- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
That would be a contradiction. To be, is to be something. A conservative is someone who is not exclusively guided by reason. That was the point of my posts on David Hume and Edmund Burke. A conservative by definition is someone who thinks reasons role in determining reality is limited at best and must be tempered by tradition and historical practices.
That is not to say that someone might mislabel themselves a conservative and only be guided by reason.
a fine knowledge of history, we have fewer conservatives
around us than we think. . mis-labeling could be rampant. -- j
.
B. He is therefore a supporter of the RINOs
C. He advocates Nancy Pelosi's second favorite tax that of VAT on businesses only which translates directly into increased consumer costs plus cost of collecting FOR the government.
three strikes your out and take Cruz with him.
Compared to the others is not saying much and certainly not saying enough. The rest of your comment i wish I had included that's strike four and five for Randy Paul and one thumb up for you.
Ah I forgot and he already quit he's running for the Senate again and said, "the end is in sight."
Eligibile to vote as compared to actually voted runs near 50% in off election years and roughly 35% in Presidential election years. Which means that percentage is saying "None Of The Above. Kind of kills the value of 'landslide' and 'mandate' when they have to steal votes using winner take all and all doesn't mean zip.
Welcome to the silent almost majority
.
.
.
.
I was thinking about polls and so forth.. Slip the word around ourside to just say Carly and Bobby or she can run on her own with no help from us.....Why? Because I don't like you. right in some pollsters face.....or why? Nobodies business but that's the way it's going down. Be a lot of stained BVDs when that poll came out.....Not saying Jack about anything then laughing in their face.
One of those if i told you I would have to execute you laughs....Just turn your back on them slam the door and try for broken nose.
Between the usual fifty fifty split ...we would hold the keys to the kingdom. They are too doo doo dumb to give it up to the other side so their big advantage doesn't mean squat. Really it's like one third, one third, one third and half of theirs don't vote so let's see 1/6th to 1/6th and we get to pick the winner. LMAO.
Assuming 50 50 of those who vote how many votes do you really need to win...somewhere between one and two. 55 to 45 split you would need to bring in 11 in percentage terms of those who really vote.
Now tell the truth would you vote for Hillary or Carly given that scenario? Add in VP Bobby it would be real street theater...Just got to pare him away from that VAT crap....wouldn't be hard if her got to ride herd on something better.
Ah it's almost two am I've been up 22 hours and it's time to dream the impossible dreams and then make them....schnooooooooorrrrrrreeee tomorrows sunshine.....
you have the time. . I suspect that you and Zen are thinking
in the same sort of way -- guilt by association. . please
cite examples at your leisure. -- j
.
You fail to realize that you identify yourself in your posts and comments. You continually ask others on the site to compromise the Objectivist principles through understanding of others and compromise. But I do already understand others, and not just from Rand's writings, also through personal observations and interactions with thousands throughout my life. And from all of that, I reject the vast majority of humanity that can't or won't think for themselves, and instead rely on 'other authority' or 'feelings' to guide their life decisions, and the impact on all of man, particularly me.
and look for value in all of them. . compromise is volunteering
to be the victim of theft, whether physical or mental, and
I try never to ask for that. . what I want is recognition that
there are Christians who are of net positive value, for example.
I am married to one. . she has saved lives and continues to
inspire the same, asking no one to commit altruism nor
to volunteer to be a victim of theft. . I just reject fewer people
than you do, thinking that their net value is more positive,
I suppose. . at least I don't reject you for your negativity. -- j
.
present-day relevance of "conservative" -- a term which identifies
people who are much more amenable to objectivists
than liberals or progressives or socialists or communists
or Marxists or whomever. . if we have a central mission here,
is it not the sustenance and expansion of objectivist thought?
I know that it is valuable to draw contrasts between the good
and the bad -- in definition and praise of the good -- and yet,
collateral damage is also pertinent. . intentionally tossing out
everyone who identifies with the term "conservative" is unwise,
in my judgment. -- j
.
.
“The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist (philosopher).”
John Maynard Keynes
That is a fantastic quote! And now the masses are slaves to Keynes! How sickly poetic? He would probably find it ironic, but would he admit he was defunct?
Respectfully,
O.A.
though my brother-in-law who has studied more econ than I have,
says that today's practice of his government-controlled
economics is heavily distorted. . this quote does carry some
serious import, though -- except for the heavy distortion
which people downstream exert on the influences of
philosophers and economists. . like interpretations of
the koran, distortions can lead to pure evil. -- j
.
Not likely to find them in FNA though.. don't try to parse or weasel that 30% figure that.s the minimum and it ain't over yet.
Now go vote for them again all you sanctimonious expletive deleteds.
Although I am not a Keynesian economist, I have found that he has been able to ascertain some aspects of human nature better than most economists. He worked in a time when the Great Depression set classical economics on its head---none could explain the inability of the market to right itself.
I'm more inclined to go along with the Monetarists, Friedman and Schwarz, though I don't always agree with them, either. I add Richard Koo (The Holy Grail of Macroeconomics) and start my thinking from there.
You must remember, that unlike Rand's thinking, not all businessmen engage in sound business practices. Sure, the market has some built-in bulwarks for the excesses of errant capitalism, but it is hardly complete.
I started my research with international capital flows and their relation to Current Account, or global trade and commerce.
But feel free to share your solutions. I will keep an open mind.
I loved insurance. It appealed to my protective instincts. By protecting that pool of money held by insurance companies, I not only protected the business, but the customer and consumer as well.
Do you know anything about insurance?
I think you want to believe Rand's assessment of the "hero" businessman, who by running his business on the "choices" only of traders, without government intervention at all has an absolute morality. And that is naïve. I was a large risk commercial property and casualty underwriter before I studied economics, and believe me I am well aware that not all businessmen engage in sound business practices.
The market has some built-in solutions, as I have previously stated. It is only when market forces are not working that proper---not excessive---regulations are helpful. For instance, Commercial Property and Casualty Insurance Companies are a "regulator" of business. I know. I was a large risk commercial property and casualty underwriter.
Have you read the great treatise by Friedman and Schwartz explaining how circumstances and government intervention did indeed cause the drastic decrease in the money supply and thus dramatically deepened and lengthened the Great Depression?
There are legitimate government regulations that could have been taken at that time that would have helped, not hindered the recovery.
Part of the challenge of economics is determining the proper and correct amount of regulation needed. Also remember, if capitalism cannot regulate itself, it is inviting government to do so.
A book you may like is Charles P Kinderberger's "Manias, Panics and Crashes"---how excesses of the market throughout history have contributed to price free-fall and decline in the money supply
Another point to remember in today's business environment is that because of excessive and crushing regulations, capitalism itself has become more and more entangled with government, instead of maintaining their necessary role as a countervailing power to the power of the state.
Businesses that live on must not be so bad or they would not survive long term. Surviving means they must be providing someone with something they want at a price they are willing to pay. A=A Your going to need to give me an example of a business that fits your description.
We no longer are in a capitalist society because of government intrusion which is the only reason that businesses with unsound practices stay afloat. This is exactly what happened in 2008-2009 and has been ongoing since. The free market takes care of itself if it is left alone. One control leads to another, another... and then we end up where we are right now. No longer a capitalist country but one that is teetering on the verge of socialism.
My thinking on economics draws from Rand and collection of other economists, many of whom I do not agree with overall but have specific insights that are gems. If you are interested see my book and lecture both entitled Source of Economic Growth.
I wondered, though, if you attached a time element to the phenomena. Some logicians and researchers don't find it necessary. I believe Cohen and Nagel, in one version, said it could be an invariant relationship between two concepts.
And although Rand herself had a good grasp of human nature, I'm wondering how many economists do.
Note that this is also consistent with the fundamental survival tool of man - his ability to reason.
You probably are aware thought, that man's ability to manipulate concrete objects in space-time-material reality has far out weighed his ability to think abstractly. As in how do we govern ourselves effectively?
We're still learning that last.
the right way ... if only Midas Mulligan owned the whole place
and we rented from him! -- j
.
.
I did not know that. . I thought that we should be talking about
current conservatives who want smaller government,
less -- or NO -- corruption, a military designed for defense
rather than nation-building, the elimination of punitive taxes,
and the like. . That is Pertinent to Today, IMHO. -- j
.
In order to discuss your current conservatives, I would have to accept a gov't that still insists on being involved with and intruding into my everyday life, allbeit more efficiently, and a standing army which is not allowed per the Constitution nor Objectivist thought and principles.
this seems strange to me, since the first requirement of
the government is national defense. -- j
.
While the Constitution does not directly address a standing army, the government can only do those things specifically allowed and it does not state that federal government can have a standing army and having an army when it is not needed is also inconsistent with the Constitution
when some external force wants our land. . right now, of course,
we have this "war" being waged against us by ISIS, a new
state of sorts, which warrants some concern. -- j
.
I don't think there's any war. They're a bunch of criminals. A militia, along the lines of what the Founders imagined, with everyhousehold having guns, emergency repair equipment, and/or emergency medical, ISIS wouldn't have a chance. Sure they can commit murder. I don't have a plan to stop murder.
I will point out I could be wrong b/c I never though ISIS would get this powerful. For that reason, I'd be fine having a standing army that is as expensive as our greatest enemies spend. But what I really want is a well regulated militia and a very limited standing army--- an no declaring war b/c of evil criminals.
to invade. . could that be their waterloo? -- j
.
I think they pose zero threat to Isreal. (I never thought they'd control any territory and I don't understand how they did it, so I could be wrong.)
was slow this afternoon. -- j
.
the L in ISIL, from Turkey to Egypt, they will be here
for us.
in the meantime, they just capture and behead our people
when we get in range. -- j
.
by getting out of my way! . and I agree about the Navy. -- j
.
and its creators, then reverence for work done in the past
might be appropriate, don't you think? -- j
.
My understanding isdbhalling is saying conservatives revere whatever is from the past. A non-conservative may revere some things that happen to be from the past, but not because they are from the past.
talk about conservatives -- they use God, temporal and
human fallibility crutches to undergird their arguments. -- j
.
cadre of folks in here, and I really appreciate the variety. . students
of Rand may be the best term for many of us, and we make
mistakes, discoveries, new analogies every day -- it's great! -- j
.
with the word reverence? . your sensitivity to a side concept
seems amazing to me. . I have reverence for your rights
as an individual. . I adore them, 'cuz they are exactly like mine.
I have reverence towards nature 'cuz she continually
surprises me with intricate complexity beyond my wildest
dreams. . I could go on and on. . reverence is just a word. -- j
.
As to 'reverence is just a word', words have meanings and connotations and in this case expresses something that causes me to have antipathy to it.
reverence:
noun
1. a feeling or attitude of deep respect tinged with awe; veneration.
2. the outward manifestation of this feeling:
to pay reverence.
3. a gesture indicative of deep respect; an obeisance, bow, or curtsy.
4. the state of being revered, or treated with respect tinged with awe.
5. (initial capital letter) a title used in addressing or mentioning a member of the clergy (usually preceded by your or his).
I would dare to bet that there are several who still persist
here in the gulch. . and reverence is just a word which
does not necessarily carry theological connotations,
as you seem to infer. . I use it for secular purposes like
reverence for rights and nature, as I mentioned. . it's sad that
I should censor my language here -- just for you? -- j
.
interested in your work. -- j
p.s. I do, by the way -- here's the latest edit::: http://www.amazon.com/Unsustainable-T...
.
.
I believe, and always have believed, that Madison,
Jefferson, Adams et al, were creators of a societal
form which we should sustain and emulate because
it is good. . in that sense, it's reverence for their work
and appreciation for what we have. . this has not changed;;;
only the words which tickle your fancy have. -- j
.
You begin with a reply to dbhailing:
"If it has anything to do with appreciating the constitution
and its creators, then reverence for work done in the past
might be appropriate, don't you think? -- j"
then when he disagrees with you:
"But that is the rub, it is not. The founders were not conservatives. How can you honor the founders, by ignoring what they stood for?"
You respond with:
"understood. . I agree totally. -- j"
Then you respond to a comment by me in the same thread at a later time:
" I thought that we should be talking about
current conservatives who want smaller government,
less -- or NO -- corruption, a military designed for defense
rather than nation-building, the elimination of punitive taxes,
and the like. . That is Pertinent to Today, IMHO. -- j"
My interest in these and other comments to you is not to persecute you, but to try to understand and discover your real philosophy, particularly resulting from the numbers of headline posts from WND and the contradictions I find in your various involvements on the site. What I'm doing is checking my premises against the statements you make, their connotations, and contexts.
I trust that none of that disturbs you. I think that I make my philosophy totally apparent in my posts and comments on the site as do most of us.
with acceptance for values from others who bring value from many
corners of the world. . this includes conservatives, Christians,
Buddhists, agnostics, atheists, pilots, artists, even short-order cooks.
there is no contradiction in the allegation that conservatives may
operate exclusively by rational means. . I know several. -- j
p.s. it seems that you are checking my premises, not your own.
and nothing much disturbs me, anymore;;; the government already
disturbed me for 37 of my 67 years.
.
That lasted until the majority under the teachings of democracy voted themselves a pay raise and traded their sovereignty and freedom for.....Government, Country, People as cannon fodder and baby factories.
The idea and one other known as the Monroe Doctrine which stated one may help one's neighbor without taking over his property were our historical contributions to the world.
Our country today is a stark warning of the consequences when citizens fail in their duty as citizens.
May the next go round pay attention to the lessons of history.
A dream, an Idea, a concept thus tested and deemed practical then tested again against another possibility without a ...safety net... is someone elses metaphor, a reframed redefined nightmare
I think the important question is more properly, why would Conservatives, or Liberals, or Socialists, or Christians, or any form of irrational Statist want to be welcomed in the Gulch. Why would a person with those beliefs have any interest in what Objectivists discuss or gain from Posting irrelevant information, questions, comments, make contradictory expressions of their positions in different posts or even on the same post or thread, or ask Objectivists to compromise or agree to question their own principles and values?
Objectivists live in a reality and state of mind which is in direct opposition to nearly everything that Conservatives avow and do, politically and in fact. The real question then becomes, what value do Conservatives bring to honestly and openly trade with Objectivists.
faking anything are not exclusively the property of objectivists.
a person who calls him/herself a conservative may use
that term to describe the same views as an objectivist
and may need only a little nudge to see that the old arcane
meaning of conservative doesn't fit. . they might then choose
to call themselves something else. . okay? . the sledgehammer
approach might be less persuasive than a friendlier way.
you might want to consider that welcoming people to the
gulch who are exploring ideas from a conservative or a
Christian or an agnostic background could yield more
objectivists downstream than if you rail at anything which
even remotely smells of an impure thought. . let them
explore and learn rather than driving them away, OK? -- j
.
Perhaps these "conservatives" of which you speak, are not as "conservative" as believed? Perhaps they don't fit the traditional definition, or precisely in this or that box... Our language... our labels are losing their specificity and precision. So many work to break it down it is a wonder we can do more than grunt at one another nowadays...
Still, to adopt the label and keep it is to accept its history and baggage... Do you accept all? Do you know all?
We should probably consider our desire to fit into any of these collective boxes. What we should strive for is to be an independent objective thinker and recognize that your interest here in the Gulch, is pretty good evidence that you, the reader, is not buying the whole "conservative" ideology. Thus, you may be putting yourself needlessly in a box.
Who here is not individual enough to consider leaving behind such confines?
Respectfully,
O.A.
about building a bridge to Christianity. . it didn't work. -- j
.
You've never grasped why 'building a bridge' to Christianity is the furthest idea or goal of an Objectivist. Such compromise is not compatible with this philosophy nor are those that think that such is desirable or workable. Objectivism is a complete and fully developed philosophy of egoism and individual freedom that has no use for mysticism.
But then again, you're not an Objectivist.
that no Christians could be welcome. . . okay, I see.
your disdain makes me feel like my upvotes make you feel.
nothing. . I am sorry that your view of life is so sour.
this is not compromise, nor altruism, nor an evasion of
reality. . it is making the sum of the parts greater than one. -- j
.
I consider that to be irrational and of no objective value and this is after all a site for those with an interest in AS, AR, and Objectivism. It is not a site for trying to shoehorn Christianity into the philosophy or to advocate for Objectivist to compromise their principles.
people of value be recognized honestly. . like my wife, as I said
in my most recent previous reply to you. -- j
.
Those that can't accept reason and factual reality are of no value to an Objectivist's life. They're at best 'fellow travelers' of the evil in our lives.
your sentiment, but hope that you understand that I just can't
quite reach out far enough to share it.
p.s. I accept reason and factual reality -- it's easy,
including appreciating your value. -- j
p.p.s. I have decided not to contact the administrators
about your calling me and my wife evil. . I suspect that
your accusation is just a side comment instead of a tirade
which will harm her, or me.
.
If you choose to use my description of what certain mental activities and behaviors amount to, as descriptive of you and your wife--that's your choice. But threatening me with some type of administrative action is typical of your reasoning process and continual effort to rephrase my comments in order to misrepresent them.
"'fellow travelers' of the evil in our lives."
this puts me and Kathy in your cross-hairs as evil.
this differs from the gulch rule which asks that we not
proselytize others to our point of view.
I decided to flag the comment, after all. -- j
.
that I think positively about people who can make our mutual future
better than our past. . I just think that more people have potential
than you think have potential. . I want to welcome them,
and you don't. . so that's where we are. -- john
.
.
I saw nothing "sour" in Zen's words; that you did...is a premise that deserves checking.
of anyone who is not a pure Rand adherent. . I have lived 67 years,
among lots of people, and have held Ayn Rand highest in my
assessment of people for 52 of those years. . many of my
friends have been Christian, or Buddhist, or agnostic, and there was
even a black muslim -- all valuable people, producers in this world
worthy of praise. . he cannot see their value as I can, thus "sour." -- j
.
Yes, I agree. I think it's part of accepting reality.
If this forum were about philosophy only, then it would be wrong to water down Objectivism with other philosophies, in other words to confuse elements of other philosophies with Objectivism. It doesn't seem like posts related to the real-world are proscribed though. We have a good deal of discussion about politics and how it relates to Objectivism.
If there is to be a real-world movement, either in the US or some sort remote Gulch-like community, it's hard for me to see it happening without drawing from people who identify culturally as Christian, conservative, liberal, etc. I actually imagine most of them not being into philosophy of any kind, but they have activities they love and are loath to be forced or forcing others to do anything. It seems like some of us reject this, as if these Christians, liberals, conservatives, etc are trying to revise Ayn Rand's philosophy.
I say a major Objectivist (as I understand it based on reading two Rand fiction works) movement will require bridges to people of the world's religions and political identifications because people come from those backgrounds.
Sometimes I think Objectivism is represented as “No compromise. Compromise is being practical. Since looters use pragmatism, we'll make the fallacy of the converse and say all practicality is looting. Instead we'll do nothing but kvetch unless we get utopia. We can even call our lack of action and our kvetching some kind of moral virtue since sitting on our bottoms does not support impure/corrupt institutions.”
Okay, sorry for ranting. But I stand by my desire for a mainstream movement based on the ideas in the two books I read. Such a movement will require all kinds of people, many of whom are not Objectivist philosophers.
And I'm not sure that a movement is of interest to Objectives.
You're correct in thought. Objectivism sees compromise as irrational and of no value.
value in others as a negative value, Zen. . you are throwing out
the baby with the bath water. -- j
.
for honest appraisal of people of value, like my wife. -- j
.
is hollow musing and the fact that the supernatural does not exist
mean that she is using her imagination to conjure up intuitive
guidance for her life decisions. . how clever! -- j
.
of our world and the hopes for a better future in it! -- j
.
of using "their" language occasionally could be a value. . but it is.
my marriage is proof. . she is Christian. -- j
.
and my wife also matters. . it is real, and we are solid.
and my love for objectivism does not suffer. -- j
.
.
What matters more is what someone actually believes for themselves & practices in their daily life.
You may feel comfortable stating your distain for "Conservatives" but you must really in the end ask yourself why? "Liberals" are almost identical to "conservatives" just with a different set of dogma, much as Fascists and Communists are 2 sides of the same coin just with a different set of Elite leaders.
Now when it comes to the writings of Ayn Rand, if you actually objectively look at things, you'll find that many "Conservatives", respect her work and read it, as compared to "Liberals" who are much more likely to be found denouncing it.
For those of us who were legitimate volunteers it had no meaning because it wasn't necessary. The exception was it legally focused us on owing allegiance only to the Constitution. Not to the government, nor the people, nor the President. They were implied but not stated and their were exceptions for example if they became enemies domestic. There was no exception to the first part and no 'to the best of my ability escape clauses.'
The similarity is they are opposites and can exchange definitions over the course of one general election or by other means. The same as In and Out.
Fascism large F you nailed it but all despotic totalitarian governments are fascist small f including religious governments (Islam, Vatican) and secular in any form the two forms of socialism extremists are National and International Socialism with only one slight difference between them.
voluntarily, I swore allegiance to the constitution and did not
swear allegiance to subsequent political perversion of it. -- j
.
The latter you may think of as a box of popcorn with a canon ball in charge on a boat with a pitching deck.
The former is the same box of popcorn with five or six big size steelies.
For the popcorn the day is much the same.
The rest of it is precisely the same for each of the two forms of socialism.
people in here might consider me a troll. . this is a puzzle
which might be worthy of puzzlelady! -- j
.
at the door, however. . mine kinda stick with me -- like honesty,
integrity, refusing to fake anything about reality, and the
abiding love for life which makes your enjoyment important
to me, as well. . if I can help to brighten the future for someone
who shares "our" premises -- or who can be drawn into them --
then, my life is just that much better. . my 51 percent rule
tends to help me remain optimistic about others! -- j
.
I have been thinking a lot about "conservative", especially since there are many positions they take with which I agree. But I come at those positions in completely different ways. For example, a conservative deplores illegitimate births because they feel it is against Gods plan and contrary to the way things used to be. I abhor the fact that our country and society not only allows but encourages men and women to be completely irresponsible , as they know they will suffer no negative consequences to their actions. Their behavior also gives them an unending claim on my life and my productivity. All in all, a complete denial of reality.
I think that your thinking is more like mine than the conservative thinking. Am I wrong?
tend to draw people towards irresponsible conception
and neglect of children -- before and after birth. . I despise the
inducements which tend to draw people towards welfare
instead of work. . I despise those which tend to reward lying
instead of honesty, to reward corruption rather than integrity.
and the government is at the center of most of these inducements,
in my humble opinion. . we who have a sense of healthier life --
however we're labeled, objectivist or whatever -- need to
band together to change this society. . soon! -- j
.
.
Club and the current goal is direct contributions to candidates and measures in every one of the 110,000 precincts, all the cities, towns, counties and states they care to target to fund enough elections and measures to get their other wish lists fulfilled. Sure you will have the same rights. How many of you does it take to match one million dollars of 'money as free speech' or even one hundred million dollars to get just enough votes to ensure a majority his way?
So before you get wrapped around the axle with philosophy remember the part where Rand said check EVERY possibility on any given issue. Objectively. You will find the progressives have many worms in the system....and they will take any oath you wish....then cut your throat.
But for the fun of it list all the definitions of conservative and liberal pre PC, post PC. You will find that number equals the number of oaths they are willing to take.
Progressives cannot be trusted....by the standards of decent people.
They also will not allow themselves to be caught in a trap of their own making ...relying on their numbers to rule the day.
The same numbers that voted in Bush the second time and Obama twice and lived to whine about it. Three times in a row plus off year elections.....but they still are playing fiddling lemmings while all else burns.
Your turn John!
thought in general, appears to have no bounds. . those with principles
may find that behavior restrained by some of their principles
delays success significantly. . "stooping to their level" may be a
Danneskjold-quality lesson -- when force is implicit
in the actions of opponents, force may be required
to counter it. . by the standards of decent people. -- j
.
thought in general, appears to have no bounds. . those with principles
may find that behavior restrained by some of their principles
delays success significantly. . "stooping to their level" may be a
Danneskjold-quality lesson -- when force is implicit
in the actions of opponents, force may be required
to counter it. . by the standards of decent people. -- j
.
We all must be aware of what we are feeling, what our emotion is, before we are able to engage our ability to reason. If not, then like beasts, we will act impulsively.
I won't go further on the subject because (to dbhalling) I haven't read Rand's explanation of emotions, or if I did I don't remember it.
I'm thinking independent thinking here. You can then read Rand and engage in comparative analysis.
I have my thoughts on emotions but in order for me to write something coherent I'd need a very specific place to start, and even then I'd probably end up with musings rather than a finished product.
johnpe notes that Rand believed that emotions are grounded in the mind, in rationality. My own musings would certainly agree that they're grounded in the mind; they'd have to be because the mind is housed in the brain and that is our only organ allows us to experience anything at all. Without it the nervous system could do nothing more than react automatically to external stimuli. Saying that emotions are grounded in reality, however, is not self-evident to me so I would have to hear her reasoning.
(Continuing briefly on johnpe's post, I don't see how emotions being grounded in the mind/reality and also revealing the inner self are mutually exclusive. A very clear definition of terms would be critically important to that discussion.
Does Rand, or do we, define MIND as only the conscious operations of our brains or do we include the unconscious or the subconscious? Let's assume we consider the subconscious as part of the mind. I propose that the products of the subconscious are based on our entire life's experience, but that early life influences it MUCH more than later life, so the older we get the less our subconscious will evolve without a significant act of will. But I further propose that our subconscious "knowledge" is acquired without regard to our usual filters. It forms without our direct input, so it is based on reality but certainly not constrained by reality. (I'm petrified of spiders, but that didn't happen until after I was 9 or 10. I don't have an irrational fear of any other critter, only spiders. Why?)
Enough musings for now!
Emotions are what ground us in reality, so you are close. Denying our emotions is the same as denying reality. I'll try to explain. If you come face to face with a very large dog, and deny that you are afraid, you may very well end up in the hospital. Knowing you are afraid will engage the reasoning part of your brain so you can ascertain different solutions to that problem. That's a rather simplistic example, but it is food for thought.
Another example, sometimes righteous anger is the only sane defense for some types of reality. I become righteously angry when I think that ISIS?ISIL has brutally beheaded children and enslaved women. Without that anger, I could only maintain sanity by sticking my head in the sand as some liberals (as in you-know-who) have done, do, and will do.
about how people form their value systems early in life, say
between the ages of 5 and 15, show that their values are fairly stable
unless they are modified by a "significant emotional event" -- his term --
and it makes sense in my experience. -- j
p.s. I didn't mean to say that emotions are grounded
in reality, just that they arise from the mind -- maybe
heavily weighted toward the subconscious, a melting pot
for the mind, in my view, of the sum of life's experiences.
.
.
products here::: http://morrismassey.com/
and here's the amazon page::: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_nos...
and here's the wiki summary::: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_...
enjoy! -- j
.
I would like to see Gulchers engage more in independent thinking, instead of relying on "permission" by Rand.
I had written, "Denying emotions would be anti-objectivist because we're not permitted to deny reality." When I wrote that we're not permitted to deny reality I didn't mean to imply "permission" by Rand, but rather what is required by Objectivism (if it is one's intent to be an Objectivist).
The philosophy of Objectivism does not allow for denying reality. It also does not allow for belief in the supernatural. Those two statements seem like they're the same at first, but they aren't. A person who denies reality or accepts the supernatural is not, by definition, an Objectivist. There's no judgement implied by that statement; it's true in the same way that a rose is not a water buffalo.
Nevertheless, independent thought is critical. Ayn Rand would be horrified to think that someone was reading her books and accepting what she said on blind faith. Faced with that and a second person who denied her on blind faith I'm confident she would prefer the latter.
"Closed objectivism says O is what Rand said and it is complete." I still have plenty of Rand's own material to study and I haven't even touched anything by Branden or Piekoff. Nevertheless I had assumed that O was complete and all that was left was to teach it to others and perhaps debate how it applies to specific situations, novel or mundane.
"Open says that Rand laid out various principles and as long as future research is within those principles it is O." That sounds reasonable, but didn't she do much, much more than lay out principles? She addressed all the components that a complete philosophy needs, thoroughly. She talked extensively about how O applied to various situations in real life. Rand was explicit that O was based on rational thought and that reality must not be denied. A = A, right? She was also explicit that belief in a supernatural being who is immune to physical and metaphysical laws was utterly at odds with O and she presented a thorough line of reasoning to prove it. I would gladly consider a line of reasoning that arrives at the opposite conclusion as long as it is based completely on the solid platform of Objectivist thought. It would also have to explain, clearly, where Rand went wrong.
"Closed turns O into a historical society at best ..." I'll agree that that's true but I propose that it isn't fair. Once a thing is created it's fixed in reality. In the case of a philosophy the creation comes from the mind of its inventor(s) and it's fixed in reality by its definition. In the case of O, Rand was the sole creator, with the support of others.
Let's consider something more mundane and hope the analogy doesn't explode like a supernova. Consider that I take various pieces of wood and I fashion a table. Tables are defined conceptually and have certain necessary attributes: flat, level, of sufficient surface area to be functional, of small enough surface area not to be absurd, not too short nor too tall. Other attributes are irrelevant, such as color, material of construction, shape (within reason!), weight, the surface doesn't have to be solid (meaning it can have holes as long as they don't ruin the functionality of holding things off the floor), etc. Perhaps we can consider my table is also a framework because it can be altered in some ways and remain a table - color changed, made bigger or smaller (within parameters), made shorter or taller (within parameters).
Now consider that someone comes along and removes the beautiful hardwood tabletop and replaces it with glass - still a table, perhaps one in poor taste. Then he adds glass sides 2 inches high - still a table, just not one I want to sit at. Then he changes those for glass sides 3 feet high - no longer fits our concept of a table, yet the entire framework is still there. Lastly he fills it with lime Jello and sits in it while reading Chaucer, backwards - definitely NOT a table, entire framework still there.
The debate is when does open O turn into a lime Jello Chaucer saucer? (I tried for the explosion with the lime Jello but I think it still holds!)
At some point open O != closed O. To me, if something calling itself Objectivism included the belief in a supernatural being as valid, rational thought, I will refuse to recognize it as Objectivism. It has become metaphorical lime Jello.
----------
About the analogy with Newtonian physics, I don't think it holds up. Newtonian physics wasn't created as much as it was formulated from observations of physical phenomena. (Let me know if I got that wrong.)
Theoretical physics and theoretical math are another story. Those theories and equations should be based on reality but they're so far removed from being directly observed physical phenomena that teams of brainiacs struggle to determine if they're true or not.
A philosophy, on the other hand, is a pure creation of the mind. Rand demanded that O be based on reality and rational thought and that it provide consistent, rational solutions to philosophical problems and real-life problems. Other philosophies have not had that constraint, thus the belief that forced government collectivism can ever produce a vibrant, expanding, productive society.
To paraphrase Dennis Miller, "That's just my opinion; I could be wrong."
To quote he-who-is-Timelord, "There's a first time for everything! ;) "
"About the analogy with Newtonian physics, I don't think it holds up. Newtonian physics wasn't created as much as it was formulated from observations of physical phenomena"
Are you saying O is not based on reality?
Of course O cannot include christianity or a god. Just as Euclidean Geometry cannot include any geometry in which to parallel lines intersect. All of Euclidean Geometry is based on three fundamental axioms. Euclidean Geometry is not as good an analogy to O because it does not check its conclusion based on reality. Newtonian physics is also based on just a few basic observations - I would say four off the top of my head. Evolution is based on three (depending on who you ask) fundamental observations/principles and everything else falls our from that. We are still learning more things about all three of these subjects today. That is what a intellectually rich rational system does.
Even Rand admitted that she had not completed the work on inductive logic/reasoning. Whether David Kelley's work on epistemology is correct or not, it is not something that Rand said anything about and it is an important area of epistemology that O should have something to say on, and O is not complete and self contained for these reasons.
Rand also would often say (I need to find the quotes) I have laid out the basic principles but now others need to fill in the details. In fact there is a lot of work that needs to be done in O on the law, most importantly in property rights. Some of Rand's statements on point are incomplete or slightly off base. I think I have shown that O has not really penetrated economics and I would say is incomplete because of this. Physics is another area that O has a lot to say, that has not been said.
If closed O prevails (in the sense of a logically closed system - only what Rand said) then O is dead and it will never accomplish anything meaningful.
.
Closed turns O into a historical society at best, and has elements of christianity and other religions where the bible is the final word as an example.
Open is like the science of Newtonian physics. People can still add to it. Or like Euclidean Geometry (except reality is the ultimate test) where people are still learning more about this area of math.
Now some closed Os want to say open O is equivalent of the big tent in the republican party. They say open O is anything goes. Of course if that were true it would be illegitimate.
.
Anything does not go unless the due diligence of objectivism has been applied and then it still requires constant monitoring to the same standards.
A tent of any size especially one that is under control of the Plato to Lakoff line of non-reasoning non thinking is not objectivism.
What it is is called cherry picking facts to fit foregone conclusions like those anti 14th amendment couch potatoes out to make a fast buck off the gullible
I'm more blunt than the preceding poster.....but after all A IS A and Is is not parsed.
I apologize for mistaking your intent. I, like Rand, firmly believe that there is an objective reality independent of any subjective reality experienced or "perceived" by any individual, and that that reality is capable of being known by humans. In fact, that is the only "sane" method of controlling our environment.
Rand developed her philosophy partly as a response to the absurd malignancy of 19th century European philosophy, wherein it was maintained that reality could not be known by man with certainty, or even that reality could be different for different individuals. That is a sick format, and if it were true, would have prevented the evolution of the species as we know it.
author lead me into confidence that there's value there! -- j
.
No it's not extortion that implies or probably requires the threat of force or something similar. That's what the military does to keep their donation levels and savings bond purchasing levels by the troops up so they can get promoted. It's a RICO protection racket with openly overt threats....
What the altruistic approach does is a Sally Strothers act. all weepy and misty eyed....One gives in ONLY if one either stuipid or weak minded. I can think of no other rationale.
Now I donate and here's examples.
Local version of SPCA runs a used book store. i buy there regularly and often give the books back for one more useful donation possibility. They use the funds to find homes and so forth for primarily dogs and cats AND run a full tilt spaying program attracting the help of vets from two sometimes three countries. the funds pay for the requjred instruments and medicines etc.
they do not kill the animals and the one's brought in for spaying are from people who in no way could afford that sort of fee.
Rescate or Rescue along with Red Cross run the ambulances and provide the first responders as crews. it's a good donation as they are their if I need them and can afford them or not. I witnessed a near drowning and the almost victim was taken to the hospital at no charge for a complete exam including lung xray at no charge.
Without them there would be only taxis or busses or walking...
So I'm actually paying insurance buy donating.
We support three orphanages, one old folks shelter, and a program to find homes and that keeps people off the streets. The truly violent or mentally ill are taken by the government.
The old folks repair anything and everything and resell donated items at the outdoor sales events to purchase their food and get clothing what isn't donated but they don't sit and cry.. they pitch in and help....
the orphans kids we put in schools all the way up to University level.. Their job is to learn get an education and not be a hopeless burden....
I also find books in different languages for those trying to learn and some of us take the kids out on the boats for a day of fun or set up ball games etc.
That's not altruism that's what i call taking care of my aga or extended family and three times I've come back to my boat to find it all polished and sparkling as a thank you...That's all I need...
But the Sally Strothers type of extortion is mental emotional strong arming to be sure and they try to give you a guilt complex. But I haven't had TV for 20 some years so i don't know if the bitch is still crying in someone else's soup and i don't care.
Call me hard or cold maybe but I'm no weakling and have no guilt whatsoever.
That last feeling is for people like Sally Strothers.
little side story....we used to send the kid to school with the required amount of material only to find out the teacher confiscated it to dole out at her pleasure. After that the kid went to school with one each pencil and one each writing tablet etc. That's another racketeering method.
You do those things because they have meaning for you and you enjoy them. In your values system everything you give is being put to better use than if you kept it. To the anti-heroes of A.,S. you're a horrible, horrible man. To an Objectivist those actions are to be held in high esteem.
I think most of the descriptions of altruism I've been reading here fall short. Whether an act is altruistic or heroic depends entirely on the giver (as most have said). If he finds meaning in, considers the ending conditions superior to the starting conditions, and enjoys the act, then it is heroic.
If he gives because he feels guilty for having what he has, believes he is required by outside forces (especially the recipient) to preform the act, hates himself more than he hates who he's giving to, hates those who don't give above all, and ultimately believes that he must suffer in order for others to prosper (sacrifice), and above it all he manages to twist all that into something he falsely calls superiority, then it is altruism.
Regarding Strothers 'n others, whenever I'm with other people and one of those sickening ads comes on, I point at the screen and laugh, "Look at that kid! He's covered in flies! Holy shit that's hilarious!" The others may shrink in horror, glare at me and demand an apology. Then I have a captive audience to whom I get to explain why that commercial is so very wrong and that its mere existence offends the sensibilities.
years ago. . having had no kids, wife and I pay taxes for
others' kids
and don't gripe. . then, they want more, via the coupon books.
there is no end to the hands outstretched for bucks. -- j
.
the danger there is taking something based on an unproven assumption and then using some outside influence to force it to work, outside of using reason and the senses, and that it does not cause any other violations.
Fascism works..how do I know? Because if their is non compliance on my demands we kill them.
If the demand is committing genocide it may work but it's not objectivism. it's fascism..Forced action with no regard to individual thinking.
Clinton's first reason for invading Kosovo was 'when your president sends troops into harms way you should support him.' Later on the idea of genocide as a reason was used but it turned out there was none.'
Whatever the reason was to begin with it wasn't presented nor was the War Powers Act followed.
Maybe it was a purple dress who knows?
No one demanded an answer.
However a lot of people started screaming genocide....and continued to do so.
Fine...it's a good reason IF it's true.
But when 2003 rolled around and Genocide was one of the reasons listed and was true the voices suddenly stopped and genocide was suddenly no longer acceptable.
That's the false side road I was referring to earlier.
or in 1984 terms Some peoples ragheads are more equal than other peoples ragheads.
The same is true today in Syria....
And this time there is no purple dress - at least as far as we know.
Objectivism has not been applied on a continuous bases to all possibilities.
Unless it's economics and a lot of donations from those making a profit. 'Fancy that?" as me grandmum used to say. which is a polite way of saying "No shit really? You think? Duuuuhhh."
In this case the real reason have never been divulged especially when it comes to refugees.
and Obeyme pulled a Clinton going back to Bubba's original reason.
Far as I know he may have and never had a strategy except powerful rebuking.
"No time constraints and all possibilities examined."
I agree completely with your analysis.
"I'm not sure I agree with that. Denying emotions would be anti-objectivist because we're not permitted to deny reality. We experience emotions because we're human but we should try not to be guided by them."
P.S. My proof-reading skills are all warmed up!
as I contended, like AR, that emotions are grounded in
the mind, in rationality. . she contended that emotions
reveal the inner self, separate from the mind. . it was an
endless discussion. . I left. -- j
.
in a primary to influence the D results? . I did that once,
as an individual. -- j
.