jedymastyr
-
Posts
157 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by jedymastyr
-
-
Cboath--sorry to ask something off topic, but since it's your first post... is your name a reference to the jedi master Jorus C'Baoth?
-
Your grade and academic record is at stake, so it's definitely not an easy decision. However, I think it would be worth arguing with him throughout the semester if the appropriate conditions are met (like what RationalEgoistSG said).
What I have to add is this: at my university, there's a grade appeal process if you think that you have been graded unfairly (i.e. based on something other than your understanding of the material covered in class). If the teacher gives you a bad grade and you think you deserve otherwise--and you have evidence in the form of papers, others' papers for comparisons, etc.--then you can have a small group of professors and students review your case and potentially change your grade.
I don't know if you have anything like this at the college you go to, but if so it may be something to fall back on if it turns out bad for you.
-
I'm not sure if this is correct or not, but I got it from my high school government teacher. He claimed that the founding fathers generally had wealth and wanted a system that protected it; however, they knew that if they were overly explicit about "keeping their property" many citizens may view it as a continuation of the aristocracy from Europe. Wanting to distance themselves from this misinterpretation, while still making a strong statement for freedom, they included "pursuit of happiness" instead of property.
Of course, this teacher was very liberal, so I don't know if any of this is revisionist history. He tended to use "framers" instead of "founding fathers," and other similar things... Perhaps someone else has heard this elsewhere to verify or discredit it?
-
The way I see it is this. I am a connesuier of ice cream[objectivist] who wants vanilla with color sprinkles and caramel toppings[objectivist style of living], I go into the ice cream shop[voting booth] and the vendor[punch card] has given me several options; rat poison flavored ice cream[republican party], rattlesnake venom flavored ice cream [democrat party], cyanide flavored ice cream [green party] and vanilla with chocolate sprinkles and chocolate syrup[Libertarian party]. Now I really had my sights set on color sprinkles and caramel toppings, but given the alternatives, I'd say chocolate sprinkles and syrup will have to do.
How about we say you go into the local ice cream shop and take part in a contest involving the nationwide chain. You can vote for chocolate, vanilla, rocky road, rasberry swirl, or fill in your own flavor. Everyone who took part, at the end, gets whatever the majority decided on. Furthermore, you are only sure that chocolate and vanilla are on all the survey forms...different stores decided which flavors to include for the last two flavors. You like cookie dough best, but it's not on a single contest form. Rasberry swirl is your favorite among the listed ones, but you prefer chocolate to the others. You would be stupid to vote for rasberry swirl, when chocolate and vanilla are the only real possible outcomes.
And that all even assumes that rasberry swirl isn't evil, which is a premise that shouldn't even be granted in this case
-
* Esperanto lets users coin new words unrestrained:
This appears to make it easy to create "false concept" words. Also, Oakes, you were saying that there are problems with English dialects...doesn't this "flexibility" make Esperanto dialects potentially much worse?
I agree with the essentials of what DavidOdden has written, as well, so don't take this as my main problem with Esperanto. This was the main one I thought of that hadn't already been mentioned.
-
I really enjoy listening to Alanis Morissette. Baba is my favorite song, and I love the variety of the sounds on SFIJ (her second American CD). I find she has several songs that suit any mood I may be in, from the very happy/loving (Head Over Feet, Knees of My Bees) to some of the angry music she got popular for. I find her to be very passionate, good at expressing herself, honest, and open. I also like Tori Amos, though not quite as much, for similar reasons. I also love the sound of both of their voices...I can have it on as background music while doing homework, or be consciously listening to the lyrics on a long drive, and either way I am able to find value. Either way, I find myself happier while/after being around the music.
I find it strange, though, that I like being around almost any type of music. I don't care much for rap or loud music with words that can hardly be heard, but almost anything else is pleasant (soft rock, classical, jazz, etc.). However, I enjoy the above music very much, and as a result have not spent a great deal of time exploring these to find ones I really like.
-
I haven't had the time to post much lately, because of events in RL. However, I thought I'd share the bit of web work Ive done for the Rational Man project.
The website looks very professional, nice job so far! I went there expecting something undeveloped and was pleasantly surprised.
Also, I don't think I've commented on any of your previous posts, so I'd like to mention that I really like the idea and wish you the best with it.
-
danielshrugged, argive99: sorry for misinterpreting the quote. I always thought it was romantic love he was speaking of...and I wondered more about it. Thanks for the clarification.
-
sorry, I couldn't remember the exact words, and so I couldn't find the quote right away, but I finally found it:
at the end of My Thirty Years With Ayn Rand: An Intellectual Memoir (FHF 4/87, Epilogue of VOR):
That is the Ayn Rand I knew. And that is why I loved her.
I realize this only answers about Peikoff, not your question in general.
-
didn't Peikoff say he was in love with Ayn Rand at the end of one of his early Ford Hall Forum lectures?
-
Yeah. That SOB (B.O.) couldn't even answer Michael Moore's absurd question, "Would you sacrifice your son for Fallujah?"
Did you think he lost that argument? I sure did... I don't think I've ever seen O'Reilly so backed into a corner. He usually maintains control, but it didn't seem like it with Moore. He just kept conceding points and letting Moore dictate the particular subjects he wished to talk about.
-
Also, if you ever watch O'reily interview her (and she is on his show often), you will see how different they are. She is far more principled then he is.
That is practically the only place I have heard what she has to say...and I have been very impressed so far (noting the religiosity as a negative, of course). What's amazing is, I haven't yet heard O'Reilly dismiss her as an "ideologue." He uses that adjective to describe almost everyone who is principled as a way of dismissing their arguments (???)... It's definitely nice, when she's on, to be able to listen to her without getting interrupted by such nonsense.
-
After the LVT has been implemented, you may still be denied land, but the landowners are paying the LVT so they rightfully own it.
If you are "denied land," then you have no space which is yours and you are involuntarily forced to serve others (as you have stated previously). So, where will this LVT tax check be desposited? Each of your pockets is owned by someone else...are they really paying the tax, if the space the payment is in, is owned by someone else?
Do they really "rightfully own the land" (under your system), if their tax money is not going to those who do not own any?
-
I am majoring in Electrical Engineering.
I first picked up The Fountainhead a year and a half ago, in the middle of my senior year of highschool.
Welcome!
I share your age, major, and discovery of Objectivism in high school
-
...the right to *be* implies the right to be somewhere.
While that may be true, I can't say I've ever heard anywhere in Objectivist literature that specific formulation. In fact, I see quite the opposite. You have a right to your life, meaning you can live if you choose to take the steps necessary to sustain your life. You do not have the right to be as such. That would be equivalent to a demand on any other living being capable of providing you sustenence, that he must do so if you are unable or unwilling.
Here's a relevant quote from an AR letter to Isabel Paterson:
"No right of mine constitutes an obligation on any man living."
We don't have some innate right to exist, but rather to exist if we can provide for our existence.
if one is born into a world owned solely by those who "got there first", you have no right to *be* anywhere; i.e. if no landowner allows you to persist on their land, you will die.Having a baby implies an obligation to provide for the material and psychological well-being of the child. Providing the material well-being includes providing a place to live, in addition to providing the other physical things required (food, water, etc.). A parent not able to provide a child with space to exist in, is comparable to a parent not able to provide a child with food to exist on. It would be the parents violating the child's right if they are unable to provide these things, not the rest of the landowners in the world violating his rights by not giving the him a place to live.
Just keep in mind that while existence implies existence somewhere, there is no right to exist without providing the material (including the somewhere) required to exist.
A quick side question: how do you quote in the middle of your post and put the name in? I have seen it done many times, but I do not know how to. There must be some attribute of the QUOTE tag I'm unaware of, and if so (or if it's something else) I would appreciate if someone would tell me. Thanks in advance.
-
that's awesome, congrats!
-
They are both responsible, so they should both pay (assuming she did not conceal the fact that the sex was unprotected).
Does this imply that it's also improper for a man to pay for a woman's dinner, since they both will be benefitting from it? Assuming they both want to eat out together, they're both responsible for eating at the restaraunt...
As far as I understand it, financial costs in a relationship don't necessarily need to be equal. If masculinity is strength and confidence, and the growing baby inside the female is an unwanted intrusion on her body, I consider it perfectly consistent for the man to provide the resources necessary to remove the intrusion.
And if the masculinity argument isn't enough, I completely agree with Betsy on this point:
If they have an agreement beforehand, that should prevail. If they don't, I think the man should pay because she has to undergo the procedure and he doesn't.It's not possible for the man to share the physical aspect of going through an abortion...so it's proper for the man to compensate by paying the financial side of it.
I would say that the physical costs are probably more significant than the financial. The man is getting a bargain by not having the undesireable intrusion on his body by both the fetus and the doctors/medicine...and just having to pay for it.
--
Also, as a side note, I've heard from many conservatives that having an abortion can have major negative psychological effects on the mother. I don't know if this is an irrational psychological idea (i.e. a non-Objectivist woman thinks she has destroyed a life) or something more substantial. Has anyone studied this issue enough to know if this is a real issue? If it is correct, that would be one more reason for the guy to pay for it...
-
There are other famous philosophers mentioned too, like Francis Bacon (p. 658):
"She watched him as he stood at the stove, toasting bread, frying eggs and bacon."
Here's a couple more of the others:
Henry James:
"James, you ought to discover some day that words have an exact meaning." (pg. 94)
John Dewey:
"John! I'm not to blame for it!" (pg. 838)
-
ARI completely redesigned its site (www.aynrand.org). I think they just put it up today, although it is definitely very recent.
They now have a register/login system, and once you've registered you can access a lecture by Peikoff online and for free: "Why Should One Act on Principle?" I only know of two other lectures streamed through ARI (the one hour intro video and the 5-hour seminar), so I found it to be useful and important.
I really like the new look...it seems a lot more professional and blue
-
When someone does something like lying or stealing, an objectivist might say something along the lines of, "that is immoral or evil." ... more accurate and honest critique is to say that "it is impractical or will hurt you in the long run."
Objectivism says that the moral is the practical. Morality vs. practicality is a false dichotomy. Particular actions (based on decisions to act) are right or wrong, good or bad. The good is moral and practical, the bad is immoral and impractical.
Regarding the use of the word "evil":
Evil definitely is a strong word, and it isn't something that should be used lightly or without a lot of knowledge of the specifics. I certainly have not used this term often, and I can't remember a time in relation to any person I was talking to (or his actions). If, while talking to someone, you run into something you disagree with, it is a lot more conducive to conveying your ideas to say that you don't agree with it and explain why, rather than branding people as evil. The disagreement implies moral disagreement (since it is based on an action that someone decided to do).
Still, though, evil is a perfectly valid concept. It is reserved for people who are doing things wrong consciously--who know better, have the ability to decide differently, and yet decide to do what's wrong instead of what's right. If it is applied in that sense, any guilt that comes of it is deserved.
-
Out of curiousity, if the ends doesn't justify the means then what does?
Nothing should need to justify the means--the means should be rational in the first place
-
This post will prove useful to me as well, as I'm attempting to arrange a trip to New York City as well at the end of the summer with a friend (and staying with one of his friends). Besides general things to do, I have a particular question for people that might be familiar with the NYC area. If anyone happens to know, could you tell me if this is a decent neighborhood to be staying in?
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?locat...S&addtohistory=
apparently it's just across the williamsburg bridge from Manhattan. I don't know the area, because I've been in New York City less than one full day, so if anyone has any advice whatsoever about whether it's safe down there, I would appreciate it
-
Steve Forbes in 1996 was a very different candidate from Steve Forbes in 2000.
Wow, I didn't even realize he ran twice. I always watched primaries and stuff, as I lived in Iowa and they were all over the tv/news to start the campaigns off strong... I think I just blended the two together, because the flat tax and such is what I remember most. Thanks a lot for that clarification and explanation, I've been wondering about it for a long time.
-
Here's my complete list, for some reason I didn't think everyone would be pasting the entire things in:
1. Aristotle (100%) Click here for info
2. Ayn Rand (87%) Click here for info
3. Aquinas (86%) Click here for info
4. Spinoza (78%) Click here for info
5. Plato (76%) Click here for info
6. David Hume (75%) Click here for info
7. Nietzsche (75%) Click here for info
8. St. Augustine (72%) Click here for info
9. Jean-Paul Sartre (61%) Click here for info
10. John Stuart Mill (60%) Click here for info
11. Epicureans (56%) Click here for info
12. Stoics (56%) Click here for info
13. Thomas Hobbes (56%) Click here for info
14. Cynics (53%) Click here for info
15. Jeremy Bentham (52%) Click here for info
16. Kant (52%) Click here for info
17. Ockham (37%) Click here for info
18. Prescriptivism (30%) Click here for info
19. Nel Noddings (26%) Click here for info
I have tried to recreate the answers I used to get this, but as I was debating several questions in my head, I can't get it exactly.
Greatest Movie You Have Ever Seen
in Movies, Shows, and Theatre
Posted
Star Wars trilogy (as my name here indicates)
Contact
For Love of the Game