JeffS

Excellent question. I don't think it can be quantified. My approach to the original question was to try and break it down to the fundamental determining factor of a rational life. It seems to me that living a rational life would require a rational philosophy, since a man's philosophy is his "comprehensive view of life;" the "base, a frame of reference, for all his actions, mental or physical, psychological or existential." (Ayn Rand - “The Chickens’ Homecoming,” Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, 45). If his philosophy is irrational, then how can he ever be rational? Most answer that a man's rationality is contextual. Well, it is - as is everything. However, if the man's philosophy is irrational then it pervades all contexts. Perhaps an example will help me explain my thinking: Suppose Jack has a mystical philosophy. He believes a supreme being exists which will answer his prayers for all his wants and needs. There are two possible ways Jack can act: 1) He can wait until this supreme being provides him with his wants and needs. He makes no plans for getting what he wants and needs aside from praying every night. He makes no effort toward achieving these things since his philosophy tells him his supreme being will provide it. In all contexts, Jack is clearly irrational. I would be willing to bet very few people act this way. 2) He can make plans, and put forth effort in order to get what he wants and needs. He still prays, and still believes in a supreme being which will provide him with everything he needs. So, he's lying to himself - he's denying reality. Either he's denying his belief (a belief rooted in his understanding of reality) that his supreme being will provide him with everything he wants and needs, and so he provides for himself. Or, he's denying the reality that there is no supreme being to provide him with everything he wants and needs, therefore he must provide for himself. Even if Jack takes the necessary actions to provide for himself, he's still holding a contradiction - he's still behaving irrationally. I agree with Grames (and others) - "common sense is fairly common," and the focus should be on people's ability to deal with abstractions. But what does this tell us about people's rationality when we know the vast majority of them hold a mystical, irrational philosophy? No matter how you slice it, they're holding contradictions in every aspect of their lives because their fundamental view of the world is flawed. Even the man who acts in a rational way is still behaving irrationally if he holds an irrational philosophy. His philosophy tells him reality is one way, but he acts as if reality is another; he believes reality behaves one way, yet his "common sense" actions belie that belief.

Grames, I think we agree on the salient points of the Avatar discussion, but I would like to explore your argument on the subconscious more fully. I just don't think this is the thread for it. As soon as I get more time, I'll review what's been posted before, and address my questions there, or start a new thread if need be. Thanks for the discussion.

It seems to me that conceptual knowledge must be manipulated this way. Leonard Piekoff writes in The Philosophy of Objectivism: "[Objectivism rejects the Freudian] theory of a dynamic unconscious—i.e., the unconscious as a mystic entity, with a will and purpose of its own unknown to the conscious mind, like an inborn demon that continually raises Hell. Strictly speaking, Objectivism does not subscribe to the idea of an unconscious at all. We use the term “subconscious” instead—and that is simply a name for the content of your mind that you are not focused on at any given moment. It is simply a repository for past information or conclusions that you were once conscious of in some form, but that are now stored beneath the threshold of consciousness. There is nothing in the subconscious besides what you acquired by conscious means. The subconscious does perform automatically certain important integrations (sometimes these are correct, sometimes not), but the conscious mind is always able to know what these are (and to correct them, if necessary). The subconscious has no purposes or values of its own, and it does not engage in diabolical manipulations behind the scenes. In that sense, it is certainly not 'dynamic.'" (ref: The Ayn Rand Lexicon) Nothing enters the subconscious without first passing a conscious evaluation. That evaluation may be flawed, or it may not be. The determining factor in whether that evaluation is flawed is the philosophy held by the evaluator: if it is a flawed philosophy, the evaluation has a far greater chance of being flawed. Once evaluated, though, the information - now knowledge - becomes available to the subconscious for snap emotional decisions. The emotional associations one makes subconsciously depend upon the underlying philosophy. The reason advertising works so well is because people, by and large, don't think. Primarily, they don't think about their philosophy. The majority of the population have flawed philosophies. If one has a solid foundation in a proper philosophy, advertising ploys don't work. No, no additional measure is needed. I'm only arguing that this defense need not be on high alert at all times. As examples we can use Avatar and commercials. Some posts on this thread (and I'm not thinking of yours) imply that to see the movie would be tantamount to laying one's mind at the altar of all that is evil in the world; as if seeing it would somehow destroy one's rational mind just by watching it, much less enjoying it. I can watch the movie (as I suspect you can) and simply enjoy the spectacle. Yea, when we walk out of the theater we'll think, "Well, that was a pretty lame story. And the philosophical undertones, and even some overtones, were ridiculous. But, jeez! Sigourney Weaver as a Na'vi?! Amazing." We're not going to think, "Boy, I've been wrong this whole time. Reason and logic are silly ways to interact with the world. I think I'll go join Greenpeace." I can (as I suspect you can) watch commercials all day and not be affected one way or the other. My eyes can see the pictures, my ears can hear the sound, but my mind doesn't need to be engaged on those messages. I don't need to consciously evaluate every message delivered and decide whether it's valid or not. I simply ignore it. The messages don't enter my subconscious without my consciousness being engaged. I don't suddenly feel an urge to go out and buy a new truck. No, and I hope I've clarified that. Please, let me know if I haven't. The "how" is conscious focus on that information. The "when" is when that information becomes important to my values. With Avatar (or any movie) I went to see a Hollywood, special-effect laden, spectacle. I didn't go for philosophy. When I sit down in the theater, my conscious thought is, "Entertain me." I'm willing to suspend my disbelief and allow myself to be taken up in the ride. I'm not thinking about what ulterior motives the film-maker has. In fact, I don't want to. It ruins the experience for me. I just want to enjoy the ride. Now, if I walk out of the theater and someone says, "Don't you agree with Cameron that we should stop killing our mother?" If I'm feeling up for a fight, I'll engage that person on the philosophical underpinnings (or lack thereof) of such a question. If I'm not feeling up for the fight, I'll probably laugh in their face and walk away. That's the time for rigorous evaluation. The time for rigorous evaluation is not before even seeing the film. When I need a new car, I'll pay attention to car commercials. That won't be the only information, and no commercial is going to convince me to buy a car. But until I need a new car, I can watch thousands of car commercials without a second thought. I don't need to defend myself from the message - I don't need to do any rigorous evaluation of the message. It's simply not important to my values.

I agree. Thanks for the discussion. Can one really integrate knowledge without first at least consciously acknowledging it? It seems to me that integration would at least require a conscious recognition that the knowledge exists. Regardless, even if knowledge could become integrated without conscious thought, this wouldn't seem to be a problem for one committed to thought and critical evaluation. Even if some ridiculous thought made it into my head without first passing my consciousness, I don't see how it would become a "ball and chain of self-doubt." In order for that to happen, it would have to stand up to the rigorous evaluation given to any idea in my head AND contradict some previously held idea. I don't see how this would be possible without my conscious evaluation. In short, I don't see how passively allowing commercial messages, or poorly delivered philosophical messages in films, pose any threat to me - epistemologically, philosophically, or psychologically. I don't see the importance of mounting a defense against these things.

What do I have to fear from the "good" ones? Then what are the characteristics of a "wholly irrational" person? What would classify someone as "essentially irrational?"

My original comment (to which RationalBiker first responded) referred to those who hadn't even seen the movie - in fact, could not have since it wasn't even released yet. Are you arguing my subconscious will motivate me to act without any conscious thought? Psychological advertising and propaganda succeed because people, by and large, don't want to think. They consciously act without critcal evaluation because it would be too difficult to think. It's not a result of their subconsciousness accepting whatever is fed to it as truth. It's a result of consciously accepting whatever they are told because entertaining the contrary would require thought. What you're proposing sounds like subliminal messaging and mindless automation - like I have no control over what I do; like I'm ruled by my subconscious, or could be ruled by my subconscious if I fail to critically evaluate what my senses perceive. I can watch T.V., and hours of advertising, without conscious thought, without mounting any defense, and yet without any hint of changing my actions. I can sit through a special-effects laden film filled with flawed premises and faulty philosophy, indeed allowing myself to be tricked into believing what I'm seeing on the screen actually exists, yet still walk out of the theater without, for even a nanosecond, believing any of it really did. Certainly the seed. But in the analogy, what is the seed? I argue it's the fact that so few people actually think. That people accept flawed philosophies grows from the fact that they do not think. Much of the discussion, yes, but not all. Why do the members of our society, in fact all of mankind, accept these bad ideas and premises? It's not such a big IF when the root cause of accepting these bad ideas and premises is never addressed. I honestly don't know. So far, it's been exceedingly difficult. As evidence, I present history as it was, and the world as it is today. Doesn't give me much hope for the future. I'm raising two individuals and am teaching them to think. I try to talk to as many people as possible about real issues, and challenge them to think. Beyond that, there's little I can do. I view it as a symptom of a more fundamental problem: the unwillingness to think. That's not to say it can't be a topic on which I can challenge people to think on. It can be. The environmental message, if one could call it that, in this movie was so quiet, and so poorly delivered, that encouraging someone against seeing it based on that seems Cassandra-esque to me. It doesn't seem worth the risk of turning them off to rational thought by discussing this movie. Especially when there are better examples of environmetal wacko-ism out there.

Absolutely. But it's a long way from a movie to an enacted law. By educating others and helping them find their way to logically rational conclusions. If they can learn this, then the irrational messages wouldn't matter. If they can't learn this, then regardless of the message, no amount of argumentation will matter; they will not be swayed. If I tell an irrational person, who accepts every word from Al Gore's mouth as absolute truth, not to see this movie because its premises are flawed, they'll just look at me like I'm speaking Martian. What's more, he'll probably infer I'm some sort of zealot and won't listen to anything I ever say on any issue. But if I can find some way to educate the same person on how to form their own conclusions, then he'll figure out what's wrong with Gore on his own - and I won't need to worry about any other message he may receive. Here's my concern: I believe most people view movies as escapism - particularly Hollywood blockbusters like Avatar. They don't go to these movies for any messages, they go to enjoy the spectacle. If I tell them, "Ya' know, you really shouldn't see the movie because it's just a commercial for enviro-wackos. The premises are completely irrational, and you'll only fill your head with garbage." Then, when they see the movie anyway, they'll think, "Geez! Why did he take that movie so seriously? That Jeff is just a Ayn Rand zealot. If I can't even enjoy a movie without being called 'irrational', then I don't want anything to do with Objectivism." The next time we talk about something really important, like whether or not we should have universal health care, they're just going to tune me out. That, in my estimation, would be a far worse turn of events than them seeing the movie and having the opportunity to discuss health care with them later. You're right, it's not an either/or situation. With those already pre-disposed to thinking about the messages they receive, both conversations can be had. But then, with those already pre-disposed to thinking about the messages they receive, warnings about the flawed premises in the movie aren't necessary. With those not pre-disposed to thinking about the messages they receive, there's often only one shot at getting them to start thinking. How we most advantageously use that opportunity is my argument. Is it not possible to simply allow those messages to wash over you - in one ear and out the other? If possible, is it really a great philosophical, epistemological, or psychological error to do so? I mean, does it really do me great personal harm to simply ignore commercials? What happens when I mount no intellectual defense?

*sigh* To my knowledge, I have not whined about anything. I certainly have neither stated, nor implied, that thinking is a horrific burden, or any burden at all. I don't have to give thanks to anyone. "Those few wonderful men" did nothing to make my "beleaguered existence possible." They did what they did, whatever they did, with not even a passing thought to my existence. They did it for themselves. They neither require, nor expect my thanks. As it should be. Are you reading what I write? Because none of this speaks to my position. I realize it is difficult to keep arguments separate in a medium such as this, but there haven't been a lot of replies. Furthermore, there's nothing forcing you to reply to me at all. It's interesting that you take on a subject which, from the beginning, you seem to have little tolerance in addressing, yet address it anyway. What's motivating you? Thanks for your time, phibetakappa. No reply is necessary.

Then it must be possible to live irrationally. How can I argue an individual must live rationally when the entire history of mankind demonstrates this is not necessary? Yes, some individual, or even a great many individuals, must live rationally else there would be no one for the irrational to loot and mooch from. But this is not proof that all individuals must live rational lives. Yes, if we include the concept of happiness, then the necessity of a rational life for all (who value happiness) is proved. But what if someone doesn't care about their own happiness? Yes, if society collapses then one would need his rationality most of all, but as long as there are productive individuals to loot from rationality is not necessary. I live in America, and I am surrounded by irrational people. The vast majority of people in America, and on the planet, believe in some super-natural being. This is not rational. There seems to be a growing population in this country, and most countries already have a majority of the population who believe it's moral to steal from the rich to give to the poor. This is not rational. In the discussion which prompted this thread, RationalBiker wrote: "I see the evidence around me of many, many people who put too little thought into the philosophical and political ideas they accept and implement into their lives.../...I've had discussion with quite a few people who really don't want to put a whole lot of thought into questions like "how should I live my life...." I agree with this sentiment, and would take it further - most people don't think about the philosophical and political ideas they accept and implement into their lives. Certainly, that's not rational, is it? There was discussion on the power of using emotions in promulgating ideas; how advertisers and political "handlers" manipulate individuals into acting the way the advertisers and political handlers want them to act, get individuals to believe what they want them to believe. Blindly following the whims and dictates of someone who creates a pretty message isn't rational. So then, the question comes down to: In a world where so many are irrational, where so many put so little thought into what's in their heads, where so many are so easily manipulated, what is a rational person to do? Do they try to present their alternative (rationality) in a pretty picture so more will accept it? That doesn't seem to address the underlying problem - an irrational person who simply accepts rationality because it's given to them in a palatable way isn't really rational. Do they present their alternative in a way that makes the irrational person think about the message? What good would that do when those to whom the message is directed don't think? Or, as you seem to imply, does he cling fast to his rationality with the realization that he is beset on all sides by those who wish to loot and mooch from him, and he always will be? Furthermore, if most are not rational, then isn't that "the fundamental nature of the universe in which man lives and acts," or at least the fundamental nature of most of the individual men?

Good points in both of your posts, Sophia. I don't mean to discount the power of emotion in directing people's actions. How could I, given (as you alluded) our recent presidential election? But then, that just poses a far greater worry: if people are so easily motivated by their emotions; if so many people spend so little time actually thinking, then shouldn't we address solutions to that before addressing the messages themselves? I mean, I certainly wouldn't want someone to just accept what I tell them about rational egoism. I would want them to think about it. If they can't, or won't, even do that, then no matter how I sell the message, my efforts would be futile. Is the greater worry, the more important topic, that Cameron has created a slick commercial for the environmental movement, or that the vast majority of the population "put too little thought into the philosophical and political ideas they accept and implement into their lives"? (RationalBiker) Certainly there is a very real possibility that the minds of others can be swayed by bad ideas. The only potential harm to me or the culture I live in is those who are willing to initiate force against me - their actions. But if the majority of people can be so easily swayed into initiating force against me, then isn't that a more fundamental threat? Wouldn't it be a more productive use of my time and energy to address that issue? Perhaps. But when someone asserts they won't even see the movie because of what they heard about the plot, or what they've read of Cameron's intentions, is that objective? Isn't that disconcerting? Isn't that a far greater worry than a movie based on flawed premises (which I believe objectively is more about selling tickets)? I agree. However, as Grames pointed out, the rational thing to do is to think about what emotions are evoked, and why they are evoked, in watching the film - something that can't be done until one actually watches the film. The emotions I experienced during this film were, in order of importance: awe, incredulity, tension, and minor disgust. I was awed by the special effects, incredulous at the technological advancement of film-making, tensed by some thematic elements of the story, and slightly disgusted by the lack of an original story based on something more than two-dimensional characters and worn-out archetypes. This last emotion was so rarely experienced during the film that it didn't get in the way of enjoying the first three. My feelings as well.

I don't disagree with anything you've written, phibetakappa. I even wrote as much when I wrote, "As I write those questions, I see the irrationality of them." Yet the fact remains that many people do live their lives as parasites; that is, they survive irrationally. In fact, Man has survived his entire time on this planet under some form of collectivism and irrational philosophy - by looting and mooching off the productive efforts of rational individuals. Some individuals have died, yet many have gone from cradle to grave without producing anything but CO2.

I don't believe my response to you was hostile, but I did intend to be hostile to those who imply I'm ignorant and evading. I certainly don't have to accept that without comment. Two points on this: 1) My question was whether you believed the majority of the population are unthinking, blind followers. That is a separate topic which I've started a new thread for. You can find that thread here. I've addressed your point about history there, but if I've missed your argument, please ask again there. 2) Is Atlas Shrugged just a novel? Is it just a work of fiction? I believe it is. Put it the hands of an 80-year old woman, who prefers reading romance novels and she'll probably give it back. It has no power past the point of providing the reader with ideas to think about. Whether they decide to think about those ideas is entirely up to them and the book has no power to make them think. This tendency to hold Atlas Shrugged up as something other than what it is - a great novel - reminds me of those who hold up the Bible as something other than what it is - a work of fiction. Ideas have no power. They are important because they serve as the catalyst for thinking, but they can not make anyone think. They can not change the world - individuals change the world. They can't imprison people - individuals imprison people. They can't free people - individuals free themselves. Is Cameron presenting a philosophy, or merely ideas? When people watch Avatar, do you believe most of them are thinking? If they are thinking, do you believe they're thinking, "Gosh, you know, Jim's right. We need to [insert whatever you think Cameron's espousing]." Or, do you believe they are thinking, "Holy crap! That was awesome!" I prefer to think it's the latter. If people ever do stop to think about whatever ideas he presented in that movie, they're going to match that up against what they already know about the subject. If they know nothing about the subject, they're probably still not going to simply accept whatever Cameron wants them to believe. If Cameron wants them to believe we're killing the planet, either they believed that before they walked into the theater, or they did not. Perhaps I have a little more faith in people than most here. I believe they are capable of rational thought, and can spot bullshit when they hear it. If they already believe the bullshit, then better alternatives need to be presented to them so they can objectively evaluate this new knowledge. It is a very small minority who simply won't evaluate new information and will ignorantly, and dogmatically cling to their mistaken beliefs in the face of incontrovertible, objective evidence. Those people are no threat to me (unless they're in positions of political or military power). Cameron is no threat to me. His ideas are no threat to me. Avatar is no threat to me. It's just a movie. Do you believe Cameron created Avatar in order to promote his philosophy? Do you believe he wanted to make some sort of world changing statement; to get some movement going? I don't believe he did. If he did, then he did a real poor job of it - as some here have noted. I believe he did it because he could. I believe he did it because he wanted to create a stunning, other-worldly, effects driven, billions-earning blockbuster. I believe he did it because he wanted to show off, to show his mastery of the technology available to film-makers, and to play a part in creating new technology. That is what I'm judging the movie on. It is an objective evaluation of the movie because that's what it is. I didn't just switch off my brain - I allowed myself to be taken into Cameron's imagination. I suspended my disbelief for 3 hours and enjoyed what he brought - a visual feast. I didn't allow myself to be caught up in the flawed plot, the contrived lines, the two-dimensional characters, or the bad philosophy because I didn't go to the movie to see a tight plot, great dialogue, or deep characters. I certainly didn't go to get a healthy dose of philosophy. I went to see stunning visual effects and that's what I got. I don't understand why you enjoyed the movie overall. Did you like the plot and the theme it expresses? I'll just apologize then, RationalBiker. I don't know what I did to deserve the ad hominem attacks and irrational parsing of my posts you've presented, but whatever it was you have my apology. Simply because posts make me laugh, doesn't mean I'm laughing at people. It's a laugh of wonderment, a laugh of incredulity - what could make someone so concerned with the ideas of a film-maker? I find it hard to believe you haven't noticed the theme of irrational fear over something so minor. Your posts are highly rational, and I enjoy reading them. I've enjoyed having discussions with you. But from your first reply to me on this thread, I've inferred nothing but an undeserved animosity. What questions have I copped out on? Your penultimate reply to me contained nothing but unnecessary parsing of my post and the dismissal of the questions I asked. Regardless, I have enjoyed your posts in the past and have learned a great deal - I'm sure I'll continue to learn a great deal from you whether you decide to respond to me or not. That's why I expected better, because I know you're better. I do apologize for implying you simply parrot these ideas, and my point was to show you clearly do not. That, too, was a strawman. That's a good point, but a distinction I have made. One should absolutely critically examine every idea. But one should also not give power to an idea it does not have. Perhap I've read too much into them, and I won't quote the posts that lead me to this conclusion (because it simply isn't that important to me to be validated in my thinking on this), but many posts here imply this movie is some kind of evil thing which should be avoided like the plague. As if watching it were going to undermine the entirety of civilization; as if watching it were the worst philosophical error one could make. Given the movie is predominantly a visual feast, and the philosophy presented is so minor, and so poorly conveyed, these protestations strike me as ridiculous. The journey, in this movie, is the imaginative landscape of Cameon's mind - this other world he's created with stunning visual effects. The journey in AS is the philosophical basis of Ms. Rand's highly rational and logical mind. Does the latter not deserve a far greater mental focus than the former? That's all I'm arguing: when discussing a popcorn-pushing piece of art the primary question is whether or not it is a popcorn-pushing piece of art. It doesn't deserve to have its philosophical underpinnings discussed because it doesn't have any - none that can't be dismissed with just a modicum of common sense. That's not to argue they can be ignored. Certainly we can't. But we can't attribute power to them they don't have.

This topic came up in another thread, but it has always lingered at the back of my mind: Do most people on this planet think and behave rationally? That is, do they base their decisions and actions primarily upon reality; do they think about the assertions of others before making up their own minds? Or, rather, do they go through life like zombies, following the actions and decisions of others? I'm not talking about an Ayn Rand level of focus. I'm not asking if they are rational all the time, at all points in their lives, with every decision and every action. Just whether, on average, for a predominate amount of time, are they rational? If they are, why do so many still cling to mystical ideas, why do so many gravitate toward socialism? If they are not, then wouldn't the rational course of action be to "get mine while the gettin's to be got?" If the mob is a bunch of mystics, trying to take the unearned, and my rational highest value is my own life and my own happiness, wouldn't the rational course of action be to not stand apart from those mystics, lest they see me as a heretic and kill me. Woudn't it be rational to take as much as I can, regardless of who earned it? Wouldn't it be rational to create nothing - to not work myself so hard just to have it taken? As I write those questions, I see the irrationality of them. Yet, I can't see how a rational person would exist surrounded by irrational people in an irrational world. Surrounded by irrational people, in an irrational world, it seems to me the proper philosophy is an irrational philosophy - there's no way for a rational person to thrive. I believe most peope are rational - what would probably be best termed as "common sense." I believe they evaluate the assertions of others, and use the knowledge they possess to the best of their abilities within the framework of their current knowledge. I believe they accept reality as a given, and can identify contradictions and "bullshit." They still cling to mystical ideas, and gravitate toward socialism, because their current knowledge is lacking. That is where organizations like ARI come in - to present ideas which, once heard, "make sense," and serve as an alternative to the ideas which most recognize, on some level, do not "make sense." Politically, socially, and philosophically we are in a time much like the Scientific Revolution of the 1700s. As scientists of that era presented alternatives to the non-sensical explanations of the Church, most accepted these explanations for what they were - objective facts. Now, we need philosophers, like Ms. Rand, Mr. Peikoff, and Mr. Brook to present alternatives to the non-sensical explanations of Kant, Marx, and Obama. If most people are rational, then these alternatives will be accepted for what they are - objective facts. If most people are not rational, then there is no hope, and no point in trying to live a rational life.

Hmmm, not really sure how that applies to my question, so I'll ask it more directly: If an artist intends to convey altruism, yet objectively conveys rational egoism, should I like the art because it's objectively good, or should I hate it because the artist wanted to convey altruism? Well, you'll probably wish to forego responding to me on any issue if your hope is that "better" means I'll just fall into the Objectivist party line. Ironic, isn't it, that the group most closely aligned with independent rational thought seems to be just as quick to recite the thoughts of others. I guess you're right: people are simply led around by the ideas of others. I suppose the rest of us are well and truly f*****.

So, you're basically arguing: "People are incapable of thinking things through rationally for themselves (except us, of course), and therefore people like Cameron - who spoon feed their philosophy to the dumb masses - are threats to us. People like Cameron can rally the un-thinking crowd to force their irrational philosophy upon us. Therefore, we should be very concerned." Is that your argument? On whether or not I like it. On whether or not it supports my ideals. On whether or not what I think about it appeals to me - not upon what the artist thinks about it. Again, if the artist wanted to convey altruism in its highest form, yet I see rational individualism in its highest form, who's right? Really? Atlas Shrugged is just a fictional novel. No one should take that novel seriously, it is just fiction and entertainment. Now, once you've recovered from your stroke, perhaps you'd like to admit the truth of that statement - at least to yourself. What everyone should do is think about the ideas in that novel and evaluate their objective truth for themselves. They should not simply accept the veracity without thought, nor should they hold up the novel as some Holy Writ (as often seems to be case in these forums). Now, I realize that puts me close to the stake, but perhaps I can get some thought going while you guys pile the wood around. If we live in a world where the masses are moved by their hearts, where the head gets left out, where rationality and logic are ignored for pretty pictures on a screen, or eloquent words on a page, then we are in great danger. Such a world would no longer be a rational world, and there would be no way for a rational person to live long-term. We should be discussing how to avoid the end rather than some propaganda piece put out by the irrational for the irrational. I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post, RationalBiker. Honestly, I had hoped for better from you.

That's interesting. We're working in perhaps the worst medium for conveying the full meaning of words, yet I've read far more direct "pokes" at posters than mine that fail to incite much response. For example, suggesting a poster isn't intelligent unless they determine what an artist wants to convey in their art. Or that they are evading reality by simply enjoying a movie. Yet my post deserves a response. Interesting. However, it was not my intenton to laugh at anyone. It was my intention to put things into context. We're not discussing ideas promulgated by a military or political leader with the force of arms behind him. We're discussing a movie. We're discussing the ideas of a megalomaniacal Hollywood director. Do the ideas of every director and actor deserve this kind of disection? Can't we just enjoy a movie for what it is without having to determine whether the people involved in it have ulterior motives? Seriously, this sounds a lot like the arguments deists use to keep homosexuals out of the classroom and evolution out of the curriculum. Some of the posts on this thread read like this movie is the worst threat to rational thought ever devised. Yet, watching this movie did not destroy my rational mind. I did not sequester myself in a dark room and deny reality after 2 hours and 40 minutes of allowing myself to do exactly that. I honestly want to know whether being rational and logical requires me to loathe, or love, a particular piece of art based on what the artist is trying to convey. Yes, ideas are important - but they are also impotent. People who act on ideas are potent, and if their will is so malleable that they can be goaded into action by pretty pictures then, again, we have far greater worries. Did you enjoy the movie? I never argued you are neurotic, but certainly some posts on this thread (and others) are. Most of them made without even having seen the movie.

While important, I don't see understanding what the artist is trying to convey as the most important objective in viewing art - especially when the "art" we're discussing is a mass-marketed, popcorn-pushing, toy-selling, over-the-top-Hollywood-behemoth like Avatar. Even if we were talking about something more important than a movie, what would it benefit me to know what the artist is trying to convey? If the artist created something I really liked, but then I find out he actually meant to convey a sense of altruistic conformism, should I then hate the art? If the artist intended to convey rational individualism, but I can't stand the art, should I automatically love it? Exactly my point. If I don't "get" what Cameron wanted me to "get," then that's his problem. The movie exceeded my expectations for what I go to those types of movies for. Good lord - it's just a movie. If our rationality and reason are so fragile that a movie can threaten them, then we have far greater worries. Agreed, on all points.

It's a movie. It values nothing. To what purpose? Perhaps. But you presume it's a philosophy one wishes to defend, and even that it requires defending.

There might be some spoilers here, and I don't know how to do the spoiler tag, so stop reading if you can't handle knowing something about a movie you've never seen. Saw it today and was simply awestruck. I wasn't so keen on seeing it in 3d since 3d has always been annoying to me, but "this ain't your daddy's 3d." It was simply a fantastic visual experience. Yup, the story was simplistic, but with an interesting twist in the main character's chance at experiencing walking again despite being paralyzed. Yup, there were some "government is evil," "corporations are evil," "the military is evil," "love your mother earth" jabs and nods to the Hollywood intelligentsia and other liberal moonbats. But none of these were themes of the movie - the theme of the movie was: fight for what you value. Would it have been a better movie without the jabs and nods? Of course, but if I were to confine myself to movies where these little arrows were not thrown, I'd probably never watch any movies. For visuals alone, this movie is entirely worth both the movie ticket, and the upgrade to 3D. The special effects in rendering the Na'vi characters was simply mind blowing. You don't fully realize it until you see Sigourney Weaver as a Na'vi. The other stuff - military hardware, flora, and fauna - were equally impressive, but the ground this movie breaks in rendering the nuances of movement, and especially facial characteristics, of what are essentially animated characters is out-and-out stunning. You quickly forget that virtually nothing of what you see on the screen is real. I've been reading this thread from the beginning, and it makes me laugh to see people take a form of entertainment like this so seriously. Sometimes, movies can just be escapism - a chance to get wrapped up in someone's imaginative efforts. Enjoy the journey; leave the philosophy for books and real life interactions.

Probably the largest contributors to high health costs as a result of regulation is the inability to buy insurance from whomever you wish regardless of what state they are authorized to do business in, and the mandates required by state insurance boards. For example, I can't buy a policy without paying for coverage on psychological illnesses because my state has required all insurers to provide that coverage, regardless of the policy sold. Since insurers are forced to provide this coverage, they pass that cost on to me. More and more mandates, higher and higher costs. Another significant contributor to high health costs as a result of regulation is the fact that you must be licensed by the state in order to provide health care. Many things could be done by a nurse (and often are, as long as the doc makes an appearance), but the state requires a doctor to do them - or at least attend. Since the cost is higher, the insurance to cover it is higher.

So, it is possible for a man to lose his rights? I think it could be argued this was an emotional reaction by the Marines and not exactly rational. That's what I'm trying to avoid with this "don't-worry-about-guilt-or-innocence-just-kill-'em-all" mentality and discover the rational reason for turning the Mid-East into a glass factory. 'Cuz, I really would like to, but that's not enough. That's an excellent point, Zip. Is this not guilt by association, though? I don't have a problem with that being the answer. You certainly can, and should make a judgement about a person's character, and his possible threat to your safety, based upon the people whom he chooses to associate with. In effect, the action he has taken to endanger you was to join the group. I think that may answer the dilemma of whether we automatically pound Japan or Germany into the ground, or black-top Afghanistan and Iraq, too. Given the citizens of these respective countries didn't actually choose to be born there, we might want to try other methods of stopping the aggression first. Yet, then I'm reminded of Ms. Rand's assertion that all citizens are responsible for their government and for what their government does. Yet I'm still not convinced a man accused of making war requires less protection of his rights than any other man accused of initiating force. Perhaps the answer is that too much consideration is given to the protection of the rights of those accused of crimes domestically? What objective principle leads to the requirement that a man requires the state to provide him with legal counsel? What objective principle leads to the requirement that a person be advised of his rights when arrested? I'll have to go over the numerous threads on torture, but at this moment I can't condone the state torturing someone just because some person in a position of power believes that individual has some important information. After the accused has been convicted, then by all means do whatever you want. What objective principle leads to the requirement that a person convicted of a crime, particularly a capital crime, should be treated with the same deference as someone who has not committed a crime? If a person is picked up in the Hindu Kush Mountains, and it can be proved he's part of al Queda (or any other group which has pledged its intent to kill Americans), then by all means take him out. Or, if you want to take him alive in order to get information out of him, do so and use whatever means you believe will be effective in getting that information. But it still must be proved he is part of that group. Being in the Hindu Kush, wearing a scarf on his head and an AK-47 slung across his back is not enough evidence, and whatever evidence is required to prove any man's guilt should be required in this situation as well. The requirements should not be relaxed.

Wow, Jennifer! Ya' know, there are decaffeinated brands on the market which taste just as good as the real thing?

No, I don't disagree with it. Would you mind telling me where I can find that quote? But it does open up a whole slew of new issues that need to be worked through, such as: If attacked by a country, shouldn't we retaliate in the most efficient and least risky (to us) way? I can't think of anything more efficient and less risky than to immediately carpet bomb said country with the most powerful weapons we have at our disposal. i.e. We should've put as many tons of ordinance on Japan proper as we had in inventory, and as quickly as we could produce it, and not stop until either every Japanese was dead, or what was left of them gave up completely. We should've hit Afghanistan and Iraq with as many nuclear weapons as it took. Is this the position of Objectivism? In addition, the quote indicates citizenship does matter since (I assume) citizens control their government. Thank you for the nomination. As I wrote, it reminded me of the argument. If the argument is not sufficiently close to what we're discussing here, then I'm listening. However, I really find it difficult to believe Ms. Rand would argue we can make snap decisions about an individual, particularly an individual's actions, based upon their association in a group. It is a dilemma, but if I assume abstract entities can act, particularly abstract entities like collectives, then Ms. Rand's discourse on collectives and collectivism becomes confused. For example, when discussing "Common Good," she wrote (all quotes from the Ayn Rand Lexicon): "'The common good' (or 'the public interest') is an undefined and undefinable concept: there is no such entity as 'the tribe' or 'the public'; the tribe (or the public or society) is only a number of individual men." When discussing individualism, she wrote: "The mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought. An agreement reached by a group of men is only a compromise or an average drawn upon many individual thoughts." In "The Objectivist Ethics," she wrote: "And - since there is no such entity as 'society,' since society is only a number of individual men - this meant that some men (the majority or any gang that claims to be its spokesman) are ethically entitled to pursue any whims (or any atrocities) they desire to pursue, while other men are ethically obliged to spend their lives in the service of that gang's desires." How do these quotes, and Ms. Rand's view of collectives, reconcile with the assertion that societies can act? I'm not treating "men" as part of a collective, at least not in the sense I believe we're both discussing citizens of a country, or members of a group as a collective. Each individual man is a concrete, any collective is an abstract. Each individual man can act, but a collective cannot - it relies upon the actions of each individual. I can't learn anything about one individual from looking at another individual, including whether or not they seem similar. Whatever I can learn about that individual must be based upon objective evidence, not inductive assumption - isn't this the basis of Objectivism? Unless I'm mistaken, the concept "man" is fairly general: "A rational animal." It doesn't specify what ideology he must hold, what he must think, how he must act, etc. Determining these things is, after all, philosophy. If you tell me we're discussing "man," I can only tell you we're discussing a rational animal; an animal capable of reason. Our discussion need not be limited by that, though. We can also discuss what is necessary for that man as a rational animal. In other words, we can discuss philosophy. I believe what is necessary for any rational animal is an opportunity to defend himself against force. Part of that defense is due process. Is that logical? Is it logical that rational animals require due process in order to exist as rational animals?

I had a much longer reply planned, but I think the above statement cuts to the gist of my argument. Country B is not actually using force against Country A. They are both abstract concepts which are completely incapable of acting, or receiving action. Japan did not attack the US - 700 some individuals attacked thousands of individuals in Hawaii. al Queda did not attack the US - 19 individuals attacked thousands of individuals in New York and Washington, DC. I understand this constitutes a threat against me personally (well, not Pearl Harbor), and I would be morally justified in killing any one of those 19 individuals who killed those people in NY and DC. What I can't reconcile is killing someone just because they are part of any particular group. If wearing a uniform were enough of a justification, then I should be justified in killing anyone wearing the opposing team's uniform - which includes their doctors and surrendered soldiers. This approach seems even more tenuous when we consider terrorism, which in its present form means I would be killing someone just because of their ideology, regardless of their actions. How can that be objective? I can't observe what his ideology is; I can't objectively prove it even exists, or that he really believes it. That isn't to say objective evidence doesn't, or can't exist. If a man comes at me with a sword in his hand, it doesn't matter if he's screaming, "Allahu ackbar!" or, "Christ saves!" I'm still going to plug him. But it is his actions which justify my response, not any particular ideology he espouses. I'm thinking of the Red Scare of the 50's: wouldn't it be an initiation of force if the government were to jail every card carrying member of the Communist party, regardless of their individual actions? If so, how is this different from killing someone just because they're a card carrying member of al Queda regardless of their individual actions? Then it would seem to me the concept of "enemy" must be poorly defined. If we aren't able to correctly identify the enemy, then how can we argue we know who it is? I agree with you that there isn't any serious question about what it means to be an enemy, and that the difficulty lies in determining who the members of that class are. But the argument that we can classify whole swaths of individuals as enemies just by their membership in some other group seems to rely not upon objective facts, but upon a desire for automatic knowledge. As I wrote before, it reminds me of Rand's refutation of racism: In other words, since Mohammed is a member of al Queda, I can't assume he's going to kill me, because that would be evaluating his individual character simply based on his membership to al Queda. You seem to be arguing I can kill him - regardless of the fact that he's been a trusted friend for years, has never threatened me or anyone I know, etc. Now, I think you would reply, "Of course not! You're not remembering that you need to consider the actual facts. You must judge, based on the evidence available to you, whether the person has the intent to apply force, and you must grasp the consequences of errors of judgment." To which I would completely agree. But there seems to be a contradiction - either I should kill Mohammed because he's a member of al Queda and al Queda has begun the process of using force against me, or I should not kill Mohammed because the objective facts don't point to any intent to do me harm. This has ventured a little from Jake's original post, and for that I apologize. I would like to understand whether all men require due process for life qua men. If not, why not? If so, then how can those requirements morally be denied any man?

Why? I'm a soldier of Country A. Country B has initiated a war against Country A. I see Soldier B. He has done nothing to Country A, nor to any citizen of Country A. You say I should kill him on sight. Why? Because he's a citizen of Country B? Then should I kill every citizen of Country B? Because he's wearing a uniform? Does wearing a uniform constitute an initiation of force against me, or those I have chosen to protect? Indeed, war is hell, but you didn't address my actual argument: that yours is based upon making assumptions about individuals based upon their association with a particular group; assumptions which may, or may not be objectively true. True. It also presupposes an objective principle of Man's rights. Either Man requires certain considerations in determining whether or not force can morally be used against him, or he does not. If he does, is membership in a particular group sufficient to nullify that requirement? I believe I did mention this complication when I wrote, "A 'War on Terrorism,' to me, is fraught with even more problems since the collective nature of the combatants is exceptionally vague and transient." And that is the nature of my questions: How do we define "enemy?" Is it a member of various and assundry groups? Well, what are the defining characteristics of those groups? Yet even more fundamental: Can we assign guilt by simply being a member of a group? If we can, how can we simultaneously espouse a morality based upon the individual? That A is A; that men are men. Is it not right, just, and necessary to follow certain procedures when an individual is alleged to have committed a crime? Or, does Man not require any protection when the state wishes to use force upon him?