Title:Objectivism Online: A Marketplace for Ayn Rand's Objectivism
Description:ObjectivismOnline.Net was founded in 2003 as an online community for the discussion and promotion of Objectivist ideas on the web. It contains one of the oldest and largest online Objectivism forums, a busy chat room, resources for student clubs, a meta-blog with contributions by the web's best Objectivism bloggers, and free services such as email and blog hosting.
Keywords:Reason Rights Reality ObjectivismOnline student activism ayn ann rand objectivism objectivist objectivist studies libertarians collectivism socialism statism epistemology metaphysics mysticism a sense of life individual rights individualism politics ethics art free market selfishness self-interest egoism egoist laissez-faire capitalism education university student activism
Body:

Objectivism Online: A Marketplace for Ayn Rand #039;s Objectivism
Objectivism Online: A Marketplace for Ayn Rand #039;s Objectivism

HomeForumAbout UsWeb LinksWikiPhoto GalleryFliersMember BlogsArt GalleryCalendarEssays 
The Objectivism Online Meta-Blog
A pro-reason, pro-capitalism Objectivist Meta-Blog
Archives
::
Submit a post
::
RSS Feed
::
Admin Login
Campus Media Response: Wisconsin Protestors: Fighting for the Privilege to Count Themselves as the “Public”
From The Undercurrent: Valery Publius, cross-posted by MetaBlog
Newly-elected Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, buoyed by Republican majorities in both houses of the state legislature, has proposed a dramatic revision to the privileges currently enjoyed by state employees, especially public school teachers. State employees’ unions have responded by staging large-scale protests in the capitol of Madison. It is no surprise that students at the nearby University of Wisconsin, like Sam Stevenson, have weighed in on the controversy. Stevenson argues:
By attacking the benefits and pay of the state’s nearly 200,000 public workers, the governor is sending a clear signal to working people across the state that his administration is dedicated to destroying living wage jobs with humane benefits in the interest of providing his business supporters with cheap, easily exploited labor.
As concerned citizens and students, we mustn’t allow ourselves to dismiss these attacks as the plight of others; the assault on the working class and public employees is part of a war being waged against the public university and with it the very foundation of our democratic society. . . .
The changes being proposed by the Walker administration would drag Wisconsin into a proverbial dark age where working people are deprived of collective bargaining rights and ultimately any agency to improve their lives and contest the dictates of the ruling elite.
Given that Wisconsin is facing a $3.6 billion budget deficit in the next two years, what do those like Stevenson think is the alternative to Walker’s proposal? Most critics of Walker contend that the budget shortfall was caused by a package of tax cuts for “business supporters” pushed by the governor in January. Their implication: taxes should be raised to cover the gap.
Whether or not it is true that tax cuts were responsible for the current budget shortfall, there is a deeper problem with the alternative of further increasing the burden on taxpayers. Higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy inevitably mean less investment in the private economy. Government employees who demand more from taxpayers are arguing, in effect, that government jobs should take precedence over private prosperity.
What makes the Wisconsin protestors think they have a “collective bargaining right” to demand this preferential treatment? Central to state employees’ vision is that, as “public servants,” their work more directly promotes “the public interest.”
But it is hard to see why a government school teacher, for instance, provides services that are more important than a private school teacher—unless it is assumed that the state school teacher’s job is privileged morally because state-run schools teach those who might not be able to afford private school. Never mind that most parents could afford to pay for their children’s education if they weren’t taxed by school districts in the first place. Never mind that a government education is of diminishing value as students who graduate cannot find a private sector job. Never mind that the taxpayers could just as logically claim the title of “the public.” These facts are ignored. The trick of the protesters is to claim the title of guardians of the public and extract privileges on that basis.
Ayn Rand reminded us that this pressure group warfare is the inevitable result of combining the worship of the amorphous “public interest” with a morality that celebrates sacrifice:
Since there is no such entity as “the public,” since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that “the public interest” supersedes private interests and rights, can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others.
If so, then all men and all private groups have to fight to the death for the privilege of being regarded as “the public.” The government’s policy has to swing like an erratic pendulum from group to group, hitting some and favoring others, at the whim of any given moment—and so grotesque a profession as lobbying (selling “influence”) becomes a full-time job. If parasitism, favoritism, corruption, and greed for the unearned did not exist, a mixed economy would bring them into existence.
Since there is no rational justification for the sacrifice of some men to others, there is no objective criterion by which such a sacrifice can be guided in practice. All “public interest” legislation . . . comes down ultimately to the grant of an undefined, undefinable, non-objective, arbitrary power to some government officials.
It is bad enough when politicians claim to represent the “collective” interests of society, and demand individual sacrifice for the sake of this end. It is worse when a permanent political class claims to represent the same—compounding their privileges with the “right” to bargain collectively. Students who pursue education in order to achieve a livelihood for themselves and who believe their hard work shouldn’t put them in debt to the “public interest” should think twice about supporting the teachers who make such demands.
Creative Commons-licensed picture by pchgorman on Flickr.
Originally posted on The Undercurrent, by Valery Publius, 2011-02-25T06:31:15Z ReBlogged by Meta Blog
Law of Treason
From NoodleFood: Diana Hsieh, cross-posted by MetaBlogLaw professor Hanah Volokh kindly sent me the following about the law of treason yesterday, in response to my fumbling remarks in last Sunday's Rationally Selfish Webcast:I was just listening to your Rationally Selfish Webcast that I missed last weekend. I'm not an expert in the law of treason, but I do know a little bit about it. Treason does not actually require a formal state of war or aid to a declared enemy in war.Black's Law Dictionary, which is probably the most widely used legal dictionary, defines treason as "the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of the state to which one owes allegiance, either by making war against the state or by materially supporting its enemies."The current federal statute criminalizing treason is 18 U.S.C. section 2381, and it reads, "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason . . . ."Prosecution for things like espionage, terrorist acts, arson, sabotage, and conspiracy are much more common than for treason, though, even if the acts committed are technically within the definition of treason.A person can commit treason by making war against the state in the absence of a pre-existing war. If you act to overthrow the government, that counts as treason. This idea was behind the actions taken against communists in the U.S. during the 1950s. Confederate soldiers and government officials also committed treason against the United States even though it was not a declared war. The Confederacy took the legal position that secession was permitted and they were not treasonous because they no longer owed allegiance to the United States. The Union took the legal position that secession was not permitted and the military action was about restoring the union and putting down an illegal rebellion. After reunification, the Confederate soldiers and officials were considered to have committed treason, though the vast majority of them were pardoned.Right now, America has many undeclared enemies, thanks to its weak and appeasing foreign policy. As a result, many actions that should be prosecuted as treasonous, such as inviting the heads of terrorist states to speak at universities -- are not subject to any kind of legal action. However, my question would be how "enemies" should be defined, given a proper foreign policy. Clearly, the category would include any states with which we're at war. As Hanah notes, people or groups attempting to wage war from within (or without) are also properly considered "enemies." Beyond that, I could only see that the term should apply to states that a reasonable person would understand to be committed to overthrowing the US government. For various reasons, it might not be worth waging war on such states -- perhaps they're so poor as to be unable to inflict damage and/or our military is occupied with a serious threat elsewhere. Nonetheless, it would be treason to assist their efforts. Thoughts? Originally posted on NoodleFood, by Diana Hsieh, 2011-02-25T15:00:00Z ReBlogged by Meta Blog
A question and a dare
From John J McVey: John McVey, cross-posted by MetaBlogA question for various segments of alleged atheists (they know who they are):If you consider yourself truly to be atheist, why do speak and act as though emotions were some magical connection to an infallible source of truth and goodness that reason is impudent if it dares question?Don't say I am not looking at you: all those who posit subjectivism - of either the individual or social variety - are as guilty as sin in this regard.Emotions are essential for human life, without which life is neither worth living nor even capable of being lived. But emotions are not tools of cognition - they are not means by which one can determine "this is true" and "this is good". So, certainly, they have pride of place in human life - but cognition is not that place.Here's the dare:Find out how emotions arise. Then go find a standard of value without committing that sin in any shape or manner. And, once you've done that, question every value judgement you've ever made.JJM Originally posted on John J McVey, by John McVey, 2011-02-24T06:57:00Z ReBlogged by Meta Blog

Readers
From Erosophia: JasonStotts, cross-posted by MetaBlogby Jason Stotts
I don’t usually watch how many readers I have via Facebook’s Networked Blogs (check the right sidebar), but I have been recently because it’s been climbing steadily up and I’m about to hit 100 readers.  Just yesterday, I was up to 97, but then after I put up the notice about starting to put up essays on Life on the Swingset, I’m down to 96.  So, either there was a really big coincidence, or someone isn’t too happy about me publishing articles on a swinger site.  Oh well, I’m not going to try to please everyone.
I do want to take this time to encourage those of you who haven’t followed Erosophia via Facebook’s Networked Blogs or RSS to do so now so that I can get an accurate idea of how many habitual readers I have.  It takes about 5 seconds to do and it helps me to know how many people are reading my essays.
I’d also like to invite people to submit questions via Formspring or by e-mailing me at Jason(at)JasonStotts.com.  I answer all the questions that come through, so if you have a question you’ve been yearning to have answered, especially about sex or Objectivism, this is the place.
I’d like to get over 100 readers by the end of the weekend, so if you haven’t signed up yet, this is the time to do so!
Update: I’m up to 98 now after only a couple of hours.  We have 2 days left, so I’m pretty confident we can get above 100.
Originally posted on Erosophia, by JasonStotts, 2011-02-25T18:07:39Z ReBlogged by Meta Blog

GADDAFI VERSUS .LY DOMAINS
From EGO: Martin Lindeskog, cross-posted by MetaBlogWhat will happen with the .ly domains in the future? From Jerry Brito #39;s post, If Libya Falls, What Happens to All Those Twitter bit.ly Links?:
The more profound question, however, is what influence could a potential new Libyan government have over the domains?
As it turns out, a lot. Unlike generic top-level domains (.com, .net, .org, etc.) that are controlled by independent nonprofit organizations, country codes are generally controlled by national governments. This means the government can boot off any registered domain name it wishes. Last year, the Libyan government seized the domain name vb.ly, which was a link shortening service run by sex blogger Violet Blue. (Techland.Time.com, February 23, 2011.)
In the news:
Is using an .ly domain right - or wrong? By Violet Blue - Tech Broiler, ZDNet.
Libyan protests driven by '.ly' websites. Channel 4 News.
Qaddafi Controls the Internet? Well, not exactly -- but he is involved with Twitter. By Kelly Jane Torrance - The Weekly Standard.
Bomb Libya by Michael Ledeen - Pajamas Media.
Muammar Gaddafi
UPDATE: From John Cox's post, Gadhafi Caricature Gets Around:
There you go, ladies and gentlemen, as seen on todays CNN's website. My caricature of Gadhafi (posted here) was done many, many, many moons ago for the Cox and Forkum site. Now it's back.
My stars, it's seems a catchy caricature speaks the international language of whacky. (JohnCoxArt.com, February 24, 2011.)
Related articlesWhat Happens to .ly Domains When Libya Shuts Down the Internet (readwriteweb.com)
Following the Libyan uprising (boingboing.net)
This 'Obscene' Image Led Libya To Shut Down an American Website [Censorship] (gawker.com)
Why Libya can't shut down bit.ly (money.cnn.com)
Originally posted on EGO, by Martin Lindeskog, 2011-02-24T15:11:00Z ReBlogged by Meta Blog

Christianity in a Nutshell
From NoodleFood: Diana Hsieh, cross-posted by MetaBlog Originally posted on NoodleFood, by Diana Hsieh, 2011-02-21T21:00:00Z ReBlogged by Meta Blog

Lara Logan and the Drooling Beast
From The Rule of Reason: noreply@blogger.com (Edward Cline), cross-posted by MetaBlog“…I know the kind of terror it is….Listen, what’s the most horrible experience you can imagine? To me – it’s being left, unarmed, in a sealed cell with a drooling beast of prey or a maniac who’s had some disease that’s eaten his brain out. You’d have nothing then but your voice – your voice and your thought. You’d scream to that creature why it should not touch you, you’d have the most eloquent words, the unanswerable words, you’d become the vessel of the absolute truth. And you’d see living eyes watching you and you’d know that the thing can’t hear you, that it can’t be reached, not reached, not in any way, yet it’s breathing and moving there before you with a purpose of its own. That’s horror. Well, that’s what’s hanging over the world, prowling somewhere through mankind, that same thing, something closed, mindless, utterly wanton, but something with an aim and a cunning of its own….” –Steve Mallory to Howard Roark in Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead.*In the aftermath of the abduction, rape and beating of Lara Logan, CBS foreign correspondent, in Cairo on February 11th during the “celebrations” in Tahrir Square over the resignation of Hosni Mubarak as head of Egypt’s government, the news media and the web have been buzzing with accounts and recollections of how dangerous it is for especially women journalists to cover events in so-called “hot spots.” Note that I do not stress that she and her camera crew were surrounded by a “dangerous element” of two hundred men in a crowd of tens of thousands of Muslims. That whole crowd in the whole square was the “dangerous element.” Note also that I do not stress that she was somehow, inexplicably “separated” from her crew and bodyguards. Physically, yes, she was “separated,” but what does that mean in the context of what happened to her? Any kidnapping requires that the victim be “separated” from home, family, friends, and safety.She was separated with malice aforethought. Muslims consciously interposed themselves between her and her bodyguards and crew. She was blond, unscarved, unveiled, distinctly non-Muslim, dressed to the nines to conduct an interview later that night with an Egyptian official. In short, she was Western. Too late, to judge by the look on her face in the CBS-released photograph, did she realize the foolhardiness of wading into a crowd of maddened Muslim men celebrating their vaunted omnipotence. It may have been that the men who raped and beat her were pro-Mubarak Muslims, angry at Western journalists for precipitating the downfall of their man. But, regardless of the attackers’ political persuasion, she was an infidel, and a natural, inevitable target. And as they assaulted her, they shouted “Jew! Jew!” in conformance with the common fairy tale in Egypt that Israelis were behind Mubarak’s capitulation. However, they could have just as well believed that she had spit in Mubarak’s face, or hailed Islam as the end-all and be-all of human existence, and it would not have mattered. She was a value – to herself, to others – and had to be defiled and destroyed. She was the good, and Islam is all about hating and destroying the good for being the good.What happened to Lara Logan in Cairo was Islam-by-the-book, the book being the Koran. Like many stonings and beheadings in that Islamic hell-hole, the whole thing was probably recorded on video by participating Egyptian men, but that near-snuff video will not surface in the West. I read Don Kaplan’s account of the incident, in The New York Post, and offered him these thoughts: See this report from the LA Times on a CNN-altered photograph of her “moments” before the attack. My questions are: Who took the photo? One of her crew? And did this person have time to take subsequent pictures? Was it taken with a cell phone, or a regular professional camera? Has CBS, which released the original photo to the AP, any other photos that would record and shed light on what happened in the next few moments? Why isn’t there a photo credit? Where did the “200” figure for the crowd come from? Whose estimate was it? Who were the twenty women who rescued Logan and escorted her back to her hotel/crew? Is the mob in the background pro-Mubarak or anti-Mubarak? They don’t look angry enough to be pro-Mubarak, who’s just stepped down, and not jubilant enough to be anti-. It hasn’t been specified whose mob it was. The one Egyptian in the background to the right of Logan’s head looks like he’s mugging for the press. If so, would he really want the crew to escape unharmed with an incriminating photo if he planned to take part in the assault? Hypothesis: Because Logan and her crew were arrested by the military a week earlier, detained overnight, and kicked out of the country, was this the military’s punishment for her and the crew having returned to Cairo – that is, was it a set-up to drive home the point that she wasn’t welcome? Forgive the questions, it's the Call Northside 777 in me, but the LA Times report just underscores my suspicion that there is more behind the Logan photo than meets the eye. I don’t doubt that Logan was attacked and beaten. What I wonder about is why CBS is being so circumspect about it. Could it be that CBS doesn’t want to indict Muslims, or hold Islamic diktats responsible? I mean, who raped and beat Logan? Chinese? Patagonians? What men of what religious/ethnic group are noted for brutalizing Muslim women as a matter of religious belief, and defiling Western women, as a sign of actual or imminent Islamic conquest, in their own countries (e.g., Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Britain, etc.), and whose responsibility for the attacks is veiled by the press in super-sensitive, politically correct language that hides their identities?To date, Mr. Kaplan and his associates have not acknowledged or replied to my queries. I believe these to be legitimate journalistic questions worthy of some cogitation and investigation. Richard Cohen of The Washington Post made this important observation about the “frenzy” of the night of February 11th in Cairo. Castigating CBS for having withheld news of Logan’s assault, he noted:As I'm sure even Logan would admit, the sexual assault of woman by a mob in the middle of a public square is a story. It is particularly a story because the crowd in Tahrir Square was almost invariably characterized as friendly and out for nothing but democracy. In fact, some of the television correspondents acted as if they were reporting from Times Square on New Year's Eve, stopping only at putting on a party hat. In those circumstances, a mass [sic] the sexual assault in what amounted to the nighttime version of broad daylight is certainly worth reporting.“Times Square on New Year’s Eve” was precisely how most Western news media portrayed the roiling, emotional, mass-man chaos in Tahrir Square. In fact, I would disagree with anyone who claimed that the events in Egypt the last three weeks had anything to do with a legitimate “revolution.” This is an Islamic country, and its citizens are simply demonstrating for a kinder master, more jobs, better medical care, and the like. This was and is not a “revolution” founded on ideas. It was a clamoring for regime change. That is all. But even Cohen does not grasp the significance of not only the attack on Logan, but the nature of the “celebration.”Still, the assault and its undertones of pogromist anti-Semitism (Logan is not Jewish) is very troubling and, at the very least, suggests that not everyone in Tahrir Square that night had democracy on their mind.Yes, every Muslim in Tahrir Square had democracy on his mind. Democracy means mob rule. Democracy, by definition, turns men into criminals. And the attack on Logan was democracy in action. Her attackers wanted a piece of her, and to destroy her, too. That is the Muslim way. The Koran sanctioned it.On the other side of the critical scale is Debbie Schlussel, who grasps the nature of Islam but whose recent column on Lara Logan’s ordeal was callous beyond decency. She “gets it” but does not “get it.” She allowed her emotions to dictate what she wished to say, and in doing so robbed herself of credibility. She was more interested in venting her anger (and rightfully) at the Western left that has given Islam a free pass in the name of non-judgmental multiculturalism. Lara Logan was of the Western left. Schlussel ended one post about Logan with this unbecoming rant:This never happened to her or any other mainstream media reporter when Mubarak was allowed to treat his country of savages in the only way they can be controlled. Now that’s all gone. How fitting that Lara Logan was “liberated” by Muslims in Liberation Square while she was gushing over the other part of the “liberation.” Hope you’re enjoying the revolution, Lara!James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal surveyed the left’s treatment of the attack on Logan. Of course, the left hates America as much as any Muslim Brotherhood member or rank-and-file “Death to America” Muslim sign carrier. So it is no paradox that the left would sidle up to Islam in an unlikely alliance. They are ideological and philosophical birds of a feather. No mystery there. Taranto points up the leftist blinders worn by the MSM and even its hostility towards anyone who questions the legitimacy of the Egyptian “revolution.” Among other instances of leftist ideological binge-drinking, he reports on the Bill Maher-level Twitter comments by left-wing journalist Nir Rosen, an academic at New York University (subsequently fired from his cushy “fellowship” at the school’s Center on Law and Security). Earlier on, however, he poses this conundrum: The lack of specific detail is completely understandable, as CBS is caught in a conflict between the imperatives of reporting the news and protecting its employee's personal dignity. But it does leave one having to read between the lines to judge the crime's seriousness.The Wall Street Journal reports that the assault "lasted for roughly 20 to 30 minutes, said a person familiar with the matter, who added that it was 'not a rape.' " Whatever it was or was not, the New York Post reports that "most network higher-ups didn't even know how brutal the sexual assault was until a few minutes before the statement went out." One major trouble I have with the story, a trouble cited by Taranto, is that there are no specifics about the assault. The CBS statement is cautionary and vague, so much so that it leaves one doubting whether or not a criminally-defined “sexual assault” occurred at all. In today’s politically correct environment, my calling Senator Barbara Boxer “Ma’am” or Nancy Pelosi a “Botox bimbo” could be deemed “sexual assault.” Was she raped and beaten, or simply beaten by the thugs? We have only an allegation by CBS, which, as Taranto writes, leaves us “reading between the lines,” one way or another. We have only that one photo of Logan surrounded by Egyptians, and nothing else but the assertion of CBS and Logan later stating that she wants to go back to work. Another New York Post article mentions that Logan suffered “internal injuries.” Again, “internal injuries” merely connotes, but does not denote, leaving one “reading between the lines.” Having watched videos of the beheading and stoning of Muslim women, and sexual assaults on them – two of them filmed in Cairo – I do not doubt the bestial capacity of Muslim men to have subjected Logan to rape and beating in public. Carolyn Glick, in a lengthy article in The Jerusalem Post, discusses the double standards of the MSM, and poses the paradox of the news media condemning Nir Rosen’s “mirthful” remarks about Lara Logan’s ordeal in Tahrir Square and its otherwise oblivious disregard for the nature of Islam and its hostility towards women. She puts her finger on the source of the paradox: “identity politics.”Identity politics revolve around the narrative of victimization. For adherents to identity politics, the victim is not a person, but a member of a privileged victim group. That is, the status of victimhood is not determined by facts, but by membership in an identity group. Stories about victims are not dictated by facts. Victim stories are tailored to fit the victim. Facts, values, and individual responsibility are all irrelevant.In light of this, a person’s membership in specific victim groups is far more important than his behavior. And there is a clear pecking order of victimhood in identity politics.Anti-American Third World national, religious and ethnic groups are at the top of the victim food chain. They out-victim everyone else.After them come the Western victims: Racial minorities, women, homosexuals, children and animals.Israelis, Jews, Americans, white males and rich people are the predetermined perpetrators. No matter how badly they are victimized, brave reporters will go to heroic lengths to ignore, underplay or explain away their suffering.All this is true. But “identity politics” is strictly a Saul Alinsky-inculcated state of mind, a collectivist tactic to achieve political power and/or to commit legalized felonies against the targeted and isolated in the name of “democracy.” Glick notes that Nir Rosen mocked Logan because she was “insufficiently anti-American.” Glick further observes:When members of Western victim groups are attacked by Third World victims, the story can be reported, but with as little mention of the identity of the victim-perpetrator as possible. So it was with the coverage of Logan and the rest of the foreign reporters assaulted in Egypt. They were attacked by invisible attackers with no identities, no barbaric values, no moral responsibility, and no criminal culpability. CBS went so far as to blur the faces of the men who surrounded Logan in the moments before she was attacked. [Which claim raises the question: Who was responsible for the altered photo: CNN or CBS?]What happened to Lara Logan was Islam unleashed. That was the “religion of peace” glorying in its power to violate, defile and destroy. That was Islam at its giddy height. Islam’s doctrines eat out the brains of its adherents, or attract people who wish to surrender their minds. That is the essence of Islam, experienced by Lara Logan in the most personal and violent way. That is what Islam has in store for the West. Islam is a system of nihilism. It is a drooling beast. I hope Lara Logan ends her ideological predisposition to Islam and things Muslim, or that someone tells her: That’s the essence of Islam for you, that is what you have been promoting and rationalizing. But If, after what it did to you, you continue to romanticize it, then fare-thee-well. And then there is Washington D.C., and the drooling beasts and the “dangerous elements” in the White House and Congress who wish to defile and destroy this country for the same nihilistic reasons. But, that is another story. *The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand. New York: 1943. Charter Books/Bobbs-Merrill, 1962. Originally posted on The Rule of Reason, by noreply@blogger.com (Edward Cline), 2011-02-19T15:38:00Z ReBlogged by Meta Blog

Preview: Sunday #39;s Rationally Selfish Webcast
From NoodleFood: Diana Hsieh, cross-posted by MetaBlogCome join my next Rationally Selfish Webcast! As always, it's on Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. You can watch the webcast and join in the text chat via this page. Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers will be my audio co-host once again.Each week, I answer six questions on practical ethics and the principles of living well. I select the most popular and interesting questions from the ongoing queue of questions. Please submit your questions, as well as vote and comment on questions that you find interesting! Here are the questions that I'll answer this week:Question 1: How can I criticise someone without hurting their feelings? A problem I run into a lot, running in Theatre/Drama circles, is having to be honest whilst being asked what I thought of an actor's performance, or a director's job, or the writer's work. And this being student theatre, the writing can be very bad and the performances pretty flat too. My first instinct is to latch onto anything positive I can in the play, and to just talk about that. However, this makes me out to be someone afraid to offer criticism, and I think my friends are aware of it too, and I worry they think that I just want to be chummy and friendly. Whilst they will offer quick, funny and honest criticism, I am very guarded about saying anything, and so am quite quickly left out of the conversation too. I don't want to be the sort of person who seems like he just wants to like everyone, but I also dont want be one of those bitchy drama queens.The problem is only impounded when I (again, quite inevitably in student theatre) know the writer, or the director, or people in the cast. I'm in the bar afterwards, and want to talk freely, but I know that if I do word may very well get back to the friend, who will think I was just talking shit behind their back (when, if talking to them, I would be careful to offer any criticism in context).Question 2: What is your opinion of evolutionary psychology? Evolutionary psychology is an increasingly popular topic yet it seems loaded with determinism. Evolutionary psychologists will conduct studies, collect data and then assert a theory that almost always ignores volition and asserts subconscious motivations. For example, a recent study claims that there is a gene for being a political liberal. Or another claim is that studies show that women are "hypergamous" in that they are "wired" to seek out the most "socially dominant" men that they can find in the "sexual market". What is your opinion on all this?Question 3: Is it wrong to cheat on a work style questionnaire on a job application? I've been denied certain jobs because I've answered too selfishly on job questionnaires that gauge a person's work style. The questions often ask what you would do in certain situations, if you prefer working alone or with others, etc. Is it wrong to answer falsely on those tests for a job you want and know you can do well?Question 4: Is it immoral to cheat on your taxes? It's essentially a lie to protect the products of your labor. So is it wrong just because its illegal?Question 5: Should private citizens be legally obliged to keep government secrets? Should it be a crime for private citizens to divulge "top secret" information? That is, if I have no specific security agreement or contract with the government to keep information confidential if I come to posess it through no fault of my own? What if lives are at stake?Question 6: From Objectivist Answers: Is it immoral to bribe a government official? There are many approvals and licenses that are required to be taken by individual and/or companies for doing anything. But they are not granted unless you bribe the concerned govt. official(For the record, they are not ashamed of asking you directly) In that case, is it immoral on your part to bribe them as you have no way out? I think its not but do let me have your views on it.lililililiQuestions that aren't answered this week will remain in the question queue for me to answer in upcoming webcasts. So please go vote on questions that you find interesting -- and don't forget to submit your own questions.You can listen to these webcasts later as NoodleCast -- meaning audio-only podcasts -- by subscribing in iTunes to the feed in either the enhanced M4A format or the standard MP3 format. The live webcast is a good bit of fun, so I recommend that you stop by as your schedule permits. I appreciate the immediate feedback -- serious comments, funny comments, and follow-up questions -- in the text-based chat during the broadcast. It's a lively get-together!You can support the Rationally Selfish Webcast (and Podcast) contributing to our tip jar. I suggest $5 per episode, but any amount is appreciated. If you would prefer to send a check, please send it to "Diana Hsieh; P.O. Box 851; Sedalia, CO 80135." Please write "RS Webcast" in the memo field. Even if you're unable to contribute financially, I'm grateful if you take a moment to help me spread the word about the Rationally Selfish Webcast to anyone you think might be interested. Send an e-mail about the webcast to friends, share the event for the next webcast on Facebook, or even just "like" the Rationally Selfish Page on Facebook.I hope to see you on Sunday morning! Originally posted on NoodleFood, by Diana Hsieh, 2011-02-18T19:00:00Z ReBlogged by Meta Blog

Simultaneous concretisation
From John J McVey: John McVey, cross-posted by MetaBlogDuring this revision of induction I had the intention of starting from scratch, given how fundamental the topic is and that I recognise my past methodology was highly questionable. I now attribute that, in part at least, to taking to Mill too enthusiastically. I now recall that it was from his "A System of Logic" that I got the idea, rightly criticised by Dr Peikoff, of treating induction as indicative and that a conclusion was settled when one could tie it back to something broader from which the initial induction could now be deduced. His methods, as elements, are fine, but that later wrap up method is way off. For that reason I have determined that I really ought start from scratch, paying very close attention to method.Still, my post on the analogy to solving simultaneous equations did prompt me to try to find my old writings from back when I was first trying to digest Objectivism, not just the material on that ABC stuff but everything I wrote just to see how badly I did go wrong (I knew I did, so I didn't go looking for it before). Almost all of it is gone, though, both on my computer and physically. All I have seem to have left from back then (the general late 90's period) are three of those diagrams (the date-stamp says it is actually circa 1998, not 1996 as I had thought), some other trivial writings, my notes from Understanding Objectivism, and notes from other courses such as Objective Communication. To be honest, I am not all that fussed about this precisely because I now recognise that my own thoughts were deeply flawed, and because today the only things I would find valid is precisely what does still exist: those UO and OC notes. I do recall dumping some stuff for that very reason, but perhaps I was more thorough about doing so than I actually recall being. I do know there was a hard-drive crash involved, as well. *shrug*The reason why I dropped the analogy entirely was that it was an oversimplified notion of relationship. I realised that what I had in mind overlooked the richness of actual relationships in the real world, that the relationships between A and B amp;C can be very complex and may have very little at all to do with the relationships between B and C.Now, all that being said, I reiterate my reversal of my previous outright dumping of the analogy. Why, I will show later. Still, I do see that I was indeed wrong to run with it as quickly I initially did. I was trying to eliminate the influence of consciousness altogether, which was in truth mostly motivated by a sense of defensiveness - but this I did not expressly realise until this week.The problem with taking the analogy too far is lies in that original motivation, which is a fool's errand. There is no escaping the fingerprint of consciousness upon knowledge. The problem lies chiefly in not recognising the distinction between content and format, that consciousness is chiefly a supplier of the latter (both perceptually and conceptually), but also that at the conceptual level consciousness influences the quantity and depth of content provided as per each given consciousness's own purposes in gaining knowledge. That fact about influence upon concent itself redounds back on formatting at the conceptual level, because the topic of format is itself material of content, which then leads to the issue of method determining content and hence to an apparent chicken-and-egg paradox that only Objectivism can fully resolve. For more on that, see OTI, in the section where Dr Peikoff discusses the inductive basis for the principle that one needs a method of knowledge, why reference to the fallibility of volitional consciousness is nowhere near enough to support that principle, and who supplied what first pointers to the proper resolution of that paradox.So, yes, I partially resurrect the analogy. Now, some concretisation for the reader of this idea of a conceptual equivalent of solving simultaneous equations is well in order - and, yes, I do know I ought to know much better than to bring this a bit late to the party.It was in the process of working out concretes for something else that I realised I was looking at a concrete of my old analogy! (So, yes, I do have lots of concretes for myself, with the issue being not stating any at the time of writing about the principle, rather than not having them.) The truth is that one can objectively identify a significant relationship between B and C by abstracting from the relationships AB and AC. The validity of the analogy is tied up with recognising having been as rationalist in the rejection as I had been in the initial adoption. This is observable in those concrete examples of the method at work in the conceptual arena. I'll give you two, from the far opposite ends of the conceptual spectrum (it was the second of the two that prompted the resurrection.) A third that I will briefly mention here is how in a physics class I once took the solution to one complex equation was achieved by subtracting from it an equation from a related subject matter and working on the resulting simpler equation from there to identify what the relationship between elements of some real-world system are (I don't recall what - something QMish in optics and lasers maybe, but then again perhaps not).The first is really one that Miss Rand herself gave: the relationship between a perceptual-level standard of physical measurement and the use of that standard to achieve conceptual comprehension of that which cannot be perceptually comprehended. The entire second half of chapter one of ITOE is about that issue, with her own concrete example being distance:The purpose of measurement is to expand the range of man's consciousness, of his knowledge, beyond the perceptual level: beyond the direct power of his senses and the immediate concretes of any given moment. Man can perceive the length of one foot directly; he cannot perceive ten miles. By establishing the relationship of feet to miles, he can grasp and know any distance on earth; by establishing the relationship of miles to light-years, he can know the distance of galaxies.That a given distance is ten miles is a physical fact. This not just that it is physically yay far from A to B, but that the numerical relationship of that distance is a certain number of multiples of the distance from A to C. Great - but has one thus excluded the influence of consciousness upon the identification of that fact? Absolutely not, because of the question of why on earth was the distance between A and C chosen to identify the multiples of it in the distance between A and B. The answer to that question is as Miss Rand identified, that of the point of using the distance AC as the reference is the particular needs of the consciousness using it. That distance is one directly comprehensible at the perceptual level by that consciousness, eg that point A is the heel of a typical foot and point C is the toe of the same, and so the influence of consciousness upon the conceptual expression of fact of AB's distance by means of presenting it a multiple of AC's distance (eg 52,800 feet) is now unmistakeable (and unavoidable):It is here that Protagoras' old dictum may be given a new meaning, the opposite of the one he intended: "Man is the measure of all things." Man *is* the measure, epistemologically - not *metaphysically*. In regard to human knowledge, man has to be the measure, since he has to bring all things into the realm of the humanly knowable.This, then, can be viewed as a very basic example of the analogy at work, as well as being a concrete of how all knowledge is relational. There exists two separate relationships, where, by a mathematical process, the nature of a third can be obtained. Feet to lightyears is of course somewhat elementary, but the principle is indefinitely extendable (eg that physics class, and the inventions that similar high-level instances have lead to such as in aerodynamics and electronics).The other example, the one that got me to resurrect the analogy, originated in me figuring out how to reduce the express conceptual-level abstractions of existence and identity to the perceptual level. It is all very well to say that they are self-evident (which of course they), but that's an issue of validation, which presumes already knowing what they mean. The issue is best identified by the question of how one would teach what the words mean.The following I am culling out of a larger piece of writing I'm still working on for my own sake - ie it is me going back to the start again and being thorough in grasping Objectivism through inductions of my own pursuit.Begin with existence: how would you teach that? I would argue that trying to go straight to something along the lines of stuff being here and there, and there's this great big totality of all of what's here and there, is just going to lead you around in circles, because "here" and "there" already have definite meanings and trying to retask them is apt to confuse the living daylights out of a child who does not already have at least some knowing grasp on the issue of being qua being. Do remember that an explicit grasp is miles apart from the implicit grasp that everyone has - the former could not be achieved without the latter.I came to the conclusion that explicit grasp the concept of to exist precedes explicit grasp of the concept existence. That is, one must first comprehend that X exists before one can grasp there is a grand totality of X and Y and Z. And, before one can do that, since we must start at the perceptual level, that means beginning by making the simplest observations about what X is, as part and parcel of learning all the individual first-level concepts of things and attributes of things etc. Here one has all those simple sentences that a normal three-year-old (and often younger) can grasp without difficulty: The apple is red. The sun is shining. The moon is rising. The dog is barking. And so on.Therein lies the issue at hand: existence is intimately bound up with identity, and one cannot grasp the former except by abstrating from instances of the latter. The questions then arise: How does one mentally separate existence and identity? How would you point that out to a child?? Get this wrong and you have what I suspect is the reason why some Objectivists make the mistake of thinking that "Existence exists" can be deduced from "A is A". The answer is to be found in the fact that, at the same time as the child is learning about things and their attributes, the child must also be learning about concepts relating to time. This, too is bound up with identity, since it revolves around issues of that which is, that which was, and that which will be, where in each case definite particulars are attached: the apple was in the bowl, is being eaten, and the core will be thrown in the bin ("or you're in big trouble, lad!") So, here we have more instances of multiple referents to the abstract concepts that a parent is trying to teach: more equations, as it were.What is the answer itself? That in the process of teaching about temporal relations there will come a time that is directly about the issue of coming to be, being, and ceasing to be. The concept of to exist, of being qua being, can thus be pointed to at the perceptual level and thrown into express sharp relief by contrast to before something came to be and after it stopped being. The Gaussian Elimination, in effect, would be through showing a child this development of being across a variety of different things, and then drawing attention to the fact of things being. In concrete, this can be achieved by scratch-baking all sorts of things (stories from my boss about her baking things with her daughter fill me with delight), playing with construction toys like Lego (a favourite of my own youth), making snowmen ("CALVIN!!!!!") and sand castles - anything and everything where the child is hands-on involved in actually bringing into being something that did not before exist. On top of that you can add in reference to seeds germinating, flowers developing. Then back the way, refer also to the eating of foods, the breaking up of Lego spaceships to make other things, snowmen melting, sandcastles being washed away, and then also observe other events from afar like whole buildings being burned (I saw a large tenement fire when I was a kid in Glasgow), and so on.The range of possible concretes - ie equations in this analogy - from which to obtain the contrast required to differentiate out and subsequently integrate the concepts of "to exist" and eventually "existence" is endless. The parallel with solving simultaneous equations is apt because all the issues are in reality bound up with each other simultaneously, a word expressly used by Dr Peikoff. The direct perceptions are the original equations to be worked from, first-level other lowerish-level abstractions (eg the concepts of attributes of things and actions, and also spatial and temporal concepts, quantities, and so on) are the smaller subsidiary equations, and from there one works towards the grand solutions. Finally achieving the express identification of what "to exist" means is akin to one's discovery of those first solution to one of the actual variables themselves in the Gussian Elimination process.With the concept of "to exist" in place it then becomes possible to identify the concept of "existent," and from there to identify the concept of "existence" (in conjunction with following a similar path of particulars to higher abstractions in regards to the issue of location, to get to "everywhere" and hence to identify "existence" in terms of place). One can then take this solution and use it to isolate where-ever existence is bound up in more complex "equations" and find other solutions, ie to then be able to draw express attention to the concept of identity qua identity, as opposed to particular modes of identity, and similarly with consciousness. For instance, regarding the concept of identity, one is now able to teach to (and in a manner appropriate for) a child the idea that to be something is always to be something, such as how everything one sees has a colour of somesort, that all material stuff has some sort of weight to it, and so on to show that everything is always something in particular, even clouds and winds and piles of dirt and so on. That should be more than enough to validate my assertion the analogy is not auomatically to be dismissed as rationalist.JJM Originally posted on John J McVey, by John McVey, 2011-02-19T05:19:00Z ReBlogged by Meta Blog

New Constitution, v12.3
From John J McVey: John McVey, cross-posted by MetaBlogI did an edit of my Constitution as a break from philosophising (yes, really). Version 12.3 is now available in the cabinet for your reading pleasure.JJM Originally posted on John J McVey, by John McVey, 2011-02-19T09:05:00Z ReBlogged by Meta Blog

Quirkyalone
From Erosophia: JasonStotts, cross-posted by MetaBlogby Jason Stotts
I got an e-mail from a reader the other day about an interesting idea called “quirkyalone.” First, though, I’d like to point out that “Jason Stotts” is not a nom de plume, but is actually my real name.  So, anyone writing me can feel free to address me simply as Jason, no other appellation is necessary or desired.
Jason Stotts,
February 14 is “International Quirkyalone Day”. Of course the date was picked to contrast it with Valentine’s Day, but it’s not about feeling sorry for singles. The “quirkyalone” is an interesting concept that I feel describes me very well, and apparently many others feel the same way about themselves.
Being quirkyalone means enjoying the freedom and solitude of being single, while being open to the possibility of finding love. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on this idea at some point.
More information is here and here:
http://quirkyalone.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirkyalone
–
T.
I had never heard of quirkyalone before and so I followed the links to find out more about it.  Wikipedia, which is, of course, omniscient, had this to say:
Quirkyalone is a neologism referring to someone who enjoys being single (but is not opposed to being in a relationship) and generally prefers to be alone rather than dating for the sake of being in a couple.[...] It started in 2003 as a “celebration of romance, freedom and individuality”.
From what little information I can gather, it sounds like people who are “quirkyalone” want to wait for the right person to date and don’t want to date people who they don’t think will be a good long term fit or even “the one.”
I think this is a terrible idea.
There is so much that we learn about ourselves, what we want in a partner, love, our preferences, our sexuality, etc., from being in relationships, even with the “wrong” people, that cannot be discovered by standing aloof from relationships and waiting for one’s Platonic ideal.  There is simply no way to rationalistically learn about our needs for relationships, love, and sex except for by going out into the world and experiencing these things and reflecting on how they work for us.  While I can know beforehand that someone who is abusive is ruled out prima facie, that really doesn’t tell me much.  What kinds of traits do I want in a lover?  What things annoy me?  What are my boundaries?  What are deal-breakers for me?  There is simply no way to answer these questions except through experience and experience is precisely what one will not gain without going out into the world and having relationships.
On the other hand, I also think it’s a terrible idea to date simply in order to be in a relationship, solely in order to not be alone.  This, I think, is much worse than standing aloof from relationships.  There is much we learn about ourselves from being alone and if we are always in relationships, we may know who we are with John or Kim, but we won’t know who we are by ourselves.  Furthermore, many people who are always in relationships are motivated by a fear of being alone.  They are afraid that they won’t get the external validation they need in order to bolster their sense of self-esteem or perhaps they are afraid of what they might find if they were alone too much and forced to introspect too carefully.
The ability to enjoy spending time alone with only your thoughts to keep you company is a good one and leads one to a level of introspection that few people achieve.  Through this introspection, we come to know ourselves much better and to understand our own needs and desires.
The ideal, as should be obvious, is to neither stand aloof nor to be in a relationship for the sake of being in a relationship, but to date purposefully and with an eye to both the present and the future.  To be alone when it makes sense and to have a partner when it makes sense.  To do each in the right time and each with purpose.  Furthermore, we should not count it a failure if a relationship doesn’t end in death.  We are neither Christians nor mystics.  We, as Objectivists, believe that sex should be tied to values, but that doesn’t mean we need to seek our platonic soul mates.  If you have even a short relationship with another person and you both enjoy yourselves and learn more about yourselves, then this should be considered a successful relationship.  Furthermore, just because a relationship ends in death, doesn’t make it successful.  Many people stay in unhappy relationships only in order to say that they are still in relationships, so they can say that their relationship didn’t fail.  But, truly, isn’t an unhappy and unhealthy relationship the only kind of failed relationship?  There is nothing intrinsically valuable about a relationship that ends in death and we should not shoot for this as our ideal.  Instead, let us shoot for healthy and happy relationships, as long as they may last.
Of course, this is not to denigrate long term relationships and I think there are values that you gain through long term relationships that you don’t have in short term ones, like a shared life and past.  The sense of shared identity and intimacy that comes from a long term relationship cannot be equaled by a short term relationship and I might even go so far as to argue that this kind of intimacy is constitutive of happiness, but perhaps that’s an argument for another essay.
So, to return to quirkyalone, from what little I understand of it, it seems like a bad idea and a way to make oneself feel better about being alone.  Instead, I think we should shoot for a balance in relationships and to learn from our experiences and count all of our happy and healthy relationships as successes, no matter their length.  Of course, as I said in the beginning, I didn’t have much information about Quirkyalone to go on, so I may be off base on that particular.  The rest, however, stands.
Originally posted on Erosophia, by JasonStotts, 2011-02-18T21:51:12Z ReBlogged by Meta Blog

NoodleCast #59: SnowCon Preview
From NoodleFood: Diana Hsieh, cross-posted by MetaBlogLast night, Kelly Elmore and Jenn Casey did a webcast with a quick preview of their upcoming SnowCon 2011 talk, "Effective Communication: How Objectivists Can Use Positive Discipline Tools in Their Adult Relationships." Although that was fun, the webcasting medium was new to them, and they were a bit more discombobulated by it than we expected. So we've decided not to post that video. However, they're going to be putting together one of their awesome Cultivating the Virtues podcasts on their upcoming SnowCon talk, and I'll post that when it's ready.As your woefully inadequate consolation prize, I recorded a 14-minute video tour through the fabulous schedule of SnowCon events last night. (It was totally unplanned, last minute, etc, but I think it turned out okay.) You can view the video here, or listen to the audio as a NoodleCast podcast.Just one thing that I do want to make clear, since I didn't stress it in the video... The cost of SnowCon includes two lovely meals: Saturday dinner and Sunday brunch. However, that's all that we can afford to provide for $140 to $160 ($100 to $120 for students). All other expenses -- including the entry fee to the shooting range, the entry fee to Roxborough Park, any lift tickets, etc -- are yours to pay out of pocket.To review the schedule and register, go to The SnowCon Web Site.Podcast: Listen Now14:26 minutesPodcast: DownloadDownload the Enhanced M4A File (7.0 MB)Download the Standard MP3 File (6.7 MB)liPodcast: SubscribeSubscribe to the Enhanced M4A Feed in iTunesSubscribe to the Standard MP3 Feed in iTunesli Originally posted on NoodleFood, by Diana Hsieh, 2011-02-17T22:00:00Z ReBlogged by Meta Blog

Simultaneous equations and induction
From John J McVey: John McVey, cross-posted by MetaBlog(Update for direct-hitters to this post: concretisation is here.)A long time ago (circa 1996) I thought up an analogy in reasoning to the mathematical methodology of simultaneous equations. I eventually dropped it, however, because I thought it was too rationalistic (plus because I was being ridiculed for it - though somewhat deservedly at the time, too, I must add). I now realise that I was definitely on to something important back then and that I was wrong to drop it entirely.What I had in mind back then was quite simple: if one knew the relationship between A and B, and one knew the relationship between A and C, where for instance A was oneself (ie one's consciousness), then one could identify the relationship between B and C as it stood independently of A (ie, contra Kant, conceptually able to identify things in themselves). Working on that principle, one can then tackle more and more complex relationships, succesively busting down complex equations into lesser ones and from there to the identification of individual variables. I had neat diagrams to go with it, too, such as:The reason why I think that there is something valid in this for all thought in general (I've never rejected the fact that it was a definitely valid method of approaching the quantitative aspects of reality) is because of its connection to Mill's methods (particularly difference and agreement) and their connection in turn to the general cognitive processes of differentiation and integation. It is quite valid to view systematic methodologies for solving them, such as Gaussian Elimination, as being advanced implementations of Mill's methods to the mathematical realm. That is, what is GE but a complex method for the progressive discovery of residues? Taking it back to reality itself, what is the method of concomitant variations but the means of identifying the equations themselves? There's even analytical software available for that purpose - that is what all those statistical packages amount to, with the R-squared variables and the like indicating how much confidence one can place in the equations so generated from a mass of raw input data.The other reason why I am reversing my past dropping is that Miss Rand noted that to invalidate concept formation one first had to invalidate algebra. The solving of simultaneous equations is an element of the subject of algebra! It is one of the methods that is directly applicable to reality itself. The fact that there really is a strong mathematical element to consciousness, along with that express identification, clearly suggests to me that the method of solving simultaneous equations ought be investigated by the epistemologist. But I am neither a professional mathematician nor a professional philosopher, so I will leave this for those professional epistemologists to develop.That being said, I know what I know, I do know that I am on to something valid and that it is not to be dismissed as inherently rationalistic. "Everything in reality is simultaneous" notes Dr Peikoff in many places, and that hierarchy in epistemology existed because we had to approach reality in that fashion: knowledge is built on previous knowledge. I strongly suspect that this is also a tie-in with the spiral theory of knowledge, in particular applications, in that the more one knows the more one can go back and refine more detail out of equations that one had already partly solved in the past. Thus I will use it when and how I think appropriate, being careful of course not to get over-enthusiastic and rationalist about it. Dr Peikoff also notes that science was nothing more than the conceptual unravelling of perceptual data. Miss Rand noted that cognition was a mathematical process. I would suggest, then, in combining the two along with recognition of Mill's methods and their derivatives (particularly in mathematics), is that science in large part consists of identifying the figurative or literal equations in reality or fragments thereof and also of contrasting various equations against each other to isolate ever smaller valid sub-equations and ultimately to identify the root irreducible variables.JJM Originally posted on John J McVey, by John McVey, 2011-02-17T08:51:00Z ReBlogged by Meta Blog

Free Our Light
From Gus Van Horn: Gus Van Horn, cross-posted by MetaBlogManny Lopez of the Detroit News reports that there is a grass-roots effort, called "Free Our Light," whose focus is on getting Congress to repeal the ban on incandescent bulbs:"The light bulb ban is an outrageous government limitation on consumer choice and intrusion into the home of every American," Myron Ebell, director of Freedom Action, said in an interview for TheMichiganView.com.His goal now is to get millions to sign an online petition to be delivered to Congress to force a repeal of the bulb law. [link to online petition added]The petition reads as follows:The undersigned demand that you repeal the ban on incandescent light bulbs beginning in 2012 that was enacted in 2007. Although I am not familiar enough with Freedom Action to state definitively, right now, whether I could support it as an organization, I do support this goal and urge my readers to sign this petition, and to spread the word about it. This is particularly important since there have, apparently, been false reports that a lifting of this ban is being considered.Rep. Upton, now Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has said that his committee will hold a hearing on the ban, but he has not promised to repeal it, as was erroneously reported in the press in December. The 2007 law makes the sale of standard incandescent 100-watt bulbs illegal as of January 1, 2012, 75-watt bulbs as of January 1, 2013, and 60- and 40-watt bulbs as of January 1, 2014. That said, I do not support the goal of lifting the ban in isolation. In particular, I regard a bill like HR 91, which proposes to repeal the ban on incandescent bulbs, as a symbolic first step at best, because the entirety of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 should ultimately be repealed. By what right should any aspect of how Americans produce and consume the energy we need to live our lives be dictated by Washington?I'd love it if this year's Edison Hour (aka "Human Achievement Hour") could be more an act of celebration than a show of defiance. Repealing this ban would be a small step -- in the right direction, for a change.-- CAV Originally posted on Gus Van Horn, by Gus Van Horn, 2011-02-17T11:56:00Z ReBlogged by Meta Blog

Deadly Alarms
From Gus Van Horn: Gus Van Horn, cross-posted by MetaBlogThe problems caused by warning fatigue and false alarms have intersected to kill hospital patients, as a story from the Boston Globe reports.[Madeline] Warner died after nurses failed to respond to an alarm that sounded for about 75 minutes, signaling that her heart monitor's battery needed to be replaced, state investigators found....Hospitals, monitor manufacturers, researchers, and federal regulators are similarly grappling with how to reduce the rash of unheard and ignored alarms and other patient monitor problems -- which the Globe reported yesterday was linked to more than 200 deaths nationwide between 2005 and mid-2010, and, experts say, probably far, far more. But they are finding answers elusive. [link added]It is sad to see anyone die like this, but the involvement of regulators in "solving" this problem immediately causes me to wonder what role rights-violating prescriptive laws might have played in causing these two hundred plus deaths.For one thing, it is clear that such alarms are being over-used:Klugman decided to conduct a study of patients on cardiac monitors at UMass Memorial and three other Massachusetts hospitals over the course of one week in 2008. He found that at UMass alone, 40 percent of patients, or 73, didn't need to be on monitors at all, based on American College of Cardiology criteria."Cardiac telemetry saves lives, there is no question about that," Klugman said. "But there's the potential of unintended consequences and that's what's happening here. It's overused."One wonders whether government regulations or defensive medical practices caused by a tort system in dire need of reform might account for over-use of (just) this type of alarm (by nearly 70 percent at this hospital). Also, might the costs of these (and many other similar) regulations and the related problem of defensive medicine help account for the nursing shortage?These questions never arise in the article, but based on a Thomas Sowell column on another safety-related topic, perhaps they should have:Since there were thousands of airline flights cancelled in the name of safety, this means that there were at least tens of thousands of passengers unable to take the flights they had booked.Some of those passengers drove cars to reach the destinations to which they had originally planned to fly. Since automobile fatality rates per mile have long been several times as high as airline fatality rates per mile, this means that the dangers to life and limb have not been reduced by this political grandstanding.Instead people have been exposed to greater dangers -- in the name of safety!Along similar lines, it is a fair question to ask whether hospitals would be faced with "alarm fatigue" at all if doctors felt freer to use their own judgment about whether a patient actually needed a monitor or an alarm of some kind.Ominously, all the solutions under consideration involve more expense, more regulation, or both. At no point is the "need" for even more of what might have led to these deaths questioned.-- CAV Originally posted on Gus Van Horn, by Gus Van Horn, 2011-02-14T13:13:00Z ReBlogged by Meta Blog

Far from Perfect
From Gus Van Horn: Gus Van Horn, cross-posted by MetaBlogA couple of postings about tackling difficult, long-range projects have come to my attention recently. Each considers how what is colloquially (and imprecisely) known as perfectionism can -- and often does -- get in the way.First, there is the notion that, if one can concentrate as much as possible on the project, one will do better and, perhaps, even more work. Ben Deaton (via John Cook) relays an anecdote from physicist Richard Feynman's experience:When I was at Princeton in the 1940s I could see what happened to those great minds at the Institute for Advanced Study, who had been specially selected for their tremendous brains and were now given this opportunity to sit in this lovely house by the woods there, with no classes to teach, with no obligations whatsoever. These poor bastards could now sit and think clearly all by themselves, OK? So they don't get any ideas for a while: They have every opportunity to do something, and they're not getting any ideas. I believe that in a situation like this a kind of guilt or depression worms inside of you, and you begin to worry about not getting any ideas. And nothing happens. Still no ideas come.Nothing happens because there's not enough real activity and challenge: You're not in contact with the experimental guys. You don't have to think how to answer questions from the students. Nothing!Part of the problem here is that, for the kind of work these men were doing, teaching classes is not actually a distraction, but part of keeping one's mind stimulated, more in touch with reality (by, for example, reviewing how principles are tied to reality, or seeing new aspects of such a relationship), and even getting intellectual distance from the project from time to time. The fantasy of having much more time free for research met the reality that a stagnant or out-of-touch mind isn't such a hot tool for conducting research. The concept of this research setting erred because it treated as a mere distraction an important component of serious intellectual work! Removing distractions is fine and dandy, but one must first know what a distraction is.As with imagined (but unverified) ideas about what kind of setting is ideal for a project, notions about what constitutes the best way to proceed can similarly cripple a project. Some programmers refer disdainfully to "architecture astronauts" -- people who lose touch with coding reality and get stuck on what Jeff Atwood calls "proper development patterns and practices." Atwood then quotes Joel Spolsky on the problem:When you go too far up, abstraction-wise, you run out of oxygen. Sometimes smart thinkers just don't know when to stop, and they create these absurd, all-encompassing, high-level pictures of the universe that are all good and fine, but don't actually mean anything at all.These are the people I call Architecture Astronauts. It's very hard to get them to write code or design programs, because they won't stop thinking about Architecture. They're astronauts because they are above the oxygen level, I don't know how they're breathing. They tend to work for really big companies that can afford to have lots of unproductive people with really advanced degrees that don't contribute to the bottom line.Atwood reacts against this phenomenon, saying, "Patterns and practices are certainly good things, but they should always be framed in the context of a problem you're solving for the users."The "oxygen" Spolsky speaks of is the same vital component that Feynman sensed was missing at Princeton: contact with reality. Or, as Ayn Rand might have put it, the "ideal research environment" and "proper method of creating software" noted above are mere "floating abstractions," or "abstraction[s] without relation to the concrete." See also Marv Marinovich's ideas on physical training and child-rearing.There is a tension between the need to guide creative work with principles and the need to be open to the idea that one has not discovered or correctly formulated some of the principles by which to proceed with that work. Perfection is neither a Platonic Form nor a product of a runaway imagination: It is contextual, discoverable only by a mind that constantly checks its abstract conclusions against reality, and achievable only when those abstractions are successfully put into practice.-- CAV Originally posted on Gus Van Horn, by Gus Van Horn, 2011-02-15T12:43:00Z ReBlogged by Meta Blog

Islam + Democracy = Islam
From The Rule of Reason: noreply@blogger.com (Edward Cline), cross-posted by MetaBlogIn a February 9th interview of Middle East expert Daniel Pipes by Yosef Rapaport, “Analyzing the Turmoil (in Egypt),” Pipes reveals that while he has an intimate and comprehensive knowledge of Islam and Mideast history and affairs, he is sadly and dangerously ignorant of political philosophy. Pipes’ blog site also carries commentaries by guest columnists who echo his fallacies. In this interview, Pipes offers his views on the prospects of Egypt becoming a “democracy.” One can appreciate Pipes’ assessment of Egypt and the “regime change” there, and certainly respect his appraisal of Islam and the Mideast, but I shudder every time I encounter an otherwise intelligent and knowledgeable person employing the term “democracy” so carelessly. It is as though Pipes (and many, many others) had never read what the American Founders and Framers had to say about “democracy.” They feared and loathed democracy. Democracy, they saw in history, was always an overture to tyranny of one kind or another. Democracy was and remains mob rule. The purpose of the Founders and Framers was to establish an individual rights-protecting republic, one that would be proof against the whims and fashions of mobs, majorities, and power-seeking politicians. Democracy, for example, is a state or local government banning smoking in private restaurants and bars, because some group with political pull wanted it that way; or Obama patronizing millions of people who want lower health-care costs and endorsing socialized medicine legislation; or state or municipal governments banning plastic (or paper) bags in supermarkets to curry favor with environmentalists. The instances of “democracy” in action are legion, and they all depend on the employment of government force and the diminishment of individual rights.Democracy is not just about “free elections.” What would people vote for in these elections? What would be legitimate issues that could be voted on, and what would not be legitimate issues? Democracy makes no distinctions between these things. Regarding “democracy” a kind of stable political environment that sort of promotes freedom and does not require armies of police to regulate it – such as in the U.S. – is a rather sloppy concept of “good” government. Democracy cannot be equated with limited government. Democracy means unlimited government. But “free elections” in a politically backward country such as Egypt usually means the last election, replaced with farces such as the “free elections” in Iran. The only country in the Mideast that has “free elections” is Israel. In his interview, Pipes makes a distinction between Islam and Islamism. But what is Islamism but taking Islam’s most belligerent or noxious tenets seriously and acting on them? Islam is a totalitarian ideology, pure and simple. This is aside from its primitive, tribalist character. Islam is already a form of “democracy.” The majority of Muslims want it, and wish to conform to Sharia law, to worship Allah, honor Mohammad, demand respect, etc. What could be more democratic than that? Pipes would seem to second that evaluation. When asked about the role of “dignity” and “humiliation” in Muslim and Arab culture, he answered:They're very important. Islam imbues Muslims with a profound sense of superiority to non-Muslims, and an assumption that the natural order has Muslims ruling non- Muslims. In the modern era, that has hardly been the case, especially a century ago when so many Muslims fell under European rule.Given his inadvertently damning estimate of Muslims and their world view, one would think he would ascribe the cause of such an inbred pathology to Islam. But he stops short and holds Islam blameless.Rapaport asked Pipes to compare Egypt with Turkey, “that has a basis in secularism, but a religious party rules it right now. Is there any way Islamism can coexist with democracy? Is there any model for that, in your view?”Islam is compatible with democracy but Islamism is not. It's like asking, are fascism and communism compatible with democracy? No. Islamism is inherently antidemocratic. It demands that the sovereignty of G-d trumps the sovereignty of the popular will; that the Sharia be applied, no matter what people think; that Muslims have a superior status to non-Muslims; that men enjoy superiority over women; and that violent jihad is a legitimate means of spreading Islam. These are the profoundly anti-democratic qualities of Islamism.Compare Pipes’ answer with Amil Imani’s evaluation of Islam in his February 14th article, “Is ‘Islamofascim’ a Slur?”Political Ideology: Islam is and has always been political, in the form of Imamate, Caliphate or by proxy where Islam through religious divines controlled the state. Saudi Arabia, for instance, does not even have a constitution. The Quran is the constitution. The country has a king. Yet, the king is the supreme enforcer of the laws dictated by Islam. In another Islamic country, Iran, where the mullahs rule, the constitution is squarely based on the Quran. Many laws are strictly drawn from the Shariah. The mosque is the state and no other competing political ideology is permitted.It is apparent that Pipes repeats the same error as President George W. Bush, who alleged that Islam is a “peaceful” religion “hijacked” by “extremists.” He sees Islam as a potentially benign creed that must undergo arduous and time-consuming reformation (just as the Christian church underwent centuries of reformation), and Islamism, whose violent nature he asserts but which he cannot account for without repudiating Islam altogether. It is either/or. Pipes attempts to occupy a middle ground. (It is interesting to note that, according to Imani, Mohammad even stole the name of one of the Meccan idols he ordered destroyed when he “converted” the town: Allah. This may have been a corruption, deliberate or not, of the name of another Abrahamic deity, Jehovah, or variations on that name. Imani’s otherwise informative article is soured with an adulatory position on George W. Bush.) However, most Muslims, like most Christians (and Jews), develop a kind of schizoid ethics when it comes to practicing the creed. They, too, compartmentalize the “truths” to be found in the scriptures and keep them segregated from what thoughts and actions are required in everyday life. Christians, if they attempted to live according to the morality of selflessness and self-sacrifice, which are central tenets of their creed, would be deceased from suicide in a matter of weeks. Muslims, if they attempted to practice literally the central tenets of their creed, would become rampaging hordes and card-carrying Islamo-Nazis.Similarly, Pipes and other anti-Islamist observers make no distinction between “democracy” and a government that protects individual rights, between one that recognizes no rights and one that does and so promotes the expansion and enjoyment of freedom. Islam is certainly compatible with democracy – a democracy of, by, and for Muslims only. All others would be at the bottom of the political ladder, paying jizya to the Muslim collective/majority. Islam will not tolerate a “pluralistic” political system. Islam cannot be “modernized.” Neither can Christianity be “modernized,” only kept divorced from the political life of a nation. But the moral code of Christianity has been secularized in national politics. Else, why the constant appeals to selflessness and self-sacrifice by politicians? Strip Islam of Sharia law, and what would be left but a cult and the subject of hilarity? Neither Christianity nor Islam should be cut any critical slack. If the morality is no good for living on earth, if others’ well-being and happiness have priority over one’s own (or obeying God’s or Allah’s will, in the way of a Kantian moral imperative), if there is no “practical” application of and end to it except suicide and/or homicide, what good is it and why subscribe to it? Both creeds are antithetical and hostile to reason. Both deny or act to counter man’s nature as a being of volitional consciousness, who must choose his purpose for living and act to achieve those goals in pursuit of his own happiness. Democracy, Christianity, and Islam are all in fundamental opposition to that fact. So one should be less sanguine than is Pipes about Egypt’s fate over the next year, or, for that matter, about the fate of any Arabic Mideast country. There are millions of Arabs who are also practicing (and perhaps even devout) Muslims who have not a clue to what individual rights are, or if they are well-read enough in the subject, would be hostile to them because they would see that individual rights invalidate any morality founded on any “I, God, say so, but I am otherwise unknowable until you are dead” mysticism. Democracy, after all, is just another form of mysticism. The collective wish of the “people” will it. Ergo, it is good. Well, the Germans “willed” Nazism and racial purity through Hitler and hoped they would triumph. The Japanese “willed” Shintoist nationalism through the emperor and hoped it would triumph. Muslims “channel” Mohammad and hope Islam will triumph. As Pipes notes, Islam permits Muslims to regard themselves as superior to all others and as Allah’s chosen. This is a hubristic collectivism it shares especially with Nazism. In another article, “Islam and Democracy – Much Hard Work Needed,” Pipes projects what it would take to “tame” Islam and transform it into just another harmless creed that could coexist with “democracy”:Put differently: of course, Islam is undemocratic in spirit, but so was every other pre-modern religion and society.Just as Christianity became part of the democratic process, so can Islam. This transformation will surely be wrenching and require time. The evolution of the Catholic Church from a reactionary force in the medieval period into a democratic one today, an evolution not entirely over, has been taking place for 700 years. When an institution based in Rome took so long, why should a religion from Mecca, replete with its uniquely problematic scriptures, move faster or with less contention?Why, indeed? Why should it even continue to exist? Strip Islam of its appeal to collective superiority – the creed of the second-hander – rip out Sharia law, and what would be its appeal? Why not just join the Amish, or the Mennonites, or the Scientologists? Islamism is Islam, and cannot be reformed. It can only be repudiated and abandoned. The trouble is with religion per se, and not its assimilative capacity with “democracy” or with any other political system. The United States is now a de facto “democracy,” having slid into that perilous status with little or no opposition for over a century thanks to statist legislation that has nullified or usurped any protection against mob rule offered by the Founders and Framers. President Obama is stealthily “progressing” towards authoritarian “democracy” with his most recent legislation and policies, and his authoritarianism is evident in his “soft” approach to Islam, with whose totalitarian nature he has a natural and undeniable affinity. Amil Imani reaches the same conclusion I have been emphasizing for years: “If Muslims find fascism repugnant, then they should reconsider being Muslims.” Islam is anti-life and totalitarian to the core. Even shorn of its brutal, virulent, and belligerent aspects, there are no redeeming features to it. The sight of someone bowing to a rock five times a day hardly comports with the idea of “dignity,” especially when one knows that it is in obsequious submission to the commands of a murderous, psychopathic brigand. It does not trigger visions of, say, the climax of Antonio Salieri’s opera Axur, Re D’Ormus. It is about as enthralling and ennobling as a college fraternity initiation. Islam is Islamism. It is not salvageable as a moral guide to living on earth. There is no reason to wish to preserve it in any form. Originally posted on The Rule of Reason, by noreply@blogger.com (Edward Cline), 2011-02-15T12:10:00Z ReBlogged by Meta Blog

NoodleCast #57: Luc Travers Webcast Preview
From NoodleFood: Diana Hsieh, cross-posted by MetaBlogLast Wednesday, Luc Travers gave the preview for his upcoming webcast on "Bringing an Artwork to Life". The preview was fabulous, and now I'm even more excited to watch the webcast on Wednesday, February 23rd! (The audio quality isn't fantastic, but we should be able to fix that for the webcast itself.)If you weren't able to attend the preview, now's your chance to watch it and/or listen to it!You can pledge for the webcast using the form below, and if you have any questions about the webcast or pledging, please see the main page for this event: Luc Travers' Webcast on "Bringing an Artwork to Life".The following slideshow was part of the preview:embedYou can find a larger version on the main page for this event: Luc Travers' Webcast on "Bringing an Artwork to Life".People who pledge can vote on which of the three paintings -- marked Slide #1, Slide #2, and Slide #3 -- that they would like Mr. Travers to discuss in the webcast.Video on YouTubeYou can watch the video of the webcast preview on YouTube:(If you like it, please give it a thumbs up!)Podcast: Listen Now8:25 minutesPodcast: DownloadDownload the Enhanced M4A File (4.2 MB)Download the Standard MP3 File (3.9 MB)liPodcast: SubscribeSubscribe to the Enhanced M4A Feed in iTunesSubscribe to the Standard MP3 Feed in iTunesliPledge NowIf you want this webcast by Luc Travers on "Bringing an Artwork to Life" to take place, if you want to support Mr. Travers' work, and if you want to support this new webcast series, please pledge!As always, you're welcome to pledge any amount. However, please remember that whether the webcast happens or not depends on the total amount of money pledged. The webcast will be green-lit or cancelled, depending on the pledges received by noon on February 19th. (That's this Saturday!) Also, if the webcast takes place, I'll post it for sale after the fact for $50.Your pledge is a contract to pay for the webcast, if delivered, and you should consider yourself honor-bound to pay that pledge when you receive your invoice.If you have any problems with that embedded form, try this form. Originally posted on NoodleFood, by Diana Hsieh, 2011-02-14T15:00:00Z ReBlogged by Meta Blog

Induction of Objectivity (Ayn Rand)
From Inductive Quest: Roderick Fitts, cross-posted by MetaBlogThe reduction of Rand’s idea of “objectivity” complete, we can now work through how she induced her redefinition of objectivity as involving both facts about the world and facts about human consciousness.The induction will take two series of steps:The first, basic series:1. Assuming Aristotle’s knowledge, discover that knowledge has an order.2. Discover that knowledge involves integration.3. Find out that measurement is the essential means of moving beyond percepts.4. Discover that consciousness has identity.The second series:1. From Aristotle’s discoveries and the above four, reach Ayn Rand’s theory of concept-formation.2. Integrate her theory of concepts with Aristotle’s view of objectivity, and note the amendments that this involves, which include a reformulation of what it means to “follow logic,” and what it means to “be objective.” Two elements of knowledge that Aristotle only implicitly recognized, that knowledge is formed in a context and it exists in a hierarchy, will be explicitly included in logic, as it was in Rand’s view. This is the way that we’ll know how to adhere to reality by following a certain method, because we’ll be explicating that very method further than it was explained before by Aristotle.Knowledge has a Definite OrderThe first induction we’d have to reach is that “knowledge has an exact, definite order.” Aristotle knew many facets of this view, and so he’s the precondition of Rand for this. He knew that reasoning starts with observations, and that we then arrange our premises in a successive manner until we ultimately reach the conclusion we want to prove. Further, he knew that we form gradually broader concepts, leading to a hierarchy of concepts with each level supported by the preceding level. Rand had two advantages over Aristotle on this point though. One was that she lived in the 20th century, with all of the discoveries of science, and the clear-cut order of learning in our educational systems. Another advantage was her level and sheer amount of self-awareness and introspection, which she practiced her whole life. Her self-awareness that’s relevant here is that she knew that whenever she learned something, it made new routes available to learn other things, and to learn something from those, etc. She knew the generalization that we construct knowledge on top of earlier knowledge in a definite order, and it wasn’t hard for her to learn this due to the advanced scientific context she grew up in. She didn’t need her “theory of concepts” to reach this point; actually, this principle is a precondition for that theory, just as scientific progress is the precondition for the generalization that knowledge follows a definite order.Knowledge Involves IntegrationThe second induction is that knowledge involves putting things together, integration. At first, we grasp that knowledge can be broken up into a series of independent pieces, which is like “analysis,” but later on, we grasp the importance of putting these pieces together, the synthesis. Long before her theory of concepts, Rand knew that all knowledge is interrelated, and that you have to put all cognitive items into a particular sum.Aristotle knew the importance of integrating propositions, and he knew that he should integrate problems with their philosophical, scientific solutions into a total system (like his answer to “what is soul?” in On the Soul), but he never reached the principle that all knowledge as such should be integrated together.It might have been Georg W. F. Hegel who first expressed this principle: “The truth is the whole.” (Preface to Phenomenology of Mind.) Not that I know a lot about Hegel, but his philosophy is obsessed with integration, that integration is the key to knowledge, to truth (he accepts a form of the coherence theory of truth) and to self-realization. Rand didn’t seem to use Hegel as a start-off point for this idea, though.What she used to understand integration was her own mental exercises. Since she was 12, she would recognize relations that people never even dreamed of looking for. The kinds of relations that we take for granted now: between trade and justice, epistemology and capitalism, logic and morality, etc. She would discover contradictions in people’s thinking, and they wouldn’t have even suspected that the elements of their thinking contradict in any way. (One example is: “[Mill’s principle] ‘The greatest good for the greatest number’ is one of the most vicious slogans ever foisted on humanity.” http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/utilitarianism.html Most people who know Mill wouldn’t agree with this, because they see Mill as a defender of capitalism, individual rights, and liberty, but Rand could trace logical consequences of that principle that they wouldn’t notice, and which she was thoroughly against. Rand noticed that this could justify the most horrendous practices committed by the majority according to what they believe is good, like the German populace in the 1930s and 40s who largely supported the prosecution and extermination of the Jews. It wouldn’t surprise Rand at all that in Mill’s work On Liberty, you can find statements like, “[t]he spirit of improvement is not always a spirit of liberty, for it may aim at forcing improvement on an unwilling people.” She would explain the tension between liberty and “the greatest good for the greatest number” in Mill’s philosophy as caused by the fact that, “’the good’ is not determined by counting numbers and is not achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone.” http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/utilitarianism.htmlFor some more examples of how Mill isn’t the champion of liberty and rights that he’s largely regarded to be, consult Laura Snyder’s Reforming Philosophy: A Victorian Debate on Science and Society, chapters 4-5.)Rand also had contempt for compartmentalizing, that is, refusing to apply the knowledge you have to other areas of knowledge or other subjects beside your specialty, like a biologist refusing to connect his views to its implications in psychology or political science. In addition to that, she hated the “concrete-bound” mentality: the kind of person who deliberately does not relate cognitive items together, but focuses only on specific issues without any connection to abstract principles and context. An example we could see her using is: communism not working in Russia, communism not working in Cuba, and then someone asking, “what would this have to do with communism in Venezuela?” The person will not relate his knowledge and reach the abstract conclusion that communism does not work as a viable political-economic system, no matter in what country it is applied. (Of course, that conclusion rests of some understanding of the system of communism and why it fails, but that's the general pattern of the "concrete bound" mentality.) These examples of non-integration were amazing to her because her normal mental functioning was connecting things, and this may have something to do with her (implicit) allegiance to induction; it’s because of this allegiance that she was constantly looking for the broader principles that could be inferred from concretes, and reaching even broader principles from her earlier ones. The result is that she would constantly surprise people when she presented these connections. (For a good example of Rand’s ability to do this, consult Peikoff’s essay, “My Thirty Years with Ayn Rand,” where she surprises him with several principles he hadn’t even thought of before.)It wasn’t very difficult for her to induce the principle that knowledge involves integration. The principle became so important to her that it was even mentioned in the summary of Objectivism given in Galt’s speech from Atlas Shrugged: in one sentence, Galt speaks of integrating every item, without contradiction, into the sum of one’s knowledge.(Here are the relevant sentences in Galt’s speech:All thinking is a process of identification and integration. […] No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge.)And once she knew that all knowledge is a sum that is arrived at by integration, she could later integrate that with the first principle: that this sum, at each stage, made possible the next stage.Measurement is the Essential Means of Transcending PerceptsThe third induction revolves around something that Rand had to know about math before she could think to explain integration in concept-formation using mathematical terms. She needed to know basic things about math, such as that measurement requires a unit of measurement (foot, pound, gram, etc.), that the unit varies according to the subject matter (the unit for measuring radiation is different from the unit for measuring distance, etc.), and that what measurement does is relate the entity or attribute to the proper unit. Of course, she didn’t originate any of these points, but whoever discovered it had to use a range of examples, and then reach an inductive generalization: “there must always be a unit; that this unit varies depending on the subject-matter; and what the essence of measurement is.”Rand needed to know the conclusion that measurement expands the range of our consciousness beyond the level of percepts, a conclusion which she didn’t originate, either. Take an example: let’s say that the average car weighs 2 tons. It isn’t possible to grasp how much 2 tons is by the sensations of touch and pressure, and you can’t explain the object’s heaviness to an animal, but it is possible to grasp it by relating the non-perceivable to the perceivable. You can relate it by saying that a car weighs 2 tons; a ton is 2000 pounds; and a pound is this. This principle about mathematics is an easy inductive conclusion, known well before Ayn Rand, and later she would connect this to her knowledge that concepts transcend the perceivable, as well.Consciousness has IdentityRand might have reached the idea that consciousness has identity before reaching her theory of concepts (at least, this is what Peikoff speculates). What the principle means is that you observe the functions of consciousness, noticing that it operates in certain, definite ways and does so in a fixed manner, and you observe that it can’t grasp things or do other cognitive feats without carrying out these processes. The principle isn’t a mere deduction from the law of identity, like “X is X,” because that wouldn’t give consciousness content. Rather, ideas such as the first three principles are cases of this principle: human consciousness gains knowledge in a definite order, its knowledge is gained by a process of integration, and conceptual knowledge is capable of transcending percepts—all of that is part of its identity. When you connect that with the law of identity, you reach something profound and metaphysical, “consciousness has identity,” and this leads to not only further specifying the law of identity axiom, but also you’ve gained more knowledge by identifying the processes of consciousness as something that consciousness has by its nature, that its identity consists (in part) of those processes. So, “consciousness has identity,” isn’t self-evident, but is rather grasped through a study of advanced issues concerning consciousness.There were a few other paths for Rand to reach this conclusion about consciousness:(1) The Sophist’s (and modern philosophers, like David Hume’s) attacks on the senses: a stick appearing bent in water, an object appearing smaller or larger depending on distance, when in fact the size doesn’t change, etc. Rand could see past all these attacks and recognize the common problem: if you perceive in a certain way or through certain means, all the critics seemed to say, then you don’t perceive at all.(2) Her encounter with the ideas of Immanuel Kant. For instance, in the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant says this:For we can understand only that which brings with it, in intuition, something corresponding to our words. If by the complaints - that we have no insight whatsoever into the inner (nature) of things – it be meant that we cannot conceive by pure understanding what the things which appear to us may be in themselves, they are entirely illegitimate and unreasonable. For what is demanded is that we should be able to know things, and therefore to intuit them, without senses, and therefore that we should have a faculty of knowledge altogether different from the human and this not only in degree but as regards intuition likewise in kind -- in other words, that we should be not men but beings of whom we are unable to say whether they are even possible, much less how they are constituted. (Critique of Pure Reason, A277/B333, Chapter III. The Ground of the Distinction of all Objects in general into Phenomena and Noumena, “Note to the Amphiboly of the Concepts of Reflection.” Emphasis in original. For a list of Kantian terms like “intuition” and “pure understanding,” see this site)Kant’s view is that we have certain subjective means of perceiving and conceiving objects (like the forms of intuition, “space,” and “time,” see those terms in the glossary website above), and that these are our human means of representing reality, that is, they structure or organize reality in relation to consciousness; the result of this thinking is that the noumenal world is composed of things insofar as they are outside of any relation to any consciousness, they are things-in-themselves (instead of things “in relation to consciousness”), and thus are unknowable. What Rand took away from this is that Kant is attacking the fact that consciousness has identity:His [Kant’s] argument, in essence, ran as follows: man is limited to a consciousness of a specific nature, which perceives by specific means and no others, therefore, his consciousness is not valid; man is blind, because he has eyes—deaf, because he has ears—deluded, because he has a mind—and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them.She had to confront these sorts of criticisms before reaching her theory of concepts. And it should be clear how she had a plethora of examples, both positive and negative, from which she could induce the generalization that “consciousness has identity,” and that this was an important principle.What constitutes the identity of consciousness is the kind of information that we’ve gone over in this essay thus far, that the senses function in a certain way, that there’s some intimate connection between measurement and gaining conceptual knowledge, etc. Later on, she would use her theory of concept-formation to describe the essence of human consciousness as a conceptual faculty that functions by omitting measurements, and this supplied her with a ton of knowledge as to the ways that “consciousness has identity.”Concepts are Formed by Measurement-omission…Historically, it happened this way. Somewhere in the 1940s, so it’s over twenty years ago, I was discussing the issue of concepts with a Jesuit, who philosophically was a Thomist. He was holding to the Aristotelian position that concepts refer to an essence in concretes. And he specifically referred to ‘manness’ in man and ‘roseness’ in roses. I was arguing with him that there is no such thing, and that these names refer merely to an organization of concretes, that this is our way of organizing concretes.We never really finished the argument. But after this conversation, I was dissatisfied with my own answer. Because I felt, ‘Yes, I have indicated where concepts come from, but I haven’t indicated what is the process by which we organize concretes into different groups—because I certainly don’t agree with the modern nominalists who claim it’s an arbitrary convention or an arbitrary grouping.’And then I asked myself, ‘What is it that my mind does when I use concepts? To what do I refer, and how do I learn new concepts?’ And within half an hour, I had the answer.Now it took me longer than that to check it, to apply it to various categories of concepts, and see if there are exceptions. But once I had the answer, by the logic of it, I knew that that’s it. And that’s it. [Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd Expanded Edition, p. 307]After reaching Aristotle’s understanding of objectivity, and reaching the four principles we’ve discussed above, she reached her theory of measurement-omission through introspection. By analyzing what her mind does with concepts, she realized that concepts are formed by integrating particulars which share common attributes, and that this process consists in not specifying—omitting—the specific measurements of these shared attributes, thus including all of the relevant measurements and particulars under one conception. Concepts are formed by abstracting and retaining similar characteristics that the particulars share—Rand realized that “similarity” and “abstraction,” when analyzed, both amount to: measurements omitted.And as she said, she may have reached her idea that “measurement-omission” is the process by which concepts are formed, but regarded it as only a hypothesis: in order to make sure that it was valid, she wanted to consider every kind of concept in a methodical manner. And this investigation is another example of induction: in chapter 2 of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, after presenting her definition of concepts as formed by a process of measurement-omission, she applies it to nouns, materials, verbs, adverbs, prepositions, adjectives, pronouns, and conjunctions; in chapter 3, she applies it to forming higher level concepts, whether wider in scope, like “mammal” in comparison to “man,” or more narrow, ‘like “policeman”; chapter 4, concepts of consciousness, like “introspection,” “extrospection,” “thought,” “emotion,” and “love”; chapter 5, the role of definitions, a reduction of the need for the concept of “justice,” and a discussion of the concept “objective”; chapter 6, the basic axiomatic concepts, “existence,” “identity,” and “consciousness”; chapter 7, the concept of “unit-economy,” “Rand’s Razor (like Occam’s Razor, but for concepts),” and the cognitive function of concepts generally.(Peikoff mentions that he gets the historical credit for Rand applying the theory to concepts of materials, like “water” and “gold.” He asked: “How does it apply to water?” After corresponding back and forth with each other, it ended up being included in chapter 2.)Peikoff summarizes Rand’s massive scale induction in the sentence: “the similar concretes integrated by a concept differ from one another only quantitatively, only in the measurement of their characteristics.” Also, as reported by Peikoff, Rand said that her theory of concept-formation was purely an inductive conclusion, with no attempt to deduce it from the nature of reason or of the mind or of consciousness; she simply observed what her mind did, used mathematics to assist her in identifying what she observed, and then induced based on the observations.Finally, her theory was completed when she integrated her view of concepts with her earlier identifications about consciousness, by spiraling back to those principles and reformulating them.• The principle that knowledge involves a definite order: this was easily incorporated into Rand’s view that concepts are formed in an inherently hierarchical structure, that advanced concepts cannot be formed or understood without forming or understanding the concepts on which they depend. So what started as an observed regularity or generalization, later on becomes a description of the very nature of concepts. In other words, a principle first reached by induction now becomes a corollary of a principle that was also reached by induction—in detailing her theory of concept-formation, Rand not only incorporated the principle that “knowledge involves a definite order,” but explained why this is necessarily the case. (Further, in the taped epistemology discussions transcribed in the second edition of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, she discusses the hierarchy of knowledge more generally: that perceptual concretes allow us to form concepts, that we can cognitively hold information sophisticated enough to form propositions in a perceptual form, and that we form propositions by first forming their constituent concepts and then uniting them.)• The principle that knowledge involves integration: this is connected with Rand’s discovery that a concept, the basic unit of conceptual knowledge, is itself a form of integration, of relating cognitive items. Since a concept is a means of integrating cognitive data, human consciousness is, by nature, an integrating mechanism. The principle that knowledge is a sum, that it involves integration, is then tied to the points that concepts have a certain nature and are formed in a certain context, that concepts are by nature contextual and hierarchical. So these two epistemological principles that Rand initially used to reach her theory are now seen as aspects or tenets of that very theory.Once she had her theory of concept-formation and integrated it with her earlier ideas about knowledge, she kept expanding the theory with her own growing knowledge about knowledge. In chapter 7, she discusses the “crow epistemology,” the point that the amount of perceptual or conceptual material that a person can hold at any time is limited, and that the power of concepts is to condense a vast amount of information into a few, manageable units. This originally came from a scientist discussing an experiment with crows to Rand, and after hearing how limited crows are in counting objects, someone then exclaimed, “how limited crows are compared to human beings!” But Rand gleamed a much different conclusion: not how different human are from crows or other animals, but how similar we are; Rand readily recognized that our mental capacity to hold information is very limited as well, limited to perhaps 5 or 6 units at most, and that concepts save us by allowing us to integrate cognitive data on an unlimited scale, expanding what we can be conscious of on a scale entirely different from, and unavailable to, other animals. Take her theory’s idea that concepts integrate an unlimited number of perceptual concretes into one unit, and this new knowledge about crows, and it leads to the deductive conclusion that concepts are mental space-savers, constantly expanding the amount of material we can mentally hold at a given time.Objectivity is a method that Adheres to Facts while Recognizing the Context and Hierarchy of KnowledgeOnce Rand reached her theory of concept-formation, how did it lead to her reformulation of Aristotelian “objectivity”?Though she rejected the realist and nominalist approaches to concept-formation, there were two ideas that she gleamed from her own study:1. Concepts are based on factual data about the world, and are not arbitrary inventions of the mind.2. Concepts are human: they are made by a process of measurement-omission, a human process, and this implies that we don’t know how other conceptual beings would form concepts other than humans.She also knew that concepts relate the (humanly) perceivable to the (humanly) non-perceivable, so they are formed in part from the structure of our cognition to that extent. So concepts are human because they satisfy a human need: more cognitive space. We don’t have any knowledge of alien conceptual consciousnesses and how they would deal with a complexity of data and non-perceivables.Concepts are tools of our consciousness to handle the issues we face in reality. They don’t pertain to consciousness alone, contra Nominalism, and they don’t pertain to existence alone, contra Realism. Concepts are a specific kind of relationship between the two, consciousness and existence.Without proper preparation, Rand might have (conceivably) been led to apologize for the fact that concepts have a human dimension or element, or try to minimize this aspect somehow. She would have minimized it, rather than claim that concepts lead to subjectivism, that we don’t conceive of reality in an objective way, which leads to Kant’s critical philosophy. (Kant even went so far as to redefine “objectivity” himself, meaning the forms of consciousness that make experience possible, like the Categories or the schema of imagination. See the glossary again here.) But what happened instead is that she insisted upon the point that concepts have a human element, and remarked that it was only because of this fact that it could give us knowledge about the world. She was counting on the principle that “consciousness has identity,” as this allowed her to move from her theory of concept-formation to affirming the fact about concepts that preserves their ability to confer knowledge and to make knowledge possible. Aristotle held that the mind is like a blank writing tablet, on which anything can be written (and thus that it is potentially everything) as he thinks that this is how he can show that the mind has a common element with everything. (Consult “On the Soul,” book 3.) But if he were right, then how could reality write on the mind? How could it reach us? If the mind had no element of its own, with nothing to add to cognition, then it wouldn’t exist.The same point can be applied to the nominalists and philosophers like Kant, who thought that if the mind contributes anything of its own, then it is a distortion of reality, some form of subjectivism. Rand held that no such distortion exists: whatever the various methods and kinds of consciousness there are, they are all forms and methods of grasping something, reality. There’s nothing else to be conscious of or to grasp. And this is the relevance of “consciousness has identity.” A human consciousness must grasp in some form by some means, according to its nature, and that of the processes that it performs. To object to the fact that there’s a human element in cognition is to really object to: A is A. Having understood the role of consciousness in concept-formation, she integrated that with the principle that consciousness has identity: she distinguished between the form of cognition from the object, and from then on there was no problem. Later, she would claim that conceptualization involves both consciousness and existence, and proclaim in opposition to the philosophers who preceded her: “identity is the means of knowledge, not the obstacle to it.”The point that concepts are based on facts really isn’t enough to fully validate “objectivity.” If objectivity were merely based on a kind of correspondence between facts and a tablet or mind with no nature of its own, then someone could say: “Our consciousness is not a ‘nothing.’ It works by definite means, and we can only perceive and conceive as humans do, so there is no real objectivity.” The standard objection to objectivity is that it’s a method based only on facts, and that logic has no relation to the means and identity of our consciousness. Rand had to reach the right theory of concept-formation and the idea that “consciousness has identity,” in order to use both to reformulate objectivity, that logic is based on facts and the requirements of human cognition.One example of the "requirements of human cognition" is measurement-omission, which is a method even though it doesn’t depend on our knowledge or choice, or even awareness: people have been omitting measurements for as long as we have been forming concepts, just as we knew before Rand that people abstracted to form concepts. (In her book on epistemology, Rand notes: Concepts of method designate systematic courses of action devised by men for the purpose of achieving certain goals. The course of action may be purely psychological (such as a method of using one’s consciousness).[…]Concepts of method are formed by retaining the distinguishing characteristics of the purposive course of action and of its goal, while omitting the particular measurements of both. (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd edition, pp. 35-36, emphasis added by me.)With that in mind, the method of measurement-omission consists in regarding certain measurements as existing but not specifying them, with the goal being the formation of a conceptual product (like a concept).Method is thus a broader term than “logic”: “method” covers more than conscious processes, and it means any process we can engage in that’s divisible into steps that we can pursue, whether consciously or not. It applies to successive steps leading to any goal, not only those of epistemology like knowledge or truth: there’s a method of driving, swimming, of building a house, etc. This is why the final meaning is: “objectivity” is adherence to reality based on certain rules of method, a method based on facts and appropriate to man’s form of cognition.“Method,” in conscious terms, still means “logic,” so Aristotle is completely right, here. But Rand chooses to use “method,” instead of logic, so that she can include the conscious and subconscious methods of the conceptual level of consciousness. The subconscious level includes what we’ve gone over thus far: omit measurements, knowledge having a definite order, integration, context, hierarchy, abstraction, etc.The benefits of Rand’s reformulation of “objectivity” is that she can identify the exact relationship between concepts and reality and thus validate them (which previous theories couldn’t do, or gave up trying to do), and we can construct the conscious method of logic much more completely than Aristotle could. We know that human consciousness needs logic due to its capability to form concepts within a context and within a hierarchy, such that anything that is “logical” cannot neglect or drop either of these. Aristotle would say, “don’t commit contradictions,” whereas Rand would say, “yes, and to know that you’re avoiding contradictions, you must keep the full context and hierarchy in connection with every attempt to check propositions against the laws of logic.” Rand’s additional point offers a new window into logic that wasn’t attainable before her.“Don’t contradict”—we couldn’t really grasp what a noncontradictory identification is, until we learned that the propositions in an argument must take into account the sum of knowledge and not just a compartment or solitary fragment (the issue of context), and that they have to be not only themselves reduced, but that each constituent concept of each proposition must be reduced to sensory data (the issue of hierarchy). What this means is that to show that a conclusion is “objective,” we would have to (1) validate each concept of the argument by showing that it can be reduced back to sensory data, (2) show that the propositional conclusion is itself reducible back to this evidence, and (3) show that it can be integrated with everything else that we know. This is Rand’s contribution to the science of logic insofar as it’s a corollary of “objectivity,” thanks to her theory of concept-formation as measurement-omission.ConclusionIn the induction of Aristotle’s view of “objectivity,” we contrasted objectivity with subjectivity, the latter being the illogical techniques of people ignorant of or spiteful towards logic, the objective approach. In Rand’s case, there are three schools: the intrinsic, subjective, and objective. Using the genus method, we could have said “knowledge involves some kind of relationship between consciousness and existence.” The three positions we could have derived are “only contributor is consciousness (subjectivist),” “the only contributor is existence (intrinsicist),” and “both contribute and it’s the relationship that’s the most significant (objectivist).” She would discuss many issues and aspects in philosophy and in life in terms of the “intrinsic-subjective-objective” trichotomy, including the theories of universals/concept-formation, the selection of essential characteristics/essences for a concept, approaches to knowledge generally, the status of values, of “the good,” and beauty (and more). We should be able to more fully understand how she reached this idea of “objectivity” with which to contrast subjectivity and intrinsicism. Originally posted on Inductive Quest, by Roderick Fitts, 2011-02-13T00:00:00Z ReBlogged by Meta Blog

ATLOSCon 2011
From Erosophia: JasonStotts, cross-posted by MetaBlogby Jason Stotts
I meant to put this up the other day when Jenn sent out an e-mail, but better late than never, right?
As you may be aware, planning and preparations for ATLOSCon 2011 (tagline: *This Year, We Kinda Know What We’re Doing!*) are underway! We are scurrying around like squirrels before a blizzard, making everything Just So.
If you are considering attending our conference, to be held in Atlanta from May 26 – May 30 (social events will be on each of those days, with classes scheduled for Friday the 27th and Saturday the 28th), please take a couple of minutes to fill out our interest form. This will help us in our preparations.
Thanks so much,
~Jenn
I am going to be attending and giving a lecture, the subject of which has not been determined yet (although it will likely be on sex, relationships, love, or emotions).  This will be my first live lecture in a couple of years, since I spoke at the Ohio Objectivist Society in the Summer of 2009.  So, if you’ve been wanting to hear me speak live, you should get in on this.  The cost is minimal and I’m sure it will be a good time.  Plus, Atlanta is a really cool city.  In fact, and most of you likely don’t know this about me, but I actually grew up in Atlanta and so for me this will be a bit of a homecoming.
If you’re going to ATLOSCon, leave me a comment and let me know.  I’ll see you there!
Originally posted on Erosophia, by JasonStotts, 2011-02-07T23:11:35Z ReBlogged by Meta Blog



Objectivism Online Recent Forum Posts
Iowa Caucus Focus Group Agrees: Obama is a Muslim
Ignorance and No Knowing Things
Atlas Shrugged: Official Movie Trailer and casting
Integrating Volition
Government Police on Privately-Owned Roads
Why "Free" Will?
Egypt and the Middle East
Yaron Brook - Tea Party Patriots American Policy Summit Speech
Buying goods from companies that do business with North Korea?
Law of Treason
Until today Libya was on UN Human Rights Council.
Prefer to be single?
How should I begin?
Entropy of the universe
Building Ayn Rand"s robot.
Sacrifice
How do you solve simple math problems?
Walter E Williams on Democracy vs Liberty
Is verificationism dead?
I'm depressed again....
Latest Essays
Rick Warren: Master Assimilator for the Christian CollectiveBilly Graham and the Christian Crusade Against Truth and FreedomSean Hannity and the Tactics of the EnemyRush Limbaugh: Voice of the Religious Threat in AmericaBarriers to Entry in the Canadian Labor Market - by Alexander Marriott
Latest News
Announcing the Egosphere!Announcing the Premium Forums!New Amazon Search BoxNew Objectivism Wiki!Syndicate Us!
The Objectivism Wiki: Recent Changes
Getting auto insurance hooray Tyler s tonight 68454
User:Alysia101
File:Life insurance 4224.jpg
One product that most people need but almost none need Life Insurance 21
User:ChristopherGil
July 2010
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Meta-Blog Archives
July 2010
June 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
February 2003
October 1998
Recent Meta-Blog Entries
Thank you!
Deadline for Objectivist Academic Center coming up
GOP Joins Thought Police
Mayor Bloomberg: The Gun-Toting Nanny
Quick Roundup 497
A Clear Agenda of Repeal
Brook on the Estate Tax
Hearts of Darkness
More on Gay Marriage
Quick Roundup 496
img
input
Enter your search terms
input
Submit search form
input
input
Web
input
www.objectivismonline.net
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
input
Who's Online
We have 1 guest online
Random Image
No Images
Random Quote
Login Form
Username
Password
Remember me
Lost Password?
No account yet?
Register
Links
ARI: What is Objectivism?
Objectivism Online Facebook Group
Amazon Book Shop
Objectivist Intellectuals:
ARI Medialink
Leonard Peikoff
Harry Binswanger
Andrew Bernstein
Edwin Locke
John Lewis
Dr. Hurd
Dr. Kenner
Randex: Objectivism in the News
More Blogs
More Intellectuals
Organizations:
The Ayn Rand Institute
Voices for Reason
The Objective Standard
Principles in Practice
Capitalism Magazine
The Ayn Rand Society
Americans for Free Choice in Medicine
Objectivism Clubs:
Club Directory
The Undercurrent
All Links
Newsfeeds
Search Essays and Articles:
Search Blog Archives:
Search Forum:

Powered by Joomla | Designed by David Veksler