drewfactor

Thanks for the response. That section of OPAR does clarify things. Tom Hartman is an idiot isn't he? I have to give him credit for having Objectivist intellectuals on his show, but his arguments are terrible. He argues by non-essentials, creates outrageous analogies...he's your typical liberal I suppose.

On the ARI website in the interview section with the Tom Hartman interviews, the most recent one with Harry Binswanger discussing religion left me with a question. In the interview, Hartman says: "you know that computer right in front of you is mostly empty space." Binswanger responds: "no I don't." Anyway, can anyone clarify this point for me? I thought it was a pretty well established fact that when we consider matter, it is mostly empty space ie. between nucleus and electrons. How about the totality of the universe when you consider distance between stars and what is virtually a vacuum between stars and planets? Is this not mostly empty space? Thanks

I've recently ordered and listened to Harry Biswanger's "Abstractions from Abstractions" course from AR Bookstore. Interestingly, at one point in the lecture, Biswanger makes the point that "existence exists" is a meaningless statement. I'm sorry I can't relay the exact context, but it wasn't meant in a derisive way, he was just illustrating how it fits (conceptually) into abstraction from abstractions.

Interesting discussion, I'm glad this thread has been revived. I am learning plenty since I am actually quite ignorant in math. I agree with LauricAcid that many many of the great philosophers were also mathematicians. If they weren't considered mathematicians primarily, their ideas did have an impact on mathematics. Kantian constructivism is a perfect example. Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza all have had a major impact on calculus if I'm not mistaken. Russell and Whitehead have had a huge impact in the 20th century (although I can't say much for Russell's philosophy).

Perhaps you can explain it a bit better to me, but I don't see how you can agree with Rand's moral positions and deny their epistemological basis. Due to the systematic and hierarchical nature of Objectivism, I would assume that you cannot validate any of Rand's moral positions without validating her epistemological position first. While it is true that people are fallible (Rand never said they weren't), the link between her epistemology and ethics is that reason (epistemology) and life as the standard of value (ethics) are inextricably linked. Pertaining to Capitalism vs. Mixed Economy vs. Socialism, I would say that regardless of Popper's notion of perpetually tentative solutions, the morality and practicality of Capitalism over the latter are objectively verifiable. According to Objectivism, capitalism is moral and practical because it is consistent with man's nature (ie. the fact that life requires self-sustaining action, rationality, productiveness etc..). Since this gives us the superiority of Capitalism over all other known political-economic systems, what basis do we have to suggest that this is merely a "tentative solution" ? My hunch is that there is no basis, and to suggest that there is, without offering a suggestion, would be to assert the arbitrary, and thus is not worthy of consideration since there is no context to suggest a better system.

It's not a question of being concerned what about what other people think of Objectivism (if that's what you mean), but about learning the context on which Rand based her philosophic system. For instance, Rand (and consequently Objectivists) always say that modern philosophy has been a "concerted attack on man's mind". What does that mean? How did she arrive at such a broad and sweeping damnation of modern philosophy? Should I take it on faith? Or, should I investigate some modern philosophy, perhaps read some Kant, Logical positivism, Post-modern writing etc...? For the record, I do find that Ayn Rand was right and my understanding of Objectivism has only deepened as a consequence (especially at a technical level).

I have a deep desire to validate Objectivism beyond parroting what others say. This requires a constant need to understand where others are coming from.

Based on my reading/self-study, the dialectic process is basically what you stated Belloid. It was Hegel who origicaned the idea, and he who based it upon the philosophy of Kant. Marx and Engels used the dialectic as applied to history to generate their ideas about communism. As for an Objectivist view of the dialectic process, I think one would see it as an attempt to negate the more traditional (Aristotelian) notions of identity and causality etc... Certainly, if one observes reality one can see opposites or opposing forces in every aspect: Life and death, night and day, health and sickness, war and peace, happiness and sadness, triumph and defeat, reason and faith etc... My (Objectivist) interpretation is that although reality does seem to contain this process of thesis and antithesis, an individual's life requires values. Since life is both the root and reward of value, it makes human life conditional upon actions that further/promote life. This means that, usinMg my thinking ability, I can discern values and pursue them in accordance with my value-hierarchy. This means choosing exercise and good food over excessive tv and junk food. It means being productive over being non-productive. It means excercising reason over practicing faith. I think a Hegelian would reject all of the above and say, for instance, that an individuals life is not absolute. Life and death are a mere part of a process, the unfolding of the dialectic, or whatever. Individualism and collectivism are a form of sythesis and antithesis, one not better than the other, but each is a component on the continuum that leads to sythesis (which is never defined and I assume is unkowable to man but maybe knowable to God). To me it sounds like the Eastern mysticism of Yin and Yang.

DPW: I agree. I think your point is true that applications are necessary in order to keep mathematics reality oriented. The thing is, though, the mathematician author of my book and my brother who is studying senior level mathematics and engineering seem to be driving at a point. They seem to emphasize the need to keep mathematics detached from reality in order to advance it as a science/art/discipline. My brother started in Engineering and has all but abandoned that field to pursue studies in the pure math. I don't understand much of it, but it almost has this mystical quality about it; almost meditative for him. I get the impression that holding the platonic view of math (ie. emancipating your thoughts from the constraints of reality) enables discoveries in the field that may have applications *later*. An example of this appears to be in the area of set theory. Nate: It seems like the false dichotomy between the intrincisist and subjectivist camp are certainly due to the ontological nature of mathematical concepts. Basically, the intrincisist is dogmatically asserting that the concept has existence independent of us (regardless of the role consciousness plays in the formation of the concept) and the subjectivist is replying that, no, the concept is basically an arbitrary human creation. I think I'm starting to see how the Objectivist position fits in. They are both right and both wrong in many respects.

I'm currently reading a book about the philosophy of mathematics. It's an interesting read and although I don't fully understand all of the notation and proofs, the general idea is that Platonic realism is the only fully defensible position to take on the philosophy of math. The general premise is that Mathematics gives us a view into the Platonic realm, that exists independant of us, and provides a representation of reality that is comprised of sense data. The author (I think) correctly discredits the nominalist and constructivist views of mathematics. My question is what would an Objectivist view on the philosophy of math be? Based on my understading of Objectivist epistemology, math is not some form of "insight" via the "minds eye" as the author of my book keeps saying, but math begins as an inductive process and through measurement omission mathematical concepts arise just as all other concepts arise. Is anyone familiar with an Objectivist conception of the philosophy of mathematics?

In my experience, many women like it rough. It's that whole concept of taking control and being dominant. Chicks dig it.

I saw the article "Who needs Ayn Rand" by Algis Valiunas written in Commentary Magazine as I was perusing the local newstand. I skimmed through the article and although it gave a pretty good overview of all the positive aspects of Rand, mostly relating to her fiction. The critical aspects of Rand and her philosophy were smeers, misrepresentation, if not outright lies. If I can remember correctly, several points the author made were along the lines that: - She had too much "faith in reason" (how many times have we heard that one?) - She claimed "emotions come from reason" (this is a complete misunderstanding and oversimplification) - She thought there were "no mysteries in the universe..there are answers to everything" (what relevance, if any truth does this have? and what's wrong with seeking answers?) - Then there was the litany of stale ad hominums attacking her character, particularly her affair with Branden. - She is the bogeyman that liberals tell their kids about ie. greedy, uncompassionate, materialistic etc... which is why conservatives don't associate her name with them. I'm sure there was more. The point is that, sure, I'm up for listening to rational criticisms of Rand, but all these claims by the author are just so spurious it just bugs me to think of all the people who read that and get wrong ideas. Personally, I suppose I should just treat them for what they are: arbitrary claims that aren't worth the emotional and intellectual energy defeating.

I think this point is key, because most people don't seem to realize that all of our health care advances in the West are a product of reason. Whether it's a pharmaceutical company, technology developer, or whatever, the ingenuity of the human mind and the application of reason. I think a good starting point in advocating free market health care is to demonstrate how reason and force are opposites, in principle, hence the correlation between countries that are free (most capitalistic) and the degree to which they produce drugs, technology etc... I work with many people who can attest to the tremendous disparity in technology and general quality of care when America and Canada are compared.

I understand your points, and I do agree. I guess it's just that health care, by defenition, is the the care of people in need. You can't deny the fact that very often, those in the most need are the ones who have the least ability to get care in a system entirely based on ability to pay. I realize the moral dilemma here. It's basically a choice between force or choice; in a free society, being forced to pay for someone else's health care would be banned. I realize that, in principle, the idea that "need as a standard of value" is the basis of altruism. The difficulty though, is that it is harder in health care than any other area to convince people out of their already ingrained premises that altruism is the necessary ethical base in health care. I've been blogging some of my own thoughts on the issue using thinkertothinker blog at prodos.com Read if you want: www.therationalnurse.thinkertothinker.com

Brilliant track! I'm an avid electronic music fan and listener. My favorite genres are deep house, trance, funky techno/tech house, and breaks. I generally enjoy going to clubs/parties despite the many downsides of that culture (i.e. the nihilistic, collectivistic, drug crazed aspects). However, I've been involved in the Toronto club/electronic music scene for years and I've met many wonderfully benevolent people who just love life.

I've been doing some reading and investigations of my own and learning plenty; the Mises website is very helpful. My biggest issue right now is the health care. I am a nurse who currently works in Canada within our soviet-style health care system. It seems like everywhere I look, I see how the free market could improve the situation - from our outdated and overpriced equipment and technology, to inability to control costs along with decreasing value for what we pay, our extensive waiting lists etc...Yet, it is very hard to take a principled stand that a laissez faire sytem (ie. all health care is private) would be the best thing. From my first hand experience, I cannot deny that some sort of "social safety net" is does not have its merits. Considering, for example, how it is most often the poorest and most powerless that require the most health care, I don't see how the standard "market forces" would allow the "optimum allocation" of the services to those who need them. So far, my best solution is that those who cannot provide for themselves would require charities (after all, we have a multi, multi-million dollar hospital charity industry) since those who could not afford the bare minimum of health insurance is probably quite small compared to the overall population. But then again, my experience has shown that most people giving to charities will only give to children's hospitals since no one wants to donate to a 68 year old who need kidney dialysis.

Thanks for the input, it is all very interesting. On the issue of applying principles, consistency etc... I came accross a perfect example in a letter to the editor in a newspaper regarding a politician in which someone made the comment re: Prof. Ignatieff becoming the next Liberal party leader here in Canada. They said he is "perfect because he an idealist and a pragmatist" probably not realizing the absurdity and contradiction in that statement. As for some reading, I've picked up some Frederic Bastiat and I find he tends to some of these issues beautifully. I've also read some Mises (The anticapitalistic mentality), and of course Rand. Another thing: I'm not sure if many people really understand what "the market" means. For instance, consider the statements you constantly here from people who oppose the free market: "you have too much faith in the market" or "you must account for market failures" or "when left up to the market, [insert alleged evil] will occur" and many more such phrases. It's almost as if they see "the market" as this "thing" as if some sort of metaphysical entity. It's much like people talking about "society" as if it were something other than a sum of individuals. The market is similar in the sense that it is individuals (or businesses, or corporations which are also comprised of individuals), exchanging values unhampered by force. What I mean is, the market is somehow portrayed, as if by misconceptualizing, as a bogey-man by people who don't understand what the concept "free market" is.

I'm not a formal student of economics, however, based on my own readings I think I have modest grasp of the principles of free-market economics. I find that there are very very few people out there who are willing to entertain the notion of laissez-faire capitalism. Everyone I discuss/debate with, even university economics students, end up saying something to the effect of laissez faire being "idealistic" or "impractical" since it doesn't account for what it's like in the "real world." Even listening to John Ridpath debate on a tape I ordered from ARI, he is faced with the same attack from his opponent and it he doesn't really tend to it. How do others respond to this criticism against others? It seems like the worst opponents are not the outright socialists, who you can easily prove wrong, it is conservatives and liberals who demand the need for a "social safety net" or some form of controls because it is "practical." (For those who are interested, Ridpath's opponent in the debate is Bob Rae, a social democrat who was voted premiere of my province of Ontario and he bankrupted us with his socialist policies).

What do you mean by this comment? I consider myself moderately acquainted with Objectivism however I have never heard anything like such an utterance made by Rand or any other Objectivist. An adherent to Objectivism need not hold such callous sentiments. People in a free society would hold it in their self-interest to help those (especially family and friends) whom are helpless (ie. children, elderly parents, victims of mental illness). I know I don't want to live in a society in which people hold callous disregard for others. Comments such as the one above only perpetuate the negative image of Objectivism and feed fuel to enemies of Rand.

I frequently encounter this position in debates as well. I find that it is important to make explicit the premise that you operate from: that there is such thing as an objective poverty level. Usually, your opponent, whom is defending whatever form of welfare statism, will stand on the premise that poverty is relative. This means that the welfare statist can always point out the endless amount of people in need, without ever defining need. Does poverty mean an inability to even acquire bare subsistence? Or is poverty not being able to afford a new car, a new microwave, or the latest computer? You need to convince your opponent to open his eyes and look around him and observe the bountiful supply of goods and services produced in a (semi)-capitalist society and that even the poorest fare better today than the rich of generations ago. This is easier said than done because most people want to cling to the notion of relative poverty as a justification for the continual expropriation and redistribution of wealth...regardless of it's consequences such as the never ending growth of arbitrary government power.

What (or who) exactly is the Vienna circle?

Based on what I've read in Ayer's book and based on the discussion here, I suspect that the logical positivist and the Objectivist would be in agreement on plenty when it comes to these issues pertaining to existence. The difference seems to be mostly based on a semantic issue surrounding the term "metaphsysics." In "Language Truth and Logic" the major disagreement I thought I had came mostly when it came to the ethics part. Things such as the is-ought dichotomy are maintained (as he seems to agree much with Hume on many other issues). Interestingly, his views on ethics are corollaries of his assertions on "the elimination of metaphysics." Basically, to him, all ethical propositions are meaningless because they are not conducive to verification. So, just as all metaphysical statements are meaningless, so are all ethical statements. I think I'm starting to understand why Objectivists criticize logical positivism as "concrete bound."

I just finished reading A.J. Ayer's book "Language Truth and Logic" and I had a question about what seems to be the basis of his whole argument: The elimination of metaphysics. My interpretation is that by eliminating metaphysical speculations that cannot be verified by sense-experience, philosophy is emancipated from much of its unresolvable conflicts such as realism vs. idealism etc... I was wondering if Ayer means something different from Rand by the term "metaphysics" since the basis of Objectivism is: metaphysically - existence exists.

I listened to an interview on the net today about "deconstructionism." I was familiar with this term from my university days. I also found it hard to decipher exactly what it was about, but I think I identified it's essence. Deconstructionism, as stated in a previous post, is an explicit attack on the law of identity and therefore a promotion of skepticism in epistemology. The interviewer said that truth does not exist outside of the historical and cultural forces which determine what people believe. Maybe someone can help me here, but, doesn't this then render deconstructionism a product of the socio-cultural, historical forces and therefore negating it's validity as a system of thought? I mean, to assert that all ideas do not have any universal truth outside of the predetermined minds of the individuals who believe them, this means all ideas, including deconstructionism. Talk about an anti-philosophy.

I feel very greatful to have a fiance who is very much on the same playing field as I am regarding our philosophical convictions. It didn't start out that way though. Interestingly, we both discovered Ayn Rand together and we both seemed to mutually say, "wow, this completely brings it all together." When we met, I was more of a tradition oriented conservative, and she was a wishy-washy liberal. Objectivism seems to have united us in our convictions since it united my conservativism (moral absolutes, free markets etc..) and her liberalism (reason over faith, this-worldly etc..), all the while we continue to check our premises and live life to the fullest. We still have disagreements, but it makes a big difference when you see eye-to-eye on your deepest convictions.