Saurabh

Thanks Grames. Now the question is if he intended to make this point, why did he write the previous statement? See below: He could have simply written the subsequent statement which you have pointed out. May be I am splitting hairs here. But, I was wondering if he meant that unless a reason for is--> ought is given it is inconceivable to acccept this transition.

Jackethan, All I am interested in is knowing where exactly in his quote (captured in my original post) does he make this point? I can't seem to figure it out - may be due to his language... I belive that this quote is the only source where Hume has made any comment on is-ought problem..

Hi all, I came across the is-ought dichotomy recently, and it appears that there is just one paragraph from one of Hume's writings that mentions his position on the matter. See below: It appears that it is from this paragraph that people have concluded that Hume meant that an 'is' cannot imply an 'ought'. May be I am not understand Hume's language well - but I do not see which lines in Hume's para convey the above meaning. All I gather is that he expects that an ought "..shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given..", when one is jumping from an is to an ought. Can anyone throw some light? Thx!

Guys, Thanks for your suggestions. Based on your suggestions, I have already looked at Business examples, Dr Vilayanur, Lie to me, etc. I will also look at other examples suggested (e.g. Inherit the Wind, etc). Thanks again!

Yeah - business world will have good examples..Thx! Since this audience is Indian kids (and not very highly aware of western Phiosophers), I want to avoid using examples of Aristotle, etc. They will better relate to Buddha. And as I read Buddha's biography (by Deepak Chopra), I see instance where he applies CT. I am interested in specific/isolated instances, at this point. So, I will even use examples of intellectuals whose Philosophical system I may not agree with.

Hi all, I am about to launch a University-level course in Critical Thinking. This course will help me promote the Virtue of Rationality (The basic virtue under Objectivism). For this, I am looking for some good examples that could make the course more exciting. These examples could be in any of the categories below: Specific instances of Path-breaking Men showing Critical Thinking (e.g. Buddha, Darwin ) Fiction/Movies that capture Critical Thinking (e.g. 12 angry men) Any other source of info that I could use (e.g. a book, article, etc) I just wanted to check with members on this forum for any suitable examples that I could use. Please let me know. Thanks! Saurabh

TLD, My question's context was in the realm of Production. (I have got a very good reply already from 2046). 2046, Many thanks for your reply. It is indeed very helpful. Also, I am amazed at how you can recall the actual page numbers as well! Thanks again guys!

Hi, I am interested in knowing Objectivism's position on 'Competing with Others'. I vaguely remember John Galt saying (in AS) that he does not enter into Competitions. I also have a vague sense that AR says that Life is not a Zero-Sum Game so, human beings need not compete with each other. But, all the above are vague impressions. Can anyone point me any specific source? Thanks! Saurabh

May be you are right. But I will still reach out to him someday. I sensed lot of pain and genuineness in his eyes, on a youtube video. And I am aware of the human cognitive biases as well. So, I would not form an opinion on him based on one or two dots. Nevertheless, even if a negative opinion gets formed over time - one can still persuade an intelligent person. At least the rules of the game would be known with such a person. Indian saints used to do Philosophical debates among each other in ancient times. The rules of the game were: We will use logic to argue, and whoever looses would become a convert.

SN, My point is that it is not Spreading that is required. What is needed is Penetration...

Sure - I would approach this in a cold rational manner. I am not emotionally (irrationally) attached to the idea. I will reach out to him when I am ready (could be in 1-2 years or before). Meanwhile, if anyone else is also interested and serious about the matter, please feel free to reach out to me - or even to point out any flaw/contradiction in my approach.

The battle of ideas ain't going to be easy... A rational and purpose-driven person would not get deterred by the difficulty of the task. My in-going hypothesis will be: "He is a smart man. So, why would he not listen to logic? Now, only if I collect strong evidence that he is irrational and incorrigible, would I stop. But, let me reach out to him and check.." I have a vague feeling that lot of people hate him just because he is so smart...

Exactly. I would also add that this is one of the two things needed. The second thing being - the application of a high level of Intellect. I will elaborate on this piece in future, as I develop my thinking further. My objective is to see how consulting (e.g. McKinsey, etc) business problem-solving skills can be applied to solving problems at Societal and Individual level. The first step is to identify the nature (root causes) of the problem. The problem in this case being: the less-than-desired dominance of Objectivism in the world.

One can argue with him and try to convince him why Individual Freedom is a virtue. Actually, this is the kind of effort that may make sense for an Objectivist to make.. If he still sticks to his position illogically then we can ignore him.

My point was different. I meant using high-IQ people to build a better case for Objectivism - not to use their name to sell existing arguments. AR was a genuis. She was able to make amazing theories. Similarly, another genuis can take Objectivism further. He could do the following: - Use his Knowledge and Intellect to build more theories (e.g. similar to AR's theory on 'Why does Russia has most chess Grand Masters', similar to her Theory of concepts, etc) - Attack all existing wrong Philosophies in the world, based on his Knowledge (e.g. I have not seen any Objectivist addressing Indian Philosophies. Mostly people talk about Plato and Aristotle) - Apply better conceptual integrations (e.g. show people how their lives have worsened due to irrational behavior) - Do some of the things AR wanted herself to do (I think there was something on Music - can't remember exactly) - Figure out what else needs to be done! I strongly disagree with the 'Should' part above. The issue with Objectivism is not Publicity. Do all of the people who are well aware of Objectivism, fully Practice it? Even Peikoff said to AR that it was difficult to be like her heroes (Roark/Galt). Therefore, the issue is lack of Adherence (which is due to lack of full Acceptance and/or Will-power). These are the issues that need to be addressed. Now, though will-power is a matter of personal choice, a genuis can still add value (e.g. Hazlitt's book on Will-power). My hypothesis is that Objectivism needs more Intelligent people than it has today. It may have lot of people with high Integrity - but that alone is not enough to achieve the purpose. My evidence for this hypothesis is that I have not seen any famous Objectivist having graduated from an Ivy league institution - or even teaching there. I must admit that I have not done a thorough search at all. Which is why this is still a Hypothesis. And I am rational enough to change my view if evidence is there. In the course of next few years, I will explore this in more detail. But, reactions to this hypothesis are welcome. I will use these to refine my view.