TomR61

Maybe I'm one of the grouches , but to me what you've said here makes me think of the phrase "the blind leading the blind." I'm willing to put it down to a lack of knowledge on thier part. Perhaps they believe that the stream of help that the federal and state governments provide in education, medicinal care, grants, subsidies that support their hopes and dreams will last forever. After all, how bad could it be? I've got mine, jack. And there ain't no bread lines in my neighborhood. But you and I know better. We know that much of what they assume about the future is false, if we continue going in the direction we are going. We have some expectation that we, as Objectivists, might be able to turn the tide. Let us hope so.

My Dad, a statistician, was always fond oof pointing out hhhow easy iit is to lie with statistics. Thanks for the reminder.

I am thinking about the issue of begging the question. In the meantime, here is the problem I have with this portion of your post. The fact of the culture that I'm looking at is the war. In 2004 I voted for Bush on exactly the grounds you and Robert presented in TIA. Has the situation gotten better? No! Worse, both on the ground in Iraq and Iran and the Middle East in general and in terms of the philosophical foundations being used by the president and the administration to defend those actions. As I read the situation the defenses are already lowered about as far as they can go. There doesn't look like there is any real hope of anything but a diplmatic attempt with Iran, et al. Rumsfield is a shell of the man we saw at the beginning. Chaney is completely marginalized. How will voting Republican in the face of an ever lower resolve (everything is on the table according to Bush) help stave off a Muslim Theocracy over the long term? At this point, soley in terms of the war, it looks like a toss-up. Who are we going to elect in 2008 that would fight a real war? Who can we vote for this year that will support a real war? I see no one.

This is a good point. It doesn't entirely convince, however. Primarely, at fiirst blush, because I'm not sure whether "religion is a very important part of their lives" is what we're talking about. I wonder what the percantage would have been, had they been asked, who would have said that "the enlightenment thinkers are a very important part of my life." "Religion" means a great many different things to a great many people, as does "important part of my life." So, if we're talking about the possibility of a State whose laws reflect explicitely religious doctrine I'm not sure that a 55% majority in favor of electing lawmakers who agree with them cuts much mustard against such a prospect.

Thanks for the link. I just read it. Here's my thought (off the top). First I think the situation in 1961 in the US was considerably better "sense of life" wise than it is today. I think there were much more grounds for optimism with respect to "every religious person" and his ability to influence government action. That "little person" is now in the white house and openly and successfully religious. When "Under God" is used by George W. Bush, he means it, in a much more serious way than Eisenhower or Kennedy did. And the country is loving it from where I sit. Second, I think that whatever truth there is in the admonition against hysteria in that regard, there are equal grounds for warning against hysteria with regard to Islamic terrorists. If the US sense of life is proof against Christian Theocracy, it is equally proof against Islamic attack. In fact I am inclined to argue that an IF attack, being open, would be much more likely to be repelled than the ongoing subtle stealth attack by religion.

As I continue through this thread, I am becoming more convinced by Peikoff's argument as it is supported by DIM and Yaron Brook and Dr. Thompson. This statement is a good example of why. I didn't get the quote within the quote so a little context: The latter = a Christian Theocracy; the former = a few hits by Islamic Fundamentalists. Here's why I disagree: 1. There is the very practical matter of what would happen if we were attacked again. This is similar to the argument on the other side with reference to what would happen if anyone would openly propose a Christian Theocracy. The problem with that argument is that a Christian Theocracy can be established by stealth, through education in the principles (as in the "scientific" ID debate) whereas an attack by Islamists cannot be hidden. 2. At the beginning of the 20th century, if not before, socialist ideas were gradually put into law, not by an open declaration by the socialist party, but by the acceptance of the fundamental ideas by the voters and politicians who held them. Every attack by an armed foe failed; every attack by ideas succeeded. Continued attacks would, most surely, fail especially over the long term (heavens this foe is not even as strong as the USSR was). 3. Hitler was voted into power. This vote gave him the power to attack France and Poland and to attract allies. 4. I see no plausable way to project either a full out armed attack on the US by Islamic Fundamentalists or its success if it were made. Even if the Democrats controled the war effort. The attack on our ideas has already been made and essentially won by the altruist axis. As I have asked above, if altruism wins, how do we escape a Christian Theocracy?

Two questions: On what belief does the danger of Socialism rest in the US? I would argue religious belief. On what belief does the danger of altruism rest in the US? I would argue religious belief. Forget that there are athiestic Socialists, if socialism how do we escape religion? If altruism, how do we escape religion? And so on, around the circle of every issue that combines Attila and the Witch Doctor (and they all do -- see the DIM hypothesis where these two arhetypes are represented by 2 and 0 in metaphysics and I and S in epistemology.) While this does not settle the issue of the elections, I believe that it goes a long way to avoiding false alternatives.

I am still weighing the arguments. In reading through the posts, this sentence stopped me. My impression and a reading of Dr. Thompson's article have convinced me that the two are pretty much equal in the consistency with which they are compassionate (at least as a philosophical issue). So what politicians on the right do you have in mind that are cutting taxes and reforming welfare in any meaningful way? (By this I mean "not based on altruism but on individual rights") I think this question gets at the heart of the difference between Dr. Peikoff, et al, and Dr. Binswanger, et al. That difference amounts to the question: if altruism, how do we escape theocracy?

Oakes, I can see that you are still confused, and that we're not helping very much. Hitler and a "shady character" are clearly emergency contexts, but choosing a second partner is not. Is that what you are saying? I think you're right, and the justification for taking a second partner is not clear. Perhaps that's because no "rule" can be given for such a choice, but only a principle (I say "only" to differentiate it from "merely" while retaining the emotion that may accompany the lake of a definite rule to follow) The principle is clearly not "whatever feels good". Not is it "don't ever have a second partner." Let me take a stab at defining the principle: Taking a second partner is a rational choice, in the proper context of equal value, if all the parties involved are fully informed adults capable of reason and there is honestly no feeling of jealousy. This, I submit, would be very rare. Even Ayn Rand, if I understand her Journal Notes in Valliant's book, came to believe that her affair was a mistake. Does that help? Tom Rowland

I second the emotion!

Yes, Chris, I do teach. When I left Ohio to move here, I left behind a studio that at its peak had 50 students, who I taught every week. I don't record pianists. And I play for myself only, now, since I have a mild Parkinson's desease tremor and stiffness. And Favorites. Well, my tastes are pretty wide, tending to Classical (Bethoven to Mahler in varying degrees. The composers that touch my sense of life are Rachmaninoff, Chopin, and Liszt.) and Jazz (Swing and early bop, mostly). I like pop standards, some rock and some country as well. Think RAP isn't music and stands for Really Awful Poetry. How about you? Do you play an instrument? Do you have favorites? Tom Rowland

Hi, All My history with Objectivism goes back a long way to the day our drama teacher read the bicycle scene from The Fountainhead to our 7th grade class. Over the years since I've attended Live (NBI) and taped (NBI and ARI) series and individual lectures, summer seminars, founded the campus club at University of Maryland, and known a few of the people close to Ayn Rand at various times. My formal education includes study of Piano Performance, Theatre, and Philosophy at Juilliard, University of Pittsburgh, University of Maryland, Circle in the Square, and Ohio State. I have a BA in Philosophy (with Honors) from University of Maryland. I've done graduate work in Philosophy at Ohio State. Occupation: I own a piano studio in my home I'm married, at long last, to my High School sweetheart and soul mate, Julie Darrow. I'm looking forward to meeting you through your posts. Tom Rowland

Alex, You got it right! When I first signed up I thought I'd include Julie and me, but then I noticed that only one birthday was allowed. How confusing would that be? And I also thought that each of us could speak for him/herself this way. So I came back and signed up again. Julie will follow in due course, I'm sure. And, yes, some people do think we look like twins -- she being my soul mate, high school sweetheart who I rediscovered 42 years later. Tom

I, too couldn't get past the first 20 minutes, and so rated it -- taking the plunge -- 0. But Stephen, you've got me curious, so I think I'll give it another go. Tom