Brent Rolfe

Eddie, I am glad that others find the question astute, I have been debating whether to post such a question for a little while! I must re-iterate though that the question was not about the election endorsements. Also, I did not raise the Peikoff quote with any intention of opening a Peikoff "vs" Binswanger or Peikoff "vs" Kelley thread or of raising the issue of libertarianism in any way. I only used the quote to reflect my own thoughts that using our rational minds on the same topics we should arrive at similar conclusions more often than we do, on any subject. In the absence of such agreement I am happy to move on trying to maximise my own self-interest. But I still contend that the vast majority of any population has no idea what their own (especially long-term) self-interest is......and this seems to leave us at "the hidden hand" of Adam Smith, which I am not sure fits in with Objectivist thinking?! This might be a bit of a ramble....long day in the office! Brent

Are you then saying that if you did know how Miss Rand would have voted, that it would have influenced your decision?! I am not questioning anyone's right to endorse anyone or anything.

BurgessLau, My post was not about the method of arriving at a particular political preference. But the fact that given the same reality to evaluate and given two rational minds, the conclusions were different. In this particular situation (i.e. the one I don't want to debate about! ), my guess is that from an Objectivist stand-point there is not enough to choose between the candidates for all Objectivists to side with one or the other. If the choice was George Bush vs. Lenin......or Kerry vs. Lenin.....I assume all Objectivists would make the rational choice for GWB or JFK. But there are many other moral and ethical issues over which members of the board do not agree, homosexuality, abortion.... that I would have thought there was a rational basis for decision making between two clear choices. So there are two possible choices: 1) either there are a lot of non-Objectivists here, or 2) some of these issues are just too complex to be agreed upon even by completely rational people. Choice 1) doesn't satisfy me because it is suggestive of a dogmatic approach.....i.e. if everyone here was really an Objectivist we would all agree about everything! Choice 2) doesn't satisfy me because it says that even completely rational Objectivists viewing the same real world existence can't arrive at the same conclusion. This doesn't lessen the value I place on Objectivism as a philosophical support which helps me to live my life as a rational individual. But it still confuses me. Brent

Betsy et al, Thanks for your responses. Betsy, I agree with all of your post. The vast majority of real life political, moral and ethical decisions are, of course, full of such uncertainties. Yet, on this board we have some posters (in other threads recently).....the nuke Fallujah brigade.......who would have us believe that there is only one possible solution to terrorism, others who are anti-gay or find homosexuality immoral, still others who are pro-life etc., etc., and just as many who oppose these views. On the one hand this puts the lie to those who would say that Objectivism is a dogmatic philosophy. But on the other hand it also shows that Objectivists are just as confused as any other "group" on important moral issues. Since Objectivism is a "philosophy for living life" I am confused by this divergence of views. Especially in light of the quote I gave from Fact and Value. To those who have replied to a post on the election issue, I did try to make it clear that that is not what I was asking about! My basic question is: If existence exists, and if we are perfectly rational in our decision making etc., etc., i.e. if we hold the axoims of Objectivism to be true, shouldn't we arrive at the same, or at least similar, solutions to the vast majority of problems.......even political, moral and ethical problems? Brent

Now there's an oddity! In the preview window the last line of my post says VW Passat and when posted to the board it came out as VX??

I do not know if Subaru's a better value for money, but I am prepared to take your word for it. I have owned the XC from new (2001) and I am not nearly as impressed as I expected to be?! I tend to buy new and keep long, so the Volvo might grow on me. Unlike all the beamer drivers, I was looking primarily for a lot of space behind the back seats for my dogs! SUVs just don't cut it in this regard (nor in many other regards either) and the ideal option re the dogs (i.e. a pick-up truck with a rear cab) just didn't cut it for my business. The V70XC has a lot of room in the back. In retrospect though I should have bought the VX Passat Wagon. I have really liked any VW I have ever driven.

The topic title notwithstanding this is not a political post but one that addresses a point of confusion for me about Objectivism. This confusion was merely highlighted by the recent opposing endorsements made for the U.S. presidential candidates by two of Objectivism's leading intellectuals. My question is: Given that 1) existence exists, 2) that A is A, 3) that Objectivism is a rational philosophy, 4) that value is objective and that 5) "honest errors of knowledge are possible. But such errors of knowledge are not nearly so commom as as some people wish to think" (Peikoff in Fact and Value); how can two leading Objectivists differ so fundamentally on an issue of such importance? Again, I am not asking about the choices for President (God knows we get enough of this on Canuck T.V.! ). I am asking how, given external reality can two Objectivist thinkers (not specifically Peikoff and Binswanger and not specifically the election race) disagree fundamentally over any major issue? And if these two giants disagree over an issue that is so publicly debated and so thoroughly analysed, how can the rest of be expected to agree on other aspects of moral judgement? The conflicting endorsements seem to me to be an example of the (personal) frame of reference which is used as the basis for this type of decision (i.e. political, moral, ethical decisions) determining the conclusion one will reach. But the existence if these differing frames of reference in the first place does not seem to be consistent with Objectivism in that we are all dealing with the same objective reality. I hope this post is not too confused. It is an issue that I have been confused over for some time while observing the disagreements that show up on this board. Help! Brent P.S. my solution to the specific issue of Binswanger-Bush/Peikoff-Kerry is that, from an Objectivist POV, both candidates are so far from ideal that less fundamental areas of policy are being used to differentiate them?

Oops....edited

Thanks Stephen and Betsy, will do.

Where do the Ayn Rand was Right license plate holders come from? Brent

Since Objectivists see life as their standard of value......I think I could make a case for my Volvo being the ultimate Objectivist ride?? Brent

roscov6, This is obviously an emotional issue for you! So much so that I think you are being a little irrational. Dogs do bite, but men do murder. Using your logic that would make it "illogical" for women to have men as husbands! In fact I have not yet been able to eat an apple without biting, so I guess I should be on the look-out for the euthenasia needle myself? The problem is in the breed of dog and the type (breed) of person that owns those breeds. I haven't yet met a Pit Bull owner that I would invite to my house for dinner. The majority of PB owners I see seem to have them as some sort of perverted status symbol. Though I am sure that there are lots of nice PB owners around (somewhere) and lots of nice PBs too. The highest incidence of dog bites is from black labradors ( according to my niece, the vetinarian). But most people assume that if a lab bit them it was either a mistake, over-enthusiasm and ignore it because they don't beleive a lab bites with malice. One of my dogs has a glove fetish, to the extent that he will try to remove peoples gloves from their hands. To any one who is scared of dogs, or doesn't know Nigel (who is a certified therapy dogs and who visits severely handicapped children in a nursing home) this can be quite intimidating. But there is absolutely no malicious intent in his body. In fact dogs growl and bare their teeth and posture much more than they bite. And when they bite there are several types of bite, some are warnings others are lethal and there are several stages in between. Just like there are many growls and many postures, which an observant owner can easily come to recognise. The problem is that most people do not know enough to understand these signs and do not know what to do about them. And I fear this is especially so among owners of some of the supposedly "problem" breeds. The simple, best, but still unfortunate solution is to ban the breed, as we did in Ontario. But this will last for as long as it takes for some unscrupulous breeder to breed aggression back in to a line of Staffordshire Bull Terriers or English Bull Terriers or Miniature Poodles or Mexican Hairless. Or into a particularly viscious line of Hampster! If "guns don't kill people" a la Reagan, then I would have to give dogs the benefit of the doubt too! Brent

2001 Volvo Cross Country Wagon. (Lots of room for two Golden Retrievers in the back). However, my VW Golf was MUCH more fun to drive and was absolutely mechanically sound for the 8 years (and 240,000km we owned it).

I don't really see how it could be described as mystical. He draws parallels between volitional consciousness and mindful awareness (and he comes from a buddhist background himself) but if you substitute the concept of VC for MA....then everything else is logical.

Aristotle.......Dr. Phil Plato.......Nathaniel whatsisname? And Dr. Phil WILL save us!

I couldn't resist! especially as I was in my office "working" when I replied! From several of your previous posts I think we are quite alike . Yes, I do too. Even if the productive work was not particularly intelectually stimulating, the knowledge that one has been productive is enough. Actually, you would enjoy the book I asked about in another thread: The Mind and the Brain by Jeffrey Schwartz M.D. It is about how the mind and volitional consciousness have causal efficacy over the brain. He uses the terms "mindful awareness" (sound familiar), but he could just have well used volitional consciousness or focus.

Perhaps you should read OPAR? Specifically Chapter 8: Virtue p297....."A productive man is a moral man"........ Now, get back to work!!! (I took time off to write this for you!) Brent

I have just read this book. Has anyone else here read it and if so what did they think?

While I am not a sophisticated user of my Palm, I use a Tungsten E and have had no problems with it at all. I think I saw an ad. up here in Canada recently (Staples-Business Depot) for a Tungsten E with a bonus wireless key board all for $299 canadian dollars! So shop around. I use mine to carry around my ACT! customer database so that I can make appointments while on the road, update my "E" and then hotsynch to my laptop back in the office....(it is almost impossible to make phone calls, book appointments, open my laptop and enter the appt. in ACT! .....while driving so the palm is easier. The synchronisation to ACT! is great. I carry a few Word documents around with me on the E, just in case I want to do some work on them when my laptop is not convenient. But I don't use Word or Excel much on the E. Hope this helps?

Keep this thread going we have the start of a very dry humour comedy routine here.

But the right to drive a car is self-evident....it's covered under "liberty". And if you were a blind driver you'd change your tune! Good post.

I agree with you and since that is never going to happen I guess that is the end of that thread? I understand this (i.e. the complexity of the issue and the weight one gives to the various factors), but if we were all completely rational Objectivists wouldn't we come to the same logical conclusion? The only way this would not happen is if your self-interest were at odds to my self-interest....which can't happen in Objectivist theory....can it? I must admit I am reticent to start a new thread on this problem for fear of being torn apart by the big boys of the board! ! And right now there are probably only the two (or perhaps three) of us reading this humble thread!!

I agree with this. But, my observations are based objectively on the health of my dogs , which is better than it was and the anecdotal evidence of hundreds of raw food users, not just a few. Also, on the statistical evidence of high cancer rates. This is actually one of the mysteries of Objectivism as far as I am concerned! i.e. how I can be objective in my context and you can be objective in yours and we get two completely different answers!? It's like the thread on who you guys should vote for in November.....if all were completely objective shouldn't Objectivists be voting for one candidate? As I say this is a puzzle to me !

Well hopefully there aren't any! But if you look into the ingredients of even high quality kibble (and I used to have mine on the best available) I don't think you would be impressed. What really turned me off was the use of waste frying fat from restaurants sprayed on the food to make it palletable to dogs! Also, think about it, the temperatures that kibble is cooked at basically kills any active ingredients in the food (as well as any bacteria, admittedly) like the enzymes required for healthy teeth, any anti-oxidants etc. etc. Also, the incidence of premature cancers in Goldens specifically but pure-bred dogs in general nowadays it is alarming. Now is this caused by too close line breeding, environmental factors other than food or food (or some other factor)?! I don't know, but I'm guessing that eating processed food every day for 8-10-12 years has something to do with it? And, since I am seeing no ill-effects from a raw diet and am seeing plenty of positive effects I am happy. BTW I forgot, Nigel also had chronic ear problems (fairly common in Goldens)before we switched diet and now none. Tape worms have never been a concern of mine and they are easily dealt with anyway. But anyway Godless, I am a little concerned that this whole thread has absolutely nothing to do with Objectivism, so perhaps we should cease and dessist or carry on off-line?

Well, as I wrote, I have been feeding mine raw chicken for three years, so that's a total of six years of experience. The only verifiable difference in health is that the older dog, Nigel, now has a completely normal thyroid function, wheras before the raw food diet he was on thyroid medication. I think the dog's digestive system is far more acidic than ours hence the ability, in a healthy dog of course, to deal with the bacteria that we cannot. Beef seems to produce diarrhea in my dogs?! Chicken is recommended in most raw diets for dogs and the originator of the raw diet is a vet himself....Dr. Billingshurst....and he recommends chicken. My dogs also seem to find the entrails of mice that even our cats (who killed them) won't eat quite a delicacy....again with no ill effects.... although even I draw the line at this if I can pull them away in time! Again, how many wolves eat Purina? and do zoos feed their animals kibble...or the food that is biologically appropriate for them?