I can actually say that I have been to Ouray, Co, but it was not in the way that you are alluding to. My father took me there because he had a job teaching school there after WWII and he simply wanted to some bases of his past.
It one of the most beautiful places that I've ever seen. Especially when you're diving north from Durango...you drop in from a box end canyon.
Fair enough, the implication I see arising from the incompleteness theorem is that certain models will have to account for axioms that cannot be proven true or false. The problem is that this accountability can only be provided by incorporating intuition. The problem with intuition is that it can only be grasped, it cannot be used to demonstrate truth in any absolute sense. Nor do I see any way to prove absolutely that intuition can be used to grasp anything at all. If a person does have an intuitive grasp of a model it can however be used to solve any amount of hypothesis which make up the underlying parts of the complete model. This is for example why Plato considered his intuitive grasp of 'the Good' to be above any form of hypothesis. How this concerns ethics is the problem proposed by G.E. Moore that states that what is 'good' cannot be defined. Doing so invariably creates a tautology which devoids it of meaning. The result is that no ethical axioms can be discovered which are objectively true or false. If good is defined as say, acting on behalf of general happiness the open question "what is good?" can no longer be asked since the answer is presupposed to be "acting on behalf of general happiness". Moore's own proposition to tackle this problem is that ethical propositions are either true or false, but a verdict can only be reached along intuitive lines. How this relates to objectivism is that as a philosophy it makes a strong appeal to a person's intuition in order to prove the truth of its axioms. For example, the mere fact that Greenspan makes an argument does not prove conclusively that he exists. As a counter argument he could have stated that his utterance of some argument was just an illusion and he doesn't exist after all. "Greenspan exists" does however provide a person with an intuitive axioma that's strong enough to base a philosophical system on. Which, by the way, objectivism does. It starts where it should start, with ontology in order to derive further conclusions about ethics and politics.
I concur, it is beautiful, and the light is quite spectacular. I will not bore you with all the details with my father's experiences in Ouray. But he was teaching what was primarily a native population. He told me it was the only job that he ever quit. He could not fulfill the year's contract that he had signed. He loved the West and its natural beauty but the cultural response of native Americans to schooling depressed him. He was a good educator and he was good enough to know that he was not connecting with his students and simply moved on.
I disagree that she's a second rate author. I mainly read non-fiction and not many novels but I found her character discriptions beautiful and the motifs upon which she based their actions complete in their explanations and contribution to the ongoing story. I don't really know on what general principles people base literary criticism, but I'd say those two things are very important. I'm talking, btw, of Atlas Shrugged.
It's amazing how the word 'intuition' is thrown about in statements like these. No disrespect. Well stated. But, if we take 'intuition' to mean simply the ascertainment of a conclusion without the metacognitive awareness of the means or logic by which that conclusion was reached, then clearly, intuition is a product of economic scarcity...ie your brain can calculate the sum only if it does not have to also devote resources to examinine and account for the means to that sum...then we're back to economics... and hence, who's Jim Taggert? Dr Stadler is a tough one too. I can throw Sean Hannety in as a pretty simple Bertrum Scudder. But lets get back to the point of the thread. Casting.
DUDE! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_of_truth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism Tell me ANYTHING that you call "absolute"... give it your best shot, really! I will debunk it for you... I have already been through the complete epistemology of Objectivism and know it doesn't hold. I got REALLY interested in this stuff when studying model theory in university.
Gobbledygook. My response in order of the comments: You say Ayn was miserable in her personal life. If a person were to read Ayn's personal letters, he would see that Ayn had a very fulfilling and at many times joyful personal life. She was not miserable at all. She entertained and socialized a lot and was almost continuously engaged in meaningful projects, such as authoring novels and plays. You say that Objectivism is logical but you find it flawed. ooohhhkaaay....the ultimate compliment to pay a philosophy is to call it logical. It's the sine qua non for crissakes. You say there is a cult aspect and you are an individual. Objectivists are by definition fiercely individualistic. There is a subset of sort of nerd objectivists, but why pay any attention to anyone but yourself in this regard. There are a ton of weird math nerds who believe that calculus is a valid math. Should one shun calculus for this reason. A philosophy is either valid or not, independent of any odd practitioners. You say you debate Objectivists who refer to their books. Perhaps you need to expand your intellectual circle to include those with quicker wits. You make some nonsensical comments about 'keeping stability' and 'aggression.' Hard to know how to respond.