Jake_Ellison

If these guys are the EPA equivalent of the FBI most wanted list, then this must be the equivalent of a beheading video.

I agree, values are relative to the their importance to the purpose. Absolutely. However, you do not give these values a grade, depending on their importance, you merely identify their importance (rationally, hopefully), in relation to(relative to) your goal. As far as changing the ultimate purpose from it being your own life, my answer is twofold: 1. Objectivism doesn't speak to how to go about doing that. Nor have I ever heard of anyone else who did, and stayed alive to tell the tale. 2. The nature of a human being doesn't allow for that: Ayn Rand holds that man not only "ought to be" an ethical creature, but in fact "is" one. Man cannot exist by negating all of these values: "...the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life."(Ayn Rand) In conclusion, such are the facts of reality, that what you're suggesting cannot be done. For details, read "The Virtue of Selfishness", I can't go into this any further now.(it would require me to re-read the book, which I don't have time for now) Oh, I just saw Zip's link. I guess we are in agreement, according to the first paragraph of that article. Relinquishing one's values-as Ayn Rand describes them- means choosing death. For some reason, the author of that article chose death, but apparently now he doesn't have the courage to go through with it. To answer your question about rationality, I'd say no, the explanation he gives for his choice is not a rational one, since it bears no relation to reality: Jesus did not die for others. He was killed by roman cops, because he piped up.(even if the story were to be believed) Since he is clearly unable to go through with his choice to sacrifice his life, but continues to hold on to his beliefs, the author of that article is continuously evading the reality of his own nature: as a result, I see a lot of moral anguish and unhappiness in his future. That depends on the reason why you are making that choice. If you reach a rational conclusion that your life could not go on without that person, than choosing death is perfectly rational, and not a sacrifice, because you're all out of options anyway: there are no values or purpose to live by anymore. However, if that is not the case, and you're sacrificing yourself for a product of imagination, like God, or a Socialist Utopia, then you're acting against your nature: you are evading reality. That is by definition irrational. Values presupposes choices. There aren't any alternatives, death is the only choice (either now, or months later, when life is meaningless without your loved one), so there are no values. I think your main problem, at this point, is that you don't fully understand the psychological implications of values, the role of emotions and the subconscious in denying or attaining them etc., and as a result you can't appreciate the consequences of trying to replace them all at once. Try this:Edwin Locke: Objectivist Perspective on Psychology

What changed in 19 years?

I'm reading Ayn Rand (and quoting her). As far as being done, you're done having this conversation perhaps, but you're not done proving your original assertion that an assault on Hamas is an error on Israel's part. As a matter of fact just two hours ago I posed a number of questions you have given no answer to in your posts. If your goal was to make a convincing argument in favor of your ideas, then you're not done: you've quit.

It's not a good point. Not finishing off Egypt after they attacked Israel didn't bring anything good to to anyone. Had the Israelis been able to nuke Cairo and Damascus in the sixties, everyone would've learned their lesson in the region, and today we'd most likely be living in a happy, terror-free world. At least that's the conclusion I've been able to draw from any past experience with an aggressor, whether they're just a bully attacking someone in school or a state/group threatening someone throughout history. The only reason why you don't understand this is because you're not being an Objectivist (you're not applying Objectivist principles), you're being a pragmatist, or more precisely anti-conceptual. (you're unable to understand the nature of the situation in the middle-east, because you're looking at specific problems instead of the one source of the problem.) (I'm saying anti-conceptual because you haven't explicitly rejected principles, like a pragmatist, you're just not using any, in this case.) Ayn Rand believed that such people have a hard time explaining why they hold specific convictions, so I'm going to start asking "Why?" you are saying what you are saying. To begin with: 1. Why do you think Syria and Iran haven't attacked Israel during the Lebanon war, or during this conflict? After all in Lebanon around 1000 Arabs died, and now we're past 300? Why do you think more deaths in Gaza will be the cause of this major escalation on the part of these countries? 2. You said: "They were damn close to peace with Syria and the PLO, before Arafat fucked it all up." Why did Arafat do that in your opinion? Also, why do you think he was allowed to do that by both the Syrians and his own people, and in fact went on to lead the territories as a popular tyrant for years, until he died? 3. You are saying a prolonged siege of Gaza will cause the West to cast out Israel. Why do you think they will do that? Why haven't they done it yet (again, 1000 dead in Lebanon), but are going to do it now, with say two or three thousand dead at most in Gaza?

Ah, I wish you'd take just a half hour stroll 'round downtown Gaza, encouraging youngsters to put down their AK's and get a job. Now that would be educational. Oh, and wear a nametag. I bet Hamas has Internet, so I'm sure they'll google Mammon and find it to be of Hebrew origin. Now that'd be a lesson in brotherly love for you. How does that feel, defending people who would tare you to pieces in the streets just because your online nickname reminds them of another ethnic group? How does that mix with "Oh I'm just interpreting Objectivism differently"? Those are rhetorical questions, I really don't need an answer.

You're right, I should've said "could be a threat". I didn't mean to define what constitutes a threat, I was just looking for an instance of one: I.E. your sign example, if the person is outside my home all the time, and the sign says "I will never leave you alone, I wish you were dead." . While the sign itself isn't a threat ( it's a general statement protected by free speech), I think the whole of his actions make him a big enogh threat to warrant some preventive action. (maybe a restraining order)

There is no self in that definition. There's a self-generated, which has nothing to do with the psychological construct "Self" (neither Jung's nor anyone else's). Self-generated means "made without the aid of an external agent". It is an attribute of the entity.

Actually, both of those beliefs are irrational, unless you have arrived at one of them via reason. You are right in saying that one of them is a metaphysical reality, but if you don't know which, then the rational thing is to believe exactly that: you don't know. However, in the context of quantum physics I have no idea which is true, or if none are true, or if all are true, and how quantum physicists arrived at those conclusions. Nor do I care. I think asking questions in the context of quantum physics is irrational to begin with. I gave my answer in the context of reality.

Yes, one can and should live truly for oneself. "Higher purpose" is a concept used to convince people to accept becoming victims, nothing else. Everyone who seeks to live for this "higher purpose", no matter how capable or powerful, is doomed to a life of unhappiness, precisely because it is unattainable. Look at Einstein, or any great scientist or philosopher who found himself often consumed by guilt, misery, or plain confusion because their work was turned against humanity, precisely in the name of this unattainable, undefined "higher purpose" they sanctioned themselves. To do for the world is to become a slave to the world, and to become a slave to the world is to become a slave to those in the world who seek to be slave masters: the scum of the Earth. The more one does, the more power those parasites have, so if anything, a lack of ability should bring such a slave less pain. You should do for yourself precisely to avoid the trappings of "becoming a tool for higher purpose". That said, almost anything you do for yourself will also help others, both in your personal life (in a friendship for instance everybody gains something), and at work (you read Atlas Shrugged, so it's obvious why). The joy has to come from the friendship and from the work, however, it cannot come from the gratitude of others for that work or service. A lot of the characters in Atlas are common people who enjoy their work and their life (in my opinion Dagny is such a person too), and no one is a "superman". Prime movers are prime movers by choice.

A value is a something one needs, of a given importance, in order to achieve a purpose. One obviously has to have choices that lead to a purpose(has to have an attainable purpose), and has to be capable of choosing , in order for one to hold a value. (otherwise we cannot talk about that entity holding a value) For instance, if one is a living entity, capable of making choices (i.e. a human being), he faces a constant choice, between life and death. If his purpose is something other than death, and he continues to have choices available which will make it possible to achieve that purpose, then his highest value must be his own life. (because choosing life has to be part of every choice he makes) To sum up: the concept of value presupposes the existence of a living entity who can make choices, and the existence of a goal which is attainable by that entity. (the concept of value presupposes the existence of the things I colored in blue, red, and green) However, if there is no way for one to achieve his purpose (for instance if someone's purpose is to lead a happy life, and he decides that he cannot do that, no matter what, once his children die), we cannot talk about values, because this entity no longer has an attainable purpose. And this is made clear in Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness" for instance. The assertion that Objectivism requires a man to choose life, no matter what, is not a logical conclusion of "man's highest value is life". One can only come to this conclusion by not understanding the concept "value". (that is why David is insisting on that word being defined before any other discussion can occur.)

Objectivism defines happiness as a state of consciousness which proceeds from having achieved one's values. I can't imagine that there's another definition(if you have one, please challenge this definition first, because everything else rests on it): if you're not morally satisfied with your actions, you feel guilt, not happiness, even if those actions have landed you in a Thai whorehouse where you're body feels pleasure from the combination of opiates and massages it is being subjected to. That's just another "truism"(by that I mean something that is true-simply because that is how human beings are): But neither life nor happiness can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims. Just as man is free to attempt to survive in any random manner, but will perish unless he lives as his nature requires, so he is free to seek his happiness in any mindless fraud, but the torture of frustration is all he will find, unless he seeks the happiness proper to man. The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.--Ayn Rand(Galt's Speech) And yes, the achievement of happiness is one's highest moral purpose(happy life is the goal). I can tell that Mother Theresa was unhappy, because she wrote that she was unhappy. I could've told her she's going to be unhappy before, because she chose as her standard of values the teachings of a philosophy of death: she cannot be happy until she achieves her highest values, and those values are impossible to achieve while still alive (and trying to stay that way), because there are still things she hasn't sacrificed. Objectivist ethics is the science of choosing one's proper values, the only ones which make it possible to achieve happiness.( Precisely because they keep you alive first, and happy only then. Any other system would kill you, or at least not tell you how to stay alive while in the process of achieving happiness. In which case to what use is such a system? You need a different(higher one), which does both. ) P.S. In my opinion there is no way for you to understand (and then accept or reject, based on full understanding instead of some degree of whim combined with understanding) Objectivist philosophy, by just discussing it on a forum. If you wish to give it a fair hearing, you're going to have to go ahead and read Atlas Shrugged. (while at the same time checking out definitions at the Ayn Rand lexicon website, modern applications and interpretations of her philosophy at the ARI website, hanging out on this forum for fun or company, etc.) By "understanding" I don't mean becoming a philosopher, I just mean understanding on a level a human being needs to understand, if he wishes to apply it correctly in his life.(or reject it, in full awareness of what he is rejecting)

I think the main issue is defining what the life part of that statement means. I think in a capitalist society it should simply mean property (including any threats of physical force or intimidating behaviour-such as stalking- against a person or his property), but nothing more. For instance if someone decides to continuously send unwanted mail to someone, stand outside his house or place of business for the purpose of disrupting his life or business, that should qualify as a threat or stalking. The law should assess the seriousness of that threat, and intervene when it is proper. (when they are threatening enough that it warrants arresting someone, or at least restricting his movements via a restraining order) However, someone who continuously writes articles in the media or posts on a forum (distributes flyers etc.) about some person or business, whether they are true or not, that is not a threat.

The first one isn't a principle. (well, it could be interpreted as one, if you are suggesting that leaving one's citizens to be killed in the short-term is good, because it helps the long-term security of the country) The second one ("it should be more important for a country to protect its own people") is, and it refers to the role of the government : to protect its people. It doesn't however tell us how. The third one is also a principle but it is an odd principle indeed to live by. You are suggesting that defense of the citizens and causing as much damage as possible to the enemy are opposites. I wonder what knowledge did you integrate to arrive at this conclusion. I think most Objectivists (and common sense) would suggest that the exact opposite is true: protecting one's country requires causing maximum damage to the enemy. Of course, there's another posibility, that you are, in that third rule of yours, merely suggesting that self defense and destroying the enemy don't always go hand in hand. In that case you are not formulating a principle, you are merely rejecting mine, and then operating without one.

One thing every concrete example one can think of, simple or complicated, has in common with all the others is this: actions that are lead by principles (integrations of human knowledge) are generally more effective than a set of what you call "points", drawn out of thin air. The reason why I am ignoring those points is because you are not providing the principles you're suggesting Israel's leaders should act on: you are just providing us with a series of guesses, while both fletch and I are applying, for better or for worse, principles. I don't claim to know whether I am applying all the right ones, nor do I think that I have the information the IDF has, but at least I am trying to look at history, integrate the things I know about past wars fought against similar ideologies, and then come up with a general idea of what works and what doesn't in war. Concrete problems cannot even be grasped, let alone judged or solved, without reference to abstract principles.-Ayn Rand So you're right, unless you can come up with something that is an abstract integration of knowledge, which applied to the concrete situation in Israel supports your suggestions, you should stop posting on the issue.

Actually, you're right, it is exactly like those two football games. In both cases the object of the game is the same: you have to score touchdowns and stop the other side from scoring. If any one of the four sides decided to change their set of principles, they would be in big trouble: even the NFL champions. And the USA (which I assume is supposed to be the NFL team here) is, my friend, in big trouble, precisely because we decided not to throw the ball forward anymore. If Israel chooses to follow suite, imagine the trouble they'll be in. The principle stays the same, irrespective of the scale. Both in football and in warfare. Now all that's left is for you to name the principles which support your advice and predictions.

Logic applies. Principles apply. What are yours?

To my knowledge they were assured by the Soviets that it would never come to total defeat. And it never did. In fact they have lost very little in that conflict. If they found themselves in a war with Israel now, both regimes would be toppled as soon as they are defeated: both dictators will have lost everything, including their lives. So there's a huge difference, even if we don't bring up the hundreds of nukes Israel likely has as backup. I think there's one relevant difference: the Nazis and Japanese fought to the last soldier, while these people tend to surrender to unarmed UAV's, and are about as organized as a trailer park after a tornado, once you drop a few bombs on them. You're right, the comparison is a stretch. Then why are you bringing up Egypt and Syria, and their history of using those very armies when at an apparent disadvantage, in '67? In my judgment logic dictates that those terror-groups will be emboldened by inaction, rather than the total defeat of Hamas in Gaza. Looking at history, my logic seems to apply at every turn. If you believe responding with disproportionate violence to an attack emboldens an attacker, I believe you'll find that belief impossible to back up. Yo can try though, if you wish. Also, Israel receives support of any significance only from the United States. For the sake of clarity, we should replace "support from the world" with "support from the US". I would argue that a long term cut in US aid to Israel is just not politically feasible in DC, no matter what happens. Few Members of Congress want to have it on their record that they voted in favor of leaving Israel to the wolves, so those 3 billion US$ or so /year are just about set in stone, and so is a military intervention in case Israel is in danger of being overwhelmed.

Dr. Szasz makes good points all around (at least they sound good to me, a layman), but after looking over some of the articles, I didn't find a good case made for completely abolishing involuntary commitment. He appears to make a good point that the standards used today are bad, and that psychiatry is headed in the wrong direction etc., but I haven't seen a substantive challenge against the idea of "mental illness"/ inability to make rational choices. (in fact I haven' seen the concept of reason come into this at all in those articles.) There's also no definition for the concept of rights, no philosophical basis for his demands that patients should not be coerced: as far as I have seen, his starting point is the statement that "freedom is good, government involvement is bad" no matter what. He is a typical Libertarian, as far as I can see. I admit however that I can't possibly challenge anything he says within the field of psychiatry (in fact it sound like he's right to me), and I also haven't read all the stuff on the site. If you can, please point out/quote anything you think is a strong argument for the things I mentioned, or contradicts my criticism.

It is proper for the government to commit and/or medicate people who are a danger to others because of their mental illness. It is just an issue of how much danger they really are: there are cases when the danger is very serious, and the use of force is then justified. Another instance of a mentally ill person "losing" his rights is when a guardian (custodian perhaps?) is appointed, as the person is unable to make day to day decisions for himself. In this case this person gains a status similar to that of a child or teenager, and this is also a proper function of the government to decide. I am basing my opinion on the principle of one fundamental right, a man's right to his own life. In the case of a person who is expected to be a danger to others or himself if left alone (because he is unable to exercise his rational faculty), no further rights can be derived from this fundamental right. If someone chooses to take care of him, they can. In the case of someone who is a danger, it is the government's job to take him into custody, if no one else will.

I started writing my answer to your previous post before you posted your answer to fletch, so I didn't have that point available. However, I've read it now, and your conclusion is that the Arabs, unlike any people with evil ideology dominating them in the past, are for some reason invincible, so we might as well give up and try to get along with them no matter what they do. You do not give a reason as to why they are so special, and the way you reach this conclusion is questionable: the Yom Kippur war was not a total defeat of the Arabs. At the time that was not possible, because of the Soviets. An example of total defeat would be the defeat of Nazi Germany in WW2. Such a defeat of Gaza is entirely within the reach of the IDF, and the Soviet Union is not there anymore to prevent them from finishing the job. Again, if you believe someone else will intervene, please name them and their means of defeating Israel. You should also add the reason why you think America will stand by and let it happen.(whoever this mighty attacker is)

Really? Any beheadings in stadiums in Tel-Aviv , any destruction of ancient monuments, because they are against God, in Jerusalem? Any training camps from which suicide bombers are sent to fly planes into buildings? Any women being beaten in public if they are caught without a male escort? How exactly do they resemble the Taliban? How about telling us what would happen? (and tell us why you think so as well, instead of making predictions about the future without giving a single clue as to what makes you think that is what will happen)

I think the only way to decide upon a course of action in any matter is by analyzing the available information. In matters such as war our main source of information is history. What, in human history, leads you to believe that appeasement or restraint against an enemy who is ideologically conditioned to attack you (and is in fact attacking you at the present time), is the right course of action? When has such an enemy been stopped, unless they were facing the certain knowledge that any attack would mean their total destruction? These calls for restraint, coming from Europe and America are completely baseless. Not a single western politician has offered a single rational argument to why preserving the status-quo is in Israel's best interest. Their only argument is the threat of withholding aid (from America), and cutting off trade (from Europe), and that may work to convince Israel, but it is the most vile tactic to use against an ally (to protect an enemy), the most self-defeating act they could perform. I'd say it is time for Israel to call their bluff, and prove once and for all that both the Europeans bureaucrats and the American politicians are powerless to carry out such absurd threats. As far as the Arabs are concerned, what they think is completely irrelevant: they live in dictatorships, and their dictators are fully aware of the consequences of attacking Israel, so they will never do it.

If it stops now, then I agree, that's exactly what it will do. I also agree that the blockade was a bad tactic to use against rockets being fired. (It's like giving out a modest fine to a gang of murderous bank robbers.) However, if the air strikes continue (on an increasing scale), until they stop firing rockets, and promise never to resume the violence, then this strategy will have solved the problem.

For those who don't know what happened a few years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel's_...engagement_plan Since that day, Hamas has taken over the city of Gaza and the Gaza Strip, and they are using its infrastructure and the aid being sent to it from around the world to manufacture and launch rockets into Israel, for the sole purpose of causing terror among the civilians who live in Israel proper. (not in territories that were occupied in '67, but areas they could only claim by claiming the whole of Israel) While I was glad to finally hear some great news from the region: Israel hits over 100 targets (all Police stations destroyed in Gaza), I worry about whether Olmert will have the courage to see this through, and reduce Hamas in Gaza to what the Nazis were reduced to in Berlin, in the spring of 1945. Watching his press conference this Saturday evening (Jerusalem time), I think he plans to keep up the offensive for now, so I decided to create a new topic to discuss : 1. the strategic goals, tactics Israel should choose, their chances of succeeding in them etc. (Unfortunately the press conference didn't present any such goals, as far as I could tell, it was just a rundown of the events.-I did tune in late though) 2. The causes of why this offensive is again necessary, despite (well I think "because of" fits better than "despite", actulally) Israel having given up all territory it could be expected to give up years ago, in Gaza.