chuff

I know you know this, but to remind you: (1) Rigor is not truth. and (2) The question of whether the existence of a god is arbitrary is not determined by how many academics support or recognize the proposition. Neither is controversy the standard of the coherence or arbitrariness of a claim. The claim as I understand it does not need to be examined, because it presupposes that examination by reason will be fruitless. This is what makes the claim arbitrary. It is set up in such a way to make it so. This, I think, is where people are coming from here. In addition, the point made earlier by 2046 is key here: [edited to add]

That is pretty rude. Bring the discussion and the arguments here, don't make us chase you around.

To me, this smacks of "I will not even consider the possibility that my current position is incorrect." This is backwards. Reason must be given to think it is coherent. And since theistic definitions always exclude outright any rational coherence, it is an arbitrary proposition.

The way that I respond to this is, no matter how long you are told you have remaining to live, that still is time alive, i.e., there will still be some amount of time left to live. Since man, to live, needs values, and must act rationally to pursue them, ethics is still just as applicable then (assuming freedom of choice etc) as it is when you are alive and don't suspect imminent death. I hope my thoughts here came across clearly, I'm writing them very quickly.

I'm going have a go at your question. First of all, the very important and serious purpose behind activities you enjoy (aside from your own happiness, which is integral) is productive work. It's the very purpose of man's life, and happiness is the "successful state of life," which you gain from the attainment of values. The attainment of those values is virtue, which comes from the use of your mind. Far from considering things that might not be considered a "job" as non-productive simply because they aren't career-oriented with tangible results (like an iron bar), I suggest you think more of them in terms of what they do for you, in particular your mental state. Others have mentioned sport and other such things as beneficial for your body, for your ability to cope and relate with others, and just as a recreation to appreciate the things you have done. This is what is so important about treating yourself. There seems to be a strong parallel between getting a reward you don't deserve and a resulting negative emotional state. The thing about having sex with "girls" is that sex is not supposed to be meaningless. It is supposed to represent your values and your recognition of those values in another person (cf. love). The feelings of physical pleasure that are gained from the mere act of sex can be recreated without another human being, given the right tools. The experience of sex involves more than just nice feelings. An extremely important quote on sex is the following one: -Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual Most of my response I gleaned from the Ayn Rand Lexicon, which it would be good for you to read, in particular the following entries: Productiveness Loneliness Sex Love I'll end with a great quote from Rand in the "Loneliness" entry that I think is relevant:

Xbox Live gamertag: Iron Chuff I play on Live basically three or four nights a week. Halo: Reach Halo 3 Modern Warfare 2 Black Ops (occasionally)

Ms. Clara told me to email them to her as they become available. I have emailed her the first available episode, Episode 6

Only a few of them are ready. @softwarenerd i pmed you

And here is the disclaimer he wrote for us:

I heard back from Dr. Peikoff a week ago: He attached a .doc file to this email. And then again from him today: I could use some help in answering his questions.

I agree here. Each post need not have the same assumed knowledge; it could be "for more about rational self-interest, read VOS," etc.

I'm shocked that you would suggest such a thing.

I retract my statement in light of evidence of which I was previously unaware.

Thought policing?

My thoughts: Just this week in my home state texting while driving has been illegal. Infringements of this kind are imminent once "pre-emptive force" is enough for a new law. Soon, I'm sure, talking on the telephone will be illegal while driving; but why stop there? Really, not being tongue-in-cheek, what is the reason for stopping there? Eating a burger or taking a swig of the last sip from a Coke can keeps you from operating the car at full efficiency; should these also be something cops should use their time to keep you from doing? Plus it makes people criminals for texting in their cars while operating it. It's not the actual damage you've done that you must pay for. It is the fact that you were in your car's driver seat while it was moving and you were texting. The DUI law sets a standard of BAC that not every body works with. Some people with low alcohol tolerance will have a BAC below DUI level and still drive dangerously. Others who have much higher tolerance can operate the vehicle normally with above the accepted BAC.

How are there used copies available on Amazon?

IMPORTANT UPDATE: Is there a way to hide the post with the transcripts in them?

I've already done Episode 30 and Episode 112. I've also done Episode 12. I asked a member who wanted to help in any way he could to do Episode 11. I'll await both his Episode and the status on the first five episodes before continuing posting them, so that they aren't out of order and will force me to go back and edit each post to be the one before it, etc.

I second this idea, as it's a great one. Also, this could be the thread for posting errors found in them that need editing.

I have created such a thread. I foolishly went ahead and posted several without the new log-in that can edit old posts. If you would not mind setting such a one up, I would be grateful.

My email to Dr. Peikoff: Dr. Peikoff's response email to me: So I propose we do as he asks. I have finished six episodes of his podcast. I'll let a moderator or someone pin the thread or take the mantle on how to organize this, since it will be (as per request) in the site's name and not in mine. Also, I'm not sure how to do #4.

From the same author, in response to exactly this TAS review: available here

I read this response and sent it along to the author of the five-part criticism. Very good.

Something about knowing something is the truth (or even being convinced something is objective truth, as in the case of Christians who are) makes you want to share it with everybody.

Shouldn't this be a huge concern of students of Objectivism, especially the ones with a great understanding of it? There is no doubt the United States government needs significant changes. If these changes can only come about through others accepting Objectivism (through the vote, which requires that big voting blocs vote in favor of objective law, etc.), shouldn't one of our very important goals be to share Objectivism with others and explain to them why it is the best philosophy there is?