JeffS

Rockin' good news.

lethalmiko, I'm going to take you at your word and assume you truly are looking for answers. To that end, I highly recommend you begin by getting a firm grasp on epistemology. The statement I quoted above indicates to me that you are sorely lacking an understanding of how you know anything. I recommend Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: Expanded Second Edition as a starting place. You should then move on to Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. Until you understand the proper method for learning, answers to your questions will continue to be elusive. In fact, it's a waste of your time to continue asking them, since the answers, even if you agree with them, will not add to your own knowledge. I, and others, have pointed out your epistemological errors several times, but I don't thing you're "getting it" because you simply don't know how.

That's not true. Fossils are very rare. Just because we can't find any, doesn't mean that a) they don't exist, nor b ) that evolution is invalid. That's a ridiculous question. The concepts "to begin," and "cause," have no meaning without the Universe. As has been pointed out several times, these concepts only exist within the Universe. You're asking me to step outside the Universe and use concepts which would then have no meaning and attribute them to something which does not exist. It's like asking someone, "Jjsljfkd alskdj fjkiel slkgja?" It's not exactly like that, because even that random juxtaposition of letters, even the very concepts of "letters" and "questions" exist in the Universe. No, God (the Judeo/Christian god, since you capitalized the word) is an impossibility. Every god, so defined, is an impossibility. Since the concept is an impossibility, or, rather its referent in reality is an impossibility, it can't be the answer to anything. The nature of God has already been defined and there is no room for debate. If you want to talk about some other concept, other than a metaphysical and epistemological impossibility, then you really should begin by naming it and giving us a definition. The concept god, and its variants (God, Allah, Jaweh, etc.), precludes Man's capability to find answers. This has been tried, but I don't recall you answering it: You aren't capable of finding answers because there is an invisible, undetectable, unmeasureable, alien, who does not exist in reality, but exists in super-reality, who does all your thinking for you. Do you agree this is a valid theory that deserves expending time, treasure and talent to prove?

I'm not sure I'm making myself clear, or if we actually agree. If I look to others and compare myself to how well they have done (e.g. I got an 'A,' but Johnny got a 'C.' Therefore, I'm better than Johnny. I'm valuable.) is that not second-handed? Seems to me it is. Looking to how well others are doing in order to drive my own achievement is putting the onus for how hard I work to achieve my goals on to others. Should Johnny work harder because I got a better grade? Or, rather, should he work harder because he doesn't understand the material? Can I work a little less hard because Johnny has a long way to go before he catches up to me; he has a long way to go before he is any competition? Or should I continue to work hard because learning is important to me and I want to continue to understand the material? Does my self-worth and self-esteem come from being ranked better than Johnny, or does it come from achieving my own personal values? What's happening is too many are evaluating their own self-worth compared to those around them. What happens when they're surrounded by morons? Yea, I got an "A," but I didn't have to work that hard to get it because Johnny's and idiot. Does that have any value? Just because I can compete against a moron and beat him? Imagine Carl Lewis running in the Special Olympics. If he wins, has he really won? There is no competition in learning. There's nothing endemic to education which requires there to be winners and losers. You either learn, and know it, or you do not. Grades should be used as feedback to the individual (and perhaps his/her parent(s)) indicating whether the material has been learned. They should be of concern to no one else. If we extrapolate this into the business world, should I look to Johnny to determine how hard I work? Should I work harder if he outsells me, or should I work as hard as my values dictate I should work? Can I slack off if I sell more than Johnny because, comparatively, my job is safe? Or, rather, should I continue working toward achieving my own values regardless of how well Johnny does? Well, I can agree with this to a point. If we both received a perfect score on a test, who won? There usually is only one winner, but accolades like Honor Roll don't have limitations on number. Suppose they did? Suppose the roll were limited to only 10 students. What if 11 students had the exact same GPA (or whatever)? What if all of them did? I have no problem agreeing that there is nothing wrong with there being only one winner. Nor do I believe coddling and emotionalizing with the loser should be done.

No doubt. My point is that if a student, and someday worker, only uses those around him as his measuring stick he's going to fall short of his potential. Look at recent college graduates. Less than 50% are proficient in math or reading. Or here. And something a little more dated. What's more, employers know it. I can't remember where I read it, but I remember an article which discussed how employers have lowered their hiring standards. Not because of need for more workers, but because the crop of graduates simply gets worse and worse each year. Few of them have basic math skills, so math skills become unimportant. Few can write a cogent sentence, so writing becomes unimportant. Of course we're going to be evaluated by those we work around. My argument is those we work around are getting easier and easier to compete against (unless they're educated in China or India). Since standing out around a bunch of idiots isn't very difficult, the only reason one would stand out significantly is if they aren't measuring themselves against others. They must measure themselves against their own ability, drive, and values.

I'm all for competition, but I don't think this situation fits. School, by and large, is not a competition. There's nothing in the structure of education which precludes everyone from getting 100% - that is, there's nothing inherent in the model itself preventing everyone from being #1. Yes, there are limited slots on sports teams, but the Honor Roll could conceivably contain every student's name. It's been a long time for me, but I never looked to my peers to determine how well I needed to do. Grades, throughout highschool and college, were simply a way for me to validate to me how well I understood the material. I never changed my behavior based upon how well (or poorly) my friends did. I think there's a danger in doing so. Suppose you have a child with the capabilities of Einstein (for whatever reason), and you put him in a school of children with, shall we say, dramatically lower expectations. If this young Einstein is only going to do well enough to just beat out his classmates, well he won't have to try very hard. The end result is not 1 genius and hundreds of dolts. The end result is hundreds of dolts, plus one king of dolts. As I said, it's been a long time since I've been in a public school, but from what I've read I don't think my hypothetical is very far from the truth. With all the pressure to safeguard children's self-esteem, to make every child a winner, to destroy real values by making all values equal, we have a public school system where everyone is racing for mediocrity. Judging from the quality of highschool and college graduates these days, it appears they're all succeeding. If you put a flea in a jar, the flea will jump out. If you put a lid on the jar, the flea will try to jump out for a few days, but will eventually learn jumping hard just hurts his back. He stops jumping as high. If you then take off the lid, the flea will never jump out of the jar.

I think it's literary license. I don't think Ms. Rand meant possession in the sense of, "I own this thing and can do with it as I wish." Love is value given for value received, just like anything else. When she wrote "possession," I think she meant a woman values a man, and gives her love to him - that love is his as long as she gives it. But she does not give it freely. She gives it in return for his love - which is hers to own as long as he gives it. They both give in exchange for the other's, because they want to, because they both represent what each values. Each recognize they are a person whose values are attractive to another, but not just any "other." An other who values are a reflection of their own values. That is the success - that a life lived morally reaps rewards, one of which is the selfish love of another who also lives a moral life. She could just as easily have written, "The woman who is certain of her own value will want the highest type of man; the man she admires, the strongest - because only the possession of a hero will give her the sense of achievement."

The argument is so poorly stated that I'm not sure if I agree with the author or not. I simply don't know what his point is. If his point is, "[G]etting straight As and Bs, making the varsity, getting on the spirit squad or receiving a certificate of academic achievement does not define success, does not make you a more worthwhile person, does not make you a “winner” and the un-rewarded as “losers.”" Then I agree. If his point is, "[being] part of the greater under-appreciated majority, perhaps with some wonderful qualities (such as kindness, honesty, generosity, etc.)" defines success, then I disagree. Success is living a happy and productive life. I homeschool my kids. One reason I do is because I don't want them pigeon-holed into some bureaucrat's definition of "success," or "smart," or "special." Both of my kids are studying material above their age groups. I have to constantly remind others not to call them "smart." They are not smart. They both work hard and that is their success. So many want to effectively dismiss achievers as "smart," or "gifted," or "talented," or "[insert mystic term here]." They don't want to acknowledge that intelligence, or proficiency in anything requires hard work. That way they can comfortably come to terms with their own reluctance to make the tough choices it takes to lead a happy, productive life. This teacher seems to be of the same cloth. At times he seems to discount the hard work it takes to get on the honor roll, or the varsity team and subscribe to the, "You're special just the way you are. You deserve recognition for just going through the motions. Keep taking in oxygen and we'll give you a medal" mentality. At other times he seems to recognize that hard work is what needs to be recognized, not the achievement of some arbitrary goal.

Seems to me to be the principle of the thing, not the money. Aren't principles important?

Isn't that kinda' the point though? Or, at least to expose those who would endorse such a campaign as the "cracker-barrel twits" they are. Those who endorse these campaigns do so because it "sounds good." They either do no research, or ignore what research they have. They ignore the sage advice of "everything in moderation" and jump straight to either the government needs to use its guns to completely ban this "bad" thing, or it needs to use its guns to force everyone to make more of this "good" thing.

Ah, I see. You're looking at it in terms of: "The government steals from producers now anyway, why not just steal from them sooner?" I was looking at it in terms of: "The government shouldn't steal."

I would be interested to know why. You should ask whoever made the decision why they value people based on what they pay them and not the other way around.

How about, "Makes all life on this planet possible."?

I'm confused why it would cost the producers? How do disabled and non-productive individuals drain producers' resources?

I don't know. (Thank you, John McVey!) But I do know it was a natural process. That is, however it started it started because of some cause based in reality. How do I know this? Because if it didn't start in reality, it started in non-reality. Non-reality, by definition, does not exist. It is impossible for something which does not exist to cause anything. And you don't know how life began either. But rather than admit that, you consign it all over to God - a supernatural (i.e. outside of nature, outside of reality) being. You throw up your hands and say, "I give up! I can't find the answer, so I'll pretend the answer is this impossible being. I can stop thinking now." Blanking out the fact that your answer is epistemologically impossible. It's not just impossible by known laws of nature - it's impossible based in the fundamentals of knowledge. You blank out the fact your answer, rather than actually solving the problem, merely moves the problem to a new locus: How did God begin? Your answer is egregious not because some people disagree with you. It's offensive because it negates Man's ability to have any knowledge about anything. It tells Man, "You can't know this, so you can't know anything. Your mind, your reason, is not up to the task of living, so you should just stop. Stop thinking. Stop asking questions. Stop looking for reasons. Stop looking for answers. Thinking is ineffective. Questions are too hard to answer. Reason is directed. Answers are beyond you." No, thank you.

Perhaps the wisest words I've read in a long, long time. So many times I allow myself to be dragged into questions of the special sciences during philosophical debates. I need to learn when the topic changes and have the courage to both claim ignorance while simultaneously affirming the certainty of what I do know and the fact that my ignorance doesn't detract from it.

I haven't read the particular articles you linked to, Brian, but I understand the argument. It's a cautionary note: let the government control healthcare, and it's going to have to ration it. I use it as an argument against universal healthcare, I wonder if Stossel is doing the same? I love the guy.

Well done, Mixon.

"Capacity" wasn't part of your original justification. You wrote: "The justification [for infants/children deserving "special rights entitling them to the productive effort of strangers (or even their parents" is] that they lack the means to pay today nor can they claim it by force." Regardless, not only do I not have the means to pay today for my own business, I also lack the capacity. Given your argument, I would be justified in forcing you to buy me a business. You also reason that the possibility of paying the debt back, that the possibility of increased production, also justifies using such force. It's possible I'll pay the debt back. It's possible I'll be more productive. I've met all your qualifications, why would you deny me the use of force in order to get you to pay for my new business? I'm just trying to nail down what your criteria are for treating some people differently than others.

I lack the means to open my own business. Do I have a right to force you to buy me one? Why, or why not? With my own business I could be more productive. I'll pay you back at some later date. Oh, I see. So it's not all children who have more rights than the rest of us, it's only a select subset of children. Are there any other special groups who deserve special treatment under the law? Perhaps it really should only be black, Hispanic, or some other minority group of poor children who get these benefits. After all, white children, especially white males, already have an unfair advantage in the "production game." So, maybe we should amend it to "only permissible for minority orphans or infants of minority parents who lack the means to provide a base (definition to vary dependent upon advances in medicine, clothing, housing, and culinary techniques) subsistence." Mixon, you're going to be taking wealth from some in hopes of it being "paid back" (certainly not to those you've taken it from) later. Whether you actually will create wealth is circumspect. What is certain is you will be destroying wealth when you point your gun at the heads of the producers whom you'll be taking it from.

What Chris and Jake said.

So what are you arguing? That children deserve special rights entitling them to the productive efforts of strangers? That their lack of choice justifies forcefully taking property from others?

Well, sure, but so has the Sun, the wind, the rain, and the Earth. Pagans have a closer grasp on reality than current mainstream religions - at least their gods have referents in reality. Moreover, their religion enjoyed a far longer run than religions of today; lasting for 10's of thousands of years. From a historical perspective, understanding the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God is important, but that's about it.

One thing is certain: the man was very productive, and his presence on this planet brought a great deal of joy to millions, perhaps billions of people. These things alone should be enough to earn him some respect and at least a modicum of sadness at his passing. He'll be missed in the way we'll miss Gates when he goes.

I don't understand why the debate doesn't end here. Really, is anything more needed? Supernatural is that which does not exist. The concept "god" is a concept of a supernatural being. Therefore, the referent for "god" does not exist. That's just a first stab at a simplified proof for the non-existence of God (or any god so defined). What are its flaws?