tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post6124996099784336143..comments2024-03-19T07:48:54.021-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: The Dental Chair ConfessionGus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-64846191467810729652009-11-26T18:37:48.486-06:002009-11-26T18:37:48.486-06:00I think the trick in getting them to stop advocati...I think the trick in getting them to stop advocating their bad ideas is to help them see how they conflict with their better ones and their most noble aspirations. That isn't always very easy and it won't always work fully, but it's probably the best way.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-52689850866141559522009-11-26T16:14:54.135-06:002009-11-26T16:14:54.135-06:00"I'd say that lack of integration of conf..."I'd say that lack of integration of conflicting principles, explicit and implicit, is closer to the mark"<br /><br /><br />I would add that in most cases they probably do not even know they have conflicting principles. <br /><br />You end up with people who advocate socialism but are meticulously honest in their personal life. They abhor corruption in government while at the same time advocating everything necessary for it to flourish.<br /><br />SteveSteve Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-30582767695928076952009-11-25T22:39:29.900-06:002009-11-25T22:39:29.900-06:00I'd say that lack of integration of conflictin...I'd say that lack of <i><a href="http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/integration_(mental).html" rel="nofollow">integration</a></i> of conflicting principles, explicit and implicit, is closer to the mark.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-58999450743936877722009-11-25T22:19:28.063-06:002009-11-25T22:19:28.063-06:00lack of principles I suppose.lack of principles I suppose.Monoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-89004035305066743112009-11-25T21:04:23.343-06:002009-11-25T21:04:23.343-06:00"The majority of people I deal with are also ..."<i>The majority of people I deal with are also basically decent and I suspect that the majority of people in the world are in fact decent. If this is the case, how do you explain the prevailing political trends?</i>"<br /><br />Pragmatism probably goes a long way to explain that. People don't normally integrate what they know fully, so they wall off politics from their work ethic, for example.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-81678707060705332522009-11-25T20:31:54.401-06:002009-11-25T20:31:54.401-06:00There is a paradox here. The majority of people I ...There is a paradox here. The majority of people I deal with are also basically decent and I suspect that the majority of people in the world are in fact decent. If this is the case, how do you explain the prevailing political trends? Another way to ask the question is how can mostly decent people end up with a mostly indecent result? Wouldn’t you expect a society which at least approaches the ideal - albeit not perfect?<br /><br />I don’t know the full answer to this question but like most of the issues that confound us today I think the answer lies with epistemology. The ethics of altruism fits into this as well but how strongly is this really accepted? So often, welfare state or socialistic programs are justified by appealing to our selfishness. (e.g. Think of how advantageous for you to live in an educated society, therefore support public education. etc.)<br /><br />This is not just an academic question because the answer will inform how we approach trying to convince the majority of people that our philosophy is correct. <br /><br />I would like to hear what people have to say on this issue.<br /><br />“Judging people is a very, very difficult and subtle art. To think you've got it down cold is only to fool yourself.”<br /><br />Very true in most cases. People are very complex and often have a real jumble of good and bad ideas. It is very seldom one can adequately judge someone unless you have had extensive dealings with them. Even then I am not particularly good at it.<br /><br />Of course there are cases when peoples words or actions speak for themselves.<br /><br />SteveSteve Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-21294425003131302902009-11-25T14:55:46.951-06:002009-11-25T14:55:46.951-06:00Thank you, Craig. As you may have surmised, I may ...Thank you, Craig. As you may have surmised, I may well have had more common ground with the hygienist on the war issue than I thought. (I imagine it WAS clear that I agreed with that much of what she said, but that, for whatever reason, I didn't want to talk about it much beyond that. If I recall correctly, I managed to say that we took less time to finish WW II.) <br /><br />It would have been interesting under other circumstances to find out, and maybe I eventually will. I like the dentist I'm using and everyone there.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-34877232007995765332009-11-25T14:43:24.053-06:002009-11-25T14:43:24.053-06:00Gus,
Isn't it wonderful, every time, to find ...Gus,<br /><br />Isn't it wonderful, every time, to find out how many decent people are out there? I still smile every time someone in the Moscow Tverskaya Starbucks bellows out "Grand Latte: Craig!!"<br /><br />I don't think this woman was being even remotely rude, either: it in fact is high time we were out of there. How long is a war to last, after all? You yourself perfectly described Bush's prosecution of the war as an extension of the welfare state. <br /><br />Excellent post.Craig Ceelyhttp://www.ladysmaidjewels.com/Cblognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-79642468321107616002009-11-25T13:17:30.796-06:002009-11-25T13:17:30.796-06:00Jasmine,
Thanks.
Also, I'll take this opport...Jasmine,<br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />Also, I'll take this opportunity to clarify why I was concerned about being in the chair with an angry person doing this work: Intense emotions can cause people to make mistakes doing detailed work like that. <br /><br />GusGus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-46966333770868789372009-11-25T12:51:10.218-06:002009-11-25T12:51:10.218-06:00Gus,
The only standard from which one evaluates an...Gus,<br />The only standard from which one evaluates and judges and chooses one's actions and thinking are morality. And that is the same standard one judges others. It is not the particular knowledge that a person may not have, but the person's ambition and striving to be a moral person that one evaluates and judges. The Objectivist view of ethics and morality, fundamentally recognizes man as a rational being, having volition and free will in the use of his faculty of reason. Any discussion between two people (or more) is of any meaning and either or both parties will gain something of value from the discussion only if the premise of rationality is, even if in unspoken terms, is the basis. This last point is well brought out by you when you wrote:"I might have had to go along with whatever she said just to protect my own health, but what would such "agreement" have told her?". Or in other words there would be no trading of values involved.<br /><br />This is a very interesting post. I may add more to my comment later as I chew on your post!<br /><br />JasmineRational Educationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02520568540990573166noreply@blogger.com