rjdagost

I've tried a few different workout programs (including Mike Mentzer's weight training program, which didn't do jack for me). I used to weight lift a lot and got in great shape from it, but it is very time consuming. I've found that the best method for me is to do military exercise programs. Every branch of the military is slightly different in its physical requirements, but most have physical requirements like this: Run 1.5 miles in 12 minutes Do 50 push-ups in 2 minutes Do 50 sit-ups in 2 minutes Do 5 pull-ups (Done with 2 minutes rest in between each exercise) The standards are a little lower for women (perhaps unfair, but few women can do that many push-ups or pull-ups). If you can complete all of these minimum standards you're in pretty good shape. I do this routine 2-3 times per week, changing things when I so desire. Currently I'm up to 75 push-ups in 2 minutes, 80 sit-ups in 2 minutes, and 11 pull-ups. I like this routine because it's simple, quick, and doesn't cost anything (except for maybe a pull-up bar, but you can make your own pretty easily).

Ayn Rand claimed that conflicts of interest do not occur between rational men, but is this really so? I have so far found support for this notion to be unsatisfactory, so maybe some people on this forum can convince me of it. In everyday life we see many apparent conflicts of interest. A few examples: (1) Say there are two chess champions competing with each other. The winner gets a million dollar grand prize, but the loser gets nothing for 2nd place. Both men stand to gain by the mistakes of their competitor. It is in the self-interest of both men to get the million dollar prize. This looks like a pretty obvious conflict of interest to me. One man's disastrous move is another man's jackpot in this case. (2) The "job interview" case... Two men (call them "A" and "B"), both highly educated, experienced, and qualified, interview for the same job. The job is high paying and interesting for both of the applicants, so it is in their rational self-interest interest to actually get the job. How is it not in candidate A's interest for B to bomb in the interview (or vice versa)? (3) As a college student some of my exams were curved because many students performed poorly. So, no matter how I performed on a curved exam I would always do better if my fellow classmates performed poorly. I stood to benefit from their poor performances, and vice versa. Anyone could easily compose many situations just like these three. Speaking more generally, any zero-sum game (any competition where one man's loss is another man's gain) appears to violate Ayn Rand's contention that there are no conflicts of interest between rational men (under the restriction that it is in the best interests of the competitors to actually win the game). Ayn Rand backed up her "no conflict of interest" statement by saying that it is in one's interest in the long run to have competent, capable competitors, and I agree with this. Take my exam curving example. I know that it is in my best interests to have many bright, competent people in the world. But in the particular instance of taking an exam, my best interest is not served when my classmates are bright and competent. My best interests are served when my classmates perform very poorly and my exam grade gets raised a bit. Their loss is my gain. Initially I believed Ayn Rand's statement that rational men do not experience conflicts of interest. I now believe that this statement is too broad to cover all bases, and that there are particular cases where rational men do experience conflict of interest. What do you all think?

I was very interested to see what Dr. Peikoff had to say about this election. Unfortunately, Peikoff's analysis was a HUGE let-down. Peikoff strings together a long list of anecdotes about the religiousity of America. "The Passion" was very popular. Christian book sales are high. There are many Evangelical Christians in America. George W. Bush is a very religious man. Therefore, America will be thrust into a theocracy of sorts if Bush gets 4 more years in office??? This type of logic would flunk philosophy 101. Peikoff has a huge overestimation of the number of radical Christians. He implies that an Evangelical Christian is equivalent to a Christian fundamentalist, which is just not true. I know many Evangelicals (by Peikoff's definition) who are not radical fundamentalists. They don't want theocracy. By and large, they like America as it is. The fact is that America was far more Christian in the past than it is today. Peikoff claims that socialism no longer has any basis in America. This is absolutely false. There are many people in America who want socialized health care, higher taxes for "the rich", tougher business regulations, etc. Turn to almost any editorial page or newscast to see anti-Capitalist rhetoric. How can Peikoff brush this off so readily? John Kerry is a man who is campaigning on a platform of higher taxes, more international involvement in American affairs (i.e., a reduction in American sovereignty), and partial socialization of the American healthcare system. Bush is a religious man, no doubt, but his religiousity is not anywhere near the threat to America that John Kerry's proposals are. Four more years of George W. Bush would be "apocalyptically bad" for America? Whatever. Peikoff is nuts. It seems as though he suffers from some sort of anti-Christian phobia which overrides his ability to logically analyze the issue. Leonard Peikoff condemns anyone who is voting for Bush (or, more generally, anyone who is not voting for Kerry). On this point he sounds like the type of dogmatic Christian fundamentalist he fears so much.