Free Capitalist

I basically agree with johngaltline, just as in the analogy a gunmaker is not responsible for how others use the gun. However, one thing: If this is generally known to the owners of the company, and to the employees, then that's another issue. In other words, if the citation requirement is merely a legal loophole not to get in trouble, then I would say the company and employees are culpable as well, to a degree. It'd be legal, but not 100% moral.

Well now we get into a difficulty because agnostics are notoriously vague when identifying themselves. Let's focus on what the proper meaning for the word ought to be. A person who says, I don't believe in God until you show me the evidence, is not an agnostic, but an atheist. A person who says that there is evidence either way, or not enough contrary evidence either way, or generally insufficient information to accept or reject the concept of God, is the agnostic. An a-gnostic, etymologically, means a person without belief, while an a-theist, etymologically, means a person without a God. Very different concepts here; the former may still accept the idea of God but is just lacking in resolution to take one side or the other.

Guys, let's split off the (neverending) discussion about God into some other thread, and keep this one about agnosticism. To reiterate, an agnostic is a coward, and Dr. Peikoff was spot on in his evaluation (I hope more credit is given to him next time before dismissing his arguments).

Well let's be clear here, Dr. Peikoff does not say anyone who's not an atheist is a coward, merely that an agnostic is one. An atheist or a religious person are principled. An agnostic is simply too weak to stand by principle.

I think you're raising a straw man here (not to mention making unnecessary distinctions). As you yourself quote, Dr. Peikoff states: This directly comports to your view that the proper stance towards the God issue is to reject it as arbitrary. This is indeed what a proper atheistic position would be. An atheist does not demand proof of a negative, merely a rejection of accepting the false idea. An agnostic, on the other hand, does not reject the God idea; he says, "I don't know eiher way".

I think you're missing the epistemological point here, a crucial one. You don't need evidence that it doesn't exist. This is a logical fallacy, the proof of a negative. It is impossible. Only positive statements need proof, and only positive statements can be proven. So I don't need to tear myself between whether I can or cannot prove this imaginary Matrix. I trust my eyes, by default. If someone has a positive statement for the existence of a Matrix or that my brain is in a vat, then let them come forth and present their arguments. That is the proper epistemological stance to take here. This thought experiment only works if you're willing to expect proofs of a negative. Well then we disagree not only on our means but our goals. It is not my intention to convince these people; I have met enough of them to know that they are lost beyond all hope. And I don't believe they "have respect for what philosophy is supposed to be". They like their imaginary mind games and thought experiments, all the while they neglect to prove the most elementary facts that men require to live, and in fact frequently work to undermine them and to poison human existence. It is these people that you will find convincing everyone that free will doesn't exist, that Marxism (or some form of state control) is the moral ideal, that reason is "limited", and that who can know whether we exist anyway. No thank you. With friends like these, who needs enemies? On the other hand, I would not rush to lump the classics into the same category; classics as a profession is also rotten, but not nearly as much, and it is still largely weighed down by having to be anchored in fixed texts which will never change, and that limits how much damage can be done to the field. Still, even with this anchorage the Classics now outputs articles such as "Gay Homer" and "Concordia Discors in Aristophanes' Clouds" -- in other words, mindless gibberish that not only teaches the current generation nothing about the classics, but actively serves to neglect and undermine that education (by not wanting to prioritize traditional Western values as anything important, or worth keeping up and teaching to the next generation). As you can see from my (very early) posts here and also on The Forum, I have a very avid and long-standing passion both for classics and philosophy (I have a BA in Philosophy). But I hold out no hope for lunatics who would rather live in their cocoon and poison the lives of everyone around them. Bitter but true! I'd rather live my life in pursuit of my values No, you're taking the metaphor of a ladder too far, so much so that the first rung is not even above the ground! That is all we are asking, that if you see this as a ladder, then even the first step must be above the ground, and be a positive argument. Even if it is a very low first step, no matter how little it is above the ground, it still is above ground, and it still needs some positive statement in favor of it, no matter how inconsequential. This is a foundation for logic, that you cannot disprove a negative, and this principle is approximately 2,300 years old. Surely they have taught this idea in all of the hallowed academic philosophy courses you've been telling me about?

Fine then, why don't you prove how you would know whether you were in a matrix or not? The element of unprovability is right there. You have the onus of proof on you to show that it's possible, and that it's somehow possible to prove or disprove it. If it's by definition not provable (as you conceded yourself, it's "outside" human reasoning), then it is by definition arbitrary, and not any less arbitrary than a pink elephant or the spaghetti monster. And how much were these philosophers able to solve in the last 700 years? Almost nothing. In fact, it's getting worse and worse, and philosophy is now practically a mockery (I know personally). Perhaps you should reflect on the fact that maybe the philosophers are the ones at fault here, and that a redefinition is in order.

That is the fundamental observation here, that Vladimir doesn't take into consideration. A statement of possibility is a positive assertion, because all statements of fact are positive assertions. And all positive assertions must have some fact or piece of evidence to tip the balance to their side (otherwise it couldn't be a positive assertion). An arbitrary statement is outside right or wrong statements; it simply is outside of reality altogether and has no basis on which to even be evaluated. That is the case with the "matrix" scenario -- it is not possible (if it is, show how), but is arbitrary (there is no basis for determining its truth or falsehood, and as such it must be thrown out together with all other infinitely many arbitrary statements). It should be stressed again, that the "matrix" scenario is not wrong, but arbitrary, which are two different things. There is basis on which to consider and evaluate wrong statements; there is none for arbitrary ones.

I agree, even though I'm a guy. I see nothing wrong with "taking advantage", because at the same time the woman is, the man is also. And besides, though she not literally in charge, he can let her be in charge if he wants to, from time to time

There is no contradiction here, because it is not an evil, morally. Perhaps you could post a reference from the Objectivist corpus to corroborate your argument.

The problem is that you're trying to deduce Objectivism from higher principles here. The answer to "how do you know what's human" is inductive -- you look at the world, you subsume percepts into concepts, according to genus and differentia. You can't deduce "what's human" from some higher principles. Once you form the concept of "human", you will see that it is hierarchically derived from the concept "animal", which comes from the concept "living being". And all living beings, by their nature (as you have formed this concept using induction) strive for values, and for all living beings (not just humans) their life is their highest value. And it all goes from there.

What about Stephen Speicher at THE FORUM?

I would add that the profusion of Christianity was practically just as important to Rome's fall. In earlier times, much worse invasions, from much fiercer people, were crushed by Romans, often on multiple fronts simultaneously.

The Chinese were advanced, certainly, but the problem is that they had very little (no?) formalized science of things. They would have a good tradition of herbs and healing but no science of medicine, a discovery of gunpowder but no chemistry, three thousand years of complete historical record but no science of history, much interest in philosophy but no formalized philosophy, etc. This may be traced to the fact that they were on the other side of the world an thus isolated from the civilizations that fueled Western civ: Old Egypt, Sumeria, Babylon, Greece, Rome. So they did very well having to do everything from scratch, but the fact remains that they were nowhere near as advanced as the West. They achieved sophistication without achieving formalization, if it can be put that way.

Well that's really interesting. I'm not that guy, and I've had this name for far longer than the radio show has. It apparently started in 2005, whereas my membership here starts from April 2004, but my use of this name begins at least a year before that. I think I should call in and ask him why he took my name

Venn diagrams and truth tables are certainly not non-Aristotelian. If anything, they're exceptionally Aristotelian.

Yes, a few other men preserve our sources on Socrates, most importantly Xenophon who reveres him, and Aristophanes who lampoons him. But Plato indubitably remains our most important resource. However, it would only be correct to say that Socrates' thoughts may be found in Plato, not that everything Plato wrote was Socratean. He was clearly his own thinker, and most importantly he was deeply affected (negatively) by Socrates' execution, which pushed him into the radicalism of The Republic (which most likely was not Socrates' idea therefore).

Maybe I should clarify a little bit what I mean by European history being "largely irrelevant" to that of the American, because in retrospect that seems like a rather controversial statement to make. It certainly is important to know who the colonists were, that they were colonists, where they came from, why, etc, and figures like Christopher Columbus should play an important role. Or if going deeper, it can be discussed how and why Europeans came to the Americas in the first place, what the Age of Discovery was, and what the antecedent historical causes for that were (e.g. the Turks' sack of Constantinople in 1453 thus cutting off the Europeans' trade routes to India). But all of these causes are incidental to the nature of the country and the constitution that were created. While they explain how America started, they don't explain how America started (i.e. America and not just another country). And the fundamental reason for explaining America itself lies in the blaze of republicanism (small 'r') that sprung up in America starting around the beginning of the 18th century, when the classics (Latin and Greek) books brought over from Europe had started a torrent of republican sentiment that the world hadn't seen for 2,000 years, and where everyone -- from lawyers, to politicians, to judges, to commonfolk, read about and constantly encouraged in each other the love of republic and aversion to tyranny. Even the churches helped, with priests preaching from the pulpit about how it was in accordance with God's plan that man be free (quoting John Locke and pagan Latin writers, of course). All this came together to result in the United States of America, once more creating in the world the idea of a republic, almost ex nihilo.

Hi Scott, History matters a lot to me, even though it has little to do with my chosen profession. I just think it's crucially important for a person's personal development, regardless of what they choose to do with their lives, and it's also great to see that you seem to value it greatly as well. I'd like to respond to some things you said: firstly, Well this subject is quite tricky. In the first place, it's almost impossible to understand American history, especially the Founding period and the Early Republic, without knowledge of ancient, and especially Roman, history. The number of allusions to the Ancient period and the degree to which it fueled people's personal values during the time, is staggering. And yet, I do agree with you that if a person is completely ignorant of American history and plunges into the Ancient history directly, he will find less there that will strike him as directly relevant (although philosophy and other ennobling qualities of the times are still useful). So what I've found best here is similar to the Montessouri idea of spiral study of history -- to gain a sort of general outline of American history, of who did what, who they were, why they did what they did -- all without going into some extreme depth of detail -- and then directly go into a proper outline of Ancient history (bypassing European, especially Medieval, history as largely irrelevant), and connecting that with the Founding of America. Then, American history can be returned to in great depth, along with some general outlines of Medieval and European history, and then a more in-depth study of Ancient history. That's the best approach I've found to the subject. I personally had almost no knowledge of, or interest in, history or anything related to knowledge of times and of people, until about 3-4 years ago, when I stumbled upon Ancient history (a historian of Rome, to be precise), which revolutionized my view, so that I set to educate myself in great detail about history from that point on. So, to respond to your first post, I am most comfortable discussing Ancient history (any Mediterranean, especially Roman and Greek), and American history (especially the early years). I also by now a very good deal about all the times in-between, as a kind of conceptual link that I've been motivated to acquire, in terms of what the heck people have been doing in all of that intervening time.

Here's one of my most favorite quotes from the Bible: He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.--Dt.23:1

Ravane, if you're going to make her this beautiful, she might as well be Dominique and not Dagny. It was Dominique who was the beauty queen/princess. Very nice drawing so far.

For the record, there's no such thing as an "Objectivist stance on the Civil War". That subject pertains to the specific field of history, whereas Objectivism is a philosophy and has no opinion on concrete historical questions. I mean look at current events, two leading Objectivists have recommended opposing choices for voting in the last presidential election.

Just a brief note: When comparing Mycenean Greek writing and Ancient Chinese, I was not making a comparison between the Western civilization and China, but only making a point that there were civilizations out there who started writing long before the Chinese did. Whether it were the Minoans or Myceneans, native or acquired from an earlier civilization, isn't really what I'm getting at. The point is, whoever they are, they had that writing a long time ago. (Besides, you can't really consider the Mycenean Greeks as "Greeks" in the classical sense, so I couldn't there have been making a comparison between the West and China even if I wanted to.)

Ok alright, so that's Persia -- even though not as advanced as the Greeks, they were not stupid, or primitive. Now China: I think this is precisely the kind of example of falling victim to propaganda about the Chinese, that I've mentioned before. The Chinese were not that advanced. They first acquired the use of iron as late as 400BC (even the barbarian Celts not only had it, but perfected its use, by 500BC), their first surviving example of writing is around 1000BC, far later than Mycenean Greeks (2000BC) and their first real great historian is around 100BC. True, the greatest Chinese man of thought, Confucius, flourished early, in the 6th century BC (150 years before Socrates), but Buddha was also around during this time, in India. So, while respect should be acorded to Ancient Chinese for things they developed, the civilization should not be glorified so completely out of proportion. Besides let's not forget that the real ancient civilization was Egypt, which already flourished around 3000BC, and built Pyramids, thousands of years before anyone on the Yellow River could write even his own name. From now all the way back to Caesar, that's how long of a time elapsed between the Chinese flourishing, and the Egyptians. So the Chinese civilization should be viewed in a very strict context, and the outright propaganda spread today about its "incredible" advancement and superiority should be guarded against. The Chinese did eventually develop their own writing, technology, etc, but so did the Indians around exactly the same time, impressing Alexander and his generals when he invaded. Were the Chinese more than advanced than the Mayans or the Africans? Of course, but then again so was just about everyone... it doesn't really do much to compare the two. One of the major reasons why the myth of Chinese superiority is becoming increasingly popular today because of the power that the country has acquired in recent years. People are becoming impressed, and trying to find historic roots. Imagine if Egypt was a world power to rival America now -- don't you think they'd rub in everyone's noses the fact of their antiquity, and saying how much better they are than the West? But they're not any kind of power at all, so no one cares about them. No one's imagination is enflamed by the mind-boggling antiquity of the Egyptian civilization in comparison to every other culture out there. So my recommendation would be to be very careful when hearing about extraordinary claims sometimes made about ancient Chinese history. They were a pretty advanced ancient civilization, like some others of the time. That's about all that can be said there. --- Next post: comparison between Ancient China and the West.

Let me try to put this thread in some context. The original purpose of this thread was to discuss ancient Chinese history, and validity of various claims made about it. Now the reason why I started talking about Persia here is because the two nations have a lot in common. Thus, someone knowledgeable with ancient Western history, and is therefore familiar with Persia, can use this knowledge to understand ancient China, with proper emendations from people who have studied ancient Chinese history directly. Now a brief note about Persia -- it certainly was not some sort of a primitive tribal country. They made advances in various fields, for example astronomy, which the later Greek scientists used as a starting point for their subsequent thinking, and if you've seen some of their steles, the Persians were not incompetent at cutting stone and making depictions either. Let's not minimize the importance of the fact of how big the empire was that the Persians ended up ruling, and such degree of rule is impossible without an advanced state of bureaucracy and a system of laws. Plus, the Persians were the first people in history to develop postal service and transmission of letters and packages over distance. Herodotus' described that vast and efficient system, "Neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds", and that phrase was adopted by the United States Postal Service as its logo: More about China, later.