MichaelH

I'm posting as someone who was interestd in Buddhism but never quite a convert. I hope a true Buddhist will correct me if I misrepresent the religion at any point. I'm pretty comfortable with the basics, however... The four noble truths are the basis of Buddhism: 1. Life means suffering. (Every living thing suffers; it's not personal.) 2. The origin of suffering is attachment. (We want things and people to be permanent but they are not. That is why we suffer.) 3. The cessation of suffering is attainable. (through non-attachment) 4. The path to the cessation of suffering. (The eightfold path where we enjoy without expectation or clinging.) There are a few points where objectivism and Buddhism agree: 1. No supernatural being "god". Buddha is held as an example to learn from rather than a mystical fairy father figure. (Some types of Buddhism emphasize worship of various Buddha-figures, but this is not universal.) 2. The mind is not separate from the universe. Others have already pointed out where the philosophies conflict, and they definitely do. I just want to clarify the basic points of Buddhism so it's clearer where we disagree, and why.

Congrats and way to start 2009!

Maximimus is absolutely correct here. Even Ayn, who was probably as well-integrated as it is possible to be, thought she would be a screenwriter. She didn't settle on novel writer/philosopher right away. It is entirely possible to lead a moral life without a central purpose. "No central purpose" is the opposite of "focused", not "depraved". A purpose is what allows your days to add up to a total. It is an explicit choice that directs your actions and choices. It is a personal choice that reflects your values. (Indeed, living a moral life may become your central purpose!) If you pursue what seems most meaningful to you, I suspect your central purpose will become clear over time.

Before discovering objectivism, I was a rather unintegrated leftist. I would not have called myself socialist, but in retrospect I was. The problem, and it's something I didn't realize until today, was that I committed the Atlas Shrugged sin of calling myself "the public". I thought people should feel bad for driving large vehicles. Didn't they realize "the public" needed cheap gasoline and they were using more than their share? I thought that right up until my little car got rear-ended and totaled. I bought a Suburban to replace the little car, but felt guilty about it. Because I couldn't afford auto insurance in CA for many years, I thought the government needed to make it a priority to invest in better public transportation. Didn't they realize "the public" needed reliable, timely transportation? Once I had a car, I realized how much superior it was to public transportation. My view on health care is shifting similarly. I used to think universal health care was such an obvious good thing I couldn't imagine why anyone would be against it. I'll have actual health coverage from my employer starting in January. I'm honestly not sure if I'd prefer federalized health care to what I'm getting; all of my options are very rather expensive! However, now I recognize that my opinion is based on pragmatism rather than sound philosophy. And, of course, I made the same shift on taxes just about everyone makes. When I was just starting out, taxes were the cost of having an advanced society, of providing necessary services to "the public". Now that I'm working professional-level and have bought a house, I realize just how much taxes hinder and shackle the economy. At least I now have the philosophical backing to remain anti-tax when I'm retired and it's other people are paying the bill!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/arti.../MN8U14N2IV.DTL The discussion is interesting reading. There's a clear divide between people who think rationally and those who think emotionally. The rational people point out this will: 1. Raise prices. 2. Encourage companies to use trucks and drivers from Mexico. 3. Discourage out-of-state companies from shipping to California. 4. Put struggling owner-operators out of business in the middle of a recession. 5. Make it harder to do business in California. The emotional people say things like: 1. I hate it when I pull up next to a truck and I can smell the exhaust. 2. Why don't they just use electric big rigs? 3. I'll gladly pay a few cents more for a gallon of milk to save the environment. 4. Sure this may make stuff more expensive, but health care will be socialized by then anyway. Everything that is on a shelf or table is delivered by big rig. The emotionalists don't seem to realize they are talking about putting people out of work and making it harder for everyone to buy anything. I'd like to add a side note regarding the lung cancer issue. My spouse worked in the shipping industry for several years. A high percentage of dock workers and truck drivers were smokers. That's a much more direct explanation for higher rates of lung cancer.

Your concern for appropriate use of taxpayer money and the person at the welfare institution is commendable. However, a more self-focused analysis may help clarify this. 1. The purpose of the program is to help you be a productive member of society. If you reach that goal, they should be happy, whether you're employed in the specific field of the training or not. 2. You've already changed your mind about college twice. It is possible you will change it again; many people to decide college is not for them after a few years. The training will give you a useful fallback in this case. 3. You mention the training can help you get summer work while you complete college. Great! 4. You have already started the training program. Accounting details may differ, but the taxpayers have probably already paid for the program since you've started. Leaving now would waste taxpayer money and probably have consequences for the person who signed you up. It seems clear to me that your best option is to finish the training, then see what you want to do after it's through. You entered the program honestly and were approved. I don't see a moral obligation to take specific employment after you complete it, especially when it can be also be useful to you in the future.

I want to add a quick aside here: if you have difficulty integrating principles with your daily life, you might want to reevaluate those principles. Either Ayn or Leonard Peikoff said, "A rational man has no contradictions". When your actions contradict your stated beliefs, that's a sign to examine your premises. It is possible that what you think should be important to you actually is not, or perhaps your values have a different rank than you expect. For instance, if you know you should go to the gym, but choose not to, look at what you're doing instead. If you're reading a book you enjoy or staying connected socially on the web, it's possible those are more important to you (for now) than an even healthier body. If you want to go to the gym also, you might go during a different time of the day when it doesn't interfere with the other activity you also value. I've addressed several issues in my life this way where I would say, "I want to do X but I'm not. Why?" It's important to answer that as honestly as you can. Don't worry about what you "should" think; "should"s usually come from other people and haven't been rationally examined. This is about you, how you choose to spend the life that belongs to you, and what you truly value.

Based on his statements, I think Jake is complaining about the time between ages 16-21 (in the U.S.) where teenagers gradually accrue the privileges of adulthood. This is an awkward period, both legally and developmentally. At 16, you can drive, but not vote or drink, and it requires special legal proceedings to be emancipated from your parents. You can be tried as a minor or an adult depending on the crime and the mood of the court. At 18, you can drive and vote and are emancipated, but can't drink. You will be treated as an adult by the courts. At 21, you're finally a full adult, with drinking privileges and everything else. Jake seems to specially object to the 18-21 period, where you're legally liable as an adult, but can't legally drink. In this case, he's right. At 18, you're given all the legal responsibilities of adulthood, but it's still a crime for you to drink alcohol. I understand the reason the law has developed as it has. It's a combination of historic inertia and allowing for gradual personal development. (For instance, the idea that your parents should financially cover you while you're learning to drive.) Personally, I agree with KendallJ: The problem is that there's not a single age of majority, at least in the U.S. Until you hit 21 you can do this but not that, and maybe this other thing, depending on what state you're in. I hope other countries have laws that make more sense regarding this. I have heard of the "under 21" drinking restriction in the US being disregarded if the individual belongs to the military. The idea is: if the "kid" is going to go abroad and possibly get killed, they should at least be able to have a drink before they go.

Absolutely right. A properly administered MTBI should include a discussion that the test is descriptive, not proscriptive. It describes your current tendencies only. You are always free to choose your actions, and may easily diverge from the predictions of the test. What's important is that you recognize yourself in the description of your type. If the results don't seem right to you, they probably aren't. (As a side note to the person who mentioned the universally-applicable astrology reading, MTBI type descriptions are not that generic. I've read descriptions of other types and thought "that's really not me", and the same is true for my ESFP spouse reading non-ESFP descriptions.) Personality types do change over time, as you've noted. Most people develop their inferior functions as they mature, making them less decisively one type or the other. Congratulations on discovering other principles to live by! (I'm not saying INTJ is "better" than ESTP, but rather that it's good to have developed functions on both sides of the lines.)

You've focused on the wrong part of Zip's argument. Let me clarify the sentence structure. The difference is believing truths that are self-evident versus non-evident. The self-evident truths: existence, identity, and consciousness, are required for any philosophy. Even counter-arguing these requires use of them. Non-evident truths include things like "an invisible all-powerful superperson made everything around us. You can't see, touch, hear, taste, or smell him/her, but he's there". Although there are psychological reasons for such constructs, that doesn't make them valid or true. It's entirely possible to dispute such non-evident "truth"s without invoking the disputed "truth". I strongly recommend anyone troubled by this issue read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (OPAR). The book develops Objectivism quite rigorously and explains common concerns with respect to the axioms.

You've focused on the wrong part of Zip's argument. Let me clarify the sentence structure. The difference is believing truths that are self-evident versus non-evident. The self-evident truths: existence, identity, and consciousness, are required for any philosophy. Even counter-arguing these requires use of them. Non-evident truths include things like "an invisible all-powerful superperson made everything around us. You can't see, touch, hear, taste, or smell him/her, but he's there". Although there are psychological reasons for such constructs, that doesn't make them valid or true. It's entirely possible to dispute such non-evident "truth"s without invoking the disputed "truth". I strongly recommend anyone troubled by this issue read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (OPAR). The book develops Objectivism quite rigorously and explains common concerns with respect to the axioms.

I'd like to expand on that: The axioms are self-evident truths. However, we are not born with this list in our heads, and they are not explicit in many people's reasoning. This is the cause of a lot of flawed philosophy. Part of Ayn's genius was recognizing this fact and listing the axioms in order. As OPAR makes clear, the axioms alone are enough to counter many arguments against Objectivism. For example, monotheistic god-created-universe religion is countered immediately. Existence exists, and only existence exists. A god could not have consciousness before existence; there would be nothing to be conscious of. Most people aren't objectivists because: 1) They've never explicitly stated the axioms, so they don't actually know what their knowledge is based on. They probably think it has something to do with authority. ("Smart/powerful people said X, so it must be true.") 2) They don't want to think about life, preferring to go by feel or whim or herd instinct.

You've done a good job sorting out the issue here. Let's continue the analysis. Words refer to concepts. If a civil union is legally identical to a marriage - and referring to the same concept - why reserve a separate term for it? The only reason for creating a separate term is because it's not the same thing. This is where the "separate but equal" phrase comes in. "Separate but equal" is never equal. I have a domestic partnership in California. The legislature did everything they could to make it marriage-equivalent, but I very much have second-class-citizen status. I have to pay for two sets of tax preparation - one federal as single, one state as married. My spouse was denied some of my work benefits because we're domestic partners instead of married. We have to pay taxes on shared medical benefits; straight couples don't have to. We had to do our own legal research and fight with our mortgage broker to get listed correctly on the title for our house so we could own it jointly and have inheritance rights that married couples get automatically. Because we are relegated to a separate, special type of relationship, we simply do not get treated equal. I am currently married, but that's now in legal jeopardy. To say I'm offended that my rights are up to a vote is an understatement. It's not over until all the votes are counted, but it looks like a slim majority of Californians don't want me to be married. Ugh is all I can say.

It should be noted that even in a non-objectivist society, you can't effectively legislate morality. Blue laws that prohibit the sale of liquor on Sunday don't make a dent in drinking, anti-pornography laws are completely ineffective since the internet has become widespread, and so on. Jackethan has the right idea. There are social solutions that don't require force or government intervention to solve the problem. Something as simple as constantly asking the owner "How's your dog doing?" would make the point that the mistreatment is being noticed. A person touched by the dog's plight could make an offer to buy the dog, with the stipulation that the owner would not obtain a replacement. That would form a contract, allow the animal to be rescued without resorting to stealing, and hopefully protect future animals. (At this point, the government could justifiably get involved if another dog was mistreated because there is breach of contract.) But mistreatment of animals does not justify theft, by individuals or by the government.

Zip, from my understanding, that is exactly the nature of emergencies. Most emergency situations are defined by: 1. Someone's life, possibly your life, possibly several lives are at stake. 2. There is a significantly short time to act. 3. Emotions are usually running high. The combination of these three mean exactly that men will cease thinking or think less in these situations. People are not robots. Our cognition is influenced by our emotions and the situation around us. It is possible for a completely ethical person to make the wrong decision in an emergency. This should not be held to the same standard of moral judgement as, say, a business decision made from the comfort of an office chair.

Ayn Rand said something to this effect. I don't have the reference at hand, but it was along the lines of "How do you survive in an irrational society?" SPEAK. Don't sit silently while others spout nonsense. You're under no obligation to speak if there is a threat of force against you, but if you are free to speak you must (morally) at least say "I disagree". This avoids what others have mentioned about tacit approval. (BTW, "you" here is the generic pronoun and applies to me as well; I'm not picking on anyone personally.)

We had neighbors who didn't like having balls end up in their yard. The solution? They put up a chain-link fence. Balls bounced back into our yard. Problem solved. At the same time, it was made clear to us, that any toys that ended up in the neighbors yard were lost forever. Both parties took steps to avoid the problem, and we were more careful from then on.

Many teachers see it as their job to provide other perspectives for your evaluation. She did contradict herself within two sentences, which tells me she wasn't trying to argue, but rather to provide other viewpoints. It emphatically does not mean you're wrong. She just wants to know that you've considered other views. The teacher remarked that she liked the essay and said "good job", so she doesn't even necessarily think you're wrong. The net effect, though, is as others have noted. Some people think this, some people think that, just keep an open mind, truth is vague and fuzzy...

You're absolutely 100% correct. Many wealthy people inherit it. Inheriting wealth makes it easier to stay wealthy. A lot of life circumstances and attitudes change when you have the freedom and power that money gives. It's easier to focus on the long term when you're not worried about putting food on the table tomorrow. This doesn't make it right to just "tax the rich" because they inherited their money. As Agrippa noted, the taxes make it harder for truly productive people to become wealthy because they are punished like those who inherit. But there's a more fundamental philosophical point here. You're saying, essentially "You own this. I want it. You didn't work for it, so it's OK for the government to take it from you and give it to me/society." Um, no. Money is power. Inheriting money means inheriting power. Yes, this is often unfair. But money is the fairest arbiter we know of. Fools tend to lose their money over time. Unproductive people tend to lose their money. Productive, capable people can gain money and power over their lifetimes. (Look at the founders of Google for a modern example.) Society is run by money. This is not a bad thing. If not money, it necessarily becomes politics, and politics is run by pull. Who knows X, who has the dirt on Y, who can do a favor for Z to be repaid later. If you think money is unfair, you haven't seen anything yet. With money, your future is at least in your hands, to shape or destroy by your own choices. With politics, your future is at the whim of whoever has power over you at this moment. (That fact that politics and money are inextricably linked is a flaw of the current system; Ayn wanted to see government and the economy separated for just this reason.)

Holy cow is that a great quote, and explains a lot about the USA today.

Hi - I'd appreciate input from other objectivists on something that's been bugging me. Say you live in a large country with perfectly objectivist laws. That is, there's only the military and police and law courts. Everyone is free to trade with anyone else on whatever terms they mutually agree to. The government is voluntarily funded. Everyone should be happy, but... I don't see the second-handers and socialists putting up with this for long. I envision a quasi-government being set up, possible based on a church or similar organization. All the socially-minded (as opposed to freedom-minded) people would get together and say, "Nobody will do business with you unless you have a red ribbon. You get the red ribbon when you donate (X amount of) money annually to our organization." The organization would then take over current statist government functions: welfare, social security, whatever the people dreamed up. From my perspective, it seems you have only three choices: 1. Become a hermit and live completely on your own. (Possible necessary, but not attractive.) 2. Consider the "donation"/tax money the cost of doing business and continue to operate as normal. 3. Move without paying the tax. This might not be an option if the organization is sufficiently widespread. The proper government can't step in and stop the organization. They're free people operating under mutual agreement. They're not breaking any laws; no laws REQUIRE you to do business with anyone. So that very fact could be used to set up a statist government outside of the proper objectivist one. How could an objectivist avoid being overturned this way?

You are absolutely right; the government is still needed to enforce contracts. (And the police and military...) Thanks for the clarification.

I think there's a language gender bias involved in gay vs. lesbian. As you've noted, "gay" can refer to only gay men, or both men and women. It's much the same way "man" can refer to mankind (both genders) or just males. I find the lack of neutral gender frustrating sometimes. Especially in OPAR, where "man" is used extensively to mean mankind or a human. I found myself replacing pronouns like crazy while working on my summary, because the principles apply equally to both men and women, but I would consistently think of a male. Not that it affects the pronoun issue, but I'm a gay man - I mean, gay male!

The fundamental problem is that pure capitalism requires that the government not interfere. This is anathema to career politicians. "How can I do nothing? The economy is in trouble! I'd get voted out next election! Just tell me what to do to fix it!" If this sounds like a character from Atlas Shrugged, there's a reason. There are a few voices that spoke up against the bail-out, but they have been drowned out by the near-constant drumbeat of "we must do something"! This sets everyone up for government logic (from a poster on Slashdot whose name I do not have handy at the moment): "We must do something. This is something, therefore we must do this." They don't get it because they choose not to get it. Their careers depend on them not getting it.

Wow. I'm sorry you had to sit through this presentation. The flaw is obvious in the first paragraph of the summary: Nomy is combining "how people use the word" with "defining a concept" and "moral virtue". Defining virtues requires clear definitions. You can't go by layperson's usage for word definitions. Flaut as opposed to flaunt is a great example of this. They get misused all the time, but the misuse is still incorrect. She also says you can't tell if you're being open-minded or not! Defining virtues means creating criteria which distinguish virtuous from non-virtuous actions. I'm with EC: based on the summary, this presentation was nonsense in the technical sense of the term.