Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

HaloNoble6

Regulars
  • Posts

    1097
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by HaloNoble6

  1. Okay, sorry this has taken me so long, but I've been rather busy. Now, I looked through the literature and compiled a 6-page document of all the contents of most of Ayn Rand's non-fiction books. At first, I thought I would just skim through the titles of these sections and kind of pick and choose which belonged in which sections of OPAR. Then I thought it would be better to start with the list of footnotes Dr. Peikoff uses in his chapters of OPAR. Through this process, I realized how incredibly daunting it is to organizing all of Miss Rand's works into a coherent, interconnected hierarchy. So, I decided I would take it one step at a time, one chapter in OPAR at a time. So, I shall begin with chapter one. I've found that most of her work is focused on the evaluative branches of philosophy, viz. ethics, politics, and aesthetics. There is a large volume of supplemental material for these respective sections in OPAR. Plan of Action Since I thought up this idea, I plan on leading this discussion group, that is until/unless someone with better ideas and more leadership volunteers. Here's what I suggest: I will propose a specific number of days to read X number of pages. Upon your approval, we will proceed to read through each section/sub-section in each chapter of OPAR. During this process, we will pause to reach for supplemental material upon reaching a footnote that promises to elucidate the present discussion further, or upon reaching a section/passage/concept where any one of us thinks of relevant supplemental material. At this point in time, I think Dr. P's footnotes are sufficient, but we will be free to digress at will. This will get more daunting as we proceed through the evaluative branches of the philosophy. Here's what I propose for the first chapter in OPAR. Reality This chapter in OPAR can be supplemented with a number of sections in IOE, viz. those that discuss "axiom," "entity," and "implicit." Furthermore, this section can also be supplemented by her essay in PWNI: "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made." I counted about 70 pages for reading chapter 1 and the relevant supplemental material. Considering my research/classes/blogging/posting/feeding dogs/Half-life2/living schedule, I propose reading 10 pages a night. I would suggest taking hand-written notes of questions one might have. At any point in this process, one may post questions/comments on the pertinent topic in the message board (we will need someone to establish these subforums, David). If anyone has anything to add, any comments, please do so. These are my initial thoughts. Are these plans acceptable, and if so, who's on board?
  2. This is an off-topic remark, so let me know if you'd like to see it as a separate thread: Doesn't it seem like GW has deliberately modeled himself as a neo-FDR? Nevermind that GW, like FDR, is a war president--GW has passed huge increases in welfare-state funding (like FDR's New Deal), AND has made a mockery of the rule of law (like FDR did, when he unsuccessfully tried to add six additional judges of his choosing to the Supreme Court).
  3. Let me also add that the religionist moral idea might have zero to do with this situation--the conservatives might be taking action for the following reasons: They are trying to muscle in to a position of complete moral leadership of the country for political gain. or Trying to set a precedent where the government intervened to save a life, no matter how non-human it was. This would have serious repercussions for abortion, where the government would now appear to be justified in protecting the life of a fetus, considering it is similar to Terri Schiavo in its quality of non-humanness. Or both
  4. Of course, you are right--the moral standard for religionists is, for the most part, the sacrifice of value in this world for a greater good in the "after world." In this particular case it is manifest in the sacrifice of Terri's right to life through the violation of her wishes, as described by her husband, for the "greater good" of "erring on the side of life" (note that erring on the side of death is what they're actually doing, if indeed she is incapable of volition).
  5. Thank you for that wonderfully reasoned post, drewfactor. I suppose, then, that the only question, if indeed it still remains, is to what extent is Terri Schiavo brain dead, or as you put it, to what extent can she engage in consciously purposeful activity? I add the "consciously" modifier because in a general sense, all biological activity can be deemed "purposeful," the question with man is whether or not it is rooted in volition, rather than just in biological consequences.
  6. TomL hit the nail right on the head. I've personally tried a relationship with a religious person (before I fully understood the application of the trader principle to romantic relationships), so maybe I can add my two cents. Somehow, this person I had dated kept their religious mysticism compartmentalized, isolated, boxed in from the rest of her mind's activity. She was an engineer, and pretty good at it. She worshiped competence in living life successfully. Both of these facts presupposed her valuing of reason, which she managed to do despite her belief in God (which is the value of a form of anti-reason). The relationship didn't last very long because eventually the topic of religion and God crept in. At the time, I remember thinking that I could "teach" this person to move away from faith, especially by reasoned argument and by pointing to how she lived the rest of her life. This failed; she adamantly clung to her religious beliefs, eventually making the relationship unpleasant for the both of us (she was actually the one to pull the plug). The fact is that faith in God is a trait rooted in the absence of reason, and so long as a person clings to this faith, they could not possibly value an Objectivist's wish to apply reason 100% of the time to the entirety of his life. My advice, in general, is to attempt to assess the degree to which a potential partner is a person of faith. Sometimes people aren't really "faithful," even though they profess to be. However, if you discover a deep-rooted or even mildly-serious faith in God, then you will likely find that trading with this person will not bring equal value to you. Remember, if one wishes to engage in a romantic relationship, one should <i>only</i> be looking for an equal, not someone who could not possibily live up to you, nor someone <i>you</i> could not possibily live up to.
  7. If it were known a priori that hotel guests actually read texts left in their rooms (I would guess that they don't sit and read the bible), then I would say this is a good idea. Otherwise, I suspect that the costs outweigh the minimal benefits of mere exposure to the Atlas/Fountainhead book cover and/or back/inside-cover blurbs. You're thinking outside the box, however, keep it up. Maybe ARI could donate a short, attention-grabbing pamphlet that would be strategically placed in the hotel room, instead of stashed in some drawer like the bible?
  8. Well, after much thought and consideration, I must admit (with the help of many here and others like Free Capitalist) that I see I've been rather draconian in my enforcement of what I interpret as the forum policy. Driven by a desire to improve the posting quality in the forum, I have gone beyond what can be clearly interpreted from the forum rules. As such, I will, as of now, only enforce what is clear from the forum rules. This means the following: -No redundant questions -No bad grammar, spelling and punctuation -No posts with zero intellectual content -No drastic deviations from the thread topic -No improper links -And everything in the "Prohibited behavior" section After careful consideration, I have concluded that taking the issue of point-by-point responding, and that of posting style in general, up with the rest of the moderators and admins in the moderators forum is in order. When a conclusion is arrived at, I or someone else will make an announcement. Your input as to an appropriate rule regarding quoting is and will continue to be appreciated. I would like to say that I in no way intended to stifle discourse, nor to make posting a hassle. I want nothing more than to see the posting quality in the forum improved. Since this is not a personal thank you, but a thank you to many members, I'd like to say thank you to all that used reason to politely point out the errors in my reasoning.
  9. However, since this guideline was within the "Improper quoting and scope" section of the basic etiquette, and NOT in the "Failing to stay on topic" section where it explicitly states what you are saying (to stay within a thread, i.e. within a "topic" in forum parlance), "topic" here means idea. It is obvious, from context, that this guideline is about how to post within a specific thread. Why have two sections that prohibit one from responding to multiple "topics" (in forum technical parlance)? Long posts that address multiple points within a particular post or multiple people within a particular thread are not allowed. This is not an invention of mine. I've run this by GC and he agrees. It is a shame that the word "topic" was used. I will ask about changing this for clarity. Now, until he steps into this thread and states clearly what is policy, I will no longer moderate in this forum nor post in this thread.
  10. I'm afraid you are having difficulty understanding the policy. The guideline is: What part about SPLIT UP YOUR RESPONSE INTO MULTIPLE POSTS is unclear? Posts that address multiple points ARE NOT ALLOWED.
  11. I had never heard of those quotes, CF, very pleasant indeed! Now I understand why North Koreans call him human scum! When did he make these quotes and in what context?
  12. First of all, notice that I'm the only one moderating, and I can't dedicate my entire day to moderation. Therefore, that is why I'm unable to universally enforce policy that, for such a long time, has not being enforced. Now, I agree that the rule is unclear, so let me clarify. Point-by-point responses are indicative of a post trying to address several points made by a particular poster all at once, and of quoting another post when it isn't actually necessary to quote. Consider the following two guidelines: -Posts should generally attempt to answer one particular point at a time. Long-winded posts that try to answer multiple points are more often then not not read, simply because they are so long. People like short, to-the-point posts, not huge ones that try to answer all the points in the thread or in a particular post. -Posts should quote another only when summarizing is difficult, or when quoting exact words is absolutely necessary. The practice of point-by-point responses, where quote after quote is addressed, in most cases violates the above two guidelines. I have conferred with GC and he agrees. If this isn't clear enough, I can try to be clearer.
  13. Rational One of post #10: Okay, then we are in agreement. I agree that in certain contexts, a personal statement is warranted, merely because certain threads flow as actual discussions would. What I'm against, and which you seem to be with me on, are posts that contribute zero intellectual content to the thread.
  14. Capitalism Forever: True enough, I don't own the forum. I do, however, have GC's sanction to try to improve the posting quality in the board. We share the concern that the forum has seen a diminishing quality in posts, and we agree that this should change. I'm doing this through the enforcement of already-existing policy (which, it appears, no one has actually been enforcing), as well as new policy which has been approved. If specific actions of mine appear to be going above and beyond the enforcement of policy, please let me know, and I will correct the matter (as I did with the deletion of threads). [edit: added last parenthetical comment]
  15. Software Nerd of post #4, Re: deletion of thread about a blog-- If the thread was turning out some good material, then someone could've possible started a new thread based on this material. I think the actual discussion of the blog could've been done at the actual blog, not here. What's the point of having a blog, and to discuss posts you make in it, in an outside forum? I hope it's clear that I'm only trying to improve the quality of the posts around here, not that I'm trying to be a jerk.
  16. Responding to false ideas is not equivalent to sanctioning them, Rational One. I'm advising the use of all the tools at one's disposal, including writing op-eds and letters to the editor. Ignoring bad ideas, when they are indeed popular, just won't do.
  17. Rational One of post #6: I'm not against personal acknowledgment, but I'm against posts that are just that. If it is crucial that, in the course of discussion, one needs to make one's position clear, then include it in an overall post. Don't just post "I agree" and end of story. I don't think this rule is absurd. Furthermore, to claim a rule is "not rational" is to claim that the person who originated it is "not rational," since rules as such can't be rational or not. So, I'd suggest you be more careful with your words, Rational One. Personal insults are not welcome. I'm making an effort here to clean up and improve the posts, not to make posting impossible.
  18. Actually, the paper's opinion pieces are still influential enough to, for example, force a prominent Democratic Senator to write in a letter to the editor (as Senator Joe Lieberman recently wrote to rebuff Krugman himself, actually). And, since FNC is mentioned above, notice that it is still influential enough to make "the most powerful show in cable news" pay attention quite frequently. Either way, I don't think there is any scientific polling that indicates that the opinion print media produced by the Times is less influential in driving the country's intellectual discourse than, say, O'Reilly. One other point, it's not exactly accurate to say that an opinion piece by the Times would make one switch to FNC to watch the straight up news reporting, which I agree tends to be more objective than the straight up reporting of the Times. That is, I think it'd be accurate to say "nobody cares about the Times opinion editorials, everyone watches O'Reilly for opinion anyway." I agree that people are less and less getting their news reporting from the Times, but as I said in my first post, I think the times still has a lot of power in terms of setting the terms of the intellectual discourse in the country, as can be deduced from the fact that even O'Reilly pays frequent attention to it. And even if this was not coming from an influential opinion source, I think this is a fruitful exercise in practicing philosophical detection. Final point, fighting stupidity that comes out of a clearly popular media outfit, that clearly shapes (to an extent) the intellectual discourse in this country, is not a waste of time, it is an act to defend the values we hold dear. If, as was said implied above, "everybody's switching to FNC," why would anyone ever write letters to the editor to anyone except FNC, or editorials at all? Does that mean Dr. Binswanger wastes his time by writing opinion pieces to the Louisville Courier-Journal, for example? One of the many goals of being a new intellectual is to get your voice out there, to fight madness and stupidity with every tool you've got. I try to write letters to the editor to as many papers as I have the time to read. Also, I often write to O'Reilly and Cavuto (one of which got read on his show a few weeks ago). Refuting this kind of stupidity cleanly and thoroughly on paper is an excellent exercise, in my opinion; one we should all practice. [edit: added strike through]
  19. Re: object of concentration when trying to fall asleep. I try to concentrate on relaxation. That is, I count down from 10 to 1 and when I reach 1 I tell myself to relax twice as much as I'm relaxed at present. I do this over and over until eventually I naturally fall asleep. Always works for me.
  20. I tend to keep track of the Times opinion-editorials simply because they, more than any other media group, tend to set the terms of the intellectual discourse in the country. In a recent opinion piece, Paul Krugman attacks laissez-faire capitalism. Here are the relevant lines: As an exercise in philosophic detection, I ask the following: what are all the wrong elements in the above passage, i.e. what's wrong with his argument, what is wrong with his premises, what bad concepts is he using, etc.? Furthermore, what would be an appropriate and concise response to his piece?
  21. No, I'm sorry, FaSheezy, I was operating on wrong premises. See this post. Continue on with your programing.
  22. There are issues that need to be resolved as to the purpose of the misc. forum and specifically the one you bring up. That is, the need for a "social club." Upon further consideration, I was wrong to delete the post on C programing on the basis that it did not contribute any philosophical discourse. My decision was based on a specific understanding of the scope of this site, which I am currently fleshing out with GC. Please accept my apologies for acting on incorrect premises. I am reinstating the C programing thread, as well as the video game thread. <b>UPDATE</b>: After a lengthy conversation with GC over the purpose and guidelines of the Misc. forum, I have come to the following understanding: -Absolutely anything that comes to mind, that is not covered in the other forums, is allowed. -The basic posting etiquette outlined in the forum rules STILL APPLY. Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding. Please continue with your threads on C programing and on Witchcraft, as I've moved them back into posting position.
  23. Thread closed by request of topic starter, Moose.
  24. Let me just say that I'm only trying to improve the quality of posting in the forum. Also, I'd like to change the posting mentality most exhibit here. That is, the mentality of arguing with each other on a personal level. This forum should be a bastion for intellectual argumentation, not one for one-on-one show-downs. I think rampant personal chatter is a consequence of this mentality, so that is my reasoning behind my effort to combat it. Furthermore, considering the fact that the database the forum runs on is limited, and considering the fact that the purpose of the forum is to exchange ideas, not personal messages, then personal chatter is wasteful. With all this in consideration, I will say that minor, subtle, personal chatter is okay. I will be lenient on this policy until I have a good handle on the extent to which personal chatter is okay. If posters want to act like this is an AOL chat room, however, then there's an actual chat room for that. And, I think we agree, posts that are solely personal chatter are not allowed.
  25. <strike>This thread has nothing to do with exchanging philosophical ideas, please carry on through PM or email.</strike> Please continue with this discussion, I deleted the thread based on the wrong premise. See this post.
×
×
  • Create New...