adrock3215

I think that clarifies it a bit, but I still don't see what the big deal is. CNBC is in business to make money. The way CNBC makes money is by attracting large amounts of viewers. The way CNBC can attract large amounts of viewers is by airing the interesting, engaging and entertaining programming that viewers demand about finance, e.g. Cramer's show. As you say, there is nothing I have seen on Cramer's show which leads me to believe that he is intentionally doing anything. What would be his motivation anyway? Stewart claims that CNBC lets executives come on air and spread false news about their companies. So what? Has this idiot ever listened to an earnings call? Executives always act like their company is fine, or in a condition to improve in the near future, despite what the facts are. Often times that's actually what executives believe, just like the small business owner who won't admit that his business is failing. That's why we have these people on Wall St. called research analysts. Stewart could make his case much more convincing if he brought in some guy who heard a recommendation on CNBC, and then ran as fast as he could to the phone to call his broker and make a trade. I suspect he won't find a single person on earth. Stewart makes money by offering a comedy show. His show is not a news show, nor is it done in the public interest. Incidentally, he offers a lot of news on his show and presumably does things that interest the public (this CNBC feud for example). But because CNBC covers financial markets, he thinks that things should be different and he feels justified in calling out the network?

I don't understand what Stewart's issue is. What CNBC does is not criminal. CNBC does what they do because they are catering to a market. If there is some issue with the programming content, why is it CNBC's fault? They are in business to make a profit, not provide a public service to investors.

My wife attended Montgomery Blair High School.

Liszt's Liebesträume No. 3 (literally means 'Dreams of Love' in German). Music was written to a poem by Ferdinand Freiligrath:

This is extraordinarily irrational.

I'm wondering if anyone else has heard of this 21 year old Icelandic classical music artist named Ólafur Arnalds. From what I have heard so far, I like him a lot. Here is his description as posted on his MySpace page: 'The music of Ólafur Arnalds can only be described as achingly beautiful. He creates a world of delicate symphonic compositions. His music scales the heights perfected by the Romantics. Succeeding in making the cross-over from classical to pop, Ólafur’s motivations are clear: “The classical scene is kind of closed to people who haven't been studying music all their lives. I would like to bring my classical influence to the people who don't usually listen to this kind of music…open people's minds." ' My favorite song from him is "3055" and the music video can be seen here: In this video: given the beauty of the music, the theme of upward motion, and the pure joy shown in the dancing figures, I would say his sense of life is extremely benevolent. (Note: You have to watch until 2-3 minutes in)

This is such a broad statement that almost everyone would agree with it. What exactly are you trying to say? I'm still not clear.

This statement is so poorly written that it is difficult to discern its meaning. Are you saying that we should try to remain open-minded with respect to intellectual thought that originates in religion, or has religion at its base in some significant manner?

I've been reading the discussion and have nothing pertinent to add, other than the fact that this statement by John deserves to be recognized for its comedic value. I chuckled out loud for quite a bit after reading it. Funny how words can do that sometimes.

These scenes come to mind immediately: Ending of Casablanca Ending of Breakfast at Tiffany's Ending of Life is Beautiful Gordon Gekko's "Greed is Good" speech from Wall Street

I'm not so sure that "there's no art involved" in writing non-fiction. It seems that surely one can label a work of non-fiction "artistic" in the sense that it has aesthetic merit, i.e. it is well-written. Take, for instance, Edward Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Gibbon had to isolate the important historical facts and integrate them into a story, or a narrative, of the Roman Empire's decline. If anyone has read this great work you would know that he does it very well, and at times artistically. Also consider many of the more artistically-merited philosophers that write non-fiction in prose that can almost be classified as poetic, such as Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, parts of Plato, etc. Your characterization "If...it is a non-fiction book, then there's no art involved" is an terrific oversimplification that needs to be re-evaluated.

I do. As sNerd pointed out, there is much of value in religion, in terms of human thought that originated in religious belief. Take Aquinas, Kierkegaard, Hugo, Spinoza, and Goethe for instance. I guess you could call it a historial appreciation if you wanted. However, I don't think there is any value in pure faith, but even granting that one would have to acknowledge that pure faith did not begin with religion, at least not religion in the Judeo-Christian sense. Indeed, paganism thrived for centuries before. Also, remember that, judged solely as a work of art (that is, on aesthetic merit), nearly the entire Old Testament is terrific, and it brought inspiration to many artists and thinkers long after it was written. Think about Vivaldi's Gloria, Da Vinci's Madonna of the Rocks, Milton's Paradise Lost, Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel or his wonderful statue of David, and Raphael's Madonna of the Meadows. Also, in terms of economic-political theory, Hobbes, Locke, Smith, etc. In some way or another, nearly all human thought can be traced back to the Greeks and the Old Testament. In short, no to the first question and yes to the second. Whatever you hear, there is no Socrates without Homer; there is no Plato without Socrates; there is no Aristotle without Plato, etc. Similarly, there is no Liszt without Beethoven; there is no Tchaikovsky without Liszt; there is no Rachmaninoff without Tchaikovsky, etc. Lastly, there is no Augustine without Christianity; there is no Kant without Augustine; there is no Rand without Kant, etc.

This likely will not happen.

I have read and understood your post I think. To summarize: putting the statement "All pigs can fly" into a syllogism puts the statement within the realm of logic, but doesn't make the statement logical. And this is premised on Rand's definition of logic as "non contradictory identification." Logic is used to form concepts from percepts, such as the chair you brought into the discussion. Fair enough. But isn't reasoning from percepts (i.e. the particular) to concepts (i.e. the general) essentially an inductive process? In so far as it is, one is only talking about induction. Deduction involves reasoning from the general to the particular, and that's the issue at hand. You wrote "one cannot form a premise out of the blue with no content. And the content is derived from observation and non-contradictory identification." This is not necessarily so. I can form a premise with content that is derived from observation and contradictory identification. Most people make this mistake, don't they? The next question is, logically (no pun intended), why is "non-contradictory identification" the definition of logic? There have been many definitions of logic given by various and sundry philosophers. What makes Rand's definition the correct one? Keep in mind I am not, and have not been, taking a stand on the right and wrongness of Rand's claim, I am just trying to understand how she got there.

As someone who has listened to CNBC for the last two years every (trading) day, this comment is unfounded. Santelli goes off like this almost daily. He has been the reporter from Chicago markets for years. All the anchors (Becky Quick, Joe Kernan, and Carl Quintanilla) that are in this video have also been working at CNBC for years. Kernan is a big-time Republican and openly argues his views with guests all the time. All these anchors know who Santelli is, his political and economic opinions, and his style of reporting. I can assure you, none of them were "confused" or "horrified" by Rick's comments.

I have posted here about this guy before. He's a fan of Ayn Rand and mentions her on air every once and a while. Here's a Youtube link that is easier to access I think:

I know what Rand's definition is, I want to know Why it is the definition of Logic? From my understanding, Aristotle's work on logic revolved around deduction, and his inductive work is much smaller in scope. He defines a deduction in the following manner: A deduction is speech (logos) in which, certain things having been supposed, something different from those supposed results of necessity because of their being so. (Prior Analytics I.2, 24b18-20) There is no qualification of "truth" or "identification"; on the other hand, he starts with suppositions, which can be anything, i.e. All pigs can fly. I fail to see how this follows. If you had written "saying it is true because of the form alone would be rationalistic", then I would agree. I'm stuck on understanding why "logical" necessitates "true". This is really weird. The seperation of "rationally" and "rationalistically", so that the argument is not logical with respect to one, and is logical in respect to the other, makes no sense. Either it is, or it is not. Words must have a precise meaning, right? It's either a statement that falls within the realm of logic or not, it's either logical or not, etc. 3. According to Aristotle, it would be a syllogism. 4. I feel like your answer is circling around the question. In the first place: deduction, in and of itself, is rationalistic. Secondly, if the argument is a deduction (you granted this), and deduction is a part of logic, then we've come back to the first question: Does the statement fall within the realm of logic? Now we have to answer yes. The argument I presented, regardless of how ridiculous it is, is a deduction, is it not?

Rand's aesthetic views ultimately find their source in Aristotle's Poetics, which is the origin of art as representation (or imitation, as Aristotle calls it). There's nothing wrong with liking Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel; personally, it's one of my favorites, although I prefer his statue of David. Pollack's work, on the other hand, is not art, if we are to define art as representative. Art as form, which is ultimately the source of Pollack's art, finds its philosophical roots in Kant's writings on aesthetics. When analyzing art, one should never get caught up too much in labels, i.e. "realist" or "romantic" or "Marxist", etc. After reading the Poetics, I recommend reading Rand's Romantic Manifesto for further information.

Why is this the definition of Logic? In general, one tends to think of Logic as the study of the principles of correct and proper reasoning, both deductive and inductive. I'm not really clear on what you're proposing, so maybe we should set these questions aside if possible. I want to try it a different way. Take the following argument: All pigs can fly. Bill is a pig. Therefore Bill can fly. If you will, I would like you to characterize this, so I can get a clearer picture of what you're saying. To be entirely specific: 1. Does this argument fall within the realm of logic?, 2. Is this argument logical?, 3. Is this argument a syllogism?, 4. Is this argument deductively valid? and, 5. Is this argument deductively sound?

I'm sorry I've taken a few days to respond, and I'm sorry this isn't longer. I only have a few minutes right now. To call this "not logical" is a contradiction. A "logical" statement is a statement that is "relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic." The above statement is in accordance with the nature of deductive logic, therefore it is logical. You continue: Previously you wrote that the statement was "not logical", and here you say it is "logical" (relevant parts bolded). Either the statement is logical, or it is not logical, but surely it can't be both simultaneously.

Keep in mind there is no such thing as official "Objectivist Economics." For an introduction to the study of economics, I would recommend The Wordly Philosophers by Heilbroner. For an introduction to solid economic principles, I would suggest Hazlitt's work. For information on business cycles, I sent this list to a poster here in private at one point: The General Theory of[...] by Keynes The Theory of Money and Credit by Mises Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle by Mises Prices and Production by Hayek Time and Money by Garrison Business Cycles by Schumpeter Recessions and Depressions: Understanding Business Cycles by Knoop Many of Milton Friedman's works are also good. Read everything you can get your hands on and form your own opinions. Keep in mind that a lot of work needs to be done in economic methodology. If you have access to economic journals, you can find some good articles there as well. The "Journal of Economic Perspectives" is one of the least technical and often has quality work.

A mod may want to transfer the discussion between Thomas and I into a new thread, since it is a bit off the main topic. I may not be communicating clear enough Thomas. Take the argument I presented above: All members of group A like B C is a member of group A Therefore, C likes B. Contrast it with the following: All members of group A like B C is a member of group A Therefore, C likes Z. Let me present your argument similarly. You said: All men are mortal Socrates is a man Therefore Socrates is mortal Contrast it with the following: All men are mortal Socrates is a man Therefore Socrates is a zebra. All of these are deductive arguments. The difference in both cases is that the first argument is valid while the second is invalid. Meaning: in the first arguments, if the premises are true, then the conclusions must also be true, while, in the second arguments, the conclusions do not follow from the premises, regardless of whether or not the premises are true. Keep in mind that the truth of the premises lies within the realm of inductive logic, but I am talking about deductive logic. It seems that you are hesitant to apply the term 'valid' to arguments such as these, because they convey no truth. However, surely one can recognize the distinction between the arguments that use proper deductive logic from those that do not. To summarize: I am not disputing that truth ultimately rests on the facts of reality and inductive reasoning. Let's move past that issue. What I'm trying to understand is, given Rand's definition of Logic as "the art of non-contradictory identification", how deductive logic fits into the picture. Her definition seems to concern itself with the realm of inductive logic only. Of course deductive reasoning must have a foundation, as you said. But, it seems that there are also standards that apply to the form of an argument which render the reasoning process itself (irrespective of truth) valid or invalid, as I have hopefully shown here.

First of all, what's wrong with working at McDonald's? Your second sentence contains an implicit premise that working at McDonald's is an illegitimate career. The Humanities offer an infinite amount of career paths. It's a matter of what you want to do. For instance, if you look at Harvard and U. Penn's MBA programs (the top two business schools in the country), over 40% of accepted entrants have an undergraduate degree in the humanities. That means that many white collar workers and executives in this country come from the Humanities. Tito's statement that most Humanities majors are blue collar workers is completely unfounded and purely speculative. If you want to study Philosophy, you should go do it, and you should begin immediately. Who cares what the job market looks like? If studying Philosophy gives you great joy, you should do it. Money is a non-issue when you're intelligent and happy in your life; by which I mean, you will easily earn it.

I would only use the term "valid" when discussing deductive arguments. I would mean and use "valid" to describe a deductive argument that is characterized by logically proper deductive reasoning, such as the argument I presented about twinzigs. It would be an assessment that is irrespective of truth, because it would be an evaluation of argumentative form. Rand seems to be defining logic so that Logic only applies to the realm of inductive reasoning, because she says that Logic is the "art of non-contradictory identification." If such is the case, Rand appears to leave no room for deductive logic, because deductive reasoning is reasoning apart from (or seperate from) identification, if I'm not mistaken. That's why deduction is useless in and of itself as a means of establishing truth. However, once the truth of an argument's premises are inductively established, then deductive logic seems to present itself as a sound form of reason. The study of economics, for instance, is typically (depending on what economist you talk to) founded on inductive premises which are used to deduce higher level truths. To go back: You said that if "twinzig is entirely undefined", then the argument is "entirely meaningless." I agree with you. However, I am not talking about an evaluation of meaning, I am talking about an evaluation of proper (or improper) deductive reasoning. For example, a statement with essentially no identification in reality: All members of group A like B C is a member of group A Therefore, C likes B.

I have questions about the so-called "Objectivist logic", as it is being called in that discussion. I don't understand why one cannot isolate the above argument and state that it is valid in reason, but logically unsound, precisely because it cannot be inductively verified. Whatever the given premises are, one can quite easily construct a valid deductive argument. Isn't that why deductive reasoning, in and of itself, is not a means to truth? Ex: All Men like twinzigs. Joe is a Man. Therefore, Joe likes twinzigs. I would label this argument as deductively "valid" but "unsound." A deductive argument, without any inductively verifiable premises, is (as Thomas eloquently put it) without "cognitive status." It seems to be the case that in order to establish the veracity of any premise, and therefore of any argument, inductive logic must be used. Moreover, it seems that Rand's claim that "Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification" pertains to the realm of inductive logic. Is this correct?