stephen_speicher

The humor is rather understated and requires some work to ferret it out (the little that there is). The characters were really strange, though I thought Napoleon's friend Pedro and his situation to be kind of funny. But, all in all, I too am perplexed over the positive response of some to this movie.

After it posted I noted the error in the subject line, and wanted to correct via the "Edit." Unfortunately, I could not find any way for that to be done, which is why I edited the post with the request for a moderator to fix it. How can an edit of the first post allow me to change the subject line if it does not give me the subject line as an editable entry? Anyway, thanks for the fix.

Incidentally, I should note that this particular issue regarding the ultimate constituents and their action was first brought to my attention by Alex. We subsequently discussed this subject for some time on HBL, and it remains, for some, controversial. All credit for the intitial thought goes to Alex, and any errors in representing his view are mine.

I was with you up until that last "so far." I would say that on the level of entities that we perceive, "determinstic" and "volitional" are exhaustive in that they represent two fundamental alternative modes of action. We know this not just as empirical observation, but having to do with the nature of entities. So, the "so far" would be arbitrarily entertaining something different. But, for the ultimate constituents the issue is not the same, because we cannot necessarily philosophically ascribe to them a nature like that of our three dimensional entities. We do not even know in what way action applies to the ultimate constituents, other than such action reflects their nature. That is an interesting observation in its own right.

I doubt that anyone here would disagree with that. But the issue is not when life begins, but rather as to when the fetus becomes a human being. Now you have jumped from the issue of life to the issue of rights, and rights apply not simply to "life" but solely to human beings. Plants are alive, but they certainly do not have rights. The reason that a newborn acquires rights is because it is only then that it becomes a human being, i.e., a biologically independent human entity.

I am not sure what this argument is about. I personally know several biologists who are atheistic yet against abortion unless under unusal circumstances. Clearly the anti-abortion crowd is overwhelmingly composed of religious folk, but that fact does not exclude some relatively small group of atheists from thinking the same. However, these biologists whom I mentioned certainly could not claim to be Objectivists.

Marc brings up an interesting question, deserving of its own thread. The issue is really philosophical, not scientific, so I started a new thread in the "Metaphysics and Epistemology" forum.

In another thread, a question arose. This is an interesting and controversial issue, deserving of a thread of its own. I have made no positive assertions as to the mode of action of the ultimate constituents, other than to say that they will act in accord with their nature. We are not omniscient and philosophy alone cannot tell us what sort of things may exist in the universe, and by what causal principles they may act. The ultimate constituents may be as different in nature and action as consciousness is from matter. All that can be ruled out are metaphysical impossibilities such as contradictions of identity, or actions that are not causal. Notions such as deterministic or volitional behavior are derived from entities that exist in the three-dimensional world perceived by our senses. Attributes of these entities -- such as extension, shape, color, texture, etc. -- may not be primary aspects of metaphysical reality, but rather effects of the ultimate constituents as perceived by our senses. We simply cannot state in advance, philosophically, what the nature of the ultimate constituents must be, and not knowing their identity we cannot know in advance how the very notion of action applies to them. Edit: Would a moderator please correct the spelling error ("Ultimat" should be "Ultimate") in the subject name of this thread. Thanks. <FC: Done. Actually, the thread's title is specified in the first post of the thread. You could have edited it yourself When I started using forums regularly it took me some time to realize this.>

Exactly right. There is a sort symbiosis between the advancement of computer-related technology and the software which puts it in the hands of the multitudes. The motivation for the increasing technology comes about only because of the ever-increasing consumer demand, and it is the ever-expanding capability of the software which makes that demand possible. We are truly living in the age of the computer revolution.

Yes, I agree. After reading Stahnke's detailed description of the process he used for the transcription, it is hard not to be impressed by his effort and dedication. Whether or not he was correct in all his judgments, it is clear that his approach is open and honest. Ha! Having recordings BY Beethoven. Now that would be something! I love some of Beethoven's work, especially his sonatas, but I have not explored varying interpretations of his work, as I have for Rachmaninoff. I have long wondered what it is must feel like for a composer to hear his work played by others. Painters, sculptors, and architects can read what others think of their work -- they can hear it analyzed and described -- but the composer's work is literally given concrete expression by the performer. At least I know that Rachmaninoff was greatly pleased by at least one who played his work. In an interview, Horowitz reports that Kreisler had told Rachmaninoff that "some young Russian plays your Third Concerto and the Tchiakovsky Concerto like nothing I ever heard, and you have to meet him." Horowitz and Rachmaninoff met in Rachmaninoff's New York apartment in 1928, and Horowitz says: "And so I came to Rachmaninoff, and it took five minutes and we were friends. In ten minutes he was playing for me.... Rachmaninoff then asked me to go to the famous Steinway basement, where he accompanied me on his Third Piano Concerto." This was their first meeting -- just as if it was right out of a storybook.

Hmm. That must be the alternate timeline version. I think you mean Mr. Thompson, the "Head of the State." One "President Johnson" in my lifetime was more than enough!

In the end, you looked at the facts and judged accordingly. Certainly no shame in that. In the context of her philosophy, Miss Rand's view of "objectivity" is unique in the history of ideas, so it is not surprising to find a discrepancy in meaning between the common useage in a dictionary, and that of Objectivism.

Scientific academia has traditionally been Unix systems. When Linux first started I saw it as an inexpensive PC alternative to use for controlling experiments and processing and analyzing experimental results. My home system became Linux and I kidded my Windows friends by saying I used a "manly" computer. I loved Linux since its inception. About a year ago I finally gave in and agreed to try Windows at home with a dual boot Linux system, just to play around. I simply could not believe how easy Windows was to use, and I was just blown away with the intelligent integration of all its component parts. Linux (Unix) seems so primitive to me now, at least from the perspective of a home system. I now use Windows almost all the time. I understand from my friends that earlier versions of Windows were not quite as seamless and reliable as is my Media Center Edition XP system. Still, the achievement of putting such useful capability into the hands of many people who might otherwise have difficulty using a calculator, is simply astounding. I have the greatest respect and admiration for what Microsoft has achieved, and the entire world owes them a debt of gratitude (which, in fact, the world repays in the form of continuing to purchase their marvelous product).

Yes, because the anti-trust laws are inherently unjust. Microsoft, almost single-handedly, made possible the entire computer industry as it exists today by providing a useful people-friendly operating system installed on millions of personal computers throughout the world, and it spawned a software industry measured in the trillions of dollars yearly, and you want us not to put up with Microsoft's "stupidity?" Thanks for pointing out how amazing it is that so many of us have been duped by the poor quality of Microsoft's product. Ah, yes, we all long for the good old days of the Altair computer in 1975, before Bill Gates messed it up with Basic. Fine. Good luck with your abacus.

Saving the duplication of posts: you are welcome, from both of us.

But does your dictionary definition of "objectivity" coincide with its specific meaning in the philosophy of Objectivism? Since you are quite familiar with the philosophy of Objectivism, why don't you list the dictionary definition here, alongside with your understanding of the meaning of objective in Objectivism, and compare the two.

That is not the point I tried to make. Miss Rand herself confused "egoism" and "egotism" in The Fountainhead, but for her it was just a practical error due to a dictionary definition. What I tried to indicate was that your claim that many of the "reservations against Objectivism stem from her confusing Egoism with Egotism" might be better explained by a more fundamental disagreement (based on what you previously wrote). Issues of faith versus reason, and religious altruism, run deep. But, look, not knowing her personally and only going on what you write, I am uncomfortable pursuing this any further. I do not want to attribute to her conflicts that she may not have. Feel free to consider my previous comments, or not, but I will end this here.

Thanks for all the fascinating info, Christopher. Evidently Stahnke has received some criticism regarding the tempo and other issues in his transcription. In addition, he himself indicates that the issue of a fast tempo on recordings circa 1920 has been much discussed among audiophiles. Stahnke indicates that he matched the tempo of the music rolls to the timing on the disk recordings, thereby ignoring "the tempo indications of the piano rolls themselves." His detailed analysis and justification for this is interesting, as is his conclusion that the judgments regarding tempo and acceleration were "made on the basis of purely objective measurements." However, absent of explanation of fast tempo on the disk recordings of the time, I would have to reserve my own judgment. I guess the bottom line for me is that, although no music has touched me as much as the music of Rachmaninoff, I prefer the tempo and emphasis of other performances of his work than his own. I know Rachmaninoff greatly appreciated Horowitz -- Horowitz and Rachmaninoff frequently gave private concerts together at his home -- and I personally enjoy Howowitz' playing of Rachmaninoff, but for me the performace of Rachmaninoff by Emil Gilels is supreme.

You (consistently) have no points in regard to Objectivism and Objectivists. All you have are blind, unreasonable, unsupported and unarticulated emotional assertions and slurs, which you have just proven yet again.

I am sorry to piggyback on Christopher's post here, but I previously missed this reference to "Ayn" when I stopped reading WilliamB's post midstream. I would like to remind WilliamB, and other posters here, that to refer to Ayn Rand by the familiarity of solely her first name is extremely presumptuous and disrespectful of one of the greatest geniuses in history -- certainly THE greatest genius of our time -- and should only be done by those who were, in fact, on a first-name basis with Miss Rand (and, even then, only in the proper context). We show our respect by referring to "Ayn Rand" or "Miss Rand," as is done throughout the proper Objectivist corpus.

Admittedly I do not know her as a person, but I would question this. I doubt the linguistic difference between these two terms could account for much. Based on what you have written before, I suspect most likely there are more fundamental premises involved.

One important difference that I see is that "metaphysics" is a valid branch of philosophy, having its roots in the origin of philosophical ideas. By contrast, "meta-ethics," like "meta-logic" and "meta-principles, to name just a couple of others, is a modern invention which corrupts the foundation of the area of related study.

With all due respect to your dictionary, the roots of the term go back before 1950. The first use of the term "meta-ethics" in the philosophical journals appeared in 1938 in The Philosophical Review ("Philosophy in France, 1936-1937" Andre Lalande, Vol. 47, No. 1, Jan. 1938, pp. 1-27). "To examine the possibility of treating these norms scientifically is the object of Gurvitch's little book, Morale theorique et science des moeurs.[Paris, Felix Alcan.] The very title makes it clear that he does not wholly concur in the conclusions of Levy-Bruhl's celebrated work. While following him in the distinction between ethics and a science of customs, and also in the condemnation of a "meta-ethics," Gurvitch perceives, besides a sociology which describes moral judgments and seeks their external conditions, a moral theory constructed after the fashion of the physical sciences, and based upon analogous data, that is to say, upon moral experience." Meta-ethics is usually described as the study of the origin and meaning of ethics, but all too often its use in the literature is much more insidious than that. As is the result of many of the "Meta-" prefixes attached to studies in modern philosophies, it becomes, in effect, a way to obliterate rather than illuminate the subject. The "normative" ethics can easily lose its signifcance as being somewhat subjective in the context of "meta-ethical" issues and concerns. In my view the term is best left to the blather of the moderns, and not repeated except with disdain.

While what you say is true, I want to point out that it is extremely difficult for a normal person to maintain such compartmentalization over a very long period of time. Reality, and knowledge, is an integrated whole, and the mind cannot forever keep one "compartment" from leaking over to another. Bad ideas tend to drive out good ideas if issues with conflicting premises are not directly addressed.

I must apologize. I have no idea why I wrote "lack of emphasis" rather than "not enough emphasis on what I would like," the latter being what I wrote in my original post. The two statements are entirely different, and "lack of emphasis" is certainly not what I really meant. I cannot say I have noticed anything like that, but perhaps you go to these concerts much more often than do I. If what you say is a correct observation, then that is interesting evidence.