TIME OFF- September 5, 2005 Hey everyone. Hope your holidy weekend is going great. Mine has been busy busy busy as I work on several writing assignments, finalize a life-changing decision, and struggle to get Axiomatic ready for its October 1st publication date. (Things are looking good so far!) In order to make my life just a bit more manageable, I'm taking this week off of blogging. It would have been a short week anyway, as I'm getting my wisdom teeth out Thursday, which would put me out of comission Thursday and...http://angermanagement.mu.nu/archives/115991.html DAILY ROUND UP- September 2, 2005 -I had dinner with David Rehm yesterday evening and he indicated that I should clarify my post from yesterday. I said that people who are raiding stores for food and other necessities in order to survive during an emergency are doing nothing wrong. That's true, but even there, once life returns to normal, they have an obligation to repay the stores (or at least offer to). The same holds true for any emergency. It is proper to do what you have to do in order to survive, but if that involves...http://angermanagement.mu.nu/archives/115608.html REDUCTION- September 2, 2005 Yesterday I posted some comments defending the argument Peter Schwartz presented in his lecture "Contextual Knowledge." Roger Bissell responded in the comments of Diana's blog. Here is my response, which is essentially an explanation of the process of reduction and should make sense even if you haven't read Bissell's remarks. -- In light of your comments, allow me to clarify my views (were actually much more in agreement than you think). If anyone mistook my position to be that we...http://angermanagement.mu.nu/archives/115602.html CONTEXTUAL KNOWLEDGE- September 1, 2005 At Diana's blog, William Dwyer disputed the argument Peter Schwartz presented in his lecture "Contextual Knowledge." Here's my response: -- William Dwyer writes: >>But the issue is more complex than that. It is whether or not a seemingly true conclusion is necessarily false, simply because the reasons for it (i.e., the premises on which it is based) are false! Schwartz presents an argument for this view, using the "Love is good" syllogism as an example. The point of my.http://angermanagement.mu.nu/archives/115461.html DAILY ROUND UP- September 1, 2005 -Thanks to commenter "JG" for bringing this to my attention: Lileks takes a cheap shot at Objectivism by noting that no Objectivist charity organizations have donated to FEMA. That shouldn't come as a surprise -- there are no Objectivist charity organizations. Charity is not an Objectivist virtue. But that doesn't mean Objectivists aren't charitable. My experience shows that Objectivists are neither more likely nor less likely to give to charity than anyone else. Why isn't charity a...http://angermanagement.mu.nu/archives/115375.html |