Mindy Newton

I don't think I understand what the philosophical skepticism you refer to includes. Is it mainly the Kantian view, that we don't actually know the real world? That sort of thing? Mindy

It isn't quite that bad. As hells go, this one is liveable. Look back to how the average person lived in the Middle Ages. Look at how minority religious persons were treated in early America. WE HAVE THE INTERNET. Books changed the world, and the internet will change it in the same way, only more so. YOU have the internet. You can learn anything, and you can talk to anyone! One of the most encouraging things I've learned from my (sketchy) study of the history of philosophy is that where dogmatic systems of belief come up against each other, each loses its hold over the minds of the people. This has happened in trade centers throughout history. East meets west, and everybody starts living a secular lifestyle. Mysticism can't stand up to that, nor skepticism to the practical virtues of science and technology! The internet (global media of all sorts) will defeat dogmatism in every nook and cranny on earth, when people simply have available to them alternative ideas and the world-full of evidence that this treasure of technology allows. It is only a matter of time. Those of you who are pre-thirty, your future is going to be awesome. The world cannot return to the sort of tyrranical dominance pre-books held. Weave all the post-apocalyptic scenarios you want, knowledge for all is flooding the world. If I seem to be denying the reality or effects of volition, let me comment: individual choice will always be there to waste and destroy. But that the choices of some can rule and impoverish the lives of others is less and less workable as individuals everywhere learn about the wide world and how alternative systems work. As civilization matures, as science and technology grow, evil shrinks in potential. Evil always needs crutches, like ignorance and fear and dogma. Discoveries cannot be undone. Aristotle was lost, but only temporarily, note. China will never be the same. A man dragged into a tree by a python, in Kenya, saved himself by his cell-phone! Who needs burning bushes? The lid is off, possibilities abound, and nothing can change that. Cheer up, then. We've got it good. The real challenge facing us is whether we live up to the potential of our potential in the best, most advanced civilization ever to exist!

Right on the dot! My own personal efforts to improve my comprehension are, at present, measured against Windelband's great A History of Philosophy. "In all reflection, however, the essential thing is to discover the point of view that is determinative for the question, and then to apply this correctly to the subject." ( Vol. II, pg. 361 pb) "Natural science acquired its decisive influence upon the development of modern philosophy by first gaining its own independence with the aid of a conscious use of a scientific method, and then from this position being able to determine the general movement of thought as regards both form and content." (Vol. II, pg.378 pb) These are sentences I quickly pulled out. They are complicated in the best sense. They need to be this complicated because the thoughts they express are complicated. The moral being that only people who have such versatility with language have the ability to think at that level. There is a kind of blindness our subjective point of view tends to create for us, because each individual's present state of ability with language closely matches the depth of their thought. They don't experience a difficulty in writing or speaking their ideas, so they believe they have a sufficient mastery of the language. (Some people don't fit this.) It is chiefly when we read or listen to someone with markedly better language skill that our eyes are opened. In the current, dumbed-down culture, it is only extreme and selfish self-discipline that will keep a person working to achieve a high level of ability with langauge. We Objectivists have a heads-up on the relationship between language and thought, and the key significance of thought and reason to the success and quality of our own lives, so we're ahead of the game in that respect. In technical writing, there is a tendency to indefinite reference. That problem was handled very well in the patent example above.

This isn't a response to the preceding, but something I thought would be of interest here. Here is a perfectly grammatical and meaningful statement:" The apparatus includes a frame, a rotatable receiving means mounted on the frame, means for separating the bundles of sheets being received, and means for rotating the rotatable receiving means." (patent # 4,700,939 in case you want to check) That last, "means for rotating the rotatable receiving means," is a mouthful. This example of repeated uses, in close proximity, of the same term for different specific parts of a device illustrates the versatility of grammar. Here's a little test: how many different means are referred to in the sentence? Language is such an achievement! How few of us live up to it.

I didn't specify, and I don't, in fact, know what is the typical rule on that. I find there's a lot of induction in doing some kinds of puzzles. I once gave a boy-friend a bracelet with that engraved inside, the whole quote. ;-)

Bravo!!

Look at cases of severe epilepsy. Sometimes they remove half the brain these days!! Blame the people who abuse other people, but don't regulate guns because people get shot!!

What makes you think lobotomies are not still being performed? Now they call it neurosurgery. You're hung up on a name. Look past the Bela Lugosi associations. "Lobe" means part of the brain, "tom" means cut. Yes, they still cut parts of the brain. And it is a good thing! Mindy

Nice analysis! You know a lot about this stuff, obviously.

Lucky me, there's a Tea Party nearby. I am definitely going, rain or shine. Mindy

There is an attitude prevailing here, despite ewv's intelligent opposition to it, (bravo,) that accepts the premise of praising or condemning actual people depending on what some majority they statistically belong to is assumed to endorse. The "group-think" premise behind this is so contrary to Objectivism that I can't understand how it gets any acceptance here. More than one thread has taken the tact of damning or dismissing a segment of the population as corrupt or immoral due to the faults of some. What is the point? It is so clearly a racist syllogism, blame the jews, etc., that I am aghast at seeing it rise and arise again on an Objectivist forum. I don't understand the sympathy with the original question that gets people to offer any answer at all...can't we dismiss this group, can't we condemn this one...the glaring psychological motive aside, what is the point? If it were the ideas of one or another group, if the historical period were the tag that identified a cultural trend, that would be different...I just don't see what the point of this sort of question is. Anybody care to explain it to me? Thanks. Save me from forming my own, illustrative generalizations about the non-objective, etc. thought processes of various groups.

Bassoon, clarinet, the least bit of piano. I once set out to learn cello.

Why couldn't you have said so in the first place?

ewv is right, why don't you specify the value ratio of new to old customers' getting served within specific time parameters? Is this actually a narrative treatment of a data structures problem?

Sophia, I find I want to say, "yes!" to everything you post. What about running for president next time? Mindy

Bravo to that. Brava to you.

And when you speak of DID do you suppose you are in fact addressing the issue the thread set out to explore? Those opposed frames of mind, or the charmingly honest thief?

And I'm trying so hard to be "nice!" Let's see, group...ideas. Anybody see anything wrong with this? Like the fact that ideas belong to the individual? That it is the individual who has a mind? And therefore that membership in a group defined in any other way than by ideology has absolutely no significance regarding their beliefs? What worse thing is there? It completely de-humanizes the person. It negates their individuality. Slavery also does that, so it isn't worse, intellectually. Ditto for murder. You tell me, what worse thing is there? I know I'm new here, and don't know where the regulars are "coming from" (read that context) but did I take the wrong subway, or is this still Objectivism? Mindy Newton

I understand, Scott, but were those not some of your least confident diagnoses? And would you actually undertake to form any conclusions about a category of disorder based on the observations you have? Add to that the extremely confusing conceptual issues, issues the DSM is still struggling with, and the very loose way those concepts were introduced and applied here... Doesn't retreat (from that term) seem the better part of valor (in this discussion)? Mindy

la Zafada has a point! I didn't find it incomprehensible, but it took effort. Mindy

What worse intellectual fault could baby-boomers, or anybody else, commit than to condemn people because of the date of their birth? This is an example of that "short-cut" mentality I mentioned before.

When I see here--and it has appeared a couple of times--the formulation, "I think split personality is really, or is due to..." I wish I could convince the speaker to make sure they even believe that there is such a phenomenon as split personality. It is a very controversial subject. Spend ten minutes googling it. If there are, in fact, split personalities, it is a near certainty that none of us has ever encountered one. What legitimacy can our speculations about its causes or true nature have? Better to get clear on the sort of thing that we meet with, such as the honest-seeming thief, that poses a question, and then discuss those things in terms we are certain we know the meaning of. Call me a party-pooper, but there it is. Mindy

Can you be clear on what you mean by "fundamentally opposed frames of mind?" Perhaps some examples? Usually the phrase, "frame of mind" means an emotional state, perhaps a persisting attitude. Obviously, you intend something much more fundamental. Yet mere philosophical confusion cannot count as a psychological disease... Thanks for clarifying. Mindy

If I may be so bold, Henrick, I think you should give up on interpreting your own past experiences, and the actions of the people around you, in philosophical terms. I recommend you stop entirely from thinking about whether your teachers' actions were subjectivist or not, whether your parents held a duty-based point of view, and/or whether or not your emotions were, at some point in time, subjectivist, etc. Students who are told that it is their duty to study hard do not always drop out of high school. It isn't that simple. Half the world has parents whose approach to ethics may legitimately be classified as intrinsicism, so obviously that doesn't determine that the kids of such parents turn out well or troubled. The dynamics by which personality is built up cannot be mapped onto the abstractions that differentiate philosophical systems--or, at least, not without writing an encyclopedia-sized treatise. It is admirable that you make the effort to learn these difficult philosophical distinctions, but they are not the tools for introspecting your life, past or present. The most basic, purely descriptive account of how you felt, what you thought, how you acted, and what that brought about is where you should start your self-analysis. Don't be judgmental and don't get hung up on what others did or why. What you did, what your emotions were, what were the results of your own actions and behavior, and then what you thought and how you felt about that, etc. represent the data you must have access to if you are to work your way out of such long-standing and troubling problems as you are describing in your posts. It is difficult, and a long, often painful task. But it represents an heroic purpose, no doubt about that! Mindy

I agree with the substance of your post. Little ones must be physically interferred with a lot, and the older they get, the less we decide for them, but oversight is desirable at least until they are legally adults. The form in which we influence young people should change as their own knowledge and ability to judge matters changes. As much as possible, we supply the reasoning, the perspective, the consideration of long-range consequences, the looking at the other person's point of view, the costs as well as the benefits, etc. to them, and see if they don't make a good choice when their view is broadened in this way. I find that this works with kids, teens, and even with adults. Where it seems to fail is where the adult offering guidance isn't able to explain or to give valid reasons, and especially to translate their mature insight into facts the young person, sees as realistic, immediate, and relevant. Abstract lectures, however accurate, are a pain and a waste, as we all know. Some of the conflict of the adolescent years results from the unfortunate fact that the parent cannot explain their rules themselves, or that they have preferences about how their kids behave that aren't justifiable. Then authority gets a bad name, because kids, and teens especially, are able to recognize when we substitute authority for reason. This leads a young person into a battle between what is officially good and right, and himself. If he can't understand and agree, he really shouldn't go along with his parents and teachers, but the costs are great. Voila, adolescent rebellion. This sort of rebellion and the opposition it leads to in parent-teen relationships is not subjectivism, though authority figures might like to paint it as such. It is, in fact, a healthy egoism! I fervently believe that education builds or destroys the individual's mind by teaching, first, but incidently, that this individual's mind is capable. If parents, teachers, coaches, and everyone dealing with children and teens could follow the rule that anything and everything they do and say must convey, "You have your own, perfectly good mind," worlds of conflict and pain could be avoided! It is nothing more than respecting man's mind. Anyone who grows up knowing he has his own, working, reliable mind is going to make it in life. Mindy