Thales

Well, he is saying it, and it is taught in universities. It's nothing new. It's important to take it seriously and show it to be wrong!

I think this is a great opportunity to look at the epistemology underlying the bad reporting of the msm. From your link: There can definitely be objectivity in news, i.e. you can relate what happens in the real world objectively. You can do it in rocket science -- how else do we get rockets to mars? -- and you can do it in any other field I'm aware of. The claim is made that in order to know the world "as it is" you have to some how remove the observer from the world, but what we perceive in the world is the world "as it is". Your faculty of perception is part of the world too, after all. But there is an *order* to knowing the world, a logical order of learning things. ALL of our experiences, from the moment we're born, come from our perceptions. We build up our understanding of the world from perceptions. We come to know that we are observers from our perceptions. We come to realize that there are other people who observe, from our perceptions. We learn that we have senses that take in data, from our perceptions. All of that we build on to understand the world around us. You can't start in the middle with a statement like "I am an observer who sees things from my perspective therefore I can't be objective", because it is self-contradictory. On what are you basing this allegedly objective statement? The premise is supposed to be "objective", after all, because it is being claimed as sound knowledge. Anyway, we can know the world objectively, the evidence for which is available to us every waking moment doing routine things. I make breakfast. I drive a car. I feed my cat. I work out. I program. etc. etc. I do all of these things successfully, all the time. I perceive the real world, and interact with it successfully. Continuing with his quote: I see evidence 24/7 that everyone around me is seeing the same world and responding to it in the same way, at least on the level of the directly perceivable. I think we all agree there is an Earth. I think we all agree there are oceans on the earth. Often news reporting is over issues that are that direct! As to more abstract issues, they are a matter of *reasoning*, and reasoning is a matter of getting your conceptual house in logical line with the facts you perceive. So, your problem, mister news guy, is that your conceptual house is a mess. Game-set-and-match.

Funny how they didn't mention the down side to lowering interest rates to near zero: risky investments that don't pay off. This is exasperated by the FDIC, which makes the banks feel safe even if they fail. It's also funny how they talked about a stable monetary policy, when they are a big reason for the lack of stability! Inflationary policy has harmed the dollar greatly. Also, what are banks leveraged today, something like 30 to 1? 30 dollars invested for every one dollar in the bank. Back during free banking the typical bank was leveraged 2 to 1. The difference in stability is massive. Some "backstop!"

The happiest of birthdays to you, Sophia!

I know this is back from 2006, but I'll bet ties had a purpose. They may have been used to keep dust from going down the neck. However, that's just a guess, and now they are purely for show. I don't like ties, myself. They are uncomfortable. As to being "pretty", men don't want to be "pretty", as a rule. Maybe attractive, but not "pretty".

How bad is socialized medicine? From February 25, 2010 Stafford Hospital caused ‘unimaginable suffering’: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_...icle7039285.ece Excerpt from article: People who make excuses for that don't care about human beings.

I love this commercial! Geico Caveman, fire! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjqkH-rekiQ

You are welcome, Steve. The two things I remember were Al Michaels' call "Do you believe in miracles!? YES!" and the Mike Eruzione goal. Eruzione was a legend after that. Funny thing, I don't think he ever ended up playing in the NHL, but several of those players ended up being solid NHLers. Perhaps Neil Broten had the best career of the group.

Given that, and the fact that the Soviet super team hadn't lost an Olympic game since 1968 (21 games in a row), and this would be for the gold... the 1980 thriller had a much more dramatic context. Here is Al Michaels' famous call "Do you believe in miracles?! YES!" And here is better footage of highlights of the game with another broadcast team: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fztlLwgSFCg

Are they're still playing pro hockey players in the Olympics? Back in 1980 that wasn't allowed. The Soviets did do it, because they were allowed to get away with it. This was probably the biggest reason for the huge mismatch back then. Also, the Soviet team was together for years.

Not quite right. It's someone who does so SELFLESSLY. This is the key. If you give to a friend to help him out, because you value that friend, that is not altruistic, and it it thus not moral. It's this love of self-sacrifice, as if it's a virtue, that is destructive of life and liberty, as explained in that article I cited above. That article gives deeper philosophical points on the matter making it crystal clear what it means. Auguste Comte coined the term "altruism", and he's clear on what it means. Altruism, in fact, is pure evil designed to suck the soul out of an individual, depriving him of any benefit in the world. It's disguised as benevolence, but it is in no way benevolent or beneficial to anyone. It cuts anyone down for being selfish. Rights are designed specifically to protect the individual, so that he can live his life and pursue his happiness. It's a purely egoistic concept. Altruists consider selfishness to be evil. They would have nothing but contempt for rights. By way of example, altruists are always forcing us to do things by the state, and accuse us of being "selfish" if we don't go along. That's the entire way the welfare state was created.

Altruists demand that people give themselves over to the collective as a matter of duty. So, you are dead wrong on that. Altruists are big on forcing people. It's their forte. This is why they believe in taxing and regulating the hell out of people. After all, who are you to be so "selfish"? It just so happens I came upon an article that addresses the issue of altruism versus freedom, and how they are incompatible: http://theobjectivestandard.com/blog/2010/...-vs-america.asp

I did listen to the speech, which was nothing remarkable. However, the thing she said that really turned me off was she characterized the Tea Party people as good "selfess" people. Apparently the "Who is John Galt" signs made no impression on her, or, worse, she was trying to counter them. She seemed to get a real charge out of that statement. I didn't hear the Q&A, but it looks to me like she was selling both pragmatism and faith. The good things she says about free markets are all undermined by those fundamentals.

I celebrated yesterday by defending Darwin against an attack on his theory and by reading a Dawkin's article on the matter of the Cambrian explosion.

Hey, that's neat that you are in the middle of it all, Sophia. The ice hockey has always been my biggest interest in the winter Olympics, although the down hill Slalom events were fun. My mother used to figure skate, and loved the ice dancing competitions. I remember when they allowed pro-hockey players play, that's when the hockey became really good. Brett Hull's shot really stood out in the Olympic style game.

Precisely!

Interesting. What you say makes sense, but it would still be true that a guy like Peter Keating is denying his spirit if he isn't pursuing something that he truly values objectively. If he is doing things because others expect it of him, yet he doesn't value what he is doing, then he is denying himself. Thanks for this thread, Ifat. It's thought provoking.

Alan Gotthelf has been around a long time. He's an Aristotelian scholar and was a good friend of Ayn Rand's. They did research together. Alan Gotthelf, Harry Binswanger, Edwin Locke, Andrew Bernstein, John Ridpath, Thomas Bowden, Peter Schwartz and Tara Smith were not educated at ARI, but I think all have been used by ARI. The great thing is there are other excellent names I could mention.

I just want to make note that I am impressed with the intellectuals ARI produces. They demonstrate depth and breadth of knowledge in their fields, and they are very effective at communicating those ideas. I've never seen any other intellectual organization that put out such high quality people in such high percentage. I'm speaking of people like Yaron Brook, Alex Epstein, Keith Lockitch, Thomas Bowden, Onkar Ghate, Elan Journo , et. al. Not to mention the highest level intellectuals, such as Leonard Peikoff and Harry Binswanger. These guys are awesome! They are well reasoned, well spoken, calm and courageous. A great example is Keith Lockitch here: http://arc-tv.com/heretical-views/

That was posted here months ago. I read a bit of it and realized it was just juvenilism writ large. So I stopped. No point.

I'm not sure what the episode is, but there's one where they rendezvous with Leonardo Da Vinci. Crow is surprised to see Da Vinci and says "I thought you were dead", which Da Vinci doesn't take too kindly to, as if Crow put out a hit on him mafia style. Very funny.

That's just great. You're supposed to be the local football expert and you miss the big one! It was a pretty good game. It'd say the real surprise was the way the New Orleans defense stepped up and made it hard for the Colts to score. That was the story of the game.

Given that your professor seems close minded, you might have to go along so that you can maintain a solid gpa. It's not your responsibility to change the professor's mind and there is virtually no chance you will be able to, although I understand the temptation. When you are out of university you'll be in a better position to fight these guys, because then they won't have control over your career. I would put in a reasonable fight for a better letter grade on that paper, however, because it looks to me like a real injustice.

Actually, strictly speaking, this is wrong. A value has to really further or sustain your life to be a real value. It can't be just any goal you seek.

It's really a writing problem. When you write long, windy sentences that turn into long, windy paragraphs you over load the mind of the reader, making it difficult to comprehend what you are saying. Shakespeare said it best, brevity is the soul of wit. And you say Ayn Rand was wordy. Well, not really. If you look at her non-fiction you will see short, cogent, essentialized arguments. She is probably the best writer I've seen for saying a lot in a few sentences. As practice I think you should try and present ONE point in ONE short paragraph.