student

Thanks again people, it's clear you are trying to help. Christianity. Yes, this is it. The idea that somehow by doing what is considered irrational by Objectivist standards, one is somehow "morally wrong" in some greater sense over and above the obvious penalties of behaving stupidly and making errors. It's as if Miss Rand is trying to use the tried and true Christian model of placing some "higher" type blame on those that don't see it her way, I have always thought. To be in error has it's own heavy price, but by saying it's not only your fault, but also that you "deserve" the consequences has always been what I thought the point of free will was always about. Yes, you didn't plan for winter and today you starve, but also that you deserve to starve because you didn't "choose" to plan. Sort of redundant really, I guess, but I never understood the point, unless it's to make the ones that "choose" correctly feel less obligation to those that don't. Am I making any sense? Yes, this is a great example of rational thinking, but I confess that I have always thought that those willing to harbor contradictions in their philosophies were more likely intellectual cowards than people breaking some important "moral" code. Then we could get into the slippery slope or what Miss Rand I believe called the "life boat scenario", where clearly some people are incapable of making choices, the brain dead, ect.., then to babies and on to severely mentally retarded, and then to mystics and on to Democrats and there to idiots and then morons, all the way up to the lesser primates and on then to students like myself and on to the simple and so on till one gets to the philosophers. Somewhere in there is a line, is there not, of blame? It so reminds me of the Christian idea of innocent until one has heard the "word", after which one is guilty of infidelity for noncompliance. At what point in this slippery slope do we declare 'they have heard the word'? At what point do we say guilty? I will answer Stephen's post presently. I don't want this post to be too long.

Well, I must say that at this point I am shocked that I have not been banned yet for posting opinions that run counter to the party line. Perhaps I was hasty in my rancor. Now, that said, as far as the quote above, I have stated that I agree with most of what Objectivism stands for and consider Ayn Rand to be one of the giants of Western thought. But I didn't come here to be touchy feely with yes people all agreeing on everything. Boring. I post my opinions where I see the most disagreement, and you might have noticed, as far as the morality of the war on Iraq goes, I'm not at a loss on this thread for that. The reasons for Islamic terrorism are due in most part to Israel's genocidal disregard for basic human rights in Palestine. Perhaps you are unaware of that. I don't know. The United States of America's foreign policy is determined by neo-con Israeli firsters. This is the reason for the war on Iraq and the future wars against Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea,(who's only crime that the neo-cons care about is the potential of selling nuks to one of Israel’s myriad enemies. Israel is not hated because of the Jews that live there, Israel is hated because of what they do; murder and expel Arabs and steel their land. I'm only waiting for someone on this forum to explain to me that God gave the land to the Jews after all. No more American blood or treasure because of the power of AIPAC on our government is all I'm saying. Is that so beyond the pale? Marxism enslaved Russia, the Ukraine and half of Europe for generations, at least the ones that it didn't genocide anyways. I'm hardly a Marxist. I'm an American who loves freedom and truth above all else. Objectivism is one of the tools rational people use to achieve both. That is why I posted here. Although there are many stooges here for the powers that be, I have to confess that my previous post was perhaps unfair. I was warned against straying from the party line and offending some of the posters here, so I was hasty in my criticisms. I expected to be banned and the fact that I'm not means that I was wrong. I stand corrected.

..."you would know to quit suggusting it." I know no such thing. I know you might prefer that I not think and just parrot the party line, but that would mean that I would have to break a long held conviction of mine against being a sheep. I have a mind and I will use it, think you very much. And BTW, it seems to me it is the sheep around here that are suggesting that Israel was the reason for the war by insisting that because Saddam paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers we had to go to war with him. See, the flock are repeating their catechism and I only point out that Israel is not the USA and our interests are not one and the same, no matter how many shills for George Bush or Ariel Sharon come out of the woodwork. I am deeply disappointed at this forum and it's members. What I thought would be an educational and interesting exchange has turned into an Orwelian nightmare of thought police for anyone who dares to crimethink- question the official dogmas and lies. The war on Iraq is the greatest crime of the perhaps a century, and it's only the beginning. You Zionazi's seem ready to spend every drop of young American blood and treasure to secure your insane delusion of a greater Israel and world slavery to some sick New World Order. And you would pervert every philosophy and idea in your beligerent and impossible goal of racial supremacy. Well guess what, GET A CLUE!

Betsy, I call myself a student because I am here to learn. I don't pretend to know a lot about Objectivism or philosophy, just enough to want to learn more. I have read most or all of Rands work, (I have been educated in the introduction board on the proper way to address Ayn Rand, and sorry for the familiar usage, something common among some of the people I discuss her work with alas. Seems one can almost get to "know" her), and I defer to your obvious knowledge and experience in the matter. That said, I must say that based on what you've written, I know more about what kind of "democracy" Israel actually has. And as far as individual rights are concerned, with the exception of some of the sub-Sahara African countries, Israel ranks at the bottom of respect for human rights, unless of course you are a Jew, in which case they will bestow upon you all kinds of American taxpayers supported benefits and privileges. If Ayn Rand supported the 6 day war, guess what, so did I, and I still strongly support Israel’s right to exist and to defend herself. I just don't support the use of my country to as a tool for madmen like Ariel Sharon to murder and steal his way to world wide record infamy for nazi type land theft and genocide. I'm also a little pissed about the USS Liberty and Rachel Corries murder going uninvestigated. But that is for another thread or even perhaps another forum. The point is the war on Iraq was wrong and we Americans were misled into it. I'm angry about the death of our young people and the seemingly infinite billions (that we don't have) to keep the president from admitting he was wrong.

Sorry if I misquoted you. I'm new here and am trying not to offend, as I see that as bad form for a newbie. However, as to my points you simply stated "false" to them and then went on with the Bush party line or some such, stating things like: ..."deserves is execution - long, slow, and torturous." After reading that and other things you wrote I didn't think you wanted to be taken seriously. Now after I state that 9/11 happened because of our one-sided support for Israel you say I am making excuses for 9/11. Who is misquoting whom? Do you want to be taken seriously? Betsy, I don't want to get into it here with you about Israel unless it's a matter of you stating that we were justified in going to war with Iraq because Israel did not like Saddam and considered him a threat. If so, how many other countries should we attack if Israel considers them a threat? Any or all of them? Should we attack France if Israel says so? I'm sure many French citizens are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. The Iraq war is illegal, unconstitutional, and fundamentally at odds with the principles of objectivism. They did not harm us. They did not threaten us. We were wrong about the WMD. We were wrong about how the Iraqis would treat our boys in their country. We are not there to liberate them but to impose our(Israels) will upon them. Ayn Rand hated lies and deception. What were the reasons for this war if not based on lies and deceptions? How many hundreds or thousands of young American boys and girls, (not to mention the hundreds of Billions of dollars) are you willing to sacrifice to make the world safe for ersatz(greater) Israel? Terrorism would end tomorrow if Israel would return to the green line. It is because of rabidly fundamentalist rabbis in the Israeli Knesset that Israel won't do that. The mystics that Ayn was so contemptuous of, and here the people who are charged with her legacy seem to be willing dupes to the mad priests out of some sort of greater agenda. I would like to know what that agenda is, please

I want to thank those of you that have helped clear this up, but I am as yet unsure of something. Yes, as I understand Miss Rands opinion of free will, it is the ability to decide whether or not to think, in and of itself; to be the rational being that we as humans uniquely are capable of being, or not to be. But I can't help but see the issue as one of blame. In other words she seems to be saying that those that have choose not to think are somehow uniquely to blame, as if they choose wrong. But this ability to choose; to think rationally is something that I can't help but see as fundamentally imposed. I can tell you that I truly believe that were I to try not to think (assuming I am able, of course), that I would be unsuccessful. I don't believe I can choose not to be rational. Try it. See what I mean. And my experience has always been that for most of the people that I believe don't think, they really aren’t capable. Some people are just born stupid or sheepish. Perhaps I am oversimplifying this issue. Does anyone have an example someone choosing not to be rational? I am reminded of the railway employee or security guy in Atlas Shrugged that Dagny shot in the heart because he didn't think. Well, I'm sure she was right to shoot him, but he seemed to me like just another dumb lug of a human being, fundamentally unable to think for himself. And I always thought Ayn was trying to somehow justify the killing by implying that he had "intentionally" forgone his volition, and as such deserved his fate. Is there not a paradox in that? Thanks again Skywalker and others.

I have stated that I agree with most of what Miss Rand has written. It is with the issue of free will that I have my singular most difficult problem. Are we not in some ways limited by our genetic heritage and our experiences? If so, does that not mean that our will cannot be completely free? Is there a difference in kind between our entirely biological brains, subject to the limitations of all physical things, and our will, which to be entirely free in the truest sense must have no limitations at all? Am I missing some important distinction in Miss Rands idea of 'free' as regards free will? I'm sure you have discussed this before so I appreciate your humoring me since I am new here. Thanks.

Yes, the very word hate has taken on new meaning in this pc world we live in. It's true that those that fling this word as a weapon are the ones doing most of the hating it seems to me. If you don't love and actively promote the liberal agenda and simply would prefer to live free, you are a "hater".

Was he serious? Are you?

She did not know me, but I feel I know her (r.i.p.). It's like calling the governor of California by his first name. Is it wrong to do so? I hope you didn't find it disrespectful, it wasn't meant that way.

Sorry to butt in here good people, I hope you don't mind, but in as far as this quote goes, it seems to me that we ought to keep some things in mind. ... "I would like to point out that, even IF Bush lied, that says nothing about the moral nature of the war in Iraq. " ... 1. Iraq never harmed or threatened any American ever. (And please don't bring up shooting at military planes flying over its air space). 2. Iraq was a zero threat to anybody, including Israel, as the subsequent war as adequately proven. 3. The USA set the moral tone of the world after WWII by insisting that certain international laws and national sovereignties be respected. Starting with Clintons escapades in Kosovo and now Bush's adventure in Iraq, (there seems to be some uncertainty about Afghanistan’s role in 9/11), the world now knows that all that bluster during the Nuremberg trials was just that, so mush bluster. Might does equal right after all. (Is this in line with Objectivism?) 4. Iraq had Nothing to do with 9/11 5. Bush not only misled about WMD in Iraq, he also lied about why 9/11 happened, it wasn't because "they hate our freedom", it was because he publicly calls Ariel Sharon a "man of peace" and for similar one-sidedness in our foreign policy. I am a humble student of philosophy and politics and I have a deep reverence for the mind of Ayn Rand, but it seems to me some of you here are nothing more than shills for the Bush administration. I heard today that much of Iraq is like the movie Road Warrior; I believe that. Let me ask you in closing- are the Iraqis that are opposing the U.S. led occupation terrorists? Would you submit to foreign rule? Thank you for allowing me to pose these challenges to your post about the morality of the Iraq war. I look forward to learning more about these issues with your help and to better understand what seems to me as so very perplexing. student

..."its nice to have you here." Btw, I tried to edit to add a thank you for your gracious welcome, but I can't figure out how to edit. Not all students are all that bright, alas. But I'm learning. Thanks.

Nonetheless, you will find me in the politics/current events board. Thanks moderator, for putting this where it belongs.

I've read all of Ayns stuff. I agree with most, but not all. It is with what I don't agree with that I come to this forum to hash out with ya'all- in an open arena. I call it an arena instead of a forum because I think Ayn would have approved of the idea. The struggle for a rational life in this world has always been a battle, and I hereby enter the arena! I love the truth and that is my basis for respect for Ayn and her fellow travelers. Cheers! With respect, The student.