[an error occurred while processing this directive]
About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 27, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 27, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 27, No Sanction: 0
Post 120

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 10:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
> we may have to moderate you for "crap." [Linz]

I meant "crap" only in the most benevolent, kindly, mealy-mouthed, spineless, sappy, weak-kneed, boring, civil, flatulent, sickeningly sweet, new-agey, postmodern, self-helpy, californicating, emotionless, and dispassionate way of course.



Post 121

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 10:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil,

That was pretty damn funny. LOLOLOLOL...

Bonk.

Michael




Post 122

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 1:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Valliant,

Even in the quote you give, Augustine is against what he believes to be unethical medical conduct.

In the same chapter from the City of God he states:

"For over and above those arts which are called virtues . . . has not the genius of man invented and applied countless astonishing arts, partly the result of necessity, partly the result of exuberant invention, so that this vigor of mind, which is so active in the discovery not merely of superfluous but even of dangerous and destructive things, betokens an inexhaustible wealth in the nature which can invent, learn, or employ such arts? What wonderful -- one might say stupefying -- advances has human industry made in the arts of weaving and building, of agriculture and navigation!"

One might argue that Augustine is hostile to science, but Peikoff's claim is that he was against pagan science or thought per se.  That claim is unfair.




Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 123

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 2:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Neil,

In my quote, he wants to leave human health a certain degree of mystery, no? "Medical ethics," I should think, would absolutely require an autopsy in cases of suspicious death under the knife precisely in order to find out the "causes," "seat," etc. Is that what you meant?

And, I have to be honest, the passage you quote reminds me only of the world depicted in Anthem, where men are awe struck at the latest innovation called "the candle." It is not the accomplishments of the Ionian or Alexandrian scientists, not Democritus or Archimedes, that so inspire him, but weaving and agriculture? Not to diminish the accomplishments made in those fields, even in his day, but this is only part of that "reconciliation with the practical" that Christians so desperately needed in that period that I mentioned earlier. (Imagine needing to convince someone about the virtues of agriculture!!) Notice, too, the "dangers" to which he refers -- and the way he goes on to give God all the credit anyway, the author of our predestined souls.

This quote does put him above some still more abject mystics, I grant you.

"Compared to what?" is a good question in this context, and Phil's point about finding what's essential is worth considering.



Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 124

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 5:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Valliant,

I am not an expert on Augustine, so I don't know if Augustine's problem was with dissection of the human body or learning too much about how the body works.  Likewise, I don't know what he thought about the learning of Greek science.  (Incidentally, in the quote from The City of God he praises navigation and building which require geometry, for example.)  The article I referenced indicated that Augustine had enough respect for astronomy that he believed in could be helpful in understanding Genesis:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF3-88Young.html

However, the issue was Peikoff's claim that Augustine was against pagan science as somehow sinful or the result of the "lust of the eyes."

I agree with Phil that it is important to get to the essence of one's argument, but that shouldn't control the interpretation of any given text.  I've discussed that point in some of my articles:

http://solohq.com/Articles/Author_71.shtml




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 125

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 8:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"I agree with Phil that it is important to get to the essence of one's argument, but that shouldn't control the interpretation of any given text. " [Neil]

That's true. If Peikoff were saying "Augustine's position in the City of God" was X, then he would no longer be relying on the standard consensus in history of philosophy textbooks and would be required to actually have digested that book himself. (But, as I suggested, and having taken his history of philosophy courses I don't think that is what he was doing...or what Rand is doing when she makes her many attacks on famous philosophers or broad trends in philosophy from Platonism to skepticism to linguistic analysis to existentialims to nominalism/conceptualism etc. in ITOE.)

Phil



Post 126

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 8:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Neil, your article on totalism seems quite interesting...I just clicked on your link to it above, and will have to sit down and read through it...



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 127

Sunday, October 2, 2005 - 12:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     Augustine, Peikoff, et al nwst, I guess I'll have to go get the damn book and actually (cough!)...read it.

     Crap! Reviewers ain't worth s**t! (Well, technically, they are) --- If ya wanna job done...

LLAP
J:D




Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 128

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 6:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Valliant,

There were several contributors to this thread I had intended to address, until I came across your name on this final page.

Getting back on topic, in your book you spend a lot of time on the subject of "honesty."  And if I recall correctly, you even quote Nathan Blumenthal, er excuse me ... Nathaniel bRANDen, on his admiration for Rand's own honesty.

Now, what I wonder is, how do you explain the false impression given by your own credentials on the back, inside flap of the book jacket of PARC?  I looked up the two CINDY awards associated with the "TV series, Ideas in Action."

Would you like to tell this audience in what category those awards were given, or shall I?  And, while you are at it, in your day job as an officer of the court and a prosecutor, what is your understanding of "the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth.?"

I will give you credit for stating up front in your book that you never met Ayn Rand.  But, then, that was bound to be obvious to anyone, such as myself, who not only HAD met her, but who actually knew her before, during and long after "the Break."  Since you never met her or even observed her in person, in the same room, what does that say about your ability to interpret the various nuances present in the words of her journals?

Believe me, Mr. Valliant: we are not yet done talking about honesty, if you're man enough to stick around.

-John Allen




Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 129

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 6:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Allen, are you saying he didn't win two CINDY awards or that you don't like the "category?"

How would him never meeting Ayn Rand "be obvious to anyone" who HAD met her, such a John Allen?

Wow, you "actually" knew her, you really observed Ayn Rand, in the same room, not through a window or across the street. Now, was this the room where she wrote in her journals, where you could use "your ability to interpret the various nuances in her words?"

What "various nuances present in the words" would anybody see if they watched Ayn Rand write in her private journals?




Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Post 130

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 10:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Allen,

No, I'm just not "man enough" for any discussion that starts like that.

Put into one hand the weight of the substance of your post. Place into the other the heft of irrelevant and empty insults found there.

Now, compare.



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 131

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 11:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Allen: I don't think there is any such person as "John Allen."

--Brant




Post 132

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 12:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Will somebody tell what I can't believe isn't true?

--Brant




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 133

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 1:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brant,

Are you thinking of the guy who mooned Diana Hsieh's blog, also under a pseudonym?




Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 134

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 7:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brant and Adam,

An alternative hypothesis:

"John Allen"'s entire purpose may be to get you to think of a pseudonymous poster on Diana Hsieh's blog.

Deviousness is part of trolling.

Robert Campbell




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 135

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 7:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I hear the insinuations loud and clear, but I'm sorry. John Allen might be a pseudonym or not. The writing, especially this:

"... if you're man enough to stick around."

just doesn't sound like either of the Brandens. Not even "Helen" from the Hsieh blog.

(I don't like venomous insinuations - so let's state clearly what is on people's minds.)

Michael




Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 136

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 7:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

The "Nathaniel bRANDEn" reference also rings false.  It appeals to the "ben Rand" explanation of the origin of Nathaniel Branden's last name--an explanation that he denies is correct.

Robert Campbell




Post 137

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 9:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think there are only 3 or 4 people who keep showing up under different pseudonyms :-)




Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 138

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 9:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think it's Greenspan. Maybe a three-martini lunch or something... ;)
(Edited by Rich Engle on 10/19, 9:52am)




Post 139

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 10:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rich,  your funny benevolent  humor is unic!
Bravo! Ciro




Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]