Robert J. Kolker

The failures of Greek culture and civilization are almost as interesting as their successes. In Athens they fell short of developing a full bore empirically based science. The Greek philosophical schools did not develop science along the lines first traced out by the Ionians. In Alexandria, they almost had physics with the work of Archimedes, the greatest thinker of classical times. Alas! He never developed a School to promote his method and the world had to wait 1800 years for the beat to be picked up. The Greeks never quite got motion (dynamics) right, although Archimedes mastered statics (systems of balanced forces). When you look at the near misses of both Greece and China, you have to wonder what the world would have been like, if they had gotten it right Way Back Then. In any case, Greece left us with a great gift. Greek mathematicians invented the theorem. Deductive Math version 1.0 (Euclid, Eudoxus) and version 1.1 (Archimedes Method) are as good today as they were back then --- well, almost as good. Bob Kolker

For longevity of culture, the China wins, by far. Their civilization is older than that of Greece and their culture still influences the development of ideas in the East. In addition to which, they invented a lot of the stuff we still use today. For example the magnetic compass, the system of latitude and longitude, the geared clock, base ten numbers (also invented in India) and many other things. See -The Genius of China- by Robert Temple. Their biggest failure was that they did not invent science as we know it. They came close; they had the right empirical approach to figure things out, but they never combined their mathematics with their empiricism, as happened in Europe during the Renaissance. Bob Kolker

Rectitude for me and Rectitude for him is the same Rectitude. I respect his property, he respects mine. I respect his property because I respect my property I respect his life, he respects mine. I respect his life because I respect my own. The standards of right and wrong are the same for all. Which means none sacrifices himself for other, nor does any one sacrifice others for himself. See if this echoes with: I swear by my life and my love of it, I will not live for the sake of another man nor will I ask any man to live for mine. Sound familiar? I took that oath long before I read a single word written by Ayn Rand. There is a story told by the Rabbis. A gentile strange comes to Jerusalem and asks to learn what the Torah is. He meets up with Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Hillel tells the strange to stand on one leg. During the time the stranger is able to balance on one leg, the Rabbi tells him what you consider evil when done to you, don't do to another. That is what the Torah is about. And there is the very same principle told in anectdotal form. Now take the Torah and shake out any theological nonsense belonging to the Bronze Age and what you have left is a non-altruistic moral code. L'chayim! Bob Kolker

In theory, Judaism is such a religion. Its main non-theological commandment is that one should love his neighbor in the same way he loves himself. That is to say, the moral code is equal for all. One does not put his neighbor ahead of himself, nor does one put himself ahead of his neighbor. Right is right for all. R. Hillel put the matter succinctly: He said: If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, then when? R. Hillel, Perke Avot I-15 In the Babylonian Talmud, self defense is not only justified, it is commanded: San Hedrin 72a - If he comes to murder you, rise up early and a slay him first. In a dispute between R. Akiva and R. Ben Petura the famous problem of two men who have only enough water (they are in the desert) for one to survive. What to do? Ben Petura says both will perish. Akiva differed. He said let them decide by lot or by combat, but two should not perish when only one must. Akiva won that debate. Bob Kolker

In the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is not a King. He is a maniac. He sees things that no one else does. If there is ever a mutation that enables a human to see into the infra-red range, that poor soul will be seeing heat signatures that no one else can see. In a sense, he will be plagued by "ghosts". Bob Kolker

I do not have a problem with the concept of equality (in respect to some property or relation). My alarm bells are set off by equalization, forcing two different things to be the same regardless of their true nature. Bob Kolker

This is an interesting question. No matter how unemotionally and how carefully someone observes events and describes them, he does so from his particular place in his particular time with the history and values he brings to the task. So even the most objective report is not the report from Nowhere (in particular). When we say that so and so is objective, I think we mean he has removed as much of his bias as can be removed from the task of reporting. Even so, a person who holds that the world is what it is, where it is and when it is has brought a philosophical viewpoint to the task of reporting and describing. So there is an element of self remaining in the report. After all, a report is a report by someone. We simply have to accept the fact that we are not disembodied spirits inhabiting a non-material ghost world. Our views, no matter how carefully arrived at and our reports no matter how carefully crafted are not the God's Eye view of the world. Bob Kolker

Lord Obama is the spiritual grandson of the America hating Saul Alinsky, a left wing radical of the most destructive and loathsome type. Alinsky was a Zinn type lefty, despising the American essence down to the molecular level. Obama falsely swore to uphold the Constitution of the U.S.. He is of a philosophical tradition that completely denies what our Founders try to set up for us, a bottom up republic capable of defending our property and liberty. Do not underestimate Obama's intelligence. He is a very smart man. He made Harvard Law Review which is no place for intellectual lightweights. It is interesting that some of the most effective left wing enemies of our constitution are extremely intelligent. Bill Clinton was one such (he was a Rhodes Scholar). Woodrow Wilson is another example. It is very dangerous to underestimate the intelligence and determination of our mortal enemies. Bob Kolker

The humans of that time (approx 10,000 ybp) were no different from us biologically. They were us and we are them (biologically speaking). The main difference is they lived at a time when people knew a good deal less than is known now, their tools were version 1.0 of what we take for granted (lever and inclined plane). But they still exercised the kind of empirically based approach to problem solving that modern engineers do. If you could go back to the ancient building site and bring the head engineer to modern times, after he overcame the shock of time travel and picked up on the language he would comprehend what modern engineers do quite well. A shovel is still a shovel (a kind of inclined plane) and a crane is still a crane ( a lever of the second kind ). Wheels are still round. I admire our early counterparts a great deal. They did as much with the material they had to hand, as any humans could do. We humans are a very smart (but not always very wise) species of primate. Bob Kolker

In short, it is a preference. I was attempting to eliminate all factors except the only one that counts, to wit, what does one prefer? Now I ask, is there a moral (or ethical) import to such a preference? Some would say yes and others no. I say no. The reason I say no, is because there is no downside. By assumption, no harm flows from the preference whatever it is. Bob Kolker

Assume both choices are equally affordable and accessible. Assume both choices have the same number of calories. Assume neither produces an allergic reaction or ill health. Assume no one is injured (even one's self) by either choice. Is the issue an ethical issue? Bob Kolker

A person who has modified his/her birth-gender ends up being what he/she is. It is a fait accompli. How can that violate the principle of identity? Everything in the cosmos is what it is, when it is, where it is. Any successful modification is an instance of the principle of identity. Bob Kolker

And also making us wealthy, healthy and comfortable. Look at the cash value of the technology that is derived from the theory. If that is "merely" I want lots more "merely". The cash value of science is the technology it produces. Bob Kolker

That assumes the people you wish to trade with have peaceful intent and will act in good faith. With good decent folks, mutual trade leads to co-prosperity and a generally cordial relationship. Bob Kolker

To Original Poster: One of the best things that can happen in the United States is to do away with tax funded Public Schools. They are run by government parasites and manned by creatures of the teacher's unions. The intellectual welfare of the young pupils definitely is in third place. The people with the greatest interest in the intellectual well being of the youngsters are the parents. The parents are the ones who should be paying for the schooling of their young. If schooling were sold as a service in the market, the normal forces of competition and the interest of quality for the education of the young would produce the desired results quicker and better than all of the tax funded grinding and groaning of the public funded illiteracy mills. Here is what to do: Get rid of the Public Schools. Undo Horace Mann's abomination. Bob Kolker

That is not the fault of the physicists. It is woo woo mystics trying to hitch a ride on the back of quantum physics. Quantum electrodynamics is a field theory which describes all physical phenomena out side the atomic nucleus except gravitation. It predicts accurately to 12 decimal places and has never been falsified experimentally. To get inside the nucleus one needs quantum chromodynamics which deals with quarks and anti-quarks. The two theories (chromodynamics and electrodyanmics) describe three of the four know interactions - electromagnetic, weak and strong. They are joined in the Standard Model of Particles and Fields which is the most comprehensive verified theory for non-gravitational phenomena. It has never been empirically falsified but there are some "holes" which the folks at CERN hope to fill, such as detecting the Higgs Boson which is the particle that imparts mass to those particles which have mass. Time will tell. If they find the Higgs Boson at CERN that will pretty well nail down the Standard Model. Unfortunately the Standard Model does not deal with the fourth natural interaction -- gravity. For that the best theory available is Einstein's General Theory of Relativity which has a very different character from the quantum theories. There are two benchmarks for a physical theory - first, that it is internally consistent and second that it predicts correctly and is not empirically falsified. A further feature, that it apply to a wide variety of phenomena is a plus. The quantum physical theories noted above win on all benchmark scores. Regardless of your feelings about the mystics and some of the anti-intuitive "weirdness" of the theories, they are the best physical theories ever produced by members of the human race. The theories are definitely anti-common sense, but that has been true of physics for the last 125 years. Obvious, intuitively comfortable mechanistic theories simply do not describe the atomic and sub-atomic domain of existence. Over a century of supporting evidence and not a particle of refuting empirical evidence is a good track record. In addition to which all of the advanced electronic technology we possess cannot be explained outside of quantum physics. Even atoms require quantum physics. In classical Maxwellian electrodynamics the atom cannot exist. In the classical Maxwell theory the electrons whizzing about the nucleus will dissipate their energy and collapse onto the nucleus in about 10^-11 seconds. Such does not happen. Bob Kolker

Exactly. In the late 19th century the biggest single step to increasing the life span of the people of London was the building of the sewers. As soon as the system stopped putting sh*t in the Thames the occurence of typhoid and cholera diminished sharply. Most people in London were still too poor to get regular medical aid, but they lived longer. It turns out that the biggest boost to lifespan is improved hygiene, including clean water and better nutrition. Also immunization. Every one in the U.S. (almost) is immunized against certain infectious diseases whether they can afford it or not. It is a matter of public safety. Getting acute medical care helps, of course, but that is not the major factor. People in the U.S. score poorly in lifespan for a number of cultural reasons: 1. Bad eating habits. Too much sugar and fat. Not enough fresh vegetables. 2. Bad exercise habits. Americans do not exercise enough (on average) to maintain their fitness properly. 3. Smoking (smoking is not good for one's health --- period) 4. Stress (too much stress is bad for one's health). None of these negative factors have anything to do with access to doctors or medical treatment. The life span of the U.S. would jump five years if people got off of their butts and walked two or three miles a day, preferably in a direction that leads away from the nearest donut shop for fast food place. Bob Kolker

Reward and punishments are the actions of sentient beings. Evolution is a physical chemical process. There is not an iota of consciousness or purpose to it. Nature out side the workings of a few sentient beings is a dumb as a sack full of anchors and has just about as much purpose. As to evolution itself, it is kind of a filter. It is the result of matching the characteristics of living things to the conditions in which they live. If their characteristics are such that the successfully reproduce, then these characteristics are carried on to the next generation. If the characteristics are such as to produce lack of reproductive success, then the characteristics are lost. There is as much reward in evolution as a small potato (in potato sorter) going through a large hole and a large potato not going through a small hole. In short, no purpose, no end, to teleology. It is insentient physical and chemical process at work. Bob Kolker

Humans are omnivores. We have dentation for ripping flesh (the so called canine teeth, the pointy ones) and we have dentation for grinding fiberous food (lots of molars). Pure carnivores like the felines have short guts, well adapted for digesting meat. We have long guts, well adapted for digesting plant matter with lots of cellulose. We have that in common with bovines, for example. Once agriculture become the dominant mode of food production humans ate mostly grains and succulent fruit and vegetables. But humans still need protein which is most efficiently gotten from consuming flesh. Hence we are omnivores. A good diet will consist of some flesh, some fat, and a lot of fiber. Since we cannot make our own vitamin C we get either from animals that make a lot of it or from certain fruit and vegetables (for example citrus fruit). One of the reasons that humans became so smart (big brained) is from the proteins available from the flesh they consumed. There is some evidence that humans were as much scavengers as hunters of flesh. Bones of animals broken longitudinally by tools indicate that humans went for the bone marrow, which was left behind by other animals that made the kill. Later on humans with big protein fed brains became first rate hunters because of social co-operation and team work. Taking down a woolly mammoth is not the work of "lone wolves". The big mammals had to be taken down by several humans working together. Bob Kolker

Thomas J. ("Stonewall") Jackson was a bit of a lunatic. While professing to be a Christian he once advised one of his subordinates to "kill'em all" at Fredricksburg. Meaning kill all the Yankees. Once his blood was up, forgiveness was not in his nature. He was a living contradiction. Robert Lee did not demonize his enemy. He referred to the opposition as "those people". At the same battle (Fredricksburg) Robert E Lee said, as he witnessed 12 Union charges uphill against Maries Heights --- It is well that war is so terrible, else we should grow too fond of it. Once the war was lost, Lee to his credit, advised his troops (or former troops) to take up the ways of peace. He said something like -- if you all are as good citizens as you were soldiers, all will be well for you. Bob Kolker

Brazil, a Western nation did not renounce slavery until the late 19th century and that was for practical reasons; slavery became economically unsustainable. In the U.S. as long as cotton grew in the warm sunny South the "peculiar institution was both sustainable and profitable. In Britain the motive for renouncing slavery was not reason, but Christian sentimentality. The Brits could have run their Caribbean sugar plantations into the 20th century and at a profit, too. France did not renounce slavery for black folks. It was a revolution in Haiti that put an end to it there. Bob Kolker

that means a true blue Christian must hire one of The Damned to walk his pet dog, after he (the Christian) is taken up into the sky. Bob Kolker

-Theory of Money and Credit- by Ludwig von Mises The following URL has a link to a PDF version of the book. Please see: http://mises.org/books/Theory_Money_Credit/Contents.aspx Bob Kolker

Absolutely. The Socialist Revolution is the mother who eats her babies. Bob Kolker