Bold Standard

So, why did you bring it up? Possibilities can be infinite, even when talking of physical objects. It's only an actuality which can't be infinite. You said (with bolds added for emphasis), "Since new things can always be created, knowledge is seemingly infinite. So at any given point of time, your knowledge compared to what knowledge you could potentiallly have is always an infinitely small fraction." At any given point of time, the amount of knowledge which exists is finite. The amount of knowledge you or I could potentially have is limited to the amount of knowledge we can aquire before our deaths. The amount of knowledge that could potentially be obtained by mankind is unbounded, but nobody would ever actually have infinite knowledge. [Edit: Not even Hegel. ] If I have an idea, I have one idea. If I have 2693 ideas, I have that many ideas and no more, at that particular point in time. The total number of actual ideas possible is therefore always limited to a finite number of ideas in a finite number of minds. You must distinguish between the potential and the actual. Okay, if Socrates had said, "One of the few things I know is that I know very little," I would be fine with that. Maybe that's what he really did say, before being misquoted by Plato, Diogenes Laertius, Bill and Ted, and everyone else. I'm not in any hurry to discredit Socrates. I think he was one of the Good Guys. I only meant to point out where the contradiction lies in the statement, "The only thing I know is that I know nothing," because I hear actual modern skeptics say that and mean it literally all the time. And if Socrates did say that-- I think he was being sloppy. I don't think he would have let a Sophist or a Nobleman get away with saying something like that, so I won't let him get away with it, either.

I think you give him too much credit. Eddie Willers (in Atlas) is pitiful. Keating is reprehensible. Not just because of his mediocrity, but his motives and actions-- giving up art for his mother's approval, murdering Heyer, getting his friend fired so he could have the job, etc. Dominique married Peter.. I don't know if pity is the right word for her feelings for him at all-- except in the scene where Peter breaks down and is honest with her for a brief moment. Ultimately, I think Dominique's feelings for everyone besides Roark is a kind of mongrel-disgust. But for Peter I think her feeling manifests as a mixture of boredom, admiration, frustration, pity, and repulsion. I know I have a tendency to discount Dominique's marriages previous to Roark, but she did marry those guys, have sex with them, share her life and time with them, etc. I think there's a certain point where you can't just ascribe her actions to a complete cover-up, even though that's what it might be on a fundamental level.. Those parts are really hard for me to read. Even though I know what's coming, when I re-read the book or watch the movie, I'm always impressed when I get to the part where Peter keeps his word to Roark and tries to stand up to the Cortlandt thugs. I never completely understand why he decides to sign the confession. Is it possible for someone to have and to betray their own values that consistently? In a certain sense, Peter is one of the most frightening creatures in The Fountainhead, I think.

Well, since he said "and I don't mean techno," I assumed he meant programming computers to play more or less random sounds. Of course, a computer could never play completely random sounds, because they would always be limited by speakers, soundcards, wires, etc-- each providing their own particular, special distortions and ranges of frequencies, and then there's the room to take into consideration, and objects in the room vibrating at their fundamental frequencies in response to the noise, and the sound echoing and reverberating off of everything (which puts limitations on the potential for complete randomness of frequencies within in the range of hearing), etc, etc. I know Autechre and Aphex Twin aren't necessarily "Techno" in the usual sense the term is used.. but they're closer to Techno than they are to computer Noise. I agree that artists can use computers, analog electronic equipment, and all kinds of tools and gadgets to make music. In fact, that's what I do. But I don't make random noises and call it music. I make periodic vibrations, and call it music (to put it very generally). It's not techno, and not any more like Aphex Twin or Autechre, but it's more like them than it is like noise. But I can make organized noise perfectly easily. (In fact, noise can be a component in constructing a periodic sound.. for example the breath noise at the beginning of a flute tone or the noise of a pick, bow, or hammer hitting the strings of a stringed instrument, or a snare drum striking to create a rhythm.. all examples of noise which along with periodic context can become elements of what I would consider legitimate music.)

Well, this is a privately owned message board. The administrators have a right to allow or disallow any posts to remain on the board at their discretion, since it is their property. Furthermore, there are Forum Guidelines which outline what is acceptable or unacceptable material for this website (which you can access from the main page). So whether Ronald Reagan would approve or disapprove is irrelevant, but if he would disapprove, I don't know on what grounds. Besides the appointment of Alan Greenspan, a friend of Ayn Rand, to the position of Federal Reserve Chairman, and a letter to a colleague thanking him for a copy of AR's article, "Conservatism: An Obituary" and in which he said he was a fan of hers (I can never get over the fact that he read that article and still made some of the decisions he made) I'm not aware of any direct connections. Ayn Rand was certainly highly critical of Reagan as a president (although she died in 1982) but I'm not sure what she thought of him as an actor. Sorry, just thought I'd actually answer your question, for fun.

Ah-- well, I can see how a Thomist would certainly be inclined towards the former meaning of "faith," but here in Bible Belt, one might be surprized how many religionists are perfectly content to use "faith" in the latter sense, in English, too. They are the people who say things like "We have faith in God but you have just as much faith in science," in answer to criticisms of faith as such. But thanks for all the leads.. I've been meaning to read a good biography of Kant. From everything I've read about his life, he seems like a really strange guy. (Obsessively punctual, nightly walks.. Never ventured outside the town he was born in, despite teaching Geography at the University, etc.) It was my pleasure. Writing down things like that, which I've been chewing on for a while, helps me solidify those concepts in my mind, too. I hope your thanking me for them constitutes an approval of the accuracy of my formulations. I know you've studied the Greeks pretty extensively.

But why should such modernist peices be included in the concept "music"? This seems to be an inherently subjective definition, like the definition of graphic art as "something which can be displayed in a museum." By this definition, there is absolutely nothing to exclude talk radio, telegraph messages, spoken conversations, sonor devices, or an endless multiplicity of other organized, sound related phenomena from being classified as music. I don't see how that definition could not lead to arbitrary, conceptual chaos. And judging by certain John Cage peices and computer music, I would seem to be justified in that claim. I maintain that sound must be not merely organized, but periodic to qualify as music, if a practicable, objective definition is to be acheived.

I agree with this sentiment, though I would say "ought not" instead of "can't" take him seriously, out of context. Lest your statement be taken seriously, out of context. I don't agree with this at all. I'm not sure what you mean by "figuratively," but this sounds like Zeno's paradox, where you can never cross a room, because the space between the two walls is infinitely divisible, therefore can never be traversed. Besides, knowledge could never be infinite. At whatever point you choose to analyze it, it would still be finite in content-- an "actual infinite" is impossible. Skepticism isn't true, even "figurateively" speaking. Whenever a philosopher utters a contradictory statement, it's rare that his motive is to advocate a contradiction as an end in itself. I've never personally read a passage in which Socrates utters this statement-- the only time I can specifically remember these words attributed to him besides this thread was in the movie Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. Among the Skeptics whose ideas circulated up until the time of the Church Fathers, statments similar to this can be found from time to time. Among modern Skeptics, statements like this are more common, since moderns are much more eager than the Greeks to advocate blatant contradictions. Yeah, it moves to "only," because that excludes all knowledge besides "I don't know everything," including the knowledge necessary to establish "I don't know everything" as knowledge. "I don't know everything" can be established as knowledge-- and should be! But only on a verifyably valid epistemological foundation, requiring knowledge not explicitly contained in the proposition.

That's true about thoughts, of course, but dreaming is a physiological process I would be reluctant to confine to "abstractions." Of course, thinking about the dream is an abstraction, so in a certain context you could say dreams are abstractions-- ie "I dreamed you came to see me." But if you wake up in a sweat and don't know why, and someone says "you were having a bad dream," they mean something more than just the abstract element of the dream (most likely).

[edit: That's weird! Before I posted this, there was a post from Dangle saying Dismuke was probably friends with Hitler. Maybe a moderator trashed it for its complete irrelevency. Ah well, never mind my post either, then.] Hmm. I'm pretty sure Dismuke's an atheist. Why would he ever advocate faith? Because he took someone's word that there were New Orleans refugees at Wal-Mart? I can see where Dismuke got the idea you might be a Communist sympathizer (though I thought he might have slightly exaggerated your probable consistency on this point) because you take an attack on anyone from New Orleans as an automatic attack on you-- which is implicit collectivism (of the egalitarian variety). And because you attack the people Leftists love to attack, and because you wish physical harm and imprisonment upon people whose politics you disapprove of, and for the other reasons Dismuke mentioned throughout his post. But I can't see where you get the impression Dismuke might be a Nazi. You provide no reasons, explicit or implicit, for this insinuation of yours. Just as you provide no evidence that Dismuke is wrong in his opinions about New Orleans welfare-state refugees; you only complain that his opinion offends you. In failing to provide any reasons, evidence, or valid arguments for your position, you leave the readers of your post with no reason to care whether you're offended or not. Perhaps that's why your blog doesn't get many hits.

There can be no such thing as "the very beginning" of the history of the universe. This implies that the universe appeared ex nihilo, which is impossible. The determinism you mention seems to imply a belief in Mechanistic Materialism ("billiard ball metaphysics"), which is rejected by advocates of Aristotelian causality such as Objectivists. Thankfully, Heisenberg and his followers do not constitute the entire field of Quantum Mechanics. But they do make it seem so on The Discovery Channel and other popular resources. I agree with your assessment-- that point of view would undercut basically all knowledge as such, if it were true. But it's not. : ) Why do you assume only physical entities are capable of cause and effect interactions? Doesn't this ignore the rather self evident existence of cognitive phenomena? I don't know-- I didn't consult your horoscope today. Just kidding. : ) I'm about to hit the sack, too. I know my reply might have been overly brief. I'm not the most intelligent person on these types of threads, either, but I thought I'd give it a shot.

[bold and italics mine] If one doesn't know anything, that would imply that he doesn't know that he doesn't know anything either, because that is something. Thus, this statement is a blatant contradiction. That's the easiest way to refute this type of statement, and it's all you have to do in order to refute the whole skeptic repertoire evolved from this statement. [Edit: Even if Socrates had said, "The only thing I know is that I don't know anything besides that I don't know anything," the exact same proceedure would work, because he ends up saying the same thing. Thought I'd add that, because skeptics sometimes seem to think if they add just one more identical clause, the principle will suddenly dissapear, but it never does.] [2nd edit: But if he'd said, "The only thing I know is that I don't know everything," it wouldn't be explicitly contradictory, although that knowledge would necissarily depend on antecedent knowledge in order to be established as knowledge, so it would lead to a contradiction, too.]

When you say "which is usaully what happened to me when I'm around twins," are you referring to "before someone gets seized," or "just thought I'd get in on the action"? Just curious.

I'm interested in this statement, because I haven't spent much time talking to students of Kant, but I've spent considerable time reading him myself. Kant is the man who "suspended reason to make room for faith." So why are his students militant Atheists? JASKN-- I've found an understanding of the following terms to be helpful in grasping ethics in general and Objectivism specifically. hedone- This is the Greek term for pleasure. It is a momentary, sensual experience, like your example of the recreational use of a drug. That could be, for someone, a pleasant experience-- that's hedone. Hedonism- This is an ethical theory. There are two closely related but not identical versions of this theory. Psychological Hedonism holds that man's primary motive for action is necessarily a desire to maximize pleasure (or to minimize pain). In this theory, whether you know it or not, hedone is what you're really after. Ethical Hedonism holds that the proper standard for morality is pleasure. Usually when people talk about "Hedonism" they mean Ethical Hedonism, because Psychological Hedonism is deterministic, so it's really outside the province of morality or nominal codes of behavior. For an Ethical Hedonism, that which maximizes pleasure (or minimizes pain) is the good, and that which maximizes suffering or diminishes pleasure is the evil. Clearly there is no grounds for saying that happy, well adjusted people who occasionally use MDMA when they go dancing are necessarily Hedonists. An argument could be made that a consistent Hedonist could never become happy and well adjusted. But that's a whole separate issue. eudaimonia- This is the Greek word for happiness. It is more starkly contrasted with hedone than the English word happiness is with pleasure. It has also been translated as "flourishing" or "the good life." It is a longstanding, consistent, efficacious type of existence. Aristotle's "Magnanimous Man," or the successful industrialist who, in his old age, looks back at all his accomplishments and smiles with satisfaction and fulfillment are examples of eudaimonia. Eudaimonism- An ethical theory, with Psychological as well as Ethical adherents, like Hedonism. Psychological Eudaimonists think everyone is motivated primarily by the desire for happiness. In this view, for example, even Francis of Assisi or a Moslem suicide bomber are motivated primarily by a (disguised) desire for personal happiness (e.g., happiness in the afterlife, etc). Ethical Eudaimonists hold happiness as the standard for morality. An Ethical Eudaimonist thinks a person should be motivated primarily by the desire for happiness. Objectivism is similar to Eudaimonism in the sense that is holds happiness is the proper goal of ethics, but it differs in that it holds life as the standard. In Eudaimonism, the good is that which promotes happiness, the evil is that which negates it. In Objectivism, the good is that which makes life possible (for the purpose of obtaining happiness) and the evil is that which is inimical to life (thus making happiness impossible.) It might seem a subtle distinction, but it becomes crucially important in defending Objectivism against certain codes of morality, including Kantianism, and... Ethical Subjectivism. For validation of this theory in Objectivism, I refer you to the Objectivist literature-- especially The Virtue of Selfishness. Since the Greeks were the first thinkers in Western Philosophy to originate codes of morality, these terms have remained extremely significant. It can be a little misleading, if you're used to the way the terms "pleasure" and "happiness" are used in popular English usage (and therefore as they are represented in modern populist dictionaries), because many philosophers including most Objectivist use the terms as if they were actually saying "hedone" and "eudaimonia." I hope that helps to clarify some things.

Actually, that's not true of Amway as a whole. Just specific organizations and individuals in the company focus more on the motivational things.

My parents have been in the Amway business since the 80's. They never grew their business very large, and they haven't tried to recruit anyone in years (over a decade) but they still buy the products, and they might even still have a little income from people downline who went on to grow their businesses (I haven't talked to them about it in a few years, so I'm not sure-- but I still see the products in their house so I know they at least still buy them.) All the information I have is second hand, not from my own experience with the company, since I've had none (besides using the products, which are sometimes exceptional quality.) I'm not aware of anything inherently evasive or exploitive of friendships in the Amway model. Personally, I sell stuff to friends all the time. I sell and buy guitars and musical equipment from friends and friends of friends. I bought a book from Andy Bernstein that he'd written just because I liked him when I saw him lecture. Nothing wrong that I can see about doing business with friends just because they're your friends. Cuts out all the overhead. That being said, Amway is a huge operation. Within the corporation, there are lots of people who have been successful enough to have their own "lines" (or whatever the biggest manifestation of that principle is called), and the specific procedures and strategies they employ can very dramatically from one to the next. I wouldn't discount the possibility that there are whole lines that are operating unethically, evasively, or even illegally. I believe the higher-up people do all they can to prevent that, but considering the size of the business, I doubt it would be entirely possible. So be careful. Learn everything you can about who you're working for and what exactly you're getting involved with before you commit yourself (and it seems like that's what you're trying to do.) One thing the people who sponsored my parents were upfront about, that I've heard some sponsors are not always upfront about, is that most of the money is made not on the products, but from the motivational materials and seminars sold to the salesmen. At least, that's how I understood it when they explained it to me. Most corporations spend lots of money training the employees. Amway makes most of their money training the employees. Maybe there's something pyramid-like about that, but I don't know. Motivation is a valuable asset..

I like this definition, too. When I think about questions like "is phone-sex sex?" I usually think, "It's sort of sex." If sex is physical stimulation of the genitals by another person, that fits. Because the person on the other line is sort of physically stimulating your genitals. But not directly. Similar with masturbation. Try masturbating without even thinking of another person. I don't think it's possible. "Another person" and "physical stimulation of the genitals" are definitely crucial elements of sex in its human application. Confining sex to mean only coital copulation seems too specific. There are several terms to describe vaginal intercourse, and there are terms (such as "mess around" or "make out") to describe related activities to the exclusion of coitus, but "sex" is just about the only term I know of that encompasses intercourse as well as closely related activities.

'Tis. You know us Texans love our Smiths. Beer, rodeo, Morrissey...

Well, here's a piano picture. I was about 17, so that makes it ::choke!!:: seven years ago.

Hm. I have lots of guitar photos, but none scanned in the computer. If I can get some I'll put them up.

Did he happen to mention the Yahoo/Google/Microsoft controversies with China?

Yes, actually, it has! About 15 years ago, they built a trestle for the railroad there. Well, that's about all I know of in regards to change.. I think Heraclitus would be at a loss to explain that town. I'm in Liberty right now, visiting my parents.. New York! Well, if at least if I jumped from the highest building.. I probably wouldn't be hurt too badly.

Yes, I agree with all of this.. although I'm not entirely convinced "libertarian" is a concept... Yeah, good point. That's why I said "acting to gain," to imply that they can have that end in mind. I guess the traditional way of stating it is that only humans are capable of vice because only humans are volitional, but I think it adds something to emphasize that "vice" means volitionally acting to one's own destruction. Yes, yes--Hell yes! I can think of plenty of such circumstances. Life requires such risks, and a full life often entails high risk. "Survival" in a concentration camp would be dying a slow death, even if it wasn't a death camp. I'd be right there with you trying to escape. For other dramatizations of this principle, see Atlas Shrugged. There are several scenarios in which I believe Ayn Rand was attempting to illustrate this point. I think this statement from the novel's hero in response to the villains' morality sums it up [Edit: bold added for emphasis]: "You seek escape from pain. We seek the achievement of happiness. You exist for the sake of avoiding punishment. We exist for the sake of earning rewards. Threats will not make us function; fear is not our incentive. It is not death that we wish to avoid, but life that we wish to live. "You, who have lost the concept of the difference, you who claim that fear and joy are incentives of equal power—and secretly add that fear is the more 'practical'—you do not wish to live, and only fear of death still holds you to the existence you have damned. You dart in panic through the trap of your days, looking for the exit you have closed, running from a pursuer you dare not name to a terror you dare not acknowledge, and the greater your terror the greater your dread of the only act that could save you: thinking. The purpose of your struggle is not to know, not to grasp or name or hear the thing I shall now state to your hearing: that yours is the Morality of Death." [Atlas Shrugged, Part Three / Chapter VII, <as_942>] For further clarification of AR's position on risk in Atlas Shrugged, there is also this excerpt from the "Notes While Writing" chapter from Journals of Ayn Rand: "February 15, 1947 Note: Creators never act with pain as their motive. This is illustrated by Dagny and Rearden. This is the principle behind the parasite's accusation that people like Dagny and Rearden "have no feelings." They feel—and much more profoundly than any lesser person or whining parasite (the parasites neither think nor feel)—but they are not run by their feelings, and they are not afraid of pain. Nothing they do is ever motivated by a desire to avoid pain or to be protected against it; they act on the motive of happiness, on the desire to get what they want, at any cost, even if pain is part of the cost. They suffer more than any parasite could ever bear or imagine (except that it's a different form of suffering, it's clean, it doesn't go all the way down nor damn the universe), but they know how to stand pain, and they don't care too much about it, they don't actually give it any thought, they don't include it in their calculations or consideration of cost, they just meet it when it comes, stand it, brush it aside and then go on—and they win. They win over all pain, to the happiness which they want and which they are. The parasites are motivated by pain. They are the motors and the embodiments of pain. The parasites, in effect, say to the creators as an accusation, as a statement of damning sin and guilt: "But you don't suffer—you're not unhappy—you've never been unhappy." This is the difference between considering suffering an accident, a temporary exception—and suffering as a basic principle, a major concern, a main motive, suffering as the norm and the nature of the universe. <jrnl_554>" I find it very informative to compare this attitude in Objectivism to other ethical systems, such as Hedonism, in which avoidance of pain is either viewed as equivalent to seeking happiness, or of a relatively notable importance. Similarly, "Survivalism" as has been mentioned could be described as a morality which seeks to avoid death. Objectivism seeks to gain life-- ie, life qua man, flourishing, or eudaimonia as the Greeks would have called it. So (in my understanding) it doesn't concern itself with avoiding death directly, but only as a consequence of pursuing and achieving life.

According to Ayn Rand, humans are the only creatures capable of acting to gain their own destruction-- the only creatures capable of vice. (I don't have the reference for that at hand, but I think it's in Galt's Speech.) Technically, I think for a morally corrupt person, evil would be considered a value, since they act to gain or keep it, although it does not support their life (they may or may not think it does).

I'm not so skeptical. Maybe you're right, but either way they would be acting on essentially the same ethical basis-- namely, pragmatism. Whether the end they are trying to use as a justification for their appalling behavior is revenues or some precarious, long-term goal of Westernizing China, it still involves grossly unjust actions on Yahoo's part. Maybe as a result of Yahoo's compliance, China will become free in twenty or a hundred years-- maybe not. Regardless, there was a man trying to bring this about now who is probably in prison or worse. Violating the rights of even one individual can never be justified by its relationship to any goal, utilitarian or egoistic.

Funny, when I imagine how that would sound if it were spoken aloud, it's the "o" sound that gets prolonged, even though that's not the letter being repeated..