Nacirema

I was thinking this would be the case, but I just wanted to check my reasoning. It's good to know I arrived at the right conclusions. Also, that was a great analogy from Tric. I'll have to remember that one.

I think there is a similar quote in "Philosophy: Who Needs It," so that might have been where you got it from. I say that because I haven't read anything from the cited work, but I still recognized the quote.

Unless, of course, she valued the man's life high enough that her life would not have enough meaning to her without it, then it would be completely moral. Of course, if she also had reason to believe that she would still be alive after the whole incident, then she was also attacking morally, but simply mistaken. However, if she knew that she would die saving the man's life, but she still acted out of some notion of virtuous self-sacrifice (or any other reason that she would have an obligation to save him), then yes, she would be acting immorally. Perhaps not necessarily down-right evil, but immoral. Another thing that I don't believe has been brought up in this thread yet is that Objectivism doesn't claim (as the old Christian adage goes) that "everyone is [Objectivist], they just don't know it yet." It's true that the axioms (A is A, reason is our means of survival, etc.) rule the world, but that doesn't make reason automatic. People must choose to be rational, and knee-jerk reactions in response to split second instances can not necessarily judged under the same ethical standard as standard life issues, which are the more numerous in our lives anyway (or course, this my understanding and reasoning, and I haven't yet read the writing on the Ethics of Emergencies).

Went ahead and added myself. One lonely Objectivist in New Orleans.

Another bump, but again, I would love to find out what became of this idea.

There's a question that I've been trying to find the answer for in my personal life, so first, quick background introduction. The college I attend is essentially an off-shoot of another college which has a need for a student worker, and because someone who worked there had recommended based off of my past work, they asked for a resume. I submitted one, and I got a call a few days ago that they want me to come on board as a student worker. I was thrilled, but then I realized/remembered something: the college is a public college. So, I'm now trying to sift through an ethical dilemma. If I take the job after all, am I being immoral? Or does this fall under the same idea as scholarships and attending public universities in the first place? Basically, as long as I don't plan on heading up a government branch and making that my permanent place of employment/compromise my ideals, does that make the action non-evil?

Also bookmarked. Should be a very entertaining read!

In that case... I am currently at a lost for words. Still not finished the entire show, but so far, I've noticed a trend...why are all the "Objectisexuals" women?

I'm still really hoping, as I watch this, that it's just a very well done mock-u-mentary.

I play a few games on the 360 every now and then. Guess I'll put my gamer tag here for the record though. Nacirema7

I'd say just a slight flaw in reasoning that leads to the conclusion that sex is dirty, bad, and evil. As such, it should only be shared by people of those same traits. Since it's so bad and dirty, it also doesn't matter to be discriminate in your actions, especially if those people match the assumption about sex said person holds. The person then continues to feel guilty and empty after each act, but assumes it is because that is simply "how one feels" after such an act, regardless of the person. So they continue to go through life, fulfilling empty conquest after empty conquest, secretly trying to find the one person who won't make them feel cheap and tarnished. But, like the man who hopes to gain class by buying pieces of art that he finds absolutely tasteless, his premises are skewed.

That's why when you play attorney, you pick and choose which questions you are going to ask, not just the ones you want to ask. Sometimes you could ask a question where you know the witness is likely to respond in a completely emotional way, or you could ask a question that you know will never even get an answer because the opposing council will immediately object to it. Sure, if that happens a lot, it makes the witness seem like a blabbering fool or the attorney seem incompetent. But if done only at certain times, and for the right questions, it can be an effective method.

Well, I'm in no way an expert, but when it comes to script writing, I can tell you what I've done. Ideally, the idea, theme, and conflict all start at the same time. I think this has maybe happened with me once or twice. Now, what usually happens, is that I'll get either an idea/quirk (more on that later) or I'll think of something I want to make a point about (theme). When I start with the theme, it will normally be something that I want to point out the extremes or natural conclusions of, and from there I'll work out the conflict that would best identify with it, and the characters from that. Of course, when I start from an idea, it normally comes from a small observation or thought, and then I work out a character or situation/conflict to make an exciting enough story for it. Then, I think to myself "what can I say with a story like this?" I then write accordingly, keeping in mind both the theme and the original idea. Usually, I like to start with the theme and then work my way to conflict, then the type of characters who would be in that conflict, as this seems to be the easier route (for me) to take. Honestly though, there's no solid-right answer as to which one to go with first. Ultimately, you need to treat both with the same respect and presence in the story. A story without conflict is boring A story without theme is hollow.

I, for one, am wholly interested in this story/book. Once it's done, sign me up for a copy!

I'm actually going through a similar situation right now. The funny thing is, there's only a few views that I cannot even stand to hold a conversation about (when it comes to people holding those views), which is why many of my friends that were not so close to me I'm still friends with and still discussions with, even though some are Socialists, Anarchists, or Marxists (if I can tell they're open-minded, of course). But two of my best friends don't even fall into any philosophy I've ever heard of. Rather, they seem to be the perfect embodiment of how Rand said "the man who says 'who am I to know?' actually says 'who am I to live?'" Because of this refusal on their part to think out views, either because they "feel" what they think is true, and they don't need a reason to explain what they believe (as one does), or because it simply "doesn't matter at all anyway" (as the other holds is the nature of the world).

My predictions are predictions based on what I have seen and experienced, as well as simple common sense. If logically approaching conclusions makes me a mystic, or gives you grounds to attack my "deductive prowess" as you so snidely put it, then tell me this: How can you be so sure that people will make those same choices in any of your scenarios? How can you be sure the government would attack an insurance company, or how can you be sure that people wouldn't do the very same thing that I described? You are given the exact same tools as me, so to attack me using them in the same way (without addressing how your system would fix this scenario, I might add), is the equivalent of stating "you just don't understand the question." Also, as for the attack on my use of my "formidable" "deductive prowess," I don't see it as that deductive. I never claimed the names of people who would do these things (save for simply a qualifier, unless you though I was predicting that a specific Mr. Smith would do what he did), nor in what region, nor in what exact manner, etc. As I stated in my last paragraphs, I have used no more fancy/advanced deductive reasoning then you have in assuming that competing governments/insurance companies/Mafiosos would manage to remain peaceful.

While most of the arguments this excerpt is taken from were addressed, this caught my eye: Now, I realize that in this situation, Mr. Hoplite is discussing retaliatory force against an individual. However, if we take this moral premise to its final conclusion, then it is my understanding that the government would not be allowed to attack opposing nations as well. This is not to say attack opposing nations from an imperial stand point, but we certainly wouldn't be able to (under this moral precept) attack a nation that has called for our heads on a platter, or even do anything more than repel an invasion force, but let the enemy country stand. Assuming a war can even be fought simply on the grounds of repeling invaders, all it does is give the invaders a chance to regroup, mobilize again, examine their strategies, and possibly even gives them time to develop weapons that are sure to wipe out our very way of life. As someone pointed out, the same works true for the individual who is a serial killer. Another problem presents itself: Mr. Hoplite is assuming that the person who breaks this law in his system is simply a rational man who, for some reason, had a lapse in judgement and decided to break into someone's house, or kill a man. He is therefore, assuming (I infer), that this man will be upset ot have his credit ruined, out of a job, unable to successfuly purchase goods, etc. And while such a case may arise, it is much more likely that the criminal will be an illogical man. This is another area where this idea falls apart, because an illogical man (especially one who apparenlty has no problem with murder or theft) will not care if his credit is ruined - he can simply take what he wants. An illogical man won't care if no one is willing to trade with him - he can just kill them, and then they have no say. Under this anarchistic society as I have understood it from the posts, as long as he is never caught in the act/constantly catches people off-guard and overpowering them, then even if all the evidence points to him there is nothing that can legally be done against this man, except to drag his credit score through the mud. This of course, done on a large enough scale, will lead to vigilantism when people who have been hurt act out in anger and take retribution into their own hands. Why would they worry about being punished? As long as they're not caught, then they can't be imprisoned. All it will take is for a few people to act out in anger (or even a group if my afformentioned killer-thief has eliminated enough loved ones around the area), and he wil be lynched. There credit scores may drop, but what if an insurance CEO is with them and agrees to keep their rates the same? What if hired guns under the new security system are there, but wish to see "actual justice" dispensed? In that case, everything is fine. Then the next person who harms them, even if to a lesser extent, faces the same wrath. We are then left with groups of people, prepared to kill anyone who disobeys the simplest laws (all of which could be easily avoidable under a system of one, objective law and a system that allows for retribution). Now, I don't claim to be a mystic, but it is not hard to see how this would lead to xenophobia, and even proverbial "witch trials" of the group's own members: Mr. Smith doesn't like the fact that Mr. Jones is making more money than him? Convince the group that he has stolen it somehow, and they're ready to gather around the tree with a nice piece of rope, custom-tailored for Mr. Jones. Then they begin warring with other factions, trying to accomplish their own justice, all the while making sure that their own next-door neighbor is not preparing to stab them in the back. ...And so, anarchy descends into the chaos that it is so commonly, and rightly, associated with.

I believe that it's supposed to be one glass a day for women, and two for men.

That "opinion" (which is better described as bastardized, unintelligent rhetoric) doesn't deserve any lengthy response (if at all), so I will sum this up with my own study of history. Firstly, I would like to deal with the two prime examples given of why Che shouldn't be blamed for the people he killed. If this person believes that Alexander the Great is truly a "great" person to look up too because of how many people he butchered in his imperialistic conquest, I submit that this person have thier head examined. Islamic fundamentalists die for what they believe in, too. Does that justify them flying planes into towers or bombing subway stations (I actually shudder to think on the answer this person may actually give, either to justify the arguement already made or if that is actually the comentor's belief system - not sure which would be more evil)? Now, onto the actual issue of Che... Che himself was an oppressor of the people, so I wonder how one can fight for "the liberty" of his "beloved Latin-Americans," unless their "liberty" is defined as changing hands from one brutal dictator to another. Also, I'm giving the poster the benefit of that doubt that when the term "Latin-American" is used this is in reference to South America and not some PC, leftist tripe (if Cuba were in Europe, for example, I would point and laugh). As for his points on capitalism, it is a non-issue in this debate, as this discussion (at least, in-as-far as this thread goes) is about Che's own actions and motivations, and not whether capitalism is the best moral system. Of course, I will point out the irony that the "working class" is even more poor under the rule of Communist Cuba than they ever were beforehand. You may feel free to cite my post as a source. If the person should ask where I get my facts from (since he is so insistent on book reading, apparently), you may inform him that I've done extensive research on the topic, including questioning the members of my family who emmigrated from Cuba when the revolutions were taking place, specifically to continue living in a free society with free markets.

It seems you could apply this argument to food as well. "Why not try relaxing without ice cream?" Or "why not try eating dinner without dessert?" My honest answer is this: if one wishes to occasionally enjoy some form a drug to relax, then why not? Now this assumes of course that the person has weighed the pros and cons, which includes the long term effects on both his/her physiological and psycological being. This would mean the issue is still whether or not you can relax without the drugs. Personally, I find people who insist that "fun=drunkenness," and that they can't "cut loose" or have fun without being drunk to be morally repugnant in their regards to recreation, as well as mentally stiffled. However, if a person is capable of relaxing without the use of narcotics, then they shouldn't be condemed for indulging (safely) in their own selfish pleasure.

Hit them with some good 'ol "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Always a favorite of mine to watch them stumble over.

I would just like to point out that I'm more a drummer than anything else, although I doubt that it will bring me any more credibility to the conversation (I base this off the fact that there are 20 drummer jokes for every 1 guitarist joke). However, if it saves face any more, I was originally trained in jazz. What can I say? My specialty with theory is more in time signatures anyway. Although this does fascinate me, and I will continue reading/trying to understand.

Music itself relates to philosphy a different way. While lyrics themselves can be either logical or illogical/moral or immoral, music itself is not so bound by those sma governing principles, because then, author intent (while still important, and if done right, still apparent) does not act as so great a force as the listener's own interpretation of the piece. Of course, the composer can use all the "tricks of the trade," so to speak, to convince the listener of the message he is trying to get across. And this is where we get into composition theory. Like Steve said, it all then gets into majors, minors, flats, sharps, keys, and even scales. Now, since I haven't looked too much into theory, I can't explain fully well what the difference is between a major/minor/root note, except that in most cases mjaors tend to be "fuller" than the root note (an E major on guitar, for examples, requires more pressed strings on the fretboard). The fullness generally adds to a much more present, and usually uplifting feel. Of course, there are exceptions, such as in the context of the music, and where the chords/notes fit into the whole "tension/release" nature of music. Generally speaking though, that's where those feelings come from in music. Then, you also have sharps and falts, but those are much more easily explained than majors and minors, since they're actual levels in the note structure. In fact, a sharp for one note is the following notes flat, and vice-versa. But the sound usally comes across as off, especially when several are played in a sequence, which can create a feeling of discomfort. Of course, other times it can be used to soften the sound, and so music really boils down to a matter of context. In truth, a lot of it is very difficult to actually explain in concrete terms (most of it beyond my ability), particularly since for any rule one can think of for the theories of music, chances are that some piece has been written somewhere that breaks it, and still sounds pleasant to the ear.

I hold, as it's been said before, that if used moderately and in a purely recreational way (i.e., not escapism) then drug use can be moral. Whether or not you deem this to be worth the risk of jail time is your own judgement. I view, however, that doing so is not a rational risk and is instead a sign of a problem that one is willing to risk their own liberty and right to life for a few hours of pleasure. Also, a related question: is their any validity to certain chemical addictions (alcohol, for example) to be passed genetically, or is that simply a scapegoat for people who are addicted to cast the responsibility of their actions onto other people? I ask because I know that my family has had a long line of alcoholism, and if their is validty to this claim, then it also becomes logical (and not just a matter of personal taste) for me not to consume any alcohol or other chemical substances.

Thanks for the warm welcome everybody. I'm definately looking forward to my time here. And yes, khaight, those essay contests are very good tools indeed.