VcatoV

Hmm well as you said, you have described the conceptual framework for a law of nature, but that's not enough for a definition. Maybe you should start with what you would presume to be a law of nature and deconstruct it until you understand it better. So, name a specific law...

Does anyone have the new COD Black Ops? My xbox gamertag is: VcatoV

I think a large part of the issues rests on your perceptions of how free or oppressive our government currently is, and how restricted free speech and the media are. Releasing "secrets" about the North Korean government is not morally reprehensible. So you answer the question: has the United States government lost the last vestiges of freedom? Is free speech impossible? If not, then why did he release the information?

When did ARI begin forcing people to read Rand? Looks like they are radicalizing!

Most of your questions have been answered in the homosexuality threads, and I would take the time to read those (they are quite valuable!). As to gender roles, could you be more specific about what specific elements of gender that you are interested in?

Since marijuana is not a moral issue (some sort of evasion of reality is), it becomes a personal desire or preference. If, as others have stated, under any form she is mentally evading, then you have a case for some sort of moral argument against her (yet once again, you have to put everything on context--which means, learn as much about her as you can). If you cannot find a moral problem, then you simply have to decide how attached you are to your preferences or how repugned you are by hers. This is not to say that preferences are not important--just trying to sort the situation out into something contextually comprehensible.

With such limited information, it is difficult to say. It could be, as the poster above stated. Or, the owner might merely have a strong value for that piece of land and does not want it destroyed; in such a case, defending one's values is justified. Though it is good to judge, a rational human being will always seek justice by ascertaining the true nature of the situation (finding out all the facts). I would probe this individual, or do some research on this individual, to help contextualize what he was saying.

Not really. They are more of a test for logical validity

Others have perfectly stated the realm of ethics and its origins. The purpose of this is to differentiate between virtues and benevolent actions. Though there is no moral reason to help that child, it is indeed a benevolent act to do so. This does not mean that benevolence is a virtue (unless your name is David Kelley), but rather is an extension of one's sense of life and eudaimonia. Consider this. A person is walking with both hands full of junk and you are right in front of them entering the same building. Morality has no say in whether to hold the door open or not, yet a benevolent person would want to extend his sense of life and goodwill towards others by holding the door open. This does not make you a more virtuous person, but it does help to project your sense of life out into the world.

Seems they were too busy stoning women and hanging gays to notice...

Hello Eric and welcome to the forums! Don't be so hard on yourself. Your 40 years of life allowed you to become the person you are, which led you to Ayn Rand. You've already done most of the work, she just put it into words for you . If you are looking for some things to light the fire (depending upon what you read), I'd suggest a few of the following as primers: "The God of the Machine" --by Isabel Paterson. It is a non-fiction, but really cuts to the chase in beautiful prose when it comes to individualism and our modern society. Plus, she was the mentor of Ayn Rand. "The Histories" --by Polybius. This is an ancient history written by a Greek philosopher/historian who wanted to explain to the Greeks how Rome came to power. The best part about reading this history is the discovery of real-life people, an entire society, who exhibited many of the traits described in Rand's novels. "Stranger in a Strange Land" --by Robert Heinlein. I hesitated at first with this one. Heinlein is undoubtedly a wonderful and enjoyable read (these are fiction novels)who has the tendency to project wonderful ideas in a refreshing way. The other one by him that you should read, if you don't like this one at first, would be "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", which tends to be his most popular. "Stranger", though, affected me personally like no other novel except those by Rand.

First let's preface with this fact: Zinn is a Marxist who desired to whitewash history by presenting a [Marxist] "People's" History of the United States. So always be on guard. Secondly, this is quite simple: justice is justice. What is just for a poor person is not different than what is just for a rich person, as opposed to a black or white person, gay or straight, etc. As a rational human being, our commitment is to justice regardless of who is "suffering".

I support the bill in the sense that it will rile up the population and bate the politicians. This is not the glorious Roman Senate--these are not men of moral stature. They are modern-day politicians, and the only way to pluck them out of their complacency is to "stir the hornets nest" so to speak. And no, politicians should never be philosophers (or vice versa). Save that for Plato and Woodrow Wilson.

I think you guys need to remember that politicians are not philosophers. This bill is a game to bate the Federal Government. Obviously this bill will not pass, as Boehner himself skipped the screening. It is simply designed to stir up the population and force the government to act in some way.

Having read both Plato and the Bible in the original Greek (unfortunately, Aristotle is still a tad above my knowledge-he had a knack for inventing words!), I have found that it is very difficult to convey Greek concepts of love into English. What makes this all the more troubling is that, just like in English, the language evolves. Agape during the Classical period has a very different translation than that of the Koine/Christian period. So the first thing to realize is that there is no single correct/proper definition of agape and eros. You would have to cite a specific poet or philosopher who used the term, and then discover in which context they used it. This is the only way to truly understand the meaning of both words. Nevertheless, a vague "definition" can be built. But once again, there is a problem. Love, to the Greeks, was a relationship. Thus when a Greek said "I love you" to their parents, they did so in a different way than they did when they said it to a sibling, a child, a fellow countryman, an idea, a sexual partner, a romantic partner, etc. The essential point to take away is this: the difference in the words defines a difference in relationship. It does get a tad bit more complex: it was possible (and common) to have a certain type of love-relationship with a person who did not necessarily match the original recipient within the definition. For example, the Christians found it easy to adopt agape love as the love between fellow Christians because they were acting "brotherly" towards one another, while not necessarily being brotherly. In a broader sense, though, love also conveyed the disposition of an individual. This disposition was seen as necessarily congruent with the status of the relationship. In order to have the relationship of brotherly love/agape, it was necessary for an individual to possess the attribute/characteristic/form/category of brotherliness. The Greeks heavily conveyed in their language the belief that many of these emotions/loves were naturally present, but repressed by culture/society/the individual on purpose (for good or bad). In short-all Greeks had agape within themselves, but repressed/ignored/discovered it anew for a variety of reasons. While this might sound overly philosophical, these ideas were firmly rooted into the Greek mind, and thus when conveying a specific type of love, all of these attributes/peculiarities were taken into effect. To properly understand eros and agape would take a lifetime of work. Now, with this background in mind, to address your questions: The Greek would respond that both were necessary to live a proper life. They are not mutually exclusive. This is indeed true. If we take the simple English definitions of erotic and brotherly love, would you not say that both are necessary? You desire an erotic relationship with your partner and a brotherly relationship with your siblings, or your closest friends. What matters is that you attain the proper balance, or the necessary course, which leads to a flourishing love life. This means: you want to be erotic with your spouse, not but let your erotic side become so dominant that you are attempting to sleep with every person you can; or, you want to be agape with your best friend, but you do not want to trust fully/be highly benefited by each passing stranger. Every act of love, to take the Aristotelean ethical formula, must be done at the right time, for the right reasons, under the right circumstances. Let me know how much time you have, because the subject is immense. The definitive, must reads are the Nichomachean Ethics by Aristotle, the Symposium and Phaedrus by Plato, Works and Days by Hesiod, and the Metamorphoses by Ovid.

Welcome How did you first hear about/encounter Ayn Rand?

What part did not seem holistic to you? It was, in fact, my studying of Ancient Greece and Rome (I even learned Latin and Greek) that led me to many of the conclusions I have. I am a firm believer in this St. Augustine quote (though I do not believe in his philosophy! lol): "Rome was founded and extended by the labors of those men of old; their descendants made Rome more hideous while it stood than when it fell. For in the ruin of the city it was stone and timber which fell to the ground; but in the lives of those Romans we saw the collapse not of material but of moral defenses, not of material but of spiritual grandeur. The lust that burned in their hearts was more deadly than the flame which consumed their dwellings." In which work did Plato discuss this idea? I actually agree with you. I believe that it is essential to build a coalition of people around a few, central, limited principles. I actually meant that I disagreed more in the methodology of the Tea Party. You are more than welcome email me at [email protected] if you would like to discuss any of these ideas further.

Creepy. Just creepy. But props to Horowitz for exposing her for who she really is.

That was awesome! lol Thanks so much for posting it

Welcome! And remember this. Learning all the necessary knowledge for a debate is a daunting and indeed never-ending task. But victory does not come solely through "out-proving" your point, but through the passion of your convictions, and the crystal-clear, simplicity of your logic. First, commit this quote by Danton to memory: "Audacity, audacity, always audacity!" My first thought for your friends was, how silly! If there will be disorder upon the disentigration of the Welfare state, then was there disorder of a greater magnitude before hand? Prove it. Tell them to prove it. Tell them to also prove that the rate of disorder has decreased under the welfare state. They will come up with other examples, start speaking out of their a**, etc. But keep pushing them, because the essence is that this is not a historical fact, and thus no matter how many times they try to justify it, they will fail. Keep that conversation short. Because then all you have to say is that it was also deemed as a net benefit of society, in order to promote order and increase unity, to slaughter 6 million Jews. Their logic is the same, their intentions different. But how long do you think that it will take, once given the power/mechanism, to slide to the bad end? History is on your side once again. Many times, in a debate, you do not have to know more than your opponent, you just merely need to be more coherent about your principles. The more true you are to your principles, and the more you apply them with boldness and audacity, you will win. Leftist accept as default historical falsehoods. Thus almost everything they say is fantasy. Don't get trapped in their world. First off, don't let them pull you through their OWN problems and call it "Capitalism". The United States and most of the Western world has only been Capitalistic to the extent that it recognizes individual rights. Thus, not very much, and decreasingly so over the past 100 years. To call the 2008 crash, for example, a result of "greed" or "exploitative capitalism" is to ignore the government actions (such as the Fair Housing Act) that brought the event about. Many, many, many times leftist will blame many of the problems that they caused on Capitalism. See through this-do not automatically accept what your friends are saying as true. Secondly, the very nature of a Capitalist system does not allow for exploitation, which shows an ignorance on their part of what Capitalism is. A perfect opportunity for you to educate them.

I have heard and read many a soldier who disagrees with this. Or do you not think that charging into for sure death for the sake of a greater cause is a rational choice to die?

You are adopting a dangerous contradiction here. Are you accepting a moral compromise by not practicing impeccable rationality? Or is there a problem with your observations about absolute rationality?

Pleasure and pain are a complicated issue. Nevertheless, they tend to be reactionary-meaning that a certain act or event will result in pain or pleasure. If a human being refuses or chooses not to be rational (which is the choice for life), then it will not be possible for him to determine which pleasures are life-affirming or not. If you are married or are in a long term relationship, but fail to use your mind to discriminate between pleasures, just how many people do you think you will sleep with? Pleasure can indeed take over pain as the predominant reaction of one's universe. But that is contingent upon the moral system a person has built up and trained within themselves, the successful accomplishment of virtues, etc. One again, this is using the mind in conjunction with pleasure, not ignoring the mind in pursuit of pleasure.

The control you have over your emotions is secondary. "Swallowing your fear" is just evading or overcoming your emotion. They are not in and of themselves controlling the emotion. The control is a number of things, many biological, though many also are related to an individual's ideas.

Emotions are "effects", never "causes". They are signals or indicators pointing towards some kind of action occurring. As such, it is impossible for them to be immoral. They are not by nature under volitional control.