DPW
-
Posts
559 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by DPW
-
-
The law of identity is not a concept; it is a proposition. Identity is a concept naming a thing all existents have, namely their "thing-ness"; it is an attribute, actually.
Identity is not an attribute.
-
First of all, thank you to everyone who has subscribed so far. The response in this regard has been pretty overwhelming. Keep in mind, however, that the lifeblood of an Objectivist magazine is the articles, and that means we are always looking for writers. If you would be interested in writing for Axiomatic, please feel free to email me at [email protected]. Now to the issue...
Issue 3 of Axiomatic is now available. Inside this issue:
The Rationalist Corruption of Sex by Don Watkins III
Some people use sex in an attempt to gain, rather than express, self-esteem. They view it as a test of their worth: they are good if they get the girl; if they don’t, they’re not. Sadly, a variant of this attitude is widespread among a certain class of Objectivists. These individuals also view sex, not as an expression of self-esteem, but as its test. Only their standard isn’t whether they get the girl (or guy): it’s which guy or girl they choose to sleep with.
Einstein’s Contribution to Quantum Theory — Part 3 of 3 by Travis Norsen
Understanding Einstein’s objections to the orthodox quantum theory — and the details of his attempts to construct a reasonable alternative — is a necessary first step toward untangling the quantum mess and constructing a fully rational theory.
Ayn Rand vs. Hollywood’s Self-Censorship — Part 2 of 3 by David P. Hayes
David Hayes chronicles Ayn Rand’s experiences with Hollywood self-censorship during her years as a screenwriter.
The Axiomatic Interview with Diana Mertz Hsieh
Diana Hsieh discusses her break with The Objectivist Center, the errors in David Kelley’s philosophy, and Objectivism’s status as a closed system.
-
Woman Sues For 'wrongful Life'
At first reading, this sounds quite silly. But that's the world these days
Well, just wait until the remedy: if she wins, the doctor has to kill her!
-
Axiomatic - Volume I, Issue 2 is available at http://www.axiomaticmagazine.com. Inside this issue:
Ayn Rand vs. Hollywood’s Self-Censorship – Part 1 of 3 by David P. Hayes
David Hayes chronicles Ayn Rand's experiences with Hollywood self-censorship during her years as a screenwriter.
Embracing Existence by Don Watkins III
While Ayn Rand said that morality begins with the choice to live, she spent virtually no time discussing what that choice consists of. Yet this is not a question we can gloss over. Merely to say, “We should do X if we choose to live,” fails to appreciate the importance of that choice, what it is we’re really choosing, and how we go about making it. To grasp the basis for the Objectivist ethics, answering those questions is essential.
Einstein’s Contribution to Quantum Theory – Part 2 of 3 by Travis Norsen
Understanding Einstein’s objections to the orthodox quantum theory — and the details of his attempts to construct a reasonable alternative — is a necessary first step toward untangling the quantum mess and constructing a fully rational theory.
The Frenzied Fans of Serenity by Daniel Schwartz
Serenity’s heroes are ideals that we can look up to. But unlike the quixotic heroes presented in such films as The Passion of the Christ or Spiderman, these people actually belong here beside us. They can and do exist — and succeed.
The Axiomatic Interview with James Valliant
James Valliant discusses the response to his very important and very controversial book, The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics: The Case Against The Brandens.
For more information, visit http://www.axiomaticmagazine.com
Thanks,
Don Watkins, Publisher
-
For the record, I agree completely with everything Dave just wrote.
-
Metaphysically the most fundamental alternative is life/death but epistemologically the fundamental choice is to think or not to think (identification preceedes evaluation).
There are a couple issues here. Yes, epistemologically, the choice is to think or not, and to evaluate we first have to identify. But the question is, why do all that? Why think in the first place? The only reason to do it is in order to achieve values. Knowledge is not inherently good -- it's good because we need it in order to live.
But this is an issue of perspective. Hierarchically, epistemology precedes ethics. Knowing how to think precedes knowing how to live (it precedes knowing that "how to live" is moral standard).
Developmentally, neither of these is completely accurate. As children, we don't think in order to live. We don't even think in order to gain other values: we do it because it's pleasurable. All other things being equal, children enjoy using their minds and gaining knowledge. It's only later, as adults, that we can identify the vital importance of this process and see that the reason thinking is so pleasurable is because it serves our total well-being -- and if this is the standard we embrace, then thinking is essential.
Psychologically, on the other hand, there is no clear distinction between the choice to think and the choice to live -- for more on this point, see my article, "Embracing Existence," in the forthcoming issue of Axiomatic.
So what's more fundamental? It depends!
-
What do you think about this?
As stated, that's absolutely wrong. The only reason one should be rational is because one wants to live. There is nothing in reality that demands objectivity except the choice to remain in reality. Outside the context of ethics, outside of the context of life or death, there are no "shoulds." The implicit implication is that man has a duty to gain knowledge, above and beyond his survival needs. He doesn't.
But this does not mean that people walk around being irrational until Objectivism tells them morality demands thought. A conceptual being cannot escape the knowledge that reason is his means of gaining knowledge, and he cannot escape the knowledge, in some terms, he needs knowledge in order to live. So while there is no reason to be rational except the choice to live, not knowing Rand's ethical argument is not a license to be irrational.
-
Thanks for that link. It's great to know that all Booknotes interviews are available online...for free! (Even Nathaniel Branden's...Heaven help us.)
-
Favorite TV shows: Family Guy (most laughs per minute), The Simpsons (most consistently funny show ever), South Park (the greatest modern satire), Seinfeld (no show is more clever).
Favorite movies: Mr. Deeds (extremely benevolent humor), Happy Gilmore (one of the few comedies that I've seen a million times and which still makes me laugh), Naked Gun (the only funny slapstick...well, besides Airplane), American Pie (what can I say...even toilet humor works once in a while), The Postman (not technically a comedy, but so bad it's funny), Dumb and Dumber (didn't like it at first, but it turns out that it gets funnier every time you see it).
Favorite comedians: Ellen Degeneris (very funny...and benevolent), Mitch Hedberg (my personal favorite...although I'm still mad at him for dying of a drug overdose), Chris Rock (the only person I can stand who does racial humor).
-
If you want to validate Objectivism for yourself, why do you need to know what anyone else thinks at all? You should compare Objectivism to reality, not other philosophies, to determine its truth/falsehood.
True enough, but grasping which philosophical errors Rand was responding to in certain passages sheds a lot of light on your understanding of Objectivism.
-
a thought is not its biochemical process, strictly speaking.
Look at it another way: the claim that a thought is merely a biochemical process makes exactly as much sense as the claim that a biochemical process is merely a thought.
-
The Lord Radburn writes:
It seems that as long as thoughts are chemical reactions, we have nothing to save free will or volition.That's true. But you should check your premises. Our thoughts are not "simply chemical interactions in our brain." They are our thoughts. They may have a physical component, but that doesn't mean they are reducible to that physical component.
In fact, volition is self-evident. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, you can't use complex scientific discoveries, such as the existence of neuro-chemicals, to undercut the self-evident fact of volition.
What you are doing is re-writing reality, or trying to. A scientific theory that contradicted the evidence of the senses is obviously invalid, right? That's because evidence of the senses is self-evident. It's the material we use to test scientific theories and reach scientific truths. Well, any scientific theory that denies volition is in the same position as a scientific theory that conflicts with observations: it is contradicting a self-evident fact.
The question is not, does volition conflict with scientific laws? If it did, then we'd have to reject the scientific law. The question iinstead is, what scientific laws explain volition? But we need not be able to answer that question in order to know we have volition, any more than cavemen had to understand how sense perception worked in order to know that they should run away at the sight of a sabertooth tiger.
-
Donnywithana -- I'm not sure why, if you really didn't think that on some level your escapades would impress us, you would go into such detail on a public board. Let me say that they don't and that I highly discourage anyone else from doing the same. Besides, do you think any of these girls would appreciate you describing your encounters with them in such terms? On the Internet? You made some valid points, but you could have done so without the level of detail you subjected us to.
The only reason I'm saying this publicly rather than by PM, by the way, is because you're not the first one to do this. A few months back, we actually endured the spectacle of two guys vying for the title of "biggest pimp" while simultaneously condemning their earlier promiscuity.
You might also note that I have been very vocal in my opposition to the Puritanical streak a lot of people on this board have, so this is not me being prude or repressed. Rather, it's that while I'm happy you want to contribute your thoughts to this discussion, I don't want to picture you naked. Sorry.
-
I don't think there's any such thing as knowing more than you "need" about anything. Need for what? At worst, it makes good story fodder.
That's a good point. That statement is imprecise. I believe it was intended to mean, "Necessary for your career goals." But strictly speaking, no knowledge is useless. It depends on what goal you have in obtaining it.
-
Well, in my own case, I fall somewhere in between "more than an amateur" and "enough to be a philosopher." Since my goal is to be an innovator in the field of psychology, I need a very detailed, rich understanding of Objectivism to act as a foundation. But I do not need to grasp all (or even most) of the various ways in which philosophers can go wrong, nor be able to answer every kind of crazy objection philosophers would raise against Objectivism.
-
However, it does not negate the concept that thinking is man's basic means of survival to understand that in some circumstances, no amount of reason or thinking over a limited amount of time will change a situation, create resources that don't exist, etc. I would suggest his point moreso illustrates the difficulty of stating a hypothetical that is so complete in context that it can't be thought around. That the scenario and question lacked sufficient context doesn't mean a real life situation could not occur in which the "moral" question would still be open for evaluation.
Oh, I agree and I thing Andy would as well. But his point, or mine anyway, was that it's not even worth discussing true lifeboat situations because by their very nature, there are no principles to discuss. All you can say about them is they are outside the realm of ethics. That's it.
-
Ah good, it is good to hear that some of the actors in the movie stand out then.
I forgot to ask this before, but overall, what is your impresson of the movie? It is quite accurate to the novel? What might you rate it out of ten?
As to its accuracy, it was as faithful to the novel as one could expect from a two-hour movie. This, of course, is thanks most of all to Ayn Rand's valliant efforts to ensure that the film was shot exactly as she wrote it. But the film did not have any real emotion to it. I didn't buy that Cooper loved architecture and that basically ruined the movie for me. Overall, I would say that while it repeats the events of The Fountainhead, it misses its essence. If I tried to judge it purely on its own merits, however, I would give it a five.
-
-
I once heard Andy Bernstein answer a similar lifeboat question. Someone asked him, "If you and another person were stranded on a desert island and there was a boat only able to hold one of you, what would morality say you should do?" Without skipping a beat, Andy said, "Build a bigger boat." His point was that lifeboat scenerios are designed to cut man's mind off from his survival, but that even in real-life lifeboat scenerios, that is not the case. Thinking is still man's basic means of survival.
-
My impression in the book is that the decision is already made, by virtue of Roark's integrity, and Roark is merely portrayed enduring contemplating the hardship that is inevitable.
The rest of your post is fine, but this is a very dangerous sentence. It implies that Roark has integrity, and so his decisions will fall in line with his integrity. But this is wrong, at least as stated. Roark's integrity isn't what causes him to make the choices he does. It's making the choices he does that allows us to say he has integrity. To put it another way, the fact that Roark had integrity up until that point did not change the fact that he could have evaded in that moment. Yes, even Roark had the power to evade. The reason he didn't wasn't because of his character...it's because he chose not to.
Now, there is such a thing as character, which can make it easier or more difficult to act according to your conscious convictions. When you have internalized and automatized certain premises over the cousrse of a lifetime, virtue -- while never automatic -- becomes what Aristotle called "second nature." So Roark's integrity was second nature, but in this most extreme case, it still took a great effort for him to make himself see the facts clearly, to hold in his mind the full context. His greatness came from the fact that he did do it.
-
It is unreasonable to say that I do not understand it because I think it is too long. All that indicates is that I am of the the opinion that it could be shorter or broken into smaller peices that tie together, without lessening its impact or effect. I obviously do not find it to be so economical. And on what basis do you say there is no grounds for a rational person to conclude she "drones on" in that speech? I assume you mean because of its message. Which implies that you think that the message overrides the weither or not more words than neccessary. That is irrational. Weither or not someone drones on is based on weither or not they use an excessive number of words not what there message is.
Look, I'm not going to debate this point with you because you haven't shown in the least that you have any grasp of Objectivism whatever. That would be no sin on your part, except that you keep making pronouncements about it. As Dave pointed out, given the theme of Atlas Shrugged, Galt's Speech was as long as it needed to be. This is not my opinion, it is a fact. I would ask you what you would suggest Rand cut from that speech, but please don't answer that question. I do not have the stomach to watch someone such as yourself try to edit Galt's Speech.
-
My problem with this is: This theory cannot be falsified. It has to be taken on faith.
If that's your only problem with it, you're missing the more important point: Popper's theory isn't true. There's no reason to accept. There are absolutely no grounds for concluding that we can only know what's false and not what's true.
For a lengthy critical treatment of Popper (which I recall being good but which I haven't read in years), try this.
-
Firstly I mean exactly what I said. And an example is John Galt's 60 or so page speech in Atlas Shrugged. No matter the content that is too long. And yes I do agree with Objectivism.
Well, you obviously don't understand it, since no one who understands Objectivism could see Galt's Speech as anything other than the most economical, eloquent statement of Ayn Rand's philosophy. I mean this literally -- there are no grounds for a rational person to conclude she "drones on" in that speech. If you think so, you haven't understood a thing.
Of course, as it stands, that's just an assertion on my part. So let me say this to you: if you say you agree with Objectivism, you must have thought long and hard before you so blithly insulted Ayn Rand's work: what reasons led you to conclude that she was "droning on" in Galt's Speech?
-
The only scene I can point to (without re-watching the movie) was when Roark was finally offered a commision... on the condition that he make major changes. In the movie Cooper's Roark agonized over the decision; the real Roark, though maybe heatbroken, didn't have to think for a second. The decision was a foregone conclusion.
That is absolutely not true. Thinking was precisely what Roark did have to do. He was struggling with the toughest decision he ever had to face. What decision? His very real need of the commission and the integrity of his building. In order to make that decision, he had to exercise effort -- the effort of holding in his mind the full context of the decision.
Turning now to action, any individual, however rational, may experience temptation at times. He may be tempted to take a wrong action by an out-of-context emotion. This is in no way immoral, so long as the individual does not act on the emotion, but looks at reality and summons the full context to consciousness, thereby reclaiming his knowledge of the action's harmful consequences. When a rational man thus reasserts the facts, the temptation vanishes (assuming he holds no subconscious contradictions on the issue). In purely physical cases, the pattern is obvious to everyone. A person may be eager to eat a succulent pie; but not if he discovers that the juice is poison. For Objectivism, moral evil is the spiritual equivalent of poison. There is no element of soul or body urging men to succumb to such a thing; there is no inbuilt attraction to falsehood, brainlessness, or suicide.The challenge of a man's life is not to struggle against immoral passions, but to see the facts of reality clearly, in full focus. Once a man has done this in a given situation, there is no further difficulty in regard to him acting on what he sees. When integrity is recognized to be a matter of self-preservation, <opar_262> its practice comes to seem irresistible. Thus Ayn Rand's eloquent reply, when she was praised for her courage in fighting the Establishment. "I am not brave enough to be a coward," she said. "I see the consequences too clearly."
(OPAR 261)
Self-Esteem
in Ethics
Posted
Conventional studies don't distinguish between genuine self-esteem and pseudo self-esteem. This is an example of that.