Eiuol

Opinion without objective analysis of facts. So, definitely not worth much attention. Even if you agree that this law is wrong, supporting people who aren't citing actual evidence *should* be ignored.

Can you narrow your question down? Do you want to talk about casual sex, or the emotion of jealousy? I agree though that jealousy is very bad for various reasons, but I wouldn't call it rational or irrational. Of course, resulting behavior may be irrational. Jealousy may suggest insecurity with one's values. By the way, Rand never really argued for self-ownership, and I think that concept is not a valid one.

You are equivocating on two meanings of the word "right". In one sense there are rights related to a specific institution, such as stockholders of a corporation have a right to vote on a board of directors because the company made the rules that way. A right to vote in this context implies a similar meaning. At the very least, we probably can agree that some people are granted a right to vote in relation to their connection with a government. Some people have claimed property is a valid criterion for granting a person a right to vote, similar to how stock owners are given a right to vote on a board of directors. Careful of cognitive bias: just because Kate disagrees with you doesn't mean it *has* to be egalitarian liberalism. I think MeganSnow made a similar point anyway, except Kate gave a more particular reason. If a person does rely on charity and unfortunately no property as land, should they have no say in the government? Why should property be the voting constraint?

The words "affair" or "infidelity" don't apply though, I see no reason they should apply. Those imply lack of consent, but there was consent. As you said though, that doesn't mean everything was hunky dory.

To be specific, the axiom of existence is an abstract concept, and even existence is abstract to the degree it is impossible to perceive all of existence at once. One would have to be outside of existence or be everywhere in existence to be able to see it as a concrete. So, that's where philosophy comes in. Abstraction is what philosophy deals with, taking basic concepts wider and wider. Even with ethics, or philosophy of science, the effort is towards abstracting to apply certain ideas to as many contexts as possible. Metaphysics is as wide as it goes. I acknowledge that philosophy has concrete referents, but that's different than what philosophy sets out to do. Even in this discussion, we are extremely abstract, because our effort is to define some words on a very fundamental level. Another way to consider my thought is that philosophy is the "what" of existence. Science I am only suggesting is a type of concretization of abstract principles, particular with questions about how the world works. Art and Mathematics are both distinct fields of thought as well. Still, when focusing on how things work, that does not involve abstracting in the same way as philosophy. If I want to study biology, I need to dive deeper and specify what cells do, which genes they have, mechanisms that allow for reproduction. Naming the processes and identifying them would be abstraction, although it heavily involves detailing the "how". In other words, I'd be looking for specifics on the mechanisms of biology. Philosophy of biology would consider "what" questions, like what does evolution imply for how the world is classified if entities are changing all the time? I think my distinction is clearer now. What I meant by "related to" is that when thinking about economics, the concern is largely with human behavior in trade. Human behavior of any sort isn't far from ethics, but isn't strictly looking to find what one's pursuit in life should be. Economics is quite informative to how to make the most economical decisions which maximize an individual's behaviors. Economic principles are normative to the degree that there are judgments of "best" involved, but doesn't study the same aspects as ethics, although there is plenty of crossover with rationality. All knowledge is at least connected indirectly, so my argument here isn't an attempt to disprove any connection. If anything, I imagine you'll use the previous point to expand on your "philosophy is science" idea, so I look forward to seeing what you say. I agree that Postmodernism is destructive, I just think Postmodern-Communist is an impossibility on ideological grounds. Postmodernism certainly is the logical conclusion of all the Hegelians, and is more dangerous than communism ever was. Not only is there a destructive element to it of denying any truth whatsoever, there are no leaders to it. I question actually that it has taken hold. That aforementioned postmodern professor I had, most students thought he wasn't really anything to take seriously. You're welcome for the link!

Actually, I would say it's a dangerous mentality for a person to feel offended at seeing ideas they have no interest in accepting. No one can presume to learn anything if they decide at the outset that they won't accept or at least look into ideas different than their own. A rational person can entertain an idea without accepting the idea. If the idea ends up to be true, it should be accepted. On the other hand, even if I've thought a lot about an idea and rejected it, I am usually glad to teach what I know, and in the process I can perhaps learn about things I had not considered before. I think civility and intellectual honesty is an important part of discussion, and you come across as a very civil and honest person.

I can't continue the discussion, since you abandoned reason for faith. "It just does" doesn't cut it on a philosophy forum.

I dunno, I asked you the same thing. Indeed, how does that happen?

How though? How does your mind possibly interact with your body if they are separate? The mind is wholly immaterial according to you, so how can an immaterial thing cause material consequences?

How is it that anxiety causes physical symptoms?

There are so many strange assertions here, leaving aside Doomsday Prepper-esque assertions about your so-called narcoculture. Maybe not strange, but denying a sense of causality at all of the mind. What would anxiety be a symptom of? Presumably a moral problem of irrationality according to your view. How does that happen? How can a moral problem cause a mental problem, if one can choose to not be anxious, just like that? I suppose then anxiety, too, is only self-inflicted upon an immaterial mind. It is only caused by an individual. But wait! How then would anxiety have any physical effects? Bottom line, you're trying to get the apparently body-less mind to act upon the material world. It's impossible, as impossible as a body-less god creating a material world. The issue is treating the mind as an epiphenom, as a symptom of having a brain (yes, I'm also addressing a point ruveyn made). That's the problem, for many people who think about the mind. Either the mind is a ghost in a shell, driving the body like driving a robot, or put another way, the mind is connected to the body with a spooky "controller" in your head. Mind as an epiphenom is basically saying the mind is the end result of the chemical reactions in the brain, and the process of thinking is just causally impotent. Only dualists can maintain this viewpoint, specifically because it requires a wholly separate mind and body as separate *things*. I reject the concept totally, though. The entire experience of thinking is what the brain *does* on the conceptual level, not quite a thing. Problem solved, provided one accepts volition to have some causal origin to it. For me, I see the mind as information processing, which by nature makes selections under uncertainty. Humans make the most complex decisions, and it's not implausible to say that the very selection that goes on in information processing (i.e. conceptual thought in humans) is free will. However, it will *not* function without chemicals and electrical signals. This doesn't make sense to me. I'd switch it. While it is true every reaction IS the result of another action, that does not mean every action has one specific reaction. Chemicals are part of how the mind works, but that's not the whole story. Moralist denies chemicals serve *any* purpose in how the mind functions as far as I've seen.

Hmm, do you have a source, or at least some observations? In my observation, torn jeans more relate to the punk subculture which is really far from the hippy subculture. I'm thinking the sort of bands that played at CBGBs. My evidence is just some general knowledge I have of punk history. Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punk_rock#New_York_City

Nah, I think that's just a matter of "man" being the word for gender neutral. Personally, I use "they" for gender neutral singular, but I'll sometimes use "he" when I really need to be clear that I'm using the singular. The letter response is a different context, though.

Okay, a woman is a morally good female according to you. Here, you're saying thinking like a thinking masculine has blunt honesty. Since you say masculine, you are also including rationality, and objectivity, by your own definition of what is masculine. This could be metaphorical. This where you go off on the deep end. It's one thing to be metaphorical, but it's another to be literal. You already said a woman is a morally good female. Here, you're saying it's rare for a morally good female to think rationally and objectively. By your definition, to think like a man is to think rationally. The only other ways to think are not at all, and irrationally. Therefore, you're saying it's rare that morally good females will think rationally. I think it is sensible to say Rand was responding to general misogyny more than anything regarding the letter response, perhaps she was only responding to one aspect of being acknowledged as rational. I don't know though, it's just a thought. Plenty of people probably thought as you did: "a woman who talks about rationality is a rarity! She must have the mind of a man!" Underlying presumption? Women are inferior thinkers to men. I hope you see the implications of your words.

More like an expression of a do-it-yourself attitude where no one needs to shell out a lot of money to get a personalized look. As far as I can tell, it originates from the punk subculture (see my avatar of the cover of an album by The Ramones), which is largely about DIY. Really, it's a sign of independence. Of course, people who spend a hundred dollars on ripped jeans basically miss the whole point.

Basically, you said it's rare for anyone female to be rational and objective by nature of being female. Fine misogyny there. If that's not what you mean, you have a lot of explaining to do.

Whoa, I didn't know Brave New World came true yet. Where'd you find soma, and where can I get some? This is barely on topic, and I have no idea what chemicals has to do with volition here, unless you are attempting to claim some sort of substance dualism where the mind is wholly nonphysical and essentially mystical.

No wonder both fail then - they're sexist and misogynist. What year is it, 1854? I don't even know how your post is relevant to this thread. Really, it's not even appropriate.

Yes, the ones he took. Oh, I'm not saying it's necessarily smart to take drugs, but to some it may be worth the risk.

Personally, I have no opposition to the use of drugs in athletics any more than I oppose to use of nutrition practices. If someone does great on drugs, good for them. It doesn't change what a person did or accomplished. Moral character only comes into play to the extent the rules for the Tour de France are no drugs. Plus, he lied, which is the worst thing he did. Moralist, you act as though the drug use in and of itself is bad. I don't see why it should be.

Yeah, the brain is a complex system with levels of processing, which can fragment if the processing screws up. Indeed, it is a mystery for what is responsible for consciousness/self-awareness. I'm thinking of science as well, but that still doesn't indicate what the abstract points about the mind, including defining what a mind is. See post #9. You sound like a behaviorist in your example. Behaviorism is fraught with problems. What you're talking about is reinforcement, that is, there must be a positive stimulus (or negative stimulus) to cause behavior, not much different than causing a ball to roll by pushing it. You're right that hunger is part of the process that leads you to eat. But is that all there is? Hunger causes eating, and that's it? The explanation is incomplete. There has to be an account for mental states, the in-between stage between hunger and eating. Sure, you can't just think "whatever" you please, but that isn't to say actions can only be one way. As a system that processes information, the brain needs mental states, which may very well include volition choosing among a massive range of options. The words you're reading don't have an innate meaning that is automatically translated into action. All the symbols, you interpret those, and that's more or less what volition is: interpretation of the world. Many options are possible, depending upon your mental state and your knowledge.

Not really. Physics is necessary for the functioning processes of a nervous system, but it would be imprecise to say physics creates or dictates the nervous system. I'm not saying there is no causality, I'm saying there is a lot of complexity. You seem to be arguing against what is called the "libertarian" notion of free will, that is, free will operates with a "soul" of sorts that overrides physical causality. This is not the Objectivist position. The Objectivist position is basically a form of compatibilism as far as I can tell, which is a the notion that physical causality applies to free will. Yes, it isn't "absolutely" free, but an agent (i.e. yourself) makes choices. Yes, drugs can alter this, but that isn't demonstrating anything about the nature of free will, only that perception requires chemicals to function. You ever read Daniel Dennett? He gives a good account of the readiness potential and why it does not eliminate free will. Honestly, you should understand a point of view before arguing against it.

So the instances of where it is known beforehand that there is a neurological occurrence that messes with perception is evidence that people can't observe reality? For one, Rand never claimed that people see the world in a "direct" way in the sense you mean. Nothing you said contradicts things Rand said on the page you linked even. I'm not sure what your point is, or what you want to know. I see that you misunderstand Rand's position, but what do you want to know that lead you to post here?

There is little mention of how e-books improve lives at all. Incorporating e-books into libraries has only been problematic. It's not all bad, but I prefer the free books I can read from a library anyway.

Responding to mdegges: 1. What's wrong with that line of reasoning? Certainly, Rand said hypothesis, so some of the paraphrased points can be argued, but the point is that evolutionary processes led to the development of the mind, which later developed into being able to provide conceptual thinking. Whether the focus *really* started with animal's bodies as a focus is kind of irrelevant. 2. I think it's metaphor too. If one doesn't use reason, they are as good as subhuman, but it doesn't mean that they are not human without rights. 3. Even if it was what she said and what she meant, Rand wrote it in a journal. If she meant it, I think she changed her mind later, perhaps after she wrote more of Atlas Shrugged. What leads you to conclude this? I addressed it in my previous post basically.