hippie

Hello, all. I'm Adam, I spend most of my year in Boston at Brandeis University but come home to Florida in the summer. I have majors in philosophy and history, and I intend to get a masters in philosophy at NYU. I may tack on a major in Spanish if I can work it in. I will be studying in Israel during the coming spring. I like to travel and have been to Britain, France, Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, the Czech Republic, Austria, Italy, Greece, and Switzerland. I would truly like to go to Spain (ironically, I speak Spanish and Hebrew and I have neither been to a Spanish-speaking nation nor Israel) and Portugal. I’ve read 95% of Rand’s material but I’m currently re-reading all of her non-fiction as well as The Fountainhead. I’ve already packed away Atlas Shrugged. I name myself Hippie because I have long hair, I wear tye-dye, and listen to 60's rock.

For a while I’ve not voted 1) so that I don’t elect into office poison and 2) as a way of sending the message that the options are not good enough. Though I am a freedom-loving person, Bush is too Christian, I can’t stand the Patriot Act, and his Medicare program is inexcusable. Ironically, I agree with absolutely everything Ash Ryan has said. However, I’ve been thinking that I may vote Libertarian with the hopes of 1) encouraging the entrance of a third-party alternative and 2) because people often associate Libertarianism with Objectivism and will, perhaps, look up Libertarianism if it makes a bigger impact in the polls and as a consequence learn about Objectivism. I would like to stress that I would only vote Libertarian because I know that it will never win the election. I only want to increase public awareness. But I have not even decided that I will follow through with this plan.

I think sports are valuable as entertainment because they show us the amazing accomplishments man can make when he dedicates himself to a task. Lessons in honesty, work ethic, and team work can be learned through sports and it’s just good exercise. Spearmint, sometimes sports do turn into a tribal sort of game when people get serious about the “my team against your team” deal. But it can be harmless if taken in the right way. I’m a Red Sox fan and my best friend is a Yankees fan. We joke around with each other, insult each other, etc. But in the end, we realize that it’s just a game and doesn’t mean anything beyond entertainment. I will say that what BlackSabbath said is exactly true and most particularly when it regards the Red Sox. People here actually wear shirts that say, not “Go Sox” but rather “Yankees Suck”. It’s almost more important to Red Sox fans that the Yankees lose than that the Red Sox win. And a final note, I don’t care for Olympic games. This may seem a bit wacky, but I believe even Aristotle would agree with me on this. Olympic games (at least, the core ones like running, pole-vaulting, swimming, etc.) are all things that humans are not the best at. So what that somebody can run at 20-miles-per-hour. Imagine if an alien came to our planet, saw us running competitions and everybody cheers at the guy who ran at 21-miles-per-hour—then sees a cheetah zooming by at 60. They’d think this is crazy; who cares that we can run that fast? It’s not a thing we’re particularly good at. It’s as if you were to say, “I went to Cal-Tech and beat up everybody there in boxing.” Big deal, it’s Cal-Tech. You’re not accomplishing much. That’s why I prefer games like baseball and hockey, which are my two favorite sports. They require not just physical ability but strategy—something that humans are the absolute best at, and something which only we can do. When the short-stop gets a line-drive right in his glove, whips around in a fraction of a second, and delivers it to the second-baseman is right in place at the right time, you see something that no other beings could do. Now I propose: What about women being admitted to compete with men (e.g. golf, but also in things like football)? Legally, I think we all agree that any sports organization should be free to admit and reject whomever they please. But what about ethically?

I have two questions: 1) Ayn Rand once said that Ronald Regan was clearly not an example of a capitalist. If you want me to dig out my source, I will do so though I'm not sure where I read/saw it. I think it was from one of the Phil Donahue interviews. But in light of what has been said here about Regan, what do you think of this? Personally, while I agree that he was not a capitalist, I think he was one of the best presidents of the 20th century--arguably, but not certainly, the best. This is simply because we have not had a capitalist president in the 20th century, with the possible exception of Calvin Coolidge. That brings me to 2) Though I don't know a whole lot about his term of office, would Coolidge have been the best president in the 20th century? He was credited with having been a very "conservative" president who did not do a lot of trust-busting in an era where trust-busting was a major claim to fame.

Speicher, many thanks for not yelling. That's a much appreciated gesture that is not always given me, though I don't see what people hope to achieve by yelling—as if my supposed volition may be commanded by the volume of their voices or inflection in their text. Anyway, I meant to say this before but forgot: You said that an Objectivist believes in free will. This is quite right, and this is why I said I follow Rand but didn’t say I’m an Objectivist. I recognize that Objectivism has a specific definition and that I, not fitting it, am not an Objectivist. Even though I’m really, really, really close. In addition to what Spearmint has said, I would like to throw another mind experiment at you: Assume there is a man who chooses to do a tap dance. Then, time is reversed. Nothing is changed, all things are exactly and perfectly the way they were, all variables being perfectly identical. Must he tap dance again? If he must, he is determined. If he is not compelled to, his will is random, causeless, and without reason. If choice comes ex nihilo, that is just mystical. When you ask, do I sense my own free will, I don’t. When I act, I weigh my options, consider my knowledge, and do what I must because of my reason. For instance, when I must choose between apple juice and orange juice, I know that orange juice is healthy and tastes better than apple juice. Because I value what tastes better, I must drink the orange juice. Something more: I find your example of the four-lettered word ironic. What you described was precisely what Aristotle called not free will. You were acting on random, unthinking whim. Your example is an example of the modern approach to ethics: emergency ethics—i.e. you consider one particular instance, rather than considering the proper life as a whole. Aristotle considered volition to be closer to what I believe the thought process is. He believed that choice was examining the world, weighing options, planning one’s life, and following through. He, however, fundamentally agreed with Ayn Rand. He believed that the fundamentally undetermined and, essentially, random choice that a person makes is the choice to think or not to think.

Ah, we are working on different definitions of “objective”, which may be the heart of any misunderstanding. I have heard several non-Objectivists use the term “objective” to describe intrinsic values, as Immanuel Kant argued. Ayn Rand went to great lengths to refute that idea as absurd, unfounded, and psychologically detrimental. What is meant by “objective” in Objectivist discussions is more like “rational” (I do not, however, think “objective” is the wrong term, since in the sciences it is used to mean a judgment based on facts which are drawn to a necessary conclusion.). As I’ve explained, rational is different from intrinsic—a proponent of intrinsic values would say that a wagon always has a value in any situation. An Objectivist denies this—a wagon only has a value to the right person at the right time, in the right context, for the right end. Also, when we say that life is a value in itself, that does not just mean subsisting but a happy life. Happiness is simply an automatic value, like pleasure. Subjectivists simply refuse to believe that this value is automatic and ask us to prove that it is a good. But, as with any axiom, you cannot go underneath it. And automatic does not mean intrinsic. It simply means that we cannot rationally deny it as human beings, though we can deny it irrationally. “Intrinsic” means that it is true, regardless of any observer. It is like there are five dimensions to existence: length, width, depth, time, and value. A thing that is valuable in itself does not mean that there is a value necessarily present within the object alone, but rather that it is a necessary value because of the identity of the object and the identity of the valuer.

I'm in much the same position as Student. I follow Ayn Rand, believe most everything in the philosophy, read most of her literature, but the free will issue I simply cannot agree with. The answer that most Objectivist give is that causality does not contradict free will when you appropriately define causality. Causality is the law of identity in practice--given a being's identity and context, its actions will follow. One person here has given the example that an acorn's nature, when planted, watered, and fertilized will make it become a tree. However, this only contradicts free will. By nature of a person, and the context of his existence, he will necessarily do X. Two people with the exact same genetic make up and the exact same environmental circumstances (that is to say, with the exact same identity) will produce the exact same results. I've been yelled at by Objectivists for holding this view, and I'm certain that this will be enough for some to jump on my back yet again—but for any other Objectivists who also find this troubling, I agree.

"In order for something to be a value, there has to be a person who values it." This whole topic is a very fair question, and this is precisely what Ayn was not saying--though it is a good attempt at understanding it. Ayn Rand was opposed to the Kantian idea that all things have a value in themselves, and that man must figure out what it is. It is not merely that there must be a person to understand the intrinsic value of a thing, but that the facts of reality dictate a rational value of a given thing, at a given time, for a given purpose, in a given context. For instance, a horse-drawn carriage has no intrinsic value. For a person in the 18th century, who has no car but wishes to transport goods to a market, for the purpose of getting money, in order to further his life, a wagon has a value. But for a person today, it has less of a value because the facts of reality today are different. That is not to say that values are subjective, though. Facts dictate a particular, rational value, but facts change. Perhaps only in that sense is value subjective, but that is not what subjectivists propose. Subjectivists propose that values may be derived from non-facts or irrelevant facts. E.g., I value killing because I feel like it. Feeling like it is not a relevant fact of reality to determine value. Given the facts of existence--that man is a producer who will contribute to one's life more when alive than dead--it is objectively, rationally wrong to kill. It is much like an equation with variables. The variables are the facts, but the unchanging concept that directs life is the equation. And the answer that results is right or wrong, not subject to whims or irrational thought. I must ask, Rocinante, have you been satisfied about the matter?