Peripeteia

Congratulations!!! Gaining in wisdom is never immoral. Live long and prosper!

Doctor- Yes, many of the premises for God are silly, but continuing belief in and trust in God is called faith. Depending on the person, I have seen faith destroy one person, and yet save build another up and save his life. Do not be afraid of death! Be afraid that you have not accomplished your goals in your life! It is completely your choice.

Thanks!! softwareNerd- I am completely new to Objectivism and haven't even touched a book by Ayn Rand. A tough choice, but I'd have to go with the always-tasty lasagna. JMegan- I first picked up Magic from my older cousin, and have been hooked ever since. Objectivism is (to me) an alternate viewpoint since I have little experience with it, but I am interested in learning more about it, as well as philosophies in general.

DaveOdden- Would you care to start a Fun Fact debate with me? I would really like to elaborate. Your use of the word 'inferior' is vague. Terms such as 'inferior' and 'superior' are opinions. What exactly about Native culture do you find inferior, and at what time period are you refering to? Couldn't someone of Native ancestry become a philosopher or politician through their own cultural principles? There were plenty of Native philosophers and politicians (keeping in mind that my use of 'politicians' means anyone involved in politics and/or government). And couldn't Native philosophers and politicians have come about through adopting, say, Japanese, Chinese or Korean cultural principles? It is true that the Inca did not use writing. However, instead of storing information through symbols on paper or stone, they stored information on strings and knots. In my opinion, this is, in someways, superior to the Western book. If a book gets wet, the paper is ruined, but a quipu gets wet, it is not. And how is writing necessary to an advanced culture? What is your definition of advanced? How coud the Mayans not have approximated that of Europe in the Middle Ages? How were the Mayans brutal to the point that no European could match them save for Hitler and Stalin? I have never heard of Mayan acts of trying to wipe out an entire race of people. Yes, they fought brutal, frequent wars with each other, but so did the Greeks, and just about every other group of city-states. Cesare Borgia seemed pretty brutal. My definition and use of 'rivaled' is probably different from yours, but now that I think about it, Mayan architecture seems closer to Persian than Greek architecture, although I think that in terms of basic design, Sumerian or Babylonian architecture seems even closer.

Mr. Dorfman- There is nothing wrong with learning other things besides your main focus, and it can be very useful. For example, if Dr. Chiill here ultimately gets a job in journalism (I hope you do, Dr.!!), but, eventually is layed off (I hope that does not happen), he will need to seek a new job. If he is unable to find a job in journalism, and is unwilling to flip burgers, he may well find a decent-paying interim job that requires skills in a non-journalism field. Also, even if the people next to you are morons, you can simply ignore them, or look at it as a chance to learn alternate points of view, and thus be able to solidify your own. As to your music prof., shame on him, but, thankfully, every professor is not your music teacher. My comments regarding "Growing in wisdom is never immoral." was directed to Dr. Chiill's question, which asked the morality of community college, and not twords you. Likewise, when I said "Yes, it is near impossible to be taken seriously without a degree", I was answering the Doctor's question. As to the fact that college helps people earn more money - http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883617.html Unless, of course, its all lies by those darn evil profs..... When I said "I have never heard of a medical doctor learning his/her practice in a library", I was critisizing your rather silly claim that "The internet and good libraries have made college largely obsolete; for education, anyhow." You said that you went to college, and learned to speak Portuguese. Congratulations! You also said this was through your own efforts. Naturally, you have to put effort into something that you want to learn. However, I am assuming that you did not learn an entire language with no help whatsoever from the teachers or other students also learning the language. DaveOdden was correct in saying that you made a blanket condemnation,sice you condemned all professors by saying "These bastard professors can't teach you anything you can't learn on your own. But they will make you learn useless garbage that you wouldn't ever waste your time with if you weren't jumping through their hoops to get the coveted degree." Sounds like a blanket condemnation. If you believe that everyone else is lazy, nazi, communist, or out to destroy your life and society and eventually kill and eat you, you will not be able to trust anyone/ hold an intelligent conversation/ walk out the door. If you do run into a biased person, ignore them. Their thoughts can't reach in your head and steal your brain, much less wash it. What sort of foil hat do you wear? Jake Ellison- Yes, it does help my point. At a college, there is (unless it is an exceptionally, exceptionally, bad school) much easier access to learning on the job. Several colleges that I know of are able to get students internships at 1/4 of the cost it would take for a non-student. Dr. Chiill- If you choose to go to college, yes, you will see people with different points of view, porbably including communists and nazis. However, I do not believe that their presence will somehow make you a communist or a nazi. If you happen to run into them, just use the brain you have and ignore them. The same follows for drinking alcohol under the age of 21. You have a choice, and you can simply refuse to drink/ ignore the damn communists. Go for the college.

Jake Ellison- In my thinking, if single person has a right, then that individual person has an individual right. If another person has the same right, then those two people each have that individual right. If each person in that village of fifty has that individual right, then everyone in that village has that right. However, if you believe that a group "does not have the ability to think, make decisions, and take responibility for those actions the way an individual can", how, then, can the entire group be regarded as evil? If five people in that village of fifty commit a crime or do an evil act, how can the other forty-five also be regarded as evil?

DaveOdden- I am utterly and competely baffled when you say that Fun Facts are evil. When I say "Fun Fact" I am talking about a tidbit of information that I happen to find interesting and/or amusing, and I am not at all saying they operate by magic. And no, when I state a fact like the fact that many modern Natives hold degrees, I am not saying that one culture is superior to another. Modern Naive American culture has adapted to the modern world, not completely assimilated by Western culture. You stated that the Olmec/Maya tradition was the only Native culture that could have developed. And the Inca or Iroquois culures couldn't? A system of government isn't a prerequisite for an advanced society, it is a hallmark. You seemed to imply that the Native cultures were inherently more brutal than any European culture, until relatively recently. Well, I suppose that the Roman practice of decimation (one-tenth of an army dies) wasn't that brutal. Also, Socrates regularly drank hemlock smoothies, and the Spartan practice of killing any deformed, weak, or bodily imperfect infants (usually by cliff tossing) was only a fun game. Each human has the capabilities to be cruel and brutal. How many Native Homers were lost to plague? Jake Ellison- Thank you for answering my picture question. I never said that democracy and freedom were one and the same. I am, however, confused by what you said, since you implied that I was simulaneously playing word games and refusing to play them. Could you please elaborate for me? The Pyrimid of the Sun in Mexico, in my opinion, rivals the magnificent Notre Dame cathedral. I am not saying that it is superior, but merely that they are both great engineering feats of the human race. Thales- I understand completely that humans are different from insects. I employed the use of a simile (comparing two things using the words 'like' or 'as'). I was not comparing humans and insects, but rather, I was merely musing on the striking similarities between your casual classification of a whole hemisphere of people as primitive savages, and the way that a taxonomist might classify butterflies into species and subspecies. I am not disparaging the fine field of taxonomy, nor am I suggesting that I believe that you are a taxonomist, unless that is actually your occupation. In an earlier post you said that the United States is headed twords dictatorship, and that the Native Americans were in a comparable situation, and I was wondering if you could elaborate. Now, it amazes me as to how little manners you have/ how little you know about the topic at hand, since despite an earlier answer of mine to Jake Ellison describing several Native countries (not mere tribes), you continue to say that they were "tribes roaming the wilderness", as if repeating it makes it true. Yes, I do understand how advanced the West is, as evidenced by my use of this computer. The Aztecs built temples on a scale that rivaled those of Greece, and the Inca built a road network that rivals that of Rome.

DaveOdden- I was just interested in hearing your opinions. More than enough information. Thanks. Jake Ellison- What I meant is that if two or more people have the same individual rights, then both of them have that right. If each individual in a village of fifty people has an individual right, then all fifty, the whole village, has that right. Keeping in mind that I am wholly unfamilliar with Objectivism and nearly all of your beliefs, does it answer your question?

Mr. Thales- could you please explain to me how Native Americans were headed to a dictatorship/ comparable situation? Please define "primitive", "barbaric", and "savages", and explain to me how an entire hemispere of people can be catagorized like insects as displaying these qualities. Your definitions are surely different than mine, and I am very interested. If Europeans had not made contact with the Americas, do you truly believe that in over five centuries, no developments could have been made? Since Natives are from the Western Hemisphere, shouldn't your use of the word 'West' include them, or were you simply refering to the European-Unites States-Canadian sphere of influence and culture?

Doctor- I implore you to ignore Mr. Dorfman. Professors are not vampires/ boogeymen. Earning an education and gaining in knowledge is always worth it. Growing in wisdom is never immoral. Yes, it is near impossible to be taken seriously without a degree, and yes, college degrees will help you earn more money, which is always a plus. At a college, you will still be able to learn at a library, but with the added benefit of people who know the subject also helping you pursue your intrests. Mr. Dorfman- I have never heard of a medical doctor learning his/her practice in a library.

Mr. Ellison- a tribe, as a political entity, (I will use the definitions used by Jared Diamond, in his book "Guns, Germs, and Steel", which I highly recommend you read) is a group of a few to several hundred people living in one or more fixed settlements sharing a common language, history, religion, and relation, while lacking in a central government, bureaucracy, and formal political offices. Non-tribal Native American nations and countries include, but are not limited to, the Haudenosaunee Confederation (Iroquois), who have the worlds second oldest continually functioning parliament in the world (after the Althing of Iceland), the Wampanoag Confederation, the Aztecs, the Inca, the various Mayan kingdoms, the Cherokee (their first unified, central government came about in 1794), etc. They existed. Just a fact I learned in my history classes and from reading. No, I was not comparing them. I was simply pointing out fun facts about 16th and 17th century England. I happen to enjoy fun facts. So, instead of you coming up with rather rude insults and writing in a condescending manner, let us turn this into a nice conversation, the kind kids and adults both enjoy. I'll talk like a human being with a functioning brain, and invite you do the same. For example- I would say "Have you ever read the book 'Guns, Germs, and Steel'?" to which you would respond "Yes, I have" or "No, I have not" or something of the like. The Industrial Revolution, NASA, Human Genome Project (genome has an "e") and the other wonderful testaments to our modern technological advancement that you mentioned, came about through European advantages in geography/ after European-American supremacy in the world. For example- Euorpe is home to swine, cattle, horses, oxen, and a host of other large, domesticated animals. The Americas had the llama, turkey, dog, and guinea pig. Due to the Euorpean habit of living in close proximity to livestock, diseases jumped from animals to humans. Over time, each generation became more and more resistant to the diseases, whilist the Natives had no cantact with European livestock and thus had no immunity. I thought that the Athenian Assembly (a direct democracy) was the first to value the individual and protect his/her freedom above all else, many centuries before the Declaration was written. Westerners also have a cure for Ergotism, which many Europeans thoght was spells cast by witches. Salem, anyone? By the way, you never did answer my question about your picture. Mr. Thales- Which super-free European society were you refering to? Oliver Cromwell's military dictatorship of Irish massacre fame? The monarchies of France or Spain? Or perhaps the Russian feudal system? Mr. Odden- A long question, but I'll do my best to answer it. Philosophy- a book called "American Indian Thought: Philisophical Essays". I have not read the book, but I assume that it is a collection of essays by Native philosophers. Mathematics- the Mayan calendar and independent invention and use of zero demonstrates a deep understanding of mathematics. Literature- Many Native myths and legends hve great literary merit. The Sauk chief Blackhawk, along with many others, published autobiographies. There is a Native American Authors Project online, listing writers and playwrights. Physics- There is a book by F. David Peat called "Blackfoot Physics". I have never read it, but I assume it has someting to do with the topic. Economics- Many Native cultures used currency, such as the Iroquios wampum. Engineering- Mexico's Pyrimid of the Sun and Serpent Mound in Ohio are great feats of engineering. Music- The Navajo had complex music, often making use of repetition (similar to the Gregorian chant) and wide ranges in pitch. Politics- As I stated above, the Iroquois have the second oldest running parliament. Many groups, such as the Cherokee, elect their own government. Congressman Tom Cole (R-OK) is a member of the Chickasaw nation. Former Vice President Charles Curtis was 1/8th Osage. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (D/R-CO) served in the U.S Senate. Also, there are bound to be modern people of Native ancestry holding degrees in the aforementioned subjects.

Salve!/ Guten Tag!/ Bonjour!/ Hello there! I am 15 years old, and as the title suggests, live in Chicago. I joined this site a few days ago because I am interested in alternate points of view. Hobbies and intrests of mine include, but are not limited to, swimming, hiking, soccer, writing, playing X-box, sleeping, Magic the Gathering, string theory, politics, and pasta. Also, I have a pet cat.

An army, (pick any nation you want, it does not matter) marches into Nome, Alaska, and burns down three homes. In one home lived a husband and wife in a loving relationship, who live with and take care of their son, who is afflicted with Down Syndrome. In the second home lived an old man, with a personal motto of "I will give only to those who give to me.", and who is a hermit and never did anything with, for, or even remotely associated with his neighbors or relatives. In the third house lived a chronic liar and a thief. My question is, in your view, whose rights are violated? Are the rights of only those who are now homeless violated by the army, or have the rights of all those living in the city, state, or country been violated? Does the liar-thief's actions somehow exempt his rights? If the rights of all those living in the city, state, or country have indeed been violated, since each entity is a collection of all of individuals residing in it, each of whom has been violated, then, therefore, has the rights of the city, state, or country been violated?

As a Scout myself, I advise you to finish. You have come all this way. There is no sense in wasting it. There is nothing for you to lose, and many things that will be gained.

In this debate, I must agree with themadkat and Maximus against Rand's and Bowen's misconceptions. Attempting to declare an entire hemisphere as barbarians, primitives, and savages with no conception of law or humanity is patently ludacris. Native Americans did not live in a pristine wilderness, untouched by human hands. They actively molded and shaped their world to suit their needs, just as all other humans do. In the Pacific Northwest, due to an abundance of marine and forest sources of food, and lack of practical crops to grow, farming was rarely neccesary. In some eyes, this may be deemed primitive, but it was the best way of life they were able to build given their geography. To claim that Western European culture was simply superior to Native culture is also a misguided, silly notion. Although some Natives believing that rocks had souls seems silly, at the same time in England, bathing was considered superflurious and it was belived that witches were casting spells on them. Also, why did Bowen put the word nations in quotation marks? I assume it denotes sarcasm, as if he were claiming that there were no Native nations or countries, another dangerous and foolish misconception.

Zip- when I said "republican form of government", I meant any type of represenative government, whether it be the United States Congress, the Canadian Parliament, or the Senate of Ancient Rome, but I would be interested in hearing what you think it should be called. Although a small, unicameral legislature in a unitary state may be less beuracratic, wouldn't that also mean that government could be courrupted much more easily? With a bicameral legislature, if one body is courrupted, the other may not be. In the United States Congress, in the House of Represenatives, seats are given (very) roughly proportionately to each state based on its population, whereas the Senate gives each state an equal voice with two seats. In essence, in the United States, we need a majority of majorities to govern. (The United States President is actually elected indirectly, by an Electoral College, awarded to whomever wins a plurality of a state's votes, allowing for situations where winning the popular vote does not always equal victory). And yes, here in the United States, we also have uneven vote ratios. For example, the states of Montana, population 970,000, and Wyoming, population 494,000 are each given given one seat in the House of Represenatives, making a Wyoming vote nearly twice as valuable as a Montana vote. I'm confused by what you mean pertaining to roads, medicine, and monetary policy, but I suppose that is better left for another debate, time, or topic. Also, since your name is Zip, do you use Miracle Whip? Just wondering. John McVey- Wow. Do you regularly think of governments (as I do often) or did you form it as a response to a question? You've put in a lot of effort.

From the Objectivist point of view, what form of legislature (assuming that you, as I do, believe in a republican form of government) is best? A parliament or a congress? Does it reach descisions by majority vote or unanimity? Unicameral, bicameral, or even tricameral? How many members, how are they elected, and what are their powers?

It is hard to beat Buchanan for the worst United States President. It is one thing to erode your nation with incompetence (George W. Bush) or with secretiveness and acting like a jerk (Richard Nixon), but it is an entirely different matter to do nothing and simply watch your nation waste away. Taylor, Fillmore, and Pierce are included in this category. John Tyler also deserves shameful regegnition for being the only President to commit treason, supporting the Confederacy and becoming elected to the Confederate House of Represenatives.

The reason that I chose Mongolia was simply because it is a nation with a low population density, and because Mongolia is a fun word to say. Canada would have worked just as well. Your basic argument (as far as I understand) is that if an area of land is unused and unowned, it may be rightfully taken. Although, by whom may the land be taken? May it be claimed by an individual, a family, a city, or even another nation? In your view, if there is an unused, abandoned warehouse in Toronto, may it be rightfully annexed by the United States? Also, is that a picture of Charlie Chaplin, Hitler, or Mark Twain? Just wondering.

1. POPULATION- Losing 90% of a population does tend to thin out an area. North of the Rio Grande in 1491, there were in fact millions of Native Americans, with sizeable towns (although few exceeded more than a few thousand, mostly due to geography and available technology). 2. PROPERTY RIGHTS- Many Native nations, such as the Narragansett and the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) had fixed borders and governments. (interesting to note, the Iroquois have the second oldest continually running parliament in the world, after the Althing of Iceland. 3. MORALITY- To claim that Native Americans were brutal twords each other, that is true. However, the notion that Natives were moral-less people acting brutally twords themselves is akin to saying that the 100 years' War in Europe between France and England was a case of moral-less Europeans acting brutally twords themselves. Native Americans did not view themselves as one people any more than we (I live on this side of Earth, and I naively assume the rest of you do too) view ourselves as Western Hemispherians. I would reccomend reading Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond, as well as 1491 by Charles C. Mann. Very helpful. So the question I ask is this- scince Mongolia has a very relatively low population density, and much of the land is not specifically owned by any one person, does that mean that Mongolia is up for grabs? (my personal opinion is no, it is not up for grabs)