TheEgoist

Just a quick note: Chomsky does not endorse any post-modern doctrine of language creating reality. He is quite the realist.

Oh, Aristotle certainly didn't sever consequence from his morality, only that it's not the more naive means-ends reasoning of utilitarians.

You can look at it as Kantian, or you can look at it as a sort of application of the virtue of justice. Aristotle thought that one was not virtuous for reasons of utility, but because the virtue had inherent value. I'm sure Penn's view is not as nuanced as this

I enjoy the method Harris suggests in Louie's link. I'm not sure if it goes against the practices and philosophy of that form of meditation, but the past month I have been smoking a bowl before some meditation sessions. I find it helps the relaxation, the focus on sensation. You're much more passive. It also helps my sessions go longer. I tend to be impatient and weed will help that. I realize not everyone will be willing/able to do this, but I think it's immensely helpful to someone who is tense and anxious.

I would say all businesses have the benefit of oligopsony, but not necessarily of monopoly or oligopoly.

Many compatibilists taken free will to be identical with our powers for rational deliberation and consideration. This can include things such as Rand's theory of concept formation, along with more typical modes of thinking such as counterfactual reasoning, which seems to give us a view of the future no other animal has. There's no specific philosopher around who will agree with the Objectivist position 100%, as it is much more rationalistic than most nowadays enjoy, but I enjoyed Searle's work on free will in "On Rationality". Eddy Nahmias has done a lot of research on people's intuitions of what free will constitutes and determines that most are compatibilists rather than libertarians.

Agreeing with Louie. Rand's aesthetics are definitely lacking in terms of the subject's evaluative relationship with reality, which is what aesthetics really is. I've never studied much aesthetics myself, except a class in emotion theory which dealt with aesthetic judgments of emotional states and their causes. I wonder if there has been any extensive work done by Objectivists on this broader conception of art.

I think Rothbard's analysis is interesting and fits in with Objectivism, even given Rand's distaste for praxeology (which I think was a mistake on her part) http://www.rothbard.it/essays/praxeology-as-the-method.pdf

If I said a famous black hockey player acted "niggardly", everyone would know what I was going for. It's what this guy was doing.

ALDI makes you put in a quarter to get your cart. You can get it back at the end of your shopping experience. Good system.

No.

I'm not a fan of evolutionary psychology myself, but I thought I would share this video which argues against Jerry Fodor's objections to evolutionary psychology and natural selection in general. Not for the philosophic lightweight, mind you.

Believe me, there is good and there is bad porn.

It's not really a choice and it's irrelevant to the morality of the situation anyway.

Enter homophobe number 1

How does one then account for the actions of Roark or Danneskjold, from an Objectivist perspective?

Sup, Mill? Unfortunately this isn't just a forum for people to come and discuss their philosophy. If you wish to relate this in some way to Objectivism, feel free.

Hitler was not an atheist. This is a disgusting myth propagated by desperate religionists, trying to come up with more than a single example beyond Communist nations, whose mythology of the state is often a religion in and of itself. See: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Jong Il. These men were gods on earth to their subjects and so the state was the tool of those gods.

Pat Condell, wrong as usual. It's an issue of principle. As SteveD pointed out through Jefferson, it's tyrannical to use a man's tax money to fund the celebration of those things he finds objectionable. The government has no reason to celebrate Christmas, Easter, Hanukkah, Rammadan, Ayn Rand's birthday or even the birthday of the nation. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204791104577110880355067656.html Some until-now unpublished words from Hitchens.

Will this be in eBook format?

Is anyone here defending the porn industry? I assume we all make use of it to some extent or another. I don't view it as lacking virtue, as the actors or producers lacking virtue.

A new trailer came out today, with a lot exposed about the movie's direction exposed. I think the trailer is stunning. Bane looks creepy as hell. Selina/Catwoman looks like the perfect femme fatale. This feels a lot more like a trailer for Inception than it does for the first two films of the series, which I think is good. It gives the experience such an epic feel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yh6SriAjdE

He was a defender of science and rationalism, of western values and of an open society. He opposed religious fundamentalism consistently. While his views on war and economics were not to my liking, there is no doubt he was his own man in his political opinions. He did not follow the popular consensus and made many enemies on every side of the political arena. He also made, as you can see, many friends and allies, who appreciate a free and thinking mind, even when it may err. Hitchen's mind was one of the most sharp and rational minds I've come to know. He led a happy and eventful life, he never sacrificed his views to popular opinion and in fact made a career on his views being unpopular. I imagine that is why you see so much praise for the man here and will continue to among many of the best and brightest.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/fumbling-inarticulate-obituary-writer-somehow-losi,26890/ Fumbling, Inarticulate Obituary Writer Somehow Losing Debate To Christopher Hitchens

And didn't that miserable place known as the Soviet union choke to death on its own vile corruption? Why would a National Socialist state not do the same, and at the cost of so many less lives? And remember that the war was something we wanted before we attacked, and there is compelling evidence we knew of the Japanese plans prior to December 7th and did nothing. We got involved in WWII because of self interest, but certianly not self interest of the union, but mostly for the self-interest of the powers that be, much like WWI.