horvay

There are two parts to this argument that MUST be outlined to go any further with this: 1) The philosophical side 2) The science of law side Once we can agree on the philosophical part of this, and prove that whatever the philosophical conclusion is, is practical-- then we can move it to the science of law to implement more of the details of it. The philosophical side Let us first look at the two extremes: a butter knife, and a nuke. Obviously, it would be morally wrong to restrict the butter knife, while probably not for the nuke. Man has a right to wealth; that is, he has a right to own material products. The only way one man's right to what he owns should be restricted, is if he violates another's rights through physical compulsion. Is a butter knife threatening to someone while spreading butter on bread? No. Is it threatening to hold it up to someone else's neck? Of course. This presumes that a threat is a form of physical compulsion and can be handled by the government. Now the same with a nuke. Is there any way to use a nuke, and not have it be a threat to someone? No. Having a nuke within a certain radius is just like holding a gun to someone. I sure wouldn't piss off the guy who has a nuke in his basement. So our philosophical answer is simply: if an object is being used as threat, or more abstractly, a form of physical compulsion, then it is within the government's domain to seize it. The science of law side I am not a lawyer, and do not study law. But hey, most law students in colleges today just study common law anyways, and thats hardly a good example I agree with San's way of determining a threat, but I'd like it make it more general. If one is in the area of blast of another's weapon, then it can be considered a threat. One being in the "area of blast" in this case means, if the weapon were to go off (or be used), if one would be effected by it physically, then one is in the "area of blast" (AOB). So with a butter knife, one is only in the AOB if it is being held up to them. For a nuke, one is in the AOB within a huge radius, and therefore should almost always be against the law. That is, unless there is previous agreement, ie, "sure, house your nuke next to my house, I don't care." Tanks If a tank had its weapon removed, the question would be easy, since it would have no direct AOB. If it does have a weapon, then its AOB would be where ever it is pointing. So if the tank kept it's gun low (at the ground) or if the owner made a deal with his neighbor, then it should be perfectly legal. If a person owned a nuke, and had 100s of square miles of land, then he too could own a nuke. So basically, the argument comes down to an analysis of threat. And if I had to chose now how to implement this, I'd use the concept of AOB to assess the threat, and the legality of owning any piece of equipment capable of harm. Any thoughts?

Yes, this is what I was trying to combat with myself. I know that there is objectively a quality to music that makes one better than another, but I also know that some of those good music pieces are not my favorites, for emotional and egoistic reasons. So thats when I realized that one needs to distinguish between aesthetics and philosophical meaning. If I was all about the Aesthetics, I'd think Beethoven is the best, which I don't.

I've thought about this thread some more: First, a few things need to be layed out... are we talking about aesthetics, or philosophical value? These really have to be discussed separately. Aesthetics: When I took a jazz class in college, the teacher laid out an example where he hit a few keys on a piano. He said, this (hits a deep sound) gives this type of response. This (hits high pitched keys) gives this type of response. When we put them together, it comes to this (plays them together). Then he hit some random keys that didn't go together at all, and said basically, "this sounds like crap". It was true, it did. From this simple demonstration, I think it can be said that aesthetics can be objectively better or worse. If music is not easy on the ears and such, it can be bad sounding aesthetically. I believe Ayn Rand referred to this in Atlas Shrugged when she talked about how Halley's music had controlled violence and mathematical precision. Also, the skill involved in a piece can also be a thing to analyze. Think about putting 4 instruments together and coming up with a nice sound verses putting 40 together. The later takes more skill and can create much richer effects, covering all ranges of sound. For these reasons, I'll always consider symphonies composers superior in skill and aesthetics. The link to Philosophical value In order to get any philosophical value from a piece of music, it has to have some level of skill and aesthetics. I think most people agree on this, as I don't think modern art and Objectivism get along. Silence and then a long screech, is not good music, or even art for that matter. Philosophical value This is the part of music that one "relates to." It is the reason that I put Tchaikovsky above other composers. Nothing else (that I have heard to date) gives me the same feeling and thoughts as his 1812 Overture. It might not have the same level of skill and complexity as other music, but it is still my favorite. As Halley said in Atlas Shrugged, a musician's goal should be to inspire the listener to the same values as the composer. The reason Halley was a classical composer is well placed, as Ayn Rand wanted to make the point of high aesthetic value and skill verses the "modern music" of the time. They were a complete contrast with each other. Finally, people and the music they listen to it Music is a wonderful thing and has many uses. Some people use it as mildly pleasant background noise. Others study it and delve more into the aesthetics and skill of a piece. Some people look only for the philosophical meaning (though aesthetics and skill do help much with this); they look for music they can "relate to." So it is no wonder that a music major would look for different things than a music layman. If one goes into music with, "I want something that is pleasant and relaxing to listen to" then they will get different results than, "I want something good and thought provoking worth hours of study". I do not study Tchaikovsky's music very deeply. I listen to it because it is the only music for which I have heard the wonderful blast of music, filled with struggle and eventually triumph in the most loudly dramatic and uplifting finales. I don't listen to it because of all the different layers of music and technical skill (which it actually does have the later), but because I can break a sweat listening to it (if the room is hot enough ). Any thoughts?

*blinks* DAMN YOU SOFTWARENERD! You are right Rationalizing is so hard these days.

One can rationalize something and come to a good conclusion, but its not the right way to reach a conclusion. I like to think of rationalizing as a top-down approach to thinking rather than a bottom-up approach. I could say about individual rights: 1) Countries that have rights the people seem to be better off 2) Therefore a society should employ rights That would be a rationalization. The correct way would be to do this: 1) Humans must use their mind to survive 2) Humans should therefor not be physically coerced into something 3) Therefore a society should employ rights The first only used deduction. The second example used deduction but only after using induction to identify the nature of humans. A rationalist assume that everything can be deduced without induction--which is false, nothing can be deduced with first doing some sort of induction.

From this we can see the point of art. For the author to display some set of values in some medium. In this case, we are talking about music. This is the purpose we should look for. Again from Richard Halley in Atlas Shrugged: My boldination. This is the essence of objectivity. So don't lets talk about subjectivity in music. Later, Dagny thinks to herself: My boldinating. I find no wonder in the fact that classical music era came out of a time of science. As Ayn Rand says, art is the same as any other science in that it takes a logically consistent identification of facts. From this knowledge, it seems apparent that one should be looking at music as a way to express one's values, and looking for what is objectively the best means of doing this. As my art teacher in high school said, one must first learn aesthetics before they can focus on any philosophical meaning--otherwise you end up with some modern art crap. I think Arete was on the right path when he said it was about form. If one were to take chunks of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture, and randomly place them in a timeline, it would come out sounding poor. While the instrument playing might be good, the music would not flow--one part would not lead and prepare for another part correctly. If we were to take out certain layers from his music, if we were to limit the amount of instruments to 3 or 4, the melody might be preserved, and maybe the general flow of the music, but it would lack fulfillment. It would be like comparing a McDonnald's hamburger to my wonderfully thick bacon grease cooked burger. The same basic structure would be there, but it would be somewhat more boring, and less dramatic. I don't keep up with pop music by any high degree, but what I have heard was very lacking. I could listen to it, but it would get dull fast, and it wouldn't catch my emotions or appeal to my values. Why is it that a painting of a picture of some heroic being drawn very accurately with all the things in it having perfect detail, is better than a picture with a man's outline, with just enough to get the idea of the scene painted in. I think it is the same reason that a symphony of instruments all working together, creating multiple layers of music, all forming together to create one mood, is better than two guitars, a drum, and a signer.

When used right, it actually sounds like a bad thing. Like when someone says something dumb, and another responds with, "oh, your just rationalizing it." Rationalizing in this sense is just making up excuses even though it is obviously wrong. A good indicator of a rationalization is actually excusing making. "I had no choice, I couldn't help it!"

The person getting the bad effects could just take the claim to court. When this happens enough, plants would be very careful where they place their structure.

I think you could clear up that whole ambiguity with just putting "physical force" instead of "force". Though its kinda redundant, just like saying laissez faire capitalism instead of just capitalism. The only other thing I might add is changing "He has one right - the right to act on his best judgment" to something like "He has one right - the right to life, which means (according to human nature), the right to act on his best judgment." Though that might add too many concepts to one sentence.

I just thought your explanation of virtue didn't encompass the abstract concept of virtue entirely.

Acting in accordance with one's chosen values is called integrity, which is a type of virtue. Virtues themselves are the actions taken to achieve one's chosen values.

It wasn't the size of the buildings, its how they used them... But Aristotle explicitly layed out logic. Most great thinkers after Aristotle were Aristotelean. When people accepted Aristotle's epistemology, extremely rapid progression took place in history.

Since civilization is moved by ideas, Greece is the best, hands down. Rome was just an application of these ideas. China was horrible... they had some good technology, but never got better.

True. But that would be some serious evasion going on then.

Alright! To the good stuff Alright, following ya here. If by this, you mean, get to know each other like the back of each other's hand; then I agree. Who is talking about whims? You went from, "This is why a good relationship grows" to "Thats why one shouldn't follow whims". There is no logical connection that says anything about, "Regarding the relative value of a current long-term lover versus another potential lover:"--unless you make an assumption that it is impossible to find someone of greater value. Its not rationalistic to ponder the morality of leaving someone for another (especially after marriage). This goes for any good friendship/relationship.

Oh yes, quite possibly. I have known very competent people, but there were things about their style I did not like. Its not merely, "you scored higher on your SAT test, I will now dump my wife." It is important for one to know their own ego. One must introspect their emotions, find the underlying values in their feelings, and pick apart what they like and don't like about others, until they have something more whole in mind. Its not merely leap frogging from partner to partner. One could think this, but it would be an evasion to ignore it when someone better does come. And that evasion will hurt ones own self esteem. To actively be aware of it, would be to act one way, but feel another way. I can't admire Frogger, no. But I can admire someone who knows what they want, and has the rare pleasure of finding someone closer to their values than I. This, to me, seems like saying, "I am prepared to evade all others that I might find better than you." Edit for grammar

Also consider the lash to ones self esteem. One would have to tell themselves, "I could do better, but I'll stay how I am," or, "So-and-so is good enough for me to love, so I'll avoid the other relationship." I don't think I could admire someone enough to fall in love with them, if they had that attitude.

I think Ayn Rand explains this topic quite well in her "Philosophy: Who needs it" speech. You can't stop your subconscious from processing things, but you can use your consciousness to direct it. If you evade things, you will end up with, as Ayn Rand say, a "grab-bag" of ideas that your subconscious will work on. A self-made soul means that one has used their consciousness to direct their ideas and emotions with rational thought.

Sometimes I think this is true. I used to have a friend who would always do what caused him more pain. He told me that his girlfriend does not make him happy -- next thing I know, they are getting married. At one point he went around looking at horrible gross accidents and things on the web. While he probably doesn't really have a negative slope, its probably just some self sacrifice poop. (though he isn't religious.) If it were possible, I would see nothing wrong as long as the emotion does not get in the way of gaining value, being productive, and thinking straight consciously.

Thanks for your replies. I was not thinking about me when I made this post, but rather, someone else close to me. I suppose it could relate to me but in an opposite way: I sometimes value things less than I reasonably think I should, and therefor have a weaker emotion. It is something I should watch out for. To answer my own question: no, one can not change thier emotion according to the graph I depicted. Thinking about a better way to ask it now, I would say: a graph with emotion vs value (for negative emotions). What I was asking originally was if one could change number 4. So as Ifatart said, and I agree with, one cannot.

My question is one on emotions. I am not talking about removing emotions because that would of course go against human nature and one would lose out on many important things by doing that. What I am saying is just decreasing the scale of negative emotions. Instead of someone crying when someone important to them dies, just feel pretty sad (but not to the point where one would cry). This is of course just for negative emotions. If I were to put it into more graphical terms: The X-Axis would be the level of drama that happens while the Y-Axis would be the level of sadness one feels while going through said drama (assuming it is drama that has a reasonable reason to make one sad). So what I am asking is, why would one want a curve that is y=5x when one could have a curve that is y=x? Is it really possible to change the intensity of emotions? If it is, would it be a good thing to lower the over all intensity of negative emotions? Of course one would want variation still so they could understand the level that they are feeling, but why not make less variation?