Megan Robinson

Most modern historians make these kinds of claims while descretely forgetting that GDP sky rocketed during this time. The GDP per capita rose so much, that it created a middle class, and the entire lesiure culture that went with it. The new markets overseas, as well as little government control (especially during the Coolidge administration) expanded the American financial empire as well as the standard of living of ALL American citizens. This time was indisputably an era of business, and thus the best period in American history. Thats why they call the peak of the revolution the roaring twenties. It was great, but will never happen again.

Wow! Thank you so much for this wisdom! That was something I definately needed to hear. I am, at times, overcome w/frustration and this will definately help.

interestingly enough, we JUST talked abou that in history today. I've come to conclude that the late 20s to after WWII could be dubbed "the age of the second hander". At this time people in most democratic nations (Germany, Italy, and I think Spain) abducate self-government for fascism. The United States comes the closet it ever comes to dictatorship with a court-packing four term president. Something must have definately been wrong with the psycology of a majority of the world for such an obviously evil movement to gain speed. "'dictate' to preserve democracy" Father Charles Coughlin (1936) This guy was a radio evangelist who called the New Deal "Christ's Deal". He also admired Mousselini

There's a huge fallacy in that reasoning. Before I was an "objectivist" (most Oist have always been Oists ) I gave myself the title agnostic. Not because I couldn't decide whether or not to be an athiest, but because I simply refused to consider the question of a non-being. God is not present in reality, and even if science uncovered definative proof of a god everything would be the same. The problem many have w/atheism is that they veiw it as an anti-philosophy. Athiests are not "anti-god" we are completely deviod of such a ridiculous concept. To be anti-anything implies that you accept the existance (or even acknowledge) the thing you are resisting. Its a weakness. Instead of saying "Today I shall find truth" they're saying "they aren't right, so I'm gonna do the complete opposite." Thats not a good start for someone who wishes to find truth

aside from all these goddies SATAN IS NOT REAL why would you name a "philosophy"after a mystical charachter just to get more mystics to hate you. Its one thing to admire a fictional character like Howard Roark who was created by an author to embody certain values, than to admire a character created by a culture who believeshe's real and posseses children. And as far as the ceromonies are concerned, this your 1st cue that its a bunch of crazies more interested in causing a ruckus than finding truth. Why would a group who supports individualism care to name themselves after an evil deity to cause suspicion. Sound like a second-hander move to me.

I don't think anyone has a responsiblity (eveb government), but its in the best interest of a person to help the child become rational. Not only will there be another unit of rational, but also that the child does not develop perversly into an Ellsworth Toohey. There are many ways to do this privately:usually a teacher, neighbor, friend will report abuse, abandonment, ect. but instead of calling an inefficient gov agency they call one of the homes I spoke of earlier. I'll expand later, I just took some Benadryl...and....i'm...tired

Some of the economy buffs posted some good stuff on germany in a thread I started a while ago called Deutschland Uber Alles. You could look for it in political philosophy and see some good stuff.

I agree

I suppose you mean in the absence of a tax-sustained government agency. I've thought about this too, but I came up with this conclusion. If you let the market provide for things like homes for orphaned children and such, I think the outcome will be ultimately better. The homes would be funded by investors who have an interest in these children. If a child grew up in a place funded by Coca-Cola, he may decide later to take a job with Coca-Cola. And in general, a rational person has an interest in making sure youth are competent enough to be productive members of a free trading society. The more rational people to trade with, the more money to be made. Hence the adoption agencies, orphan homes, ect. will be competeing for the funds from private investors, so they'll make sure the kids are taken care of. They will be sure that kids find good homes, and are well provided for during their stay so when investors come to vistit, they'll like what they see and invest in their institution as opposed to another. Problems have surfaced in the nursing home industry that could be a threat to such a system, but I think that because competiton regulates the market, ultimately the market will correct these issues.

This is a contradiction, not a packaged deal. None of these things go together.

Bad philosopher joke: Sarte walks into a restaurant and orders coffee. He says to the waitress "I'll have a little sugar, but no cream" The waitress comes back later and says "I'm sorry Monssiuer Sartre, we're out of cream. How about no milk." Ba dum ching!!!! OK, OK, one more... Descartes walks into a bar and has a few drinks. The bar tender asks him later if he'd like another. Descartes says "I think not" and disappears in a puff of smoke. Hehehehe...sorry....back to serious discussion now: The inconsistancy in existentailism always amused me. We read No Exit in a lit class once. My teacher asked me to sum up existentialism in a sentnce for those who didn't know what it was...i merely replied:"confusion."

I'm a little late but.... This is a good point, I taught an Afro-American studies class in high school, and a point a lot of kids didn't agree with (though it was true) was that a lot of slaves DID NOT WANT TO LEAVE their masters. Andrew Johnson handled reconstruction poorly, in that it heightened tensions between races. In the 1860s Gen. NB Forrest creates the Klan and the Freedmen are afraid of what they might find off the plantation. So many stayed. Lincoln knew that reconstruction would cause so much tension that he actually held negotiations w/a S. American diplomat to create a state in S. America for freed slaves. Although I don't like the fact that he owned slaves, in Jefferson's defense..He had to edit the slave clause he, Franklin(the abolitionist), and Adams put in the D of I to get the vote past Rutledge and S. Carolina (1776 Slaaaaves, Molasses, and Rummm...). Also the contitutional convention (Jefferson was not present, he was in france) took slavery as a serious issue, and banned the trans-atlantic slave trade beginning in 1801. Although he may have had some biggoted sentiments, he didn't take the issue lightly. I do have a question though... Would having a slave to protect him from other more brutal slave owners be pragmatism? An obvious principle is being violated...or is it? Are all rights equal, or should some superceed others (in this case life superceeds freedom)?

You're right. I had read before (maybe propaganda) that marijuana had a similar effect (as far as damage) as alcoholn to the brain. Nontheless, it still causes sensory and thought impairment. This is obviosly important. The short term memory loss noted in your link, as well as the inability to think clearly are blatant reasons to avoid drugs. Why would a person who values his mind impair it?

Oh, I know..I grew up in Tulsa, OK. Home of Oral Roberts, and Oral Roberts University. (For those who aren't familiar. He's a prominant presbetyrian minister who threatenes to die and "join God" if more people don't donate money to his school.)

Centrism implies that one is not reality "centered", it means, in essnece that you use values as primary. You make events fit your values. An objective historian APPLIES those values to the events which took place, for she recognizes something OBJECTIVE ie, independent of her values, took place. This thread is getting old, I think I'll make like Free CApitalist and split.

In the ABSCENCE of metaphysical principles, this would be true. A value is good, A value is something you seek to achieve, you seek to achieve what you like. Of course, for a rational person this is tied objectively to a concrete reality. But for someone who evades reality, this would be true. Also, not only would principles have to be abscent, but causality as well. The way a rational person develops principles is by logic, which is dependent on causality. If you could "do what you like" without consequences, and it made you happy, it would be good to do. But you can't... thats reality. Doing crazy immoral things in reality is wrong because they jeapordize your rights or the rights of others. If you could do whatever, all things equal and staying that way, why wouldn't you? Its like jumping off a skyscraper. Of course it would be OK w/no gravity, but gravity (like causality) is a law, you will die if you jump. This is, of course, all crap. Regardless of whether a person accepts metaphysical principles, they still exist. The question is futile, really. Its like asking: what if unicorns were real? Would they stab me with their horns, or let me pet them? Would they eat grass or seaweed? Would they be in rodeos?....Its silly.

The point I'm making is that western values do not inherently place man as the center. Plato was western too. I'm saying objective values, which are what you just described, are the only values to be used in examining history. Remember that the Europeans also fought terrible bloody wars in the name of self sacrifice. Even the Spartans were guilty of self-abducation (for state) and Pericles praises the gods for the glorious gift of democracy in The Funeral Speech. Socrates questioned Euthyphro on the nature of piety, and made his peity known to the men of Athens by delaring "I shall obey the gods rather than you". Mysticism is nothing to admire, and I won't use a mystic's values to attempt to discover truth. (note: I said a mystic's values, as in values inherent to any mystic, not the values of someone who happens to be a mystic but demonstrates (due to chronic mystic inconsistancy) some rational values.)

To known what happened in the past, and why it happened. You can't discover this through centrsim. AS an objectivist, I don't understand how you could believe that using European values historically is better than Objective values. THEY AREN'T THE SAME. God bless America, right? Americans have in their history violated the rights of other people. This is not a uniquely American faliure. We were much better about it than a lot of other cultures, but just aknowledge it. Its true. Why uphold an unreality to force a culture to fit your values. Its like you evade facts to make something fit a virtue. To be honest, I'm a little disillusioned. Some people make philosophy to organize experiences, and others organize a philosophy to make experiences. I use my philosophy to evaluate everything, I don;t force it to fit because I need a hero. I don't admire America as a whole. I admire the people who held its ideals purely like Benjamin Franklin. I don't think freedom should be granted to one for being a member of a state. Everyone needs it. I'm for a world government that protects everyone's rights. The domination of freedom, not America...and no, they're not synonomous. You probably think I'm a nut, but thats only because I always feel rushed posting, and hence don't express my ideas correctly. (I've noticed this trend). It does make sense, just not in a post. I'm in the process of writing it all down, and when its done I'll let you read it. china: http://www.csupomona.edu/~plin/ls201/confucian5.html (more on this later, I have to go to class) This guy has the right idea (but he's just a student, he can't know anything) http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1314

The reason why I say centrism is bad is exactly the reason you just described. Centrism is the applying of values to a particular event. Because I think ONE set of objective values exists, I don't believe historians are free to analyze events with a lense of centrism. I think it is fundamentaly threatning to the knowing of any objective, past , truth. I suppose you could say that an objective centrism could be correct, but by the very nature if being objective this is a contradiction in terms. To analyze something Eurocentricly doesn't just mean that you favor the endevors of europeans, it means you veiw events with the values of the Europeans. Mystic self-sacrifice and all. I think to analyze history correctly means to first define a group of people (or specifically a person) and the philosophy that moves them. Then discover in their actions whether they were philosophically consistant, and how they applied that philosophy. Finally, after establishing objectively what happened via primary sources, judge those actions against objective values and see what they could have done better. Then judge the person/people accordingly. I'm currently enrolled in an African history class. Thats what made me think this way. When you study a culture like the Africans you begin to see the flaws in centrism (Afro, and Euro). You see flaws in the philosophies of the native africans and in the European colonizers. Cecil J Rhodes did a lot to helpp the Africans economically, but did it, in the words of British African historian Bastil Davidson, by denying them the one thing that ensures human prosperity: freedom. (Beware: generalization ahead) One pattern I see in Oist philosophers is that many forget that Early Americans were not Oist. As seen in the T. Jefferson thread, TJ was a great thinker...but he owned slaves, and he was a racist. As an African-American I still admire him, but at the same time I can't accept him as the greatest American thinker (who is, of course, Benjamin Franklin! ). I think its important as a historain to study all cultures, not because they are all equally philosophically correct, but because IT ALL HAPPENED, and I'd like to know about it. One question I've been thinking about today: The chinese are so collectivist, they don't even have words to express individuallism, yet they were one of the worlds most innovative cultures, though they were isolated until marco polo. Is this an instance of the natural state (individualism) prospering even amidst the constraints of collectivism? And yes, just because Aristotle didn't WRITE down what he thought about Plato when he was young, doesn't mean he didn't challenge him. I'm making this my life's work. It won't be done for a while. PS: Free Capitalist, please suggest some American historians for me.

YES! Thankyou! This is what I've been wanting to say! By the way Free Capitalist, I'd like to apologize in advance for saying that I don't respect you as a thinker. This was said in anger. I'm sorry. I usually have to read modern historians because I read mostly American history. Obviously, there are no Enlightenment American historuans. Finally, my attitude is this. "I'm 18, this is OK but it could be better. And upon the grave of Aristotle I will do my darndest to make it that way." Tell me sir, do you have a problem with innovation? What if Aristotle never challenged Plato because Plato was older?

Free capitalist: All of our individual innovations rest on the achievement of others, you behave as if I simply read some Rand, thought "that sounds nice" and delcared myself a philosopher. You couldn't be further from the truth. I went around spouting my own philosophy, read Rand, and said "she sound a lot like me." If there exists an objectivist who merely accepts objectivism because it sounds nice, and does not at every turn analyze Rands words independently, that person is as dispicable (if not more) as Oral Roberts. I'm 18 , a better philosopher than Kant, and creating my own system. IF I met a 10 year old who knew more about history than me, I would be amazed and would aknowledge him as an intellect. I've studied German for 5 years. My boyfriend's 13 year old little brother speaks better German than I do, and I respect him. Its not that I don't speak German well (I'm nearly fluent), its just that Aiden is a very smart kid. Its too bad you will never respect a young person. I'd give you a more accurate case of whom I'm speaking when I say Oist historians, but honestly, I'm afraid I'd end up writing a treatsie, so please just check out ARI and search American history. Many of the articles there are incredibly biased. I don't mean that in a "modern-historian-all-cultures-are-equal" tone, I mean that in a centrisim is fundamentally incorrect to anyone seeking objectivity sense. Thankyou A. West for pointing out an invalid assumption against my capacity of thought. Free Capitalist: I really don't care if you don't want to discuss history because of my age. I am not a confusist, I don't believe in filial piety. I do, however, deeply respect those of great intelligence, whether it be a 13 year-old prodegy, or a 50 year old professor. I'm only as arrogant as I am intelligent, and likewise deal with others in this manner. I respect your admiration for enlightenment historians, and will take your advice in studying them. But because you insist on dismissing me because I am an undergraduate (I'm not 16, by the way), I can't respect you as a thinker. Obviously something is off if you judge based on age and not on character.

It would take me hours to answer this, so I won't If you think a person's age dictates how much they know, you are a bad judge. Its important to judge people as indiviuals. To pre-judge someone becuase they are young is like pre-judging someone on race. I know you'll say there is an implied amount of experience with age,but the same in true with any prejudice. Most black people go to bad schools, so then I'm sure you can assume they're (we're) all of inferior intelligence. Bad inputs = bad outputs. I challenge people of any age based on their ideas, if they burn me...good. I know something new. I don't bow to old age, there is nothing inherently respectable about being old. And yes, I have a more correct philosophy than Kant.

Free Capitalist: PS: I will, however, take up your advice in reading more ancient/Enlightenment historians. As my interenst lies mainly in American History, I obvioulsy have not read many of the ancients (aside from the usaual Thucidydes). But you're right, it is a good idea. Like I said, I'm critisizing ALL facets of historians, please don't think my problem is ONLY with Oist historians.

I really don't think my age has any thing to do with how well I can analyze history. Thats like saying becase Kant is older and more famous than me, I don't know anything about philosophy. I critisize Objectivist as well as modern historians. History in itself lacks a key systematic objective process that is necessary to understanding the past. The absence of philosophy, even in Objectivist historians, frustrates me. Peikoff says that evil which is evil some of the time is still evil, but Oist historians praise one set of mystics destroying another. You're right about Jared Diamond (author of Guns, Germs, and Steel), he's a pragmatist historian, the principles he has are inadequate. If you read my profile you'll see that I am an admireer of Ben Franklin. The founding fathers were great and intelligent men, anyone who says otherwise is using a faulty context. America is the molding of one great idea layered upon a perverse one, and all the travesties of this country can be linked concretely to mysticism. Thats my point. I never disagreed that the Indians adopted the practice of scalping, but please lets be objective. Both mystic societies behaved ridiculously. There are no varying degrees of evil; evil as as evil does

This is a pretty well-known fact. Most serious historians have abandoned the "brutal Indian scalping poor settlers" thesis. I tried to narrow it down to one link to put here, bu there are so many great resources on this subject. My advice is to simply google the phrase "history of scalping" and you will be innundated with resources dating the practice back to 11th century England. The british government introduced the practice to Native Americans by offereing British Settlers 100 pounds per Indian scalp. The Iriquois adopted it from there. And I was protesting context dropping and loose causality in historians, even some Objective ones.