Doug Morris

How is this relevant to the current war?

Aren't all the cul-de-sacs related to one another and to basic principles about such things as cells, DNA, evolution, and the reason for the existence of the whole thing being that it sustains life?

Wouldn't it be possible, at least in principle, to give a unified description of all the properties using quantum mechanics?

Philosophy is not a branch of mathematics.

That is not the reason for the prosecutions.

She didn't specify. I've been told by a less prominent Objectivist source "the older, the better".

I meant if someone shows me a place where he has already said what I would want to say to him. I said that this needs to be fixed by defining reason in terms of "the", not "man". More clearly, in terms of "the senses", not "man's senses".

My understanding is that if something changes which tributary is colder, such as humans building a power plant that dumps heat in one of them, salmon will "return" to a different place.

There are different kinds of fundamental truths, fundamental to different things. Philosophy provides truths fundamental to our approach to knowledge and to life. Everyone needs to know these. Physics tells us the fundamental nature of the physical universe. Everyone's existence emerges from these. But no one needs to know them in the same sense that we need to know philosophy.

The article on "banana republic" is about corruption of the political and economic system of a country into a device for extracting wealth from the general population. Where does it mention anything relevant to the Trump case?

From Wikipedia: At the initial trial, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Microsoft's actions constituted unlawful monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890,[2] but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit partially overturned that judgment.[1] The two parties later reached a settlement in which Microsoft agreed to modify some of its business practices.[3] This does not look to me like a definitive example of anything. The ambiguity and inconsistency of antitrust law is probably at least part of the problem. The solution is to repeal the antitrust laws.

How do you know that it is the government and not Trump who is defining the "facts" to be whatever they want them to be?

Did you read this before posting?

Rand was using an older, better dictionary. Older dictionaries are more logical in their definitions.

David Odden, can you clarify? My position is that even knowledge possessed without using reason is acquired by a process of perceiving and of remembering and associating perceptions. It can not be innate. An innate behavior pattern is not knowledge. If I get a good chance, I will, unless someone shows me where he has already said it. In any case, I maintain that I have given the answer to the problem you raised. Behavior based on a clever recognition, which can be achieved without using concepts. David Odden, can you clarify? OK, David Odden and I seem to disagree to the extent that he is willing to call things "instinctual knowledge" which I say are behavior but not knowledge.

"There is no 'God'." "The concept of "God" does not make sense." These two statements are consistent with each other. I think David Odden's position and mine on "instinctual knowledge" are consistent with each other. But perhaps he will clarify for us. No. I don't think so. "man's" should be "the". Has anyone claimed that animals have instinctual knowledge?

Knowledge is achieved by a process. The idea of instinctual or innate knowledge does not make sense. At least some animals have genetically determined, built-in behaviors. But this is not knowledge.

This is very broad and sweeping. "behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level" would include at least reason-based behaviors that have been automatized and reflex actions that have nothing to do with consciousness and are not knowledge. " a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity" would include the capacity for reason. What is the point of conducting a discussion in such broad, sweeping terms? I'm sure David Odden had something narrower in mind. Why didn't you ask him for clarification before responding?

What do you mean by "instinct"?

An NPR article tells how Washington State requiring overtime pay for farm workers is forcing at least one farmer to cut his workers' hours, and how this has further effects. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/21/1188258994/overtime-farmworkers-washington-state-agriculture

Has anyone compared the BJP to Pinochet in Chile?

Then why not call it a "phase change point" instead of an "inflection point"?

How do you define this?

I read the article. It comes across as spending on getting the votes counted, regardless of who they were for.

According to the criteria you are using, a lot of Americans are savage, or "semi-savage at the very least". Do they have no rights? Should they be deported?