Eiuol

Hmm, yes, I see what you mean. I guess I'm dropping the context I was suggesting even, where hero worship *can* be rational. Some view their relationship to a famous artist to be on a mystical level, similar to how there was a value to the Holy Grail. It was because Jesus touched it, unrelated to actual productive values. It's as though one can imbue an item with power and energy. I think if you actually interacted with a famous person, then an autograph would be appropriate, as it is probably the only way to *have* a piece of the moment. If you disagree with me or not on that point is one issue, but the relationship between the famous and lovers of the famous is one of worship. Oftentimes, worship goes an irrational route.

I probably assumed too much understanding about what I would mean. What is the *rational* reason? I said generally, but I can think of no situation where an autograph is a rational value. It would make sense to get an autograph in order to sell it to someone else, but that's about it.

An autograph is generally an irrational thing. "Oh my god, s/he wrote her name on my object!" What is the use of that?

It's not so much that men are "meant" to be traders, but trade is a rational choice for rational people. Trade is not in the nature of man. Reason is. If you opt to steal rather than trade, that is an irrational choice and thus immoral.

I like that you brought this up, fame is a topic that I have been thinking a lot about the past few months. One issue about analyzing fame is that most who talk about speak of the person who is famous and ignore the ones who make them famous, the fans. Why do people decide to go to such extremes that they form crowds, ask for autographs, desire to even TOUCH the famous person, or imitate clothing the famous person wears? It is a form of hero worship, but on essentially an irrational level. There are some obvious reasons why a person seeks fame, it's either second-handedness or a desire to have a cultural impact. If you wanted to convince people of how good capitalism is, you need visibility, which means fame. Or the person is trying to validate their existence *through* others, and the more 'validation' they receive, the better they feel (like Peter Keating in The Fountainhead) I think fame as we know it today in its irrational form is due in part to consumerism (NOT the same as capitalism) and secularization of culture. If god isn't your main concern, you will worship the good elsewhere, as in man. Whether that worship is rational or not is another question, but most go the irrational route. I have some suggestions. http://www.wellesley.edu/Sociology/syllabi/SOC249%20F06.pdf a syllabus for a sociology class on Celebrity, Fame and Fortune http://blake.intrasun.tcnj.edu/celebritycu...ibliography.htm list of books and articles on fame Claims to Fame: Celebrity in Contemporary America, by Joshua Gamson (I haven't read this, but it looks like it is worth reading) Also, research Andy Warhol. I don't care if you like his art (or junk, whatever you prefer to call it), everything he ever did was about fame. I do, but it is a secondary goal. Fame (extreme visibility) is necessary for my more important goals. The problem is though I'm very introverted so I wouldn't like the attention, at least attention of massive crowds and people imitating me.

I think that is quite a stretch to make. Sure, if the battlefield is like a chessboard in that everything in the field of play is a combatant, but you know that's not the case in modern times. I don't understand why you don't need to establish an inmate's status. You are establishing that a person is an enemy combatant based on where he was caught, which is at best a guess. I'm not suggesting capturing them is necessarily wrong, but having them go without a trial is a violation of rights because you are imprisoning someone without a good reason. But in the *current* state of affairs the government cannot perform any of its functions without having violated rights. That is my issue. It's more a matter of "if there are two ethically questionable actions, one of which is 'do nothing', how do you choose the what to do?"

For one, imprisoning someone innocent would be a violation of rights. You cannot find that out innocence until there is a trial of some kind (military tribunal or otherwise). So I would suggest that since many detainees do not have a trial planned for them (if I'm wrong, please correct me), there is a rights violation. If there is a trial, there would be further costs, which would be paid for by a rights violation, taxation. There is a connection between the two points. How exactly would you decide which is the best option if in either case there is a rights violation in either case? Is it just a matter of accepting that no matter what, there is a rights violation, so what should be done at the very least is to have the government perform its proper role?

Of course an intrincist does not accept the Objectivist conception of value, what's your point? I can't even conceive of a reason, even an obviously wrong reason, to suggest values don't require a valuer. There really isn't much else to say. In my opinion intrinsicism is so weak that you almost begin to question yourself by asking "is that all intrinsicism really is?"

"Blame low interest rates! Naw, it's the animal spirits!" I saw this yesterday, it's pretty good.

Can you be more specific what you mean by "some aspect of philosophy"? I should mention that a person can have mistaken conclusions, so a disagreement alone won't indicate any irrationality.

I would certainly say that most games are not art, but I think any interactive medium is capable of being art. The issue, going off what ZSorensen said, is minimizing player-driven value exploration, otherwise there is no actual artist involved. While it is important to recognize that a player in a "sandbox" game like Oblivion requires a system in which they can employ an MVS, all games that are to be art require a specific MVS that a player follows. So even if it's cool for an MMO to allow actual stealing and allows for an effective usage of an MVS, it does not necessarily mean the MMO is art.

I am not disagreeing with anything you said, but I think it is important to point out if the person were in a truly emergency situation (say if we're in Soviet Russia), it would not necessarily be immoral to steal. Morality would not really apply in such a situation. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/emergencies.html in case the OP hasn't read this before.

I agree with this. I think the characters played must have a well developed system of values rather than just a class focusing on certain inherent abilities and stats. It must be clear to the player what ethical (or lack therof) system is being used. The player should be compelled to act in a certain manner based upon how the character operates. The player in a sense is an actor, playing a part and working towards a particular objective. This objective is determined by the designer who should be thinking like a novelist: having all events lead to some climax. It is fine to set a specific objective for the player, because the writer/designer of the game should have a strong grasp on what would interest a player to explore the presented value system. The player may not necessarily find out anything new, but they may be able to concretize cause and effect from a different or new perspective. Concretizing abstract principles is in fact what Objectivist aesthetic theory says is the purpose of (good) art, so it seems that an MVS is the way to go in making any interactive art. I'd be interested if anyone has anything to say about interactivity in mediums such as theater. The designer should not even consider the player's existing values unless they are creating an open ended game like Oblivion. In this sort of game, the player has to make all decisions on their own with objectives that are set personally. In this case, it may be valid to consider if the player's chosen value system is boring or no more desire to explore the MVS. The solution, I think, is provide plenty of varying scenarios in which to apply an MVS. I hadn't even thought of having an MMO mimic real life in the sense that stealing will actually permanently remove the item from a player's inventory. It is a great example of player-driven value exploration, as opposed to designer-driven.

But a "date" is still aiming for a goal of romance. If I went with just 1 other friend out to lunch, with the purpose of just getting to know my friend, would that be a date? I would imagine you'd still require a hope for romance to be part of what defines a "date" as opposed to a "meeting". But you also say "Dating can be very natural, casual, and doesn't need to lead immediately to romance - but that is its ultimate purpose," so I don't quite follow what you mean in what I quoted. Says who? It's merely a convention that many people conform to. If the woman "made the move" in *this* situation, I imagine it would be that much easier for the OP to pick which woman he prefers. I don't intend to misrepresent you in saying this, but it seems to me you're suggesting "this is what men do and this is what women do with regards to dating". In my opinion, dating in the sense you are talking about is just a cultural norm. Once you are romantically attracted to someone, it is nice to have personal time with them, but dating in order to discover such a connection is unnecessary, and frankly, it sounds a little boring.

You still, of course, could harvest your own tomato seeds, make your own shovels, use soil from your own property, etc. Money is not required for production (and a rational person wouldn't say money is their primary goal of productive action), but it certainly helps with production.

That's a little inaccurate. It is better to say the government's responsibility is to protect its citizen's rights, not protecting citizens from their own actions or mistakes. If an individual does not have the tools to determine safety and quality, it is probably not in their interest to buy the product. It would make sense to have inspection companies which do have the proper tools, so don't think the government is the only way to verify a product's condition. It could work just like the FDA, except the point is that no company is *forced* to comply with those standards. The standards do not need to (and should not) be legally enforced. Some people honestly don't mind a little more risk than others.

I have thoughts of the beginnings of a way of creating meaningful video games, particularly art games in the vein of Oblivion (sorta) or Bioshock. I have thought of employing what I call a meta value system to create artistic games, but since it is heavily involved with personal values, I felt it appropriate to ask for opinions here rather than just in game design communities. Since a value is what one acts to gain or keep, it is fitting with any interactive medium where an observer acts, so it is not an "aesthetic theory" (I'm not sure if that's the best term to use) limited only to video games. This is something I wrote (with modifications) a few months ago: In a virtual reality, other value systems may be used without real-world repercussions. A player is able to murder a person for saying the wrong word without going to jail. If this decision is contrary to player’s actual value system, the player is using a meta value system (MVS). Since no one holds an identical value system of another person in real life, any value system in a game can be called an MVS. All people are thinkers to some extent, so they will constantly wonder “what if”, particularly regarding an interactive or artistic medium. In real life, people think “what if” but cannot truly test out their thoughts without breaking laws or some existing code of ethics that they may currently hold. But in a game, being immoral according to one’s standard of morality or just acting different will not have any real or long-lasting effects. Consequences of these actions can be understood beyond the immediate point in time, so the MVS can be used as an ethical testing system. Testing out a “what if” in a meaningful way is best done in an interactive medium. The ability to use an MVS is one of the major reasons why a player will play a game, since it is both a means intellectual exercise and entertainment. In order to test out what ifs, the player must begin by devising a value system. The value system consists of individual values and how to acquire those values. Usually, the player will begin to devise their value system based on some initial choices, such as a choice between being a magic class or a defensive class. At this point, a value has been merely chosen. No integrated system has been created. But this choice can lead to other thoughts: “So I picked a thief class. Maybe I could act like an irrational criminal. I know this is bad, but maybe I’ll find out why this is bad. Or maybe I’ll be a self-righteous thief, trying to get back at ‘the man’ for what he stole from me. What would happen if I lived by either value system?” Once a player is posed a choice for a particular course of action, a system of values is formed. It is formed through an active thinking process: “I have the option to destroy a camp of orcs and get a massive amount of gold. I need weapons. I’m a thief class. I thought about being an irrational criminal, and it sounds like that’d be fun, so that is how I will play the game. I’ll go and steal some weapons just because I can.” This is where the framework of an MVS begins. It is a relationship between values and how to acquire them. It is the ultimate “what if” testing system. Again, this is just the beginnings of developing an idea I have, so I'd like to know if anyone disagrees or has opinions in general on "interactive mediums and values" or my MVS.

Are you thinking more text, or a text with a motif? I have no familiarity whatsoever with tattoos, but I would think that if it's just (stylized) text you want, it would look better on your arm somewhere.

I would not say a worthless and complicated invention is an intellectual achievement anyway. A simple invention that makes you a rich man is quite the intellectual achievement. I think attraction is just an emotion-based response to a person's sense of life. I don't think 'femininity' or 'masculinity' really matters. It only matters to the extent that people choose conform to specific gender roles rather than live according to their own values. That is probably the main reason we are having any disagreement. Since I only emphasize sense of life, which is based upon your chosen values, I think we can say if being attracted to something is good or not, just as we can say certain values are bad (say death, religion, collectivism, etc). I think being attracted to musculature is a sort of upside down hierarchy of values. It's not the muscles or physical condition that should matter (I emphasize that I'm talking about attraction to another person here), but intellectual achievement or how that person uses their intellect. That's why I say that having a good sense of style (clothes/hair/maybe body art) should be a standard of attraction.

I think I am actually. I hadn't realized it, but since you pointed it out, I think that is an underlying premise I have. I have more to say, but I'd want to know if you have anything to say about my answer here. You're right, all value depends on the context. I'm only suggesting that the achievement of either is primarily about intellectual achievement is an important part about how valuable something is, probably the most important thing for any rational person, particularly for attraction. Since reason is something *all* people need to survive, I would find a demonstration of intellect to be the most attractive, or at least it ought to be. If only your head grew bigger as you learned more!

I question the value it ought to be in comparison to other intellectual pursuits. I don't mean it is worthless to be in shape, but why does that have to be related to be *attraction* to a person? All people do value different things, but that doesn't mean all people value things rationally. I'm not questioning "Why would being muscular be of value" so much, but "why is being muscular attractive?" I don't see why going beyond being healthy enhances your attractiveness at all. Well yes, if you don't put much effort in it, you wouldn't be attractive in at least how you physically look. But that look is entirely dependent on the person's values. You can't help your metabolism (sometimes), you can't help if your hair is naturally wavy or straight. But you can entirely control your clothes. The whole point of clothes is to look good and demonstrate artistic expression (maybe art isn't the right word, but expression still fits). The point of working out is to maintain your health (if it's to look attractive, I'm already questioning the premise of physical condition being attractive). It does matter though, the intellectual effort of building a skyscraper is different than stacking wooden blocks on top of each other. I would say a skyscraper is of higher value because of the intellectual requirements of making a skyscraper.

I don't think it's so much of an issue "can there be value in it", but why would any (rational) person devote time to physical ability rather than intellectual ability? It is a good thing to be fit, sure, humans are alive after all. Your heart needs to function. But why put a particular strong emphasis on physical ability? Fashion style, hair style and maybe body art (in addition to intellect) are what makes a person attractive to me. Physical condition does not matter to me. I'm not sexually attracted to men, but I'd say a guy in good clothes and other artificial alterations is a whole lot more attractive than any muscular guy. I'm not speaking "ripped", I mean muscular in a traditional sense (like Daniel Craig on the first page). The more I think about it, the less reason I have to consider Craig an attractive man; nothing special about his appearance. Add in some clothes though, and I think he is particularly good looking. Style requires the mind for it to come across as aesthetically pleasing. You can't pick a random set of colors and material and still look good. It requires calculated mental effort on an artistic sort of level. Working out does require mental effort, but I'd argue it does not require as much thought as deciding what to add to your wardrobe.

Nothing wrong with that; I imagine your new ideas are at least related in some way? Say if you liked painting but got into photography. What you learned about painting in that period would provide valuable knowledge about how to think about photography. You're not "starting over" if you begin learning about photography. Even if they are unrelated, that wouldn't matter. You're not going to discover what you want to do by torturing yourself with boredom or unhappiness. You could still learn both of those things while working towards a particular degree if you find that you like a university environment. I didn't mean I started to learn a practical skill, I just discovered new interests due to the topics of a few projects. But I have been recently working on my writing ability, a skill of mine I had neglected to build up that I can apply to many creative fields. It's not so much learning a practical skill as much as it is learning to *do* something better. I wouldn't list fiction writing as practical skill, but it makes me happy.

You seem to be quite confident in saying that your current track of education will be a disappointment. It isn't a tragedy if you decide a university is not the place for you. There are many ways to achieve your goals, don't assume you have to simply "deal with it" and put yourself through something that only makes you unhappy. If you like the school environment, try changing majors. A journalism degree is not the only degree a journalist is allowed to have. I like philosophy, sure, but for me, I'm better off learning that on my own time. I don't need to spend thousands of dollars a year on it. It might be the same for you. If your interests are as broad as mine, maybe it would be worth taking a course in something you might be interested in but don't know anything about. Say, graphic design. I took a course on color+composition last semester, and it helped me discover new interests.

All I would really say is "so what?" If they starve, why do I have to care? Why is the employer obligated to take care of his employees? Obviously, it is ethics based on altruism, as has been stated. Sure, $1.50 isn't enough to live off of, but who cares? If the employees don't like it, then they should quit. After all, if they can't survive as it is, what else is there to lose? And then the employer wouldn't even be able to run his business anymore because he has no more employees. So he either raises wages in order to make it worth working at his factory, or else he will starve too.