tommyedison
-
Posts
543 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by tommyedison
-
-
Just read the essay. Very Nice Mimpy!
Congrats on the award. You deserve it.
-
It does? So "turn the other cheek" belongs to some other ideology?
Well that's just it! One of the values of Christianity is to love the enemy. So "turn the other cheek" is a part of the values you are fighting for.
-
Have you read Victor Hugo?
Yes I have. Not Les Miserables though I've seen the film. I've read "The Hunchback of Notre Dame".
Heck, there's a big coincidence in Atlas Shrugged when Dagny runs across the tramp on the train and he tells her the story of the 20th Century.That is not a coincidence. Ms. Rand is setting up a situation. If you call that a coincidence, you can call pretty much the whole book a coincidence. Infact, in Atlas Shrugged, every situation relevant to the plot is solved by the ACTIONS taken by the heroes, NOT by random chance or coincidence. For example, you don't see John Galt and others quitting because of divine inspiration or random decisions, do you? For example, you don't see John quitting because he is angry at the way the politicians restricting the freedom of his fellow citizens and just happens to cause the death of altruism in AS! Dagny does not refuse to quit in the middle of the book because of random chance or coincidence. All this happens because of the fundamental premises the heroes hold. They think, decide and act on the basis of those premises which is what advances the plot and resolves every tense situation in the book. Things don't just HAPPEN in AS. They happen because of a reason - because of the actions of the heroes - and the villains.
Compare this to Harry Potter.
Right from the beginning things are just happening to Harry Potter. His decision to not kill or stun Stan Shunpike (which almost costs him his and Hagrid's life) is a purely emotional one. His whole insecurity about Dumbledore in the beginning just because he read an article and pieces of a book written by a known hype-rouser and well, liar - showing him as totally immature and irrational. But this is just the beginning.
They go to Sirius' house and there Harry finds out who RAB was (this is not a coincidence). But later when he gives the Black locket to Kreacher, Kreacher "reforms". I just couldn't believe that scene. So an elf who has helped in the murder of Sirius Black suddenly is friendly towards a Half-Blood and a Muggle Born after an entire life of hatred towards them? And that too after he has been given a locket belonging to a family which worshipped pure-blood? This is clearly a Christian influence.
Moving on towards the infiltration of the Ministry of Magic by Harry et al. Harry manages to get the locket and escape the Ministry of Magic by stunning Umbridge and Yaxley. But he doesn't do it to get the locket. Oh no, he does it because he's feeling angry that Umbridge is shouting at the woman. Everything is caused by feelings and instincts (a fact repeatedly emphasized throughout the book) and not on the basis of reason. That Harry manages to escape is purely chance - a coincident because Harry is not you know setting a goal and working towards it. Everything is working randomly in the favor of Harry. BTW, what's even more outrageous about this scene is that the only reason they get into trouble is because Harry took Mad-eye's eye from Umbridge's door. I mean how could he risk the success of the mission and the lives of the muggle-borns in the building (I thought he was supposed to be a selfless altruist?)? And what's his reason? He felt like it (Actual words are "He couldn't just leave it there").
If you've seen National Treasure or Back to the Future or Dr. No, things don't happen because the heroes are working on vague feelings. The heroes don't get away by accident - they don't achieve anything by accident. They work towards achieving their goals. In National Treasure, Cage plans every step of his adventure. Cage doesn't just stumble upon the treasure. He focuses on solving the clues with the ultimate goal of treasure in mind. He doesn't focus on you know, whining and raging about the villain and bickering with his partners and accidentally lands up with the treasure.
In Back to the Future Part 1, Marty doesn't just accidentally save his own existence and go back to the future. He looks at the facts of reality and decides what he has to do. He doesn't for example focus on saving the girl next door and by accident, it just happens that he saves his own future.
In Dr. No, Bond is not trying to save an employee under Dr. No and accidentally ends up defeating Dr. No.
Moving on with Harry Potter, Harry goes to Godric's hollow and his wand breaks. Why does he go to the Hollow - not because he has to find the Horcrux, no Voldemort is going to relax and wait until Harry makes him mortal again and then is going to commit suicide or so Harry thinks. I mean he doesn't even acknowledge the danger of the situation he is in - no concentration on what his goal should be AT ALL. He goes to Hollow just to see his parents' graves - doesn't matter that he could have asked Dumbledore to take him there when Dumbledore was alive or he could have gone there after defeating Voldemort. And what's the purpose of the Hollow? Apparently just to malign Dumbledore and get Harry's wand broken.
Going on to the recovery of the Gryffindor sword. How does Harry retrieve the sword? Not because of his own thinking and actions but because Snape is kind enough to virtually give it to him. And then Ron just happens to arrive to save him. And then he asks Ron to break the Horcrux because of instinct (the word is explicitly mentioned in the novel). And then JKR had to add the Riddle-Harry and Riddle-Hermione kissing at which point I'm starting to think I'm reading a very badly written and cliched fan fiction influenced by C.S. Lewis rather than an actual Harry Potter book.
And after this how does Harry find the rest of the horcruxes? Well because Voldemort apparently forgot there was a connection between his and Harry's brain and simply recited the locations of the horcruxes. It was so poorly plotted and so anti-climactic. This is a problem that runs along the entire book as I've shown above. Every problem, every situation is resolved by an act of God where the God can be chance or Dumbledore.
And then the literally evil speeches by Dumbledore. These speeches are NOT the type Victor Hugo would have written. Hugo would never have written that - paraphrasing - Dumbledore had his hand blackened by the ring because he was not worthy of the hallows. This is the type of tripe I have heard from rotten religious priests and barbaric Christian mystics, not by Hugo (who was deeply religious) nor by other authors (like Shakespeare or Enid Blyton, etc.) all of whom were Christians and explicitly selfless. Not to mention the graphic detail in which Harry's self-sacrifice is described. Or how Harry tries to make Voldemort feel remorse (I expect if Voldemort had felt remorse Harry would have probably forgiven him).
Lastly, Voldemort is shown so stupid in this book. I mean he somehow seems to have forgotten that there is a connection between his and Harry's mind. Why isn't he after the contents of the prophecy? Harry explains how using the Elder Wand to him would backfire. He explains everything. And yet Voldemort has to use Avada Kedrava. As Mister Swig said, apparently he couldn't just ram a pitchfork into Harry. I mean he could have used someone else's wand. Why the hell does he have to use the Elder Wand after Harry has told him that he could face trouble in killing Harry with the Elder Wand?
BTW, and how does Harry acquire mastery over the Elder Wand. Not because he learns of its properties and exerts his effort into obtaining that mastery. It just happens that Draco got mastery from Dumbledore after disarming him and Harry got mastery from Draco previously in the book. Again a result by chance, not by choice. Harry didn't base his actions on acquiring the elder wand. It just happened to land in his hands.
Coincidence as such is not such a big deal in a story.It does?Coincidence in the way I've described above completely destroys a story or a novel. You read fiction because it gives you a vision of life could be and ought to be (a fact shown in the essays of Aristotle and Ayn Rand). Coincidences are not the rule of life. In human life, virtually everything that happens happens because one took action towards making it happen. If in a fiction novel, everything is ruled by chance, the heroes are riding purely on luck, then the fiction is completely inapplicable to human life. It is purposeless.
Even Ayn Rand was against coincidence. She said so in one of her articles on Romanticism or in her Q&As, can't remember which.
-
It's not just the explicit ideas but the characterization, the actions and the psychology I'm criticizing. You don't get that sense of elation, the feeling of intelligent action, the reverence for man in this novel as you day in say Victor Hugo (whose explicit ideas are very bad but whose sense of life was great). Everything just happens by chance and coincidence, the events in the novels are not directed by the heroes' choices but by chance and luck.
As for fighting for your own values, even Christianity tells you to fight for your values but it's hardly a selfish philosophy.
-
The new novel is a Christian tract.
Right from the explicit ideas which
Dumbledore recounts to Harry after Harry has been "pseudo-killed" - and you really have to read to believe that JK Rowling would right such trash
to the characterization of Harry and his gang.
Read the whole encounter with the patronus doe and retrieving the sword from the lake - explicit emphasis that its feelings and instincts guiding Harry rather than his own mind. Or Harry's decision to go to Godric's hollow not because of the mission but because of seeing the grave of his parents (For one who seems so eager to sacrifice himself for others, why is he not working on obtaining the horcruxes and killing Voldy so that people's lives are saved rather than spending a sappy outing in the Hollow? And Ron leaving the gang because they are having difficulty getting any leads to destroying horcruxes?? There is much more like this which I can't recall at the moment.
And the Christian philosophy is really consistent throughout the book
what with Snape's redemption and Kreacher's whole act of turning good because he was granted his whim of keeping a trinklet of the Black family of hate
?
The psychology of the characters is totally off. The novel is profoundly unromantic.
-
The "text of the bill" link points to a bill introduced in 2005, not this year's bill.
-
Why is it fair that one guy is born with a 150 IQ and another guy an 80 IQ?
What evidence do you have that IQ is innate?
-
Nevertheless, if ideas are important, then they must be manifesting themselves in the real world. Perhaps more people going to church, more people willing to vote to curtail their neighbor's freedoms, or -- if nothing else -- more people beginning to read the books that suggest these things.
True and I think it is being manifested given the popularity of faith-based books ("Left Behind", "Purpose driven Life", etc.), faith based movies ("Passion of the Christ"), faith based music (some evidence of this provided by Dr. Peikoff in his '04 statement), Bible Camps, etc.
So, it is disintegrative to say: ignore the stats and look at the philosophy.I agree. What I meant was that it is wrong to base one's conclusions only on statistics or some out-of-context anecdotes. For instance a lot of arguments, both for and against Dr. Peikoff's statement, have consisted of something like this:
orI meet with mystical Christians everyday. They are very dangerous. One should vote Democrat.The Christians around me are VERY this worldly. They have that American sense of life. Theocracy is simply impossible in America because America will not go for itor
or"47% support teaching of creationism. However the number was 49% a decade ago". This is evidence that a Christian theocracy is not in the car.We had bad laws like anti-abortion before. Just because Christians are hammering for these laws again does not mean we will have a theocracy. It will be essentially a return to the non-objective law we had in the past. In the past we had no theocracy therefore in the future we will have no theocracy.Such out of context arguments are not any evidence for or against the possibility of a theocracy or Dr. Peikoff's statement. This is what I was arguing against.
I think the type of stats that Diana presented on her blog are fairly meaningful and need to be integrated into one's judgement.I am not saying they are totally useless. What I am saying is that they by themselves shouldn't be taken as evidence for or against voting for Democrats.
If one makes an error in judging who the real leaders of the GOP are, who is crafting their agenda, how they are changing their philosophy and who will win in the long run, is that a philosophical error?Does it matter who is crafting the agenda of the GOP? The important point, I think, here is that a very evil philosophy and consequently evil policies are being advocated by the M2s in the GOP who have been supported by the M1s and not opposed at all by the pragmatists. If these guys are kept in power, they will weaken the principle of the separation of the church and state (which will be much more harmful in the long run than any threat posed by the Muslims as it will pave the way for a theocracy) and they will destroy the meaning of military offense and small government by package dealing those phrases with an immoral agenda.
If ideas determine the course of history, then I don't see how it is not an error to think that the GOP (which is advocating fundamental evil ideas) will not do much more harm than the Democrats by spreading evil ideas. If Christianity keeps getting ever larger funding from the state, it will massively accelerate the spread of Christian philosophy. Electing the Democrats will delay this which will give more time to change the culture.
Either way, I do not consider my vote to be a big deal -- there are many things that are far more important if the battle is philosophical.The concrete effect of one vote may not be that important. But one side in this debate over the elections is committing a philosophical error. And since the battle is philosophical, I think it is extremely important to identify which side is committing the error and what is the error.
-
Hm. This thread is very interesting.
Are you guys saying that between a house full of Victor Hugos and a house full of Hillary Clintons, you would vote the latter? [Hugo was a Christian socialist, as the Republicans are being essentially characterised, hence my use of his name here].
Hugo and Republicans are complete opposites - at least in terms of sense of life. Victor Hugo, had he become president, would never have implemented a full-fledged dictatorship. I don't think the comparison between Hugo and the Republicans is very apt.
-
What, no mention of me? I said the same thing as Diana Hsieh about the meaning of Dr. Peikoff's statement, several days before.
Oops! Sorry. It's just that I read Mrs. Hsieh's post last so that stayed in my mind. But thanks for your help too.
Just to be clear, what is your judgement now? Was Dr. Peikoff saying that those who do not vote for Democrats are not immoral, but do not understand philosophy?This was what I posted on NoodleFood
At any rate, in regards to the concrete issue of voting for Republicans vs. Democrats, I fully support voting Democrat. The reason is that the Republicans are explicitly using Christian principles to justify a variety of anti-life measures like anti-abortionism, censorship, etc. Once the principle that what God wish is a moral imperative is accepted, the rest is just a matter of time. The Democrats by contrast have no principles to support their actions and are thus powerless culturally.As an aside, although I don't know of Dr. Peikoff's reasoning, I would suspect that he wouldn't say that those who vote Republican or don't vote have no understanding of Objectivism based solely on his DIM hypothesis (which he knows most have not heard) as has been implied by some on The Forum. I think he is correct in his judgment because Objectivists are too easily ignoring the principles being advocated by the Republicans (faith in God being used to justify government funding of religion, anti-abortion, censorship, creationism, Forward Strategy of Freedom, etc.). If this principle is accepted, then a theocracy is just a matter of time.
Are you saying that anyone who abstains from voting or who votes for someone other than a Democrat is almost certainly making a philosophical error rather than some other type of error: e.g. an error in judging the composition of the two parties, or an error about the extent and speed of likely future change, and so on?I think it is a philosophical error. It is ideas which determine the course of history, of a country - not the exact approval rating of a born-again president at some point of time, or the exact percentage of people supporting Bible-based laws at a given time, or the number of people supporting censorship of obscenity at a given time (not implying that you are basing your judgment on such facts). These are mere concretes which are trumped by ideas in the long run.
The entire agenda of the Republican party follows from Christian principles. The Republican Party is explicitly basing its agenda on Christian principles - even its agenda for war (Bush:"God told me to do it"). Once this principle is accepted, the rest is a matter of time. As for the sense of life of Americans, for one thing, a sense of life can't survive without an explicit philosophy. Secondly, just like the American sense of life could not prevent FDR's new deal, it will not be enough to prevent a Christian theocracy - provided that there is any remnant of a rational sense of life left in people by then.
Further, keeping the Republicans in power will mean that even more government money will be channeled into Churches which will accelerate the spread of the ideas of Christianity. In addition, the Republicans, especially Bush have become agents of conceptual corruption by putting some phrases like "national security", "national sovereignty", "small government", etc. into their speeches while meaning something completely different by them.
For instance, when Bush advocates "national security" and then proceeds to wage altruistic wars which endanger the US, he completely corrupts the concept of national security. The effect is that a large amount of people who would otherwise be willing to wage total war think that war cannot bring victory.
Brother, you have nailed it down perfectly! I'm saving that quote!Thank you though I think the proper credit goes to Dr. Peikoff, John Lewis et al.
-
There is also the idea out there that if we vote all Democratic, then the Democrats will impose their socialism/environmentalism/multiculturalism on us. To which I respond: so what? They have already imposed much of that on us. Anything more the Democrats could accomplish in today's culture would pale in comparison to allowing the evangelicals to further unite church and state. I would rather live in something like socialist England or Europe than watch the Dark Ages of Christianity return to the West. And they will indeed return if we don't maintain the separation of church and state long enough to counter the Christian revolution.
True enough. In regard to the environmentalism of the Democrats, I would like to point out that their environmentalism has not been integrated into an explicit philosophy the way Christianity has been in regards to the Republicans. By this I mean that the Democrats don't have an explicit epistemological base for their environmentalism. The Republicans do propound an explicit epistemological base for their Christianity - faith. This is why the Republicans can do much more harm in the long run - because they are advocating a fundamental idea while the Democrats are quibbling over some concretes and in the long run it is the ideas which win.
And Islamic terrorism is not that big a danger to the United States as pro-Republican people (Objectivist or otherwise) are making of it nor will the Republicans do a better job of handling it because even in the worst case scenario of a nuke exploding in a major city, it would kill at most around 1 million. It will be horrible but having a Christian theocracy in the US will be infinitely worse. Secondly, the Republicans have not made us safer from terrorism. They have made us 100 times more vulnerable. Witness the surge of Islamic radicalism in Palestine, Iraq, Iran, etc. after Bush. The Republicans simply cannot fight Islam because they share with it their fundamental principles - faith, sacrifice, statism, etc.
-
I previously in this thread interpreted Dr. Peikoff's statement as implying that those who do not vote for Democrats are immoral. After thinking it through, and reading Dr. Peikoff's post again as well as Mrs. Hsieh's excellent post, I would apologize for my previous statements. Although I still think that Dr. Peikoff's statement could have been better worded, given the amount of work he has done in Objectivism and his understanding of it, I should have examined his statement more thoroughly and given him the benefit of doubt.
-
Why so many self-professed Objectivists take the short term view that Republicans e.g. won't raise taxes, favor economic freedom, will pro-actively prosecute the war against Islam etc. (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary besides) as the primary issues of this election, is a question that is best left to their therapists, when it is obvious that what is at stake is the long-term survival of a society of reason.
While I think that many O'ists are taking a short term view of the situation, don't you think this could simply be an honest mistake? Why does it have to be NECESSARILY immoral?
It is not easy to predict how much will the vote this November push this country towards theocracy.
-
Don't you understand the difference between a demanding standard and a statement that calls for the stifling of individual thought?
Although I agree with Dr. Peikoff's analysis of the current political scenario, I think that his charges of immorality and "no understanding of O'ism" should have required some serious justification. It wouldn't have been a problem if these strong statements had been backed up with some reasoning i.e. an explanation as to why one is necessary immoral and/or has no understanding of O'ism if one disagrees with Dr. Peikoff.
But as presented, these charges are wrong and if taken literally, do imply that if you do not agree with Dr. Peikoff, you are not an Objectivist (O'ist being someone who understands and practices O'ism).
-
Note: I originally wrote "primacy of consciousness" here. I realized my error later.
If my understanding is correct, intrincism too is based on the "primacy of consciousness". Intrincism is disguised subjectivism because it is ultimately based on whims rather than reality.
-
Some statistics and information on the evangelicals (Link). The article says that there are over 60 million people who say that they are "born again" and experience a daily personal relationship with God.
More info - Link
There is definitely a growing secular-religious schism in America.(insert civil war 2 predictions here)
I doubt that the left (which constitutes a large part of the secular group) will fight a war. It will most likely give in. The most likely scenario, barring a revolution of ideas, IMO is a theocracy instituted by vote.
-
I don't understand why a woman qua woman could not want to be President. Why does a man not find it psychologically repugnant to be the President for the same reasons a woman does? Ayn Rand's reasoning here (or, at least, the bits and pieces of it that I've seen) seem to contradict much of what Objectivism is about. Can someone clear this up?
Ayn Rand is making a statement on psychology in the article on a Woman President so I don't think it can be considered a part of her philosophy Objectivism. You don't have to agree with her. There are many Objectivists who don't.
See also this previous thread - Link
-
P.S. "Ozzie" is a really funny name to me.
Yeah, reminds be of Buzz Lightyear and the Land of Oz.
-
And I do enjoy your McCarthy-like stereotype that anyone who is against your view must be a communist.
Not to speak for GreedyCapitalist but how exactly do you infer that he thinks everyone who doesn't agree with him is a communist?
Given your other posts here, I would like to ask you your purpose of coming to this forum.
This forum is for students of Objectivism wanting to learn more about her philosophy -- not a place for propagating philosophies other than Objectivism or for making posts void of intellectual content.
* This site supports discussion of, first, the principles of Objectivism, as defined by the works of Ayn Rand and supported by the Ayn Rand Institute; and, second, their application to various fields. Therefore participants must not use the website to spread ideas contrary to or unrelated to Objectivism. Examples include religion, communism, "moral tolerationism," and libertarianism. Honest questions about such subjects are permitted. However, since the focus of this forum is the philosophy of Objectivism, such questions are not encouraged.* This forum will not tolerate posts which contain personal insults or are otherwise devoid of intellectual content. Examples of personal insults include: (a) sarcastic comments directed at a particular person's character, and (
accusations of irrationality or immorality.If you want to present a case for your philosophy, you may do so in the Debate Forum here.
-
Interest is a concern or regard for something. Self-Interest is a concern or regard for one's self.
I think you misinterpreted me. I meant to ask, what is the distinction between "One's Own Interest" and "Self-Interest".
-
So all those religious people and altruists out there, according to their philosophy, are not moral? Not according to reality or Objectivism, but according to them.
Oops! I meant to say factuality instead of morality.
Don't start calling me relativists either, I'm not.I didn't pass any moral judgement. If I implied otherwise, I apologize.
Getting back to the other point, whether selfishness is the same as self-interest, Rand has the definition concern with one's own interests VOS's later essays, and you, are now taking it to concern with one's self-interest or as it's been said several times in this thread best interest. One's own interest can be simply making money. One's self-interest is making money honestly. There is a difference.I'm confused now. How is one's own interest different from self-interest?
A definition isn't defined by a philosophy. It is defined by facts of reality. The method is provided by the philosophy.
As for the definition of selfishness, it means concern with one's self-interest. What else can it mean?
-
I disagree. Only under Objectivist philosophy can he be considered to be not acting in his long term interest.
And how?
I think, by saying that it is philosophy which decides whether a person is acting in his long term self interest or not, you are divorcing concepts from facts.
Consider the meaning of selfishness. Selfishness is a concept, which means an integration, induced from the facts of reality. Thus, whether a person is or is not selfish, depends on his actions (facts of reality), not the specific philosophy he follows. Just because, people can't understand that a person is acting against his long term self-interest does make it a fact.
Now consider the implications if your view was true. It would mean that the facts of reality and thus the morality of an action would be decided by the philosophy a person holds. How did that person get that philosophy? Your viewpoint would be unable to answer that. You would in effect be substituting primacy of consciousness for the primacy of existence because then there would be no rational basis to distinguish the true from the false since the true and the false would depend on one's philosophy.
-
Let me ask you this, considering Rand's definition and statement in the intro to VOS where she says "selfishiness" does not include a moral evaluation, do you agree with her? (btw, this is the definition which I go by now) According to her definition there, an honest business man would be selfish just as a dishonest business man who charges for work not done, there is no moral evaluation being done. This was the stance of my statement that there is a difference between selfishness and self-interest.
By a moral evaluation, I think she meant that solely on the basis of definition, one cannot say that selfishness is moral/immoral just as solely on the basis of the definition of altruism we cannot say anything about its morality.
It is the task of ethics to answer questions such as why one needs a code of morality and what is good and evil. A definition simply defines the term, which means, it simply singles out the essential characteristic of the term.
As for the dishonest businessman, solely on the basis of definition, one can say that he is not selfish (he is not acting in his long term interest) but one cannot say that he is immoral. It is only with the knowledge of ethics can one condemn the dishonest businessman as immoral.
-
How do you change the Category:Cults article? I can't seem to change it.
Edit: Found the answer.
Enjoyable Movies
in Movies, Shows, and Theatre
Posted · Edited by tommyedison
My favorites
Back to the Future I, II and III
National Treasure
Dr. No
Movies I find enjoyable but are not favorites
Harry Potter and Philosopher's Stone
Harry Potter and Chamber of Secrets
Rocky I, II, III
Pirates of Caribbean I, III
Kate & Leopold
Project A, Part I