RoR: Forum

RoR Leader: Setzer Watch

Post 21

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 10:59am

Wow! My very own Interest Group and you as my lead groupie? Super!

This gives new meaning to the phrase, "There is no such thing as bad publicity."

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 7/25, 10:59am)

Post 22

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 11:15am

Now get back to work. Chapter six� Virtues: The Ultimate Value Meal.

Post 23

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 11:30am

While Jon's humorous jibes about McDonald's and Objectivism do make my mouth water, they also remind me to invite people to browse the real book in progress at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VisionDrivenLife/

Thanks, Jon! I might get myself a delicious Premium Grilled Chicken Club Sandwich tonight. Mmmmmmm!

Post 24

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 2:53pm

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Setzer/Learning_Lessons_from_McDonalds.shtml

Post 25

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 5:05pm

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 7/25, 6:55pm)

Post 26

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 8:58pm

Jon, I do not share your vehement revulsion of Luke. Question: Does that make me immoral, too?

I said that Nathan wasn't "merely" a troll (and shouldn't be thought of in that way). Luke said that Nathan's vice outweighed his virtue -- and, I can envision a sense in which this proposition about Nathan is true.

While he worked "from" a position, or base, of rationality -- some of the things that he championed (ie. epistemic uncertainty and animal rights) ARE antithetical to Objectivism. Can you see that part of his life-work?

Ed

Post 27

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 9:19pm

Ed,

Can I see that part? You want to know if I can see it?

It is nice that you have nice things to say about Luke. There will come a day for all of that that you can pull out. And you can count on me refraining, on that day, from saying that �News of his departure from this life brings me no pain��

Can you see what would be wrong with my failing to so refrain? If not, then yes, I would say that�s immoral.

Post 28

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 1:14am

Jon,

===============
It is nice that you have nice things to say about Luke.
===============

Now, how come I'm not sure that you mean that, Jon?

===============
And you can count on me refraining, on that day, from saying that �News of his departure from this life brings me no pain��
===============

Now you're getting mushy on me (instead of rational).

Jon, I expected better of you. There is a respect for the dead and a respect for the truth -- and I'm not sure that you're not mixing them up here.

Ed

Post 29

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 2:02am

We can never harm a dead man, but we must respect his wills.
Nathan's wills were good.
CD

Post 30

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 7:46am

OK, Ed. You consider refraining from pissing on a man�s grave in front of his mourners to be �mushy, instead of rational.� You have every right to your position; I will not try to talk you out of it. You know what I think of it.

You think such may be justified where the deceased did things like entertaining limits to certainty or arguing for animal rights. Are you finished? Now can we leave the thread to its intended purpose?

Post 31

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 8:55am

Sometimes Nathan's means more than a dog........

Post 32

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 9:05am

Jon,

Finished.

Ed

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 8:49pm

Luke Setzer wrote:
"... the man had more vices than virtues. "

How do you enumerate them? How do you evaluate them?

What were his virtues?
What were his vices?
How many points of what weight was each worth?

Death is the great leveler. Some people pass on and the world is better for it. For others, the passing is a loss, to some, if not for all. Whose life is changed for the early demise of Evariste Galois? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89variste_Galois)

That Nathan Hawking did not improve my life is as much my responsibility as his. As an objectivist, he came to discussions with a set of rational assumptions from which he reasoned and tested assertions -- not his own -- in search for the truth. Yet our memories of him have less to do with the specifics of his claims. If Ed Thompson were to admit that dolphins are rational and gorillas are cognitive, it would not change our memories of Nathan Hawking. Those are personal.

Post 34

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 9:59pm

I liked the guy and even if you didn't like the style with which he posted on SOLO, he set up his own high quality website where he was offering high quality and bothering no one. Bravo, Nathan Hawking!

Jim

Post 35

Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 7:20am

Thanks, Aaron, for letting us know that Nathan Hawking has died.

One good thing about the written word is that it allows minds to meet even after the death of the writer. Here are some good ideas I see recorded here by Nathan Hawking:

I cannot think of any way you could demonstrate an omniscience about philosophy even if it were true. Even something as elementary and thoroughly considered for (two thousand years) as Euclidean geometry can turn out to have undiscovered axioms.

Why would we imagine philosophy to be any different?

Nothing I know about reality or philosophy proves that any system of philosophical thought is demonstrably complete or flawless, or that humans are demonstrably able to reason in any more than trivial ways without the possibility of error.

People, well-meaning people, can and will make mistakes of all sorts, including errors in philosophical thinking.

Post 36

Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 8:38pm

Luke Setzer wrote,

I do not attend the funerals of people I disliked in life, thus making the question irrelevant to me.

For the record, I did not like Nathan Hawking. I considered him a malefactor. His departure from this forum a year ago brought me great pleasure. News of his departure from this life brings me no pain and no cause to shed tears.

Some people will now accuse me of an "ick" factor or "Objectivist Rage" or "poor taste" or worse. Nevertheless, I see no value in paying phony lip service nor of letting unearned praise go uncontested. Based on my assessment of his conduct here, the man had more vices than virtues. I remember him that way. He will RIP as all of us will eventually.

I cannot comment on Nathan's character or ideas, since I did not read him enough to form an opinion, although if the above quotation by Stephen Boydstun is any indication, I probably would not have thought too highly of him. Nevertheless, Luke has taken a lot of flake for the above remarks, so I have a question: Is the flak directed against his negative opinion of Nathan or against his refusal to eulogize him, given that opinion? If the latter, then I see nothing wrong with Luke's attitude. Why honor someone in death whom you did not honor in life?

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 7/27, 8:44pm)

Post 37

Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 9:22pm

Bill,

Wouldn�t refusal to eulogize look like keeping one�s mouth shut? That�s not what Luke did. Think it over a little more.

Post 38

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 2:36am

Any news announcement posted here invites comments and comments to comments, positive or negative. A funeral invitation presumes that only loved ones will attend and eulogize. One cannot the same about a news announcement on a Web site dedicated to the power of objectivity in ideas and the evaluation of moral character. Thus, an announcement here about the loss of life of a particular person differentiates from a funeral and invites both praise and condemnation of the character of that person.

I have no doubt that a news announcement here about the death of Fidel Castro would bring all manners of celebratory comments. I do not mean to categorize Hawking with Castro, but this example does show that a news announcement about a particular death invites comments other than eulogies.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 7/28, 2:38am)

Post 39

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 4:55am