[A musical introduction to Objectivism]

Have you obtained permission from the Ayn Rand's estate to use her material in this way?

[Question about Hume and Objectivism]

Why can't he understand that the cause is in the nature of the thing itself?

The exact reason that Hume couldn't understand causality is that he was trying to derive it from sensualism/nominalism. Specifically, he was trying to derive it *directly* from perceptions apart from abstract universals, which did not fit into his epistemology.

He was right that there is no way to discover a single instance in which causality can be directly perceived. If you throw a rock at a window, there is no little flag that comes up before the rock strikes which says, "The window is about to break," you merely perceive the rock next to the window and then the window breaking. In order to draw a necessary connection between the events, one must advance to the conceptual level, which is something that Hume opposed on principle.

That's why Ayn Rand's solution for the problem of universals is important for her defense of causality.

[Sentence Completion Exercises for Self Esteem Enhancement]

Could you give any examples of public speakers who you think are *not* annoying or condescending? Or even who "sound" intellegent, inspiring, and enjoyable to listen to?

It seems somewhat incredible to me that the particular guilt by association you have in mind is not even an association with an actual radio psychologist, but with some character from a video game! But I haven't personally played Grand Theft Auto, so maybe it would make more sense if I understood the context.

Many speakers take a period of adjustment for me, especially if they have unusual styles of presentation that I am not used to. Yaron Brook's lisp really disturbed me the first couple of times I heard him, even though I agreed with everything he said.. But now that I'm used to the lisp and can overlook it and recognize the genuinely passionate inflection and delivery that he actually intends and projects, he is one of my very favorite public speakers, and I can enjoy the expression involved in his delivery of speech material even apart from its particular content.

I didn't mean to derail the thread, but this topic of the relationship between the *sound* of speech and its content is of particular insterest to me as a musician.. Sound as an expression of meaning is the whole meaning of music for me.

But Ellen Kenner, by contrast, immediately had a voice that appealed to me. I perceive her as someone who has a totally calm, natural, benevolent way of delivering every fresh idea that it is clear from the content she has spent decades perfecting and refining and finding new applications for and relevence of. Her voice is soothing to me, and projects a confidence not only in her callers and in the truth and practicality of her ideas, but also just a general confidence in the world and the mind as a part of the world to make sense.

I don't think it's fair to dismiss Ellen Kenner's achievement because of anything that it recalls in the voice and inflection of others unless it is similar in some essential respect which bears relevence to the specific nature of what you percieve to be a problem in her delivery of information.

I know it's a logical fallacy, and I'm not saying it makes her advice any less valid. What she says is perfectly valid - but when I listen to her, she sounds just like this woman from one of the Grand Theft Auto: Vice City radio channels. I've tried again and again to listen to her show, and it is something in the tone and inflection, that makes her talk in a way that I can't stand.

I have the same problem with the lectures on the ARI site - the lecturers give fantastic lectures, but their voices are really odd. Please, please, don't take this as some immature attack on them - I love them - I just pick up so easily on when someone isn't giving a genuine talk to their audience but is instead just reciting words from a page (this is what I think Ellen does - not literally, but she sounds like a mixture between doing that, and as if she's just not got experience of talking to people - which seems strange, considering all the work she has done).

[Sentence Completion Exercises for Self Esteem Enhancement]

Oh god, I'm listening to Ellen Kenner's podcast - she has the most annoying, condescending voice I've heard. Ok, not the most, but a very typical radio-psychologist voice. I can't stand actually listening to it.

I'm confused what you mean by this.. Do you mean that her manner of speaking, or her habits of dialect remind you of those used by people who you have observed being condescending and annoying; or do you mean that the things she says seem to you to be annoying and condescending; or do you mean the actual *sound*, ie, the frequencies themselves are annoying and.. condescending?

In any case, could you elaborate in what exact sense or way she is "condescending", and how you are defining that term? Are you accusing her of being annoying and condescending merely because her voice reminds you in some tonal or inflectional way of other radio psychologists who actually are annoying and condescending, and if so wouldn't that be a logical fallacy (guilt by association)?

[Chat - A second "room"]

It's a good idea, but having a lot of windows opened at the same time makes the chat kind of laggy as well. Would it be migated if people were in different rooms?

Could it be possible to split the screen so that you can have both chats open at the same time?

What does "migated" mean?

[Machiavellian Objectivism]

Boldstandard asked if I related to Gail Wynand. I replied that I did in many ways, with the exception of a few of his actions. I am asking though, does this pragmatic view of other people make me less rational?

I would say technically it does, since part of being rational is being consistent in your views, and Machiavellianism is inconsistent with Objectivism. There is a reason Gail Wynand ended up as he did in The Fountainhead, and I think it's usually the same way for people who act on his principles in real life (to the degree they do so consistently).

But, I think the most helpful thing for you to do to resolve this would be to study Objectivist critiques of Machiavelli, and of similar philosophies. There is an excellent analysis of Machiavelli in Leonard Peikoff's Founders of Western Philosophy lecture series. The whole series is fascinating and very informative. But Dr. Peikoff puts Machiavelli in an historical context, which I believe is vital to understanding him, as well as contrasting his views to Objectivism and to other philosophers.

Another thing about your post that makes me curious is your description of your view as "pragmatic". I wonder if you are influenced by the ethics of the philosophy of pragmatism as well as by Machiavelli. If so, Dr. Peikoff's lecture series on Modern Philosophy will be of great interest to you as well. He devotes two lectures specifically to pragmatism, as well as continually referring back to it and tracing its influence in subsequent philosophies. Very interesting stuff. (These lecture series are available individually or together as a set at the Ayn Rand Bookstore).

[post your favorite you tube videos here]

A few of my most favorite videos:

Robot playing a trumpet

Nancy Whiskey and the Chas McDevitt Skiffle group perform "Freight Train" in 1957

[post your favorite you tube videos here]

My favorite youtube videos

Here is my whole catalog of favorite youtube videos, and I update it frequently.

[Sentence Completion Exercises for Self Esteem Enhancement]

I haven't done the sentence completion excercises from that book, but I've done some other ones (from How to Raise Your Self Esteem) and found them helpful. I'd say within a few hours I started to realize premises I didn't know I had but that I'd been acting on, and within a few weeks was able to translate them into better premises and better action and therefore better self esteem.

Since then (several years ago), when I'm feeling unsure about courses of action I'm taking or emotions I'm feeling, I sometimes create my own sentence completion excercises, and I've found that to be an effective way to root out hidden emotions and premises that are effecting my actions (hidden, I think, because they're not usually well thought out, so it's hard to trace back to them logically).

I wonder if you're familar also with Ellen Kenner. She's an Objectivist and a psychologist who has a radio show, and I've found her insights to be very helpful for self improvement. There is much less that I disagee about with her than with Dr. Branden. And she seems to be a nice and honest person, from what I've gathered.

[Suicide]

I don't think there is any argument possible. Unless for such things as painful, terminal illness, it is not a rational conclusion, and consciously so.

This opinion is not consistent with Ayn Rand's statements regarding suicide, or with the implications of her ethics. Unfortunately I don't have access to my Objectivism research dvd right now to look up quotes. But consider the part in Atlas Shrugged where

Francisco says he would kill himself if they tried to torture Dagny

. That is not a scenario of physical pain as is the one you suggested, but of psychological pain at the loss of a value.

If one truly has no possible values left to gain in the world, no hope and no joy in living, my view is that it would be self sacrificial to continue living. The problem is that if one is in the midst of an intense psychological depression, it's difficult to see things objectively. There is a tendency to overlook solutions and other options that are available. Sometimes things can look hopeless when really they're not. But it is possible for things in this world actually to be hopeless for someone. It depends on the context.

[Steve Hanks]

Wow, I've seen some of these before but didn't realize they were water colors. I didn't know that kind of distinction was possible with water colors. Does Steve Hanks always (or usually) use them?

[Three Favorite Soundtracks...]

I also like a lot of Danny Elfman soundtracks.

I really like the song he did with Siouxsie and the Banshees called "Face to Face" for one of the Batman movies (the second one, I think, with Catwoman in it).

3. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Ennio Morricone! : )

[Three Favorite Soundtracks...]

Oh yeah, I just thought of the Clockwork Orange soundtrack by Walter Carlos. That has some really cool early synthesizer stuff on it.

[Shyness]

I agree with the Bold One.

: )

I am shy about some things, but most awfully shout it from a Broadway stage about others

I don't know if you meant this literally, but one thing I've noticed that I think is interesting is that many of the most emotive and intimate of public performers have been described in interviews as being shy. From personal experience, I've noticed that many of the musicians I respect, when I have met them after or before performances in which they had a tremendously intimate rapport with the audience, are very personal and reserved. I'm also a musician, and I have no problems or fears about revealing parts of myself to an audience while I'm on stage, but in person I would consider myself introverted and reluctant to open up to people I don't know well in conversations, and also reluctant to initiate conversations with people I don't know.

[Three Favorite Soundtracks...]

Oh, this is a good topic..

Three that come to mind..

"Once Apon a Time in America" - beautiful soundtrack composed by the legendary Ennio Morricone

"Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me" - some amazing songs composed by Angelo Badalamenti ranging from spacey retro-jazz to sort of classical sounding synth/ambient music, with some unforgettable vocals by Julie Cruse

"Until the End of the World" - nice selection of new wave songs from Wim Wenders' 80s sci-fi movie

(Pretty much all other soundtracks composed by Ennio Morricone and Angelo Badalamenti are good, though)

I also really like the soundrack to Marylin Monroe's "River of No Return." It's an interesting pop take on country music.

(Pretty much other soundtracks for Marylin Monroe movies are good, though.)

I was thinking last night and figured out, my three favorite soundtracks are: Final Fantasy VII:Advent Children (movie), The Fountain (movie), Death Note's OSTs (anime) and .Hack//sign's OST.Thought i'd share with everyone, and see what are some other good soundtracks... they can come from anywhere, movies, T.V. shows, video games etc etc...

Oh, yeah..

"The Sound of Music" - Rogers and Hammerstein

"The Wizard of Oz" - Harold Arlen

[edit to fix formatting]

[Shyness]

I always thought that those that don't want to engage in conversation with others, with the absence of fear, are known as introverts. They prefer ideas to people, of thinking rather than talking.

Yes, but I wasn't aware of a distinction between shyness and introversion. I thought shyness was the common term and introversion the technical term for the same thing. Maybe I'm wrong, though.. [edit: So I also didn't think there was anything in the concept of introversion that would exclude the presence of fear.]

[Shyness]

If you remove the emotion of fear of others from the equation, I think shyness loses meaning. To me, shyness is the emotion of fear , specifically fear of others. The fear is the result of an evaluation of low self-worth or concern for one's welfare, but most especially I think it comes from a feeling of low self-worth in some area. So, I'd say it's a feeling of fear of others, resulting from a low personal evaluation in some area.

I think your definition omits too much behavior that is commonly regarded as "shyness", and too many possible psychological and emotional states that often correspond to such behavior.

I do think your description is accurate to a significant portion of the phenomenon of shyness, but it's not comprehensive. Very often, people who are simply private and reserved by nature, and who do not habitually make an effort to "put themselves out" and assertively engage in certain types of social behavior as described as "shy." I think this is perfectly meaningful even if there is no element of fear present. Their emotion could just as easily be disgust, or utter indifference, or something else. Their psychological state could be a low self-esteem, but not necessarily. It could be they simply have a low or neutral esteem for others, or they might just lack the energy to engage others much. They might also have poor social skills, or they might not have anything to say or any positive reasons to engage others.

The fear of being humiliated or rejected may be based upon one's own view of self, one avoids others for the fear of them knowing what you know to be your own weakness, and then trying to exploit it. Basically, everyone is out to get you, the malevolent universe premise.

I wouldn't disagree with calling this type of reaction "shyness," but I think it goes far beyond typical shyness, and seems to incorporate a neurotic element; maybe a social anxiety disorder? (I'm not a psychologist either, but I do enjoy studying it).

[Shyness]

Shyness is a fear of other people. It is a fear of being rejected or humiliated and that other people will not like you.

The problem is treating other people's opinions of you as important, especially in regard to people you do not know or even value, or do not offer rational reasons for disliking you.

I think this is much too narrow a definition for shyness.

First, I don't agree that shyness is an emotion. I think it is more a type of behavior. Shyness is a tendency to avoid initiating relationships with strangers that would increase the level of intimacy involved in the relationship.

There are all kinds of possible motivations for this type of behavior, and a lot of competing psychologies that could sustain it (some healthier than others).

[Why did Rand view Kant as evil?]

Whether or not anyone benefits, including oneself, is beside the point. IMMSM he said he was "willing to concede" that duty could sometimes be consistent with what men find beneficial for themselves.

But I do believe he mentions somewhere that if oneself benefits, it's impossible to know that his action was from duty rather than inclination. It's possible to benefit others, especially if one has no goodwill whatsoever, in a way in which it is clear one is not acting from inclination, according to Kantianism (I think).

[Why did Rand view Kant as evil?]

Did Kant think all actions should be based on selflessness, or was that just his take on goodwill? (A direct quote would be best).

It seems like his philosophy is based on "duty", but that doesnt necessarily always mean duty to others. He says humans should act with duty to obey all universal laws, which I understand 'duty' to mean an obligation if one expects to be moral. So I assume Kant thought each motive of action should be based on duty to universal laws, but did he ever give his answer to why that should be the motive?

I don't think Kant argued as strongly for self sacrifice as his followers did. Auguste Compte (1798-1857) coined the term altruism (which means literally, "otherism"). He intended it as a description of Kant's ethics. I think you can find it in Kant, but I haven't thoroughly studied Compte (reading over this thread brought to my attention how much my understanding of Kant had/has to be desired too), so I suggest if you are curious to study them both yourself to see to what extent.

Kant's Foundations for the Metaphysic of Morals is pretty short, and his most accessible work, and his complete arguments for why one should act from duty are in there. My best attempt at a paraphrase: One should act from duty because it is one's duty to do so. Also, Kant thought that acting from duty was the only form of action consistent with reason. I don't remember which one he starts with though: whether it's one's duty to act consistently with reason or whether one should act from duty because it's consistent with reason. I'm pretty sure that's in Foundations for the Metaphysic of Morals.

[Response To Charges Against THE FORUM]

I was arguing against Mr. Speicher's position and he deleted a post of mine with a short letter that my post was mostly off topic.

[...]

This happened to me and it seems that it also has happened to many others. It has the unfortunate effect of making it seem as though one party to a debate had nothing more to say, or that their arguments and thoughts are a good deal less continuous and reasoned then they actually are. Perception doesn't make reality, but it sure can affect the relationships of the observers of it.

[...]

Regarding the discussion linked to at the top, I noted in reading the discussion that most people there had had their posts deleted for a number of reasons, but were all fine with it.

[italycs added by me for emphasis]

At the beginning of this post, you imply that Mr. Speicher deleted only posts that disagreed with his position, making the argument one sided. But then you admit that most people on the forum report having their posts deleted for a number of reasons--i.e., people on all sides of the debate. It was my experience in posting on that forum when Stephen ran it that he would delete posts which he believed to violate the stated forum rules regardless of whether he agreed with the overall intended position or not.

Personally, I've been disappointed about the personal remarks made against Objectivist intellectuals at OO.net and THE FORUM. But, as Betsy pointed out, the ones made against Dr. Peikoff in this forum during the elections were worse. And many if not most personal remarks at THE FORUM are deleted. I just usually try to avoid discussions where personal attacks are flying around. (I'm making a brief exception in posting on this thread!)

I've never seen a message board that didn't have some controversial threads and many views expressed by many members with which I disagreed. As long as the problem seems more or less confined to a few threads, if I think it's necessary to remove my sanction, I'll stop participating in those threads, but I don't understand the reason for boycotting an entire forum because of the controversial threads, while continuing to support other forums with just as many if not more controversial threads.

I suppose I do understand why someone would boycott a website that he thought was continually attacking him personally. But to cut all ties with anyone who participates in that forum, even those who disagree with the attacks or who do not participate in those discussions, when the attacks (if that's what they are) originate from a small minority of posters, seems like it would be unnecessarily limiting.

[Show Your Faces!]

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

Oh yeah, here's a newer one with my current guitar. Fender Jaguar Baritone Custom. There's my profile and my De Bergerac nose. Don't know what I was looking at. : D Kind of blurry, that was a cell phone picture.

[Love at first sight]

The opinion that the other person is the most valuable individual one has meet."

I don't believe that's necessary for love.. It's possible. But I think it's possible to fall in love with someone to a lesser extent than one has loved before, or to love more than one person at once, even.

I would agree with everything in that paragraph.But is that feeling love? Well, certainly not "true love". I would say that at best it could only be smitten. I would say being smitten at first sight is the closet one can come to love at first sight.

I certainly don't think you can possibly have "true love" --that is, the highest order of romantic love-- simply by the sight of someone.

I'm not sure I understand what's meant by "true love" here. As I understand romantic love, which is a process that evolves and develops and waxes and wanes, it's hard for me to distinguish a "highest order". Is this meant to be a description of the plateaus that occur within a relationship, when it is at its strongest, and the greatest degrees of intimacy have been achieved? Or is it a description of one particular type of relationship, peaks and valleys included, as opposed to other romantic relationships in which the peaks never get as high? If you mean the first, then I think I'd agree, "true love" at first sight is probably impossible. It is hard to imagine any first encounter possessing the same significance and intensity of a love which has been fostered between two people for years and had time to mature. But if you mean the second, I think "true love" at first sight is possible--I think it's possible to recognize that a particular person is well suited to be an exceptional romantic partner before any actual conversations begin, and that can be the beginning of a "true love" relationship, which is experienced as different from the beginnings of other types of relationships. But on that definition, I think it's also possible for "true love" to develop between people who did not experience "love at first sight", and might not have even initially been attracted to each other.

[Improving your thinking and understanding your emotions]

Incidentally, I just blogged about the ethics of sanction here, in a post titled "On Sanctioning the Sanctioner Sanctioners." It will be copied here on OO in a week or so.

--Dan Edge

I enjoyed your blog, but "ARIan" is hideous. : P

[Love at first sight]

I would call it "love at first sight." However, that is fiction not real life. The fact that it happened in Anthem proves nothing.

I would call it the precursor to romantic love.

What is it about the events in Anthem that make them love at first sight? What makes them different from the example of Ayn Rand and Frank O'Conner, or any other plausible story you've heard of people meeting and "knowing" the other person is "the one" and eventually getting married? (Maybe I just talk to people about romance more than a normal person, but I've heard such stories many times).

Um, I am not really sure. I have only beein romantic love once and due to a mistake i made back then I didn't experience it properly, so i am not sure exactly what it is.

Nathaniel Branden's definition seems good to me: "Romantic love is a passionate spiritual-emotional-sexual attachment between two people that reflects a high regard for each other's value." But I'm not sure what he means by "between two people" (actually, I pulled that quote off the internet. I think in his book, The Psychology of Romantic Love, he says, "between a man and a woman" but I guess he revised it now that he's altered or suspended his previously stated views on homosexuals). I think unrequited love is possible, which is a love one person has for another that isn't reciprocated.. I'm not sure if that fits with his definition or not; it might be better if it were reworded a little. I think I would say "...a passionate spiritual-emotional-sexual attachment one person has for another that reflects..."

P.S. I am also not the best when it comes to understanding body language, etc., because I hae hardly ever looked at people.

Try looking at people.. You might be surprised what you see. (You might need a strong stomach sometimes. Other times, you might wish you had a camera, or a microscope--metaphorically speaking).