Monday, February 6, 2012

NoodleCast #116: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

On Sunday, 5 February 2012, I broadcast a new episode of my live Philosophy in Action Webcast, where I answer questions on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a virtuous, happy, and free life in a live, hour-long webcast. The webcast is broadcast live every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. In the webcast, I broadcast on video, Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers is on audio, and the audience is in a text chat.

As usual, if you can't attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:
You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you'll join the live webcast, because that's more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 5 February 2012

Listen Now

    Duration: 1:07:25
Download the Episode
Subscribe to the Feed
The Segments: Episode: 5 February 2012

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

I've been busy making plans for SnowCon 2012! E-mail me if you'd like to share accommodations.

Question 1: Overcoming Perfectionism (3:30)

What is the problem with and solution to perfectionism? Lately, I've realized that I might have a problem with "perfectionism" – meaning that I hold myself to unrealistically high standards in some areas of my life. For example, I feel like I should be much more productive, to the point of being unrealistic about what I can do in a day. What's the basic error of such perfectionism? And what can I do to overcome it?

My Answer, In Brief: For a person to seek perfection, based on rational standards that take account of his particular context, is often good. Perfectionism, however, means doing so based on out-of-context or unrealistic standards of perfection. A person with perfectionist tendencies needs to identify them, then think and act consistently based on standards appropriate to his purpose – whether seeking perfection, good enough, or merely adequate.

Links:
Question 2: False But Beneficial Ideas (35:13)

Should you just keep quiet when a friend's bad philosophy works for him? If someone you know pretty well believes in something mystical, such as "The Law of Attraction" (from "The Secret"), or "The Power of Prayer," and this has helped them move their outlook on life toward a benevolent universe premise, and they are more productive and happier, is it better to leave them with their faulty metaphysics and avoid the topic, or should you try to show them the error? What do you say when they start trying to convince you of the truth of their view?

My Answer, In Brief: People in the grip of worse ideas are sometimes helped by less-bad ideas. If you're both willing, you can discuss even better ideas with them. However, doing so is not obligatory.

Question 3: Possessiveness in Romance (46:46)

Is possessiveness wrong in a romantic relationship? I have a drawback: I'm extremely possessive. I expect that the person who loves and understands me – he being the only one who understands me – should be mine and only mine. I can accept other women in his life and contain my jealousy on the condition that he reveals to me every single of them who was, is, or will be. But he should love me the most. And I expect that he should stay with me till the end and that we spend the last days together reflecting on the past and life. Am I wrong in expecting all that from my partner? If so, what can I do to change?

My Answer, In Brief: To be possessive means treating your partner as an object to be controlled, rather than an independent individual who wants to share your life. For this depth of problem, therapy is the best option.

Links:
Question 4: Term Limits for Politicians (54:58)

Are term limits necessary and proper for good government? Many people – usually conservatives – claim that term limits are essential to liberty. They say that the Founders never intended to have career politicians, and they blame the growth of government on those career politicians and their pork projects. Do you support term limits? Are they an important restraint on the growth of government?

My Answer, In Brief: Term limits might be part of the government of a free society, but they're not a panacea.

Links:
Rapid Fire Questions (1:00:48)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:
  • Should President Obama be defeated, at any cost?

  • What's wrong with going with your gut feelings?
Conclusion (1:06:20)

Comments or questions? Contact us!
Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it's not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we're doing, please contribute to the webcast's tip jar!





If you'd like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you've contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we're so grateful for that! Also, whether you're able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.
By at 12:00 PM · 
· Labels:

Monday, January 30, 2012

NoodleCast #115: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

On Sunday, 29 January 2012, I broadcast a new episode of my live Philosophy in Action Webcast, where I answer questions on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a virtuous, happy, and free life in a live, hour-long webcast. The webcast is broadcast live every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. In the webcast, I broadcast on video, Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers is on audio, and the audience is in a text chat.

As usual, if you can't attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:
You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you'll join the live webcast, because that's more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 29 January 2012

Listen Now

    Duration: 1:05:33
Download the Episode
Subscribe to the Feed
The Segments: Episode: 29 January 2012

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

Unfortunately, I've been distracted by the WTFuffles this week. However, since the matter is of little significance to me, and I'll be focusing on my real work this upcoming week, and I encourage others to do the same. Also, remember that SnowCon 2012 will be March 15th to 18th in mountains of Colorado.

Question 1: Being Pragmatic (5:51)

What's wrong with being pragmatic? My dictionary defines being pragmatic as "dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations." What's wrong with that, if anything? Is that the same as "pragmatism"?

My Answer, In Brief: Pragmatism is a philosophic view that rejects thinking long-range and on-principle in favor of short-term expediency. However, many people just use the term to mean "practical," and others are honestly confused by all the bad theories and principles rampant in the culture.

Links:
Question 2: Feigning Indifference to Attract a Man (22:12)

Should I act uninterested in a man to attract him? One common theme in romance advice is that a woman should act aloof and unattainable in order to attract a man or to get him to commit to a relationship. Is that dishonest? Is it counterproductive?

My Answer, In Brief: It's wrong to make people into conquests in romance. If you do, the kind of person that you'll attract is not the kind of person that you'll want to be with. And you'll not be the kind of person that a good person will want to be with.

Links:
Question 3: Ignosticism Versus Atheism (28:57)

Should rational people describe themselves as "ignostics" rather than "atheists"? By rational principles, no cognitive consideration should be given to arbitrary assertions. Since the concept of God is invariably a floating abstraction and incoherent in its definition, shouldn't the claim that God exists be dismissed as arbitrary and invalid – rather than being answered in the negative? If so, shouldn't rational people describe themselves as ignostics? In contrast to atheism, ignosticism is "[the] view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless." [Wikipedia]

My Answer, In Brief: "Atheism," not "ignosticism," is the proper name to describe a person who reject the claim that God exists, and that's justified not only by the failure of the arguments for the existence of God, but also God's impossible qualities.

Links:
Question 4: Explaining Atheism (39:36)

How can I effectively explain my atheism to religious believers? When I discuss religion with believers – mostly Christians – I find that I can't easily explain why I don't believe in God. Should I appeal to the principle of the "primacy of existence"? Should I explain the problems with the arguments for the existence of God? Or should I try a different approach?

My Answer, In Brief: The best way to discuss the reasons for rejecting belief in God depend on the context, particularly whether you are explaining your own views or trying to convince the other person. Either way, be patient and try to speak to their rational concerns.

Links:
Rapid Fire Questions (57:59)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:
  • Why did you and Paul choose to live in Colorado?

  • Recently, Tim Thomas decided not to attend the Bruins trip to the White House. If you were a part of a team going to the White House, would you attend? What if you were personally invited to the White House?

  • What is your opinion of the OPEN Act as an alternative to SOPA and PIPA?

  • How can we start an American philosophical revolution that encourages students to value freedom, independent thinking, and rational egoism rather than altruism and egalitarianism?
Conclusion (1:04:36)

Comments or questions? Contact us!
Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it's not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we're doing, please contribute to the webcast's tip jar!





If you'd like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you've contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we're so grateful for that! Also, whether you're able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.
By at 12:20 PM · 
· Labels:

Monday, January 23, 2012

NoodleCast #114: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

On Sunday, 22 January 2012, I broadcast a new episode of my live Philosophy in Action Webcast, where I answer questions on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a virtuous, happy, and free life in a live, hour-long webcast. The webcast is broadcast live every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. In the webcast, I broadcast on video, Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers is on audio, and the audience is in a text chat.

As usual, if you can't attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:
You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you'll join the live webcast, because that's more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 22 January 2012

Listen Now

    Duration: 1:11:37
Download the Episode
Subscribe to the Feed
The Segments: Episode: 22 January 2012

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

Lately, I've been working on the Philosophy in Action Website. Also... Save the dates! SnowCon 2012 will be held from March 15 to 18th, likely based in Frisco, Colorado. We'll play in the snow during the day, then enjoy informal lectures and discussions in the evening.

Question 1: Acquittals of the Guilty Versus Convictions of the Innocent (3:15)

Why is punishing an innocent man worse than failing to punish a guilty man? English jurist William Blackstone said that "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." What does this mean, and is it true? Is some higher ratio of wrongly-punished to wrongly-released acceptable?

My Answer, In Brief: Tto convict an innocent person involves the same wrongs as acquitting guilty person, plus more. That’s why proper justice system presumes innocence, as well as limits and corrects errors of by scrupulous objectivity.

Links:
Question 2: The Morality of the Death Penalty (15:37)

Is the death penalty moral? I understand why people are opposed to the death penalty when there might be genuine doubt as to whether the accused person really committed the crime. Certainly, we've seen cases where DNA evidence has exonerated someone who was convicted several years ago for a crime they didn't actually commit. But if someone confesses to first degree murder and if there's incontrovertible physical evidence to confirm their guilt, is the death penalty then appropriate?

My Answer, In Brief: To impose the death penalty for murder (and perhaps other heinous crimes) is morally proper, if the possibility of error in the criminal conviction can be eliminated. To eliminate not just "reasonable doubt" but also any "residual doubt" can be used to distinguish cases in which such errors have been excluded.

Links:
Question 3: Alternatives to America (45:33)

What other countries besides America have a relatively healthy sense of life? Suppose America takes a bad turn politically and I need to relocate to another country. What other countries still have a relatively healthy "sense of life" and decent culture – in that they respect reason, accomplishment, and productiveness – even if their politics are left-leaning? Over the past few months, I've heard various people discuss Canada, New Zealand, Costa Rica, China, and India as possible places to relocate to. What do you think of the cultures of those countries?

My Answer, In Brief: I'm not the right person to answer that question. However, I'm committed to staying in the United States, absent some disaster, because I regard America as the best hope for reason and freedom. Fight for it!

Links:
Question 4: Choosing a Place to Live (54:05)

Is it rational to value good weather over good politics when choosing a place to live? I currently live in a state with fairly good politics, with respect to taxes, gun rights, and so on. However, I have friends who live in California who say that the weather there is so good, that it's worth it to them even if the taxes are high, the gun laws are terrible, and the overall political climate is abysmal. Is it rational to value something like good weather over good politics in choosing a place to live?

My Answer, In Brief: A person should judge where to live in the United States based on his whole range of values, not solely on the differences of degree between state governments.

Links:
Rapid Fire Questions (58:32)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:
  • What is the mistaken assumption in the question, "What is the purpose of life?" Is, "Does life have a purpose?" or "Can life have a purpose?" better?

  • Where should a person interested in learning about Objectivism start?

  • What do you think of what happened when the Costa Concordia ran aground?

  • What do you think of Chris Christie?

  • What does it mean to "assume positive intent"?
Conclusion (1:10:28)

Comments or questions? Contact us!
Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it's not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we're doing, please contribute to the webcast's tip jar!





If you'd like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you've contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we're so grateful for that! Also, whether you're able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.
By at 12:00 PM · 
· Labels:

Monday, January 16, 2012

NoodleCast #113: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

On Sunday, 15 January 2012, I broadcast a new episode of my live Philosophy in Action Webcast, where I answer questions on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a virtuous, happy, and free life in a live, hour-long webcast. The webcast is broadcast live every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. In the webcast, I broadcast on video, Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers is on audio, and the audience is in a text chat.

As usual, if you can't attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:
You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you'll join the live webcast, because that's more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 15 January 2012

Listen Now

    Duration: 1:07:28
Download the Episode
Subscribe to the Feed
The Segments: Episode: 15 January 2012

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

Paul and I spent last week having fun in the snow at Beaver Creek, and now... back to work!

Question 1: SOPA and Online Piracy (4:09)

Should SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) be supported or opposed? SOPA was recently introduced to the US House of Representatives, then shelved temporarily, and many people are urging businesses and their representatives to oppose it. Would the bill promote prosperity and creativity by protecting copyright? Or does it justify internet censorship and cripple free access of information through online media?

My Answer, In Brief: SOPA and PIPA claim to protect copyright, but in fact, they'd break the fundamental architecture of the internet, subject innocent people to major legal battles, destroy large internet sites, and establish government control over the internet. To top it off, these laws would not stop pirates. They should be opposed.

Links:
Question 2: Mutual Unprovable Accusations of Wrongdoing (26:25)

How should a rational person evaluate unproven accusations of serious wrongdoing about people he deals with? I recently heard some information about a business associate's dealings with another of his associates that, if true, would make me reconsider doing business with him. However, his side of the story is that the other person is the one who acted wrongly. This is a serious matter, and it's clear that one or both of them acted very badly, but since I was not personally involved and the only information I have is of a "he said/she said" nature, I am not sure how to decide what I should do. Am I right to consider the information I heard at all, since I can't confirm it?

My Answer, In Brief: Such dilemmas of moral judgment are difficult to navigate, and ideally, you either know enough about the characters of people in question or you can gather that information in order to come to an informed judgment. If you must choose between the two people now, then you should do so provisionally, as best as you can.

Question 3: Dealing with Temperamental People (34:36)

Should people be willing to "walk on eggshells" around temperamental people? Some people – often very talented – are known to be highly temperamental. They'll explode in anger if others disagree with them, make innocent mistakes, or just act differently than they'd prefer. Is that a moral failing, and if so, what is its source? How should people around them act? When and how much should others try to placate them?

My Answer, In Brief: Temperamental people indulge their emotions when they don't get their way because they don't respect and value other people as autonomous individuals. If that irrationality is entrenched, then the best course is likely to refuse to deal with the person.

Question 4: Judging Young Adults Fairly (47:43)

Is it fair to judge a person's intellect or other qualities of character purely based on his age? I am 16 and am facing problems with some people who seem to think that my views aren't clear even to me just because "I am a lazy teen with no experience in life." Is that unjust? Should I try to show them they are wrong about me or is it not worth it? If I should try, how might I be effective?

My Answer, In Brief: It's wrong to make moral judgments based on statistics, and young adults deserve to be treated with respect, even if adults know that they have much to learn.

Rapid Fire Questions (54:46)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:
  • Do you think that the patent lawsuits are getting a little out of hand?

  • Could Obama be effectively neutralized by gridlock?

  • What do you think of Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow's outspoken love for Jesus?

  • Is it ever moral to wish that someone were dead (assuming you don't actually plan on acting on that wish or otherwise violating someone's rights)?

  • Ayn Rand said she didn't have much of an opinion on certain topics such as evolution or gun control. Does that mean that there is no Objectivist position on theses issues?
Conclusion (1:06:02)

Comments or questions? Contact us!
Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it's not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we're doing, please contribute to the webcast's tip jar!





If you'd like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you've contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we're so grateful for that! Also, whether you're able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.
By at 11:00 AM · 
· Labels:

Monday, January 9, 2012

NoodleCast #112: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

On Sunday, 8 January 2012, I broadcast a new episode of my live Philosophy in Action Webcast, where I answer questions on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a virtuous, happy, and free life in a live, hour-long webcast. The webcast is broadcast live every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. In the webcast, I broadcast on video, Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers is on audio, and the audience is in a text chat.

As usual, if you can't attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:
You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you'll join the live webcast, because that's more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience - the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 8 January 2012

Listen Now

    Duration: 1:04:12
Download the Episode
Subscribe to the Feed
The Segments: Episode: 8 January 2012

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

Welcome to 2012! Sadly, our friend and hero Objectivist historian John Lewis died on Tuesday. See John Lewis, Hero and Friend by me and Remembering John Lewis by Paul Hsieh. On the two week break, I've been doing lots of blogging at NoodleFood, plus updates to the Philosophy in Action. Mostly, I'm glad to be webcasting again!

Question 1: Tenacity in Pursuit of Goals (3:55)

How can I become more tenacious in pursuit of my goals? I find that I give up too easily on some of my goals, particularly when success is far away and much effort is required now. What can I do to make myself more tenacious?

My Answer, In Brief: Tenacity is an important quality of character to cultivate, but it must be used selectively. If tenacity is a problem for you, don't wallow in guilt: find creative ways to motivate yourself.

Links:
Question 2: Sex Without Love (19:19)

Is sex without love or romance irrational? Is it wrong to have sex with someone that you don't love - or don't love yet? (Here, assume that the person isn't unworthy, but just that you're not in love.) Couldn't that be the start of romance? What if you don't have any intentions of pursuing a romantic relationship with this person?

My Answer, In Brief: Sex is an inherently intimate act, requiring well-grounded respect, trust, and affection -- even if not love.

Links:
Question 3: The Ethics of Helping Inept Co-Workers (31:21)

Is it moral to help inept co-workers? On my team at work, we have only a very few people who use their time productively. We all get paid for 8 hours of "work", every day, but most of my team would rather talk on their phone, hide from management, and underperform at their job. We also belong to a union, which makes it harder for management to fire the ones who don't work despite being informed about the situation. I often find myself in the position of helping these people, or going in behind them and fixing their work. I am beginning to feel taken advantage of, and am getting fed up with most of my co-workers. Is it moral to continue helping people who do not take their own work seriously?

My Answer, In Brief: There's no injustice or other moral problem with doing mission-critical work for your company, even if not your area, provided that you're honest and compensated fairly.

Question 4: Giving Back to Your Communities (37:17)

Is a person ever obliged to "give back to the community"? Businesses often speak about their charitable work as "giving back to the community." I know that's wrong, because they didn't take anything from it in the first place. But when a person benefits from a certain group or organization, should he "give back" to it by volunteering his time or donating his money? Why or why not?

My Answer, In Brief: A person isn't obliged to volunteer at every opportunity, but he should want to volunteer for organizations that he derives great value from - for self-interested reasons.

Links:
Rapid Fire Questions (55:27)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:
  • Why was Rick Perry not included in your discussion of four candidates?

  • What did you think of Herman Cain?

  • Would Hillary Clinton have been a better president than Obama?

  • Does the fact that Newt Gingrich takes Catholicism seriously suggest that he is at least as bad as Mitt Romney?

  • Is Ron Paul a closet Christian dominionist?

  • By not voting for the Republican candidate, are you voting for Obama, in effect?
Conclusion (1:03:56)

Comments or questions? Contact us!
Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it's not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we're doing, please contribute to the webcast's tip jar!





If you'd like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you've contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we're so grateful for that! Also, whether you're able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.
By at 10:00 AM · 
· Labels:

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Noodlecast #111: Testimony on Campaign Finance

Last Thursday, Ari Armstrong, Paul Hsieh, and I testified at the Secretary of State's hearing on the proposed changes to Colorado's campaign finance rules. Ari was kind enough to record and post video of that testimony. (That's a huge amount of work, so thank you, thank you, Ari!)

I've compiled our testimony into a single podcast, and you'll find the videos below too. (I didn't include Matt Arnold's testimony for Clear the Bench Colorado in the podcast, but the video is at the bottom of this post.)

Listen Now

    33:05 minutes
Download This Episode
Subscribe to the Feed


My testimony for the Coalition for Secular Government:



Paul Hsieh's testimony for Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM):

Ari Armstrong's testimony:



Again, although I didn't include it in the podcast, here's Matt Arnold's testimony for Clear the Bench Colorado:

By at 10:00 AM · 
· Labels: ,

Monday, December 19, 2011

NoodleCast #110: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

On Sunday, 18 December 2011, I broadcast a new episode of my live Philosophy in Action Webcast, where I answer questions on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a virtuous, happy, and free life in a live, hour-long webcast. The webcast is broadcast live every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. In the webcast, I broadcast on video, Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers is on audio, and the audience is in a text chat.

We're taking the next two weeks off, so this is the last webcast of 2011! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

As usual, if you can't attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:
You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you'll join the live webcast, because that's more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 18 December 2011

Listen Now

    Duration: 1:12:53
Download the Episode
Subscribe to the Feed
The Segments: Episode: 18 December 2011

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

This week, Ari Armstrong, Paul Hsieh, and I attended and testified at a campaign finance hearing. You can submit written testimony until Friday December 23rd. Also, look for Ari's and my article on abortion in The Objective Standard this week.

Question 1: Rationality in Face of Overwhelming Emotions (4:24)

How can a person regain his rationality in the face of overwhelming emotions? On occasion, I find my rational judgment swamped by strong emotions like anger and anxiety. In such cases, my thinking seems distorted by my emotions. While in the grip of such emotions, what can I do to re-establish my powers of rational thought? Also, how can I prevent myself from saying or doing things that I'll later regret?

My Answer, In Brief: You need not be at the mercy of your emotions: you can take charge of own mind in friendly way. So when your emotions rage out of control, you should (1) notice them, (2) analyze them, (3) work to defuse them, and (4) later, prevent the same from happening again.

Question 2: The Value of Reading Literature (19:20)

What value do you gain from reading literature? I've never much connected with literature, particularly not the classics. I know that you read them routinely. What value do you find in them? Or, what am I missing?

My Answer, In Brief: Literature isn't a value for everyone, but it can be an amazing window into other lives and other worlds, as well as a source of inspiration.

Links:
  • Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte

  • Pride and Prejudice, Persuasion, and Mansfield Park by Jane Austen

  • North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell

  • The Woman in White by Wilkie Collins

  • The Hunchback of Notre Dame by Victor Hugo

  • The Iliad by Homer

  • Martin Eden and The Sea Wolf by Jack London

  • Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe
Question 3: Balancing Introspection and Productive Work (34:13)

How can I achieve a better balance between introspection and productive work? Particularly I've made some mistake, I'll get wrapped up in the process of introspection until I get the problem sorted out. However, that consumes time – and often my projects suffer and I miss deadlines. How can I find a better balance between these two important activities?

My Answer, In Brief: You should cultivate the discipline required to do less exciting work, but be sure to take the time to introspect. Also, deal with your mistakes in sensible way, with a focus on fixing any problems caused and preventing repetition.

Question 4: Optimism or Pessimism about the Future (40:59)

Should we be optimistic or pessimistic about the future of the culture? What do you think will happen to the culture in the next 20 to 50 years? Are you optimistic or pessimistic – and why? What do you think the value and certainty of such predictions based on philosophy are?

My Answer, In Brief: I'm pessimistic, because I see the direction in which the world is headed, particularly on economic issues. But not depressed, because I'm doing what I can and enjoying that.

Links:
Rapid Fire Questions (57:30)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:
  • If our emotions are affected by chemicals and other factors out of our control, does this call into question whether rationality is normal? In other words, do we need to learn how to reason?

  • Why care about the drug war, when just about every politician is bad on that issue?

  • Why worry about the president's view of abortion given that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land?

  • What should one think of a candidate that shifts positions?

  • Do you think that private sector experience is a plus in a politician?

  • Don't you think another four years of Obama would all but guarantee a collapse of the last vestiges of the American republic?

  • Should the US be an ally with Saudi Arabia?

  • What are your thoughts on Chris Hitchens' death?
Conclusion (1:11:46)

Comments or questions? Contact us!
Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it's not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we're doing, please contribute to the webcast's tip jar!





If you'd like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you've contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we're so grateful for that! Also, whether you're able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.
By at 10:00 AM · 
· Labels:

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

NoodleCast #109: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

On Sunday, 11 December 2011, I broadcast a new episode of my live Philosophy in Action Webcast, where I answer questions on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a virtuous, happy, and free life in a live, hour-long webcast. The webcast is broadcast live every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. In the webcast, I broadcast on video, Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers is on audio, and the audience is in a text chat.

As usual, if you can't attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:
You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you'll join the live webcast, because that's more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 11 December 2011

Listen Now

    Duration: 1:09:47
Download the Episode
Subscribe to the Feed
The Segments: Episode: 11 December 2011

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

On Wednesday, Ari Armstrong and I spoke about Colorado's campaign finance laws at Liberty on the Rocks in Denver. We'll be testifying on Thursday in favor of the proposed rule changes. That has been a huge amount of work for both of us.

Question 1: An Early Look at the 2012 Election (3:46)

What's your view of the upcoming 2012 election? By what standards do you judge the presidential candidates?

My Answer, In Brief: In a presidential candidate, I'm not looking for either John Galt or "Anyone But Obama." I'm looking for someone who will do more good than harm to the cause of liberty in America.

Links:
Question 2: Mitt Romney for US President (11:14)

Should I support Mitt Romney for US President? What's the proper evaluation of his principles and record on the budget and the debt, health care, foreign policy, immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Romney deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or the general election?

My Answer, In Brief: Mitt Romney is a smooth talker, but his proposal reveal that he has no understanding of individual rights or the economic problems facing America. He's no better than Obama – and likely worse, because the opposition will vanish. I cannot recommend voting for him in the primary or the general election.

Links:
Question 3: Newt Gingrich for US President (20:28)

Should I support Newt Gingrinch for US President? What's the proper evaluation of his principles and record on the budget and the debt, health care, foreign policy, immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Gingrinch deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or the general election?

My Answer, In Brief: Newt Gingrich is explicitly theocratic, and a major threat to the separation of church and state. He advocates and practices "active governance," meaning right-wing social engineering, not liberty. Like Obama, he is enamored of bold transformative ideas, which could be okay or horrible for liberty. I cannot recommend voting for him in the primary or the general election.

Links:
Question 4: Ron Paul for US President (32:29)

Should I support Ron Paul for US President? What's the proper evaluation of his principles and record on the budget and the debt, health care, foreign policy, immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Paul deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or the general election?

My Answer, In Brief: Ron Paul is not even libertarian, but a neo-confederate conservative Christian, albeit with some grasp of basic economics. He's a rationalist, driven by ideology, and not open to facts. He would be very dangerous to elect as president, not just for actual policies, but as a supposed advocate of liberty. I cannot recommend voting for him in the primary or the general election.

Links:
Should I support Gary Johnson for US President? What's the proper evaluation of his principles and record on the budget and the debt, health care, foreign policy, immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Johnson deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or the general election? Also, should supporters of Gary Johnson vote for him on a Libertarian Party ticket?

My Answer, In Brief: Gary Johnson is not John Galt. However, he's fundamentally oriented toward facts, plus he has good basic principles about liberty. Alas, he was shut out from the race by the media and the establishment GOP. I recommend voting for him in the primary, as well as in the general election, if he runs as the Libertarian Party candidate. I still reject the Libertarian Party, but a protest vote can be delimited to endorse him and not the party.

Links:
Rapid Fire Questions (1:06:19)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:
  • What do you think of Jon Huntsman for president?

  • Would you ever vote for Obama, e.g. against Santorum?

  • What do you think about the upcoming debate with Donald Trump?
Conclusion (1:08:42)

Comments or questions? Contact us!
Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it's not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we're doing, please contribute to the webcast's tip jar!





If you'd like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you've contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we're so grateful for that! Also, whether you're able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.
By at 10:00 AM · 
· Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)