Mindy

You are right, you didn't use the word. I used it because you claimed to possess it. You did that when you said you could know what another man's considerations could and could not extend to. You claimed, for your convenience, what another man's thought must be. Mindy

I salute you, fellow soldier at arms. Mindy

It is akin to watching TV. We have many devices that extend or enhance our senses, microscopes and telescopes, infra-red binoculars, etc. This would fall right in the same category as the experience derived from these devices, I would say. Mindy

If you want to defend what DavidOdden said, please do so. If you wish his actions weren't open to reasonable criticism, your complaint is with him. Which posts and which arguments should I not have made? What was wrong with them? Mindy

But you can't defend reason on religious grounds. You may use the concept, but you simply can't do it. It is contradictory. Any right-thinking person will reject the project that has such a defense. I think it is only those who are already beyond Beck's level of understanding who can thus see through it and survive it. Only we don't need Beck to set us on our path. You can't steal for a good cause. Mindy

Exactly! Can a mind survive that? Mindy

If you really want a sci-fi conjecture: The pattern of nerve firing that is produced in the retinal nerve by a normal person's excitation of cones could be artificially simulated. It would then be propagated centrally, presumably following the same course that natural, cone-produced retinal responses follow. Mindy Mindy

It isn't a theory, just personal experience, but I never thought of having a child as an expression of my relationship. Mindy

This is abuse, pure and simple. It is an effort to intimidate, and this is not the first time David has treated people this way. If he is wrong, it would be natural to say what your comment did intend to communicate. Again, this is pure abuse, personal attack, and attempt to intimidate. I suggest that posts like this prove that DavidOdden ought not be a moderator at all. Mindy

Beck is a mess. He had an "interview" on his show about 6 or 8 weeks ago, he title, "Why do Liberals Hate Religion?" or something very close to that. He interviewed a woman who said she was an atheist. She had very little to say at all, and Beck conducted the sham interview without any consideration for the historical and philosophical issues that are relevant to the question. It was disgusting as a piece of journalism. Remember the saying, "A poor defense is worse than no defense at all,"? Beck fits the bill. Even when he isn't speaking about religion at all, his analyses and diagrams of political relationships and trends are, (what I've seen,) fraught with logical weaknesses. I agree with the assessments, above, of his motives with regard to the Tea Party. But I think the Tea Party is stronger than Yaron Brooks says. I think its strength comes from its being un-organized. I think their philosophy is that of our founding fathers, for the most part, and that is all it need be. Grass grows again, after it is mowed. People who are willing to make up their own sign and stand beside the road are the essential Americans. The Tea Partiers should NOT organize, issue a manifesto, or become a political party and put up candidates. Mindy

I'm not sure if that last statement means you do think child-raising is "making a necessary sacrifice to the good of society," or not... I've found a lot of good thinking in this thread, chiefly by the parent-posters. My own experience, though I have always liked kids, baby-sat a lot in high-school, etc., was that it was only when I began to feel that I had "conquered" the challenges of life, that I knew "all about" building a life, getting along in the world, etc., that I felt not just a willingness to have children, but a very specific desire to do so. I felt I had a surplus that was going to waste, that having a child would be an enlargement of my life. I think the most important prerequisite for parenting is having a surplus of time and attention. You can't just fit children in. If you feel you don't have enough time for yourself, get enough attention, or enough love, etc., having children is NOT the thing to do. Parenting is supplying, and doing so without strain. It needs the highest level of professionalism, of representing another's interests with an acute sense of responsibility. That said, there is another, critically important consideration at this point in history, and that is the degenerate state of the public schools. Actually, that includes most private schools. The schools are not just politically active where they shouldn't be, they actively undercut the individual student's intellectual confidence. They more or less decerebrate the students by giving lessons that defy understanding and integration. Many lessons contain errors and inaccuracies, which the teachers fail to notice. Kids automatically think that it is their fault that they don't "get it." As far as school experience, they are prevented from discovering the efficacy and reliability of their own minds. Memorization is the only option, and that is a turn-off to any intelligent kid, of course, besides which, it fails to create hierarchical understanding, it fails to build a body of knowledge. Also, of course, the social milieu of the classroom ranges from awful to abusive. How, subject daily to this environment, can a child learn that his mind is his most important tool? How can he take pride in his growing intellectual powers? Learn to think for himself? Build the ego-strength to stand up for his opinions? The adolescent drive for self-esteem is especially consuming. Having their proper self-concept as a thinking being stunted, or even refuted, what pseudo-self-esteem icons will they adopt? What relief from the constant, inevitable sense of inadequacy will they seek? (FYI: My daughter attended two Montessori schools and two public schools, and I investigated many other private schools.)

The whole history of philosophy of science seems to do that. Do you mean it is only the name, Objectivism, that makes this special? Mindy

Do you mean Mills methods weren't a theory of induction? That no one before this book has theorized about induction? Mindy

A theory of induction is huge. The point is that the book fails to produce a viable theory of induction. What can it mean, this first major application of epistemology to a field other than philosophy...epistemology IS philosophy, it consists of generalizations over perception, and other forms of cognition of the world at large. It is especially sensitive to odd situations of cognition...could never be limited to philosophy itself...what is the claim being made here? Mindy

I think you have misstated the Objectivist view of causality in a grave way. It isn't that an entity is the cause of its own actions, but that the identity of the entity includes such actions. The actions of an entity are an expression of its nature. The effects an entity's actions have on another entity are caused by the first entity, specifically in the respect that it acts as it did. That is, the causal actions of an entity are aspects of the entity. One can't have an entity as the cause of its own actions, can't have it be both cause and effect. In the case of living organisms, which, I think, offers a real possibility of confusion about a thing being a cause of effects on itself, the many self-sustaining actions taken are the result of the differentiation and organization of cells, tissues, organs, etc. So, while it is true that the kidneys purify the blood of the same organism, that is, the organism cleans its own blood, both the causes and the effects are specific to sub-systems of the organism. Thus, it would be merely nominal to say an organism is at once a cause and its effect. This is contrary to how the same example is used in the book. There, it is the pushing that is responsible for the ball's rolling. Also, there is an inconsistency in saying the ball rolls because it is round. It is always round, whether rolling or not. Note: In The Ayn Rand Lexicon, the first entry under "causality" includes the statement, "All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determned by the nature of the entities that act..." It is possible to take these statements, as meaning that entities are the causes of their own actions. The proper understanding is that causes are all actions of entities, and thus expressions of those entities' identity. Mindy

How can they be successfully addressed? Mindy

I think the distinction you make here between "quality" art and art that is "just" entertaining is incorrect. Art is not something to teach you things or somehow to learn from, to improve your mind through, etc. (Which is not to say that it cannot do that also.) Art is like dessert. Get what you want. What you want is what you enjoy, what pleases you. If "Shoot 'Em Up" is entertaining, if it is recreational, it IS art. I think it is only people who unabashedly watch/view/listen to what they enjoy who get anything out of art. Also, it is that genuine, seflish enjoyment that leads them to look for more, and even better art to enjoy. We ought to be able to trust our minds enough to believe in our choices, believe they will lead us to what is good. Each person has a full measure of the capacity to reason, to think and judge. Don't be intimidated if you don't like classical music. If you enjoy music, you'll keep seeking more music and more enjoyment, and you'll get as much from art that way as is possible. To fake one's tastes is to lose all the benefits of art. Mindy p.s. I enjoy the Kill Bill movies, to the disdain of everybody I know.

Thanks for the information. I certainly know of the conflict of positions between myself and one or more members in mod. or admin. positions. I did not think such disagreement reflected on the "job" of moderating. That's an explanation, not a question, and not in need of an answer. Mindy

It sounds to me as if you have taste and do use it in choosing your art. I think you have the wrong opinion of fine art. But, if it is good to listen to, etc., then it is good. (I'm crazy about a good melody, too.) When it comes to broadening your tastes, you just try out various things, especially those that are closest to what you already enjoy. It takes some time for tastes to evolve, but they do it on their own, if the exposure is there. Happy listening, Mindy

I don't think you are considering the way moderation works from the readers' point of view. I saw quite an abusive post, but never saw if anything was done about it. It was not trashed, was the person warned? How are we supposed to know? Perhaps that level of abuse is acceptable? Several moderators express great disrespect for me, but I haven't received any warnings, so what is behind that? Who is behind the "Reputation" on profile pages? What are the criteria for that? Did I miss an explanation? There seem to be two currents working on Objectivism Online. I'm trying to understand them. Mindy

Children can be reasoned with only within limits, and depending on their age, of course. Just how would you cope with a two-year-old who was set on hitting the baby? Force of some kind is absolutely necessary. The context of child-rearing is critically different from how adults may treat one another. Mindy

If only saying, "I'm a fan of Ayn Rand's, I'm an Objectivist!" actually achieved an identification of oneself, the issue of honesty might apply. But even if there were no issue of understanding, it should be pointed out that you do not owe others personal information. I don't see the actual issue of people denying an affiliation with Objectivism, and whatever evil that leads to... Mindy

No. The mission statement and rules of conduct limit the owner to respecting the writer's authority as long as she stays within those guidelines. It seems that the poster is regarded as receiving benefit, but not giving any, in using the forum. Do I misunderstand your attitude? Mindy