Free Capitalist

ABB, please try to avoid creating threads in ALL CAPITALS in the future. Thanks

Ok oops, I checked the box for Email Notifications, but told it not to send any email notifications to me. Now looking back at the settings I saw the fineprint, that even if no email was sent to me, the fact that the checkbox was checked meant that I was automatically subscribed to the thread I was replying to. So I unchecked that. Thanks.

Whenever I do a "Fast Reply", one of the checkboxes that show up is called something like, "Email me notification of replies to my post". This checkbox is always checked, which means that I am automatically "subscribed" to the thread every time I FastReply to it (unless I remember to check the box off). Can you make it the other way around, so that only those who need the email notification get it? I've been wondering why my mailbox has already received numerous such notifications. P.S. Email notification is automatically off for the regular Reply.

Stephen, as I was writing my post in the "Ask the Experts" subforum, this time in the full-fledged regular Reply mode, the "email notification" was on by default. Just fyi, something to look into once you've got some free time Oh, I just noticed that it's also on by default in this subforum too.

Sarah, Referring to your list of "yachts, planes, and bridges" - well the latter is architecture itself! And why yachts or planes, or cars, cannot be classified as art, here's my take: Take something like a beautiful sleek car, or an awesome sleek profile of an airplane - beauty in these entities is a function of their intended use. The airplane is beautiful only insofar as it is sleek and projects awesome capacity to perform its function. If the airplane's shape is angular and has many lines and corners (as opposed to soft curves), you would think it was ugly. The only exception to that is if the airplane was a jet fighter, in which case the strict lines and corners would be beautiful because the airplane would project power and assertiveness against bad guys - which again shows that its beauty is merely a function of its intented use. For something like a bridge, or a house, you can beautify without affecting its intended use at all. The beauty and the use of the house are much more independent and almost irrelevant to each other. Just by looking at Fallingwater you don't know immediately if it's an awesomely comfortable house to live in. That's my take - architecuture has an independent side of beauty, whereas beauty in vehicles is necessarily a function of their use, and is therefore kind of 'automatic'. An angular airplane will necessarily look ugly, unless it's a jet fighter in which case it will look good. Etc.

I loved it too. When first going to see it, I was apprehensive that it would be a mediocre compromise against the opera voices in the musical. However, it was silly of me to worry, because Emmy Rossum is an opera singer in training, and she does acting on the side for now ( ); Patrick Wilson (Raoul) is a major Broadway star and when the role calls for some tremendous singing he can always hold his own even against Emmy's powerful voice; Gerard Butler completely does not disappoint, though he is not a singer by training, and you wouldn't know that just by watching the movie because he combines a sort of passionate, raspy voice with some tremendously strong clear high notes when a song calls for it. So not only was I completely unfounded in my apprehensions, I went to watch the movie a second time! And not only that, I liked it so much even after the second showing that I had to buy the soundtrack! It's a treat, definitely the best movie of 2004 for me too, so I voted a 9.

It's one of those things that seem trivial upon first glance, and I too thought the difference was negligible when trying both kinds of reply. However, over time I've found myself using the Fast Reply more and more, just because it's so fast and convenient (you make your reply in the same window as the rest of the thread, etc). Nowadays I only revert to the regular Reply if I absolutely have to, or if I have a long post. In those cases when I realize my post will not be as short as I thought, I just click "More Options" and whatever I've written so far gets transferred over into the regular Reply window, where I continue. If you want, try it out for a few days, and use only that feature to reply to posts. You'll see that somehow it grows on you, and becomes very convenient. The actual difference in speed is small, but what's more important is how we perceive the fact; and in my mind the FastReply is combined with words like "instantaneous", "responsive", etc. And it lets you reply in the same thread, nor alters how the thread looks, whereas the regular Reply makes you go to a new page, where the replies are sorted opposite, and in general look quite different.

It's fast I don't have to wait for a whole new reply window to load up. For example I'm typing this in a Fast Reply box right now, because I know that all I intend to say here is just a short comment, and that I am not going to use any BB Code.

My computer has a different policy. I don't "limit" cookies to expire, but whenever I visit a new site, I have my computer ask me whether I want to accept cookies from them or not. My policy for most sites is to reject all of their cookies automatically, but for sites like this one I have it automatically accept them. That policy is saved for each site, and I don't have to worry about it every time I go there after that. And my cookies, for the "approved" websites, are stored for as long as that website wants them to be.

Steve, I am not as knowledgeable in the subject you ask about as I one day hope to be, but maybe I can provide something that will help you. Currently I am reading a book called, The Culture of Classicism: Ancient Greece and Rome in American Intellecual Life, 1780-1910; it appears to be a book of exceedingly patient scholarship, going back to the source documents and making conclusions based on evidence like: university transcripts, course offerings, memorials of professors, journals and reflections of the students, etc. The book appears to be entirely based on the primary documents of the Revolutionary and 19th century eras. One of the purposes of this book is to research in great detail the extent to which American intellectual life was influenced by the Classical tradition (both its own, and that of Europe). One of the conclusions is that this influence made a great difference, and maybe even all of the difference; practically everything was discussed in terms of ancient heroes and ancient republics, and much of the discussion focused on ancient histories and descriptions of ancient constitutions. Based upon the evidence I mentioned above, the book concludes that Latin was the dominant language studied during the Revolutionary era, with some Greek and Hebrew here and there. College curricula were dominated by Latin classes, and many a student whined about little other than having to memorize Latin declensions, verb and noun endings, etc. The education in Revolutionary America (both before, during, and immediately after the Revolution) seems to be exclusively focused on the study of the Classics - first the language, and then the books and civilization. Now, as I said, at this point in American intellectual history, the book says that Rome was the dominant object of study and emulation. The intellectuals appear to have vigorously admired the Roman constitution and the moral/civic fabric of her citizens, and at the same time scornfully pointed out the inconstancy of the Greek republics, and the instability of their constitutions. Democracy in the Revolutionary period was directly and literally linked to the history of Ancient Greece, and was therefore a kind of four letter word, where political discussions were concerned. So, the question of "democracy or republic" in Revolutionary America seems to be framed solely in terms of "a Greek-type constitution, or a Roman-type constitution". The debate seems to have been entirely framed in terms of Classical cultures (probably because the rest of history was ruled by kings and tyrants). It is only in the antebellum America that Rome receded into the background and Americans began to study and admire Greece, and its institutions, a lot more. It is indeed only from the 19th century that Americans have allowed themselves to call their country a democracy, for the Founding Fathers would have abhorred such a description. If you're looking for more information, you might want to check out the book I mentioned above, and supplement it with biographies of the individual Founding Fathers, and the letters of correspondence they exchanged with people in their circle. When reading the biographies written by modern writers, however, you should be careful; they carelessly ignore the extent to which Classical thinking dominated the Founders' views, and gloss over crucial, but to them unimportant facts. You have to read very carefully to find even just a mention of the fact that George Washington consciously modeled himself after his heroes, Titus Cincinnatus, and Marcus Cato the Younger, and that the strategy he adopted for the Revolutionary War was directly modeled after the strategy of the Roman consul Quintus Fabius Maximus (which is why we say today that Washington was a Fabian general).

Er, I meant Internet Explorer or Firefox.

You might want to look into how your cookies are set up, as Stephen said. What seems to be happening is that your computer times out your cookies and does not store them across browser sessions. You might want to switch browsers... to Internet Explorer or Mozilla.

Dominique, I did not mean at all to imply that reading AR at the age of 19 is almost too late for everyone; I'm was only referring solely to the context of my own life. Everyone's different. For example, I know a woman who's discovered Objectivism in her 40s, and she's doing great.

I'd like to introduce myself in an official way. Some of you have already seen me post elsewhere, and although you might have found out some things about me from the content of my posts, I have not previously written about myself, for a variety of reasons. Having become a moderator on this forum earlier today, I think now's a good time to remedy my lack of proper introduction - so that those who have never seen me before can know who I am, and what I'm all about, and those who already have seen me before can get more of a complete picture. Currently, I am a graduate student in Computer Science; although my family lives in New York City, I spend most of the year living 4 hours north from it, attending Binghamton University. I am 23, and have been studying Objectivism for five years. Upon entering college as a wittle freshman, I was dearly searching for scholarships to fund my education, and came upon the Atlas Shrugged contest in one of the scholarship books. Back in those days the AS contest deadline was in January, so when I got the book at the end of November, I was kind of rushing through it. Needless to say I didn't "get" it too much, but it left a footprint in my mind for next year. Next year I decided to start the 'research' earlier, and was able to actually devote time to reading and absorbing the ideas. The beginning of the book was interesting and inspiring, but still within the realm of the ordinary works of literature. The pivotal moment came soon thereafter, and I remember it very clearly: Francisco was crashing the party with his Money Speech, which I couldn't help but read in a single metaphorical breath. The sense of release kept mounting as he continued, and eventually became unbearable - I just laughed out loud, right in the middle of the speech. I knew nothing would be the same after that, and to this day, of all Ayn Rand characters that I've read, Francisco remains my most enduring hero, and the one I try most to model myself after. Since then I've found more heroes, from other sources, to admire and take for role models, but Francisco has endured, matching the best of them. I'm sure you'll all appreciate the fact that, unlike the beginning of this post, the rest of the story can be counted by years, not seconds. When I found Atlas Shrugged at 19, I was almost too late, with my childhood optimism nearly succumbing to the cynicism of the world. And so, despite having learned about the way out of the labyrinth, my eyes were still not very used to the function of perception, and therefore bumps into walls inevitably followed, on my way out. Some not so painful, some very much so. The years kept marching on, with all the regular mistakes made by beginners - taking the books too literally and attempting to mimic the minutae of AR's characters; reading the non-fiction books and believing myself to be a master of that section of her philosophy; after having finished AR's major works, sighing that I had just exhausted all the good books that the world had to offer to me and being concerned with having to settle for mediocre books and art for the rest of my life; being depressed for many months after reading the "biographies"; trying to understand and choose in the conflict between TOC/ARI; being dogmatic and not integrated in my ways of thinking, etc. But it wasn't all hard struggle - the books continually served as inspiration and motivation. When I was down, there was always a reliable method for me to recapture solace for my mind - I would sneak away into the university library, find a forgotten book section, settle deep into a comfy armchair, and read AR's journals for hours on end. That particular book was such a soothing tonic for me, that I often didn't hesitate to cut class. The choice was: attendance in class, or serenity and protection against the heavy and unwelcome thoughts and feelings; they were disturbing the precious serenity of the mind that I had once almost lost forever, and was now desperately struggling to recapture and hold on to. A mere academic class couldn't stand between me and this! I'm sure the professors would not officially approve the way in which I chose to recapture it, but would still secretly appreciate the intention and the (large) investment of time and effort I put into it. Thus, after four years of struggle and intense thinking and choosing and analyzing and introspecting, I've finally entered upon a stable plateau - i.e. becoming a person who has dealt with all of the major cognitive and moral issues from their past life, and acquiring the stability and serenity of the mind required for a happy and successful living. Then, I had a new epiphany. It started with me taking two classes during the Spring of my senior year as an undergraduate: the history of Ancient Rome, and a graduate course focused on close reading of Aristotle's Ethics and Politics. My professor for the Rome class was a great scholar, but also not any less cynical than others. His one great redeeming quality was that he had us read the original books of literature written by Greeks and Romans over two thousand years ago. It would be as impossible for me to sufficiently describe the effect these books have had on me, as it would be for any of you to explain the effect of Ayn Rand to someone who's never read her. The primary quality that so blew me away about them was a tremendous sense of the heroic, which pervaded every ancient text I've read that semester, being present strongest of all in the works of the great Greek historian Polybius (who, I should note, will be discussed by John Lewis in the upcoming OCON this summer). These texts had: at once a childlike innocence of those who look for truth and virtue in the world, and at the same time a very august self-confidence of men who commanded tremendous knowledge and wisdom about the nature of things and men; a deeply profound search for moral excellence and heroic men to admire, and at the same time such an inspiringly healthy and inductive approach to ideas, the likes of which I would be hard-pressed to find at any point in the two thousand years since then. So that was the class on Rome. And Aristotle... oh, don't get me started on Aristotle. If you find someone who can help you get through the clunky English translations of his ethics, and understand the deep intricacies between the lines, you will discover a treasure trove in many ways quite unlike Ayn Rand's. I was lucky enough that my University had one such person to help me with the understanding, a professor who was an Aristotle scholar in his own right, quietly existing amidst post-modernists of the worst kind. I emailed Alan Gotthelf, the Objectivist scholar on Aristotle, and he knew my professor by name, and confirmed the man was the 'safe', and at the same time a genuine Aristotle scholar; thus, it is primarily through the help of Dr. Gotthelf's help that I attended the class, and primarily through the professor's help that I discovered Aristotle all for myself. So I took these two classes last Spring, despite the fact that they were way out of my major and would not add an iota to my academic career. I've always been interested in trying out new things, and I'm glad that I am this way, because these two classes have blown me away, quite similarly to the way Ayn Rand has blown me away five years before. The Ayn Rand revolution was more fundamental in some ways, but in terms of impact on my optimism and benevolence and pursuit of healthy and successful life, the Classical revolution was just as dramatic, just as powerful, and just as important. You can gauge a little bit of the impact by the fact that, this Fall, as soon as I entered school as a graduate Computer Science student, I immediately decided to enroll in the class on the Ancient Greek language, despite the fact that it too has absolutely nothing to add to my academic career. Next Fall I'm taking Latin. So that's a little bit of what I have to say about myself. Please don't hesitate to ask me any questions. I hope I have explained why, on the one hand, my username is Free Capitalist, and at the same time why my avatar is a picture of an ancient Republican Roman soldier. When I will reconcile Objectivism and Classicism, and make a detailed study and scholarship of the latter a commonplace phenomenon amongst Objectivist intellectuals, I will consider that to be the crowning achievement of the first half of my life.

Nicolaus, what do you mean by saying "but has he lied to sensationalize the issue?" You're not referring to Dr. Ghate, are you?

Stephen: I suppose it's a kind of honor to be involved in the very first moral controversy on this brand new forum, , so I guess I'm just willing to agree to disagree by now. However, out of sheer curiosity, I'd like to ask a question about something. You said, "Improper" is a wider category, of which "immoral" is just a part. Loudly belching for example - moral, or immoral? Proper, or improper? Moral, but improper (in most situations). What principles, other than morality, are involved in proper action? - as I've been repeating, benevolence, manners, issues of honor, etc. These things are not trivial and insignificant; a good society cannot be established without them (belching is a small example, but actions like taking advantage of others' mistakes are closer to what I am wary about, even if they are 100% moral).So, would I condemn people who thrive on living off mistakes of others? Absolutely. But not on moral grounds.

Stephen, In that, very unlikely, case, keeping the very expensive mistake would be egregiously disagreeable, sort of like having an old grandma slip on the street and cry out to you for help, while you shrug at her and carelessly walk on by. It's a kind of thing that, and if my friend did it, I'd be on their case. But it's not theft, and you cannot/should not be liable to go to jail for it (since we're talking about rights here, the question of criminal prosecution is very much part of the question; this isn't only about moral or not, because other people are involved). Guilt arises from being very impolite and mean to someone, it is not exclusively an emotion caused by immoral action. It is caused by improper action, which is broader term. So I think what you're trying to say is, would I feel guilt from it, and, if my friend ignored the grandma's pleas, would I 'have a talk' with him? Yes, of course, I don't want to hang out with such miserable people, so I'd want to get to the bottom of things. However, would I, in full seriousness, call myself a jewel thief, and equate my act to a breaking into a vault and taking the jewel myself? When the company chose to send me this 'theft', and I had no complicity in their mistake? No. Similarly, would I call my friend a "grandma abuser", when she fell on her own account and he had no complicity in the action? No. He should have the proper manners to help her, but he doesn't have a moral obligation to do so. Likewise in the jewels example, in the cable company example, in the "getting four chicken nuggets despite paying for three" example, etc. CoireFox: Yes I do, it would be very nice of me to do so.

Whoops, turns out that "curmudgeon" has a somewhat different meaning than I expected. I was going more for a meaning like - avaricious, trying to snatch every little thing from everyone, and then attempting to justify it. That's definitely not my ideal here.

Nope. I should return the extra diamonds because I'm a nice guy and I want to live in a benevolent world (i.e. the issue of manners that I've been talking about), but if the company choses to send me more than I ordered, and I am not accomplice to their act, then I don't see why it would be immoral for me to keep them (in a situation when I'm completely bitter about the whole world, and don't feel like extending courtesy to anyone - a terrible position, but not an immoral one). Just like with the cable company example, maybe diamonds.com gave away 2 extra diamonds to their 1,000th customer, and their notification email got filtered out by my spam filter; or maybe the two diamonds they sent me were of cheaper quality, to reward me for buying that huge diamond ring and invite me to purchase again; etc. The reasons for why I got the extra value are many, and I'm not under moral imperative to get into the details. That's their business. My morality demands that I deal with everyone honestly, and never try to take what is not mine. If someone else chooses to give me more than I expected, that does not make it any less mine. I don't want to sound like a carmudgeon here, so I am trying to stress the importance of benevolence and good manners, because they have an important role in a good society; make no mistake, if a person loses money while I'm around, they will always get it (and have gotten it in the past). But speaking strictly in moral terms I just cannot find a problem with getting more than I paid for.

Typos, corrections in bold: They are different from a "rich uncle" in any essential way should be: They are not different from a "rich uncle" in any essential way But that period of time is not indefinite. should be: But that period of time is not infinite.

In order for the money to remain woman's, and immoral to acquire by someone else, she has to show intention of trying to find it(i.e. if you see her desperately searching for something on the ground). If she walks on by, oblivious, and keeps walking by without a concern, you can get the money because it can no longer be said that you are trying to deliberately trying to appropriate someone's value for your own. What if the woman is not seen anywhere and you chance upon the money, and don't even know if it is a man's or a woman's, but that it is someone's. Are you immoral for leaving it on the ground? Are you immoral for taking it for yourself? Of course not, in either case; and if the former case is morally allowed, as it must be, then why is the latter case forbidden?Obviously there's a period, right after the loss of the value (i.e. money in this case), when the person has full right to it, even if it drops to the ground. But that period of time is not indefinite. The point here is that, if you find a $100 bill and don't see anyone around you who might have lost it, or if you get an extra quarter in your change at the gas station, or if you get four chicken nuggets when having ordered three, there's nothing immoral about taking the value and making it your own. As long as you make no deliberate action to get in that situation, once you're in the situation you are free to act as you see fit, guided by manners, conscience, civic duty, etc.

Well, even muscles not under voluntary control can be trained, if they are muscles in the usual sense of biological cells expanding and contracting. "Training" of muscles occurs by tearing weak muscle cells and allowing stronger ones to regrow in their place, so if the muscles of the lens, that you mentioned, are in this category, then they can be trained and improved. And as for lack of volitional control in affecting thos emuscles, modern technology can take care of it. We can make a dead frog's leg contract, despite the fact that it's a dead frog's leg.

This is an intersting situation, and I have a two-pronged response to it. Strictly speaking the employee is a representative of the cable company, and therefore his word is tantamount to the word of the entire company; if the CEO made the same promise to you, and the same omission, there would be nothing different about that scenario. So, as others have been saying, there's no moral obligation on your part to object to receiving something valuable, which the other party is providing by omission. You paid your money, what they give you in return is their problem, as long as they give you at least what you paid for. However, this is a dilemma of sorts after all, because you are involved in a situation where the other party (i.e. the cable company in this case) is losing value without being compensated for it. It is no fault of yours, and more a fault of the company's technician than the company itself - assuming that the company is otherwise reliable and dependable. So, just as you wouldn't want your entire well-being to depend on the unlucky/random accidents and omissions of others, similarly when someone else becomes victim to such omissions, it's benevolent and well-mannered to inform them of this, even at some loss to you (because, after all manners are concerned primarily with projecting benevolence). Just like, if you see a woman dropping a $100 dollar bill on the street, if you catch her and return the money, you lose the $100 but gain well-being and benevolence, both from your action and the woman's gratitude. Thus, I believe that this situation is not a dilemma of morals, but a dilemma of manners. Morality has nothing at stake in dilemmas like this, but a benevolent society has everything at stake in dilemmas like this. So it is an important question, though perhaps not in the way it seems at first.

Right, that was my way to show that if there are 'movable' things within the eye, there have to be 'things that move them', i.e. muscles. And as such, they are not excluded from being trainable, at least upon initial glance.

If the muscles only move the eye itself, then what "moves" the iris to focus and unfocus?