Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

the tortured one

Regulars
  • Posts

    336
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by the tortured one

  1. my impression of Hume was that he says that we can never truly be sure of the future, and that all knowledge is merely statistical probabilities. For example, the sun rises every morning. We know it does, because it has happened every day of our lives. Hume says that this is merely the statistical likeliness; and that the sun may not rise tommorow morning. A supervolcano, for example, might erupt, and cause a nuclear winter, thus preventing us from seeing the sun rise. He says that everything we know of the physical sciences is built this way, and as history points out, new theories and ideas can render old scientific theories obsolete in a heartbeat. Therefor we can not even be sure that physical science is correct. If I recall correctly, Hume says the only thing we can truly be sure of is logic: 2+2 will always equal 4. Conceptual logic and mathematics, Hume says, is the only constant knowledge, for one must believe that 2+2=4, regardless on wether or not one feels that the universe revolves around Earth, or that the Earth revolves around the sun. Hume's style of philosophy is very similar to Descarte
  2. Don't forget, 1776 was the same year Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations. Man, what a year that must have been
  3. dang man, talk about seeing the glass half-empty. This is the way I saw the things which you despised Christian Bales's lisp almost drove me insane. This was exacerbated when he tried to deliver dramatic dialogue ie. interrogation of Harvey Bullock (?) while hanging from a grappling hook. I was actually laughing I am going to second the notion that I didn't notice any lisp. I thought Bale's acting was spot on, and he gave a gave a good baritone roar when he needed too. all in all, the best Batman actor yet. Keaton, Kilmer, and Clooney well, they aren't bad actors, but they were just too skinny. comic book batman is a big mountain of muscle. Bale was just ripped enough to look badass in the suit. speaking of the suit, am I the only person who was wholly relieved that the batsuit didn't have nipples? that drove me up the wall in the last two blasphemies that called themselves Batman movies. Katie Holmes' character Rachel Dawes was completely invented for the movie, and although Batman has had love interests, it was unnecessary for her to be one of them. It's a plot device. You'd be hardpressed to find an action movie nowadays without a prominent female character. Besides, it's not like that detracts from the original comic series. The heel transmiter Batman had in his boot was ridiculous - it summoned hundreds of bats to swarm the police, where did they come from? - totally unrealistic. as ridiculous as a man running around dressed up like a bat fighting crime? If you are going to accept certain metaphysical impossibles, might as well do it in style. Why was Batman dumbed down? Batman is supposed to be an intellectual Superhero, not just a thug busting ninja. The movie completely overlooked the fact that he was supposed to be a master detective. He is also supposed to be a scientist as well - he shouldn't need Morgan Freeman to whip up an antidote - he should have been able to do it himself. Bear in mind that at the time Bruce is barely into his 20's. He has little experience fighting crime or fostering a scientific mind. All of this comes with time and experience. What the movie did portray was the young Bruce's knack for stumping crime (when he caught Falcone) and his knack for science (by taking after and admiring Freeman's character.) I liked the ninja angle personally. If you were going to fight 20 men all armed with guns, there is only so far a batarange will go. I didn't consider that dumped down at all. It displayed his sheer skill in the arts of his trade; to take on a larger and better armed group of men with nothing but your fists, and not taking a scratch. The Batmobile was, while functional, not aesthetically pleasing and was quite an eyesore. I guess when you have to take on the entire police force you need more power. I liked the hummer look, myself. Besides, who's to say that isn't an early model of the batmobile, which needs the large chassis for all of the car's gizmos, thus his later luxury car batmobiles are more sophisticated models with miniaturized technology? Bruce Wayne was never that uninvolved with his company, and neither was his father. He was always the CEO of Wayne Enterprises in the comics, and again, would not have to give control to Morgan Freeman. again I reiterate, he is in his early 20's. The only formal education we have seen so far in Bruce Wayne consists of fighting ninjas. Running a multi-billion dollar corporation is not something a 20-something year old can take on as a second job. But we do see Bruce's knack for business savvy by buying the majority Wayne Enterprise stock. He will just need time to finesse himself into the responsibility of running a large corporation like that, and while Bruce is doing that, Freeman is the guy Bruce sets up to run the business in his stead. Ra's Al Ghul was completely mis-represented in the movie - all they did was keep the name. His attractive daughter (a legitimate Batman love interest) did not make a cameo either. I am pretty sure that Batman was never trained by the League of Shadows or Al Ghul, although it has been a while. honestly, I don't know much about them, because I have taken a several year hiatus from reading comic books. I may get back into them when I have the spare time and money, but as of now I don't have the resources to do so, so no comment from me on that issue. I gave it an A+. After the last two disapointments of a lifetime (Batman Forever and Batman and Robin) it is great to see a Batman movie with a great sense of style and a fantastic philosophical edge.
  4. "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" Gee, wasnt that John Galt's reasoning for starting the gulch?
  5. man, it's just excuse after excuse for some people. Now the reason communism fell was because it had bad leaders? Goodness it's good to have a reminder of these people's utter irrationality everyonce and a while. I am reminded of the time in Atlas Shrugged when President Thompson and Wesley Mouch needed a scapegoat for their problems, and tried to get John Galt to become the new economic dictator. I would ask him that, if communism's failure is completely due to bad leaders, then why has communism consistently failed where ever it has been attempted? One would assume there has at least been a few good leaders, statistically, right? If communism's track record is so bad, then why is Capitalism's track record so good? Even what might be regarded as the worst of the capitalist leaders end up doing a certain degree of good. General Pinochet, for example, was a right-wing dictator who wrested control from the communists, and despite his brutal tactics he is singularly responsible for the recovery of Chile's economy, which had been devastated by the communists. Most people regard Pinochet as a facist dictator, and yet it is ok for Fidel Castro to wine and dine with moronic celebrities while he brutally oppresses his own people. if he tries to say something about Cuba being held down by the United States, ask him why Taiwan is doing so much better, despite economic sanctions from China. and don't let him yank you around with the whole "supported by the U.S" routine, as Cuba has been a crap-hole even when it was sucking off the soviet teat. some people would just prefer to stick their head in the sand and pretend like history never happened. Often times its better to merely ignore them and move on with life, as communism is more often than not, a phase that punk teenagers go through.
  6. I would point to your friend as being a modern day merchantilist. Merchantilism, in it's essence, is a political system that holds that a nation's wealth is directly proportional to the amount of natural resources under it's control. Therefor, a nation can become richer by accumulating natural resources, hoarding them, and slowing their consumption. However, this is not wealth. Spain, for instance, thought that it could become wealthy by hoarding gold from the new world and keeping it for itself. Instead the opposite happened. the value of gold decreased, thus destroying Spain's primary investment. Without an adequate infrastructure to create wealth, it became an empty husk of a nation, all too easily defeated at sea by the young upstart England. ask him this if you will. Would he be in favor of a system where everyone has enough to eat, but with less overall food, or would he favor a mass imposed famine to preserve food stocks? Communism has done this several times in the past 100 years. the USSR did it with Ukraine. China did it under Mao Tse-Tung. In fact, North Korea right now is having a self imposed famine, to "preserve natural resources" of course, and the death estimates are in the millions. If you want some in depth arguements against these type of debates, I would read the classics. Wealth of Nations goes without saying. Frederic Bastiat is a good author as well. Though contemporary, Andrew Bernstein's "The Birth of Plenty" specifically explores the fallacy that a nation's wealth is determined by it's amount of natural resources. I do not have it on hand, but I will later tonight, bidding that I can get my wireless internet to work. Nevertheless, this is very elementary economics, talk to anyone you know with any sort of education in the field, and they can easily help you.
  7. Objectivism is a philosophy developed by Ayn Rand for the study and application of reason. Egoism is the ethical byproduct of living a life devoted to reason, and Capitalism is the political byproduct of living a life devoted to egoism. Ayn Rand herself once said it: "I am not primarily an advocate of Capitalism as I am an advocate of egoism. And I am not primarily an advocate of egoism as I am an advocate of reason." Libertarianism is a broad term that applies to the collection of philosophies upon which Capitalism is a common denominator. The difference is that, despite political similarities, an Objectivist can be completely different from a libertarian. There are people who believe in Capitalism based on the fact that they feel it is the greatest good for the greatest number. There are those who feel that Capitalism is the only system that allows for social darwinism. Lew Rockwell believes Capitalism is closest to the Christian system of ethics. Once I knew a libertarian that hated the word Capitalism, because he associated it with Karl Marx, and thought that libertarianism was more accurate. The point is, none of the other libertarian thought processes are primarily advocates of reason. Reason is the foundation upon which Objectivism is built, not Capitalism. The Libertarian party is a political party. They are in the business of gathering votes. Nothing to be ashamed of, it's how they earn their living. But gathering votes means appealing to the unwashed masses who neither know nor care too much about politics. Because there are lots of people out there who are one issue voters. Heck, I knew someone who voted for Kerry in the last election simply because he was Catholic. And because the LP party is so strapped for votes (being small fish in a big ocean) they have to appeal to anyone who is willing to vote for them, including punks who want to see marijuana legalized, anarchists who want to live in a commune, and Joe Shmoes who do not want to pay anymore taxes. Philosophers in general do not associate themselves with political parties. As a former Libertarian, I was disgusted at the fact that when I wanted to talk politics, the topic was not on the issues of the day, but rather, ad hominem arguements such as "you are wasting your vote" or "How can you support a political party that had Howard Stern run under its ticket?" The only semi-decent arguements came from people who said things like "I think drugs are bad, and therefor need to be illegal, to protect people." quite frankly, I consider all of these topics to be trivial when compared to the larger issues, and that is why I have stopped calling myself a libertarian. When someone asks my political stance, I say that I am an Objectivist, which means that I am a full supporter of Laissez-faire Capitalism.
  8. You do realize that this thread is close to a year old, right?
  9. well, considering that there are Winston Churchill quotes among David's list of quotes, even he had a few nuggets of wisdom. I took Moose's quote of the vice of Capitalism being that which people complain about the most is the unequal sharing of wealth. The most comprehensive criticisms of Capitalism stem from people wanting to have their cake and eat it too. Then he turns around and identifies that same rhetoric used by the collectivists. That they would say "aren't we blessed by our togetherness!" as their world crumbles around them. And you may have noticed the biblical quote in my sig. Well, thats to remind everyone here about the incompatibility of faith and reason (though I have contemplated removing it, as it doesn't seem to be necessary here.)
  10. Canada's universal health care system, the darling of collectivist statists for years, is teetering on the verge of collapse. The catalyst for it's destruction may have just been ignited. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110006813 I wonder what will happen to the democrats? universal "feel-good" health-care is practically the only thing that party has left.
  11. I'd hate to double post, but I am no longer able to rewrite my post, and this is something I would have added had my wireless connection not gone south. The west is celebrated as superior because it's own achievements far outshadow that of any other culture. That doesn't mean we reject other cultures' contributions entirely, because we hold everything; including our own culture, to an objective standard. Cultural Relativism is, more often than not, a form of self-loathing. The kind of stuff Christianity loves.
  12. Judging cultures is rather subjective, and as a result, we can say which type of culture we prefer, but we cannot really say that one is broadly "better" than another, as it depends upon what aspects are most valued to the individual doing the assessment. Superiority seems to be anything you want it to be; "they killed more people so we are superior Whats the criteria for superiority? Would a western 'civilisation' that is somewhat dependant on immigration from Non-western 'civilisations', be 'superior'? That is called cultural relativism. The philosopher James Rachels wrote an excellent dissertation on cultural relativism. Cultural Relavitism is a theory about the nature of morality. At first blush it seems quite plausible. However, like all such theories, it may be evaluated by subjecting it to rational analysis; and when we analyze Cultural Relavitism we find it not so plausible as it first appears. First, an example of conflicting moralities. Darius, a king of ancient Persia, gathered people from two different cultures: the Greeks and the Callatians. The Greeks tended to burn their dead, and the Callatians tended to eat their dead. When Darius asked the Greeks if they would eat their dead, they were horrified. The Callatians were similarly horrified at the prospect of burning their dead. The first thing we need to notice is that at the heart of Cultural Relavitism there is a certain form of arguement. The strategy used by cultural relativists is to argue from facts about the differences between cultural outlooks to a conclusion about the status of morality. Thus we are invited to accept this line of reasoning: 1) The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians believed it was right to eat the dead. 2) Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion. Clearly this arguement is a variation of one fundamental idea. it is a special case of an arguement which says: 1) different cultures have different moral codes 2)Therefore, there is no objective "truth" in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions can vary from culture to culture. To many people, it is very persuasive, but from a logical view, is it a sound arguement? the trouble is that the conclusion still might be false. The premise concerns what people believe; their believes might not be right. It could be that the practice was objectively right (or wrong) and the other was simply mistaken. The Nazis believed that they were doing the work of God when they were cleansing the Jews, Gays, and Gypsies. Turn their own arguement around on them and ask them if we should respect their right to murder jews, simply on premise that they believed they were doing the right thing. Consider this as well: in some societies, people believe the Earth is flat. Other societies hold the earth is roughly spherical. Does it follow, from the mere fact that they disagree, that there is no objective truth? Of course not. nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. The Earth is spherical, regardless on whether or not some people believed it to be flat. Some people were right, some people were wrong. It takes alot of maturity to admit to mistakes, a maturity most people do not possess. The consequences of taking cultural relativism seriously. 1) We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own. - Take my Nazi example. No one would be allowed to call the holocaust wrong. We would not even be able to say a Jew tolerant society is better than the anti-Semitic one. 2)We could decide whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting the standards of our society. - Because the only way I can judge morality is through my own society, if I were a pre-civil war southerner, because my society says slavery is right, then I must accept it, because I can't judge morality by any other barometer other than my own society. Relativism is dangerous because in addition to being unable to criticize other societies, we would become unable to criticize our own. After all, if right and wrong are relative to culture, how would we decide if a cultural decision is the right or wrong thing to do? 3) The idea of moral progress is called into doubt. - If everything is relative, how do we know making a decision is right or wrong? Freeing the slaves could not have occurred, because that society says slavery is ok. Most people would consider the emancipation of slaves to be moral progress, because someone outside that culture decided that slavery was wrong. 18th and 19th century was, in effect, different societies from the one we have now. To say we have made progress (in terms of racial equality and women's rights, etc, etc) implies that one culture (our modern one) is better than the other one, which is impermissible under cultural relativism. America the biggest Western Power still has the death penalty and cloning, as does Germany. And we aren't the most advanced, South Korea is in front of us in terms of cloning. A competition to see which culture is superior is too subjective and does not foster a positive atmosphere. Feeling that our culture is superior is different from feeling that our culture is always right, regardless. There is a difference between being objective and being a bigot. In the case of Objectivists, who would reject cultural relativism, we would hold South Korea to be superior in the area of scientific research that pertains to cloning. Our saying that western society is superior comes from a much larger perspective. Western culture invented logic, capitalism, free trade, among others. The concept of individual rights is a wholly western idea. The west sent a human to the moon, cured smallpox, invented flying machines, computers, and was the first culture to raise per capita GDP above 400 dollars per hour. Subsistence farming, when adjusted for inflation into modern times, comes out to about 400 American dollars annually. Prior to the industrial revolution, the significant part of the world still rested on or some where around 400 dollars annually. The only countries that even come close to that is Cuba with 900 dollars annually and North Korea, which refuses to publish numbers, though estimates are grim.
  13. When I told people they criticized it claiming it's too subjective, claiming the criteria of reason etc. is wrong. How should I counter this? We would be more than happy to help, but you need to be more specific than this What's the evidence that reason is better than mysticism that they have in the middle east for example. I don't even have to get abstract or philosophic on this one. During periods of mass mysticism there are dark ages when little to no scientific or industrial achievements are created. Look at the old American empires; the Aztecs and the Incans. It was a bloody, savage, primitive civilization, where the common man was nothing more than an insect to absolute dictators. So they built giant cities. I fail to see how impressive that is when it was build using slave labor. So the Mayans were good at astronomy. I fail to see how beneficial that was to the people they enslaved. Look at the most famous dark age in history: the European dark ages that came about after St. Augustine imposed his platonic dualist philosophy on western civilization. For hundreds of years people wallowed in filth while the church told them that their suffering and poverty was a good thing because they were storing treasure in heaven. It wasn't until St. Thomas Aquinas gave a concession for reason that what we would know as progress started occuring. Sure the dark age civilization built grand cathedrals and church structures. That sure didn't stop the bubonic plague though. It's like project X from Atlas Shrugged. The state can enact public works, but that does not mean progress occurs. Unless you feel that cultural progress exists (as many liberals feel is more important than scientific and industrial achievements.) Also haven't we benefited from other civilizations? It takes only a slight glance at the history of philosophy to see when humanity has benefitted from other cultures. After the fall of the western roman empire and St. Augustine championed platonism in the west, logic and Aristotlean reason fled east; to the Byzantine empire. It was during this spreading that the middle east experienced it's golden age. They invented Algebra as well as the concept of zero. At a time when a westerner took a single bath a year (which was ok, because despite his poor physical condition he was going to heaven) a middle eastern took on average 5 baths a day. The Byzantine empire was a very enlightened society even despite the influence of Eastern orthodox. This all ended when the barbaric Ottoman turks, ancestors of modern Islam, spread their own brand of platonistic tribalism throughout the middle east, eventually toppling the Byzantine empire. The mass exodus of ideas and logic and information from Constantinople to Italy is one of the primary factors that kick-started the European Renaissance. Japan prior to the 19th century was still a feudalistic state, which had expelled western thinking after the sengoku ichidi (age of the country at war; in the 16th century... I think I spelled that right) when the west regained influence in the 19th century was it's period of great industrialization when the old caste-like feudal system collapsed. Of course, old habits die hard, hence Japan's collapse into fascism. There are more examples. If I had more time I could analyze the entire world, but my time runs short. Needless to say, where-ever logic and reason have been held as absolute, thinkers and industrialists flourish. And no where is reason and logic more celebrated than in the west. Isn't it wrong to group states together like this into collectives? It has more to do with the dominant philosophy of the region more than national boundaries. Usually several nations will fall under a single region.
  14. For another terrific historical book, I reccomend Freethinkers: A history of American Secularism. It details the secular history of the united states, from the foundations of the U.S constitution from Jeffersonian Virginia, to 19th century characters such as the nigh forgotten Ingersoll, to the rise of Catholicism and the ACLU. It is a very revealing book, and offers a refreshingly different viewpoint of American history. and it begins with a great quote: "The most formidable weapon against errors of any kind is reason" ~ Thomas Paine
  15. Can't you not help but laugh about it? Obviously this is some biblepunk kid who has little knowledge of how the world works, so he clings to the authority, in a sort of Kolbergian 4th tier of ethics. This is nothing, I have seen communists do the same thing, only with their communist agenda. These are the people I laugh at.
  16. You know, it's funny that they would say that man's only hope for survival would be to return to the primitive, because most scientists agree that the only truly reliable method for ensuring the survival of the species is colonizing other planets. The Earth is always avoiding accidents, and not avoiding them. Primitivism didn't save the dinosaurs, why should it save humanity? It seems like every other week someone releases some doomsday prophecy about an asteriod hitting or a supervolcano erupting or the next mass-extinction which geologists and evolutionists agree that the earth is long overdue for one. And in case they would happen to thing that I am being melodramatic, one would do well to remember that sometime before man became civilized it was reduced to a mere 10,000 members by a supervolcano. Man's best hope for survival rests in technological development. I find the overpopulation business to be, quite frankly, kaka. There has never been a single serious famine in history under any type of Capitalist system. It always happens under collectivism. The two major famines of the 20th century happened in communist Russia and communist China. Come on, America is having a problem with obesity and over-eating. Regardless, the entire population of America could live very comfortably in an area the size of Texas. There is still plenty of space left on Earth
  17. The Indy 500 is great fun. This is the first time I will be missing it since 1994, so I am slightly disapointed. Regardless, I am happy for your son because it is a great honor to march in the pre-race parade. And like any sport, you get to see men at their best; competing for greatness.
  18. Lower crime rates? I wonder how accurate ancient police systems and record keepings were back when the savage ruled? It's the Earthquake effect: there are more Earthquakes now than there were in 1950 because technology has become sophisticated enough to the point where we can detect more Earthquakes now than we could in 1950. Same effect with criminology and forensic science. I wonder how many "accident victims" that happen in savage nations are actually foul play victims who have been covered up by a criminal with half a wit. In the middle ages, they believed in such things as an incubus, which was an evil spirit who would visit young girls in the middle of the night and sleep with them Does it really take a specialization in forensic science to see right through that? The only reason there is more crime now than there was previously is because science has progressed to the point where getting away with murder is extremely difficult, even for the most meticulous murderer. It's exactly what Eric Mathis said. If life as a savage is so wonderful, why aren't they living their dream? There's still plenty of free space left on the world, lets ship them off to Africa or the Amazon or Polynesia. See how much they like their savage civilization when no one is around to mix cocktail drinks for them.
  19. I found that "absolutes" line to be exactly in line with the ethic system Lucas was using; that being your everyday Thomist judeo-Christian post-Nietzsche system of ethics. the "absolutes" line merely shows our society's smattering of pragmatism that has a huge influence on our lives (just take a few law classes and you will see pragmatism in action.) Of course when one focuses on specifics you are going to get some seriously flawed philosophy, so you have to take the face value of the philosophy rather than go to it's roots. As far as philosophy goes, this is how I saw it. When Anakin gets the vision that Padme is dying. He feels that he can influence reality. Yoda tells him to accept reality as it is, where the Emperor tells him that he can control reality. When he falls to dark side, I.E gives in to evil, he destroys that which he set out to accomplish. When he accepts compromise, in the name of achieving a good, evil occured, and no good ever came to fruition. In terms of philosophy in Star Wars, Knights of the Old Republic 2 had the best philosophy. It completely bypasses the Jedi = good, Sith = evil motif, along with releasing one of the most interesting villains in video game history. It also has a strong anti-determinist message, and will actually go so far as to make you think about your actions. Why is giving to that beggar a good deed? why is the Jedi council always right? If you like star wars and have an xbox, pick it up, you will find a delightful experience.
  20. I actually like the Mises institute. Their articles tend to be lucid and intelligent (compared to the rants most websites like to publish.) And when it comes to Ayn Rand, they aren't nearly as apologetic as most Libertarians are. http://www.mises.org/story/1790
  21. I think Lucas really outdid himself with this one. I felt like he learned from the shortcomings of the first two episodes to make an explosive final. For one, the dialoging is much better. Of course, there is still crappy dialogue there ("Your're breaking my heart, Anakin" comes to mind) but he downplays it. Star Wars on a whole has always had it's groan moments, even in the original trilogy, but he minimalized them in this movie. As far as I know, Lucas doesn't have any formal education in philosophy or political theory, so his philosophic model comes from what appears to be your everyday generic judeo-christian system of ethics. Good political system = democracy/bad system = totalitarianism, good deeds = charity, being nice/evil deeds = beating up children, desiring power, being selfish. Philosophically wise, it came from a pretty generic ethical system. But I did find the movie to be thoroughly enjoyable aesthetically. I especially liked how it came together in the end, with the birth of the twins corrolating with the construction of Darth Vader's suit and the construction of the Death Star. That was a good touch which tied the two trilogies together. I at first wondered why Anakin kept his blue lightsaber (as he was now evil and, having the rank of Darth, would have a red saber) until Obi-wan picked it up and walked away with it, making me realize that lightsaber was the one Obi-wan gave to Luke in Episode 4, the same one Luke had up until Vader hacked his arm off in Bespin. That could have been a serious plot-hole, and I am glad Lucas was able to catch that. One final note that did disapoint me slightly was the minimal presence of Christopher Lee's character in this movie. He is a phenominal actor who ended up getting the short end of the stick in both this and LOTR. I would have liked to have seen a little bit more of his character. But these are minor grips, as I am a big science fiction buff (Heck, I even liked the Starship Troopers movie) so I'd give it an 9 out of 10.
  22. There are a number of theories regarding the big bang. One is that the universe consists of Dimensions beyond our own, which are inconcievable to us, and the universe started when two membranes of the dimensions collided. This is extremely abstract because we are trying to apply an extradimensional environment in a 3 dimensional environment. This is called the Ekpyrotic universe theory. There is also the oscillatory universe theory, which holds that the early universe's hot, dense state matches on to a contracting universe similar to ours. This yields a universe with an infinite number of big bangs and big crunches. The cyclic extension of the ekpyrotic model is a modern version of such a scenario. According to some quantum loop gravity theorists, the Big Bang was merely the beginning of a period of expansion that followed a period of contraction. In this view, one could talk of a Big Crunch followed by a Big Bang, or more simply, a Big Bounce. The main idea behind the quantum theory of a Big Bounce is that, as density approaches infinity, so the behavior of the quantum foam changes. However, these are all scientific theories, based on scientific calculations, and there is no arbitrary evidence to suggest an infinite Judeo-Christian God. It would be more logically accurate to say "We simply do not know" or "we do not possess the means of finding out" rather than go with the one that is the safest (that being, God is supernatural and therefore beyond our boundaries to detect)
  23. I have that same issue: I get emotionally attached to them as well. I found myself not wanting Atlas Shrugged to end, as well as Fountainhead. One scene that stands out in my mind was when Rearden was looking for Dagny's crashed plane towards the end of Atlas Shrugged. Someone tell me you couldn't feel the raw emotion of that scene. I find that they exist not in a physical sense but in a spiritual sense (ignore the mysticist connotations that comes with that word) Howard Roark and John Galt are not actual living men, but concepts in my mind, the ideal towards which I strive. Their existence in my mind is all that I need. What Would Galt/Roark Do? Of course, the question is somewhat rhetorical since the answer is always "think"
  24. Neal Boortz is a self-styled Republitarian, much in the same vein as Larry Eldar. Both men were at once staunch supporters of the libertarian party, but they have since had falling outs due to their unwillingness to toe the LP party line. Neal Boortz, Larry Eldar, and John Stossel are all men who fall under this catagory (Stossel prefers the term classical liberal, which harkens back to Locke and Jefferson.) Another more humorous term could be a South Park Republican http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park_Republican Though I think this wiki tab is incorrect in that any South Park references of Ayn Rand are vague at best, the nature of which can be debated. They have no ties to the Republican party, nor the Libertarian party. Though I think they are merely tackling the largest dragons first, that being the democrats, which is mostly comprised of America's left leaning individuals. Even if the Republican party drifts left, they still cling to the Democrats because in their mind, the Republicans are fascists.
  25. Also remember that support for socialism has been around alot longer than the 60's. IIRC the American Socialist party's popularity peaked around the time of W.E.B Dubois. Popularity for socialism also soared during the great depression, which the communists derided as a failure of Capitalism. In fact, the early 30s were the only time in American history when there were more people emigrating out of America than into it, and movies like the Song of Russia were in existence. the whole collectivist counter culture pre-dates the 60's by quite a bit. Heck the first use of dynamite as a weapon was used by a terrorist advocating anarchy who threw it into a crowd of policemen.
×
×
  • Create New...