war against the Taliban, letting Osama bin Laden escape. And we invade probably the most secular Middle Eastern country there was, allowing the most anti-Western militant Islamists to invade Iraq. We are not winning anywhere in the world. All we do is chase little terrorists from here to there. We are a long way from even considering stopping the ideological movement of militant Islam at its source nations of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc.

Where is General Jack Ripper when you need him? I hope someone in the military, a rogue general perhaps, has the moral courage to do what is necessary to put us on the right track toward victory. Bush certainly has no clue what he is doing. In fact, his military ineptitude may cost him the presidential election. If that happens, Kerry will likely pull us out of the battle and let militant Islam run wild throughout the world. America is far from being morally and psychologically ready to annihilate its enemy. Our foe is playing with us, like a cat on a frightened mouse. It's a goddamn shame.

I believe you are adopting a misleading term to describe the ultimate objective value--life. In my view, there is no benefit to be gained from using such terminology. It can only lead to further confusion. I've looked in several dictionaries, and they all define "inherent" in the usual sense: "existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic." (American Heritage College Dictionary) This is the sense that Ayn Rand rejected. I don't believe the word today can be used to mean something else. What is wrong with calling life, as Ayn Rand does, the ultimate objective value, an end in itself? What is the purpose of calling it "inherent"? What is gained in doing that?

What is the difference? I'll stick with the terminology that Rand used. She did not describe anything, including life, as having "inherent value." And, frankly, I have no clue what you mean when you do it. Inherent: existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute. (Webster's Dictionary) Is this how you are using "inherent"?

1. "[Man] has to hold his life as a value--by choice." (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, p. 940) If "to live is to value" were true, then we would not have to choose life as a value. The mere act of living would mean that we were valuing. There are plenty of people in the Middle East who have life and do not value it. In fact, they specifically train in order to end it--along with the lives of others. 2. "The intrinsic theory holds that the good is INHERENT in certain things or actions as such, regardless of their context and consequences, regardless of any benefit or injury they may cause to the actors and subjects involved." (Ayn Rand, "What is Capitalism?") I maintain that "inherent" is not a good word to use in describing life as the ultimate value. To my knowledge, Ayn Rand never described her objective theory of values in this way. Indeed, she described the intrinsic theory of value using such terminology. A theory which she flatly rejected. Etymologically and historically, "inherent" means practically the same thing as "intrinsic". To me, there is no difference between the two, when you are describing values.

This guy's "freedom of speech" issue is a smokescreen for his anti-property rights stance. He believes the airwaves should be "a public resource." He could care less about freedom of speech. All he wants is for big companies like Clear Channel to be denied the right to own the airwaves on which their programs are broadcast.

What we are seeing here, in the posts regarding the use of the term "intrinsic", is exactly the kind of problem that Ayn Rand warned about in her letter. There is a serious problem with using the term "intrinsic" to describe values. Etymologically and historically the term means that a thing's value is inward, a part of its essence. This would mean that life has value whether or not there is anyone to value it. This view, according to Rand, is false. (If you're interested, Rand wrote about the intrinsic theory of values in "What is Capitalism?", Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.) Ayn Rand upheld an objective theory of values. According to her theory, we correctly view a thing, whether it be a human life or a bunch of carrots, as having value to a particular valuer in a particular context. Whether anything has value depends on it actually being of value to someone in a certain context. My life may be of value to me now, while I am healthy. But if I were dying of a severely painful cancer, my life may no longer be of value to me. The context has changed. Life gives rise to the concept of Value. But Life is not Value.

Life is not a value without context. First, a man must determine whether his life is of real, objective value to him. If the answer is "yes, my life is valuable to me," then, and only then, is his life an end in itself, because everything else he does from that point on is for the purpose of keeping his life. He doesn't achieve his life in order to get some other, higher value. Life is his top value. It is an ending point. This means that life--any life--does not have intrinsic value, i.e., value is not an essential property of life. Otherwise, a man would have no choice in the matter. He would be morally obligated to value his life. Some lives are valuable, others are not. A rational man needs to determine the objective value or objective disvalue of individual lives, for each important case he comes across. Ayn Rand said that "all values are contextual and hierarchical." Letters of Ayn Rand, p. 561 She did not find "life" to be an exception.

I found an interview, which included a bit of information about the band's interest in Ayn Rand. If you care, the full interview is located here: Spiral Architect Interview In one question, the drummer Asgeir Mickelson is asked if there is an Ayn Rand fan in the band. He replies: "I know Lars [bass player and band leader] isn't an objectivist but I know he's found Ayn Rand's books interesting. Kaj [guitarist] also likes her books." Judging from their lyrics, which I find vaporous, this band doesn't seem to take ideas seriously. I also noticed that their song "Cloud Constructor" includes a part called "Being and Nothingness". After seeing that and reading the lyrics, I think they also found Sartre "interesting". Unfortunately, I can't judge their music, because the download doesn't work for me.

1. Iran is a militant Islamic theocracy. Therefore, I believe it is fair to assume that most of the people in Iran are Islamofascists, as I understand this newly coined term. To be precise, I would say that the drowning stranger is most likely a supporter of the militant Islamic theocracy of Iran. Thus, he is most likely my mortal enemy. 2. I would think that, given the political context, it is highly unlikely that the stranger is not an Islamofascist, and by saving his life I am more likely saving my enemy than a potential friend. Thus, the chance of me recruiting him is slim, and not worth the risk involved--the risk being helping the enemy.