1. You going to both Grapevine and Greenhill would be a bad idea--Navot will only be willing ot put up with you for one tournament that early in the year, go to Greenhill. 2. PPI's don't have to be memorized, only the intro does. 3. Counting on Nationals (let alone the TOC) is more than a little big-headed. You might want to tone your expectations down a little bit--one summer of camp is going to help, but you shouldn't expect to be automatically on top. I'm just saying that there's a lot to contend with, so chill out. 4. Objectivism doesn't work. a) Rationality is not an absolute--differing rationales can justify practically any end. b) Ayn Rand contradicts herself in her non-fiction works about 3913528769018092480376012834 times. Seriously. I've read them. c) Accepting an absolutist point of view on anything is a bad idea--pluralism is almost always a better alternative. Objectivism doesn't solve for people committing moral wrongs, it only half-assedly proves that they have the right to commit them if they can be rationally
But the real reason I'm posting is because Rand=anti-religion. She thinks that the only way to obtain knowldege is through reason, not inspiration from a higher being. You would have to give up your Mormon-ness! To post that you are no longer Mormon in a journal called "The-Momo" seems a little ironic...
Coincidentally, the anti-religion point is the only thing I agree with Rand on. :) It's like this: (in the words of Stephen Hess)
The problem with a religion based set of ethics is that it creates a fabricated version of reality, replacing realized morals with a pre-written set. Morals provide a more subliminal cost-benefit calculus. I abstain from killing someone for a candy bar because the precendent of the action is a far greater threat than the benefit I get from the candy bar. A religious code allows you to internalize the morals without ever having to gauge your surroundings and live through experience. The downside however comes when the text ties you down to details and crackpots like Leviticus. In order for a religion to withstand the individual has to accept the entire story. At the point that you accept one flaw, you have to reject the whole. This inevitable devotion leads to wierd interpretations and semantics that cause social conflicts like gay marriage.
Comments 3
2. PPI's don't have to be memorized, only the intro does.
3. Counting on Nationals (let alone the TOC) is more than a little big-headed. You might want to tone your expectations down a little bit--one summer of camp is going to help, but you shouldn't expect to be automatically on top. I'm just saying that there's a lot to contend with, so chill out.
4. Objectivism doesn't work.
a) Rationality is not an absolute--differing rationales can justify practically any end.
b) Ayn Rand contradicts herself in her non-fiction works about 3913528769018092480376012834 times. Seriously. I've read them.
c) Accepting an absolutist point of view on anything is a bad idea--pluralism is almost always a better alternative. Objectivism doesn't solve for people committing moral wrongs, it only half-assedly proves that they have the right to commit them if they can be rationally
Reply
But the real reason I'm posting is because Rand=anti-religion. She thinks that the only way to obtain knowldege is through reason, not inspiration from a higher being. You would have to give up your Mormon-ness! To post that you are no longer Mormon in a journal called "The-Momo" seems a little ironic...
-BG
Reply
The problem with a religion based set of ethics is that it creates a fabricated version of reality, replacing realized morals with a pre-written set. Morals provide a more subliminal cost-benefit calculus. I abstain from killing someone for a candy bar because the precendent of the action is a far greater threat than the benefit I get from the candy bar. A religious code allows you to internalize the morals without ever having to gauge your surroundings and live through experience. The downside however comes when the text ties you down to details and crackpots like Leviticus. In order for a religion to withstand the individual has to accept the entire story. At the point that you accept one flaw, you have to reject the whole. This inevitable devotion leads to wierd interpretations and semantics that cause social conflicts like gay marriage.
Reply
Leave a comment