gadfly

Objectivism does not equal hedonism. This is truly bizarre to see in an Objectivist forum, and is so far from rationality I can't imagine what you hope to accomplish by posting here, since no Objectivist could accept it, and would probably not be willing to spend the time to debate it.

goldmonkee, I'm not crazy about the dishes either (but I like piles of dirty dishes even less...). Some thoughts: First, I admit to not being categorically against drugs. In my case, it's alcohol, and occasionally caffeine. I enjoy them, and I they do not impair my rationality when used in moderation, nor do I like it if accidentally my rationality becomes impaired due to a stronger than expected martini. Let's just say I would be sad if I could no longer enjoy a nice glass of wine or a good beer. If marijuana were legalized, I would not categorically rule out an occasional toke. However, my thoughts are 1) At this point in time, it's still illegal. Right or wrong, you could be busted for it. Are you willing to live with the consequences? 2) Health. It always pays to be cautious. To some extent our health is cumulative, so make sure you're not doing something now you may regret later. While the information on NORML's site may be valid, they also have a vested interest in evidence that supports their case, so I'd also seek out other sources for information. 3) Your life. The worst thing about drugs used to escape boredom, in my opinion, is not what it will do to you, but what you will not do. Instead of making your daily life into something rewarding, you are seeking to forget about it. Not to belabor the point, but you mentioned doing the dishes as being boring. Yet nobody thinks about doing the dishes while they do them; it's too simple an activity. They think about stuff from their day, or tomorrow, or ideas, or life. So, what you are saying is: life's not interesting enough. Clear thought and action is exhilarating. I would focus your mind and energy on making your real life rewarding enough so that you are not interested in the weed any more.

I think it's important to emphasize that the underlying psychology is a scientific issue which is still in development (which may be the source of the apparent softening by her on this issue as time went by). The issue being: is sexual orientation chosen, and how, and to what degree? Then, if it is chosen, is any particular choice rational or irrational? And therefore right or wrong? In the meantime, I think that acceptance - of their right - should be the guiding principle.

Bad philosophy is. The bad rap that philosophy has in many people's minds is because so much of it is totally useless as a guide for living (or is plain destructive). But simply because some of it is bad does not mean that philosophy itself is useless; quite the opposite. It is critical, and in fact everyone has adopted a philosophy, whether they realize it or not, and it shapes their beliefs and actions. The only question is: will it be a rational philosophy that benefits your life, or not? Ayn Rand can speak to this much better than I can, and "Philosophy: Who Needs It?" is a great place to start.

Since I missed the streaming audio download, I guess I'll need to spring for Brook's audio tape at some point. I really think this is the most important political issue our country is facing at this time. Here's my two cents based only on what I have heard: 1) NEGOTIATION - By negotiating with our avowed enemies (I am assuming here that "they" are, in fact, enemies) in an effort to gain a peaceful resolution, we may risk suffering the practical consequences of a moral failure. Meaning: it is wrong and therefore will not work. Fallujah was a microcosm of this: while we were negotiating with the locals, people were being kidnapped, tortured, and beheaded in hidden rooms in that very city. It makes me sick to think we waited too long for those people. We need to be sure we are not being played, and are not simply abetting an intractable enemy. 2) PEACEFUL REVOLUTION - Yes, there are good people mixed in with the bad, and subjugated by the bad, such as in Iran. We can hope for grass-roots change in that country (I certainly never thought I'd live to see the Berlin wall come down the way it did), but again, we have to be careful not to wait until it's too late. That's the tough question: when is "too late"? 3) INNOCENTS - One of Brook's premises seems to simply be that when you wage war, you should wage war. You don't deliberately target innocent people, but you cannot let your fear of hurting innocents keep you from doing what must be done. It's not so much that they do not matter, it's that they have become unwilling instruments of the authoritarian power, and sometimes, there is simply no way they can be saved. Again, you have to decide when you have reached that point. Also, while not everyone here agrees even on basic principles, some of the discussion lacks the context to allow a proper assessment of the arguments, and really should be about that context. For example saying "Bomb all Muslims" and "Don't kill any innocents" might not be contradictory, provided the context is different. In the former case, assume that all Muslims live under dictatorships that must be destroyed, and in the latter, assume that all Muslims (and others) live under dictatorships that can be brought down by less drastic means. Then the discussion needs to be: which is actually the case? This is by no means self-evident or so cut and dried that it need not be stated.

Scientific American. Its usefulness depends on your background and your interest, since the emphasis is more on "pure" science as opposed to how current events are impacted by science. The science always seems to come first, so in this regard, it definitely meets the criterion of being reputable. And there's a science news section.

(without actually reading the source article) To me, the worst thing about the quoted material is the implication that society is the basis for morality. Yuck. I really wonder if the writer of the article has any clue how revealing a statement this is. What a bizarre twist on the cat people/dog people dichotomy. Although... I admit I like my cats because they plan to kill me, take my money, and go into the catnip business with it.

A sucker born every minute. Actually, that's a pretty old saying. Due to the increasing birth rate, it's probably more like "50 suckers born every minute" now.

I don't think sacrificing the housing/earthly posessions/infrastructure etc. of the non-insurgent populace, then leaving them to fend for themselves against all the competing groups, is a moral or practical approach. Destroying insurgent infrastructure, and that of those who assist them, is. If we leave that country in a mess, I guarantee there will be hell to pay. I can't think of a better breeding ground for thousands upon thousands of enemies. Yikes. The only reason we are there in the first place is to do precisely the opposite: eliminate it as a terrorist ally and haven. Besides, from what I have read, many insurgents are jihadists from other countries who have no vested interest in Iraq, other than as part of their bizarre Muslim world order. Destroying Iraqi homes would mean nothing to them. They simply need to be found and killed/captured, along with anyone who helps them. The stated plan is basically for Iraqi oil to pay for repairs in Iraq.

My idea of better tactics would be the U.S. keeping its trap shut about where it's going to attack next. Hello!?! They should have just loaded the insurgents on buses and shipped them out to their next ambush... If the interim government really can negotiate to get fighters to give up arms, then by all means, do it. But at this point, I think we are down to the hard-core fighters and that's not an option, and we are simply being duped into paying money for out-of-date weapons and into giving the insurgents more time to regroup. We're being played. Enough negotiation. On the issue of collateral physical damage, there is no question that not wrecking infrastucture is a good idea; people left without homes and/or electricity (not to mention family members) are not going to be happy, and aren't going to be inclined to be our ally. That's why we're using more guided weapons instead of carpet bombing entire cities.

Maybe because he was a wounded Iraqi? It's a literal description. My understanding is that the policy of our armed forces is to not harm unarmed enemy combatants. The issue is whether the soldier was acting in self-defense or not, because if not, then the man should have been taken prisoner. The purpose of the inquiry is to find that out. However, personally, I think it is irresponsible of the journalist to even release the footage, because it can only have a negative impact. From what I saw on the video, it's just not worth the trouble. A far more worthwhile story if you are looking for a moral issue would be showing how the Iraqi insurgents were sniping from minarets, booby-trapping dead bodies, and building slaughterhouses for kidnap victims.

Interesting article. Glad to hear of allies in high places. On the flip side, it always strikes me how most criticism of Objectivism has missed the point. Such as (from the article above): Objectivism assumes no such thing. Those who are rational will achieve a higher level of earthly success, be it financial, emotional, whatever. Those who act irrationally to the point of exerting force over others are dealt with by the courts or the Armed Forces. No assumptions necessary. More hogwash. There is nothing in Objectivism that says you can't help others. It merely says you have the moral right to act in your own interest, and therefore not feel guilty about it. This does not preclude giving. I firmly agree that the antitrust actions against MS are a crock. Anyway, aside from the idea that they have the right to do business as they choose, it's not like I sit at my desk thinking "gee I wish my computer could do X, too bad Microsoft's stopping all the other companies from making software that does X". So it's moral and factual bull.

While this would be good news if we were to take it at face value...: 1. I don't believe them. 2. They have already done enough to justify being overthrown, regardless of what they do with nuclear power. 3. I'm sure they're still on the Administration's list (the regime takedown list). From what I have heard, this regime still actively cultivates hatred for America and certainly means us harm. I just think they are smart enough not to openly cross us outside their borders, given what has happened to others who have. The best we can hope for in Iran is a peaceful transition away from the "Death to America" axis, courtesy of whatever sensible, educated populace still remains there.

I just read it myself, so I can answer that. BreathofLife's quote was taken from the op-ed link that was posted by AshRyan above as an example of Kant's influence on our culture. It was a simplistic pro-Kant opinion essay from the Wall Street Journal online op-ed web site. I agree that it's pretty dumb stuff. The author of that essay is seriously at risk of running into "walls-in-themselves" at their home because they "cannot be apprehended by our five senses" (Note to self: detect true Kantians by the fact that they always have a box of bandages handy...).

In the case of states such as Iraq, the moral basis is both that there is no moral barrier stopping us (because a dictatorship has no rights), and because the state does pose a danger to us. I would agree that Iran, N. Korea, and other countries pose a threat, probably even a greater one. As far as I know, the administration did not make a point of explaining their decision process in choosing between the various candidates. Frankly, I think it is both that we could do it and succeed, and because it is a strategically placed country whose makeover would improve the state of the region in general (i.e. perhaps as a military base of operations for the Iran war, or simply as a way to pressure Iran in hopes of starting reform. Hard to say). It certainly sets an example saying that we mean business. Based on this and the Bush administration's premises, I disagree that the Iraq invasion does not serve our national interest. I just think the Bush administration did a poor job of explaining that interest, and on the eve of the war, I was not convinced. The posters here (and in other threads also) do a better job. As for expelling your neighbor, I'm sure there are many who wish they could. I know of two, if I count John Belushi. However, our government has jurisdiction over that. There is no similar authority between countries except the Useless Nations, and they don't have a good track record regarding individual rights or decisive action. How can they, when there are so many rights-violators sitting on the board? So, it's up to us and our allies.

No, they should not. A majority should not have a theocracy if that's what they want, because it will inevitably violate everyone's rights. This argument just does not hold up. Either the govt. defends rights, in which case it's not much of a theocracy, or it's a theocracy, and dissenters will more than likely end up in jail (or worse), and it loses its moral legitimacy and becomes a candidate for removal. It's not self-determination. If it were, Objectivism would support it. It's the determination of one group over another, which is the exact opposite. May this thread RIP.

Oldsalt, I would adjust this to say "culture of Islamic fundamentalists", because not all adherents of Islam want world domination, an Islamic state, and to murder anyone who is not a Muslim, any more than all Christians want to end their lives in a standoff with the FBI and be burned to death as per the Branch Davidians at Waco. Some of Prae's arguments are directed against the premise that ALL Muslims are murderers, which is incorrect. There are probably as many shades of adherence to Islam as there are practitioners, and if a Muslim does not intend to violate my rights, they should be free to practice their religion and live their life free from interference. Prae: it does if the government violates individual rights to the necessary degree. Obviously there are, again, shades of this (I would not advocate invading Washington D.C. because it levies taxes on me...), but for example, a dictatorship is not a legitimate government and has no rights, and can be morally overthrown at our discretion and replaced with a government that protects individual rights. This does not mean we must always do it, or that it's the only way to do it, only that we have the right to do it. As a sidebar (to use Iraq as an example) at the time of the invasion, I was not at all convinced it was a good idea based on the evidence presented by our government. I don't think a control freak like Saddam would ever let al Quaeda run amuck in Iraq, and the WMDs obviously did not pan out. Posts on this site are changing my mind however; mainly, the idea that a dictatorship has no moral legitimacy, combined with the likelihood that he would have found a way to produce and use WMDs eventually.

Not that I want to avoid commenting on your interesting projections, but I think that material scarcity will never go away. I would bet that your scenario seems as futuristic to us as our current lives would seem to a cave man. What cave-dweller would imagine that some day it would not only be possible to avoid skinning an animal for this year's winter fashions, but that there would be a way to produce thousands of garments per day; something they might regard as a limitless supply, forever ending the need to expend labor to create clothing. I wish I could just go pick out a free pair of running shoes every so often(!) but unfortunately, I still need to use my labor-earned money on them. Every age so far has had its own relative material scarcities, and it might turn out that nano-manufacturing certain materials is more difficult, or requires more energy because of the nature of the atomic bonds involved, or whatever (we will probably still not be able to make gold in any significant quantity - pesky element). Every age also seems to simply raise the bar on what we want to do with our time and materials, rather than eliminating materials as a factor in our lives altogether. I think because we will still live in the material world, the future will be similar.

Are you saying that too much of the book is devoted to refuting other theories? As opposed to simply elaborating his theory? Because what I remember is mostly that it was very interesting in its very specific descriptions of the mental process of forming concepts. Bad - why? Is there a criticism that you know of other than "Fact and Value"?

I will check the AynRand Bookstore catalog and we'll see. Thanks for the tip, amid your sarcasm and cursing. Let me dry my weepy eyes first. OK. If by "your own mind", you mean newspapers, TV, radio, magazines and people, then... YES. I was referring to the lack of effect in the last 20 years (give or take a few) because Ayn Rand died in '82. The fact that I have not heard one peep about this philosophy outside of the times I have specifically sought it out because I already knew about it, is merely an example. Can you honestly say that the philosophy has gained cultural momentum in Ms. Rand's absence? You could probably say that Reaganomics in the 80's was indebted to Objectivism (even though Reagan was a disappointment to any Objectivist) but it was probably the culmination of HER influence. Can you see any major influence in politics today, for example? If anything we have taken steps backwards. Except for Greenspan being at the Fed. Your methods are your call. If alienation is your aim, by all means, swing away... I'm sure you will succeed.

This is probably what Quantum Mechanic was referring to as "the typical harsh language employed by Objectivists, harsh moral judgements", etc. perfectly illustrating the posters point. You mean invade a public web forum? If this forum's intention is to castigate anyone who disagrees with a set of premises, then it should be called the "Acceptance or Else" section rather than "Debate and Discussion". I would disagree that Objectivism is a minor movement; I'd bet it's been largely responsible for most of the free market/individual rights/individualist ideas that do exist on our culture. However, in my opinion it has fallen short of what I would have expected since Ayn Rand's death. From the Objectivist establishment I hear primarily a regurgitation of what Ayn Rand wrote. Are these people telling me that it's all been written? That no more detail or philosophizing is required? Then, finally, an interesting and innovative work comes along that (I thought) began to flesh out the broad philosophical infrastructure that Ayn Rand built: "The Evidence of the Senses", and soon thereafter, David Kelley was voted off the island. I, for one, was disappointed. Regarding the penetration of Objectivism into our culture since Ayn Rand's death, I can say that in the past 20 years, although I have seen/read/heard about her novels, I did not hear the word "Objectivism" even once without my specifically looking it up. Not once in 20 years. There comes a point at which you can no longer continue to blame the ignorance and evil of others for results like that.

I would like to see Bin Laden's face on the live video feed from a U.S. guided missile.

I would agree provided they are afforded some sort of freedom or property rights commensurate to what they had before, within reason (even though they may not have explicity subscribed to the idea of property rights). For example, I don't think it would be right to build up a city around a goatherd's stomping grounds and then give them a one-room apartment when they used to live on 10 square miles, just because they didn't have a state. That a Palestine would be an Islamic state is not a foregone conclusion. No doubt many would like that, but many would not, especially those living abroad. Israel's populace is delineated by religion, yet the state is not a theocracy. You have a point; I agree that by such agression the agressor loses rights, and therefore Israel is effectively filling a vacum by taking this land. However, it should be obvious to all the players at this point that this is also the land that would become Palestine if that ever happens. And I think that the settlements are either 1) a de facto annexation which the settlers hope is permanent and will prevent a Palestine or 2) Isreal's way of ensuring that they always have an excuse to roll back into this territory, to defend the settlers against the occasional yet inevitable attacks that would come from Islamic wackos in the new (democratic) Palestine. Either way, it's not very forward-looking. Basically my concern is that the rest of the world is sitting on their hands while this aging conflict between flea-sized neighbors drags the rest of the West down with it.

Folks, there is more than one issue at stake here. There is the issue of how to respond to the urgent, immediate problem of Palestinian terrorism (which is largely the subject of the posts here), and there is the question of a Palestinian state for non-terrorists. Israel is getting fairly good at dealing with the former (especially courtesy of Apache helicopters), but is lagging on the latter. No moral person can expect Israel not to defend itself. I take issue with certain things they are doing towards this end, however. The security barrier is a good idea from a safety standpoint, but it takes a questionable path into the West Bank around some Israeli settlements. I'm sorry, but the West Bank settlements are not Israeli land, period. I would think that advocates of property rights would see this as wrong, not because they should not be defended, but because they should not be there at all. The government should pay the settlers to vacate (like I understand they paid them to settle in the first place). Without them leaving, there will always be a pretext for invading that land to help them out, even if they become absorbed by a Palestinian state. And what role do the remaining settlements play in "self defense"? They don't. They are not military installations, they are suburban neighborhoods in the middle of nowhere. They simply make a future Palestine less likely, and need to go away. Palestine is not for the bomb-wielding martyrs (who will never accept Israel or anything less than all the land in the region), it's for the legitimate Palestinian citizens of that land, and for Palestinians who were pushed out in the mid-20th centry, or who have fled this dangerous region to lead safe lives elsewhere. Despite the fact that some in the world see the creation of Israel as a mistake and an injustice, the thoughtful among them must realize that the plight of the Jews at that time was certainly more serious than that of any other group. In any case, the whole issue is water under the bridge, since nothing is going to change Israel now. Israel now needs to step up to the historical plate in turn and do the right thing, get the heck out of the West Bank, and get Palestine formed already! If they wait for the terrorists to go away, hell will freeze over before this conflict is done wreaking havoc on that region and the rest of the world.

Your disapproval at this point is a mere assertion, unless you back it up. What is your argument against the specifics presented by the poster?