Make text bigger  Make text smaller  Toggle background color  Bookmark/Share

Volition & Determinism (Show 082)

Last week on Show 081 Mosley and Arthur began to discuss their views on the nature of volition. Arthur presented a perspective, as he cautioned, that may not be in complete coherence with the Objectivist position. Dr. Paul Hsieh, of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM) and the NoodleFood blog, wrote us an email that offers his views from an Objectivist perspective and indicates where he differs with Arthur. After review, Arthur still maintains his position, but believes that Paul brings up several important points which he proceeds to discuss.

Topics include: TalkObjectivism blog and content; upcoming Objectivist events (see post below for more information); Paul’s email; choice and being able to do otherwise; the introspective evidence for volition; development of life compared to development of volition; volition and deliberation; determinism as an excuse; “could have done otherwise” as shorthand; determinism as necessary for understanding; genetic influences on behavior; what is under volitional control; sexual attractions; can choices be foreseen; volition and animals; consciousness as an action process; emotions; and much more.


Debate Presented by LOGIC: “Universal Health Care: The Cure or the Disease?”

LOGIC, the UCLA Objectivist Club, is hosting an informal debate on universal health care between Professor Mark Kleiman (UCLA Department of Public Policy) and Dr. Peter LePort, M.D. (Ayn Rand Institute Board of Directors):

Universal Health Care: The Cure or the Disease?
Thursday, October 30
7:00pm – 9:00pm
UCLA Campus: Moore 100

Health care has been an important issue in politics, especially in the last several years. Amidst much specific policy analysis and political quibbling over superficial issues, the fundamentals have been ignored: What are the underlying philosophic and economic considerations? Is universal health care moral? Does it achieve its stated goal? Is there an ethical and practical alternative?

Come hear Professor Mark Kleiman and Dr. Peter LePort answer your questions about the issue of universal health care.

7:00pm: Brief Position Statements
7:30pm: Q&A

Official Event Page:
http://www.clublogic.org/events/display.php?id=131

For more information, please email info@ClubLogic.org

We hope that you can attend!


Voting For The Lesser of Two Evils…

Hello there to all the long time listeners and readers. My name is Michael Lenahan. I am a new and first time contributer to the site. I was asked by my friend Brandon if I would like to submit articles for this site. Turns out I would. I have an interest in writing, particularly essays and fantasy fiction, along with philosophy. I got into Ayn Rand around Christmas three years back after I read Atlas Shrugged for a school project. I plan to contribute articles to this site, including editorials such as this, book reviews, and shorter more current pieces. The following piece is a reproduction of the draft of an editorial I submitted to the campus paper regarding the upcoming election. I hope you all enjoy.

=====

Fall is here, and it is a very special fall at that. As election year drifts closer and closer, more and more discussions drift towards the bent of politics. When people ask who I plan to vote for I joking reply “John Galt, write-in candidate for president.” The one other person in the room who has read Atlas Shrugged invariably finds this hilarious.

The shame is that as the days go by it becomes less and less of a joke.

As this is politics, I have been asked to stress that this is my opinion. I don’t like the term opinion as it has the connotation of being whim centered and baseless. I would more like to say that these are my attempts at logical observation. I am “calling it like I see it,” as it were, but I am not perfect, nor am I a professional politician/philosopher/rhetorician, so my word is not law nor is it meant to be taken as such. I shall try to be as fair and logical as I can in my evaluations though.

What is my political affiliation? Objectivist. To put it plainly, I am in search of a candidate who will protect my rights, but who will not violate them. I am looking for a government who will stay out of both church and economics, a secular and free society. That is what I think is not only right, bur moral as well. I feel that no man has a right to another man’s life. Plain and simple. It is from this principle that I derive my politics. Who fills these lofty principles though? So far, I am left wanting.

Let us first start with McCain. McCain is often touted as a Maverick, a free spirt, and a wild card. He is famous for surviving his imprisonment as a POW in Vietnam. The video on his website speaks to me by appealing to my free-market inclinations. The question is, how much of this is McCain, and how much of it is the party line?

“I want to assure you I will make this planet clean … we will hand to you a cleaner planet than the one you were living in before I became president of the United States, I promise you that.” McCain is quoted on the news website www.boston.com. How will he make this planet cleaner, though? By passing laws restricting businesses. How will he enforce these laws? Why, with your tax money. Its not hyperbole, its common sense. Projects such as saving the environment cost money, and the only way for the president to get money is via the backs of the populace in taxes. He will also no doubt “clean up the environment,” which, in recent years, means passing laws taking freedoms from business owners and stripping away the technological achievements, such as with “minimized emissions” and a “Cap and trade” system. If McCain seeks to “clean up the environment,” he cannot truly do so in a manner that is in any way conducive to freedom.

There is also the issue of Palin. Her pro-life stance is well known. While I might have voted for McCain at one point, Palin very well might be the deal-breaker. By picking such an anti-abortion and pro-Christian figure, Palin is a clear signal from McCain that he is willing to appeal to the anti-secularists who have been clamoring for control of the government. This is not a good thing.

Moving on, there is Obama. I, at one point, supported Obama. It was short lived. Obama’s health-care plan will be a disaster. Socializing medicine is a bad idea. Socializing anything is a bad idea. Seems that this is a lesson that was not learned last century. It is wrong and not the place of government to redistribute wealth in the form of free health care, nor is it the right of government to dictate the daily lives of its citizens. Both of which it will do should a socialized system be instituted. At what point is it o.k. for the government to take one man’s money by force to heal another’s child? Theft is theft, no matter who it was stolen for.
Obama is also breaking the long tradition of the secular of the left. This is most likely made is parrot the success of Bush and his crusades though, and not the core of his values.

Then there is also the issue of the war. Obama is against, and McCain for. I am against, but for different reasons than Obama. I question though McCain’s commitment to attacking Iran, or his competence to do so. He is famous for being captured, after all. I also doubt the wisdom of walking away from the Middle East. Those there who wish us destroyed will do so, at any cost. They have demonstrated this. I am unsure though, of the validity of attempting to attack Iran. The war is an important issue, perhaps the most important, but I feel I cannot make a comment on it at this time.

After all of that, who will I vote for? At the moment I lean towards Obama. Voting for Obama shows that I will not stand for the de-secularization that Palin represents, or the false friend of capitalism that is McCain. This is not voting for though. It is voting against. This is what distresses me most of all though. Someone put it to me very poignantly; There are three hundred million people in this nation, and my only choice is between the lesser of two evils?

A choice between evil and evil is not a choice at all.

=====

For more discussions of the 2008 election, feel free to check out past shows:
Politics & Culture (Show 079): Show Notes, mp3 Download, iTunes Link
The Coming Election (Show 049): Show Notes, mp3 Download, iTunes Link

Also:
Leonard Peikoff’s Podcast – Episode 33: mp3 Download, iTunes Link
Craig Biddle’s Article “McBama vs. America”
Diana Hsieh’s 2008 Voting Recommendations post on NoodleFood


Judgment, Free Will & Consciousness (Show 081)

Show 081 consists of a fantastic discussion among Mosley, Arthur, and the chat room participants regarding the nature of judgment, free will, and consciousness. After a brief recap and a few clarifying examples of applied judgment, the topic moves on to the relevant issue of free will. This then develops into a very interesting discussion on the nature of consciousness.

Topics include: follow-up on Pittsburgh smoking ban; review of judgment; examples of applied judgment; what free will is; the primary choice as the choice to focus or not; focus vs. being aware; determinism; policeman thought experiment; consciousness reduced to material processes as non-problematic; suspending judgment because of determinist view as erroneous; nature of consciousness; searching for causes of behavior; materialism; causality; and much more.

There was not enough time to discuss all the questions and so some of these issues will be discussed next week. If you have any questions and comments, feel free to post them here or join us next week!

Here are some relevant links to the Ayn Rand Lexicon on moral judgment, justice, free will, consciousness, the soul-body dichotomy, and causality.


Changing the Culture; Saving America

The following is a message relayed for Jason Crawford:

=====

Fellow Objectivists:

In case you haven’t already seen it, I wanted to let you know that the three-lecture series “Cultural Movements: Creating Change” is available for free on the Ayn Rand Institute’s web site. These are the lectures given by Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate at this summer’s OCON. They are near the top of this page:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=participate_arc_activism

In my opinion, every Objectivist should hear these lectures.

If you haven’t already heard the lectures, I highly recommend that you watch the videos online. If you have, I suggest that you spread the word among Objectivists you know.

To summarize their importance in my own words: For decades, the repeated theme in the Objectivist movement has been that we must concentrate on influencing academic philosophy in university departments. Now, Drs. Brook and Ghate are saying that it is time for the movement to branch out: that we need intellectual, cultural, and in some cases even political activism in every area, every subject, every industry, every pursuit. Academia is no longer hostile territory for Objectivism, and the culture at large has been softened to our message. It is no longer too early to begin the wider Objectivist Revolution–it has, in fact, already begun–and if we don’t act soon, it may be too late, as religion and environmentalism eat away at the American sense of life.

ARI can’t lead the entire effort–your help is needed. Successes such as Lin Zinser’s group Foundation for Individual Rights in Medicine
(FIRM) or John Allison’s efforts as head of BB&T Bank show us it can be done.

Many OCON attendees, myself included, found the lectures inspiring and motivating. I hope you will too.

Regards,
Jason Crawford


Follow Us!

twitter facebook