Free Capitalist

Ok sorry about that, being a little hasty because I'm in a rush: the diagram, drawn properly: <--------Practical actions-----------> ..<--Moral actions--> ||-----------------------|----------------|

Er, careless phrasing on my part, of course all practical matters subsume being moral, but not all practical matters require you to actively think in moral terms. I know that cleaning the dust off the top of the computer is moral, but I'm not faced with that question every time I consider the action. The moral status of the action is kind of in the background, already assumed to be affirmative. So, to draw a diagram of what I mean using trusty ASCII: ..........Practical actions............ ...Moral actions... || | |

Right, of course all moral actions subsume being practical, but not all practical actions subsume being moral, in that there are things outside of questions of morality that still involve matters of practicality. For example, if the top of my computer is dusty, the question may appear to be, whether I should clean the dust off or not. Of course it's moral, but it may not be practical to clean it right now, if there's a pile of things on top of it to be sorted; or it may be practical now because it will allow me a chance to get to sorting those things. Etc. The issue of morality lies at the foundation, and once that's resolved there are other things built on top of it, which we may or may not do according to other considerations. So my question to your point of view was, do you believe that the matter of morality is at stake here, that lying as such, when force is not involved, would be immoral? I ask for this essentialization because Alex seems to be assuming that lying can still be moral without force involved, and he's just trying to argue that it may accomplish some results that avoiding the question will not. It may be that you guys are approaching this subject from different and not entirely compatible levels, which is why I raised my question to both of you.

Wow, the discussion certainly exploded. I too first thought the question was rather trivial, but this latest aspect brings up something to consider. The arguments you guys (Alex/Stephen) have been using are at the same time very concrete, and head-spin-able (yes I just made that up). I'd like to try and bring it out of the most concrete level and reach some essentialization here. Alex, when you say that lying is sometimes advisable, do you argue for its moral status, or do you assume that it's moral and merely argue whether it is practical or not. Stephen, the same question applies to your point of view. The question here is: are we discussing an ethical problem, wherein, if Stephen proves his case, all lying outside of situations of force should be considered immoral? Or do we assume that lying can be moral sometimes, even without any force in the context, but that it does not achieve the results we intend, i.e. is not practical?

Cool. Learn something new every day.

The child may first identify fire as friendly, and something to stick his finger into. But that doesn't mean that it is. Chronology is irrelevant, as Stephen said, what's relevant is the essence of something as identified by a fully developed conceptual consciousness.

Oops, multiple typos: literailly = literally bod = body

The acting was outstanding, in fact so much so that it conveyed the movie's malevolent theme to its utmost. I left the movie theater literailly shaking and not sure whether I was in control of my bod at all. It's both an incredible and a terrible movie at once. I gave it a 5.

In addition to what "piz" had said, I'd like to add that the original movie was malevolent. Crown himself seemed really cynical and bitter about the world, which is why he did what he did. Brosnan's Crown is nothing of the sort, he doesn't live his life moved by bitterness, but because regular activities of regular folks are not enough for his heightened sense of joy. Instead of bitterness, it is the pursuit of joy that moves him. So, like "piz" said, it is an extremely benevolent movie, and also one where no one loses what properly should not be theirs. And those who do lose something, lose it because they never deserved it in the first place (I'm not divulging whether the movie dealt with this in the material or the romantic sphere, people will have to find out themselves). It's a poignant theme, just from these two aspects alone.

Yes but you do realize that Jefferson was referring to the Deist god, not the Christian god, right? Christians like to blur the difference today and make it seem as if the differences between Deism and Chrisianity are minor, and are merely hair-splitting, but they once called Jefferson an atheist for this very same belief. More specifically in the election of 1800, there was little more common than an accusation that Jefferson was an atheist because he rejected the Christian god. They prosecuted him in the court of public opinion then, but call him a Christian now. How's that for intellectual honesty?In short, the best way to answer such accusations as you've shown requires a solid possession of the facts of history. I don't have all the facts yet, but I know where to look when I will want to learn them, and hopefully I've helped you with knowing where to look as well.

I think what you might find helpful is quotes by the Founding Fathers calling Christianity absurd and a curse upon mankind. Thomas Jefferson does this, Madison too I think. Thomas Paine wrote a whole book about how evil and absurd Christianity is. The Tripoly treaty signed during Adams' administration explicitly says that "we are not a nation of Christians". Etc.

The way I understand it, you cannot patent the Human Genome, for example, but you can copyright the book that discusses it. That's a subtle difference, but an important one.

Well, putting aside the degrees of a particular univeristy, who obviously can do whatever they want, should there properly exist a BS in philosophy, at least on the undergraduate level? I mean I double-majored in Computer Science and Philosophy, and only needed eight philosophy classes to get the BA. The first three or four of these were very general, like having to do with logic or introducing the major philosophers in history, so I couldn't imagine properly specializing in just one area of philosophy during the remaining classes. That's why it seems like a general degree in philosophy is all that the undergraduate level can offer. Besides, an emphasis on philosophy of science does not make one a scientist, i.e. I've never seen philosophy classes that required attendance at biology or physics lectures or labs. So even if specializing, how could you be a bachelor of science in philosophy on par with people who are constantly engaged in experiments, inductive reasoning, and practice the scientific method every day?

Accusing you of having "faith" in the existence of electrons is a fallacy of equivocation. "Faith" has now become a catch-all word, meaning trust, hope, and a belief in something without having a reason to. All of these three things are mushed together as if they were one and the same thing, which they aren't. The word originally meant only the latter "belief" part, but now has grown to mean much more. So you have to ask yourself, do you have trust in the scientists' word that there are electron, and do you have reasons for your trust? If yes, you don't have faith, you have a rational trust. Or maybe you just take scientists at their word, even though maybe in your experience they've always been wrong in the past (hypothetical example). If that's the case, then believing them would be an act of faith.

I've found the second book you reference after writing my post. They seem to have overlapping subjects, but the Culture of Classicism book goes into the 19th century and discusses Classical education there, the shift from Rome to Greece in popular imagination, the rejection of Classical ideals during the Civil War era, a new acceptance of them by the Victorians, etc. The Founders and the Classics has much smaller scope, and seems to get into its subject in much greater detail, from the little that I saw on Amazon.

How can you be a bachelor of science in philosophy?

Sorry, that should say, "cornered by a lack of choice in women"

I recommended this movie because I like it for three very important reasons. 1) It is a story of a man from the Victorian Era. He is born into hereditary nobility (Duke of Albany) but is miserable in his place in life, because he feels himself more comfortable with the inventors and bridge builders that single-handedly erect monumental creations such as the first suspension bridge in history, the Brooklyn Bridge. He says in the movie with envy that these men are "the new nobility", men who have a more rightful claim to honor than men in his circle, and he secretly desires to earn his place among them, rather than remain with the old traditions of his circle. From this old nobility which despises the new technology and the new spirit, he hides his own potential claim to the true royalty - his invention of the elevator. Stifled professionally and forced to attend parties for a living, the man is also miserable in his personal life, cornered by a lack of in women; surrounded by overbred daughters of barons, he is unable to find a woman worthy of his self-confidence and inventive spirit, a woman with a strength to match his own. 2) It is a story where ethics play a central role in the plot. The match for himself that our Duke finds is a modern woman, from modern-day New York, a very strong, goal-oriented woman who feels she must succeed - whatever the cost. Epitomizing the modern cynical mindset of achievement, she is so devoted to her professional goals that she is all too willing to sacrifice her values of what's right for them. Morals are a luxury she cynically feels she cannot afford in the modern fast-paced world of business. This tension - between a man strongly devoted to his Victorian morals but stifled creatively, and a modern woman rising high up in the business world but cynical about moral concerns - constitutes the central conflict of the movie, and does not disappoint in resolution. 3) The third important aspect of the movie is the portrayal of the Victorian/Gilded Age culture, that era in history when the old traditions of the West slowly faded, and the new industrial and inventive spirit was born. The most remarkable thing about this movie is how differently it portrays that Victorian time period; far from rehashing modern condescending stereotypes of Victorian effeteness and irrelevance to the modern age, it shows the time period for what it was: the crossroads of the old America adamantly clinging to morality and honor, and the new America overtaken by the creative and the inventive spirit that characterized the Gilded Age. While the old America was about to go, and the new one was just coming into being, for that one brief generation both of them were united, resulting in a time of prosperity unlike any other. --- The Victorian hero is portrayed as an intensely admirable man, a "man's man" in many ways: thin, taut, strong, assertive, playful, and even the modern cynical high-achiever woman is portrayed with compassion. There are no losers in this film, I highly recommend it. I gave it a 9.

In my opinion, this movie has both strong up sides, and strong downsides. The primary downside is that it is a malevolent movie, and in some scenes highly disturbing. The primary upsides are that it's a very intelligent and intellectual movie, and also it's a good character study of a smart intellectual with some seriously wrong ideas (i.e. the character "David Gale"). So, if you need some inspiration then stay away from this movie, but if you are in a strong mood and like some intellectual stimulation, this might be a movie to consider. I voted a 6.

Be concrete enough to give them a general idea but vague enough to conceal the aspects you don't want them to know.

Yep, but a much better one in every way. I'll write more soon on why I recommended it.

Oh, and I forgot to add that awesome comment Stephen once wrote at OO.net. This one guy was pestering him about Physics, being rude, and vain about the height of his own knowledge in the subject, when Stephen just came out with it: (Note: I make no claims about Stephen's own views on this thread. I am merely using his phrase to illustrate my point, no one else's.)

Here's what Aristotle had to say on the subject:

I'd also like to recommend this delightful movie for review. I'll write more on why I like it, if it ever makes it into the reviews section. (yikes, too many "it"s)

I'd like to suggest this movie for review - the 1999 version in particular. The 1960s original with Steve McQueen was a lot worse.