stephen_speicher

Not necessarily. A person's sense of life is quite fundamental -- a deeply rooted emotional assessment -- and can be in direct conflict with their consciously chosen ideas. Ideally the two, one's sense of life and one's conscious convictions, should be in unison, but frequently they are not. I have known many Objectivists who have formed an early-on sense of life which conflicts with the Objectivist philosophy that they later embraced. If there does exist a substantial breach between one's sense of life and one's consciously-chosen ideas, it may take a substantial effort to identify and correct the problem. For some, this could be a life-long battle. See Ayn Rand's "Philosophy and Sense of Life" in "The Romantic Manifesto" for much more detail on this. I think he is just asking for people's sense of life response, independent of and regardless of their intellectual assessment. It is a fair question.

Ah, yes, the dust cloud around V838 Mon. I read the preprint Bond posted on this a few weeks ago on the physics archive site. They really do not quite know what to make of the outburst, since it does not fit in well with anything previously observed, or explained. That's great! Graduate level? May I ask what school you are attending? That could be very exciting. (Note that it was referred to as NGST, for Next Generation Space Telescope, and the name has changed now to JWST, for James Webb Space Telescope. Webb died a dozen years ago, and he is being commemorated for his lead in the Apollo program, as well as some of the more important lunar expeditions.) Anyone interested in learning about this ambitious and techologically challenging infrared space telescope program can glean the essential facts from the NASA site at http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/ The original plans were to launch JWST (back then called NGST) in 2005, but the schedule calls for a 2011 launch now. But, keep in mind that Gravity Probe B was launced just a few days ago, and the plans for that go back more than forty years! It is NGC 5128 (Centauras A), one of the first objects imaged by the Chandra X-ray Observatory. It was the Astronomy Picture of the Day on August 16, 2001. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010816.html

Really? I have never come across a sequence of nucleotides which has been identified as belonging to members of one political party, rather than another. I have also studied physical brain differences and neurochemical functioning hypothesized to account for certain differences in human characteristics, but I have never seen any such difference associated with political parties. I do try to keep up with the literature in the field, but perhaps I missed something. Do you have some journal references for this scientific evidence?

Assuming your interest is not at the level of several scholarly works -- each tends to focus on small aspects of the subject -- most any of the standard texts used at the major universities should suit your purpose well. Tomorrow I will ask an excellent Anthropologist I know, one who is quite familiar with the teaching materials, to see if any particular text stands out for what you want to learn.

I think what you mean to say is that an infant does not exercise his conceptual faculty for some time. He does, however, possess such a faculty; the inherent ability to conceptualize is a part of his nature, his identity. p.s. Because the picture is small, it is difficult for me to discern the cosmological scene of your avatar. What cosmological feature does it represent?

The flaws lie within your approach; Objectivism is a philosophy whose epistemological base is Aristotelian, not the symbolic logic of a Frege, Russell, Tarski, Kripke, etc. Predicate and multi-valued logics are antithetical to the Objectivist approach to philosophy.

A human embryo "has the potential to develop into a rational being," but Objectivism does not grant rights to the embryo. The embryo remains as property, but an infant has rights by virtue of becoming an independent human being. Brain death is a scientific (and legal) issue, not to be deduced rationalistically from philosophical principles. Philosophically we can say that man ceases to be man at death, but science, not philosophy determines that criteria. Irreversible loss of circulation and respiration was the prevailing standard for determining death before we developed neurological criteria, and likewise brain death as it is now constituted could cease to be the prevailing criteria. For instance, there are neurodegenerative diseases, such as Huntington's disease, which are associated with accumulated aggregates of a mutant form of protein which affects the striatal neurons in the brain. A recent finding showed that a wild-type Huntington protein up-regulates transcription of a brain-derived neurotrophic factor, and this factor produced by cortical neurons affects the survival the striatal neurons in the brain. Restoration of the wild-type Huntington protein, thereby increasing the brain-derived neurotrophic factor, may rejuvenate the affected neurons. This is just speculative, first to be tried for therapeutic treatment of Huntington's disease, but such speculation was at the base of neurological criteria supplanting the classical criteria for death when neurobiology was first born decades ago. Scientific issues are best left to science. Man has 46 chromosomes.

I do not know who the "Objectivist Front" is, but their view most certainly does not represent the Objectivist philosophy that I know. No human being can be rightfully considered the property of another; a child has the very same fundamental rights as any other human being. The essential difference, in this regard, between a child and an adult is that the child is not fully able to exercise all of his rights, so the parent acts as a guardian of those rights for the child. The same idea of guardianship would apply to an adult who was so incapacitated as to not be able to reasonably exercise his rights. The notion of any human as property, whether infant or otherwise, is quite foreign to Objectivist principles.

I am curious what people here think about the movies Kill Bill: Vol. 1 and Vol. 2.

"Skywalker" asks some great questions about raising children. Long before children can sustain extended reasoning processes, they are already setting the foundation for their overall sense of life. The first job for a parent -- though it is not proper to call such pleasure a job -- is to provide as much love and protection as humanly possible. A child needs to sense the world as a friendly place where his needs are met, not a hostile environment where he typically encounters frustration. I doubt that it is possible to provide too much love to a child in the early years of his life. The first and most important way to teach children about ideas is by example. Long before a child is capable of involved ethical validations he observes the fairness, honesty, justice, benevolence, etc. in how you treat others. Long before a child can reason about the man-woman relationship he observes how his parents act with each other. I was constantly (and pleasantly) amazed at just how observant a child can be, and how much they retain of what they observe. When we got to talk explictly about ideas it was a delight to often see how natural some ideas seemed, as if we were just identifying what was already there. I think it to be a big mistake to push the philosophy. Rather use appropriate real-life situations which arise as an opportunity to communicate. If ideas are more like practical ways of doing things, rather than lectures, they have more of a sense of reality and meaning to the child. You want to inculcate a strong sense of what is right and wrong, good and bad, in all areas -- from a child's character to his relationship with the rest of the world -- but rather than batter the child with ideas he cannot handle or is not interested in at the time, show him instead by your own example and by practical application to the events in his life. As far as schools are concerned: Our son was always in private school until we moved to an area where the public schools were actually better than the private ones. Frankly, though, if I had it to do over again, I think I would have opted for home schooling instead. Between Betsy and me we pretty much have world knowledge covered, and I think we could have provided a better curriculum. But, even so, the issues which "Skywalker" raised, like global warming, were never really a concern. By the time my son was confronted with that sort of nonsense he was pretty much prepared on his own to deal with it. If you foster independence in action and words then the child is not afraid to stand alone apart from the politically correct nonsense that he encounters. These words are just a succinct response to some of the questions asked; a full response would take a book. Feel free to ask anything more specific. But, I want to get one more point in, especially since in other circles some rather bad ideas in regard to children have been promulgated. When children express their own interest in pusuing something -- assuming it legal and not physically harmful -- I think that a parent should do whatever he can to support such independence on the part of the child. There is a logical sort of hierarchy to learning -- and there are mental and physical facts which delimit what a child is capable of doing at any given time -- but if a child desires to go beyond that hierarchy one should treat that desire like a gift from god, not something to be squashed out of fear. Some of the best things that an independent child can learn are those things which he has a strong desire to know and experience. To teach a child that certain things are bad for him, because supposedly he is not ready for that, is to teach a child that the world is not open to his reach and that his own interests conflict with the nature of things. In short, kiss the ground that your child walks upon when he wants to explore on his own, above and beyond what the "hierarchy" prescribes.

It is one thing to explain your own ideas to Objectivists, but it is another thing entirely to presume to speak for the Objectivist view. I take offense to the absurd notion of considering the murder of a child to be a morally proper act, and it is obscenely absurd to suggest that such an horrific act is somehow justified under Objectivism. Please speak for yourself and your own ideas, and let Objectivists speak for themselves.

Two, no less. Congratulations! Based on what you wrote, sounds like you will be a good Dad. Have fun.

I'm sorry to hear you are not getting more of what you want. Others have reported somewhat differently, so I am not sure what to make of it. Regardless, good luck in all your studies.

Have you considered the possibility of additional study as the OAC? One of the nice things about that is, aside from the specialty presentation of the course work, is that you have philosophical mentors to give guidance, some of who, not that long ago, went through exactly what you are going through. Betsy just put out a Cybernet Update today on the OAC ------------------------------------- APRIL 26TH - OAC APPLICATION DEADLINE ------------------------------------- The Objectivist Academic Center is now accepting applications to its undergraduate program for the Fall. The deadline is April 26, 2004. The undergraduate program is a systematic course of study designed to give aspiring intellectuals a thorough grounding in the basics of Ayn Rand's philosophy. For more information on their program and how to apply, visit their Web site <http://www.aynrand.org/academic>.

You're welcome.

I second that, and even third it! The letters give a wonderful view of the personal style of Ayn Rand, a total antithesis of the stereotypical image by which she is portrayed by her detractors. The love of life, the joy of friends, the care and attention for doing things right, and the patience to explain to those with whom she disagreed, yet valued. A thoroughly enjoyable read.

There is at least one private Objectivist parenting list. The sheer pleasure of being again in a child's world, of seeing that world on a moment by moment basis from the perspective of a child's discovery. The incredible delight in watching, and aiding, the growth of a mind. The love and affection to be lavishly shared. More to love is good. Another pal to play with. At the beach, riding bikes, throwing balls, going to Disneyland, seeing movies. Sleepovers with all the friends. Nothing quite like haqving a bunch of kids running around. There are a million different reasons for having a child, and different people will have different reasons. For me, it was, and is, the most fun that can be done legally. I have also learned a lot about psychology which I had not the opportunity to discover before. As many as you can handle and fit into your lifestyle. It is probably a good idea to space them out at least two or three years. The kind of attention which children need changes drastically as they develop, and having a spacing gives you a better opportunity to handle more than one. Personally, I do not think most people who do have children, should. I think children deserve to have an awful lot of care and attention, and the parents need to arrange the rest of their lives to insure that that happens. If you cannot devote the time and effort necessary, then don't have children. I do not mean to sound overly harsh, but this sort of notion is probably the worst reason to have children. Children are not a duty for man's survival. They are an absolute pleasure in and of themselves, if you have the right mental set for wanting and enjoying a child. If you cannot mentally see yourself in the role of being a parent, and thinking that the experience is the best thing next to your wife, then forget the children. Children deserve more. I've snipped the rest, which I now see is a more detailed explication of this sense of duty for the sake of genetic extension. I implore you -- do not have kids. On this premise you will just make their life miserable, as well as your own.

Compared to the other areas of Objectivist philosophy there really is not much to say about metaphysics beyond existence exists, and its several corollaries. Peikoff's "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand," has some nice discussion, and of course there is metaphysical material to be found in Ayn Rand's "Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology." Here is short paper which may interest you, written by a young Objectivist philosophy student. http://www.geocities.com/rationalphysics/U...nded_Finite.htm

"redfarmer," I have repeated the entirety of your words because what you wrote is deserving of being read again, and again. What you express is beautifully written, but many people have the sort of epiphany you describe in response to reading "Atlas Shrugged." What you should be particularly proud of, however, is your statement of personal resolve to live the sort of life that makes the fiction of the book, a reality for yourself. You are right, it is hard work to live right, but living right is exactly what makes living a value. The best to you in your studies of the philosophy, and here is to your success in applying it. You have already taken the first major step towards accomplishing that.

I appealed to you with facts at 8:06 pm two days ago, and you have not given me even the courtesy of a response. What is the point of publicly suggesting to others that they appeal, if privately you do not respond?

Yes, I like all of the art deco buildings I saw. Thanks.

You're welcome.

"Student," what you are saying, in essence, is that some people are born with the ability to think and be rational, and some not. When put that way, it is clear why you are having difficulty grasping the role of volition; you have already assumed the premise that we are not volitional, that we act the way we are already programmed to do. It is that premise which you need to root out, in light of careful consideration of the how a volitional consciousness actually works. You cannot get directly into the mind of others, so rather than exploring your notion that some people are "just born stupid or sheepish," explore the thought which you have that your own rationality is just built-in. That you can do first-hand. The primary choice which is open to you at any given moment, is not the complex statement "I will be rational in thinking about this," but rather the choice to focus your mind, or not. Or, more precisely, the form that such a choice takes is to either raise or lower the level of your focus. The basic premise here is that, you are volitionally in control of establishing your mental apparatus at a level appropriate to the task at hand. For instance, when confronted with a difficult problem, you can choose to raise the level of your conscious awareness. Note that this is entirely different from the process of thinking. Thinking is a complex logical process extending over a period of time, but focus is the mental state chosen as a precondition to thinking. Note also that focus is different from concentration. Concentration also presupposes an already existing level of focus, and is itself a narrowing of one's awareness to give attention to some facts, to the exclusion of others. Harry Binswanger has characterized focus as a choice to "be in control of and monitor" one's mental state. This is saying, in effect, that the primary volitional choice that we make is the choice to manage our mind, or not. Now, we certainly continue to make choices all along our higher-level thought processes, guiding our minds to arrive at a reasonable result for our effort. And, we should pride ourselves and take credit for our proper exercise of the entire thinking process. Nevertheless, all thinking and concentration has a more primary choice which underlies it, and that is the primary choice to focus, or not. This is the fundamental volitional choice we all make. That is what is provided by our nature -- an escapable requirement of our conscious activity -- and how we exercise that primary choice sets the stage for all the thinking that follows, or the lack thereof. I would suggest to "student" that he purposively monitor his own mental processes and try to identify in his own consciousness the sort of distinctions which I have drawn. I would also recommend many of Harry Binswanger's lectures on consciousness, and Leonard Peikoff's "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand," both of which discuss in more detail the sort of ideas which I have presented here. The lectures and books are all available from the Ayn Rand Bookstore, online at http://www.aynrandbookstore.com/

As I have grown older I have achieved more control of the world that I live in. I had much less choice when I first started out, as to the environment in which I would work. Now, at a professional level, I am surrounded by people who are quite rational in their work, and therefore I find a great deal of rationality in my interactions with them. Dismuke is certainly correct that we will encounter irrationality in people throughout our lives, but I am suggesting to "redfarmer" that he try and hold onto the perspective that perhaps such encounters will lessen as he progresses in his career. No guarantee, but a distinct possibility. Also, I have noticed that the young generally tend to take other's irrationality more personally than older folks do. As good people on good premises develop, they naturally gain a stronger sense of confidence in themselves, and generally feel more comfortable with their being. Being more confident tends to lessen the emotional response to irrationality; surety that the problem is with the other and not a reflection on oneself. p.s. Dismuke, that lovely picture you use as your avatar is so familiar, but I cannot place it. Where is it from?

We need to be clear about what we mean by free will. Volition, in its most fundamental sense, refers to the single action of choice . But, we are not disembodied spirits, nor do we possess the godly power of omnipotence. Our physical body is part of what defines our nature -- our genetic makeup is part of our identity -- and our nature delimits the actions which we are capable of performing. Likewise our experience and knowledge provide the mental context which helps to shape our views and decisions. What we choose is constrained by all of the relevant facts of reality -- physical and mental -- but the fact of choosing is the inescapable action that we as volitional beings perform. To have "no limitations at all" is, in effect, to have no identity. It is in our nature to choose, but having a nature means that we have an identity, both physical and mental characteristics which make us what we are.