Zeus

While I'm not pro-Islamist myself, could you kindly validate this position? Just curious, thanks.

This was my thought and feeling also about oldsalt's post. I don't like feeling pity for heroes: they don't deserve it.

I know no-one else wants to say it, but it's time that the characteristically-evasive Charlotte Corday be removed from this forum. Her posts/threads are an irritation. This "Melissa" character is new, so we can give her, for a while, the benefit of the doubt.

What Drs. Peikoff and Lewis, and their supporters, are saying is: 1. Premise: Religious fundamentalists are a threat to America. 2. Premise: George W. Bush is a religious fundamentalist. 3. Conclusion: Therefore, I will vote against George W. Bush. The main argument against this reasoning is: Is Bush really that dangerously religious? And even if Bush the man were, is his party? The GOP's leading lights - Gulliani, Ridge, and Schwarzenegger - are pro-abortion. In other words, someone would have to show that the Religious Right had truly seized the Republican party. The other argument is: Voting against Bush means voting for Kerry, an anti-American candidate running for America's presidency. Can the nation risk a do-nothing candidate, as opposed to a flawed, do-something candidate, in a time of possibly-nuclear war? Here too, someone would have to show that Kerry would do something, anything, to protect America. Owing to a lack of detailed scenarios which would illustrate how a Bush presidency would evolve into a theocracy or a Kerry presidency would become pro-American self-defense, the jury is still out.

You could very well use the "Here Come The Christians" thread. John Lewis's article is referred to there.

Profesor Lewis has posted in the "Dollars & Crosses" section of Capitalism Magazine: http://www.capmag.com/news.asp?ID=1210 Most interestingly, he provides a link to a Straussian's analysis of neo-conservatism. It is a fascinating article which, in my initial opinion, should remind us quickly of the rise of Stoicism ("Duty", Marcus Aurelius, etc.) in the Roman Empire just before Rome's collapse. An excerpt from the Straussian's article:

You're right - the vacationers are portrayed as being snobbish towards the help, who dance to lustful music in their free time. But I don't find that aspect too troubling, since the music being danced to isn't valueless and Swayze's character, one of the help, falls in love with Baby, a wealthy doctor's daughter. Plus, the film, if I recall correctly, ends in a "reconciliation" which doesn't compromise the integrity of the wealthier people at the resort.

Near the beginning of the Patrick Swayze movie, Dirty Dancing, there's a scene in which a despicable character, in "explaining" the reason for his behavior extends a copy of The Fountainhead to his interlocutor. I liked the movie when I first watched it long, long ago. But, watching that scene now, knowing what I do, leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

You're right, and I agree. However, there is Schwarzenegger's "True Lies," which is a rather good (but perhaps too humorous) Hollywood movie depicting Islamic fundamentalism versus America.

Professor Lewis weighs in once more on the election. Dust your textbooks, people! Craig Biddle, too, says he's voting for Kerry.

Could you kindly summarize the content of the "Art of Thinking" and "Unity in Epistemology and Ethics" tapes? Thanks.

The article attributes unreferenced quotes to Ayn Rand. As such, the entire piece is suspect.

Don't get me wrong, I have no quarrel with your assessment of Confucius' approach to epistemology and ethics, especially as I haven't read him. I was just wary of comparisons to Kant. Plato was a really serious philosopher, no matter his flaws. Still, I'm curious: Which thinker(s) in Eastern history made the eventual development of paper and gunpowder possible? Or did it owe to Western contact and influence? Now, I'm certain that the answer to the above is NOT "it happend over time, bit by bit." So, how did it happen?

Considering that Confucius lived c. 500BC (when men everywhere were primitive), I don't think it's fair to compare him to Kant, who lived in the Enlightenment. Even if he's not the Aristotle of the East, the farthest I would go in labelling his philosophy's concern with others is Plato.

No problem, Randrew. I understand your financial plight - being a student most always carries that limitation. Best of luck in this regard. You are on the right track here. Empricism before modern philosophy referred to the formation of concepts from sense-perception, e.g., Aristotle. But with the advent of modern philosophy, empiricism now refers to the overwhelming regard for sense-perception with a tendency to deny that concepts may be formed from percepts, e.g. Hume. Empiricists tend not to climb the conceptual hierarchy. They are content in the land of concretes. For example, a person who sees a tree, a flower, a shrub, but refuses to give them the general name, "plant." The meaning of rationalism, however, hasn't changed since Plato: the disregard for the data of sense-perception in the formation of concepts. The result: ideas severed from reality. Rationalists may not deny a hierarchy in all cases but philosophically deny that whatever hierarchy there is has a foundation; this person believes in a two- or more storey building without the first floor. He's in a sort of Daredevil or SpiderMan world where he leaps from rooftop to rooftop but forgets that all these roofs presuppose concrete brick-and-mortar. Rationalizing, however, is not a philosophical view but rather the attempt to explain away evasions in one's thinking.

There's a movie coming out on the 5th of October rebutting Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. Check out the trailer by following the link from the Cox & Forkum website.

With no disrespect intended towards Dr. Bernstein, I think it is wiser for you - or anyone for that matter - to first concentrate on the work of the leading Objectivist philosophers, i.e., Drs. Peikoff and Binswanger -- and then try to cross-check your own understanding of Objectivism against theirs. If one is essentializing properly, as Objectivism teaches, this would be the obvious course of action. If a person seeks to understand a philosophy at root, he should focus on epistemology, which is the essential branch of philosophy. And the leading epistemologists are Drs. Peikoff and Binswanger. Although Miss Rand's work and Dr. Peikoff's systematization of it in OPAR are written in plain English, the truths contained therein are not at all self-evident but took many, many years of thought by perhaps the world's greatest ever genius to discover. If you don't hold the view that the work of the greatest mathematicians can be "figured out" by yourself (after all, you're in a graduate program in math, aren't you?), why would you think so about the work of the greatest philosopher? Many students of Objectivism, being usually very bright and possessing intellectual self-confidence, tend to think they can "go it alone" in the study of philosophy. Objectivism contributes to this confidence: most of us feel ready to take on any non-Objectivist in almost any field given a basic grasp of Objectivist epistemology and a basic knowledge of whatever specialized topic is being discussed. But, this self-confidence can be dangerously misleading. Just as you might study leading experts in mathematics, you should also seek to study the leading experts on Miss Rand's work. Before I bought the "Understanding Objectivism" course, I had already read virtually everything in the Objectivist corpus (some books many times over). I had discussed epistemology at length with my very brilliant brother (also a student of Objectivism) and some other students of Objectivism. I had read several supporting histories of Western civilization in different contexts, to ensure that Miss Rand's assertions in her various essays were not floating abstractions, and had just about immersed myself in every area of life, excepting marriage and children, referred to in her work. Friends, sex, love, work - in a dictatorship, in freedom - you name it. Yet, each course I bought from the Ayn Rand bookstore taught me something new (aside of the professors named above, I've also bought work by David Harriman and Edwin Locke). But, before I bought any courses, just from reading Ayn Rand's work, I already knew what rationalism was; but you didn't, according to one of your earlier posts. So, obviously, you have quite a lot of "figuring out" to do. I say all this not to intimidate you, but to underscore the fact that the full scope of Ayn Rand's achievement is not easily graspable. And perhaps only a study of history can impress this upon you in good measure. The "Understanding Objectivism" course, graciously recommended to me by Mrs. Speicher, deals with a phenomenon common amongst Objectivists: a tendency to hold some or many of the truths of the philosophy as a system of floating abstractions which they can deduce principle-to-principle, e.g., Existence exists; Every existent exists possessing identity; Some existents possess consciousness; some don't; Living things exist possessing consciousness; Life is self-generated, goal-directed action; Life requires a specific course of action; Life is an end in itself; Man is a living thing; Man possesses a volitional consciousness; Since man must make choices in value pursuit, he requires a code of values; A code of values requires a standard; Only a thing which is an end in itself can be a standard of value. Since man is a living thing, and life is an end in itself, Man's life is the standard of value. and there's a lot more where that came from. What Dr. Peikoff does in this course is address the case of a student of Objectivism who employs this method - in some area of his life - and then, after some time, finds that he can't live as an Objectivist (something which you mentioned in an earlier post). Many of the best young Objectivists have experienced this problem in some form, he says. He then describes, at length, the methodology he used, over a period of 12 years, to overcome this problem in his own life. In doing so, he clarifies several key points of Objectivism. Now, his ordering of the Objectivism hierarchy is pre-OPAR and you will have to do some reviewing on your own. But the most value, by far, is in the method he used. There's more in the course, but in the spirit of the fight against rationalism, I enjoin you to look at reality and find out for yourself by buying the tapes.

Do you mean Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World ?

Oh, I see. I should have paid more attention to your use of the word "reduced" in your original post.

Coming from a mathematics background myself, I have a first-hand understanding of how rationalism operates in certain personal contexts. While still sorting out my own issues, I would advise that you, whenever possible, get a copy of Dr. Peikoff's "Understanding Objectivism" course where he addresses in detail this problem, the symptoms of which you seem to be showing. I thought I knew Objectivism really well until I bought this course. Now I'm sure I only know it quite well. There's still a lot of work to be done.

The perceivable concrete is the letters you use in writing "l-i-g-h-t-y-e-a-r." You don't have to project a distance of 9.4605284 × 10^15 meters. Just look at the visual-auditory symbols light-year. I had begun to project how physicists would have done this over time when I found this. I hope I answered your question.

I watched some of this yesterday. There was a serialized roundtable discussion with several participants of various philosophical leanings. During the back-and-forth, I couldn't help thinking: why are all these false alternatives being bandied about so recklessly? could it be that this Armand Nicholi guy hasn't heard of Ayn Rand? Oh well...

The Threat of Bush’s Faith-based America In the war between reason and religion, declared by Islamic fundamentalists, President Bush is firmly on the side of religion. The positions he supports most passionately are those of theocracies: prayer in schools, a national pledge “under God” recited by children, judges who uphold religion in government, laws against abortion, publicly-funded faith-based initiatives, bans on cloning and genetic research, censorship of pornography, and a marriage amendment to the Constitution. If he has not imposed religious censorship, it is not because it is antithetical to his core values. Mr. Bush is energizing the political foundations of an American theocracy. Nevertheless, there is only one issue in the 2004 election: the war with militant Islam. Here Mr. Bush has also remained true to his principles. He has not acted against a single religious government. He took down the Taliban because they had aided those who “hijacked a great religion.” He threw down a secular dictator in Iraq and established the terms by which the country can become fundamentalist. Iranian mullahs have been assured that their overthrow is not on our agenda. We have bombed their opponents in Iraq, and negotiated with their Shi’ite stooges who plan to take over Iraq. If they succeed, they will control a second country— bordering on their first, Iran. A greater Islamic state, armed with nuclear bombs, would be a gift from George Bush. Mr. Bush accepts that people may establish a government based on religious principles; after all, he thinks, that is what we did in America. He uses US troops to preserve the “rights” of foreigners to establish the same religiously-inspired governments that attacked us to begin with. From the start, Mr. Bush exercised his leadership by declaring the war not against militant Islam, but against “terrorism.” This has obfuscated the nature of our enemies and led us to squander our resources in ways not central to our interests. Had our president named the enemy properly, but then taken no action at all, we would be able to repudiate that inaction and fight the war properly. Now we must repudiate the very aims of the war. It will take extraordinary leadership to reverse this error. The result is that the source of America’s enemies remains untouched. Iran is building nuclear bombs. Pakistan (a thug who seized power) and Russia (an ex-KGB officer) are called allies. Syria and the Saudis have not been confronted. Afghanistan and nuclear-armed Pakistan remain hideouts for Al Qaeda. We arm Islamic soldiers while our money builds schools in Baghdad. When we leave, those schools will teach radical Islam, and those soldiers will shoot at us. Further, Mr. Bush is undercutting the very idea of self-defense. He spent over a year asking the UN for permission to invade Iraq, while claiming that no permissions will be sought. He is re-defining “overwhelming force” into a consensual war fought with compassionate regard for “innocents.” Such a conceptual stew leaves people with little guidance as to what offensive retaliation against foreign enemies is. Meanwhile, Mr. Bush has established a permanent, institutionalized state of siege at home. The war can now be fought against Unabomber-types, without ethnic “profiling.” And, don’t forget: you are permanently at risk; the war will be long; better buy some duct-tape. This is all a consequence of Mr. Bush’s “faith-based” thinking. He has “faith in markets,” “faith in the American people,” “faith that people want freedom.” He holds such ideas as religious absolutes. He shoots out a strong statement from his subconscious (“we will make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them”), and then watches it dissolve in the face of arguments he cannot answer. The statement becomes an empty utterance, compromised in words and actions, precisely because it was held on faith rather than as a rational, defensible conviction. More specifically, Mr. Bush’s policies are defined by two elements: religious patriotism, and religious altruism. The first demands that he stand tall against America’s ungodly enemies. The second demands that he spend billions to help the unfortunate. Picture two bombers over Afghanistan: one drops a bomb (precision-guided, to avoid hitting a Mosque), and the next drops peanut butter. The first satisfies the patriot, the second redeems the altruist. This, he thinks, is how God wants him to fight the war. It is a positive sign that many Americans want a forthright offense against our enemies. But they are confused if they think that Mr. Bush advocates this in fact. I do not wish to abet that confusion. What about John Kerry, an obnoxious Carter / Kennedy / Clinton wannabe who sees Americans as war criminals? He does not hide his desire to subordinate American defense to a foreign consensus. This leaves less confusion in its wake; no one will mistake him for George C. Patton. Besides, Mr. Kerry will be desperate to be seen as tough on terrorism; he might actually do a better job against America’s real enemies. Most of all, in the war with fundamentalist militant Islam, Bush is pro-religion, all the way to the core of his soul. Kerry does not share this premise. If you think that a turn towards a theocracy in America is far-fetched, remember that “The Passion of the Christ” is approaching a half a billion dollars in box-office take, and conservatives have lined up to extol its blood-soaked message. —John Lewis

I would even go further to say: Even if these environmentalist claims were true, does man have a choice but to act according to his nature, i.e., to use his mind to conquer nature?

Not a problem, CF...anytime.