Branden

(I'm from Iowa) I was watching a historical show about China a few weeks ago, and they talked about how the Yellow and Yangtze rivers flooded constantly throughout the history of China. Because of this flooding, the narrator continued, China didn't have the luxury of "individualism" and instead had to focus on "collective education" and "sacrificing for the community." He claimed this was necessary because they had constant problems with flooding. This brought to my mind a similar comparison as you were talking about. In 1993, Iowa had horrible flooding that did a ton of damage. Parts of Des Moines went 2 weeks without fresh water. The experts said it was a flood that was so bad that it would only happen once every 500 years. Regardless, we decided to build levees throughout flood-prone areas, and within a few years, most of the big cities were nearly flood-proof (particularly Des Moines). Because of this, even though we didn't have much "collective education," large portions of the state now are experiencing much less flooding than they would have had if the flood had been as bad. In addition, we now have back-up water treatment plants, so that when one plant goes offline due to a flood (or other disaster) we will still have clean water. What was probably the most important safety aspect regarding the recent floods, though, is that over 2 weeks ago we started organizing entirely voluntary sand-bagging groups, and had voluntary evacuations in the most dangerous areas. Besides both of these efforts, many people had gotten flood insurance after the floods of '93, so they will have the money to rebuild even if their property is still flooded after the defense efforts. In contrast, the Chinese still, every few years, have massive flooding, and restart from scratch each time. The lesson they take away from it is the need for collective education and sacrifice; the lesson Iowans took away from floods is the need for preparation through insurance and better infrastructure.

That was a really insightful movie. I particularly liked his discussion of correlation vs causation and appeals to political views to trump science. I wonder how much the speaker applies those principles consistently, though, to things like global warming. Thanks for posting it

That can be a compelling reason to vote Republican, when Obama is the alternative

My school has a partial ban on cell phones because, according to the administration, they could be used for terrorist activities.

That is a difficulty in defending capitalism, I suppose. But like you said, the more capitalist a country is, the better off it is, so its only logical that a completely capitalist country would be even better. Besides, you can defend pure capitalism from a moral standpoint without having an empirical example of that pure capitalism. In my view, the German alliance was a greater threat than any others. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here, as arguing this point would require specific research of the relative powers of the countries. Bailing out the British economy might well have been Wilson's justification for war (in fact it probably was). My only point was that, although that particular justification was wrong, there was a justification based on self-interest, although I don't know if any major figures back then advocated that justification. I agree with Nyronus regarding Nazi Germany and the USSR. Germany was a more immediate threat during WWII, and thus we were justified in fighting them first, although after WWII we should've done more to assure that the USSR didn't come to power. (In my history class we learned that the reason we didn't handle the USSR well was because FDR was sick and dying at the Yalta Conference, and he essentially single-handedly handed over post-war Eastern Europe to the USSR.)

America in the 1800s was a mixed economy, but it was the closer to capitalism than most, if not all, other economies throughout history. So capitalism has never truly existed in the United States, but we got close. First of all, drafts aren't appropriate, as were other Wilsonian tactics. Second, my justification for America entering WWI would be to protect Americans from Germany warring us in the future, as they would likely have done if they beat France. The Americans being protected in the future would be the same Americans that engaged in war. I don't mean incredibly long-term future like 100s of years or something, just however long it would've taken Germany to regroup if it defeated France. That is different than warring to liberate France, warring to sacrifice to future generations, or warring to acquire markets.

"It must be remembered that the political systems of the nineteenth century were not pure capitalism, but mixed economies." (Rand, Capitalism, pg 38) When did I say that? Of course I'm not certain that they would've won, but it would've been very bad if they did. I think that they might've had a good chance of winning, since their economic power surpassed Britain and France by that time, their population size was second only to Russia in Europe, and they had very well-trained officers in the military. Plus, Russia was leaving the war, which would've allowed Germany to redirect troops from the Eastern to the Western front, causing trouble for Britain and France.

Pursuit of Happyness

I hadn't really thought of it that way. At first though, I guess I wouldn't really know how to classify it. I will think it over though. All of that was exactly what I was looking for, David. Thank you very much. I think I understand the answer to my question.

You were right: I was asking about the knowledge and theories about emotions. I agree with the rest of your statement. However, given that all of what you said is true, is it thus valid to make a philosophical statement about the theories and knowledge of emotions independent of biology and psychology? As an example, Rand's statement that "An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man’s value premises." That to me seems to be a philosophical approach to emotions instead of a biological or psychological approach, which is where I become confused. And if knowledge regarding emotions are primarily based in the fields of biology and psychology, could one accept the Objectivist philosophy while still rejecting Rand's theory of emotions? Or is that theory part of the Objectivist philosophy? (I don't meant to constraint this just to emotions, its just an example case of a lack of understanding that I have).

I think I have a pretty decent grasp of Objectivism (I've read most of Rand's and Peikoff's works, and am starting on Tara Smith's) but there is one major thing I still don't understand: According to Objectivism, what is the brightline between science and philosophy? Rand defining philosophy: "Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man’s relationship to existence." (Ayn Rand Lexicon, "Philosophy") Peikoff defining science: "Science is systematic knowledge gained by the use of reason based on observation." (OPAR, pg 35) At first glance, I think these two definitions seem to be pretty sturdy (particularly the definition of science, which seems to lay the foundations for the solution the rationalist-empiricist debate). However, when I try to apply these two definitions to specific issues, I don't get a very clear result, with my understanding. It seems to me that given that definition of science, ethics could be defined as a science. It is based upon some observations and then reason is applied to gain systematic knowledge. However, Rand multiply times includes ethics as part of philosophy, and ethics would seem to also fall under her definition of philosophy, as it describes man's fundamental relationship to existence. Is it not a problem for ethics to fall under both? Or is ethics excluded as a science because it isn't "fundamental"? If so, then how does one determine what is fundamental? It seems an argument could be made for nearly anything to be termed fundamental, or anything to be non-fundamental (excluding metaphysics). This same problem, I think, applies to a lot of other science-related issues as well. Emotions seems to fit the requirements of a science, and I think many non-Objectivists would classify it as a sub-section of a science; however, Objectivists seem to offer a theory of emotions that is philosophical and not scientific. I agree with Rand that emotions aren't a valid means of gaining knowledge, and that is part of philosophy, but she goes on to make claims such as this: "An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man’s value premises." (“Playboy’s Interview with Ayn Rand,” March 1964). That proposition seems to require scientific backing instead of just philosophical backing. Although the value in-and-of-itself might be decided philosophically, the reactions in man's brain seem to me to be scientifically based. Furthermore, Rand has two statements in the Ayn Rand Lexicon on "Philosophy" and "Science" that confuse me: "Philosophy is the science that studies the fundamental aspects of the nature of existence." "Science was born as a result and consequence of philosophy..." Can anyone help me understand these subtleties? I feel like I'm nit-picking, but as I'm pretty interested in science and Objectivism (and how they interact), I think its important.

I think you're right in that they would still have free will; however, I think that after a certain amount of indoctrination and a complete lack of exposure to any vaguely rationalist principles, most of their choices would err against civilization. I also think the point regarding Native Americans is correct. I would also point out that they might be just as likely to view you as a demon/threat than as a god. The uncontacted tribe that was spotted in Brazil in the news report that started this thread attempted to attack the helicopter that spotted them, if I recall correctly. Regardless, you're probably right that out of a large population, a very small minority would give civilization a chance. Most tribes have probably been contacted to some degree. However, there are exceptions, like I think this tribe that was recently found it. Moreover, we might just not have documentation on the minority of uncontacted tribes (by the fact that they are unconctacted), which would account for the difficulty of finding evidence of them (this is a bad argument in general, but I think it might apply here to some degree). Even if they weren't completely uncontacted though, the fact that they are contacted doesn't in-and-of itself really give them the understanding necessary to intentionally remain uncivilized. Contact as well as further efforts to communicate somewhat extensively would be necessary to allow them to really make the decision, and I think there are quite a few tribes that haven't been communicated with much. Wikipedia has an article listing some of them here. They refer to them as "uncontacted" although that term might not be completely applicable to some.

In my understanding, the categorical imperative is more a method for implementing and evaluating ethical actions (in the case of Kant, it would be altruism) than it is an explanation of what a value is to be derived from. Its possible for subjectivist egoism to advocate a categorical imperative as well, although I don't specifically know of anyone who does. It probably wouldn't work in the case of moral agnosticism. So, although Kant might be in the altruist camp, the categorical imperative is to some degree separate from that.

I think that Greece is undoubtedly the greatest ancient civilization. Of course, other empires had greater areas of land, existed earlier, existed longer, and so forth, but I don't think those factors are a primary determinate in identifying the "greatest" ancient civilization. Horvay summed it up well: Of course, other civilizations developed philosophy, math, logic, etc as well as Greece. However, Greece was unique in this regard. Not only did Aristotle make it explicit, as horvay again pointed out, but him and the other Greek thinkers were able to lay the foundations for modern Western civilization, which I think we will all recognize as being superior (despite its lingering imperfections). Other ancient civilizations might have had insightful thinkers as well, but they weren't insightful enough to lay the foundations for an Enlightenment. In this regard, Greek thinkers were uniquely superior, and thus Greece is the greatest ancient civilization.

Rand critiqued ethical utilitarianism and ethical deontology as well. Combine those two with moral agnosticism (brought up by West), categorical imperative, and death-worship (both brought up by John McVey), and it becomes pretty obvious that Rand assumed much more than just egoism and altruism. Rand on middle grounds:

I agree with Moose on this. I doubt that very many people would be willing to up and change their entire lives so easily. If they were of any significant age, they would probably be pretty indoctrinated into whatever beliefs the tribe has, and modernity would be alien and likely terrifying. Besides, the fact that they have spent so much time in that tribe probably has done a lot to impair their cognitive abilities, and they likely couldn't understand what civilization had to offer. Asking whether or not someone who grew up in civilization would chose to join civilization if they weren't a part of it already is a loaded question, for the reasons above. If they were truly uncontacted, they would never have known that there was a civilized world, and thus they wouldn't have intentionally kept themselves isolated.

The EU is hardly a "single entity" from my perspective. It is an attempt to unite Europe, but fundamentally the individual states will still act autonomously. The next time that some countries in Europe face a threat, I think the EU will likely fall apart, or at least split into factions. Germany during WWI would've been able to hold Europe just as well as Hitler would've been able to. I think its less an issue of the leader and more an issue of how strong the country is, and (I believe) that Wilhelm's Germany was just as strong relative to the rest of Europe as Hitler's. Regardless, the problem with one major political entity in Europe from the perspective of an American is less about what domestic program they would implement, and more about how they would be in terms of IR. If a country was able to gain hegemony over Europe, it would in all likelihood seek to extend its influence into other regions, which is where the problem with the United States would arise. That's essentially why I think that the United States was justified in entering WWI from a self-interest perspective: it was better to deal with Germany then instead of waiting until they became stronger. Rand seems to have held the opinion that Wilson was wrong to try to "spread democracy" and such in WWI, although I don't have any quotes saying she actually stood opposed to WWI. She also criticized the handling of Europe after the war, but again, that isn't actually standing in opposition to the war. I got the quotes of Rand from here, although it seems they try to distort her opinions a bit. I agree with you on this, definitely. Although I don't think pacifism is the right label for a policy of self-defense, though.

I think you're probably right about us helping France and Britain before the Zimmerman Note. However, Germany had been attacking our ships from the beginning as well. Its hard to say which side started it. Regardless, if we would've sided with Germany, then Germany would've taken over Europe in WWI. If Germany did that, they would've begun to compete militarily with the United States even without having a Hitler. A French equivalent wouldn't have arisen, because Germany would've occupied and made France part of itself, or at least something similar (like Vichy France in WWII). The point that I was trying to make, most fundamentally, is that Germany was trying to gain dominance and Europe, and the United States, from an international relations perspective, can't allow another country to take control of all of Europe, because that country would be a threat to the United States. Because of that, the United States was destined to side with the alliance in Europe that wasn't capable of taking over Europe (in both wars, it was the non-Germany alliance, seeing as Germany was the most powerful state in Europe). On a side note, I don't know whether or not this is the Objectivist interpretation of international relations, it is only my view. Is there a set-in-stone Objectivist IR theory, beyond "do what is in your self-interest, and protect individual rights?" That might be a framework for a theory of IR, but says little about what the theory would look like in terms of achieving that self-interest.

First of all, your look at what is in the rational self-interest of Americans is based upon entirely short-term views, instead of long-term views. If Germany, in either war scenario, had been able to gain dominance over Europe, they would have eventually tried to undermine America's strength in North America. The conflict between the two, if they both were dominant in their region, would be nearly inevitable. That conflict would be much worse than a WWI or WWII fought against a not-yet-dominant Germany, as well as being off of American homeland. This war scenario was already beginning to seep through before America entered either war. The Zimmerman Note, in which Germany told Mexico that Germany would help Mexico regain the SW United States if Mexico helped Germany, contributed to America getting involved. Although I don't know if America had any knowledge of this at the time, Hitler and Germany had an attack plan for New York in which they had built long-range bombers designed to take down the skyscrapers, and they had other plans to attack America before we entered the war as well. All of this would've been increased tenfold if Germany had not been contained in either war. Second, America has never really been isolationist, so your premise of capitalism and isolationism ending at the same time is inherently false. Starting under John Adams we began to get involve with other's affairs, particularly with Britain and France. Jefferson had a fight with Barbary pirates in Northern Africa. The War of 1812 (we tried to invade Canada in this war) followed, which was proceeded by several mini-wars against various Native American tribes. This was followed by the Mexican-American War in 1846. Then we had the Civil War and Reconstruction, which kept us out of external conflicts for a while, except for some fights with lingering Native Americans. Then came the Spanish-American War, in which we began colonization (and were DEFINITELY not isolationist any more). This war then necessitated further fighting in the Philippines against nationalist movements there. It wasn't too long after that when we became involved in WWI. In summary, then, America has never been isolationist. However, before getting involved in global affairs, a country generally tries to gain dominance over its own region (North America for the US). So America's military involvement was confined to North America for the most part, until we already had dominance over the continent. When we did achieve this dominance, we began looking elsewhere around the world. Third, capitalism started declining before WWI. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act of the 1870s was what Rand cited as a key turning point. The Federal Reserve and income tax were also both instated before WWI. Regarding WWII, I don't think it is too much of a coincidence that the war and the decline of capitalism were at the same time. The weakening of the economic markets helped contribute to the instability both in Germany and elsewhere, helping to fuel the war. If America, Britain, and France had kept their economies capitalist and strong, they would've stopped Germany before it got strong enough to mount a serious challenge.

I think you're referring to the Sedition Act. Ironically, most of the people that were imprisoned by that act were openly socialist, and they were imprisoned by the closet socialists of the Wilson Administration. There's a new book out by Pat Buchanan called Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War" that, as I understand, takes the position that Britain didn't do enough appeasing and should've continued appeasing even after Hitler declared war on Poland. Given the amount of positive attention that the book has received, it seems that it might be the beginning of a change of public opinion about WWII and justifications for war in general. Unfortunately, the war in Iraq seems to have revived pacifism and complete isolationism again in America.

I was raised in a Protestant household. My mom is Protestant, and my dad doesn't take a position to my knowledge. I rarely had to go to church since I didn't like it and my dad didn't go either. I was never religious, but didn't become explicitly atheist until I was around 13. It didn't happen through reading any moving text, but happened after about 30 seconds of pondering on the issue (a lot of great things are discovered that way). Most of my family doesn't approve of my atheism. My mom cried when I told her I was atheist, and my grandpa told me that not believing in god is worse than murdering an infinite amount of people (he claimed that since the "believe in god" commandment was higher upon on the list than the "thou shall not kill" commandment, believing in god is infinitely more important than not killing). Rand and Objectivism didn't have much of an influence on my decision to be atheist, although it did provide me with a more fundamental set of arguments against god (specifically, the law of identity).

My mistake. According to Wikipedia, he is quite the anti-environmentalist. The newest version of the movie gave me the wrong impression, as it revolves around the idea that if we "exploit" the environment, we'll go extinct. I haven't read State of Fear. Would it be worth my time?

I find those criticisms to be rather ironic, coming from Crichton. My interpretation of the recent version of Andromeda Strain was that it had an pro-environmentalist political message to it.

You couldn't force them to work; in a truly capitalist society, there is a government to prevent that. In a capitalist society, they have a choice: to work for you, or not to. If your conditions are unfavorable, they can go elsewhere. As a contrast, in a socialist society, they don't have that choice.

A bird called the ivory-billed woodpecker has been thought to be extinct for decades, yet a few years ago there was evidence found that it existed today in Arkansas. Our government's reaction to this news? That's from here. From the same article, the story continues: apparently, the bird might still be extinct. I find this pretty appalling. The government oversteps its bound with programs to spend taxpayer money on helping a bird that may or may not exist, while simultaneously costing million dollars by forcing a delay of an irrigation project which may cost many farmers their livelihood. The philosophical errors are outstanding: their assumed premise is that the intrinsic value of the bird (irrespective of any value man may find in it) justifies the government initiating force against its citizenry to help the bird through taxes and regulation.