MinorityOfOne

That might be what they're up to, but not necessarily. Remember, the idea that evil is essentially impotent is fairly unique to Objectivism. Most people ascribe far more power to evil people than they merit. Imagine for a second that you thought that evil was more powerful than good. Isn't it a logical step to then say "Well, we'll do whatever we can to shackle evil, even if it means hindering good people somewhat along the way? That way, at least they'll be free from the intrusion of evil people, and they can still accomplish something." I think this is a big part of why some people read Atlas Shrugged and say "But it's just unrealistic." It's not that they're denying that there are honest businessmen. I bet if they were pushed on it, a lot of them would even say that most businessmen are honest. However, I've often heard people say that it's the dishonest ones who rise to the top. If you're dealing with this sort of person, pointing out that Boyle would benefit from the sorts of regulations he was brought up in defense of would be almost useless. It would, at best, cut off that one particular line of argument. Unfortunately, Atlas Shrugged is itself the best argument I know of for the impotence of evil. If somebody doesn't get it after reading that book, I don't know what else to say about it. So I suspect that if you're really interested in convincing them, and you really think they're honest enough to make it possible, you'd have to do some more digging. Find out what's really motivating it at a deep level, and then work from there.

And better than the above, check out The Brian Setzer Orchestra. Welcome, David!

Yeah, but the distinction I had in mind wasn't music vs. noise, but music vs. musical non-art: for instance, manavmehta's example of singing in the shower. Sure, it's musical, but it doesn't make you an artist!

Well, oddly, people like to raise Orren Boyle types as a rationale for the very sorts of governmental regulations the looters benefited from. Don't know if pointing that out would help, but maybe...

The biggest deja vu experience I've had was when I fell on my head while crowdsurfing at a concert. Psychic powers, or brain malfunction? You be the judge. EDIT: I've also had the sleep deprivation problem Jimmay describes, kind of. I was up for about 72 hours, and near the end of the stretch I kept thinking I saw smoke out of the corner of my eye... kept thinking my room was on fire. But that could just have been due to my eyes being utterly exhausted.

Well, I do think the broad point the author was trying to make is that it's illegit to put contemporary popular music on the same pedestal as classical composers. But you might be right, it's hard to tell... and if that is what he meant, then like I said, I disagree. I think you misinterpreted some of what I said. I didn't mean to imply that everything that's musical is art, nor that everything with depth or complexity. (Though here it'd be important to define what is and what isn't music. Perhaps a distinction between what's music, and what's merely musical, would show that all music is indeed art.) Rather, I was saying that depth and complexity are some of the traits which all music has, but in varying degrees. I'd definitely call Nine Inch Nails art, by the way. To say that something is art isn't necessarily to say that it's good, though I do enjoy some NIN when I'm in the right mood. (Bust out the teeth and nails.) I agree with your point that something must express metaphysical value-judgments in a non-journalistic way to qualify as art. (Though I'm still very unclear about how music "recreates" anything.) But you say that most good art depicts humans as efficacious, etc. I'd have to disagree with that -- it's 50/50 at best. You have to distinguish between good art, and art that you like. It's not always the same thing. There is some art of which I can say "It's masterful, and I can't stand it," and others of which I can say "I like it, though I recognize that it objectively sucks." Rand talks about this somewhat in The Romantic Manifesto, though I couldn't give you a reference, not having read it for a while. For a really detailed analysis, check out Peikoff's tape, "The Survival Value of Great (Though Philosophically Flawed) Art."

So when you're done with the course, what reading level do you expect to be at? Are you basically going to be fluent in the language? (I guess one way to ask this is: what's the usual comparative reading speed in Greek/Latin for a graduate of that program as against their native language?)

There's another interesting issue regarding definitions here. There may be multiple definitions which are coextensive, i.e. which would identify the same actual entities. "Rational animal" and "organism with DNA-type x" may be such definitions. (For that matter, you could toss in "featherless biped.") So the issue can't be merely one of extension. Given that we may be able to pick out the same entities with multiple genus/differentia combinations, how should we choose between our options? This is where the issues of fundamentality and purpose come in. Now, clearly both rationality and genetic structure can be viewed as fundamental for humans. They both underlie and explain a great number of our distinctive characteristics. The question is, given those two options, which is appropriate to a discussion of rights? The concept of rights arises in the context of social interaction. So ask yourself: what are you trying to explain here? Is the fact that we have eyebrows and opposible thumbs the sort of thing you want your definition to bring to mind, or is it more important to have your definition bring to mind facts like "men engage in trade" and "men create values"? Obviously, the answer is the latter. If we had a totally different genetics, but which still gave rise to the capacity for reason, we would still face the same questions in ethics and politics. If we had a very similar genetic structure which did not give rise to such a capacity, we would not. So while defining man as "the organism with DNA-type x" may be appropriate for the biologist, who has different questions and concerns, it is not appropriate for the philosopher. In any case, there is a decidedly rationalistic approach in some of this discussion. It is impossible to deduce rights from any definition -- even "the rational animal", appropriate as it is. However, having an appropriate definition, if it's not floating, will help you identify the facts that do give rise to rights.

See, this is a prime example of what I was talking about, GC. Why do we keep threads like this in the archive? (Though it really would be great for the "hate mail" department.)

Betsy, A little off-topic, but have you read The Memory Cathedral? I just finished it up, and I really liked it. If you're not familiar with it, it's a (rather stretched) fictionalization of Leonardo's life by Jack Dann. While Leonardo is not thoroughly consistent hero as portrayed in this book, it brings many of his accomplishments to life in a very inspiring way. For instance, one of the premises it works with is this: there is a stretch of about four years in Leonardo's life about which not much is known, but there is some evidence that he travelled to the Middle East. In The Memory Cathedral, he had succeeded in building working flying machines (among other inventions), and he left to use them in assistance in the war against the Turks. It's not necessarily a book I'd recommend to everyone, though I do think it would be a worthwhile read. There's a very heavy tragic element to the book which can be attributed more to the author than to any facts about Leonardo's life. But if you have a particular interest in Leonardo da Vinci, you would probably love it. If you have any books about Leonardo to recommend, I'd love to hear about them. I've been browsing through the book published by the Met during their exhibit last year which contains hundreds of his drawings and some of the background about them. There's some fantastic stuff -- now I just have to get a book with all of his paintings and similar background info. And, of course, as many biographies as I can get my hands on.

Sorry to be jumping in, Eran -- don't mean to step on your feet. But I feel like posting, so there! I don't necessarily agree with some of the arguments which have been put forth about people being inherently responsible for their governments, but I do agree with the conclusion that it's proper to disregard bystanders when engaging in self-defense. Here's an example which helped me clear up my thoughts on this. (I don't think I came up with it, but I don't recall where I might have gotten it from.) Imagine you're walking down the street and a psycho with a pistol starts shooting at you from within a crowd of strangers. You have nowhere to run, and it's obvious that he's going to hit you any second now if you do nothing. You have a machine gun in your hand. You know you can take him out and save your own life, but you will end up hurting or killing innocent people around him. The only other option is death. Should you shoot? I say you absolutely should. If your goal is to live, you must shoot at him. And if you have any self-respect, you will shoot at him. You do not bear the responsibility for deaths of innocents which occur while defending yourself against the initiation of force. The guy in the crowd shooting at you is responsible. I think you can see how this applies to foreign policy

Well, the ARI thing might just be saying that it's improper to claim that Snoop Dogg or Metallica are on the same level as Beethoven and Rachmaninoff. That's pretty obviously true. If the author was trying to say anything more, I firmly disagree. Art subsumes a wide range of things, which vary in many ways. Two important continuums on which art can fall are complexity and depth. (They're probably not even the most important, but they're relevant here.) Is Metallica art? I'd say, definitely! Is Metallica complex? Well, their earlier stuff is probably more complex than 99% of the popular music around right now, but they're certainly not on the level of most classical music. Is their music as deep as Tchaikovsky or Mussorgsky? Hell no. But does it have some depth? Definitely. Point being: a difference within these ranges does not imply a fundamental difference. It's a difference of quantity, not of kind. You can find the same pattern, by the way, in a lot of contemporary popular art. Does a Robert Ludlum novel possess the same complexity and depth as a Hugo novel? Absolutely not -- but he's still great to read, and I'd say that his books are still art. As for how rock and rap fit into Rand's definition of art, I can only say this: I don't have a clue. But then again, I don't have a clue for the same reason that I don't have a clue how any music fits into her definition. Hopefully someone else will be able to give you a better answer, but for now, ask yourself this: if you consider Beethoven to be art, why wouldn't you consider Metallica to be art? I don't mean to put the two on the same level, obviously, but I do suggest that there is no difference between the two such that one is art and the other is not. If you have something in mind, I'd like to hear it.

Oldsalt, I agree totally about pets and unconditional love. It's on the same level as those teenage girls who are determined to have children at 15 so there will be somebody who will love them unconditionally. ... Good luck! As for the last, like I said, it's not always true. And I probably shouldn't have lumped the two together, because there is a genuine value in taking care of an animal -- and particularly so in your situation. It's just that I've heard some people think of it as a value in a bad sort of way. But enough on that.

Hey Desiree. I have to ask... what the heck is a life coach?

I think it was Leonard Peikoff who once described pets as "surrogate friends". I think that's a pretty insightful phrase. Pets... well, the best way I can put it is that they essentialize certain aspects of friendship, though that's not really a very accurate way to describe it. Bear with me. Obviously you can't have a full-fledged friendship with a pet. But there are major commonalities between the owner-pet relationship and a friend-friend relationship. I'd say the two major values are intimacy and playfulness. (Obviously there can be others, as VES pointed out.) The psychological visibility issue which JR brought up is closely related to this, too. Dogs in particular, though cats to a lesser degree, can be quite sensitive to a person's mood, and will often demand the right sort of attention accordingly. If you're feeling sedate, they'll sit on your lap; if you're feeling energetic, they'll want to play. Sometimes they'll demand to play even if you aren't up for it, which can be great! ... or very annoying. I think for some people there's also the "unconditional love" and "taking care of something" aspects of having a pet, though I think those tend to come from lack of self-esteem. (I wouldn't claim they always do, however.) I'd post a picture of my cat, but I don't have one handy. Maybe I'll get one sometime... I could demonstrate his lick spot. (If I scratch a particular part of his back, he starts obsessively licking anything within reach. Himself, my arm, a sheet, my girlfriend's head when she's trying to sleep... it's very amusing.)

I believe that is an analytic truth? ;-)

I'm confused. It sounds like you're looking for a deductive demonstration that ethics are inductive. Can you see why that's weird?

It's generally just a colloquialism for "I wish you the best," "I hope you do well," or something like that. I wouldn't jump on someone for saying it.

Whoa -- where did you read that? Can you give me a link? That's totally wrong. I know a lot of Objectivists who don't like rock (so much the worse for them!), but I don't think I've ever heard one claim that it can't be art.

Luck occurs when uncontrolled and unpredicted events affect one's values. You have "good luck" when the effects benefit you, "bad luck" when they harm you. I don't think it's a bad concept in itself. But you often hear luck spoken of as though it's a property that people have, which is clearly nonsense.

Don's pretty damned funny. But he has to compete with Jason Roth of Save The Humans for that title, and that's not easy. His E-Tarded Emails are hilarious, and if you're looking for Objectivist humor, The 25 Most Inappropriate Things An Objectivist Can Say During Sex is classic.

Can God let loose a fart so foul that even He has to leave the room? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Heh. Yeah, that's what I meant. Sorry, I was being careless.

Well, I agree that civil disobedience is a way to show your lack of support. But why SHOW your lack of support? I'd think you'd do so because you want to change the law? In any case, I didn't mean to imply (if I did) that his refusal to escape from his execution was itself a rejection of civil disobedience -- simply running from the law is not civil disobedience. Rather, I intended to point out that the principles which he supports in discussing his decision also have implications for when he could & could not support civil disobedience. However, if I were to rewrite this essay, I would point out that Socrates fails to deal with the need for objective law & consistent application thereof. If he had a real grasp of this, he would have been able to say something like "I am not destroying the laws by failing to accept their misapplication", if he indeed believed he had not violated the laws. (Given how he dodges the anti-religion charge by changing the subject, it's not entirely clear to me that he really thought that.) But he didn't; he took submission to the state seriously, since he viewed it as an implicit contract and a point of honor. Like I said... old paper.

I don't think it's mutually exclusive either. Composition is a concept which applies only to things which have parts. If something has no parts, it isn't composed of anything. But that's quite different from saying "It's composed of nothing and therefore does not exist." The problem is an equivocation in the meaning of "nothing" as used above. In the first use, it means lack of parts; in the second, it means lack of anything. If an existent is indivisible, it will have no parts and thus not be composed of anything; but it is not therefore nothing.