[75] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: LIVING WAGE SIT-IN AT HARVARD (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sourav K. Mandal)
Fri Apr 20 02:30:05 2001
Message-Id: <200104200629.CAA15818@dichotomy.dyn.dhs.org>
From: "Sourav K. Mandal" <Sourav.Mandal@ikaran.com>
Reply-To: "Sourav K. Mandal" <Sourav.Mandal@ikaran.com>
To: mit-talk@mit.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 02:29:29 -0400
Digest format:
**********************
""Prez H. Cannady" <revprez@MIT.EDU>" wrote:
> I've yet to claim reality is
> anything more than a wide agreement on what is.
In the late 15th century the wide agreement was that the Earth is flat
-- is that reality?
> >Anyway, this metaphysics is not tautologous, but axiomatic, in the
> >development of Objectivism.
>
> You flaunt it as an axiom, but then go around defining the
> parameters as you please.
Oh, how so?
> If you think that me getting mine is impractical, I'm
> not sure we can agree on much of anything.
If it's done with integrity and pride, I have no problem; since you
don't believe in that much, you are right that we are likely not to
agree on much of anything.
**********************
"Wally <wally@sub-zero.mit.edu>" wrote:
> [...] if objectivism is based on the
> survival and achievement of man qua man [...], but
> it forces man to define his success in terms of a strict set of activities
> [...], what *true* independence is
> allowed? [parenthetical comments removed]
What makes you think that only a "strict set of activities" can lead to
survival and achievement for the individual? Many things meet this
standard: business venture, technological development, scientific
inquiry, medicine, art, music, sports, etc., etc. The core idea is
that man is a creature of intellect, and his aim should be to employ
his intellect constructively, to further his life in a manner
consistent with his rational nature. This can range from building
skyscrapers, to composing beautiful music, to outwitting Bryon Russell
and nailing a 20 ft. jumper on the final shot of the NBA Finals.
> Put another way -- how laissez-faire was the
> U.S. government's extermination of native Americans?
Yes, many atrocities were committed, which is abhorrent; there are many
shameful examples. But, the Westward Expansion put in place law and
enterprise where there were none. These are rational values which form
the basis of capitalism and individual liberty. It is folly to
romanticize the nasty, brutish, short life of pre-industrial tribalism.
**********************
"Kai-Yuh Hsiao <khsiao@MIT.EDU>" wrote:
> So I'd just like to ask people: do you _know_ why you're arguing so
> vehemently??
Yes -- we are sticking up for our ideals. Not every display of passion
is rooted in repressed insecurities; if that were true, life would be
quite boring for "healthy" folks!
**********************
"Zhelinrentice L Scott <zlscott@MIT.EDU>" wrote:
> For those who subscribe to Objectivism I have a question for you:
>
> Do any of you have a religion of any sort, and if so what is it?
Nope, we're all unapologetic atheists. The universe is what it is;
accept it, uncork some wine, and enjoy life.
**********************
G'nite,
Sourav
------------------------------------------------------------
Sourav K. Mandal
Sourav.Mandal@ikaran.com
http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/
