Free Capitalist

Warning: There are spoilers about this movie in this post. But isn't that a bit like criticizing Thomas Crown for theft? Or The Night of January 16th characters for doing illegal activities? One of the things the movie Gattaca aimed to do was to dramatize the main hero's sense of life, rather than put up his actions for literal imitation. And in many ways society's cultural prohibition is just as bad as legal prohibition. So I really think that what Vincent did with the fraud was actually admirable (once we go beyond literal imitation), rather than a cause for concern. It's fun trying to convince a fan of a movie that the movie is even better than they originally thought .

Spoilers... Why was fraud improper, in the context of the movie?

I'm confused too. You (Alex) said, But isn't your entire argument about small particles of evidence being individually insignificant, but together adding up to one big proof, predicated on the idea that the certainty starts out as small and later grows into a true certainty with enough evidence?

Again, more spoilers: It does have serious undertones - the tranformation of Europe from hereditary feudal nobility to self-made men, for example. That theme was explicitly stated a few times, especially in the end when the epitome of a hereditary snobby knight is unhorsed by a self-made upstart, and as he's lying on the ground regaining awareness, he's gathered around by the common folk and told: "Welcome to the new world." There are other serious undertones, such as the girl's requirement for a sacrifice - this was the undertone that I didn't like. Etc, it's not a heavily philosophic movie, but not a silly meaningless one either. There's idealism and progress intervowen all throughout - principles of the Rennaissance that would succeed.

This has been a fascinating discussion. Alex, I think I do understand what you're trying to say, and I think the best way to resolve this is to take a look at two very important points Burgess and Betsy have said: there's an important difference between certainty and confidence. More than that, while certainty would be nice, confidence is usually good enough, for most bits of our knowledge. In order to flesh this out more, I'd like to bring in a second example, something that is directly relevant to all of our lives here: the study of Objectivism. Suppose a young person (a teenager) reads Atlas Shrugged for the first time, and is completely blown away by the conviction of the heroes, and the power of the ideas expressed and dramatized. This new spirit acquired from the book inspires the person so much that he now feels there can be no doubt about things like: reason is man's means of survival, and that capitalism is the only truly moral political system. Here's the question I'd like to pose to Alex: can it properly be said that this person is certain that those ideas are right, or merely that he is confident, which means there's a high degree of probability in his belief that the ideas are right, based on the implicit trust in the words of the heroes, and therefore by proxy, in Ayn Rand's character, honesty, rationality, etc. Keep in mind that my case is only about a young person, and moreover someone who has just read Atlas Shrugged for the first time. Wouldn't it be proper to say that, regardless of how secure this person feels about the truth of his convictions, he is not really certain because the ideas mentioned above are essentially inductive claims (the claim about capitalism is almost entirely inductive, as AR said on many occasion, "I wouldn't be able to formulate my philosophy before the Industrial Revolution"). Since they are inductive, therefore, it is impossible for our young person to be really certain about capitalism or about reason as an exclusively human means of survival (another inductive claim); in order to acquire certainty in these ideas, he will have to live and acquire experience, or in other words acquire the the inductive premises that lead to those conclusions. He literally cannot be certain about their truth; what he can be is: he can be confident that they are true, based on other factors such as: forcefulness with which the heroes express their convictions (i.e. therefore Ayn Rand's convictions); the way the plot is constructed that tells him that the author was no simple person; the newly vindicated sense of important values such as hero-worship, trodded down upon by society, but defended and matched by the book; etc. All these are small pieces of evidence, which alone do not raise the confidence by much, but when combined together raise it quite a bit. So much so that many young-uns feel like they have the new revealed word, that's how high their certainty (but actually merely confidence) is. However, given time, a person can be said to be certain (rather than confident) about this or that tenet of Objectivism: for the inductive claims, their truth can be proved through time and experience; the metaphysical (identity) claims can be validated by acceptance of logic as one's means of thinking; and the deductive claims can be proven by application of logic and extrapolation from inductive principles. --- To take all this a little further, here's an important and possibly contentious point: is it possible to say that a layman, after a long life, can be certain about every aspect of Objectivism? No, I think not. I think that only a professional philosopher can achieve complete certainty in this regard, due to the nature of his profession; while the rest of us can achieve certainty about some tenets, we will simply have to be satisfied with high probability in others (since our time will not be spent validating every tenet but pursuing other values and other professions). This relationship between certainty and confidence seems just fine, however, because we can tie all this together to the original premise at the top: while certainty would be nice, high degree of probability (confidence) can usually be good enough. And that, I think, is how Alex's objection can be answered: merely a confidence in most of our ideas is not necessarily problematic and degrading. I don't feel bad that I cannot 100% prove the heliocentric theory. I'm damn confident about it, and I have many small bits of evidence that all add up to this high degree of confidence: first off there are the things you mentioned, but then there are other things like my trust in the character of Copernicus who proposed the idea, my trust in the character of Stephen Speicher who is a professional in the field and still supports its essential principles (due to whatever scientific proofs he has, which are beyond me and which I do not require). Et cetera. As a layman in physics and celestial mechanics, this is all I need.

Warning: There are spoilers about this movie in this post. I saw this movie when I was younger, and I really liked it, except for one thing that always bugged me: why did the girl want him to lose, to prove her love? I guess some arguments could be made in favor of her demand, but I was never able to get over it; this was always something that was deeply disconcerning for me. I saw it very recently and still liked it (except for that one little thing), though I wasn't obsessed as much as before; so I guess it's one of those movies that strike a chord with you when you're younger, and younger people (teenagers) will probably find a lot in this movie to like.

There's no altruism in this movie, only protecting one's values.

I'd like to raise a possible issue of policy that might be good to implement in the future. I recommend that it becomes customary to attach the date in which a movie was made, to every new movie thread that is created. I think it would add a ton of convenience, on many different levels: - sometimes I see a movie title that I've never heard of before (Cinema Paradiso, for example), and it would be nice to know whether it's just some recent good movie that I missed out on, or an oldie that I should consider taking a look at. - if all movie threads had dates in them, it would make it a lot easier to compare and contrast the various movies recommended, and see various patterns (i.e. whether most movies recommended are oldies or from the more recent (post 80s) times. That new ability would some interesting implications. - if a movie is suggested for Review, and there either already exists, or will eventually come out, a movie under the same title, having the old thread "dated" would make it easier to identify and distinguish the two movies. This point is only valid if we assume that editing of old posts by the moderators, to "add in" dates for old movies, is out of the question. This begs asking whether such possibility is wholly out of consideration, and whether it could be done for the older movies. --- As a tangental, but more fundamental, aside, I'd also like to raise the following issue: In addition to what I've said above, I would also recommend adding more features, such as possibly separating the date into its own category, and us being able to sort movies by date. I don't know whether our software allows this, but the general pattern I see is that the Ratings forum could, in time, become a veritable database of hundreds upon hundreds of movies, dates, ratings. It started as just a fun thing on the side but already seems to begin being overburdened by an overabundance of content and no easy way to manage it. I can only imagine what it will look like with hundreds of listings and many "thread pages" through which a user will have to click and read the titles of each thread to find his movie. After all, they're not even alphabetized! It's one of those things that work when they're small, but will require some management overhead (Sorry Stephen ) in order to grow into something wonderful.

Is this, then, the way to reconcile the three natural rights with "The Bill of Rights"?

But how will you know if people vote Just kidding, I'm glad new votes won't show up as new posts, as it will make checking the forum for updates a lot eaiser.

Right, Friday and Crusoe still have their rights without a full fledged government, but they need the latter if they want to secure those rights in the best manner possible. With only two people, as opposed to a real population, the idea of government may be a bit too much; however, since you posed a hypothetical question, I'll stand by my hypothetical answer .

Bryan, Yep, Greco-Roman gods were essentially larger-than-life men. Many of those mortals who achieved status of heroes through morals and actions even became gods themselves after death: Hercules was one such example of course, and there were many others. One myth I just read about recently was of Asclepius - he was a mortal man who achieved an extraordinary level of skill in medicine and healing, improving his knowledge and ability to such an extent that he was eventually curing death! Hades, god of the Underworld, became very frustrated by the fact that his kingdom was not as popular as before, so he complained to Zeus. Upon hearing this from his brother, Zeus promptly smote Asclepius dead with his lightningbolt, but later repented and not only brought him back to life but gave him immortality and brought him up to Olympus as the god of Healing to the worshipping pleasure of all. Oh, and by the way, how did the god Asclepius heal those who prayed for his intervention? Through surgery. Even Hippocrates of Cos, the father of scientific medicine, established his school under the patronage of Asclepius.I'd like to know exactly what virtues I have to practice in order to ascend to the rank equal to the Christian God. However, since he isn't exactly famous for being a moral person, it will probably have to do with something else instead - something simple... like learning phrases such as "Hocus pocus" and "My will be done".

Yep that works!

Seeing as how rights are derived from human nature, in every situation where you have to deal with the human nature other than your own, the context of rights applies. The only issue where "organized society" comes up is that the latter is designed to protect the rights in the best manner possible.

I'm sure; there has to be a way to modify the IPB default skin.

"enshrining morality" I think you meant "enshrining mediocrity".

I think what matters is how much the actor's character in a movie (or show) differs from the actor's actual real-life personality. For example, I recently watched "Alfie" with Jude Law playing a playboy; one of his 'conquests' was Sarandon playing as a very loose older woman with unhinged morality and a penchant to show as much of her skin as she could get away with. Maybe to her it was a dare to the audience that though she was old she could still go at it with the young women, but to me, all I could say about her character of loose depravity was: "It figures". Very similar thing happened in "Meet the Fockers", where Dustin Hoffman and Barbara Streisand played completely lunatic leftie treehuggers. It just made sense! At the same time, though Russell Crowe was upset about our war in Iraq, this does not affect my evaluation of his manly "Gladiator" role, which I find as enjoyable as ever (primarily, as I say, because the character was so different from the real person).

As Stephen said, the importance of the questions you suggest is completely "in the eye of the beholder". With that said, you make a good point that there are certain questions that can make a person think and come to an answer in a healthy an inductive way. The best way to put forth such questions, however, is to become oneself an expert, and pose them to newcomers at opportune moments, just as Betsy has done with her Ethical Dilemmas, etc.

Splitting the discussion from the Moral Dilemma #2 thread... I was the first one to raise the issue, writing, This is an important issue that needs to be addressed. Moral vs Practical is a false dichotomy, in a specific context. The Moral deals with what is proper action to a life of human being, and the Practical deals with what the proper means are in achieving an end. One of the big dilemmas in ethics has always been the question of whether one should follow practical precepts, expediency and such, at the cost of moral concerns, or whether one should follow moral concerns and let one's life suffer from lack of practical action to achieve one's goals. One of AR's great contributions to Ethics was the recognition that it is a false dichotomy, and that if the diagram relating the two is properly drawn, the "Practical" area will always be subsumed by the "Moral" area. What is moral, if morality is properly defined, can never conflict with the practical concerns of living one's life; morality, in short, is pro-life, and never hinders life qua man (though it may, I suppose interfere with life qua living entity, because sometimes we will choose to die in order to follow some moral precept). In any case, this is the context in which it was said that there's no conflict between Moral and Practical. However, this does not mean that the two concepts are equivalent, and that we should never ask ourselves what is practical to do without being worried whether it is moral or not. All sphere of human action is moral, except for a subset of actions which violate man's nature, and are therefore immoral. Thus the sphere of moral action, i.e. the sum total of all the actions we can perform that will not violate our nature, is enormous. From this very beginning it becomes evident that this entire sum total of all proper actions cannot be practical at the same time. The question of Practical deals with the goal (end) that we set before ourselves, and the means we employ to pursue it. Our goals often conflict (I want the dust off my computer, but I'm late for an appointment - to clean or to go?), and so do our means (in respect to cleaning, should I clean now, and sort the pile of books on my computer that obstruct my goal of cleanliness, or should I clean later when my new bookshelf arrives and I'll be able to shelve the books properly?). Both of the goals are moral - to go to an appointment or stay and clean, and both of the means necessary to achieve one of the goals are moral - to clean now and sort less well, or clean later and sort better. Despite the fact that all of these goals involved are moral, and all of the means involved are moral, they are not all practical at the same time. At one point I may choose to go to the appointment because I don't want the person to think I'm irresponsible. At another point I may choose to skip the appointment because I've been fed up with the dust on the computer, and that's more important to me at that particular time. This last point is crucial - the hierarchy of values is always changing and shifting, and the relative importance of values to one another is ever in flux. Yesteday it was more important to me to go, and today it is more important for me to stay and clean. Morality remains fixed, but the practical concerns within the moral sphere keep changing. So yesterday it was moral for me to go to the appointment, and today it is moral for me not to go to the appointment but clean. The point is, then, that Morality alone cannot tell us everything we need to know about how to live, and this is why the issue of Practical exists at all. It is a capacity to choose between conflicting goals and conflicting means to achieve those goals. Therefore, even though it's true that the entire sphere of Practical action fits within the sphere of Moral action, that does not mean that we shouldn't concern ourselves with choosing the proper means, once their morality has been established. Even within the sphere of Moral action there are conflicts, choices, decisions. Not all of moral actions can be done at the same time, and the quality of practicality is the one which chooses between them. Now, it's true that all human action has morality at its most fundamental level. But that does not mean that every act is necessarily a moral dilemma, something that we should think about in moral terms. We do many things that we don't even question the moral status of, and instead assume the affirmative and proceed to employ our practical faculty to choose what to do at any one time. I don't question myself whether it's moral for me to be typing on this keyboard right now. Ok it's late and I am getting sleepy, but I don't question myself whether it is moral for me to yawn. I could ask those things, because each thing I do is necessarily guided by some moral principle (whether right or wrong), but I don't have to. I'm only going to explicitly consider the morality of the big things in life, the big issues, and assume that everyday minutae activities are just fine, and proceed to only consider the questions of expediency. (It's not just me, but everyone does this too, in exactly the same way, even people who disagree with my argument.) It is in this context that I originally considered whether it would be practical for me to clean the hypothetical dust off my computer, without concerning myself with whether it is moral. And it is in this context that I think that Betsy's diagram is true, and very important.

I'd love to hear the "Founders" review. I already have the Classicism in America book, and I know it's invaluable for understanding the mindset that built the American Republic.

Maybe we could also have something like "Frequently Asked Questions about Objectivism".

Actually I think that, for many of those who just start with Oism, the philosophy itself is one of such things too. They desperately want to believe that it's true, but they don't have yet a firm and confident grasp of it to really know. It's a very vulnerable state. I think we first acquire all important and valuable ideas because we need them, and later find justification for them if they're true. Just look at AR who in her early years was beset from everyone about the evils of selfishness, but couldn't defend herself against them. Then she came to America, a land of selfishness, and here everyone continued telling her basically the same thing! It must have been incredibly vulnerable to cling onto the belief that this wasn't the end, that there was more, something everyone gave up and which she had to rediscover. For those early years - when she didn't have her philosophy formulated, was continually beset by whole culture out to convince her to give it up, and still clung on - that must have been a very vulnerable time.

A professor stood before his philosophy class and had some items in front of him. When the class began, wordlessly, he picked up a very large and empty mayonnaise jar and proceeded to fill it with golf balls. He then asked the students if the jar was full. They agreed that it was. So the professor then picked up a box of pebbles and poured them into the jar. He shook the jar lightly. The pebbles rolled into the open areas between the golf balls. He then asked the students again if the jar was full. They agreed it was. The professor next picked up a box of sand and poured it into the jar. Of course, the sand filled up everything else. He asked once more if the jar was full. The students responded with a unanimous "yes." The professor then produced two cups of coffee and poured the entire contents into the jar, effectively filling the empty space between the sand. The students laughed. "Now," said the professor, as the laughter subsided, " I want you to recognize that this jar represents your life. The golf balls are the important things-your family, your children, your health, your friends, and your favorite passions-things that if everything else was lost and only they remained, your life would still be full! The pebbles are the other things that matter like your job, your house, and your car. The sand is everything else-the small stuff in life. "If you put the sand into the jar first," he continued, "there is no room for the pebbles or the golf balls. The same goes for life! If you spend all your time and energy on the small things, you will never have room for the things that are important to you. Pay attention to the things that are critical to your happiness. Play with your children. Take time to get medical checkups. Take your partner out to dinner. There will always be time to clean the house and do other things. Take care of the golf balls first, the things that really matter. Set your priorities. The rest is just sand." One of the students raised her hand and inquired what the coffee represented. The professor smiled. "I'm glad you asked. It just goes to show you that no matter how full your life may seem, there's always room for a couple of cups of coffee with a friend."

My philosophy classes were nothing like this either. This is just a short story that circulates around the Web, but I thought it was very poignant in many ways other than the 'feel good' effect it was intended to convey. This is what philosophy classes can and ought to be like, some day.

CF, I don't think you understand. The Objectivist Ethics says that every man can be morally evaluated, because every choice he makes is guided by some moral principle or other, even if it is itself a rejection of moral principles. I did not refer you to VoS and OPAR out of callousness, but because I truly think you have a serious misunderstanding of at least this aspect of Objectivist Ethics.In a regular, non-emergency and non-force, situation there can be no "neither" in moral evaluation. Now, if this is an established principle, as it ought to be, then you cannot avoid evaluating those experts on Objectivism who can lecture both of us on the philosophy and yet are completely impractical and unsuccessful in life. You have to evaluate them as either moral or immoral. What will it be?