Repairman

I couldn't help but to notice this was the first day in months that the word, "impeachment" wasn't mention on NPR.

And your very pointed question is: ????? Are sure it's not a very pointless question?

OK Jose: Does this settle the matter?

Is it really necessary?

"He repays a teacher badly who always remains a student." This curiously appeared on the Forum's front page as a Random Quote, author Unknown. I thought it was appropriate.

Jose, self-education means that you friend study material independent of an instructor. We cannot spoon-feed philosophy to you. You must make the honest effort. It would be best moving forward that you respond in complete sentences without any ambiguities. It would be senseless to re-cap the mistakes of the past. What, if any Objectivist literature have you read?

Jose, I don't know if this is progress, but at least you're admitting that your purpose to all of this nonsense is your objection to Objectivism. Or perhaps a dislike of Ayn Rand. Or is there any purpose? Have you read anything Ayn Rand has written? The question you've posed seems to be related to perception and epistemology. Is this correct?

Can’t find a way to take a decision using just objective criteria))) So, you're incapable of taking decisions. (taking decisions?) Ok, your problem, not mine. MisterSwigs has pointed out that there is no "objective criteria." And you support this claim with evidence. You're scenario lacks any criteria through your persistent inconsistencies. The simple replies you respond with indicate a total lack of desire to arrive at any useful point. If you are quite certain you wish to discuss nothing, you are doing just fine.

Here's an example: I ask you what it is that you wish to discuss, and you evade by directing me to look back at other earlier posts, as if I'm going to play your silly game of denial. So, let's try this again: What is it that you wish to discuss? You did the same thing with dream_weaver, when he asked for clarity as which one was "the pupil." Jose, Objectivism isn't for everyone. Whenever I say that, I am struck with a tinge of sadness, and some people will disagree with me. Nonetheless, there are people who refuse to "let go" their beliefs they've lived with all of their lives, and something as truly radical as Objectivism seems to them to be alien. Now, your skills as a debater have serious shortcomings. If you see yourself as an opponent of Objectivism, you're approach to opposing it is not working, and yet, you ceaselessly follow the same pattern of evasion, confusion, and ultimately claiming victim status, by claiming that "you guys are poor teachers." We are not your teachers. No one is at fault for failing to educated anyone who is unwilling to learn. So far as I've read into this thread, no one has claimed to be a teacher. If you wish to be educated, as I've said before, educate yourself. Now, what exactly is it that you truly wish to discuss? (And you might consider starting a new thread, rather than continue this disaster.)

Jose, You have been evading a genuine discussion. This is evident whenever you answer a direct question with an other question considerably more vague. Even more so, this is evident when you make assertions that you contradict or amend in later responses. The reason no one is taking you seriously here is for the facts: 1) you're scatological continuity reveals mischief rather than mistaken conceptual clarity; 2) when offered an explanation, you claim that the explanation is poorly presented and that you need a teacher that sees from your "worldview"; and 3) please, don't take this personally, but your use of the English language appears to frustrate everyone on both sides. I informed you that there are Spanish translations of the very best Objectivist literature. Consistently, you show no interest in examining Objectivism from its fundamentals. If it is a discussion you want, exactly what is it you wish to discuss?

Give me one good reason why.

Well, I suppose that's that. The only thing near to an explanation I offered was to explain what Objectivism is not. Jose was not seeking an explanation, none were offered.

Jose, here is my "goal-post argument": You have no argument. You do not approve of Objectivism, and are by no mean the first, and not likely that last to try to dissemble Objectivism. I will say that this was so far, the worst attempt I've ever seen. As I've stated earlier: You lose.

Jose, It seems obvious that you are as unfamiliar with Objectivism as I assume you are with the Dead Parrot routine. You're circling back to the beginning of a pointless, and otherwise easily solved dilemma, and starting it all over again, as if that might wear down your opponent. I ask you to be honest, and you evade the point like a congressman. In this statement, you are admitting to the reversals that expose your lack of concept formation. You had to be confronted with an obvious contradiction. Objectively, I don't need anything from you. I find this amusing enough. What you don't want to understand is that your losing this argument.

Jose, you've already given an example. What I point out is that we are engaging in the Monty Python Dead Parrot routine.

I do not want to explore any criteria. You initiated the discussion. You have been throwing word-salad at the well-intending participants on this thread as if we were trying to force you to eat something that doesn't please you. You choose not to engage on any basis of rational argument, but rather you continually alter the direction of the conversation, or change the conversation, with explanations that you then deed "irrelevant." You are clearly evading any direct engagement, and this is another example of your evasive tactics: Explanation is change, when it is data previously omitted from the equation. This is not a winning strategy. What can you possibly gain from this? So far as I can tell, your whole point is that objective decisions are impossible. Is that your fundamental point?

Jose, the clarification, additions, and expansions you've randomly inserted into your scenario are in fact changes. Are you denying this as a fact?

So let me see... If one were to make an addition to an equation, that would not be the same as a change? But somehow only you would arrive at the same answer. This is utterly irrational. Well then, let's look at it from your point of view: If there may be multiple ways of interpreting reality, how can you possibly know when to use any criteria or none at all? How can you know anything at all? From your point of view, reality is entirely subjective.

Jose, this statement verifies my whole point, that you're on this forum for no other purpose than to make attempts at discrediting objectivity by presenting a scenario in which you change the criteria of the scenario at your subjective whim: If your game has a set of criterion, please, present a complete and objective list of the criterion. The obvious reason that there is no criteria for your choice of restaurants is because you chose to omit the criteria, until it's your subjective choice to change the rules of the game. This is the tacit of children.Throughout this thread, you've altered your scenario pointlessly. If lunch is irrelevant, perhaps you are suggesting that life is irrelevant, as you seem to insist that subjectivity is your choice of "worldview." Subjectivity and/or emotional reaction is not the choice of "worldview" for many of the participants on this forum, including myself. You are attempting to discredit Objectivism. That is why I question your honesty and accuse you of trolling. If you sincerely seek explanations of the philosophy of Ayn Rand, (rather than a pointless exchange of contradictory counter-points and alterations of your scenario), I point to the fact that there are other resources. If you were to go online to Amazon, you will find: Objetivismo: La Filosofia de Ayn Rand, by Leonard Peikoff. I would argue that this book offers a concise and systematic explanation of Objectivism in Spanish, (and I don't wish to assume that Spanish is your primary language, so, you may correct me if I'm wrong.) $28 in paperback/$8.95 on Kindle. There are other titles translated. However, if you are thoroughly convinced that it is impossible to make an objective decision (outside of the limits of a mathematical statement), then I suggest you have extremely flawed foundations in your present philosophy/theology/worldview. Subjectivity is a matter of choice, reality is not. Make your decisions anyway you want. It's your life.

1) If a subjective criteria is your preferential approach to reality, then, anything goes. For example: The events of nature may be explained as supernatural events. This is a subjective statement. The scientific method is much more objective, (although, science is not Objectivism.) If you choose to ignore reality, choosing to interpret reality as subjective, you do so at your own risk, and perhaps at the risk of people who rely on you. Subjectivity is a gamble, when compared to objectivity. 2) That which Plato identified as "the soul," is that which Ayn Rand identified as "consciousness." If you choose to use one term in favor of another, I can understand your meaning. The first has a mystical implication, while the other a more clinical implication. 3) Well, you can, but I wouldn't recommend doing so.

There are no limits. I will point to the basics, and after you've developed a basic understanding, you may find that decisions are no so hard to make. But before one may understand Objectivist morality, please take some time to understand the metaphysical and epistemological foundations of Objectivism. It is evident by your inquiry on this forum, particularly on this "Questions about Objectivism," that you seek explanations and answers to something. If not philosophy, what? Have you ever considered that you are living by a moral code with or without ever having taken a formal study of philosophy?

Jose, perhaps quite unintentionally, you have stumbled upon a very important underpinning of Objectivism: Reality is an absolute. Indeed, the proper interpretation of reality is that it takes one form, rather than many forms, such as Plato professed. If anyone needs to teach you about Plato, and his influence on Western thought, we have a very long way to go... And that is the reason why I am not a teacher.

Your understanding is not correct. If language is a barrier, perhaps there may be editions of Objectivist literature in your first language. I am not a teacher, and the best recommendation I will make to anyone is to self-educate. I will try to impress upon you for the third time: Objectivism is not objectivity. Yes, practicing objectivity is encouraged as a part of Objectivist thinking, but it is not the entire philosophy. How much effort are you willing to engage in for the purpose of understanding Objectivism?

Jose, you are misinformed. Objectivism is not a decision-making process. It is a philosophy. You appear to understand only that Objectivism is some sort of algorithmic solution to every decision. It is not. In your reply, you made no argument. You merely used other people's quotes as a substitute for an argument. You have no argument. You are evading the accusation of trolling. The use of an objective criteria might serve to solve a mathematical problem in binary code, as for some form of artificial intelligence, but I have to assume that you are human. Therefore, subjectivity will inevitably enter your decision-making process at some moment in your life. Ayn Rand did not intend for anyone to spend hours of their life painfully trying to decide where to eat. There is nothing contradictory in my statement; neither is there any contradiction to Objectivism. If you were to do some research for yourself, you would find that your premises of Ayn Rand's thesis are wrong. So, are you trolling?

Jose, if anyone here does not understand or addresses your questions or responses in terms you understand, you have a comprehension problem, not anyone else.