Nxixcxk

Here are some sites regarding wine and grape juice. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/altern...wine.heart.wmd/ http://www.ohiohealth.com/healthreference/...m?category=5171 http://vanderbiltowc.wellsource.com/dh/content.asp?ID=577 "Also, you'd have to drink enough red wine to be legally drunk to get the same anti-clotting capabilities found in purple grape juice." Regardless, I'm sure we can both find many sites that differ slightly in the statistics and data presented. But the many differing sites have not convinced me that red wine is necessarily better for you than grape juice, especially knowing that wine has alcohol in it, and grape juice doesn't (except for maybe an immeasurable amount--or if you forget to refrigerate it). Here are some: Fatty degeneration of the liver, infection of the liver, liver cirrhosis, sleeping disorders, sexual problems, infection of the esophagus, infection of the stomach, infection of the pancreas, premature dementia, varying from a reduction of memory to the serious syndrome of Korsakoff; cancer of the mouth, throat, larynx, intestines and breasts; hypertension and heart problems. Banana-eater did you read this one? http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/103/3/472 lol thanks for pointing that out I won't go as far as saying that drinking moderately, or w/i one's limits, is immoral, as I am afraid of certainties (j/k), but I will say that getting drunk is immoral. Obviously this statement is meant to be read w/ context in mind---that is to say, if ones leg is blown off and he needs to alleviate the pain, then by all means get drunk.

Howdy Mike! and welcome aboard. I currently live in Boulder, but will probably be moving back to Denver in 11 weeks or so. I've attended many lectures at the CU campus and have occasionally joined in on some of the campus meetings if I have time. I'd be nice to get a Denver meet up though...there's got to be some Objectivists in this beautiful city =P

I'd say the evidence supporting the good ol' wine claim is still insubstantial. Most of what I've read in regard to alcohol's (wine, to be specific--NOT beer) beneficial affect on the cardiovascular system implies a may with it. And to put a may against a certainty, such as the affects alcohol has on the brain, is foolish. Furthermore, as some sources have suggested, the beneficial effects of red wine might be due to anti-oxidants, which other beverages contain as well, such as grape juice--so why not substitute wine for grape juice? The multitudinous negative affects that have clearly been shown as a result from drinking alcohol, definitely outweigh the mere possible positive cardiovascular affect alcohol seems to illicit in some individuals. So I opt not to drink.

B/c your TA is cocky and wants to disregard context, so shall we. Tell your TA that you will have the train travel upwards and off the tracks.

Now to view the plight of the individual....

Alcohol is poisoning and more unwanted junk the liver has to filter. Look at any brain scan of someone who's drunk or been drinking, and it's sad; the brain is completely distorted . Well said. When you start to question her as to why she drinks, she'll probably say something along the lines of "to have a good time." But just exactly what is it about drinking that allows someone to have a good time? If she drinks to relax, why does she choose this method over others--such as running or meditation or breathing exercises?

I don't see why there'd be any environmental legislation; in fact, there would be none. So long as the pollution didn't significantly affect (i.e. as long as the pollution's affect wasn't a reasonably measurable health concern) the rights of other individuals, it wouldn't be a problem. It takes energy to manufacture everything. If we were to only use nuclear energy, it would cost manufactures, as well as those who extract the minerals necessary for production, more money to produce/extract. Therefore, the cost of all commodities would necessarliy rise. This would irrevocably hinder the economy and the life styles of millions of people---so much so that none of the environmentalists would have enough time to protest, since they'd be too busy earning a living. It makes more sense to me to allow for cheaper production of products at the cost of the "environment," with a highly probable chance that new energy-efficient technological advances will occur, then it does to implement a new source of energy at the expense of the economy and everything else that follows. Their own self interest. It would be foolish for a logging company to simply ransack a rainforest (i.e. jungle--if we are to speak non-euphemistically) w/o some sort of "rainforest compensation." How could the logging company expect to earn $ in the future if it has destroyed its potential earnings? In other words, after cutting down an X amount of trees, it would be in the company's interest to plant seeds, or do whatever is necessary, in order for newly cut area to flourish. Same with air pollution (or any other enviro problem). If the air pollution is bad enough to where it is threatening our breathing air, it would be in the producers interest to fix the problem--since its consumers (as well as the consumers) need to breathe in order to consume . Also, if we know Company X is unnecessarily polluting the environment, how likely are we to buy their products? Nothing like the beauty of the boycott.

?

I tried it once but it was too time consuming and financially expensive (for me). I used to be monomaniacally obsessed with wc3/wc3xp,. but then realized it was consuming my life--so I broke the CD, and that fixed the problem.

I shall share with you my secret, but don't tell anyone else... The way I deal with people is to make jokes of everything. I don't consider many things in the social realm to be worth my thought. In H.S. I had the same issue, tried to take things seriously, but all it did was backfire. So I reverted to the role of class clown--and w/o this role, I doubt I would have graduated. Anyhow, God Bless ( ), and good luck.

Tom Cruise played a nihilist in this movie, eh?

Where's the evidence that severly retarded (assuming these are the beings she's referring to) people may be cured or at least partly be able to stand on their own?

My post is directed at Trendy and source. Sorry for the late response, my pathetic internet connection isn’t working, so I have to use the schools. My definition of “life” was meant in relation to humans, no other life forms—and I can’t believe I didn’t say that as I know it is causing much unneeded confusion. Thanks for the clarification there, I totally missed this. Yes, it was a mistype. It was suppose to be experiential. The difference b/t “profoundly experiential” and simply “experiential” is this: If I were being chased by a bear in a wilderness and had to use my mind to its fullest extent in order to survive being eaten, I would call that a profound experience. Whereas if I was simply sauntering around the sidewalks, I’d categorize that as simply experience, or mundane experience. So, there’s something about those two experiences that I am differentiating. In the former, I was thinking, making important decisions, and was active. In the latter, I’m not doing much other than wandering around aimlessly. This I thought about before making my definition. If I left it as simply man and his existence, it didn’t make sense to me; after all, what is his existence? I was assuming that biological necessities would be subsumed under experience, but now I realize that it’s undeniably not. Thanks for pointing that out. Noted. J I think when I was forming this definition I was making way too many assumptions L Okay great, thanks for the suggestion. When I have time, I will sit down and follow this format and see if I can come up with a definition for ordinary objects. What do you mean by non-essential? Non-essential in relation to what?

I watched a movie in class a few days ago where one of the main characters had a love to live life. (the movie was Tuesday's with Murray--or something along those lines, in case your wondering) After some thought, I asked myself, "what do I mean when I say that someone "love's to live life?"" So, in an attempt to define the concept "life" I substituted the word "life" with a phrase. I thought to myself, "When I say that I love life, I mean that I love to discover, experiment, express my values, share my feelings, contemplate, and introspect." After I wrote this down on a piece of paper, I circled the phrase, "to discover, experiment, express my values, share my feelings, contemplate, and introspect." Then I told myself that this is what I meant by the phrase "loves to live life." Now, with that in mind, could I come up with a rational definition of the concept "life." Here's what I came up with: "Life is the profoundly experiental relationship b/t man and his existence with reality." (According to an Objectivist lecture I listened to, if I remember correctly, "philosophy" is the study of man and his relationship to reality, rather than the actual experience of his relationship to reality) So to insert it onto my other statement of "the main character loved to live life," would be, "the main character loved the profoundly experiental relationship b/t himself and his existence with reality." Regardless of the exactitude of my definition of life, would the conceptual common denominator (if it exists in my definition) of my definition be "the relationship b/t man and his existence with reality?" And would this also be considered my differentia? And if so, is there a difference b/t the CCD and the differentia? From IOE, pg 41: "Thus a definition complies with the two essential functions of consciousness: differentiation and integration. The differentia isolates the units of a concept from all other existents; the genus indicates their connection to a wider group of existents." In the case of my definition of life, what would be the genus? Where does my concept of life connect with a wider group of existents?--And if it does, what are the existents? Could the "wider group of existents" be considered the components of reality itself? I would ask you if you think my definition of life is accurate, but if the above statements are answered, it will suffice. With all this in mind, I've been going around lately to see if i can define random objects that I find in my apartment; and I must admit, it is rather tough. What are some practical ways one goes about defining? If you've tried defining concepts, what are some ways that worked for you? Nick.

P: It is only productive work that makes love (or any other relationship) possible (P2): One wants to maintain the proper hierarchy of values C: One must hold the value of productive work above any relationship This seems irrefutable, and I don't see how anyone can logically deny it. Maybe their confusion comes from an example of this kind: If I have a dream job and I somehow find romantic love 3,000mi away, and, b/c of the circumstances, must move to her location in order to be with her, thus requiring me to get a job flipping burgers at mcdonalds since it's the only job available and I need $, I don't see this as sacrifice. In the case above, I gave up my dream job in order to be with her, but I didn't give up the value of productive work per se (although flipping burgers isn't the best example of "productive work" since it requires about nothing of the mind, but the replacement job, hypothetically, could be anything less than my dream job and would still fit the purpose of serving as an example)--I still see the need to make $ in order to survive, but I value being in her presence more so than having my dream job. Note, however, that this doesn't necessitate the value of love superimposing the value of productive work. With this being said, I'd like to end with a quote from VOS, pg 69: "Accompanying one's husband or wife to a concert, when one does not care for music, is not a "compromise" (or sacrifice); surrendering to his or her irrational demands for social conformity, for pretended religious observance or for generosity toward boorish in-laws, is." Parenthesis are mine.

? Anyone who's foolish enough to believe that people will always be happy under system X (insert ANY system here), is naive and not worth your time. If we lived in a society that followed and understood Objectivist principles, not one of us could legitimately admit that everyone is happy; but rather, we would admit that each individual had the right to pursue his own happiness. Happiness is not societally granted; it's earned.

Yeah, I think so too....this sounds familiar. I took a class on ethics once and if I remember correctly, the professor adhered to this, although I don't think he went so far as to say "b/c we always act in our own interest, there's no need for ethics," but that conclusion seems to necessarily follow. Also, nice observation here as well

Celtic, after trying to describe Objectivism to those who do not/have not studied philosophy, I realize how tough it is. I'm trying to come up with my own way of describing the philosophy without sounding overly didactic. It's definitely hard to use philosophic terms (philosophy has its own lexicon--as does Objectivism) with someone who uses the terms in a generic way (i.e. when I use the word "selfish," I think of a positive; most likely, when someone else uses it, it's a "negative.") (If you don't believe me, imagine a doctor talking to a patient like she does another doctor and the confusion it would create on the side of the patient) I would bet that you and your friends have certain aspects of life that you all think similarly about--try attributing Objectivism to these aspects as a way of introducing the philosophy. Sorry, that's all I got for you now (as I am somewhat uncertain as to a comlpete answer to your question)--hope it helped

Thanks for the responses. Yeah, good point. I was thinking in the back of my mind--"Well, we must have some sort of agreement upon reality prior to communication." So it would seem the agreement is tacit, if we are so to communicate. Hmm, that's a nice, quick, refutation. Helps point out that any type of communication b/t two people already implies some sort of objectivity. Basically I told my parents that Objectivism woudl be a life long study and that I was going to possibly move somewhere where college courses would be offered on the subject...then they started saying things like, "sounds cultish," or "who needs philosophy," etc.etc. But then I started describing the philosophy and absolutes, etc. and that's when he popped the question. (Seems there are many people whom I call implicit Objectivist...implicit in a sense that their actions are Objective-like, but they are unable to substantiate their thoughts philosophically, and thus turn to some sort of subjectivism) It's funny, there's this book called "Atheism: The case against God." And it has a nice section about axioms, the fundamentals of logic (how logic isn't accepted about "faith"), and a refutation of universal skepticism. I understand how to refute universal skepticism when it's being purported blatantly, but when it hides behind equivocations and comes in different variants---it's a lot tougher

YES!!! That is it! Thanks capitalist...I think that was my exact confusion. I must be able to distinguish the difference b/t having selfish interest and living a selfish life. Thanks for making the complex so easy

A few days ago my dad said to me, "Reality is subjective in a sense that we have to agree upon what exists." I gave him a perplexing look of amusement and then he said, "How, if we don't agree upon reality, can we even communicate with each other?" Regretably, I didn't know how to respond . I said something along the lines of, "Well, of course we have to agree upon reality in order to communicate, but I don't see how that leads to subjectivity." And then somehow we got off on a tangent. Nevertheless, I wasn't really satisfied with how I responded. I mean, it seems that something would have to exist before the agreement could occur (i.e. existence presupposes the possibility of communication)--and thus the existent would be independent of consciousness....but that's all I got. Possibly it's important to not think of communication and knowledge as synonymous? Argh, I'm lost, any tips?

Sorry for the unreasonable late reply--now that I have access to the internet, it should not be a problem. I'll try to address some of the questions/responses many of you have in hopes that this thread will be looked upon later. Ex if you wouldn't mind clarifying what you mean be psycho-epistemology I'd be glad to take a shot at your question. In a way, yes. I haven't really tried to "program new thoughts" per se, but more so my reaction regarding certain things. For instance, at the school I intend, I often hear teachers and students utter statements that I allow to upset me; so, during meditation, if I repeatively say this sentence (the sentence being my mantra), "I will not let it upset me," in reference to their comments, it (the mantra) seems to work quite well--I've noticed that when someone says that our profession is to "serve those in need" I do not immediately become upset; instead, the first thing that pops into my mind is "I will not let it upset me." Good point. I was wrong to say that it was a "thought" of scoring in three seconds; but rather, it is an understanding that he must score in three seconds. Punk I'm interested in how you use the term "thought" here. I think I may slightly disagree with you, but it all comes down to how you define "thought". I don't think all thoughts are stray(irrelevant) thoughts in the midst of a game. If a quarterback picks a play in the huddle, but then sees the defense has a lineup that suits his offensive pick, he will audible. Or, if a pointguard calls an offensive play devised for man-to-man defenese but then sees he's against a zone, he will audible. In the above cases, do you consider these recognitions as thoughts, or conditioned reactions to specific circumstances? Once again, sorry for the late replies.

Hmm, I think your responses have helped somewhat. So Mother Theresa would say that she never works in her self interest. But those who claim that everyone does, would say that it is in her interest to deny that she is working in her interest (i.e. she enjoys the psychological feeling of "helping" someone out which is why she chooses to self-sacrifices). Yet Objectivism would say that the acts she commits of self-sacrifice, even though that's what she wants to do, is not in her (rational) self-interest and thus she cannot be considered selfish. Is this correct?

(Mod's note: Merged with a related thread - sN) I'm still not convinced that everyone is not selfish--even after reading VOS "Isn't Everyone Selfish?" a couple of times. And, if I remember correctly, Rand had an article about it as well in her book "Philosophy, Who Needs It?" And I didn't find that very convincing either....so hopefully someone can shed some light on this topic for me. After reading the article "Isn't Everyone Selfish?", I wrote some notes down. This is what I wrote: Candidates for this view claim that everyone is selfish--regardless of the circumstances. For instance: Pretend a man is going to smoke a cigarette for the first time. He knows the cigarette is harmful to his health yet he wants to satisfy his curiosity. He wonders what's it like to inhale a puff of smoke and what will happen to him physiologically. The proponents of this view will say that even though the cigarette is dangerously harmful to his health, it is still in the man's interest to satisfy his curiosity--thus making him selfish. This is their big mistake (here's my conclusion--but I'm unsure of it). The man's curiosity is totally unwarranted. No one should be curious about the effects of anything when they know exclusively that experimenting with such a substance is harmful to their health. Thus, it is not in this man's interest to fulfill an arbitrary "curiosity" and so he is not acting selfishly. But then I have a possible objection to my own conclusion: "Selfishness" simply means concerned with one's own interest. But by no means does the word "concern" have any correlation with the concept of being "rationally concerned" or "objectively concerned." So, one can said to be concerned with one's own interest and simply be misguided as to what they ought to regard as their own interests. And then my objection to that is this: The above paragraph is mindlessly messing with semantics regarding the word "concern," b/c when one uses the word "concern" he is already supposing that the concern is warranted--not arbitrarily created. Anyhow, as anyone can see, I'm indefinitely confused, so I'd appreciate some help around this area. PS....I can't really identify where my confusion is, but the same type of confusion ( I think) exists with other topics. Here are some more examples: "Everyone, if the act is voluntary, does what they want to do." For instance, someone may not "want" to go to the dentist, but they end up going anyway b/c they don't want their cavities to progress into something worse. Or....there was once a man who joked about everything and was only serious about one thing...joking. There are more, but I can't think of them now. Possibly it would be fair to say that we all try to act in our own self interest?

Kevin, thank's for the response--allowed me to understand the psychology of some of the philosophy teachers I've had.