It seems a rather long way to go to avoid explaining why you admire what you say Rand's done for mankind, or why doing anything for mankind may be admirable. Is evasion admirable as well? It's at least unsurprising, in this case.

For me, Aristotle's views on ethics are far more sophisticated than Rand's. She took a much too doctrinaire and simple-minded approach to morality.

Ah. I see. You admire Ayn Rand for her contributions to mankind because you believe other people share her views, although they don't say they do. That seems a less than well-founded inference. But, it doesn't explain why you admire Ayn Rand for her contributions to mankind. If she made contributions to mankind without saying she wanted to do so, or even without intending to do so, she nonetheless made contributions to mankind and you think her admirable because she did. Why is contributing to mankind admirable?

As to Aristotle, I'm well aware of Rand's admiration for him, and also that she does little more than parrot him for the most part (i.e. her work is derivative of Aristotle, as I said). Except, I think, she fails to understand, or disregards, his ethics. See Books VIII and IX of the Nicomachean Ethics.

Does the statement in the discussion title make any sense? — Luke

More people know the answer to that question than I do.

Well, if reading Ayn Rand led you to read Aristotle, I suppose her work may have done something for you, but I find it difficult to think of anything she did for mankind. In fact, it would seem that if you accept her philosophy, such as it is, you wouldn't admire her for doing anything for mankind. More likely you'd admire for not doing anything for mankind. After all, according to Rand, we each should act in such a manner as to maximize our own self-interest and live for our own sake, regardless of others.

It's unfortunate that someone whose thought was so derivative of Aristotle so entirely misunderstood or disregarded his ethics. The good man, according to Aristotle, would be one who would do many things for the sake of his friends or country, even die for them, and throw away money and all other "good things" for which men compete in order to do so. His good man is noble and virtuous. Rand's good man is not, necessarily (I can't help but think of John Oliver's show where it was once said, if I recall correctly, that Rand's ideal person was "an asshole").

If you even have to ask then obviously you haven't read Volume 58 of the gesammelte Werke you god damn philistine. — John Doe

I'm afraid that's true. Or any of it, for that matter, except perhaps a (happily) forgotten excerpt in some anthology or other.

Nothing would make me happier than to read 1,000 words of this in the form of a dissertation proposal or grad school application. :lol: — John Doe

I don't think that's likely. And it would be challenging, but I think I could manage. It may be necessary to use the words "essence" and "Being" and "existence" quite often. Would hyphens count as words?

Something is merely the absence of nothing. You must know nothing to know something.

I enjoy thinking about The Nothing, which can't be discussed but which I encounter only by the dread I feel when thinking of Heil--wait, I mean HEIL--wait I mean that back-stabbing, anti-Semitic, Hitler-worshipping acolyte of the "inner truth and greatness of National Socialism"; Joseph Goebbels' Mini-Me, that...

Well, you said it was a fun thread. And what could be a more philosophical topic than nothing?

I don't know the quote, but if it's a statement made by Augustine there's probably a good chance it's from his work De haeresibus.

I'd say Stoicism generally influenced Christianity, not Seneca in particular. But Seneca is credited with making Stoicism seem more human than did the early Stoics. A sort of kinder, gentler Stoicism I suppose. The same is also said of his contemporary Epictetus, who interestingly enough also spent time in the court of Nero, but as a slave of one of Nero's freedmen.

An Anglican priest named Staniforth or something like that wrote an introduction to the Penguin Classics version of Marcus Aurelius' Medtations which detailed what he thought were the significant contributions to Christianity. He thinks the Stoic conception of the Logos was borrowed by Christianity, that the Christian trinity and the Holy Spirit finds its basis in Stoicism, and more. He thought that Paul used Stoic terminology in his letters. I would add Stoicism's claim that we are all united and one people, not many different peoples, as we all carry within us a part of the providential divinty that is inherent in the world, and their concept of natural law which Cicero wrote of. Cicero did a lot to popularize Greek thought in the Roman world.

Stoicism keeps coming back. It was popular again during the Renaissance, and Justus Lipius founded neo-stoicism in the 16th century. And it's resurgent now, as you'll find by doing a Google search. There are several new books being written about it, academic and popular, and Internet stoic communities exist.

I agree that Plotinus and neo-platonism influenced Christianity greatly. The Platonist version of Christianity was probably dominant until the works of Aristotle began being read again in the 12th-13th centuries.

It's interesting, then, that the early Christians were so inclined to treat him as one of their own. Seneca was the subject of criticism for his wealth while he lived by his pagan enemies. For this and other reasons he offered to give Nero all he owned. But Christians were eager to claim he was at least a forerunner of theirs. I suspect this was a part of the often clumsy efforts of early Christian intellectuals to assimilate pagan philosophy into Christianity, which was otherwise lacking in philosophical foundations.

It's also interesting how easily the revolutionary spirit of Christianity became the imperial spirit of the Christian Roman Empire. You might be surprised to learn the number of Roman Emperors who were Christian.

The early Christian Fathers were quite fond of Seneca. Jerome called him "our Seneca" and someone took the trouble to fabricate a correspondence between him and Paul. Some even claimed Seneca was a Christian, but there is no evidence for that, nor are Jesus or Christians mentioned in his work, though earlier Stoics, Epicurus, Plato, and other pagan philosophers often are.

I think any comparison of Seneca and Jesus is probably an unhelpful exercise. We know much about Seneca, and little of Jesus. Seneca wrote extensively, was well-known while he lived, a significant figure before and after he tutored Nero, a significant figure in governing the Empire until his falling out with Nero and being required to commit suicide. Jesus we know only by what was written of him decades after his death. What was written of him can be obscure, and sometimes confusing.

Seneca was the great stylist of his age, sophisticated, well-educated in philosophy and Greek and Latin literature. Jesus was not. Jesus as best we can tell spoke simply. His pronouncements on morality are generally unobjectionable.and admirable, but I think are unremarkable given the centuries of thought given morals by the philosophers who came before him. Seneca was a part of that tradition, and naturally voiced it much more eloquently than Jesus or at least those who claimed to repeat his words could.

Why do contracts not supersede constitutional rights and criminal law? — VagabondSpectre

As a rule, a contract to do something which violates the law is void, or voidable, on public policy grounds. So, for example, a contract to sell one person to another is unenforceable; it doesn't exist in the law, it isn't binding. To give another example which better fits in what seems the overwhelming focus of this thread, i.e. sex, a contract to sell sexual services would be void in most jurisdictions.

The Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits federal, state and local governments from impairing rights and obligations arising out of contracts which are legal, however. A contract to violate the law wouldn't be legal.

Divorce law is not something I practice. However, the effects of marriage on property rights is something that impacts what I do now and then, and I know enough of the law in that area to fairly say that marriage in the law is treated as more in the nature of a partnership than a contract. This has led me to propose in the context of disputes regarding whether same sex marriages are really marriages that all marriages should be called domestic partnerships or unions for purposes of the law, as that is just what they are for legal purposes, and nothing more.

The institutional religions and the religious would then be free to say what they wish to say, require whatever rituals, vows, incantations they wish to require and impose whatever conditions they think appropriate regarding what is a marriage for their purposes, but it would be more clear than it is now that what the religious insist are marriages is not governing as far as the law is concerned.

The crime of adultery being proposed in this thread has nothing to do with marriage as defined in the law. It at most would result in the dissolution of a legal marriage and possibly impact issues related to custody, financial settlement and support. It's similar to sexcrime, as conceived by Orwell in his 1984, as it would make criminal any sexual conduct engaged in by a married person with someone other than his/her husband or wife.

the only way to save Creation was to restart it. — Agustino

Yes, and with the same creatures with the same free will that led to the corruption requiring the destruction of Creation the first time around. There's certainly no error in that. Clever fellow, God.

I don't support any politician, nor do I have any leader(s), in national government. The executive and legislative branches of our Great Republic are made up of people whose primary concern is to line the pockets of their friends and supporters (and their own). Their secondary concern is to please those who provide them with money and support so that they may continue to address their primary concern.

What makes you say that? For an institution that prides the status quo, I don't see how much has changed. It may be that other things have changed and not the Roman Catholic Church. — Posty McPostface

It changed when it abandoned its ritual, ceremony and liturgy. In other words, when it changed the manner of its public worship. I had the misfortune of attending a funeral mass a short time ago. It's been some time since I attended a mass of any kind, but the ceremony, the songs sung, the language used, are dull, colorless, vapid, commonplace. I have no problem with the use of English (or whatever language) rather than Latin, though I think Latin is more attractive as a spoken language. The King James version of the Bible is very well written, and can be poetic, even. Modern translations are monotonous when read, agonizing when spoken. There seems nothing spiritual about it, to me. It's like attending a meeting of a the local Rotary.

In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, a source of horror and bloodshed the world over — frank

That seems to have been the case for institutional Christianity generally, I would say, and was not peculiar to the Catholic Church. Or perhaps more accurately, it has been the case with the followers of institutional Christianity generally. It's a function of what Christianity did not derive from paganism; Christianity's exclusiveness and intolerance, which Christians that obtained political power brought with them into government. The Catholic Church was beautiful and artistic to the extent honored its pagan roots, but the beautiful and artistic can also be cruel.

Be proud of your Catholic upbringing. Revel in it!

If one is going to belong to a religious institution, or institutional religion, Catholicism is the way to go--or used to be, in any case. Now, of course, being a Catholic is more like being a member of the Elks, or Lions or Kiwanis. But back in the day, as they say far too often, it's ritual was beautiful, even glorious, filled with ancient forms and ancient mysteries; a link to the old Greco-Roman civilization and culture, with Judaism added, rather awkwardly, I think. What else can a good institutional religion be but beautiful and an artistic expression, appealing to what is natural in us?

Santayana was right about Catholicism, I think: Catholicism is paganism spiritualised: it is fundamentally naturalistic; and the transcendental spirit and the wise statesman may accept Catholicism, where it naturally arises, as a good poetic symbol for the forces and the issues of human life in that phase; not, however, as a scientific revelation of reality or a history of literal facts.

I have no intention of reading Confessions and the Summa Theologiae. — Benkei

Augustine's Confessions seems to me readable only if one enjoys another's efforts to expose himself, as it were. There's something perverse about his eagerness to detail his sins, purportedly for the benefit of others. Rousseau's Confessions are sickly in a similar way.

As for the work of that embodiment of the sin of gluttony, Thomas Aquinas, it's not so bad, though very dry and of course thoroughly derivative of Aristotle.

I have no respect for C.S. Lewis as an apologist as I think he was rather inept. Take, for example, his argument Jesus was God because he said he was God. It goes something like this: Only a lunatic or liar would say he was God if he wasn't God. Jesus wasn't a lunatic, nor was he a liar. Therefore, he must have been God. He came up with it (Lewis, I mean) because he was annoyed with people thinking Jesus was just a great man.

That doesn't really work, though. For one thing, it assumes what was written about him decades after his death is accurate. And Jesus is portrayed as saying he's God or at least his son only in the Gospel of John, generally considered to be the last of the Gospels written This seems flimsy stuff to me.

Well, as long as we're doing the Jesus thing, I thought I'd chime in. Just saying.

Ah. It's Jesus time, I see. Well, I was contributing to this thread in my modest way as it seemed to address legal issues, to a certain extent. But when it comes to such issues, reference to Jesus is, I think, no more helpful than reference to Appollonius of Tyana; which is to say not helpful at all. But carry on, by all means.

Not that long ago, and for all I know it may still be the case in certain jurisdictions, it was required that there be grounds for divorce. Adultery being one of those grounds, it was necessary sometimes that married couples eager to rid themselves of each other do things like pose for pictures laying in bed with some man or woman they had never met before, which could be duly displayed to a court in order for it to have the authority to dissolve a marriage. Or, one spouse might have to pay a private detective to follow another in the hope of gathering incriminating evidence of adultery.

In these times, all states as far as I know have what's been called "no fault" divorce, and such things like "irreconcilable differences" are adequate to dissolve marriages, thus sparing people and the legal system much time, effort and money, though quite enough of all those things are nonetheless expended on matters related to divorce such as financial settlements and the custody and care of children. And I believe "fault" divorce may still be available even where "no fault" divorce is as well, though I'm not sure why. Happily, this is an area of practice I've managed to avoid.

I'd suggest that there are various reasons why adultery is not a crime, and that some of those reasons are likely similar to the reasons why the sale and manufacture of alcoholic beverages is no longer a crime. People probably will no more give up sex than they gave up drinking. There will be adultery, and there will often be adultery. So, the question which will be raised is--if it is made a crime, what kind of resources would have to be devoted its enforcement, and are those resources better spent in the enforcement of other laws?

My guess is many resources, and my opinion would be those resources would soon be thought to be better spent elsewhere. I suspect as a result that it would be a crime which would rarely be enforced, and probably repealed eventually, sooner rather than later. And there are, in fact, civil remedies available; claims can be made for alienation of affections, intentional infliction of emotional distress, consequential damages resulting from them, which may carry with them potential claims for punitive damages. Then there's the amusingly named tort of "criminal conversation." The availability of these claims vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but I saw a headline recently in which a court apparently awarded damages in excess of 8 million dollars. And adultery I would think could figure in a court's determination on custody and financial settlement.

Evidence. Conversations (phone calls are recorded), testimonies, photos, video, unexplained hotel bookings, circumstantial evidence (underwear forgotten, fingerprints, etc.). Just like for any other crime. It's really very easy to prove once the state apparatus gets in motion. — Agustino

Evidence of what, though? It's necessary, first, to define the crime. What kind of conduct constitutes the crime of adultery? What is it that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (unless you think that standard should be dispensed with for this new crime)?

Is fornication with someone other than a spouse (I suppose that's redundant) the crime in question, or does the crime of adultery include other conduct?

Let's say police stop a car because one of the rear lights isn't functioning. Speaking with the two occupants, one of the alert officers discovers they're not married. Worse yet, one is a man and one is a woman. His partner (to whom he's not married, by the way) noticed the two occupants were holding hands as he approached the vehicle. Suspecting the couple are engaged in the crime of adultery, the policemen search the vehicle. They find unused condoms in the glove compartment.

Now, if the crime of adultery includes the act of holding hands with a person who is not married to you (well, an adult person, perhaps; holding hands with a minor may be a separate offense), then clearly the search of the car was warranted and the two may be arrested and appropriately charged. But if fornication is required:

May the vehicle be searched?
Is there sufficient evidence to justify arrest?
If there is not sufficient evidence to justify arrest, would there be enough evidence to, for example, search their homes, get their phone records, etc.?

I envy those who will prepare law school/bar exam questions when adultery is made a crime

Once the crime of adultery is adequately defined, we may consider whether attempted adultery should be a crime as well, whether adultery should be a felony, the range of sentences available, whether more than one instance of adultery should require additional punishment, whether adultery with more than one person should be considered a separate crime, and whether more than one instance of adultery with the same person is a single crime or each instance a crime in itself.

Also, if fornication is a necessary element of the crime of adultery, perhaps conduct which isn't fornication, e.g., kissing, making out, holding hands, hugging in suspicious circumstances, may be made offenses for which a forfeiture is required, if not a lesser sentence.

To the extent that others seek to control their conduct in various ways on the ground that they're transgender, lesbian, gay, whatever, I think they're justified in objecting to that and doing what they can to prevent it. It's not unreasonable to demand to be treated like any other human being should be treated. If laws discriminate against them because of what they are, I think they're justified in doing what they can to change them. But I don't think they should seek to control the conduct or thoughts of others, except as needed to prevent themselves from being restricted or harmed by others because of what they are.

I can't help but feel that controversies of this kind arise from our regrettable tendency to disturb ourselves over matters which are not in our control. Sometimes, that tendency expresses itself in a desire to control or efforts to control that which properly speaking is not in our control, or condemn those who are not in our control for doing things which are not in our control. We should stop doing this sort of thing, I think, and as the saying goes mind our own goddamn business. Yes, I invoke the wisdom of the Stoics here, though I doubt they characterized that wisdom in quite this way. Perhaps they should have.

If it causes no harm to others, it shouldn't matter that X is biologically male or female but identifies otherwise. We may think it odd or strange or even wrong, but we must resign ourselves to the fact that we can't make others do or think as we please, and shouldn't try to, unless harm will result, and not merely harm to our sense of what's proper. If there are circumstances where it may cause harm, deal with those situations as they may arise to prevent harm. There are ways to address such things intelligently. We shouldn't make decisions, however, based on such concerns as--"what will happen if some bird-man wants us to pay his medical bills?"

If I was in charge, adultery would be illegal, punished with several years in prison for both involved. I see no problem with this at all, quite the contrary, they are the very demands of justice. — Agustino

If only you were in charge! But I think you should consider requiring them to wear a scarlet "A." It far more effectively meets the need of the sexually self-righteous to shame others, and it goes without saying it would go a long way towards satisfying the interest of the prurient.

But would fornication be a necessary condition of the crime of adultery? What if a married person spent an inappropriate amount of time with someone not his/her husband or wife, but didn't engage in sexual intercourse with them? What if they just "made out"? Would kissing in itself be sufficient for a conviction? Kissing plus "petting" perhaps? Exchanging sexts? Would the prosecution meet its burden of proof merely by showing that people married to others spent a lot of time with someone they weren't married to, for no legally sufficient reason? Proving actual copulation may be difficult. What would support arrest; what would result in conviction? What would constitute probable cause for arrest, support issuance of a warrant?

You have to think this out, you see, if you really want to do the job right.

I agree with Ciceronianus the White about the strangeness of being preoccupied with the sex lives of others — Erik

It's quite odd, I think, but perhaps the tendency to moralize about and condemn the sexual conduct of consenting adults is merely another way in which those obsessed with sex can safely think about it and express their obsession. A kind of voyeurism which avoids the need to peek through keyholes or windows and may be indulged in publically?

This deliberate injustice could be because lawyers like to cheat and they have rigged the system so they can get away with it. Lawyers are also not required to tell the truth in court. How many prosecutors or defenders go to jail for perjury? — wellwisher

What an unfortunately silly person you are! Silliness can be amusing, and normally I'm in favor of it, particularly where the law is concerned. But one should employ wit when being silly, and wit requires some knowledge of one's subject matter, and I fear you have none in this case. Silliness without wit is merely tiresome, or clumsy in an embarrassing manner. Like Valvert was when trying to make an amusing comment on Cyrano's nose.

Lawyers are prohibited from testifying in any trial in which they are advocates except as to undisputed and unimportant matters, for reasons which I would think even the dullest among us would understand. But, when testifying under oath, they must tell the truth like any other witness. Very few ever testify, unless called as a witness in matters where they're not advocates (when they're not advocates they don't represent anyone in a matter).

As for making adultery a crime, I assume the punishment would involve wearing a scarlet "A"? Ah, those were better times, the times of the Puritans--though certainly not happier. But if the laws are inadequately draconian, not to say Orwellian, for your taste and you seek to legislate morality you must petition your legislators; they might buy it. After all, Prohibition was the law for 13 years (enforceable through the Volstead Act).

A

I assume your a personal injury attorney from your value added to the thread. University of Phoenix — Mr Smith

Ah, yet another lawyer wannabe. I delight in those who rely on lawyers, or their perception of the law, to make points only to denigrate them if it turns out there's a lawyer who disagrees with them. But only a particular lawyer wannabe. There are some lawyers you don't want to be. I understand.

I fear you're wrong regarding my practice and the law school I attended. But come now, do you really think this kind of conduct in a domestic dispute/divorce is unusual or is limited to those "vengeful mothers"? One could as well make a case for the prevalence of unloving, miserly, deadbeat fathers, who avoid paying child support (there are quite a few, you know, the result being that the state must bear the cost and chase the deadbeat). Or wife-beating husbands. It's a tragic fact that children are too often used by mothers and fathers in their malice towards each other.

No doubt I appear cynical, and am for that matter. But there are lawyers who go to market on this kind of basis--"we'll defend your rights as a father" or "we'll fight like a pit bull to protect you from...etc." (I've seen the fighting pit bull lawyer used in an actual advertisement). I doubt cruelty of this kind is limited to females.

I have clients who are lawyers and they say it is rampant. — Mr Smith

I am a lawyer who has clients. I think you've been talking to lawyers who have clients who are fathers involved in domestic disputes.

It's astounding what reasons we contrive to explain and justify our aversion to, and peculiar fascination with, the sexual behavior of others.

I think Sinclair Lewis was right. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." I don't say fascism will come here, but "wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross" seems to me to be as good a description as any of those prominent politicians and pundits who claim to be conservatives these sad, sorry days, and it appears all that one must do to obtain the acclaim of those who pass for conservatives now is to waive the flag, and brandish the cross.

It's gone, you know. Conservatism I mean, as a force in our politics, society or culture. Sadly, I would say. It's been suborned as a political force, as our politicians will do whatever is necessary, appeal to whomever they need to, merely to remain where they are if not take some other position in the hierarchy. Actual conservatism requires adherence to principles, and they have none. Socially and culturally it's been replaced by unthinking allegiance to certain shibboleths relating to patriotism, religion, sexual conduct, nationalism, money, and a very narrow view of what it is to be American.

I wish them good luck. I think the man is an abomination.

I think that in order to be an "enemy" under this clause, the person or nation must be more than a competitor, more than ideologically or economically opposed to the U.S., more than inclined to limit its influence and power. Whether the involvement of Russia in influencing elections through the means which have been employed would constitute acts of war or actions rendering it an "enemy" would seem to be an interesting question, but I don't know the answer. I enjoyed reading about the trial of Aaron Burr after Jefferson, in a moment of malice or madness, commenced his prosecution for treason and then told Congress Burr was a traitor and that of his guilt there could be no doubt, but that's about it as far as my exposure to the law of treason is concerned.

It's not something I deal with in my practice, I'll admit. But behold Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution of our Glorious Republic, God's favorite country:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Trump hasn't levied war against the U.S. What little I know is to the effect that in order to qualify as an "enemy" of the U.S. for purposes of this clause you must be in a state of war with it, or them as the Constitution likes to say. So I don't think Trump has much to fear in this respect. There may be other laws which apply. I don't know, and am not inclined to research that right now, having quite enough legal work for which I'm being paid (though not enough).

It's nice to think the shills that make up the Congress will do more than mewl piteously about this, and perhaps they will if they think there's money for them in it. Dum spiro, spero as Cicero is said to have written.

So, the Roman Catholic Church has lost it's mojo or what? :lol: — Posty McPostface

Oh yes, yes indeed. It's mojo was in its long history and its mystery, all encompassed in a most impressive, sometimes chilling, sometimes serene, sometimes beautiful ritual which could enchant the eyes and ears, even the nose when incense was used. Death, salvation and resurrection not merely enacted but taking place miraculously before the faithful each time, the divine brought to earth once more. It retained much of the drama associated with the pagan mysteries from which it borrowed. Now it's rather like attending a rotary lunch.

And so do I, when compared with the banal, colorless, uninspiring ceremony that replaced it.

There's some good stuff on the internet as well. But most of all, I'm fond of this, Romanes eunt domus

Ad Deum qui lætíficat iuventútem meam. — Rank Amateur

The God of my youth, certainly, but not joy as I knelt on stone or marble reciting those words early in the morning.

But for the Latin I memorized as an altar boy, I generally fake it using the bits and pieces I can remember, and hope I use the appropriate tenses, declensions, etc. Well, there's lawyer-latin in there somewhere as well. I usually remember most of those phrases. Sometimes I'll check with one of the translators.