I very much enjoyed Nathaniel's books when I was a young man.

re 73:

1.  You regurgitate your previous comments ignoring and evading your errors.  What "aptitude for the humanities" really means is someone who has no aptitude for anything else.  The critical reasoning skill of engineers is higher than most if not all the academic disciplines, most especially 'the humanities'.  But, how could you know that?

2.  I state facts, you state insults.  Theoretical physicists receive Nobel prizes for physics sometimes in their twenties.  Name a Nobel prize winner in the humanities less than 50 if you can.  You know nothing of what I've read.

3.  Your "critical thought of the day" is another evasion and insult.  I conclude your only interest in "political action" is more of the same obfuscation and avoidance of clear thinking.  Again, typical of your lack of growth.  You come here to lecture, you appear incapable of learning though there are several people here you could learn a great deal from if you didn't have a closed mind.  What are you afraid of?  Or are you here for nefarious purposes?

4.  A glaring error and very telling.  The primarily rote learning phase of humans should be over well before ten years old, the young human should be learning and practicing critical reasoning skills by then.  Did you somehow miss this step?  Never too late to start.  Well, maybe in your case...

Matthews wrote:

Wolfer assumes a world in which, because everyone agrees on the role of government, no force would be needed.

False. I assume that if everyone agreed on the role of government, note that 'if,' then things would be much, much better. But force would still be needed because of two things: people would come along who disagreed with that, and people would still have honest disagreements requiring civil courts to use force in resolving the disagreement.  Matthews must not agree that the purpose of government is to protect individual rights - by force where needed.

But the important thing here is that I project an ideal based upon clear, rational principles, and suggest that we work towards that end. I'm concerned with defining the ideal because it makes more accuracy possible in judging the path to take, but my key focus is the direction. Without that ideal, there is no clear direction. Until you know where you want to go, its going to be hard to decide how to get there.

------------

Matthews then goes on to deride the very concept of principles. Gee, that'd make it easy for an environment where elites just told us what to do, wouldn't it? Without principles, how'd anyone ever object with any more effectiveness than just voicing a whine?

-------------

Therefore, to speak of 'free-association > non-coercion' is a targeted ideal upon which we can all agree, yet understand that,in reality, it will never be met.

This is such a paper-thin excuse for an argument - its really all fallacy. "Hey, let's give up all freedom since even though we agree that it would be an ideal state, it will never totally exist in reality." Unbelievable that anyone over the age of 10 would buy into that. Let me lay this out so that anyone, perhaps other than Matthews, can grasp it. Free association is a property that one might observe in any given interaction between humans. It is also the short-hand description of a princple for the proper interaction between humans. So, at this point we should be able to say that if you and some other person interact, it would be better if it was free, rather than forced. This is the method of applying the principle and it isnt required that it be followed perfectly in all cases for all time as a condition of being the better form of interaction.

----------------

These 'axiomitized principles' lead to such profundities as boldly stating that if we only were to privitize streets (fat chance!), then the owners of said streets would make a far, far more reasonable decision as to how fast people might drive.

Well, actually, the number of privatized street and roads have been rapidly increasing over recent years. For example, the little communities next to where I live are "gated communities" and own their own roads (and they set the speed limits and pay for re-paving). And, just a short time ago I drove on a privately owned freeway in Southern California. Many states have been selling hiways to private companies to raise revenues, and because the private firms do a better and cheaper job of running them.  Some states are opening up "Express lanes" where they wave some rules in exchange for payment of the use of these faster lanes. And, no surprise to real libertarians, and certainly not to Objectivists, the costs of privately run throughfares are lower, the user satisfaction is higher, and the rules regarding usage are accepted as being less authoritarian and better suited to the consumers.

----------------

Therefore, my own opinion as to the retardedness of Objectivism sits directly upon the shoulders of its most fissile adherents who, despite protests to the contrary, demonstrate neither understanding nor even familiarity with philosophy that's not pre-labeled as 'Rand'.

If only your opinion counted for something. I don't think it does around here any more and it is because you only attack, you aren't honest about your beliefs, your arguments are crap, and we don't worship the academic name-dropping that you expect to cause people to fawn over your precosious achievements that amount to nothing more than reguritating the nonsense you've been taught.

From Ethics (http://www.aynrand.org):

"Reason is man's only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: man's survival qua man—i.e., that which is required by man's nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute). Rationality is man's basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life." Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism—the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.

Eva does not accept this for herself.  So...  pretty much any part of philosophy which branches under Ethics we'd disagree with her on.  That includes esthetics and particularly politics.  Over and over you guys are falling back to this premise (such as Fred's "forced association")... but since Eva doesn't accept this for herself, she is not satisfied with your argument.  Eva has fundamentally conflicting moral judgements of "good" and "bad" than us.  She is outraged by our seeming to her unjustified "name calling" by us targeted at socialists, progressives, keynesians, etc for the same reason.

Furthermore, Eva fails to even acknowledge that if you accept such a premise then such conclusions are consistent.  So forever we are unsatisfied with her subjectivism and lack of acknowledgement of our valid arguments (given our moral premises).

On the other hand, on topics of "what is" and "how to learn", Eva's posts might have more chances of agreement or at least coming to an acknowledged understanding.

====

Might I point out that the core of being a libertarian is the acceptance of capitalism/"natural rights"/non-initiation of force (NIOF) principal.  Eva is not a libertarian.

(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 2/16, 2:17pm)

re 83 'aptitude and critical skills':

'Aptitude is a test that assumes to predict success whin a given endeavor. Some children test high in verbal, others in math--some both, some, neither.

It goes without saying that those testing high in math skills would make good engineers. For this reason, engineers are rightfully considered to be 'smart'. This is because those who hold jobs requiring intellectual skills have to be smart by definition.

But it's absolutely useless to assume that the critical skills of high-verbal-analytical-aptitude lawyers and doctors are lower than that of those who work in numbers.

What we can easily say, however, is that even demonstrated 'aptitude' in either verbal or math only confers upon the holder a competitive advantage in terms of learning the specifics of a field.

In other words, one is said to have developed 'critical skills' to the extent that he/she demonstrates on the job competence in professions that require critical thought.

What's important is that any profession must be learned form the inside--which is precisely what I'm doing in psychology. For example, although I can easily explain to mom the math as to how heuristics bend a Bernoullli linear function, or how to bootstrap Baysean factors into learninfg data, I'm not yet a psychologist. 

Engineers who therefore assume that they just 'know' philosophy without having taken the effort to read anything but Rand are seriously in error. This is precisely what I see here.

The rub, moreover, is my own personal project to somehow integrate Rand back into the canon. Now I've already mentioned the hostility of academia, but also that I've thankfully been able to use Long, Peikhoff, and Machan as resources. (And yes, btw, Luke, Branden's psychology.). On line discussion would be helpful, but the normal give- and -take of academia that's requisite to hammering out salient points of interest, is totally lacking.

Again, the reason is that I seem to be dealing with  a bunch of engineers who, despite their obvious intelligence, have not taken the effort to come to terms with the fact that 99% of philosophy is 'academic'.

Perhaps, for the sake of argument, one can say that engineers are attracted to Rand because she does offer absolutist principles and axioms. In other words, she makes philosophy sound like a science, hence 'objectivist'.

So perhaps the famous 'critical skills' that at least one individual boasts of possessing can be used to obtain more than a cracker-box level deduction.

What's annoying to many, therefore, is to discover that philosophy doesn't mean 'belief' gussied up in philosophica-sounding lingo. Rather, it means criticism of beliefs, pure and simple, which refers. back to the Socratic 'all I know is that i don't know anything'.

Ths ostensibly stands in contrast to science, which claims to know 'something' is a certain sort of way. This means that philosophy's critical skills might not be for everyone. which is fine. Just don't pretend otherwise.

EM

...the fact that 99% of philosophy is 'academic'.

Matthews only understands philosophy from the current, academic philosophical culture's point of view.  Historically that is just a blip on the screen. Philosophy used to be the exposition of beliefs in a form that could be read or taught by and to intelligent lay people.  It wasn't the in-bred revision of philosophy that exists now.  The older form of philosophy had been around since nearly as along as history has been recorded and it has just recently been transformed as a way to destroy the very nature of philosophy.

Philosophy was a collection of disciplines that included metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, and aesthetics.  It was system building.  It was about integrating knowledge.  

This has been trashed by many modern 'philosophers' some of who say there is no knowledge, or there is no system, or there is no moral or ethical knowledge to be acquired, or that there are absolutely no absolutes.  Today, analytic philosophy attempts to make philosophy about critical thinking in an area that can have no principles beyond logic.  They 'do' philosophy but there is no real philosophy as in the traditional sense of an integrated system of knowledge of what exists, how do we know it, what is of value, and what is the purpose of government.  These are the required foundation for us to flourish as individuals and a society.

As an aside, there are a great many people in the different universities that are doing good work in nearly every field, but to talk abut that fact would be to ignore the terrible trend we see in the academy where so much 'knowledge' is being subverted from attempts to grasp the true nature of the world, to lies, half-truths, and propaganda.

When you spend a lot of time 'reading philosophy' (not the philosophers, but the professors, and not really 'reading' but listening) in today's university you are coached in philosophy-speak and that is one of the great distinctions that academia uses to attempt to discredit anyone who disagrees with their positions - they shoot them down for not using philosophy-speak as if that excludes their ideas from  considerations.  They build great confusion wrapped in obscure lingo and peppered with quotes as the way to drown out any intelligent argument.

Matthews wrote:

For example, I just discovered that Branden broke with Rand over the issue of 'the ethics of selfishness'. Well, no, says he as a phychologist. The human need for compassion and giving is real...or 'objective..so to speak. Selfishness by any name is unhealthy.

It is hard to make heads or tails out what she is saying.  I, and I suspect, almost every other person at this site knows in great detail why they broke apart - and it wasn't over an issue of the ethics of selfishness.  

We don't know what Matthews is talking about when she says "Well, no, says he as a phychologist(sp)."  I assume she is talking about Branden since he is a psychologist and is part of the subject of the preceeding sentence, but then the sentence makes no sense.  I've known Branden since before he and Rand broke up, and worked with him extensively in the 90's.  He would agree that there is objective basis for compassion and for giving (but he was not as quick to call things "needs" as most other theorists), but he would quickly point that selfishness is healthy - not unhealthy.  That paragraph, without further information as to what she meant, is just gibberish.

---------------------

As to her history of philosophy, that's the standard academic explanation.  "Things are more complex now," they say, "and the old ways of talking about philosophy are out of date."  And now the great unwashed and uneducated will have to leave it to the elites to say what to believe.  Those who are terrified of leaving academia's womb are, not surprisingly, also terrified of moral absolutes, and even of the concept of a moral principle.

'Such as...Thales' is generic, as is, 'for example'. But you know that.

My high school into textbook of 'ancient greek, 'Athenaze, Book 1 ch 5 cites 'gignos--' as 'to learn', to become familair with.

Techne--, to my knowledge, is not cited asa verb.

We do not know if Plato did science or not because his writings are not about nature as such. We do know that he founded a school, was involved in mystics, and travelled a lot to consult (ie Syracuse).

My 'seamless whole' comment re editing of Aristotle clearly indicates his involvement in science, but you know that, too.

I'm not interested in Rand's and Branden's 'biography. Rather, trying to make some sense out of his dime-store, middlebrow 'psychology' (un-certified for years in California), I would gander that he was hostile to the notion of 'virtue of selfishness because, as a reading in progress, his notion of self esteem involves caring for others.

In any case, unresearched psycho-notions that lack data are nothing but null-hypotheses musings that may or may not sell well to a gullible public. Not surprisingly, these people hang well with Wolfer...

EM

I'm not interested in Rand's and Branden's 'biography. Rather, trying to make some sense out of his dime-store, middlebrow 'psychology' (un-certified for years in California), I would gander that he was hostile to the notion of 'virtue of selfishness because, as a reading in progress, his notion of self esteem involves caring for others.

The twenty year old who hopes one day to be a psychologist calls Branden names and claims he practiced without a license.  If I were him, I'd sue.  But then what would he get... her allowance.  No, he was never hostile to the notion of 'virtue of selfishness' and her grasp of Branden's work is... well, it isn't.  She's as clueless as a bubble gum chewing valley-girl who stays up late at night trying to think of hurtful things to say.

EM:

The human need for compassion and giving is real...or 'objective..so to speak. Selfishness by any name is unhealthy.

The human need for compassion and giving is real and only possible under a paradigm of free association; under coercion, it is neither compassion nor giving. it is paternalism and taking.  And worse; given the plain to see scorecard for fifty years of Great Societty, the crippling enabler of endemic dependency and chronic inability.   Apparently, the human dignitiy of earning has been supplanted by the paternalistic imposition of chronic dependency.    How many more generations get lost before backing out of this cul de sac?  A rhetorical question; the pain is being borne largely by those who advocate for it.   Not my problem, I am not one of the perps.   I might live in a cul de sac, but I am not trapped in it.

Selfishness, as in,  my worldview uber alles, even if necesarry at the point of a gun, is not only unhelathy, but the filler of Gulags, lime filled trenches, and uread history books.   I have no selfish concern that un-named folks follow my worldview-- they are free to embrace thiers, and more power to them.

Self-interest is the desire not to actively support a world governed by rapists.   Satisfaction is succeeding at it.    (If this is a negotiation, then too late.)

When it comes to what I earned in excess of my needs, and what causes I give to, and how much I should give, please, stay up late at the dorm, form a committee, let me know who and where and how much I should have been giving to all this time, and then submit it the Lit Department; I'll roll the clock back 30 years and wait for your answer.     I hope there is a sauna at the re-education camp; I love saunas.

No, seriously-- I will really do that.  That is all going to happen in our 'negotiation.'  .  Just like I did 30 years ago, when I rolled the clock ahead 30 years and saw you tools of tools of tools coming.   My 30 year rollbaxk is preecisely balanced by my 30 yr roll ahead, so all is well.

Fred

.