ZSorenson

The how is the why (rather than the other way around), but yes. I think that the nature of the conditions necessary for there to be existence/identity can be discovered. Such a discovery would be of the sort that would lead to discoveries in the physical sciences, as well as improve computer science and general sciences such as any that require advanced mathematics (economics, evolutionary theory, statistics).

Forbid that I transgress and speak the unmentionable (or beat a dead horse). But, don't you hate the way that libertarians fawn over AS but always always qualify - almost in a celebratory way - that "of course it isn't like this in real life and Rand's vision isn't perfect and not all of it is that good.". It's like a catechism of Libertarianism.

The correct answer, the one alluded to by the conclusions of Objectivism, is that existence is a condition - and where that condition is met there is existence, and where it is not there is nothing. Something/identity/definition of any kind requires that condition being met somewhere/somehow. Note my use of the word 'condition'. Existence is necessarily independent of any of its particular component parts in the sense that it cannot be reduced to any discrete phenomenon. Therefore, there is no dream or illusion that is somehow apart from 'real reality'. Whatever rules and relationships emerge within existence have to meet the conditions that allow existence. Therefore they are legitimate components of it. So life may be a dream, but it exists and so if it is a dream this evidence must exist somewhere. Read Dr. Peikoff's excellent article on the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. One of my conclusions from it is that because definition exists at the moment of definition, not before or after, epistemological methods require a mental scaffolding to develop a concept of definition that exists independent of the actual event (percept). Falsification is only a method to broaden the scope of a given concept so that it more accurately refers to something in reality. But concepts subsume both known and unknown (potential) characteristics of an 'existent'. So reality as we perceive it is real, even if there is an unseen bigger picture, that does invalidate the more constrained contexts. Objectivism simplifies it by not trying to answer why/how existence exists, but reduces it to a simple axiom. Existence exists. Only a stunted epistemology, or a non-epistemology could fail to slowly and surely grasp reality. I refer you to the saga of Copernicus for evidence.

Time preference = hierarchy of values. Anything that happens tomorrow depends on what happens today. It's that simple.

Not voting out of principle might be a good way to provoke the emergence of 'different' candidates. Once enough people decide to not vote, they will constitute an attractive constituency. Someone might run to that consituency. While they might not win, they would bring attention to issues the other candidates wouldn't. Bringing attention to issues is a very big part of politics. I wouldn't say it's immoral to vote. It is immoral to not deliberately exercise the right to vote. But exercising that right might include a conscious abstention from voting. Abstention not because your vote won't make a difference, but because supporting the lesser of two evils is immoral. In today's world, certain politicians are so evil, that they represent an entire tier of evil. In this case there is no 'lesser evil' in context, just evil and not-evil. I think you know what I mean.

Actually, a question for the well-trained economists out there (I'll never be one, because the field is too infested with rank immorality): Right now, people are worried about 'deflationary spirals', so the theory is that if you PRINT massive amounts of cash you can counter the deflation and things end up hunky-dory. This, however, seems like two wrongs make a right. What's going on in the real economy? Well, inflation is easy to explain: more money supply, your amount is unchanged, hence your share is diminished. Here's the 'deflationary spiral'. Banks hold mortgages as assets. As the value of housing falls, the banks' balance sheets fall in value correspondingly. This means less money available to loan to new home buyers, and a depression in the market that causes yet lower home prices. That's just an example. This is obviously less clear cut than inflation. I guess in the real economy what you have is a bunch of people who were suckered by banks into spending more money (i.e.: value, production, share of gains from labor) on their houses then they needed to/than they were worth. So what happens when you combine the two? Well, property owners are disproportionately robbed of their wealth (as borrowers), as savers are disproportionately robbed of their wealth through inflation. At the end of the day, the banks are 'solvent', but I guess I have to conclude that real production drops substantially. Think Bastiat's broken window. If a window doesn't break, there are resources left to buy something 'extra' in the economy. Likewise, countering deflation with inflation keeps prices level, and helps bank traffic remain constant, but at the cost of production. I think that basically translates into unemployment. I can't help but conclude that combining deflation and inflation effectively retains the worst effects of both. Yet, only looks good on paper. WHY DOES THESE MORONS HAVE JOBS AND PHD'S? I'm forced to resort to crappy amateur thinking because of their stupidity and inability to do their job (economists).

I dunno about the rights. I looked up the old fantastic four movie and a lot of people seem to think that it was just really so horrible, made by a cheap-o crappy studio, that no one wanted to publish it. But $5million? Hell yes, movie budgets are often in the $100s of millions. At the least, they could sell it to another studio that someday might want to tackle the project. Despite the hatred, AS is a huge property and a classic work. It's like having the rights to Gone With The Wind (assuming there wasn't already a classic amazing movie made). More research is obviously needed. I does seem like the studio is just trying to get the film done for the sake of getting it done. They can't be expecting to make money off of it that way. Although I suppose it could be a TV movie. Maybe that's its destiny. It'll end up on Syfy, after EARTHQUAKE...S 2012 VS. ANACONDA-SHARK.

One of the articles from IMDB says that this movie is being made just so the owners can retain the rights, and that there is a likelihood that the final product won't even be sold on DVD. Apparently, a version of Fantastic Four was made in the 90's for the same reason (which nobody ever saw). Sort of a relief really, and the most plausible explanation for the level of superior crapiness.

I would respond to this mosque incident by public protests in front of the mosque that's next to ground zero that ridicule and insult the Muslim faith. Here's my reasoning: We are, in fact, in a war against Islam. Islamic authorities understand that the survival of their religion requires the use of political force. For instance: it's entirely reasonable that a large portion of a given generation of muslims could decide to reject Islam during its youth. Faith and ideology do have epistemological causes, but the particular details are socialized - not epistemological. That means that specific laws of Islam - to include WHICH faith authority (faith requires an authority to stand in reason's place, either a code, a pastor, a book, or army)should be obeyed - can be rejected by a believer overnight without altering his epistemological worldview. Observe conversion to Christianity or secular humanism. Ideology, therefore, can be very very fluid. In a society such as Islam, epistemologically, faith authorities are the source of social, political, and economic distribution. Imagine the chaos that might result from this society's unaffiliated, inexperienced youth shifting their allegiances en masse. The point is: once enough people prove that it's 'okay' to convert to another faith-worldview, the power of the faith-authority is severly diminished. I.e.: the Imam, once 20% of his flock convert, is no longer absolutely correct, he's correct only for those who choose to follow him - which creates an open 'choice' of belief in the first place. Politically, the goal of many Islamic societies is to maintain the absolute supremecy of the faith in order to maintain authority. This is why you can't say 'Mohammad' on tv. The goal is to deny any possibility of choice in the matter (again, we are ignoring the epistemological issue). It is not permitted to deny Islam, or else. In the Middle East, this policy is manifest by capital punishment for conversion, AS A MATTER OF LAW. In the West, the tactics are intimidation backed by the threat of violence, coupled with an ideologically unrelenting debate tactic. In a debate, alternate ideas will not be entertained, if violence is not to be used. More liberal islamic societies such as Malaysia and Turkey deal with de facto if not de jure (trending towards it though) understandings about the supremecy of Islam. To include violence. Where other points of view are legally tolerated, public dissent is not socially tolerated. This is the spirit behind the ground zero mosque. My paraphrase of the idea: "If we can't impose sharia due to your free culture, then we will impose it to the limits of the free culture. We will not allow the dead to be mourned, we will not forgive nor ask forgiveness. If we can't bomb you, we will not allow you to forget when you were bombed, we will not allow you to think that these infidels had a right to their lives." This is as much for their society to know as it is for ours. Part of what makes christianity popular is that it reserves to the believer some small amount of ownership of both belief and salvation, de facto when not de, uh, doctrine. Modern political islam denies that. I think there could be an 'Islam' that functions liberally. Basically you'd have to say that sharia is mostly metaphorical, that Mohammad was mostly a guide to help individuals to know God individually, and you'd have to abandon the idea that the Koran is God's literal sacred word (i.e.: as in arabic), even if it is considered as deliberately inspired by him. In short, a whole shake up of the religion, where the labels might be the same, but the practice and 'essence' (it's appropriate to say essence when discussion something silly like faith) of the religion would be totally changed. Martin Luther's reformation resulted in the Roman church's 'counter-reformation'. Never forget the importance of that. The medieval church couldn't stay the same and compete with Luther. It tried, for about 30-years, I uh, think there was a war associated with it. That's why there are terrorists, because they are fighting for their religion as it is. And our war, against real enemies who wish for our destruction, to include both our values, natures, but specifically even our physical bodies, is against these people of this version of Islam. I think they know the history of the christian church, and realize exactly what's at stake for them. Liberal values are an existential threat to them, period. So the war is against 'islam', and there's no way around the truth of that. It won't end until the Ummah accepts modern liberal values, or chooses to be totally isolated from the rest of the world, or destroys the rest of the world. The nice part for us is that we don't have to fight 'against' Islam, only 'for' individual rights. Which is why a particularly good response to this mosque is to picket out front with obscene pictures of Mohammad (not too obscene, just offensive), signs that read "Islam kills", "Islam hurts women", but I particularly favor signs that say things like, "Islam is backwards, offensive, barbaric, and ugly", "Mohammad lied and cheated". Things that offend. Fire with fire sort of deal. Because of course they have a right to build the mosque there if they paid for it legitimately. Of course, I would want to see some actual evidence that this is a purposeful gesture. If a bunch of muslims work at Wall Street, and this mosque is like 4 blocks away and its all a coincidence, I wouldn't like to purposefully disrupt someone's day with offense. And I suspect that this is enought the case that I don't plan on going to picket there. But if this is a deliberate offense that someone thinks is some sort of victory: let them learn to deal with Western culture. The point isn't to say that Islam is offensive, per se, but rather that it must be able to exist in an environment where other people are allowed to feel and say that if it is to be a legitimate part of the modern world.

First, any link to pictures of actors and things? Second, my Eddie Willers idea proposes an entire rewrite, a completely new story essentially. This new story would have to conform precisely with the plot, characters, and themes of AS, but would both be more suited to a feature-length film as well as help make AS a little more immune to being ruined. I'd say the movie would introduce Willers like the first chapter of the book does (and you could argue that the final chapter featured him too - what followed was just an epilogue). From there it follows his efforts to 'live up' to the people he admires. Now, was he in love with Dagny? What did he do when we weren't seeing him? You'd have to answer those questions without making the answers too important. You might, for example, want to include a love interest, or a family conflict that AS never mentioned, but which it didn't preclude. Throughout this 'personal' conflict, Eddie works with Dagny on the bridge, meets Rearden, talks about what's going on in the world with Galt - whom we see exclusively in the cafeteria. We might even be privy to new dialogue. Galt, genius that he is, let's Eddie answer all the questions he poses. I just think you couldn't make a feature-length - even triology - version of AS. Impossible. So you have to come up with something new that fits, while preserving the integrity of the source material. Eddie Willers is someone who is a 'good' guy, but who needs the heroes in order to be good. AS may have been written for the Hank Reardens of the world (it seems like), but the movie will be written for the Eddie Willers. So the message, instead of: go on strike (those to which this applies are perfectly capable of reading the book) will be: don't let the men of the mind go on strike. To help the common man perceive and appreciate the value available to them because of properly integrated philosophy (or, 'freedom' and 'capitalism'). AS is really not about what's good for the common man - that's not the moral emphasis. But it just so happens that what's good for the producers is good for the common man. And the movie would exist to show them that. Which is perfectly fine.

I'll reiterate: Eddie Willers as main character. He's the 'soul of the audience'. We view AS from the periphery, with a focus on Galt, Dagny, and Jim Taggart. Best way to do an AS movie.

What way is proper to describe pleasure and pain? Nausea? Euphoria? Distress? For example, the feeling of euphoria may not be properly an emotion if it refers to the sensation resulting from the release of dopamine in the brain. While conceptual constructions might trigger the response, the sensation itself seems like it's a perceptual phenomenon.

Strikethrough. 1. It is not rational to gain value at someone else's expense, in the long run. It is not moral to prosper off of someone's avoidable and explicit irrationality - i.e.: where you are participating in it. 2. Law defines which behaviors are not permissible in society, because that they conflict with acceptable interaction between individuals, according to an objective standard. They primarily, as has been referenced, act to protect individuals in society. 3. In a duel, one person stands to prosper explicitly off of the irrationality of another person - the standard of success depending on the use of violent force. Neither does the law accept the capricious outcome of violent force as a standard of justice (on the contrary, it explicitly acts in contrast to that standard) nor does it prosper those who gain in defiance of law. I'm stating the obvious. The issue is not one of governmental scope vs. individual action (the inverted pyramid approach): the issue is one of meeting the philosophical demands that require law in the first place. In assisted suicide the practitioner is providing a service in exchange for an explicit payment, with death being the intended and proper fulfillment of that service, according to the desires and choices of the payer. The payer benefits exclusively from his own death, it is a consequence of his sole discretion, and he's getting the precise thing he asks for. The standard of exchange is explicit - an explicit payment for an explicit service. In a duel, the situation is nearly in polar opposition to that of assisted suicide. To simplify the analysis, consider the point of view of one dueler only. His gain comes at the expense of someone's life, force being the vehicle to that gain. If one can live their life obtaining values in such a fashion - why not hope to obtain political power and use force to gain at the expense of others' life serving values? Some might argue that the differences is that the situation was voluntary - but this relies on the inverted pyramid approach to politics. A person will obtain values according to the standard he has developed to deal with reality. Political considerations follow. Does the fact that the man the dueler wants to kill is 'okay' with the risk somehow alter the nature of the dueler's intended purpose to be something other than what it is? So, let's scale this back a little. What if the two were gamblers, and instead of guns they had dice? The reason why this is different is that in gambling you put up explicit value at the beginning. The winner of the toss gets whatever value's in the pot. When your life is what's in the pot, then you are talking about someone's very capacity to create value. Life cannot be a legitimate object of trade, because upon being given, it loses all value. Legally speaking, two duelists could sign counterposed living wills ahead of time, the winner keeping the loser's and burning his own. But if that could be proven in court, the law could legitimately punish such chicanery. In a duel, the goal is to win, not to face death and let 'fate' choose the outcome. That's the key to why the whole concept is legally illegitimate. /thread (now)

I think that subconcious epistemology is experienced based. I'm assuming that the mind has a specific structure by which it processes internal subjective knowledge, and that on top of this structure is built the ability to perceive and process objective knowledge. Or, objective knowledge is understood in the context of subjective knowledge. Actually, to be more explicit, I'm treating certain primal emotional states as 'internal' percepts. (I've had an extensive conversation about the use of the word percept here, so I ask that you grant me 'emotional percept' as it's own concept that is similar to but not the same as percept) By emotional percept I mean 'feelings ' or non-cognitive evidence that results from biology and not the explicit five senses. A good example is nausea, though in this instance I refer more to pleasure (dopamine) or adrenaline and so forth. I think these emotional percepts are treated at the same psycho-epistemological level as percepts by the mind. Thus percepts, in the structure of the mind, are intimately related not just to their sources in reality, but also the effects of reality on human biology. In other words, most people do not avoid rotten food because of a well conceptually integrated sense of preservation of life, but rather from a desire to not get sick - for which the body provides feelings of discomfort when it is in such a state. More explicitly, biology provides some built in patterns. Many unhealthy-to-eat things produce a sensation of disgust when they are smelled (but interestingly, this is far from universally effective, which is good evidence that evolution is th culprit). So, a good pattern of conceptual integration might exist subconciously, but I think there needs to be 'experiential integration' for behavior to change. This is why people struggle with "I know the right thing to do but I never seem to do it ". They know conceptually - perhaps even on a sub-concious level, which would lead to self loathing depression in this situation - but they haven't integrated the concept with the emotional payoff. I think that these emotional percepts can be integrated on a purely conceptual basis - imagination if you will, daydreaming -but that habitual behavior requires the doing of a thing and experiencing the desired and anticipated payoff. Thus, start small, with low risk endeavors. Then the mind learns that certain concepts really are in fact associated with happiness. I think we conciously convince ourselves of things (both in cases of proper or improper integration) but struggle because our subconcious doesn't 'buy' it. Too much concious conceptualizing without doing/experiencing can teach the subconcious mind that beautiful thoughts are never really associated with happiness - that conceptual happiness is not 'really' associated with perceptual happiness (pleasure). This leads to bad depression that is tough to climb out of. Just a theory.

Externalities: why we need to get the superindustrial revolution rolling! Seriously, we still share air? With the abundance of volatile gases on the Earth, you'd think we'd be able to quite cheaply control our own habitable environments. A lot of externalities have to do with common or public properties that we still all share because we haven't yet transcended dear old mother earth. We still rely quite heavily on 'free' natural resources. This is of course, absurd, because how hard would it be to construct a high-yield verticle industrial farm? Well, it would be more expensive than the Great Plains... But that's the point really, at some point we are going to have to stop relying on 1)weather 2)natural aquifers 3)natural forests 4)biodiverse ecologies etc. to provide economic gain. We'll have to provide this gain technologically - if we don't, then it really is back to the dark ages like the sustainablists advocate. Seriously, do you realize how much that smelly compost would be worth to a community in outer space? For now, externalities are intrinsic to the property purchased. If you buy an apartment above a bar, you're buying noise. The tricky questions involve things like global warming. If it were true that global industry contributes to not-otherwise-anticipated changes in the climate, do they owe for the losses incurred as compared to how-it-would-have-been? When you buy a farm, you're buying the 'climate' of that farm. You accept the vagueries of nature as part of the purchase. Can you accept the inevitability of industry? Or do you demand payment, and is that proper? Climate and weather are sort of 'common' properties. I say the policy should be: 'use at your own risk', but then again, I'm not aware of 1% of the world that does not daily breath 'free air'. Tough nut to crack, but I think the superindustrial revolution will necessarily precede the political revolution. Bit of sociological determinism in me (well, if it's not materially possible to eliminate huge common properties like air, then you'll always be haunted by the spectre of collectivism). Nah, seriously though, it's not so hard to settle pollution cases in the courts. Private property being the anchor by which the common property is judged. Nobody owns the wind, but they own the thence and whence - hence no need for collectivism. Well, too bad more heat means more agricultural output ('disasters' notwithstanding).

It is abundantly clear that individual rights have nothing to do with our government and Constitution anymore. Today's political discussions - in the context of elections, court decisions, bureaucratic endeavors, foreign policy agreements, and so forth - are simply not based on a foundation that considers the primacy of individual rights. At best, there is a debate between the forces of multiculturalism and those of American republicanism. The former rewarding people based on identity groups, the latter grouping people into one giant melting pot dominated by anglo-saxon protestant values, mores, and traditions - to be reinforced by the public infrastructure (public schools, economic 'projects', ten commandments in court etc.) These debates all take society as a whole - as if it were a ship - and involve an argument over who handles the rudder. In America, the uniting principle of government is that whatever 'rights' we have are dependent on some definition of the common good. If the 'ship' isn't steered correctly, society will splinter into violent factions, succumb to outside malevolence, and otherwise suffer the loss of any and all values. There are code-words, like 'social unrest' - in other words, fears of the violent demands of the underclasses. Another is 'strength in union' - or in other words, they need your money, too. In the end, before 'rights', a notion of 'peace in society' prevails. I'll admit that the concept of rights, and the legal and even technological means for their enforcement are in fact monumental achievements of society. Primitive societies may indeed have the need to focus more on security than on rights. But, those who understand the concept of rights have a right to defend that concept - and it must be defended against the adversaries who disdain it. Ultimately, government as it is today is nothing but a 'ceasefire'. It is an agreement to settle the disputes of those who don't hold to the concept of individual rights without resorting to violence. It is designed to limit the abilities of the conductors of power to use that endowment from society for their ambitions. But in the end, it is still nothing more than a truce between armed factions who would otherwise run roughshod over each other. The traditional view of government initially assumes that there is a world of men who have none - that only depravity and barbarism infringe on man's pursuit of happiness - and that government is the necessary evil to contain it. How backwards! There will always be the depraved, and the barbarian, but there is no society unless these only remain at the fringes. Providing for a common defense is the responsibility of society, and not a sufficient justification for the imposition of monolithic government to dictate what is right and wrong. Instead, government is ever and always necessary. When two men agree to a contract - that is government. When two men communicate and interact with reason and reality as their standard - that is government. When millions do - that is government. There is a need for an orderly means of facilitating this interaction. It is always necessary whenever men interact. This includes especially issues of justice and peace, which are perfectly under the scope of government. But then, government is only a tool - an extension of man's natural state. Government facilitates an orderly communication and means of just interaction between individual men. It facilitates but does not create order. First, you need civilized men who desire - a sufficient majority of them - to interact fairly with reason and reality as the only proper standard of interaction. Any other form of government is a peace treaty. Thus, unless a government is explicit in its defense and deferment to individual rights, to include: property rights, economic rights, movement rights, and so forth - then this government should not be held to the proper standard. There are many implications that follow from this conclusion. First of all, I see no reason why - in principle - immigration should be free and open. While a Massachusettes WASP liberal is just a likely if not more likely to be a soft fascist than any Latin American supposedly might be, why in the world would I concede any potential ally to my enemy in Massachusettes. I could go on with many other issues. The point is that 'Objectivist politics' is misguided, because it is entirely improper to apply a standard of individual rights to this government. It is okay to concede some principles in support of other principles. This is because in no way is the current government even nearly going to approximate one that respects individual rights. Instead, it is a battle - quite literally. Principle does not govern war - power does. Thus, you select your goals, fight to achieve them, and deal with what losses are incurred along the way. The American government at one point almost respected individual rights - I think a fortunate accident really. After the industrial revolution, the idea that 'laissez-faire' was the right thing really took steam (har har). But as soon as people were convinced by the kinks in the course of history that laissez-faire did not have the mystical power to negate reality, they wholly abandoned it. It was never the law of the land - only an 'experiment' for the 'common good'. I'd say, the two most important issues worth fighting for are: monetary freedom and school choice. Liberate the lubricant of commerce from the mystics' purse, and liberate the mind of the future from the mystics' rod - only then will the tyrant and his hordes give in! Then we can abandon the peace treaty, and sue for unconditional surrender! Mind you - the leftists in no uncertain terms seek the same outcome for themselves.

Only if you had personal stake in the country worth more than the cost of the risk. Things like family/former property. And the risk of dying would have to equate with the burden of living without those things you would be fighting for. There are no countries, really. There's just you, your crap, and the various networks that interfere in it all.

Yes, absolutely. But I was responding to someone who implied that my previous argument did not match up to the standard of 'absolute' rationality. Yes, it is determinism. If I eat rat poison, I will die. My biology determines this. But is it philosophical determinism? I'll discuss that in a minute, but first I want to make clear that I am trying to say that the fact of life is what makes life moral for those things that possess it. The conditions of life determine the details of what the proper values are for that living thing. The only way to escape those values is to change the nature of the thing so that its life demands some other values for its proper existence. This is not an argument about volition - it is a general argument about all living things. Bad example - I mentioned that compulsive rape instincts are a theory. The most extreme case came to mind first, sorry. After a quick google search on the matter it seems like this theory, along with all 'evolutionary psychology' theories are subject to ongoing debate. I can't say it's true, and won't try to use it, but the theory has been put forward and hasn't yet been summarily refuted. It seems there is little solid evidence for it, however. The larger argument about volition is important, though. You cannot argue that emotions are not similar to reflexes - at least some of them. Many Objectivists uphold an absolute wall between the rational and the irrational. I refer to psycho-epistemology - about which I admit I know very little. Yet, is there any evidence that emotions are the result of purely cognitive processes? That the rational faculty of the mind operates independently of the irrational and reflexive. I have to be clear on this: I'm not saying that reason is colored by human bias - reason is pure. I'm saying that human biases interfere with the use of reason, or can, and often do. The precise details of this are part of the science of psychology. Why can't an emotion be part of a biological mechanism? Because emotions have to do with cognitive processes? Because the rational faculty of the mind is necessarily independent from reflex - never subordinated to it? That seems like an absurd proposition to advocate for. What I do know of the world and the science of psychology is that there is plenty of evidence that emotions are at least heavily influenced by biological processes - at least sometimes. Is there even a debate here? Reason is a tool to achieve values. Volition is the means by which reason is applied. But I would say that many of those values are deterministic - you can't nor ever did choose to be human, future technology notwithstanding. Certain mystical traditions think that volition of the soul led to the accepting of the human form. Hogwash. To a certain extent, values are determined from the onset. Otherwise you might as well choose to be dead. I think the right way to approach this argument is to answer this question: what is man? If man's essence is his rational faculty - then the circumstances of his upbringing might provide him with values to pursue, and accordingly an ethical code which he must follow to achieve them - but in essence, that faculty itself has no 'deterministic' need to pursue life. Or, man, in essence, is the sum of his parts. I don't think you can argue otherwise. Possessing a rational faculty, he must use it to maximize his values. But many of those values will be biologically determined - and to an extent not yet known, you have to wonder how much of the faculty of consciousness depends on those values to operate. Again, caution, I don't mean that 'real reality' is inaccessible to man: I mean that only certain constrained parts of reality are relevant to man's values. For instance, infrared cannot be seen. RGB can be seen. A beautiful sunset is appreciated in RGB, not in infrared - and even if the spectrum was converted on a monitor to RGB, it's still seen in RGB. Art will never be in infrared, so the nature of beauty is somewhat constrained by man's biological nature. Art can express order or chaos - generalized representations of life or death - but 'what' on a canvas represents order (lines, triangles, red, orange, pink, circles?) is determined by man's nature. Geometric consistency as order is fundamental to man's existence as a living thing - the ultimate alternative of to be or not to be. Further, certain dyes and pigments provoke emotions that correlate ordered patterns with values. Why is dark negative, blue cool, white positive, orange hot? Because of the corresponding things in nature that man is accustomed to by either upbringing or evolution. Whether hot or cool is the appropriate value for a man depends, but whether blue is the appropriate color for cool - that is more or less determined. That life is valuable for life is inherent. It's why life is, and why 'is' is. 'Life is good' is somewhat axiomatic for living things. Man's choices are not determined, but his ultimate values are. So when would a man choose death? This is the question of the thread basically. When the value of death is higher than life. Is this possible? Are there any values outside of life? People have already commented on this. My contribution, given my comments, has been: life is valuable for a reason exogenous to the volitional faculty. I'm saying its biology. I'm saying that's not a contradiction, because volition serves biology, yet remains rational in doing so - acknowledging that certain values are exogenous to the cognitive faculty: why does cake taste good? because that's what my tongue says (you then go on and determine the consequence of eating too much cake etc., but the statement itself is true). There's a deeper metaphysical issue here, and it plagues every modern science. It's related to the halting problem in computing. I'll look it up and comment on another thread. But really? Emotions are only in response to thoughts? No relation to reflex?

There's no contradiction. Rationality provides for the development of a hierarchy of values and their pursuit. The precise nature of those values is contextual. In the context of life vs. death, the resulting conclusions about what constitutes proper ethical choices are absolute. It is moral to eat to be nourished to live. However, the context of what to eat and why provides for a broader range of choices. Man's nature dictates that he eats certain things, and cannot or should not eat other things. Moreover, his inborn or developed preferences further dictate what styles and types/flavors are desirable. Hierarchically, eating at all is most important, then eating healthily, then eating foods that taste desirable. Therefore I can say that it is rationally moral to eat yummy foods because our biology responds positively to them. This is only true if you consider a context where higher values have been properly accounted for. Extending the argument, a living things chooses to live because it is designed to do so. That's what makes it 'good'. A living thing designed to work against its own life would simply be a thing that after a short period of time is no longer living. Because man lives - the result of man's biology which pursues life - then it is proper and therefore moral for man to pursue life. His ability to use reason allows him to do so more successfully than otherwise. This use of reason provides for a hierarchy of values - which is why man's biology which compels him to rape women for pleasure and genetic dominance (sometimes, it is theorized), is subordinate to his volition which, due to his rational faculty, acts in favor of higher values that consider the long term benefits of not committing a crime versus the short term gratification (among other reasons why rape is morally wrong). But this is not a mysterious contradiction. A living thing inevitably - as part of its nature - would have as a base value the sustenance of its own life. No one need rationalize life - it is its own justification where it emerges. This is why the choice of death is even permissible. A rational being chooses life because of the 'evidence' built into his nature - life is pleasurable, it is a reward. When the facts of reality overwhelm the provisions of that 'evidence' - during terminal and painful illness, or after the loss of all loved ones, or ones highest value etc. - then and only then would there be a 'choice' to live or not. Thus, life itself is not a 'rational absolute', but a consequence of some living thing's contextual nature. Otherwise, death would never be a permissible choice. Conversely, when reason proves - as in the rape example - the undesirability of an action, pleasure itself is not a proper reward. Thus some elements of man's nature are subordinate to reason - the proper way of stating this being: because of reason, man is able to subordinate lesser parts of his nature to higher parts. And my personal opinion - based on my hierarchy of values - is that there are so very many values to live for that even in many of the cases I just mentioned above would there be plenty of reason to live.

It never wasn't. Or rather, has always had structurally what you describe. Look at the writing of the Constitution - the struggles between the slave-owning Republicans - and the corporatist Federalists. It seems like the intangibility of the West, plus the semi-professionalism of America's early professionals (lawyers, academics, bureaucrats), plus the advent of brand new forms of commerce, production and trade, plus the inexplicable Marshall court, all combined to allow late-19th century American capitalism. The US was only barely ever based on principles of freedom, and a wave of intellectual opposition rose against it from the onset. The constitution was originally purely a political document. The only principles were pragmatic considerations on the use of power. Empower the central government so it would tower over any other pretenders to power, then split it up against itself so that it couldn't exercise that power. The Bill of Rights was an addendum, demanded by those skeptical of the entire system of federalism. The individual rights determination was a product of the Marshall court's unexpected prominent role. The 'founding values' of America were identical to Whigism. There were flashes in the pan - Tom Payne, Ethan Allen - and a general culture of individualism - but the political and economic leaders were pure whigs. The 'founding values' of America are better than most of what's out there in history, but they're hardly that wonderful. Instead, I'd look towards late-19th century American thought. Also, the 1920's opposition that inspired Ayn Rand. I think in that time period you have the birth and death of the cultural movement. But Ms. Rand gave us Atlas Shrugged which is sort of the immortal monument to the freest time in human history. The sad thing is that although there were men in real life 'cut from the cloth' of Nat Taggart (Vanderbilt for one), they never quite dominated the scene. They always had to compete with the opposing side. Though I don't think the world of AS implies otherwise.

I think that the built-in responses are the 'evidence' for living. In other words, proper and successful efforts to live will produce a maximized, long-term set of responses whose desirability is 'built-in' to the human consciousness. This is also why we live in certain ways. Absolute rationality visavis the maximum extension of healthy life would dictate that a person never eat sugars or meats. But they're yummy and can be consumed in a manner that does not substantially detract from healthy living. Responding to another comment here: is a human capable of choosing death? My hypothesis in this instance (and I am not by any means certain of it) is that the human choice faculty is incapable of choosing death. What we see in the case of sacrifice, suicide, stupidity are mis- and dis-integrations of knowledge. Faith, in other words, that death isn't really what it is.

Proof

Of course. I was speaking with some irony. I agree with you.

This is unfairly singling out those who believe in conspiracy theories!!! I'd say most people's understanding of history, health, science, and politics is no more based on evidence than most conspiracy theories. Where there's an emotional narrative, disparate facts, knowledge of a particular lack of knowledge - there's always a theory. It just so happens that for about 300 years there have been experts who do sort out the evidence and who have been more or less trusted. Social pressures in an empirical society are what make history and science 'fact-based'. A lucky achievement.

I'm just graduating with an Econ degree, and unfortunately for the professors I've integrated their disparate concepts a little bit. If you apply a dynamic money-based model to Monopoly profits then those profits will lead to more money in the Monopolist's bank account that he can't spend this period, which in turn lowers interest rates. In the end, economic theory assumes that no one would hold excess value past the end of their lifetime, so the 'Dead Weight Loss' would be restored to the economy. Just think about the real economy - if Monopolist profits make people work less to afford that product, then they'll have more time to work towards affording other things. Total production is theoretically the same. In the multi-period aggregate, only the proportions by which different sectors produce differently affects distribution of income. In fact, an anti-trust authority - by pure economic theory - wouldn't even necessarily harm the monopoly's long term gains by forcing it to charge 'competitive equilibrium' price. However what anti-trust authority does is forbid the monopoly from making production-level decisions - and that DOES affect the total productivity and thus 'welfare' of society negatively. Now, an economist who supports anti-trust measures would argue that 'market power' either hurts equitable distribution of wealth, or otherwise diminishes 'choice' in society. That's not true in the latter case because a 'natural' (non-government) monopoly maintains market power by offering better products at lower costs - something not even considered in the monopoly profits models (that better quality brands lead to market power and therefore by having differentiated products you can obtain greater market share - something that raises value because presumably your better products are in fact cheaper and more highly valued). In the former case, the only thing to prevent this is public ownership of the means of production - pure socialism. The only 'mixed market' justifications for anti-trust are as follows: 1) 'Market power' can lead to political power if big evil corporations pay off politicians, bureaucrats, and the like. This is only true in societies where government is empowered to interfere in economics. If all parties agree to separate state and economics, there's no place for this sort of 'special interest'. 2) While long-run equilibriums might make monopolist profits indifferent, short-term disruption, sticky prices, inefficiencies, inadequate information, etc. can make the effects of market concentration in the 'real world' really "harsh and unbearable". And economists and their political allies only want to help "smooth things out a little". This, by the way, is the same argument for public monetary policy - to "smooth out the business cycle just a little so everyone's lives can be a little easier". Well, any cursory and honest examination of the negative effects of anti-trust would seem to overrule any "smoothing out" arguments. Those are my conclusions from college econ. One last thing. "Competition" in economic theory ultimately means that nobody makes any money. Seriously, only 'real world' imperfections provide the 'nicks' in the system that allow for any money to be made. I'm not kidding, under many models it's more profitable to sit down and die then work and produce anything. Well, that's about in line with the philosophical implications of collectivism - anyone here should understand why. And that's the main problem with economic theory: it's utilitarian - anywhere in society where there's any extra value, the assumption is that everyone equally attempts to acquire it. Uh? Here's the one profound truth no collectivist will accept, but which is fundamental to real economics: value is produced because some people are better at producing it than others. There is a division of labor - the whole reason why trade is necessary. If it weren't for unequal production and the resultant 'unfair' distribution of wealth in society, we'd all might as well be building sandcastles instead of skyscrapers.