thenelli01

I'm not going to answer that question without understanding exactly what you are referring to. How are the concepts different? - do they have different definitions? What are the definitions of each? And what circumstances led to the difference? If you ask an abstract question like this, you should be able to give a concrete example.

I'm not understanding. Are you saying that they are using the word "murder" to denote two different concepts... or... Are you saying that it is the same concept, just formed differently? If it is the latter, I am gonna need specifics -- what facts of reality did they observe, what method of concept formation did they use, what did the process of validation look like, and how EXACTLY are they different?

How are they different, can you make it more concrete?

You stated: "If so, since as you stated in post #95, "Man is not omniscient," does this mean that you do not know whether or not the concept of murder formed by your consciousness is the concept of murder that is derived from reality?" So you apply this rule arbitrarily? Why did you decide to apply the fact that "man is not omniscient" in this context? To the first hypothetical, it doesn't mean that you formed the concept properly or that it is necessarily objectively derived. When you get to higher level abstractions, most people learn concepts by definition and then relating to reality. So you may have a definition but not fully understand what its referents in reality are exactly. The purpose of reduction is to retrace the logical steps necessary to reform the concept -- tracing back from the lower level concepts in a logical hierarchical structure to the perceptual level. The purpose of integration is to tie it back in to make sure that there are no contradictions with the rest of your knowledge. But, no, it is not possible to form the concept yourself objectively and then modify the concept if there was no change in knowledge. If the first concept was properly formed, and through a process of reduction and integration, your context of knowledge doesn't change, then there would be no reason to modify. If, through a validation process or through learning more relevant information, your context of knowledge expands and you modify the concept, it is possible for for both to be objectively correct. When you form a concept and define it, you are doing so in a certain context. You are really saying: Based on my present knowledge, this is the proper definition of the concept and this is what it refers to. ...but this doesn't apply to learning by definition. The only way to *really* grasp a concept is to reform it.

Your unstated premise is that because man is not omniscient, he cannot know anything for sure. As to your question -- "You know people are alive, you know people die, and you know that other people kill other people." (Credit: Fawkes) That is all experienced in reality. Murder is a narrower concept or type of killing. Murder is when people kill other people under certain criteria vs. a different type of killing. As to how you know whether or not you formed a concept correctly, you validate it through a process of reduction and integration. It is fairly easy to know whether or not you hold a concept correctly, or not, by introspecting. If you cannot come up with concretes or if you find contradictions, then that is probably a sign that you do not have a full grasp on the concept. [see: Floating Abstractions]

The concept of murder is derived from reality, and the concept of "murder" requires a consciousness to form it.

When Ayn Rand used the word objective in the context of concept-formation, she didn't mean independent of man's consciousness. That is why she called consciousness an *active* process, which consists of two essentials: differentiation and integration. We choose what to relate by our ability to choose and to direct our awareness. "Regarding things through an active rearrangement and comparison, regarding things as similar, as members of a group, is * not dictated by reality alone nor consciousness alone, but by a volitionally established relationship between consciousness and existence." That is what Ayn Rand meant as objective. In other words, we choose what to relate, but reality dictates what relationships exist. As for objective definitions, that was covered in ITOE.

This is a testament to the importance of Rand's epistemology and objectivity in concept-formation. If you murder someone, then you killed them. If you killed them, you didn't necessarily murder them. The fact is that there is objective criteria to determine whether an act is murder or self-defense. One is immoral, and the other is not. It is either murder or self-defense independent of man's perception of the incident. Now whether or not men come to the correct conclusion is a testament to Man's volitional consciousness. That is why a proper society comes up with a legal structure to deal with these issues in a manner that reduces uncertainty, in which both sides present evidence supporting their claim. If the State, or whoever is arguing, cannot prove their case for murder, then the defendant is set free (properly at least). But that doesn't mean that he didn't commit murder, it just means that they didn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. And even if they did prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, it doesn't necessarily mean that he did commit the murder. So who is right?: the one who corresponds with reality. Reality is the objective standard. If others don't see that your action really was self-defense and sentence you to death for murder, then all that means is that they were wrong. That doesn't make your action immoral just because the consequences ended up negatively affecting your life. Man is not omniscient.

Has any Objectivist ever refuted their arguments or do they just say that they won't respond because they don't want to "sanction" them?

The choice to think presupposes the choice to focus. In OPAR (I think), Peikoff (or Rand) likens it starting the engine of a car. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/focus.html

That doesn't disprove determinism. (edit: Grammar)

Logical fallacy and not helpful.

Sweet, I ordered my copy last night, thank you. Anyone else planning on getting it?

I think he capsulized the point very well when he stated, "The first is the chilling effect, which is well-understood. Study after study has show that human behavior changes when we know we’re being watched. Under observation, we act less free, which means we effectively *are* less free." I think Peikoff (or YB) stated the second, more practical, point well too when he said [with regard to stopping terrorist attacks through a policy of mass surveilance], "..it's like looking for a pin in a haystack." I agree with the above assessment as well.

I might be interested in this.

Any thoughts?

Snowden had another Q&A today. I haven't read the entire thing, but here is a fantastic question and answer that I wanted to bring to your attention: http://www.freesnowden.is/asksnowden/

How did you request? says "currently unavailable" to me.

That is what I said in my first and subsequent posts.... .... Right about what?

And why do you think this is the case? The idea of "coming out" is propagated by an irrational societal view that sexual orientation is morally significant. The cure, in the long run, isn't to endorse the concept of "coming out", that just perpetuates the irrationality in a vicious cycle. The cure is to change societal views to make "coming out" unnecessary and undesired.

There is a distinction between having some conceptual capabilities (which I think might be possible for some animals) and having the ability to understand a higher level concept such as rights. To ask such a question in the op, one first needs to reduce rights and understand how and why it was formed. Then I think the answer becomes a bit more clear.

My understanding was that force, the way she uses it, is the same concept as the "force" in physics. The way Ayn Rand uses it is to apply it in the context of individual rights. i.e. Individual rights can be violated only through the initiation of physical force (same force in physics), but not every use of force violates individual rights. Yes, it is a use of force according to Rand's meaning, just not the TYPE of force that she was against. The first one is certainly force (by Ayn Rand's definition), the second one is force as well applied to the context of individual rights: namely, man's right to his life - his right to use his mind and choose his own values, as opposed to someone using force to negate that ability (and his ability to survive). Ayn Rand: "There are only two fundamental methods by which men can deal with one another: by reason or by force, by intellectual persuasion or by physical coercion, by directing to an opponent’s brain an argument—or a bullet." The first isn't force against the mind (it is consented), the second is. (same for the next two cases). She means barring physical force (same in physics) on the mind. She even states it in the quote you provided. "The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships—thus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement."

So irrelevant...

If this was true, why make a distinction between direct and indirect force? Right, she seeks the elimination of the "initiation of force" from society - not "force". Sports do not include the initiation of force, but they do include force. I agree. I understand the implications which is why I made it a point to say tentatively. I haven't thought this one through yet. I need to think about it a bit more.

Actually, it is "force" as Rand uses it. Rand only uses force in one way: physical force. Sports are not the initiation of force, because, as JASKN stated, it is mutually agreed upon and part of the nature of sports. Force is not apart of the nature of human interactions (properly). If Branden stated and you can tell through context that he meant it, "You may slap me, I deserve it," then yes, I would tentatively agree the slap is fine. But, I need to think this one through a bit more.