West

My username is 'Manoftwistsandturns'. If there are enough serious people interested, I'd like to start an investment group as well in order to compete.

I recently found UpDown, which is a simulation of the stock market (prices reflect actual stock prices, etc.). For those of us out there who are looking to learn more about investing, this looks like it could be a good learning resource (and it's really fun!). If you are particularly good and can "beat" the S&P, it even pays real money. For those that are interested, let me know; this is something that I'm going to stay on top of on a daily basis as exercise. For info: http://www.updown.com/learn-more

Since Lisa VanDamme's lecture course at OCON 2009 is going to be on Henrik Ibsen, I'm also up for doing 'A Doll's House' and 'An Enemy of the People'. They're shorter as well for those that aren't looking to read anything of great length.

I finished the Scarlet Pimpernel about 2-3 weeks ago (freeing up the copy for athena), but I'd still participate in the discussion for it. I just purchased Economics and the Public Welfare, so I would read/participate in that as well. Since I don't want to buy another copy of 'How the Scots Invented the Modern World,' and I don't want my reading time to conflict with athena's, I'm going to hold off on that one for now. So, count me in on the other two.

Sandstead definitely capitalizes on all the possible puns--"I'm having an art attack!" or "I'm going to be the first international art-throb!" The idea is to get people pumped up about art. I'm definitely digging it.

Clips of Lee Sandstead's Art Attack are finally available; actual episodes begin airing November 30th on Sundays--check local listings for times: http://www.travelchannel.com/Video_&_P...upId=2550966001 Note to Mods: I wanted to distinguish this post from the Dallas event post on Sandstead, but if you want to merge it with that one, feel free)

Would you say the same thing if one refused to vote in the Carter/Reagan election? Just curious.

I'll second sNerd's post and add some etymological history:

Is that a joke?

Thanks, agrippa. This: "Morality pertains to the latter, but not necessarily to the former" is exactly the answer I was looking for. I agree. I do insist that moral principles are separate from scientific principles, economic principles, principles in medicine, principles of literature, principles of... do I need to continue? I didn't say that *all* principles are by definition moral principles; I asked if all human actions pertain to morality (agrippa cleared this up). The only reason why you'd think I was offering two opposing viewpoints is because you grant yourself that all principles prescribe a certain course of action, which I disagree with. Not every principle is normative--the principle of gravity does not prescribe any sort of action. It just is. edit: to clarify - I do agree that there are principles outside of morality that prescribe a certain course of action, but disagree with the conclusion that every principle prescribes a certain course of action.

That "slow time" effect seems really damn cool.

Not sure if you are disagreeing with me or not; do I need to add: "Are there human actions that don't pertain to morality, given their properly delimited context?" ? Considering morality/ethics is normative, I would assume that the fact of breathing implies a certain relationship to life, and thus has moral implications since man can choose to breathe or choose not to breathe, giving rise to the question "should one to breathe, given the context?" Since we can agree that that "should" implies morality, and "should" derives from facts (is-->ought in the context and in relation to man's life), again, can we therefore not say that every human action pertains to morality?

Are there human actions that do not pertain to morality? I thought morality dictates what course of action one should take, given that one wants to achieve certain goals.

I was writing this post when I was notified in chat that sNerd had responded. sNerd answered it for me, but here was what I was typing already: "I didn't mean 'moral' principles as opposed to immoral principles, but instead principles that pertain to the realm of morality (or ethics), which determines whether they are good or bad. The principle "we are our brothers' keepers" is an ethical principle that prescribes certain actions. I think we can agree on that." Beyond that, the logic works like this: "All principles are ideas, but not all ideas are principles." Certain principles do prescribe certain actions. As JMeganSnow already indicated, the principle of free trade prescribes (and represents) actions that protect individual rights. The principle of protectionism on the other hand prescribes the infringement of individual rights. Examples are the Corn Laws between 1815 and 1846, Bush's 2002 Steel Tariff, or the Jones-Costigan act (Sugar). Identifying the use of governmental force as being the basis of these actions gives meaning to the principle of "Protectionism," and why it entails the infringement of individual rights. Using induction, you go broader to discover the common, primary fact underlying the examples (which is the means of identifying the principle in a context). When Peikoff uses the "shorthand" of the principle of free trade or the principle of protectionism, he is condensing and identifying the primary fact that underlies a ton of possible actions. This is why principles are so important--they allow greater manageability. The difference between a principle and a concept is the fact that a principle is the identification of a primary fact upon which other facts are based; a concept is the integration of two or more concretes. Both represent distinct forms of integration.

An example of identifying a principle: Two nights in a row, I get only 4 hours of sleep. While at work, I'm exhausted and complete only two of the four tasks I was assigned. The next two nights, I get a solid 8 hours of sleep each night. The next day, I complete all of the tasks I was assigned. A generalization: I have more energy when I've gotten enough sleep. The principle to be drawn: adequate sleep increases productivity. A more complex identification: In the news, a group of environmentalists issue a number of separate statements that denounce as evil the use of oil to heat homes, the use of fur products, jewelry containing diamonds, off-road vehicles, sports cars, and perfume. An observation: all of the concretes are rational pleasures that are man-made. The philosophical principle to be drawn: pleasure is evil. I'd amend this statement with "moral principles are generalizations that prescribe a certain course of action."

I remember you being in chat when we were discussing this topic. The definition we came up with for "principle" was "A fundamental integration unifying and combining separate related generalizations." A principle does for generalizations what a concept does for concretes in other words. OPAR gives this on a principle: Here's this as well: Leonard Peikoff's 'Why Should One Act on Principle?' - http://wcmedia.aynrand.org/aynrand/registe...onprinciple.wma I'll provide some examples tomorrow if it's still necessary.

Reading someone state that 'government has no proper functions' would lead me to believe this, yes. Philosophy has certain implications in the realm of politics, and Objectivism in particular is in direct opposition to Anarchism.

"Chavez lauds his nationalizations for allowing [hah!] the state to refocus companies' activities on helping the poor rather than creating value for their shareholders." http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idU...=22&sp=true

Craig beat me to it. I thought we were talking strictly presidential candidates. I still plan on voting for local issues.

This site gives a description of the textbooks: http://www.learningthings.com/items.asp?Cc...tatus=1&Tp=

I similarly wanted a conceptual (hierarchically-appropriate) approach to mathematics. I learned about John Saxon's math textbook series after listening to one of Lisa VanDamme's lectures (one of her students mastered calculus through self-study with these books at the age of 12). The books offer day-to-day lessons, quizzes, etc. with an emphasis on proper conceptual hierarchy. I highly recommend them. I bought his Algebra, Algebra 2, and advanced mathematics textbooks for all under $10 from www.allbookstores.com and half.ebay.com

Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT Richard S. Lindzen , a UN IPCC expert reviewer, has published a 35-page paper titled "Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?" It's of interest to those getting into the Global Warming debate. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf

On the right-hand side of the site, check out the debate between Yaron Brook and Jeffrey Finkle on Eminent Domain: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/events.asp

I agree with this. In economics, they use a comparative advantage model to establish a range under which two participants may trade to mutual benefit. To me, this example was just in the higher range for myself, while the guy for all I know could have been willing to pay a higher price (and obviously wouldn't mind paying a lower price).

Is arbitrage therefore immoral, due to the discrepancy in price?