MichaelH

There are two aspects to rubbing people the wrong way. The first is how you present your ideas and your arguments. You may already do this, but make sure your arguments address the facts and not the person. (For instance, "That's wrong because..." instead of "You're wrong because...") Also, make sure to listen to the other person and fully understand what they are saying before responding. Other people in debates/arguments will become very upset if they think you're not listening. The second is people being offended by your ideas. If this is hurting your grades in the class, you can choose ideas you think will be better received. (You're not required to hurt yourself via grades by pushing Objectivist ideas where you will be punished.) In the broader sense, there's not much you can do. You can find someone who is offended by literally any position you take.

There are two main sources I've observed: People want to perpetuate the family unit in a broader sense. Christianity is big on this, using terms like "Heavenly Father". I've had very limited exposure to Catholicism, but they seem to use Virgin Mary as a "Holy Mother" figure. The Big Family is very much extended to include any living human as a child in the family. People also use a supreme being as a repository for everything they they don't know and can't control. I had an aunt who insisted doctors must thank god after successful surgeries. She actually said, "What, do they think they do all that magic?" Because she didn't understand the technical details, it had to be the work of a god. (She was a good person otherwise, but she really slipped on this one.) I think the repository-of-the-unknown is the reason many religious people consider atheists arrogant know-it-alls. In the religious world-view, accepting their god means accepting there are things you can't know and can't control. From this perspective, anyone saying "there's no god" is saying they know everything and absolutely control their world. This is all in the religious person's head, of course. I don't know of a single atheist who would claim to know everything. Atheists usually know the limits of their knowledge and are willing to say "I don't know" rather than make up stories when they hit that limit.

You're absolutely right; there are several types of color blindness and they come in varying degrees. I picked one to illustrate my point, but there was no intent to slight those with different types. Thank you both, that's the clarification I needed. I think the color-differentiation example is a great way to illustrate the contextual nature of knowledge. Given consistent lighting, a wall is painted a specific color. I may call a range of colors beige that someone else can classify into khaki, light putty, and ecru. The key is context. Within the precision of discriminations I can make, those three colors are "beige". My classification doesn't change the color of the wall, and it's not "wrong". It is a match between my perceptual/sensation ability and my concepts. And once I recognize others are better at discriminating the colors, it makes sense to ask their advice when choosing paint.

I have a question about sense data being necessarily valid. Color-blind people simply cannot observe certain colors. A red-blind person, for example, will see the American flag as gray, white, and blue. Other people regularly make discriminations that, to a color blind person, simply don't make sense. For instance, a red-blind person will not see a difference between a red wall and a gray wall of the same brightness. Now, I understand the person's world view will not fundamentally conflict with a color-seeing person. They see the same objects except in rare instances. The color-blind can understand many lights by position rather than color. However, let us say the color-blind person is an Objectivist. (Good for them!) They are not swayed by popular opinion or simple assertions. 1. How are you to convince them that these colors - which they cannot perceive - exist? You can hold a red and a not-red object in front of them. If they are the same brightness, the person will say they look identical. It doesn't matter how many other people say the first object is red; the color-blind Objectivist will, properly, insist they see no difference between the two. Would showing them a spectrum of light be sufficient? "You see how the color changes from blue to green to yellow? Well it keeps changing, to purple on one end and red on the other." They might agree in a philosophical way. 2. How should the person adjust their world view once convinced? Would they think, "There are things I can't perceive directly, but I know they exist because I've been shown evidence." This sounds suspiciously like the evidence required to believe in atoms or electricity, so I think this is close to the right answer. Or, "My senses are damaged. I must account for this when constructing concepts." I am hard of hearing, and this is what I do now when interacting with the world. I recognize others perceive that I cannot, and try to watch them for cues that I am missing something. I still trust the information that comes in through my ears, I just recognize it's not complete. I appreciate any insight you have to offer on these two questions!

You have developed an excellent habit: asking questions of the group about the nature of its beliefs. That is a good habit to keep, on this forum and in life. I/we hope you find the forum informative and helpful. Welcome!

The OP is correct that there is no magic change that occurs between 17.9 and 18.0 years old. Age limitations are rough guidelines meant to give adolescents sufficient time to mature - both cognitively and emotionally - before they can be held responsible for their decisions. They are based on a small amount of rational basis and a large amount of social norms. That is why, for instance, the drinking/driving/voting/statutory rape ages vary from state to state and country to country. The ages required are chosen to handle the mass of people rather than individuals. This sometimes results in an injustice to well-developed, responsible, and/or industrious teens. (My spouse is a good example; he was passed over for positions he trained people for because of his age.) I realize this is cold comfort when you're ready to move ahead and there's this arbitrary legal barrier in front of you. Just remind yourself there are reasons for legal age limits, and they won't be changed before you are free from them. If you still consider it troublesome later, you can act in many legal ways to recommend the ages be lowered or removed.

Thanks for sharing the useful information!

The problem is the two-party system in America. Neither party is a "good" option as defined by Objectivist principles. Given the two-flavors-of-the-same-thing choice promoted, we have to sacrifice much of what we want and then justify our compromises. One solution is to reject the false choice. Vote for who you believe most in. When outsiders get any significant amount of votes (like Ross Perot), the two major parties adopt the core issues of the third party. This is done to make the third party irrelevant. While it's not a great solution, it is a potential source of change. Another option is to enjoy the show in a cynical detached way. We're talking about mass mentality that you don't have direct control over. Notice how the republicans were given complete control of government. The plurality of the people didn't like what republicans did. The government has now been handed over to the democrats. After a while, the plurality won't like what the democrats do. Whether power is given back to the republicans or the people demand a different party will determine the state of the U.S. in this century.

I'd like to mention this because I think it makes an important point about property rights. Odyssey, a private salvage company, salvaged coins and artifacts from the Nuestra Senora de las Mercedes, sunk in 1804. The wreck turned out to be rather valuable. Now that the salvage company has done the work to rescue the valuables from the ocean, the government of Spain is attempting to loot the loot. This parallels several other private property issues in Objectivism I had been uncomfortable with. These are specifically the takeover of land from the American Indians and the use of oil from the Middle East. The Objectivist position in all cases is that the property rights belong to those who do the work involved in making the property useful. According to the Objectivist Lexicon: "it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object". Also, "Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort." The American Indian issue has been discussed on the forum and I simply mention it for completeness. In a televised interview, Ayn Rand said indignantly about the middle east, "It's OUR oil!"* I did not understand the statement at the time, but I do now. The US provided the technology, and US companies did the work of equipment installation and operation before the mideast governments stole both. Without our equipment, without our knowledge, without our effort, the oil would still be sitting in the ground, unused and unusable. The governments do not have a right to it as property. (They do have some claim on defending their borders, and negotiations for the equipment installation were proper. However, simply defending their borders did not entitle them to our equipment or the benefit derived from it.) As for the wreck, the government of Spain is trying to claim it now owns the coins - because it, presumably, owned them over 200 years ago. The salvage operation was done with permission and the government did not do the work to recover the coins. As such, it does not own them. As currently interpreted, international law allows the Spanish government to take property it has no claim to from the salvage company. This is outright theft at the point of a gun. The theft enforced by international law may be used against the Spanish in turn. The government of Peru is claiming rights to the coins because the metal used to make them comes from Peru. Philosophically, they have the same current claim to the coins as the Spanish. This takes the "I once owned it, so it's mine even if I lose it for a century or two" principle to its logical conclusion. I don't believe that positive action is possible to individuals in this case, but as a student of Objectivism, I feel obligated to at point out the theft and name it correctly. * I welcome broader context for that statement as I don't have the interview at hand. My memory is very clear on her statement, because it puzzled me greatly at the time. [Edit to fix minor typos and change "funds" to "coins" in one instance.]

I think I see what's causing confusion for you: context-dropping. "Supply" and "demand" make sense only in the context of a market of producers and consumers, with some medium of exchange. If you do not have the medium of exchange to buy a product, you are not a buyer. This means you are not "demand" in the "supply and demand" sense.

The legislature is giving Americans what they want. According to NPR this morning, most Americans want universal health care so long as they don't have to personally pay for it. The legislature waves its magic wand/gun and tries to make it happen. It can't work long-term, of course, but they're trying.

That won't stop people from voting for her. I know one person who voted for Palin because "she's a mom". I know several straight guys who voted for Palin because "she's hot". If Republicans pair her with Arnold Schwarzenegger, they'd have a serious chance in 2012. I'm not saying that's a GOOD thing. That's just my analysis of the situation.

(duplicate post deleted)

The metaphysical is a given. It comes from the nature and state of the universe. When we say it must be accepted "as a given", we mean it's not alterable by man's actions, and thus is not subject to moral judgement. The nature of gravity is one example: you cannot blame someone morally for falling if they trip. No government law can declare something immune to gravity and actually have that effect. The man-made is artificially created and always subject to change or improvement. Everything that man creates must be evaluated in this context. This includes tools, products, attitudes, philosophies, and societies. It is possible to pass rational, and often moral, evaluation on the things that man creates. You can pass judgement on someone who chooses to stumble (repeatedly) rather than look where they're going. The law creates all kinds of structures and requirements that must not be accepted at face value as necessary or unnecessary, moral or immoral. We make this distinction because some people and philosophies accept the man-made as a given. Examples are "you can't change society" and "the law is the law". If the individuals in a society hold a mistaken or dangerous belief, it is possible - and in many cases necessary - to convince them to change. Laws are subject to change over time and the some of the laws in existence at any given time are probably morally wrong. Does this help?

This forum is often an oasis of reason amid a desert of irrationality. Welcome!

I'll second Scott's recommendations: Atlas Shrugged, then OPAR. Since you're willing to go into technical detail, this is the most straightforward route to the core of Objectivism. Other recommended books are good additions, and will fill in many important points, but the first two books give you the base to build on. OPAR answers so many questions it's scary. It explains why religion is wrong immediately, based on the nature of reality, and then builds from there. There's a recommended phrase to explain your position as you're developing. "I am not yet an Objectivist, but I agree with Objectivists on many points." (Others may recommend alternate phrasing.) This allows you to state your current understanding without any confusion about your claim representing Objectivism. I use this phrase myself because I'm not yet fully integrated, but I am working on it! Welcome to Objectivism and the forum!

On reviewing the definitions of capitalism, I'm willing to revise my position. I should expect precision use of language when posting to a philosophy board. The schools are using the profit motive, which also happens to be the driving force of those operating in a capitalist system, to get results. Is that a statement you can agree with? Also, under your argument, wouldn't all free transactions be subjectively motivated? Most people work to buy things they want. They are willing to do something other people want in order to achieve their own values. We may be arguing different aspects of the same point.

The core of the transaction: Students learn more, as evidenced by higher passing rates and better performance on standardized tests. Because student learning is the stated goal of the institution, this makes the student learning the institution's highest value. There are secondary concerns like funding cuts and recruiting better students, but learning is the primary. The school values student learning more than than the funds spent. (If you prefer, the school chooses to spend the funds this way rather than purchasing more computers or sports equipment. This has relatively greater value to the school.) The school gives the students money in return for their performance. The money is a value for the students. The money is worth more to the students than the time and effort it takes to study. The wider context is not capitalism because the school is state-funded. However, my original point stands: they are using a principle of capitalism - which Kendall correctly phrased as trading value for a greater value - to produce results. I did not claim something could not be done. Several posters imply I think this is the best possible way to motivate students. That is not my point. My point is that this particular method appears successful and is relevant to the forum because it incorporates a capitalistic principle. I find that amusing given the socialist bent of most public education and educators. Having said that, the blog Kendall linked to has many useful tools for motivating students. Thank you for the link, and I highly recommend it to others as well.

All glory to the hypno-toad!

It's true the students don't volunteer to take the exams or classes, but I ask in all earnestness: how is paying for performance not a principle of capitalism? Whether the money appeals to students' long-term interests is irrelevant.

College is completely voluntary. Also, students are studying over time to "earn" under the system being reported, so they're making the connection between work now and reward later. I disagree. Students and young people don't have a long-term perspective. At most, they have vague plans for their future lives. Education is currently motivated by appeal to authority, or simply authority outright: "you'll learn this because I told you to". The success of this strategy speaks for itself. On the other hand, giving students a short-term incentive (like money) at least gives them some personal reason for learning the material. (High-performing students will do well regardless of the incentive programs in place; what they're doing is motivating moderate- or low-performing students.)

After trying "self esteem" classes, whole language learning, and new math, government education is noted for turning out low-performing students. One district accidentally used a principle of capitalism: if you want people to produce, pay them. It works! The number of students passing standardized tests is up nearly 40% at some schools. Students are happy to be "earning" money and friendly competition for good grades is building. Thank goodness. The sooner we get the students self-interested and motivated, the better for them, and coincidentally the better for everyone else.

I'm astounded. They came up with something worse than context-dropping: definition-dropping. You nailed it. With very few exceptions, everyone wants the benefits of capitalism: cheap and plentiful goods and services, technological development, and individual liberty. However, many people feel those things somehow can't happen unless the government gets involved. Without a philosophical understanding, they don't see the connection between capitalism and human progress. Hence, they want the perks of capitalism without capitalism. [Edit: Politicians especially have this problem because capitalism doesn't need them.]

The state has to make dramatic budget cuts this year. The only alternative seems to be the federal government stepping in; fortunately they have given no signs of doing so. There's no question about the moral issue involved, so it will be interesting to see the effects of cutting welfare completely.

I think you'll find you're in good company here. For me, it was a "THIS is what's wrong with the world, only I never knew how to express it." Howard Roark sought out similarly competent traders (like Mike the electrician) to exchange values with. So long as you develop your own values, you can be an independent individualist just like the rest of us. Welcome to the forum!