BurgessLau

1. The correct spelling of his name is P-E-I-koff. 2. You don't need to read OPAR to learn about the Objectivist view of human sexuality. Ayn Rand created Objectivism. Read her views. Start with the entries under "Sex," The Ayn Rand Lexicon, pp. 457-459, and then follow those excerpts to their original sources for more discussion.

Illuminaughty, what do you mean by "humility"? Would you define it, as formally as you can?

Miscommunication! I misunderstood your original statement to mean: "the field of self-improvement and love," a field which you use in order to motivate people. In other words, a "sensitive" approach. Now I see you were trying to say "... the field of self-improvement[,] and [I] love to motivate people ...." (My clarifying additions in square brackets.) So, in part, the miscommunication came from my mistake. I admit it. Does that illustrate your point?

I do not understand: - Are you saying you advocate loving people to motivate them? - Are you saying you advocate loving people because they need it -- even if they don't deserve love?

I don't know what you mean by "us." Are you taking a poll, or is that a rhetorical question? Identifying an error is an instance of recognizing a fact of reality. That is a function of rationality, which is a virtue in a selfish person. Which "others"? In what circumstances? For what purpose? Yes, discussing certain kinds of mistakes with certain individuals in certain circumstances can be very helpful in correcting the mistake and improving my life. For example, if I make a mistake in using my computer and it locks up, I can learn from describing my error to a customer service representative.

What would you propose as an alternative way of obtaining "legitimacy" for a formerly aggressive state?

I have another question about criminal law. Isn't criminal law, as a whole, already structured in gradations based on the effect -- or even only potential effect -- of a crime on a victim? For example, isn't the penalty more severe for assault and battery than for assault? (I am not a lawyer, so I may be using the wrong terms.) Another example is the penalty for armed robbery being more severe than the penalty for theft, if my memory of news accounts is correct. If I steal your wallet from your negligently unlocked locker at the local gym while you are lifting weights, should the penalty be the same as it is if I press a pistol against your head while robbing you of your wallet while you are walking home from work? In summary, isn't it the impact -- or even potential impact -- on the victim that drives different levels of penalty under the law? P. S. -- Thank you, Matthew.

I am not familiar with the law. Does sentencing sometimes include compensation to the victim -- either by the criminal (good) or by the state from tax money (bad)? If it does, "impact" might make sense as a factor to be considered.

Perhaps my failure to understand your explanation is due to my not knowing what you mean by "principle." What is a "principle" as you are using the term? In particular, how do you see a principle differing from a concept -- such as "rationality"? Then, with that established, perhaps you could show how context is part of a principle -- an assertion still not clear to me.

Would you explain this? Why do you think the context for a principle should be part of the principle? Even more puzzling is: How can the context for a principle be part of the principle? Perhaps stating an example -- principle with context -- would make your point clear.

Welcome, Aleph. (Is Hebrew one of your languages?) I have a few comments that might interest you. In traditional history of philosophy, the term "objectivism," as I have seen it defined, names a particular thesis: a belief that there is a reality independent of consciousness. (See, for example, the definition in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, at least in the edition that was current a few years ago, which was the last time I examined it.) That is, of course, a metaphysical tenet, not a whole philosophy. On the other hand, "Objectivism," with a capital O, is the proper name for a whole philosophy, the philosophy that Ayn Rand created. See "Objectivism," The Ayn Rand Lexicon. You might also examine the Forum Rules, for capitalization. I am not sure what you mean by "spin" here, but you are definitely right that Plato's philosophy is rationalist, if that is what you are saying. Objectivism, of course, rejects rationalism and other corrupt epistemologies -- as well as everything built on them. In the context of Objectivism, which is the context for this forum, "rationalism" is the term that names an epistemology that emphasizes syllogistic rigor -- but starting from arbitrary premises. As Ayn Rand describes it, rationalism is the claim "that man obtains his knowledge of the world by deducing it exclusively from concepts, which come from inside his head and are not derived from the perception of physical facts ...." (See "Rationalism vs. Empiricism," ARL.) P. S. -- Aleph, I have been wondering what you mean by your subtitle: "A Pleasure To Make Your Acquaintances ... Except You." Would you explain? I often miss visual clues to such puzzles. Have I done that again?

Would you explain what you mean by "absolute" and "trump"?

I should spell out something I was assuming. First, the context for my definition of "free speech" is a political context, as the first post makes clear. The context is not a general ethical context. Politics is, in part, an application of ethical principles to a certain type of situation, the actions of man within a society that has a government using laws to prohibit fraudulent and aggressive behavior. So, in my definition when I say "peaceful" in that context, I am thinking of "not aggressive, that is, not initiating force against others." When I say "honest," I am thinking of "not committing fraud against others." Another assumption is that "peaceful" and "honest" apply to the individuals as communicators. I was not implying anything about the general moral character of the communicators. If there is a clearer, more concise, but more comprehensive definition of "free speech," I welcome it. So far, nothing better has been offered. In the meantime, I will continue using mine because I know what it means and I can easily apply it to a variety of contexts as polemical challenges emerge in rapid-fire discussion or debate. A definition is not an exhaustive description, but a short-hand way of saying to oneself or others who share the same context -- "this is what I mean." The main topic of this thread has been identifying various forms of attacks on free speech. That discussion appears to be complete. Discussing the meaning of free speech also has been helpful, but I have covered the key points I wanted to address, for now.

Earlier I said that free speech means to me: "communication between peaceful and honest individuals using their own resources at their own expense." The function of a definition (in contrast to an exhaustive description or catalogue) is to say, in essentials, what the referents of an idea are. A definition for the use of intellectual activists involved in public, rapid-fire debates should be a brief, easy-to-remember and easy-to-state formulation. If my definition of "free speech" is flawed, as it may very well be, then what would be a superior definition?

The main purpose of this topic-thread is to identify and classify attacks on freedom of speech. Another, implied purpose is to help intellectual activists, including me and others in this forum, to prepare for public discussion of these issues. With that in mind, I would like to make two more suggestions. They are related. 1. As a rough, provisional description, what I mean by free speech is communication between peaceful and honest individuals using their own resources at their own expense. Such a description, like any description of proper behavior within advanced society, stands on many assumptions. Following are three examples: a. Example assumption: "Communication" here refers not only to the whole process of conveying ideas from one person to another, but also to any step in that process. If I print a flyer and store it in a warehouse, there has not yet been completed communication. If a government burns the flyer before I distribute it, the government has attacked the right of free speech (as well as the right to property, which is a basis of free speech). b. Example assumption: The individuals involved in communication have not made any contrary, prior contractual commitments -- such as a promise to keep secrets. c. Example assumption: The individuals who are communicating at their own expense might be doing so with materials donated by others. Many other assumptions might need to be made. Making a lot of assumptions is common when saying anything about the propriety of any particular action in society. Keeping in mind this need for always making and sometimes explicating assumptions, intellectual activists can more easily resist two enemies' attempts to destroy free speech. The two enemies are: a. Intrinsicists, especially religionists, who want to impose out-of-context absolutes as limitations on free speech -- for instance, "Do not take the Lord's name in vain." b. Subjectivists who hold that, for example, restrictions on freedom of speech are proper in any way the majority chooses to impose them and for whatever rationale -- such as the belief that "sensitivity" to others requires limits on "hate speech." Both enemies attempt to destroy freedom of speech by either ignoring or attacking the objective, contextual nature of knowledge, including knowledge of when an individual has a right to speak freely and when he doesn't. 2. The right to free speech is an absolute, that is, it is a principle applicable without exception within a given context. Of course, the context has to be identified carefully, both at a philosophical level and at a legal level. The Ayn Rand Lexicon, pp. 2-3, provides excerpts from Ayn Rand's writings mentioning absolutes, in the metaphysical sense of absolute. Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, on pp. 23-26 discuss metaphysical absolutes, and on pp. 173-175 discusses epistemological absolutes. Ethical and political absolutes stand on the metaphysical and epistemological absolutes. The issue of absolutes deserves further discussion, but in some other topic-thread (new or old), not this one.

TRANSLATIONS OF THE ORGANON I have not made a survey of the many English translations of Aristotle's six treatises on logic. I can only suggest ones that I have in my library and that I found suitable: - Categories and De Interpretatione, translator J. L. Ackrill, 1963; includes notes. - Prior Analytics, translated and edited (introduction, notes, and commentary) by Robin Smith, 1989. - Posterior Analytics, second edition, translator Jonathan Barnes (somewhat hostile to Aristotle), 1994; includes notes and discussion. - Topics -- no suggestion, except to try the one in the Barnes two-volume complete works of Aristotle. - Sophistical Refutations -- no suggestion, except to try the one in the Barnes two-volume complete works of Aristotle. Expect to invest up to 1000 hours in a full, serious study of the Organon. It is vastly more difficult than Joseph's Introduction to Logic. As a final caution, I should say that anyone who doesn't have a professional interest in Aristotle or logic should not invest the huge amount of time required into reading the Organon. The payoff will be very small compared to the investment. Investing that time into a slow, close study of Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology would be more profitable to anyone seeking better methods for learning truth. ITOE is the single-most challenging work of philosophy that Ayn Rand wrote.

BOOKS ON LOGIC For anyone serious enough to even consider studying the Organon -- a collection of very difficult treatises by Aristotle -- I would recommend, as a first step, Dr. Peikoff's course, Introduction to Logic. I suggest studying half a lecture per week, for 20 weeks. Be sure to take detailed notes. Ask questions here in the Premium Forum, and perhaps someone will be able to discuss issues with you. Once you have absorbed all that, then you might attempt a second step, which would be a close study of Joseph's book. It is an introduction to all the issues (and more) that Aristotle covers in the Organon. It is much, much easier than the Organon. Summary: Study Dr. Peikoff's course as preparation for studying Joseph's book which, in turn, would be preparation for the very difficult study of the Organon. To "understand the science of logic" would be a vast enterprise, one requiring thousands of hours of study and intense thought. I cannot even imagine anyone completing such a program unless it was for professional reasons. I certainly wouldn't even attempt it. By the way, I have been assuming that anyone seriously interested in Aristotle has studied all the appropriate material from Dr. Robert Mayhew. He has presented a lecture on the study of Aristotle. I have not heard it, but I have heard good word about it. Perhaps that should be preliminary to study of any of Aristotle's texts

"Child porn," as I have heard the phrase used, does not refer to sales of pornography to children. Rather it refers to the production, distribution, sale, and possession of photos of children forced to engage in sex with other children or adults. The evil of child porn, in this sense, is the aggression used against children. Distribution, through sales or otherwise, of such material is not an issue of free speech, as noted already. Perhaps one of the functions of this topic-thread can be, as an aside, to identify issues which are not free-speech issues but which are mistakenly or maliciously packaged with free-speech issues. Examples mentioned earlier include libel, slander, and speech (such as shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater) that falsely creates dangerous emergency situations. Another pseudo-free-speech issue is the leftist argument that any property owner who refuses to allow leftists use of the owners' property for demonstrations is "censoring" the leftists. Other pseudo-free-speech issues?

I have been leading email, online, and face-to-face study groups off and on for more than ten years. At one point I charged for participation (to discourage the weak-willed). Following is what I have learned needs to be done to make a study group successful: 1. One person must be recruiter, leader, and moderator. 2. As recruiter, the SG organizer must: - define the purpose of the SG. - select the text. - propose a schedule (one chapter of text per week, beginning on Monday and ending Sunday evening, works best). - privately interview prospective SG members. - launch each week with his own post, on Monday morning. 3. Recruits must make a commitment to post in at least two-thirds of the weeks. 4. The posting requirements should not be onerous. One page (250 words) per week is plenty. Posts may be in the form of a summary, an outline, a "chewing" on some point, or an elaborated question (a question plus an explanation of the importance of it and why it is difficult to answer). A post must not be a random dumping of notes. 5. The post organizer must make clear to all participants that the SG is really a study group and not a series of lectures by the organizer or a wide-open discussion group (that can come after the last week of the scheduled SG). The purpose of a SG is to enhance independent (solitary) study -- not to replace it. 6. The SG must have a critical mass, usually the organizer plus five other people. However, the critical mass depends on the length and difficulty of the SG. The more difficult the material or the longer the schedule, the more drop-outs there will be, so the initial enrollment should be higher. 7. Every participant should be prepared to describe his background and his purpose in studying the text. He should also state his expectations. These factors set a context for responses. 8. Having a wide range of levels of background knowledge -- novices and experts -- helps the SG because it facilitates trade. 9. Participants must realize that there will be no time to resolve issues that arise. A function of the SG is to extend the gains made from independent study. One of those gains comes from being exposed to the questions and comments others in the SG make -- perhaps for later, in-depth study on one's own or in a special forum topic-thread. 10. Moderator intervention is seldom required when the SG organizer selects participants carefully and lets them know his standards are high. But when moderation is necessary, it should be swift and sure. 11. The participants must share the same philosophy. That enables participants to concentrate on the text and not on debates about their philosophical premises. 12. Lastly, but very importantly, the SG organizer should encourage everyone to prepare their posts in advance, before the SG officially begins. That way, there won't be a mad scramble to post on Sunday evening -- and then have no time to raise questions and discuss them because the next week begins the following morning. This expectation of preparation in advance means the organizer should announce the SG and begin recruiting at least three months before the start date.

PURPOSE. The issue of free speech is important to me for two reasons. First, it is the crucial issue in politics. Without free speech, I have only two choices left for making my social and political world better: passivity or armed revolution. Neither offers hope for improvement. Second, as part of my work, I have a historical interest in philosophical debate. Limits on freedom of speech affect the content and course of debate. Without free speech, there is no debate. When I look at history and at my world today, I see many attacks on freedom of speech. The attacks occur in various forms. I would like to have a clearer understanding of them as a set. This post is a schematic laying out my understanding at this point in the spiral of learning. I make no attempt to document anything. The daily new reports -- uncensored, one hopes -- offer plenty of examples. PHYSICAL ATTACKS -- THREATENED OR COMPLETED. Only a physical attack against me can violate my right to speak freely. A physical attack need not make bodily contact. Physical attacks also include fines and imprisonment. Furthermore, a threat of attack is a form of attack. Threat is a form that Islamofascists favor. They threaten to destroy property or kill outspoken opponents. In some cases, the threats are sufficient to silence their opponents. In other cases, the Islamofascists carry out the attacks by smashing, burning, maiming, or killing. Physical attacks to silence free speech can occur in various forms and circumstances: 1. De Jure Censorship. The largest-scale, most-persistent attacks on freedom of speech come from governments that pass laws banning or limiting speech in one way or another. An example is a government banning the possession of certain books because they are politically dangerous to the state and its supporters. This is de jure ("from the law") censorship. This is the kind of censorship Ayn Rand describes as the "old-fashioned" kind in "Censorship," The Ayn Rand Lexicon, second excerpt, from "Have Gun, Will Nudge," The Objectivist Newsletter, March 1962, p. 9. This is a direct form of de jure censorship. It is also public, that is, out in the open. There are also hidden forms of de jure censorship. In the work already cited, Ayn Rand notes a hidden form in which a government officially regulates communication, supposedly with an even hand, and then bureaucrats unofficially use their power as a way of herding nonconformists back into conformity. The means of pressuring broadcasters, in this scenario, need not be spelled out in the legal code. A friend of the commissar of communications may merely speak privately to a friend of the president of a nonconformist broadcasting company, passing along a hint that certain programs are inappropriate politically. The broadcaster, fearing legal retribution at license-renewal time, avoids showing programs that might offend the bureaucrats. De jure censorship may also be indirect. An example is taxation. Every dollar stolen from my pocket is a dollar that I might have spent on spreading my ideas. Further, in a socialist society, where the state owns the means of communication, the state indirectly imposes censorship by refusing to allow some individuals to use government communication facilities. Still another form of indirect de jure censorship is locking opponents in prisons, supposedly not for objectionable speech but for violations (real or imagined) of other laws selectively enforced. This is especially the case when those other laws are not objective and therefore are impossible for a rational man to follow consistently and still survive. The U. S. tax and anti-trust laws may be examples. 2. De Facto Censorship. Censorship "from the fact" (de facto) occurs when a government tolerates or is unable to stop the violent efforts of criminals (ideologically motivated or not) who are silencing opponents. To some degree, this is happening in parts of Europe and the United States. Islamofascists make threats that silence their enemies, and the state does little or nothing. Another form of de facto censorship occurs when individuals or whole departments in a government suppress free speech without having legal justification. An example would be "dirty tricks" played by rogue police officers -- for example, burning mailing lists or burglarizing campaign headquarters of political opponents. SUMMARY. Despite their many forms -- de jure and de facto, public and hidden, direct and indirect -- all attacks on freedom of speech are acts of aggression, that is, physical force.

I am a long-term student of history. I am not a logician -- not even close. I have made one reading through Joseph's Introduction to Logic, and then reread some sections as needed. However, I have referred to it with particular questions many times. Its index can serve as a glossary of sorts. This text is a traditional logic course. It follows the same general sequence of subjects that appear in Aristotle's Organon, a later name for Aristotle's six books on logic. Joseph was sometimes called "The Last of the Aristotelians," I have heard. His terminology, in some measure, is Aristotle's terminology, translated into English. The best approach to the book depends on the reader's purpose, which must be stated explicitly. For example, how does this book fit into the reader's central purpose in life, if it does? If, for instance, a reader intends to be a professional philosopher, then this book deserves close, slow study -- no more than one chapter per week, for 27 weeks. Even slower would be better. But either way, expect to reread some sections later. A close study may benefit students and professionals in other fields such as intellectual history and history of ideas, especially for ancient, medieval, and Renaissance culture. If the book is crucial to the reader's central purpose in life, then I would recommend that he apply all his study skills to the book: underlining, marginal note-taking, and perhaps even developing flashcards for key terms, in English and Latin or Greek. This is not a book for casual study! If the reader's purpose is simply to gain basic concepts of logic for everyday use, then perhaps a shorter, simpler text on syllogisms and fallacies would be more appropriate. A lot of them are around. An excellent intermediate source is Dr. Leonard Peikoff's audio-taped Introduction to Logic. It too deserves close study, but is not nearly as detailed. He adds a lot of material from an Objectivist perspective. I highly recommend it for serious students.

Jennifer, Thank you for laying out the situation and some of the options for improving the situation. My summary of the situation right now is that, de jure, there is in ObjectivismOnline.net no refuge for Objectivists (as distinct from non-Objectivists such as eclectics), where Objectivists can discuss or debate ideas with other Objectivists. De facto, the Premium Forums are at the moment a refuge from non-Objectivists, but because there is no written Forum Rule prohibiting entrance to non-Objectivists, that oasis may dry up at any moment. In conclusion, there is no place in ObjectivismOnline.net for an Objectivist to go if he wants to work only with other Objectivists (whether novice or long-term students of the philosophy).

What do you think of Dominique in The Fountainhead -- both her initial nature and the nature of the insight she gains by the end of the story?

Geoff, I have only a few points to add to Matt's excellent comments. First, though I am about 45 years older than you are, I know what you are going through. I went through it too, but at a time when the Objectivist movement had barely started -- and there was no internet. I also had much deeper psychological issues to overcome. It can be done. It takes time. Second, one issue you are wrestling with is loneliness -- not the feeling of missing having anyone around, but the feeling of having someone of value around. Aristotle, I've been told, said that a friend is "another self." That means someone who reflects our actual, basic values. Don't look only for other Objectivists in your search for friends. Look at what values and virtues people actually live by, not what they say outside their special field of interest. (If a friend of yours wants to be an astronaut, don't expect him to also be a philosopher -- but you can reasonably expect him to be positive, intelligent, rational, honest, and so forth.) My two closest friends are liberals. Sounds terrible, doesn't it, except that both abhor the idea of being dependent on anyone else, both invest long hours in passionate pursuit of the work they love, both are honest, and both try to think problems out to a solution. My test, in part, of a person as potential friend is to ask myself: How well would this person do in a laissez-faire society? Moochers would starve. My friends wouldn't, no matter what they might say to their liberal friends about the need for "safety nets." (I very seldom discuss philosophy or politics or ethics with my friends. Instead we enjoy each other as mirrors of our actual values. We do talk about issues, but always at a level of "How best can I achieve my values?") Second, I would like to suggest that what you are describing in yourself as "Nihilism" sounds much more like philosophical pessimism, which is the belief that you live in the worst of all possible worlds, and no matter what you do, nothing will work out. (Nihilism, by contrast, is the belief that no values can or should exist, and the desire to destroy all values, if any exist.) Philosophical pessimism is the opposite of philosophical optimism, which is the belief that we live in the best of all possible worlds (because God is good and God designed the world), and that no matter what the facts say, nevertheless everything will work out well. Both philosophical optimism and philosophical pessimism are wrong. The right way is objectivity: The universe is neither for us nor against us, but is here for us to use for our ends. And we are equipped to deal with the world because we have reason. Third, if you want Objectivist friends you need to explicitly set that as a goal, develop a step-by-step plan for reaching it, and then implement your plan. It can be done, and this website is a good place to discover ways to fulfill your goal. There are some very good people in ObjectivismOnline.net. While not everyone here agrees with Objectivism, you can sort through the gravel to find the gold nuggets. That is the same process you will need to go through in the rest of life too.

("Burgess," please.) Jennifer, For clarification, I have another question: Are you saying that, as of now, non-Objectivists (those who disagree with one or more elements of Objectivism) are prohibited from participating in the Premium Forums -- that is, prohibited by a written policy or rule? If not, then a non-Objectivist can sign-up for the Premium Forum and begin posting, right? What grounds would a moderator have for refusing that privilege to the non-Objectivist?