deedlebee

Thank you all who took the time to answer my questions. Especially for directing me towards the correct readings. OPAR has been recommended to me before, but I have not had the opportunity to purchase it yet. I realize the original post is probably a "philisophical mess", but I figured if I listed the context from which I heard the ought/autonomous statement, it might make more "sense". This makes a great deal more sense to me than the odd idea that ethics somehow just exist on their own. Will do! When listening to the positions of Psychological Egoism and Ethical Egoism, they didn't seem to match up to what I had been told thus far with regards to Objectivism. It seemed like a sloppy place to lump the philosophy in the textbook. Even the premises the book states of Objectivism don't seem right. This has caused me to be suspect about all the other information we have been taught. He actually started off fine. Very unorthodox however. (Lots of cussing) I have this theory that by the end of the course, he's going to try and get the class to "support" Ethical Agnosticism, since it's the only area of metaethics we didn't argue. The university which I am attending is extremely liberal. (Why I am there is another story, but suffice to say, I'm horribly disappointed) It's basically situated in a bayou, with wildlife warnings everywhere. There are a few good professors, and other than the far-fetched idea that they might have taken a job there to try and combat the radical socialist teachings (the education department is the worst), I see no reason for them to be there. Of course, I am highly grateful for their presence!

Salutations all. I'm still very new to Objectivism, and have not yet had the chance to read many of the basic materials, so if this seems like a question with an obvious answer, I do apologize. I'm currently taking a course on ethics, which I love. It only seems to be an overview of various absolutist theories (checking validity and soundness of the main argument of each), but since we're covering about 9 different systems in 3 months, I don't have a problem with that. Recently, our professor said something that somewhat made sense ... but I don't think it's true. To give a short background, we had discussed the various metaethical systems, with a short bit on Nihilism and Relativism. To date, we have also discussed Subjectivism, Divine Command Theory, Emotivism and two systems called "Psychological Egoism" and "Ethical Egoism". A small reference was made to Objectivism during these last two, basically suggesting it was a very radical form (More on this below). Our professor outlined the argument of Psychological Egoism in the following way: Observations about human actions are made. Position: 1) All human beings are motivated solely by self-interest. 2) "ought" implies "can" (You cannot derive ought from is; cannot derive value from fact. Fact="is".. Value="ought") This argument is then the basis for "Ethical Egoism", which then concludes: 3) We ought to act to maximize our own self-interest.[/code] So, from this argument, it was posited that Ethical Egoism derives value from the "fact" of Psychological Egoism: "All humans are motivated solely out of self-interest". It was pointed out by the professor that this position (#1) is a non-falsified claim, not a fact, and therefore cannot be used to support Ethical Egoism. A student then asked, "If values don't come from fact, god, culture or nature, where [i]do [/i]they come from?" To which our professor first stated that "ought" is autonomous. "Ethics," he said "works by itself". It has been pointed out to me that Objectivism is "Rational Egoism". So I must assume that the arguments for P.E and E.E are not part of R.E. This leads me to four questions: [b]1)[/b] Is the premise "All human beings [b]are [/b]motivated solely by self-interest" indeed a non-falsified claim? (Is it a non-fact, something which can neither be proven or disproved?) [b]2)[/b] Is Objectivism based on this idea, or does it state that human beings [b]"should"[/b] be motivated solely by rational self-interest due to different axioms or observations? [b]3)[/b] Is it true that you cannot derive "ought" from "is"? [b]4)[/b] Are ethics and "ought" actually autonomous? Do they exist outside of our interpretation of them? (To me, this doesn't make any sense, as being sentient and rational beings, we "created" them in the first place. I could be completely wrong however.) I may be missing some huge underlying idea here. Any help to sort out this conglomeration of ideas would be greatly appreciated. (As a side note, after discussing Ethical Egoism for two days, our professor decided that it wouldn't even be on the test. When a student asked what he thought of Ms. Rand he said "I liked the Fountainhead, but she was not a very good philosopher." He didn't want to go into the rest of the defences for these two ideas in the book, and called them silly. So, I'm totally at a loss. It almost sounded like either, the idea was too difficult for the students to fully grasp (a lot of people are having trouble in this class) or that the philosophy is so totally invalid/unsound that it's not worth going into. A big disappointment for me. )

I must agree! Law and Order is definitely a favorite show. Instead all the crime scene dramas that glorify the horrible, I really get a thrill out of seeing a case go to completion. Jack McCoy is a wonderful character I totally agree. I still love animation and still get the same ribbings. "That's only for 8 year old boys..." I don't know if it's rationalizing to say this, but I do think there are reasons for enjoying cartoons on their own merits. Art is only limited by the artist. A cartoon character looks as he should and acts as he should. No accidental blunders by a poor actor. I find the work that goes into making an animation a phenomenal achievement and with a good work, I'm always impressed. (Consequently, I thought Finding Nemo was supurb, even if the story was simplistic.) As for specifics, I grew up on Bugs Bunny. He's smart, suave and (almost) always wins. He also seems to enjoy life a great deal. While I enjoyed the Don Bluth animation of The Secret of NIMH, the substory of the rats presented in the novel was a bit lost. That said, I would consider the Rats of NIMH, as they are in the book, a group of heros. For those that haven't read the book (by Robert C. O'Brien), the main storyline is about a mouse whose son is sick and needs to find help to move him. The help she finds is with the rats. These particular rats were subjected to experiments earlier in their life which subsequently gave them the ability to think and reason. They became intelligent and escaped from the lab, only to wind up living just like "rats". Stealing from others to sustain their life. I think the rats are heroic because they recognize the destruction to their own lives in their actions and make the very tough (because they are still rats living in a world of humans and didn't yet have the ability to defend themselves) decision to stop stealing. They eventually set out to build an honest life, based on their own ability to think and plan. Personally, I think the story of the rats would have made a fine book on it's own.

Oh fantastic! The university I'm attending does not have a linguistics major (or even classes) but the more I read about language structures and such, the more interesting it becomes. As a part time job for the past 2 years, I've been working as a private tutor with Autistic children. (Modified ABA style) Their language progression is sometimes so slow that it forces me (and other therapists) to rethink the process of acquisition. Perhaps in the future I'll have a structured opportunity to study linguistics, but are there any "beginner" books you would recommend? I basically live in Houston, though the area is so large, I don't feel that is an adequately clear answer. My residence is actually 30 minutes NE of the downtown area, and my university and the families I work with are about 30 minutes SE of downtown (right next door to NASA). Horray for 2 hours of commuting per day

(I don't understand the reference to Mr. Branden..) But thank you all for your greetings. At least on the forum I have received a very cordial welcome. I can't say the same about the chat room. It was not a pleasant experience for a first time user of IRC to be kicked and banned in the course of one conversation without provocation.. Nor was it pleasant to be insulted with demeaning comments, and be called a pragmatist, fascist and something like a "ketchup passer to murderers" (This was after I made it clear that I do not fully understand the philosophy and am attempting to learn) Hopefully, whatever mistake I made there (I have absolutely no clue), won't be repeated here. I didn't think I would need to state this (it seems understood from my point of view) .. but to the audience of the forum, should I make some logical blunder in my attempt to understand, please remember that I am not trying to offend. My questions are sincere. PirateF, I have been told about the Van Damme Academy and have had the opportunity to listen to a few of her lectures. For myself, I hope at some point to also open a private school. While I come from a long line of education administrators, I'd certainly be the first in my family to have a school of my own. It's definitely a goal to work towards in the best possible manner (with the best possible degree). The vast majority of students who seem to be in the education majors are sadly underqualified. Women who can't write complete sentences, much less coherent thoughts, that want to be English teachers, or people who constantly complain about how school is "so boring the kids won't like it" and then later moan and whine about why students don't seem to know anything. DavidOdden, if I may ask, have you studied linguistics? (I saw a post the other day where you asked if a verb a person had used was of a specific type.) I couldn't agree more! Many Objectivists I have met, or known about, seem to be modern Reniassance men who thouroughly enjoy a wide range of interests. This would be a point of Objectivism that I highly respect. Answering questions or explaining points to the absolute breadth of their knowledge and never letting points just dangle aimlessly... it's a skill to admire and model.

Salutations all. I'm fairly new to Objectivism, but have been told that my sense of life is fairly close to the philosophy. I've been reading articles here and there and recently purchased The Voice of Reason (currently about half-way through). So far, I seem to agree with ..oh.. maybe 90-95% of the philosophy. Many of my hang-ups deal with specific semantics as applied to Objectivism. I have a strong interest in language and linguistics as it is, so finding the right words and understanding what specific words are supposed to mean are very important to me. I do not yet refer to myself as an Objectivist, as I have barely read most of the formal literature, much less Ms. Rand's novels. Within perhaps a year, maybe a bit more or less, the solid foundations that I have learned about Objectivism has helped me firmly orient my life towards a direction with which, I am much happier. Getting through high school, then very liberal colleges, I was bombarded with "you should accept other's ideas no matter what" types of ideas. Through it all, I was able to hang on to some definite rationality, but after so many years, found that I was unable to clearly define my ideas to myself, much less others. My life, I won't say has turned 180° (it was never that bad)... but I think is now more purposefully defined. It took a while, but I am comfortable now with arguing for the rights of an individual and rational reality. As for other things.. I live in Texas, but I'm not a cowgirl I love everything here except the weather. I'm finishing up a degree in humanities and plan to go into teaching (possibly 5th grade). I was originally an education major, but became so sick of the tripe being lauded from those classes that I decided there must be a better route. (The vast majority.. 99.8%.. are seeped in socialist theories.. and for the most part, consist of "tips and tricks" classes. They are not content oriented. Many are just flat out opinions.) To clarify, the humanities major is based on literature (classical and modern) that have defined or altered societies, philosophy, history and art. (I'm also throwing some psychology and composition courses in there as electives) So, hello I joined last night and stayed up past 5am reading posts! I think Objectivists are the most interesting people I have ever met and as such, I hope to be a thoughtful contributor to this forum.

Salutations everyone. I'm very new here, and somewhat new to Objectivism as well. My inquiry into the philosophy is quite serious, so I would like to posit the same question, though hopefully with more substance. The idea of "animal rights" is one of a few hang-ups I have (or would like to overcome) before accepting Objectivism as my full-fledged standard. Growing up in the 80's, I was subject to more than my fair share of trendy environmentalism. I even had a "save the dolphins" necklace at one point. I've been trying to understand the philosophy with the help of a friend, and so far, I can soundly say that I do believe that animals should be considered property. What I can't seem to disassociate myself with, is the intrinsic value of living creatures, specifically those with higher brain functions. (Most large mammals, domesticated cats and dogs, dolphins, chimps, rats, octopi... etc) I do believe that it is right to use animals to further scientific research, and I do believe it is morally acceptable to own an animal, as a pet or in a zoo.. whatever. I read the article posted by stonebudda, and it made some very good points. Our ability to reason does indeed set us apart from the rest of our "neighbours". From the article "Whenever environmentalists want to curtail freedom they remind us that man is part of nature, but they forget this at all other times. The fact is that human action is just one among the myriad factors, right along with those floods and droughts and comets, that determine who succeeds in the struggle for life." Humans, I do not think, are subject to the forces of nature to the same degree as other living things. We can protect ourselves, predict outcomes and easily relocate in cases of major disaster. We also do not interact with our environment in the same way that snails, rabbits or bacteria do. Our impact is on a scale that simply cannot be equaled or leveled-out by a small natural disaster. I am puzzled with trying to resolve the idea that laws should not be based on morality, while understanding that laws are required to protect an individuals rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness). On the surface, I see this makes sense. You don't want the trendy moral standard of the day enacted into law, thus making it illegal to take showers at noon on Tuesdays, or some such nonsense. But the laws designed to protect the rights of an individual, are based, as viewed through Objectivism, on the right to life. (This is not a pro-life abortion speech) Someone else commented earlier that abuse of animals would indicate bad values. I do not believe laws should force people to act one way or another, assuming their actions to not infringe on the rights of others. But if abuse of animals shows bad values.. those that are anti-life.. can we then say that it is morally corrupt to torture an animal (shortening or ending it's life) because it shows a lack of respect for the value of life itself? (Again, this is not related to abortion, because that involves a "parasitic" nature which is not independent.) If we at least recognize that the action is based on bad values, can we then say that, morally, we should act in opposition to this? (We establish that torturing an animal without purpose is the result of bad values and can then say that it is morally abbhorrent to abuse an animal, and thus should take measures to prevent it whenever possible.) Life is a value, but I'm guessing the argument will be that life alone, is not a value within itself. It is only valuable when .....? If I have misunderstood key points of this philosophy, I apologize. I am sincerely trying to figure this out. When it was pointed out to me before that all my arguments for "animal rights" were emotional, I took a day to think about this, and found this evaluation was correct. But it seems to me that there must be some moral value in preserving life, when it is reasonably (and rationally) possible to do so. What am I missing?