Ed from OC

I just saw this movie with three friends (two of them Objectivists) and we all loved it. Very, very funny -- if you like that style of humor. If you're prudish (and I know a lot of Objectivists who are) then don't see it. Otherwise, it's a terrific comedy, almost as good as the South Park movie. **** SPOILERS ******* The puppet sex scenes -- well, it's amazing. And the little thrown-in allusions to Star Wars and Kill Bill -- excellent. I liked the little speech about "three types of people" in the world. I still have the "Team America" theme song running through my head. F--k Yeah!

A few real possibilities: 1. Require international support before taking military action (far more so than Bush) 2. Restrain intelligence gathering (cut budgets, curtail activities, etc.) 3. Treat the war as a criminal matter 4. Back off behind-the-scenes political pressure on foreign governments You mean like Clinton and Carter? Yeah, they sure showed us how to deal with terrorists! Bush is doing and has done more than this. FACT: Bush has done far more to curtail terrorism than any recent President -- Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, Carter either ran from terrorists, launched one-time attacks, or mismanaged efforts so badly that they failed miserably. Bush has launched two major wars and conquered two countries, while runnning against "expert opinion" that said we would lose. We won both quickly and easily, but have hit trouble "winning the peace." Despite many stupid decisions, delays, and acts, we have made big progress in the war. Kerry, as a Senator, fought the DoD and intel agencies, opposed invading Iraq (both times), and has been an outspoken anti-war activist. Remember when he and Tom Harkin went to Nicaragua to oppose the anti-communist support from Reagan? This guy is slime. He has spent his political career on the far, far left, especially on military issues. And now, with a few words in his camapaign, we're supposed to believe he'll do a better job than Bush? Don't make me laugh.

For those considering voting for Kerry, one thing to realize is that Kerry is not Clinton. Clinton wasn't driven by ideology. He was an opportunist with power-lust, a man content to sit back and bask in the adoration and pawing of others. Kerry, as far as I've seen, is much closer to Hillary. He's an abomination that would use his power to promote his agenda agressively. Now I think there was a strong argument in favor of getting Clinton in office, if one knew the real Bill Clinton. We could stand a few years with him in office. But Kerry would not just stagnate the war, he would reverse our progress. Would he, for instance, stand up to international pressure to release Guantanamo prisoners? No. Would he let the military/intel have a free reign with information gathering, including interrogation? Doubt it. And it seems pretty clear he would reduce the war effort to a criminal/legal one. In contrast, Bush is an unprincipled mix. He plays "from the gut", meaning he doesn't sit around questioning and doubting his actions, nor analyzing every detail. The downside of this approach is a lack of foresight (see the post-war Iraq for details). Yet, who was the last President to actually make a large-scale effort to fight terrorism? Most of them took small-scale, one-time reprisals (Clinton bombing aspirin factories, Reagan bombing Libya) or retreated in defeat (Reagan after the Beirut marine barracks attack, Carter and Iran hostages). The facts are clear: Bush has done the best job of any recent president of fighting terrorism. I don't think we need to have a John Galt or even a Steve Forbes as president to win this. We just need good enough. The shortcomings will only increase the cost (lives, years, and cost) of the victory. What will ensure defeat in this war is to stop fighting it -- which is what, I'm convinced, Kerry would do.

This looks like one of the few movies Stephen and I disagree on. I guessed the surprise twist too early on for the suspense to mount. I thought the basic idea was intriguing, but the development of that idea (the plot) wasn't strong enough. **** SPOILER WARNING **** The other big disappointment was the ending. From the music, the sunshine, the smiles I guess it was supposed to be happy, but consider the actual situation: a great, terrible secret about the world has been revealed, with no possibility shown of removing this threat. OK, maybe that's a good setup for a sequel, but on its own it's disturbing. Is the director asking the audience to just forget about it? I had a much better time visiting "Garden State." Natalie Portman is her usual wonderful self -- easy on the eyes and a wonderful character.

How about in fiction? Ed Cline and Terry Goodkind, for instance, are consciously Objectivist. I haven't yet read Goodkind, but the Sparrowhawk series by Cline seems consistent with Objectivism. I'd have to think some more about other authors. Who else is known for presenting egoist characters (at least egoist in essence, if not at the same explicit level of development in the meaning of the concept as in Ayn Rand's novels)? If one wants a view of the noble soul, Hugo is terrific.

See my comments in the "Two Good Action Movies" thread. **** SPOILERS **** As for Cruise's character, no, I disagree. He is not acting from mistaken premises; he is evil. He is driven and methodical, even intelligent and perceptive, but he is a hitman. He is willing to casually kill innocent people, like Foxx's character, or the attorney. I think the interesting internal conflict is in Foxx's character, and the internal change he undergoes (from passive reactor to purposeful pursuit of values) helps elevate the movie from the standard banality of modern action films.

Since this thread has shifted focus from Peikoff's views of the upcoming election to how the war should be fought, let me chime in with a word or two. Regarding nuking the middle East, the first issue is whether the US government has the moral courage to use nonconventional weapons. In talking with non-Objectivists, the constant refrain is that they should not be used until after they are used against us. In other words, we can only respond in proportion to the level of assault we suffer. For this reason, I think we still need to convince the general public that the moral authority of using nukes is not to be set by our enemies, and that we should stop at nothing to defend ourselves. Whether nukes should be used from the standpoint of strategy is a secondary issue, one for which philosophy as such should not issue decrees. Military science is a field unto itself, with its own experts. My view is that we should fully endorse the moral right to use any weapon available, but the actual choice to use those should be left to the experts. That said, for what it is worth, I think in this age of globalization, of international travel and instantaneous communication, we can't rope off some area of the world and tell them, in effect, do what you want but leave us out of it. This is especially true of the middle East, with its vast geographic span, enormous population, and large oil production. I don't think the terrorist problem would go away if we nuked the area. Future terrorists may or may not be deterred, but chasing down the existing bad guys requires finding who and where they are. We can't do that if we eradicate records, contacts and paper trails along with the dictators. We may stop future terrorists, but cells may be moving forward now, and could be out of reach. It would be like taking out a weapons factory, but not weapons already used to attack us. I'm not sure of the right answer, but I'm leaning toward some sort of colonization. It's interesting to note the parallels between Pax Romana and America's domination of the world today. We have bases across the globe, and are the uncontested military masters of the world. By extending our reach in the middle East, we stand a chance of altering the culture the creates terrorists. I think we should show the world just what American imperialism could be. By the way, a colleague of mine escaped Iran after the Shah fell. He, too, wonders why we attacked Iraq instead of Iran. Iran is now the uncontested leader of the Muslim world, now that it's chief rival is gone. I hope we go after them soon, and before they have nukes of their own. The sad part is that this is just a hope. I wish I knew whether we had such plans or not. As to the election, whatever gains we've made would be wiped out by a Kerry victory. The world would see it as a rejection of Bush's "cowboy" mentality -- that is, the best parts of his foreign policy. It would only encourage our enemies. A Bush victory would be taken as a sign of our resolution to fight terrorism. And, as I mentioned earlier, Bush has done much, much more to fight terrorism than any other recent President. He deserves to win for that, despite errors and shortcomings in the war, and downright immoral acts domestically.

Collateral stands out for a few reasons, including giving Tom Cruise material outside his usual Hollywood hero type and showing Jamie Foxx is a legitamate dramatic actor. Best of all, though, is the direction from Michael Mann. Most action films these days are frenetic messes, rock-video blurs of fight scenes and explosions strung together by sorry excuses for plots. Cases in point: any movie with "The Rock"; or most recently, The Bourne Supremacy. In the latter, I think they borrowed the cameraman from NYPD Blue and gave him as much crack as he could consume. The camera never stops moving, to the point where I literally could not tell what was happening on screen. And I don't mean that in the usual sense, which is that the conceptual level of the film has problems (that is, the story and characters); rather, the problem is at the perceptual level. I first became aware of this in a couple scenes in Armageddon, in which I actually got mild motion sickness in the theater. With very rare exceptions (such as the incredible Kill Bill volumes) modern action movies have abandoned plot and character. Perhaps the clearest measure of this is the James Bond series, from the romanticism of Dr. No down through the camp of Moonraker to the mindlessness of Die Another Day. Even First Blood, the first Rambo movie, focused on plot and character, using action as a part of the film, rather than as the focus of the film. Collateral actually takes the time to tell a story, to which the action sequences are dramatic flourishes adjunct to the main story. They are integral to the story, given the nature of Cruise's character, but do not overshadow it. In that regard it is particularly noteworthy, perhaps as much for what it indicates other movies lack as it is for its own high overall quality. It is a good action flick with an interesting tale and characters. The contrast in character between Cruise's and Foxx's characters is worth watching. If you can find it playing near you, Zatoichi is the other action movie currently playing that stands apart from the pack. It is in Japanese with English subtitles. Perhaps because it is not a Hollywood movie, it doesn't suffer from the usual Hollywood problems. It is very creative, though not to the extent of a Tarantino flick. The movie starts off as a samurai feature, but doesn't stop there. If you like novelty in film, this one is worth a look. I'd like to discuss it more, but I would hate to spoil it. This is not your typical samurai movie. Very well made. Probably the best action movie of the summer, and I'd recommend it over Collateral. It is interesting to see the level of integration in the movie: action, plot, character, mystery, drama, comedy, music, dancing... Happy movie watching!

Me too. It's a pretty shade of green. Have you played with a doubled Nd:YVO4? It makes a nice deep blue at 457 nm.

Welcome behind the "orange curtain." I'm afraid I can't help with the roommate situation, but drop me a note sometime when you get here.

Look, you can't reduce philosophy to mathematics. Period. The content and structures of the fields are completely different. AR did not structure Objectivism along the lines you describe. I would suggest taking the time to read OPAR to at least get an overview of how the philosophy is structured. Yes, it is systematic, consistent, logical and true, but that does not imply a structure that matches that of mathematics. It seems as though you're taking this "Mathematics of Philosophy" phrase out of context, dropping nearly 50 years of subsequent thought on AR's part from consideration. Don't do that. Look at what she actually said and wrote. P.S. "Understanding Objectivism" is a taped lecture course available at the Ayn Rand Bookstore. That said, I'm done here. I'm tired of repeating myself.

What's the evidence for this?

Please re-read my first two posts, where I directly answer this question. Also, see OPAR and ItOE discussions on axioms for more details. 1. Axioms in the fields of metaphysics and logic do not have the same content or function. (See my prior posts for elaboration.) 2. AR didn't deduce Objectivism from 3 axioms, as you implied. 3. Rationalism is a not uncommon error in thinking among Objectivists, and my intent in posting here was primarily a caution against thinking that way. The choices are not limited to, one the one hand, reducing every single conversation or thought to the axioms, or, on the other hand, abondoning logic. Thinking should be consistent with the axioms (and with the rest of one's knowledge), but that does not require re-inventing the wheel. For instance, when ordering lunch at a restuarant, one's thoughts aren't: "A is A, therefore I'll have the salmon." That's bizarre. Likewise, one shouldn't order 10 servings of everything on the menu, just because you have the sudden urge to do so. BTW, "Understanding Objectivism" has a great analysis of rationalism, which I highly recommend. Based on what you've posted on this thread, I'd bet you haven't heard it. If this is directly aimed at Stephen, I'll let him speak for himself. My comment to you is that while extra consideration to new students is warranted, it is not without limits. Frankly, your posts here have been confusing, with a lot of floating abstractions that are hard to understand (which is why Stephen asked for you to concretize.) You've said some things (such as your odd connection between tautalogies and science) that are unusual (if not bizarre), vague, and asserted without proof. These add up to make your posts unclear and confusing. My point is that while a "newbie" deserves some extra consideration, it is also the newbie's responsibility to make the effort to listen to advice he asks for, and to be specific in his thoughts. This thread is going in circles, and it seems as though you don't grasp what I or Stephen or others have said.

Also, the fact that both fields have axioms does not imply that they must have the same axioms.

Another Objectivist working in optics? So you're the other one! :-) I've been working with lasers and optics for about 8 years in Southern California. Where is your company located?

In the past half-century of growing terrorist threats, the only POTUS to launch not one, but two full-scale wars against terrorist states is Bush. Despite rhetoric, despite stumbles, errors, and compromises, he is prepared to act in our self-defense, and is continuing to do so. He is doing a better job than any POTUS in fighting terrorism. The only way to end terrorism is to end terrorists, the states that support them, and the ideologies that create them. Bush is doing the first and somewhat doing the second and third. Many people in the military and intelligence fields understand the role Iran and Saudi Arabia play in fostering the Wahabi version of Islam. I don't know what, if anything, Bush is doing behind the scenes with these two countries. But I disagree with the idea that Bush somehow doesn't grasp the role this particular religion plays in fostering terrorism. (He probably doesn't see the connection between force and religion as such. That is an even broader identification, and it is the normal order of things to grasp lower-order principles before inducing the broader point, so the fact that he himself is religious doesn't necessarily mean he can't see one particular religion as evil.) Some Objectivists wish to send a message by voting for Kerry that we need a stronger commander in chief. But what message would be received if Kerry won? It would be a repudiation of Bush, since Kerry is running on the unofficial "anyone but Bush" slogan. The primary plank of Bush's campaign is the war on terrorism. Therefore the message of a Kerry victory would be a rejection of Bush's efforts. And what is Bush known for? His supporters think he is winning the war, while his haters think he is too hard on other nations, too unilateral, etc. So the message would be: bow to the U.N., pull out of Iraq, don't profile airline passangers, etc. IOW, surrender and appease. Is there any evidence that Kerry would be better at fighting terrorism? No. There is plenty that says he would do worse, such as his voting record. For me, this election is about terrorism, and Bush is clearly doing a better job than Kerry ever could. I plan to vote Republican.

But it was Bush who openly argued for social security privatization in the last election. If that hadn't been the case, I would agree. I think it is possible. Come to think of it, this could be a trial balloon to sniff out how much support there is for this position. It certainly wouldn't hurt to let Washington know how we feel.

That's an interesting choice of words in the article: "calls for." More accurate terms would be compels, orders, commands, forces, etc. "Calls for" is almost a euphemism as used here, suggesting that the bill does something less than compel behavior. It really makes the initiation of force sound innocuous.

Rumormill, via Drudge Report, has elimination of the IRS as a centerpiece of the GOP domestic agenda for the second Bush term. Info "The Speaker of the House will push for replacing the nation's current tax system with a national sales tax or a value added tax, Hill sources tell DRUDGE. 'People ask me if I’m really calling for the elimination of the IRS, and I say I think that’s a great thing to do for future generations of Americans,' Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert explains in his new book, to be released on Wednesday." This is FANTASTIC news. I hope it is true. And I hope they do more than use it as a campaign item, as Bush did with privatizing social secrity in the 2000 election. If Bush pushes for this, then I will be almost certainly voting for him in November.

There's a woman where I work that I and a friend refer to as "Patricia Keating." Some things that either she's bragged about, seen myself, or heard from witnesses: - cheated her way through school, using her (ahem) unusually large endowments to get the socially awkward CompSci guys to do her homework and professors to change grades - flirts with almost every male engineer, often getting them to do pieces of her work (because she's completely incompetent) - slept with three layers of management in just over a year (including a married guy, who was pushed out as a result) - in debt up to her eyeballs, yet spends every penny on status symbols (a Mercedes, designer clothes, etc) - told new hires she was a manager, when she has no such role - will sit around for hours each day just gossipping The nice thing is just about everyone who has encountered her eventually clues in to what she is all about, and treats her accordingly. When word reached one program manager that she was interested in joining his group, his reply was "no way in hell!" She ended up in a confrontation with a female new hire, whose father (or uncle) sits on the head ethics committee for the entire company. Oops.

What you initially posted was a list of valid forms of arguments. They are not axioms in the same sense as existence, identity and consciousness, which are in the province of metaphysics, not epistemology. "A is A" means something quite different from "x<=>x". "The 'identity' of an existent means that which it is, the sum of its attributes or characteristics." (OPAR, p6) More importantly, existence is identity. Historically, existence was seen as just one more attribute of a thing, on the same order as color or weight. Rand's view is unique: existence and identity are the same thing, from two different perspectives: what it is vs. what it is; whether something is real or not, and what the thing is. To try to equate "A is A" with "x<=>x" not only obscures the meaning of the former, but confuses metaphysics and epistemology. No. Science is about discovering how the world works. It is not about combining tautologies. Logic is a tool in pursuit of identifying how the world works, in that it keeps one's knowledge from containing contradictions. One still has to look out at the world. That's not precise. The philosophical axioms act as the ultimate guardians of knowledge as such. That is, without all 3 axioms, knowledge is not possible: either nothing exists, in which case there is nothing to know; A is non-A, in which case what you knew a moment ago may no longer be true; or we are all unconscious, in which case there is no mind capable of knowing anything. But it is not the case that axioms are somehow combined to lead to specific knowledge about reality, which was a major point of my prior post. What do you mean? I'm lost. Are you saying combinations of axioms are both deductions and inductions? Again, if you here are talking about the "axioms" you initally posted, those are forms of arguments. Just as the laws of algebra hold for any particular equation, the rules of argumentation apply to any argument on any topic. But by themselves, without any content, one cannot manipulate the rules in some way which will create content. By analogy, given x = y + z, one cannot say whether x = 4 or 3.225 without knowing the content -- the values -- of y and z.

1. She "limited" her axioms in metaphysics to just 3 because that's all there are. I don't know of any others. 2. Objectivism wasn't created and isn't structured along the lines of "reaching other conclusions" from the axioms. This implies a rationalistic approach in which the whole of her philosophy is supposed to be deduced from some starting point. On the contrary, she formed her philosophy inductively. A simple example: how does one go from "existence" to "ethics"? There's nothing in the concept of existence (or the axiom that it exists) that would lead to a concept of ethics, let alone establish a rational ethical code. But if one oberves reality, all sorts of things show up: that men exist; that they are mortal; that they have freewill; that survival is not guaranteed, but requires a specific course of action based on the nature of the organism; that man's life requires long-term thought and planning; that irrational choices are harmful; and so on. From observation of these sorts of facts, and after much, much thought, Ayn Rand came up with an objective code of ethics. Note how rich the inductive process is. There's a treasure trove of information out there to be had, that makes the few gems one can get through deduction seem quite small. My point is that while deductive reasoning is a wonderful tool, it could not get anywhere without induction. After all, the premises one deduces from have to come from somewhere, which makes induction a more fundamental thought process. Moreover, the truth of one's deductions relies as much on the truth of one's premises as the structure of the argument.

I haven't bothered to see the movie, but I read the book it is based on, which is a collection of implications, innuendo, contradictions, falsehoods and slander -- in other words, a character assassination attempt. The simplest response to the whole thing is: if she had been the kind of person described in that book, she would not have been able to write Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead. Could you imagine Lois Cook or Peter Keating writing either of those? I certainly can't.

If that's the case, I'd suggest skipping the sequel. You won't miss anything, and there are better movies playing. The worst part of this one is how much Parker whines. Now I can tolerate a hero who is altruistic but still noble-souled; I can't stand a "hero" who does nothing but whine and complain. What's heroic about that? How can someone root for someone like that? Yeah, the philosophy is bad, what else is new. But the attempt to turn a whiny little kid into someone worthy of the label "hero" is too much for me. Some alternative choices: THE NOTEBOOK -- a real romance. The end really got to me. KING ARTHUR -- a bit melodramatic, maybe, but some inspired lines, and really heroic characters. The heroism is played straight and taken seriously, rather than tongue-in-cheek or apologetically. DODGEBALL (or ANCHORMAN) -- very silly comedies that had me laughing in the aisles SHREK 2 -- if you saw the first one, see this one THE TERMINAL -- very well made, but uninspired and unambitious HARRY POTTER -- my favorite of the books, quite good, and a bit darker than the first two Potter films

I remember reading that passage and wondering if Peikoff and I had read the same book. I read 1984 in junior high (which, ironically, was just a year or two after the actual year 1984) and was quite impressed. Years before even hearing of Rand, I had the feeling of encountering someone who thought like I did. I haven't read the book since then, but as I recall, the chocolate rations were gradually reduced. The implication, to this reader, was that the society was declining and unable to support itself. There was no indication of any kind of technological progress. Maybe I should read it again to be sure, but I think Peikoff is wrong on this point.