whYNOT

These arguments have been egoist-based, which of course is the fundamental Objectivist position on ethics, and, here, specifically the immorality of theft. As a secondary position, I'm thinking that 1. theft is a contradiction of the principle of non-initiation of force; 2. It obviously contradicts 'value for value', and therefore, the Trader Principle.(A bit weak, this one. ) 3. Theft is altruistic. - i.e., it's 'other-based', in its creation of a victim, feeding off the victim, and lasting dependency on him(or, one like him.) To the OP, 'determinist', I cannot offer any "evidence" as such, but only self-evidence - which should not be confused with subjectivity.

Why not? I'm not insisting that genetics, etc, do not play a part in one's life, but you'll find that they can get less and less influential as you get older, until they mean next to nothing. What'll you have then? Who will you be? How can you stand it? Not having a say in it. (Jake, that's a lot of times you used "choose" in your post; are you trying to say something?)

Jeff, I still maintain that our instincts/intuition are raw , unprocessed information - millions of data points - to use your terminology. They can be the cause of an emotion, uneasiness, something is wrong, etc., but are not the emotion itself. Why I say pre-emotional, is because in the case of my wife, signals, information or 'data points', were being recognised by me at that moment of seeing her - but only sub-consciously. Only then came the emotion (guilt, fear), which in turn, prompted me to focus consciously on the original data. Actually, without the corresponding emotion, the initial sensations would not be recalled at all, I think. Importantly, that's where the two DO conflate. "Sensations, as such, are not retained in man's memory, nor is man able to experience a pure isolated sensation." (ITOE) So only via emotions, those instantaneous value-judgements, are a few of the millions of random data remembered.

Too late. I just quoted an entire post seconds before I saw this. It is a drag to re-read, I admit.

I dunno Jeff- it seems you have diverged from your original position. I don't think you are wrong yet, but I still view instinct as something "pre-emotional", if I can call it that. Taking your analogy, I find pleasure in seeing my wife. Ok, an emotion, that came about from a complex cocktail of brain chemicals. Two hours later, I have the sensation that something is wrong; I realise my wife was eliciting some signals that I didn't notice at the time. So I back-track, trying to pinpoint her expressions, words, etc. She was a bit cool... now what can it be? Damn, I forgot her birthday! (New emotion - terror.) But the raw data was there, I observed it, but I did not identify it at the time. This is why it appears self-evident that our senses since Early Man - and still existent in our pre-cortex - were geared to survival, by taking in all possible stimuli. (See how long you survive if you forget your wife's birthday. ) This is going to take some more thought.

I am and always was a supporter of Israel, but also a harsh critic of her. I hold her to the highest standards, and am dismayed at any errors she commits. I particularly am against the power that the religious Jewish extremists wield there - it is imperative to keep separation of "church" and State, anywhere, for that matter - and am very glad when those extremists are forcibly removed from settlements. I am, iow, no knee-jerk apologist for Israel. However, one thing emerges every time one enters a debate with nice, reasonable people who only want to tell you that the poor Palestinians are being treated unjustly: They infrequently apply double standards. They hold Israel to one set, and Hamas/ PLO to another. It is a bit of a reverse compliment, in a way; what they're really saying is "we know Israel is better, but why don't they treat their neighbours nicely - the poor Palestinians can't think for themselves, or hold any morality." This is condemning the better, for being the better. That's why I consider this debate as futile. 'Facts' are raised - apartheid, starvation, land grabs - which are at best disingenuous, at worst, lies. 'Principles' are invoked, on the basis of these false premises. The principle involved goes beyond International Law, or IOF, or any libertarian principles. It's the principle of altruism that applies here. When, and if, Hamas is overthrown by Gazan citizens, who commit themselves to lasting peace, Israel will respond with good-will; that is certain. Israel is being held to hostage by its superior morality, and desperately wants peace. Not at all long- term costs, though. But the Palestinians will, for once, have to begin thinking rationally, and SELFISHLY, for that peace to result. As long as Hamas holds in its Charter the destruction of Israel, Israel will rightly treat it as the enemy. A nation has to demonstrate self-respect, before it can be treated with respect.

That is pretty insightful commentary. Excuse a small detour off-topic, but I have found that examining the wrong and irrationality perpetrated by others - as with 10:10 - a great source of value. Sure, one part is "relatable"... you mean these people are the same species as me? Where are we the same, where do we diverge? Another value is knowing my foe, what makes him tick, so I may effectively confront him. Overall, it's got to be a high value for one to understand the "rational animal", towards the ultimate value of knowing oneself.

It is interesting. I do think it is critical to differentiate between intuition/instinct, and emotion. Emotion as "the automatic results of man's value judgments integrated by his subconscious" is an important "barometer" regarding how 'well' a man is thinking and acting - in my much simplified understanding. Whereas, intuition, as JeffS and I are suggesting, is raw information itself. In the form of millions of random percepts and sensations (bits?) of data. Which one can volitionally isolate a few bits of, and discard the rest, unseen. Those few but necessary bits, if ignored, may impact upon the psycho-epistemology in the form of an emotion - so there could be a correlation between the two, but only as cause and effect. (One resulting emotion might be frustration ie, that nagging sense of "I know there's something wrong here, but cognitively can't find it yet.") So, yes, certainly one's emotions should be integrated, but instinct/intuition cannot be, imo - it can only be acknowledged as a source of possibly valuable information.

Alex, valuable information you provided, that is not generally known, or deliberately overlooked. The early Zionists were as much driven by a prescient sense that Jews were not always going to be welcome as 'guests' in their European and Arab countries. (It was an unpopular opinion for the majority of Jews, who were quite happy living as assimilated French, Poles, Germans...) Still, some purchased tracts of land from absentee Turkish landlords, which they developed, and lived on. Anyway, when the Ottoman empire fell - the Turks had sided with Germany in WW1 - the British took over Transjordan as 'caretakers'. Balfour agreed in principle that Jews would be allowed a piece of TJ. Matters came to a head with the out-pouring of Jewish camp survivors after WW2, grimly determined to never rely on any nation but their own. The Brits tried to staunch the inrush, and as a result were attacked guerilla- style by Jewish gangs. Not a very noble period for the Jews, but the context was their desperation. (BTW, as an aside, my father was one of the Brit soldiers; my mother one of the Jews.) In 1948, the UN voted for a Jewish State, within stipulated borders; on the same day, the British pulled out, and the surrounding Palestinian Arabs attacked. - boasting as ever that the Jews would be slaughtered. With every war after that, self-defensive each time, the Arab attackers were repulsed. Israel gained full and effective control over the entire region, from Lebanon, south to the Red Sea, from Jordan to the Med. And every time they pulled back to their own (admittedly slightly enlarged) borders. (There was the opportunity to build an "empire", and send the Palestinian population to Egypt, Jordan or Lebanon - but they refused it.) This is a very basic history, and the facts can be checked, in order that we can all be on the same page as to Israel's right to exist. The key words in that right are Bought, Court,(ie, by UN resolution), and Fought. What further does any nation need to do?

Now would you contend that this is some innate survival tool of the brain? Like pattern recognition? (i'm imagining here a prehistoric man scanning his surroundings by sight, smell, sound, and subconsciously registering that something is 'not right', or out of place.) I don't think that this skill has been lost to us - isn't it the ability to take in a massive amount of sensations and percepts, of which some can later be isolated, made conscious, and then transformed into cognition? In a nutshell, 'Blink', and 'Think' are not contradictory, but mutually supportive, imo. So, if one gets that nagging feeling in the gut, it is because some critical and relevant sensation has not been identified. (Which is merely coming full circle to your conviction.)

A highly rational appraisal that supplies the premises to my own identical conclusions. Well said.

Well, "Jesus Christ!"- Probeson. For you to know so much about a situation, and be so sure of the morality involved, must be very pleasing to you. Others have been watching and studying Palestine/Israel for 50 years, and have not reached such glib certainty. Please go and study all the facts, before laying out those sanctimonious 'principles'. Here's one new idea for you: can you consider that it is actually Israel, that is under seige? That Hamas and its backers (Iran) continue to resist any peace accord? Which Israel badly wants? That... ah, the hell with it - I doubt anything is going to break through your prejudice. And I doubt your good intentions, with such slanted and loaded 'facts'.

There is something I'm taking from this disgusting spectacle: I - and most here - KNOW that these people are wrong; wrong in their shaky science, wrong in their power greed, wrong in their hatred of the mind, wrong in their rush to judge and punish. But they, too, 'KNOW' they are right. Also, they will not hesitate to push the red button. That's the ultimate self-righteousness, translated into ultimate force. I'm asking myself: do I ever do that? Even in the most minor way, do I ever hit the red button, unjustly, or irrationally, on another person? Don't mind me - just wondering.

Yes, it's all a bit too predictable. Considering the writer is Richard Curtis (of the black-humoured "Blackadder" series), I'm leaning towards parody - OR, that he slipped this past 10.10 as a deliberate sabotage of the eco-fascist mission. Otherwise, it is disturbing that anyone thought this would be acceptable publicity; I mean, who do they think we are? But it does show up their cause to be glaringly totalitarian - any dissenters (read, thinkers) shall not be tolerated. May it explode in their faces.

Great! Excellent! This is exciting to see. All of it, the increasing rate of lampoons, derision, or vicious attacks (on Objectivism) - indicates that it is being taken seriously by the mainstream in the US, and some intellectuals are getting nervous. I'd advise that you fellows start getting used to the spotlight, because Oism is apparently going to get what it always deserved. Bring it on.

(I would be interested in an expansion of your last para.) Otherwise, yes - it would be far preferable for one to know and value the recipient of one's organ. You appear to be extolling a private transaction over an anonymous, arbitrary, one. Preferable, but unwieldy. I think that even in a deregulated and free society, the system of centralized organ banks would work most effectively. They'd be privately owned naturally. Analogous to real banks, they could operate under a system of credit and debit. To get a bit fanciful, by you depositing or bequeathing your organs to an organ bank, would allow for your grand-kid, say, to make a 'withdrawal' of someone else's organ in the future - if needed. But I'm digressing; although I think I understand your stated concerns, I am still convinced that one is giving value for value.

I don't know how you managed to read through it. I had to bail out to save myself. What I saw looks like the classic case of a vast amount of non-integrated knowledge, a high intelligence ... and not the slightest grasp of reality.(IMO) Reminds me of people I've known, great brains and zero rationality. Quite insane - and maybe finishing his 'opus' put him over the edge, so I feel some pity for him.

I'm puzzled by this, freestyle. You are too experienced an O'ist I think to not see the flaws here. This argument is 'out-come' based, on the premise that one is all-seeing, and all-knowing, and that one is responsible for other people's causality and morality. A consequentialist argument perhaps? Maybe, utilitarian also. What of a heart surgeon who saves his patient's life - who then goes on to commit murder? Of a missile systems designer whose innovations get stolen by the enemy, resulting in a rocket attack against his own country? You get what I mean. The opposite is just as credible: that my heart, liver, or whatever, could save the life of a worthwhile, moral individual. Besides, one can can't go through life looking at the bleak side of things, assuming evil everywhere, can one? The benefit of the doubt, and benevolence are minor virtues. Still no downside.

Hello NewEdit, There's good advice above, regarding psychology, physiology, sexual experimentation, and honesty, all of which I believe you should consider, if you haven't yet. Honesty is a good place to start this - not honesty so much with your boyfriend - but the honesty you have shown with yourself. I feel it's very creditable that you have faced up to things in this way - to know yourself so deeply. But just one thing, are you sure the label of "asexual", is completely valid? Of course, only you will know, after all the thoughts and feelings you've had, and information you've researched, and past experiences, if this 'self-diagnosis' is really warranted. All I'm pointing out is that sometimes such conclusions concerning oneself can become self-fulfilling, or premature, or self-delimiting. Anyway, there's a lot of info you haven't shared, and if you don't think this is too personal, may I ask: Haven't you, not for a single second in the past, way back to puberty, felt sexual desire? Have you aspired to getting married in the future? Do you imagine having a child? Would you be very happy with the idea of living for the forseeable future, outside of a conventional relationship, and being alone? Do you believe yourself to be capable of romantic love? Why continue with your boyfriend, seeing the pain it causes you both? (BTW, I certainly don't believe at this stage that your premises are faulty, or your universe view is 'malevolent'. Far from it; you portray a very good sense of life, imo.) Here's the way I see it in a nutshell: Will sex enhance your life, or not? If not, and you are finally convinced of it, then I don't believe ever that you should try to force yourself. (Beyond 'experimenting', if you choose that route.) Your ongoing and obvious happiness and self-esteem are all that's important. Because that's the bottom line - enjoying YOUR life via rational selfishness, and volition. Objectivism will never require that one becomes conventionally "normal", sexually, or otherwise. (To be clear, I am not qualified to give psychological advice - this is based on my own observations and thinking.) All the best.

The very aspect that makes for a hero, is, when volition is denied, that which makes for a sacrificial beast. So, definitely - NO.

And an exemplary act of selfishness - on one level, that he could not have lived with himself if he'd run and survived, while his students were shot...on another that his students were a personal value to him... and another level that he was in charge, and the buck stopped with him... also, who knows?, that he'd seen enough evil in his life, and would never stand back for it again. Sure, that's a lot of guess-work, and psychologizing, but a man like that who reacted so quickly to danger, has a lesson (for me at least). I would bet that his action was called "selfless", and "unthinking heroism". At that moment he did not need to think, since he'd been thinking all his life. As for "selfless" - well, Objectivists know better.

Hitch's rationality is unbowed, even though his body is weak. What do those Christian vultures expect - a miracle? or a death-bed conversion?

T. Sowell has got to be one of the clearest thinking Americans around, and this is one of his best articles, imo. I kind of see the post-modernist distortion of words as "language subjectivism." (Hint for an O'ist scholar to write an exposition upon.) He quotes O.Wendell Holmes: "Think things, not words." Beautiful.

That is a good overview, themadkat. I especially appreciated the point about "once a species becomes social, the possibility of receiving aggression from herdmates goes up dramatically." One more reason for individualism - and volition, and Capitalism. Yes, she got it so right: "The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe; civilization is the process of setting man free from men. Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy." Of course, with pure Capitalism we can live within a beneficial structure, but simultaneously outside of it, in privacy.

Or to a South African one? I guess this varies from one O'ist to the next. Essentially there should be no conflict between one's philosophy and one's nation... but, with all nations' trend towards collectivism, there has to come that time when an individualist questions his true loyalty. Americans have come from a much more elevated position than anywhere else, and have much further to slide, but I notice are just now asking the question - how much more can I take? Personally, though I have citizenship of three countries, I have for some years recognised that none is worth my patriotism - so Statist have they all become. I have quite comfortably accepted that I have no 'spiritual' home, and owe my allegiance to only myself, my philosophy and my loved ones. A 'sovereign state of one', perhaps, and it feels very liberating. Above all, I do believe that O'ists (no matter how conflicting we may be ) have more in common than variants of simple race and nationality. A timeous and well-framed query, I think, Hotua.