[DJNeill]

Hi,

John Hodgman (The Daily Show's resident expert, plays the 'PC' in the Apple commercials) wrote a New York Times magazine article about bridge in 2003.

If you missed this, it's online at
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...755C0A9659C8B63

Dan

[hrothgar]

Wow

Was that really published three years ago? I remeber some of the discussions that flared up on the OKBridge mailing list, however, I thought that those much earlier (2000 or 2001)

[DrTodd13]

Wildavsky did (and probably does still) have something about "ask me about objectivism" on his BBO profile. One would think he'd be willing to talk about the matter if someone asked him. I tried a couple times and got no response because (I believe that) he could tell I wasn't coming from a position of ignorance. Seems like a lot of objectivists treat their beliefs like a religion. They are happy to convert others but unwillingly to listen to those who would convert them or challenge their beliefs.

It seems to me that any true objectivist following the objectivist creed would come to the conclusion that their belief system is contradictory. Objectivists reject all forms of mysticism. At this point, no one has a good answer for the question of free will versus determinism. It has always seemed to me that an objectivist would have to take the position of determinism. To believe in free will, one has to believe in causeless actions (e.g., your "decision" to do one thing rather than another) and objectivists believe in cold rational causality. The problem, of course, is that in a deterministic worldview, what is going to happen is going to happen and there is no point making the "choice" to try to convert others to objectivism or to believe it oneself. There is no right or wrong in a deterministic world and no point in a system of ethics that attempts to categorize right and wrong. Objectivists clearly can't "choose" to believe this for it makes their belief system irrelevant. So, what do they do instead, they "choose" to believe in free will with absolutely no proof whatsoever! Since when do objectivists believe things without rational proof??? Here's a quote from Karl Popper talking about Leonard Peikoff's beliefs on this matter. At this point, the only view that seems consistent with a materialistic worldview is the deterministic one. Our perception of our own free will may be a total illusion. However, I and most other people reject this belief simply because we don't like the perceived consequences of that belief. What does it actually mean to have free will? What is there in the middle of pure causality and random action that can be called free will? So, many in the future when/if there is a scientific proof of free will then objectivism may be consistent but at this point the rationalistic anti-mystic can't really believe in some mystical origin of free will and therefore must believe determinism making his own belief system irrelevant.

Quote

Peikoff rejects both determinism and indeterminism by equating the former with unfreedom and the latter with anticausality, although he does not express himself clearly enough to make his contradiction obvious. He purports to be defending causality while opposing determinism when he says: "'to be caused' does not mean 'to be necessitated'" (a phrase that I regard as self-contradictory nonsense).

Peikoff defends causality only in the sense that he justifies the causal sequences leading from choice, but rejects causality with his implication that choice is not entirely the product of antecedent causes. Peikoff makes choice a "First Cause" rather than a product of material antecedent causes. A "First Cause" is an "uncaused cause". Often used as a definition of God, "First Cause" is an entirely mystical notion -- it is certainly not a materialist one.

[Gerben42]

I've never heard of objectivism but it seems they don't object to bridge. Looks like a good story.

[fred]

Gerben42, on Nov 12 2006, 07:29 PM, said:

I've never heard of objectivism but it seems they don't object to bridge. Looks like a good story.

Suggest you read 2 novels, "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand (the person who "invented" Objectivism).

You will get a good sense of this philosophy through the words and actions of the protagonists of these books. Even if you don't buy some or all of the philosophy there is a good chance you will enjoy the novels themselves (I think they are excellent).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

fred, on Nov 12 2006, 10:48 PM, said:

Gerben42, on Nov 12 2006, 07:29 PM, said:

I've never heard of objectivism but it seems they don't object to bridge. Looks like a good story.

Suggest you read 2 novels, "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand (the person who "invented" Objectivism).

You will get a good sense of this philosophy through the words and actions of the protagonists of these books. Even if you don't buy some or all of the philosophy there is a good chance you will enjoy the novels themselves (I think they are excellent).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I'm not overly fond of Objectivism of a philosophy, however, I found the Fountainhead a good read.

If you're going to read these, definitely start here...

Atlas Shrugged struck me as tedious

[mike777]

Gerben42, on Nov 12 2006, 02:29 PM, said:

I've never heard of objectivism but it seems they don't object to bridge. Looks like a good story.

Heck rent the movie.

It is faithful to the books.

[DrTodd13]

I keep hearing they are going to make a movie out of Atlas Shrugged with Angelina and Brad but in any case, read the books. There are quite a few things Rand got right and some, IMO, she got wrong. I was telling my parents a couple days ago about how I feel that a purely rational person has no scientific reason to believe in free will and how the objectivists' answers to this question are tortured. My mom then said maybe that is what drove Rand insane at the end...cognitive dissonance baby.

[pclayton]

I can see Banderas as Francisco D'Anconia, Redford as Hank Rearden.

Pitt is the perfect Howard Roark (right author, wrong book)

[mike777]

btw as a sidenote Ann wrote the screenplay to the movie and would not let a single word be changed in the movie.


BTW2 see the sparks fly as Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal are having an offscreen affair at the time.