tps_fan

Since I've written about several related issues in great detail for well over the last 2 years, I'm not interested in reiterating the finer points of those arguments here. (As far as some of my various views are concerned, people can peruse my posts here on this forum, and/or they can check my blog which is linked in my profile.) I will simply say that I consider Craig Biddle's article to not only be substandard (roughly along the lines that Mammon indicated) but that article does something of a disservice to readers who aren't particularly well-versed in the entire philosophy of Objectivism and how thoroughly integrated it is. Simply put, I think that article of Biddle's was written based on non-essentials. He makes no mention of how religion is historically and hierarchically more profound than any form of Modernism. Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff spoke to this for decades, and frankly, they should be the first two Objectivists that any concerned person should consider as far as these related issues are concerned. Of course, there's also the matter of taking their ideas (let alone anyone's ideas) in proper context. For example, while the specific political issues as well as various political candidates have changed in popularity, the threat of religion has never substantially declined. I will leave it at that unless something in particular new arises. (edited for spelling)

I wasn't on here much at all over the weekend, but considering that I don't recall having trouble getting here and navigating (although something seems to have been up with the .com URL by the way...) I'm mighty impressed. I didn't even know... Pretty cool. Great job, admin time! w00t!

Have a great b-day, Kane!

Naaaaaaah, let 'em find out the hard way. ;-)

Neither major political party recognizes it as as Socialism though of course. They might think it's a pragmatic compromise... which it is in truth... but (unbeknownst to them) it's still unjustified. I like the article given the circumstances. Hey, _Time_ didn't spend much time bashing AR; nor did they snidely try to undercut Brook. Actual reporting. Imagine that!

I was going to guess that maybe Colorado was among the most free states, but I guess that's a bit naive. I figured that it couldn't be a coastal state, but South Dakota is #1 in freedom? Dang. Yeah, no kidding about who's the _least_ free. That stat. likely won't change anytime soon either. :-/ ...although my state seems to be fighting for that position. (sigh)

I might be interested. You can PM me and whoever else about the details of what you have in mind. I'd prefer meeting on Sunday (and not for irony's sake either!) I'm in the South County area by the way.

I just checked both stores' websites, and I couldn't find the journal listed. I even narrowed down B&N's offerings by magazine, but I came up with nada. HA! FWIW, Amazon has subscriptions! http://www.amazon.com/Objective-Standard/d...2905&sr=8-1

Funny, when I checked the ticketing website, it offered prices of either 18$ for students (w00t!) and seniors or 20$ (not 25$) for regularly priced tickets. Also, it's in "Surf City" aka Huntington Beach this time so that's in "South County" aka middle Orange County not the "Southland" aka South L.A. County just to drop some local jargon on ya. :-D I believe that it runs for about 2 weeks Weds. to Sun. each week., but 2x check the site for details.

I believe that Michael Paxton's entire adaptation of _Ideal_ is on his Collector's edition of _A.S.o.L._. Here's the link: http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=AR72DV

Why am I NOT surprised!

About the simplest way that I can put it is: As you turn away from the burdens of other people, you turn more attention to your own work. Now that's that, right?! Not quite... (I'm going to focus on a range or subset of transformation types e.g. some people who were never religious would have slightly different circumstances...) A number of considerations come into play. For one thing, even if someone claims to leave behind a failed philosophy, there can easily be a lot of "baggage" to deal with. It takes several years to start to learn and implement Objectivism (as would likely be the case with any other substantial philosophy.) It also takes time to move away from framing Objectivism in terms of the old philosophy and moving to a stage of treating Objectivism on its own terms. This is crucial!!! For example, I suspect that many new Objectivists still would at least implicitly consider the idea of perfection as other ideologies such as the religious ones do. They are still hampered by some old premises. In turn, they might think that Objectivism is impractical when the case is that they are misinterpreting the philosophy in ways that are similar to how the critics of Objectivism have. By the way, I tend to think that people really don't believe in a new idea until they have worked their way through it over an extended period of time in terms of their own respective life. That is, there's a huge difference in personalizing the application of a new idea... Here's a hypothetical to illustrate the point: Let's say that I get the idea to emulate a virtuoso guitarist. I might initially have some apparently good reasons for this. I might want to sound better. I might want to have an easier time navigating the fretboard. I might want to play more interesting material. I might want to prepare for a professional career. Sounds encouraging, right? The thing is that I can not simply wake up the next day and implement _anything_ to make the requisite objectives fall into place that day. I have to take steps. I don't mean that I have to just follow a sequence. I also have to break down the stages of development into even smaller sections as tasks. Also, I have to spiral intellectually and mechanically. That is, for one thing, I have to sometimes backtrack and do "old work" i.e. review recently completed tasks. There's yet more.... Let me interject by saying that Objectivist intellectuals are themselves addressing these issues by way of their own division of labor. What Ayn Rand did was to literally lay down the basic framework or foundation of Objectivism. It takes and will continue to take the efforts of other people such as Jean Moroney and Tara Smith to address more specific issues presuming that their students are already familiar with the basics of the philosophy. (I am speaking of the times when these people are teaching Objectivists; they also teach for more philosophically general audiences.) Another impinging aspect is that such a person in this situation is likely to have to leave behind social metaphysics i.e. that person will not only have to learn new ideas, but he will have to depend primarily on his own mind and his own efforts to work through this new paradigm. Fortunately, as I just alluded to, there are more intellectuals aside from A.R. who this person can consult with. (Here's an endorsement for ARI's conferences.) To jump a bit, Objectivists do need to utilize some of the same methods as their philosophical competitors have used. We need to pool our resources at times, consult with each other, and build elements of a community. Still, the point is that, this student needs to train himself to be more intellectually self-reliant. That is, he has to condition himself to trust himself, consider himself to have the final say over his own beliefs (after supporting his claims), and he has to be steadfast in the knowledge he's since gained. Another example, I explicitly became atheist over 2 decades ago. Does that have a direct impact on anyone else? Nope. At the same time, do I need to "reinvent the wheel" every day, month, or decade by constantly challenging my metaphysical beliefs? Nope. I have satisfied my own claims to my own satisfaction, and so long as I don't encounter truly contradictory information I have every motive to retain those beliefs. There's so much more, but I would remind you that the Objectivist cliches are true. Along those lines: To work for the future is to live in it today.... You are your own "God" i.e. you master your own destiny.... You make your best efforts and leave it at that. (Re-read what John Galt says in _A.S._ if for no other reason than to get more motivated!) It's difficult to operate differently from most people with the intention of bringing about a different type of world and not get dissuaded or discouraged by opponents _at times_. Even this doesn't mean resorting to baseless fantasy. After all, the American Founding Fathers did it; that is, they persevered! There are many of the same travails in forging a 2nd renaissance, but there are some inherent advantages as well. You can look back at history and see that the world that you want is good, it's achievable, and "it's yours".

While I could come at the question from different angles, I think that it's safe to say that whatever rock song I would select would invariably come from DEATH & TAXE$ when Thomas P. Shannon was alive. The group only published 2 full CDs i.e. _Paradigms..._ and _enigma..._ during his lifetime, but the 2nd disc has "Human Fly". That song is as likely close to a personal anthem as I'm to find for several years to come. I think that it's also one of the best songs the group ever came up with. _That song_ was Tom's all-time favorite RUSH song.

If I bothered to take on such a task, then I'd be in a similar situation. The thing is that such a song is really one of introspection, and in recent years, my attempts at writing have generally been more extrospective. I'd have to look elsewhere...., but fortunately for me there used to be a band that delivered much of what I wanted in rock music...

By the way, I blogged about this 2 years ago... http://logicnotfaith.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_archive.html

Well, for one thing, a Libertarian party event is _expressly_ i.e. explicitly pro-Libertarian, so appearing at such an event would likely constitute sanction of those views. OTOH, I have to figure that any broadcast radio show wouldn't be as ideologically specific (and hopefully not anywhere near that irrational.....!)

Kat, There you go expecting legislators to be rational! D'kian, As a minor point, I prefer a word such as "stipulate" for that purpose since businesses don't have the authorization to use force as gov't does. (Of course, there's active contractual agreements between transportation providers and their customers, so gov't force isn't needed at the time frame of trade.)

I only have time to give a partial answer, but hopefully this will give an indication of the direction to take when responding to the quoted post. While there are specific aspects to point out, the other person's argument rests on the fallacy of begging the question. "How does (O)bjectivism deal with scientific concepts of events or objects that by their very nature cannot be observed or measured?" On the surface, he's invoking a self-contradiction. If something can be considered an "event", then it _already has_ been identified in some way. That identification may not be fully satisfactory, but an interest in requesting further information about an event is not to be treated as an intellectual ransom note. e.g. "Explain this fully (without reasonable benchmarks) or else... you're discredited, making a baseless assertion, etc." Likewise, only that which can be sensed is to be taken seriously. If an actual event can't be identified without contradiction to already existing knowledge, then that event is arbitrary and to be held at bay until further related information is discovered. This person appears to be attempting to undercut the power and sole province of reason. Again, this person is attempting to appeal to the arbitrary as something to be seriously considered. It's illogical to request proof of negation for a supposed concept that lacks grounding. Just because something can be devised in fantasy does not mean that it should be pursued as something with real implications. "Also does (O)bjectivism compensate for issues concerning the potential inaccuracy of the five senses or is it assumed that the senses and the external data that they gather in for intellect and reason to process are always correct?" This is a false alternative which is of the same type of fallacy as begging the question. The senses are functionally automatic e.g. no one has to stop and think "Now I will focus my eyes to some specific mathematical degree..." A person must exercise effort to direct the senses in a general and non-technical way, but what really must be judged is a person's interpretation of data gathered from his senses. It's in the area of interpretation where people can make mistakes (or even form outright lies if they know better.) Now, if it's established that the viewer has sub-standard sensory ability e.g. he's partially blind, then that tempers _his ability and his evaluation only_. (It doesn't reflect on another person's ability to perceive....) Objectivism does not compensate in the fashion that the poster suggests because it's neither possible nor beneficial. There aren't any means of extra-sensory perception, so Objectivism asks a person to make use of the senses which he actually does have. The question that the poster begs is "How _is_ knowledge possible?", and I refer interested parties to the first several chapters of _O:PAR_ for detailed elaborations.

Shhh, let's not give anyone any ideas like that _for now_! (...for the same reasons as why there's no point in having an Objectivist _anything_ officially political these days.)

Holdddddd on a minute, cowboy. Whoa there! _Now_ I'm in this. Not that Jenny needs help defending herself, but it happens to be my pleasure to offer her some allegiance in this matter. ;-D The "more respect" line you offered is just a baseless assertion, but let's backtrack some.... Leaving aside that JMegan already stated her _qualified (or delimited)_ approval of _Wall-E_ viz. that it has philosophical problems, and that she's comparing it to what else is actually out there on screens currently, there's also the fact that Hollywood has a long-running track record of putting out Leftist-tinged movies. Look, if you or someone else doesn't like the movie, then don't see it again, don't buy it on DVD, and/or review it as a bad movie. Heck, I believe some movie theatres even offer refunds if patrons complain that the movie they just watched was awful. You can't stipulate that another person can't enjoy an artwork, if she has a rational reason for doing so. JMegan _did_ give reasons why she enjoyed it, and those were some damn good reasons too! Would you have the movie going audiences just stay home en masse and not see newly released films? Are you willing to say that _Wall-E_ is bad in the vein and of the magnitude of _Song of Russia_? If so, then you would have something of a point as far as complaining about the film. (Your assessment of JMegan is still _well_ off-the-mark as many people here can testify to and for easily available reasons.) What else have I forgotten? Oh yeah, there's the matter of personal context! You might be familiar with the article where AR refers to a situation where various people see an image generated from a slide projector, and those people come to different estimations of what the image personally means. (Apologies, the reference leaves me at the moment....) Moving pictures are similar in this respect. A critic who's got a movie under the microscope for "philosophical fouls" as a prime m.o. is going to have a decidedly different movie going experience from someone who mainly wants some light entertainment. Is it unfortunate if Pixar makes a movie with bad philosophical or other scientific premises? Well, gee.... this is OO.net where this movie is being discussed after all.... On the other hand, what if Pixar not only makes a movie based on some philosophical premises that when integrated together result in a work of mixed value BUT that work is still ultimately superior to other Pixar films or superior to other currently shown films in other regards? Should that same movie be avoided at all costs? Discuss. :-) I'm glad that Jenny, Kelly, et al. got value out of the film.... maybe I should go get me some aesthetic value from it as well.... hmmmm.

I hope that you and Santiago had safe travel out of SoCal and that you're having a good Indy Day weekend as well. (It was nice to meet you both in person too!)

Congratulations, Alfa! This sounds like an encouraging development.

I second Kendall's sentiments; we all seemed to have a fabbo time last night. (By the way, I have reason to suspect that Mamma Gina's might have gone under new management, but they did a very fine job preparing and serving dinner for about a dozen people at any rate.) Todd, I would strongly urge that you and your gal try to pass through the hotel's pool patio area some night ASAP because you might very well run into a few chatroom regulars there outside of the classes. Though I don't think that anyone has made serious plans yet for a follow-up dinner, I have to say that given last night, I would love it if we could meet for at least another dinner. I believe that Kendall suggested trying to schedule a seafood dinner... maybe on the following weekend? I do know of a place in Irvine that has awesome "surf and turf"; it is a little pricier, but I expect that the food would be even a bit better than what we had last night. If enough people are interested, then maybe we should get started making arrangements. From past conferences, I know that it's very easy to get caught up in the classes and related events, so I'd like to get to planning ASAP. (I can't do much of anything OCON-related tonight because I have my first Statistics exam tomorrow, so I gotta go study.) If those interested want to follow-up with me, then please contact me on Facebook or PM me here and let me know what you think.

I'm not associated with the OCON conference, I just wanted to offer some additional information. I wanted to address two different but overlapping groups of people: If you are planning on attending the dinner(s) which K-Mac has been talking about, then _please_ make sure that you get back to her or Athena ASAP. Please give notice of what your dinner preferences are and how much time you have available. The sooner that Kelly can collect this info, the smoother the planning will go. For any OCON attendee: Understand that the conference is being held in the Fashion Island area of Newport Beach, and that means that the conference hotel is on the perimeter of the "island" which is essentially a retail area wrapped around by the elliptical section of Newport Center Drive. AFAIK, I'm apparently the only local Newporter attending K-Mac's dinner. In light of that, I think it would be good if those attending any part of OCON and/or Kelly's dinner would ask any questions they have about the area _here in this thread today or ASAP_. I will be leaving for the Philadelphia, PA area for the weekend, so I'll provide whatever info I can today or next week. If other locals are reading this, then please feel free to post here or just drop into the chat room and offer similar information if OCON is a topic that comes up. http://www.mapquest.com/maps/newport+cente...wport+beach+ca/ Mamma Gina's is roughly about a 15 minute drive from Fashion Island. (I personally think that they have some of the best Italian food in the entire South County area.) Another area restaurant with excellent food, service, and occasional live music(!) is the Irish-themed Muldoons. see: http://www.muldoonspub.com/ They are only minutes away from the conference hotel as they are also on the Newport Center Drive loop. NEWSFLASH: I just found out that the local Irish group THE FENIANS is playing at the restaurant on Sun. July 6th at 2pm. FENIANS is easily one of greatest local music groups that Orange County is fortunate enough to have!!! I think that this event would be one heck of a way to help close the OCON '08 conference. http://objectivistconferences.com/ocon2008/schedule.pdf

Also, let's not forget that Dagny had GREAT respect for Nat Taggart... but he was a business mogul... not a welfare case! I just found this passage which is part of Nat Taggart's introduction into the story: from page 60 SC: "Dagny regretted at times that Nat Taggart was her ancestor. What she felt for him did not belong in the category of unchosen family affections. She did not want her feeling to be the thing one was supposed to owe an uncle or grandfather. She was incapable of love for any object not of her own choice and she resented anyone's demand for it. But had it been possible to choose an ancestor, she would have chosen Nat Taggart, in voluntary homage and with all her gratitude." (end of paragraph) I love how that reads!