Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

dbc

Regulars
  • Content count

    56
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About dbc

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Dallas

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Texas
  • Real Name
    Dan
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • Biography/Intro
    I am a practicing trial and appellate attorney (and partner) in a Dallas law firm. I am also a part-time magistrate in Collin County (north of Dallas). I am a confirmed Objectivist and began reading Ayn Rand when I was 17. I have a Bachelors in Philosophy. I am 43, married (12 years now) to a beautiful woman and have two great kids.
  • Occupation
    Attorney
  1. While in the chat room a few minutes ago, Ogg_Vorbis was kind enough to let me know that he does think their is an answer to his question about universals and that all of this, to use his words, is a "paradox". I enjoyed the back and forth but given his foregone conclusion on the topic, I think I have had enough. Dan
  2. The "class property" you refer to is a particular way of regarding an attribute shared by the entities in question. The attribute exists "out there"; regarding it as a "universal" reflects the human method of knowing. Rand spells this out in the first chapter of ITOE. For Objectivists, there is no "class property" separate or apart from the attribute(s) under consideration. I recognize your statement that you regard this, Rand's treatment of attributes, as deficient--at least as it relates to the problem of universals. Be that as it may, that is the answer to your question: The answer you find unsatisfying has already been provided numerous times: The "manness" is identical in each man because the only thing under consideration is the relevant attribute(s)--with their particular measurements omitted. Dan
  3. dbc

    Voluntarily funded government

    I agree; your right to recover does not hinge on whether the guilty is able to pay. The existence of a right however is not synonymous with being successful in being made financially whole. Again, I agree. My point still stands: you are not being forced to pay for the protection of your rights when you pay a fee for that protection. Dan
  4. dbc

    Voluntarily funded government

    Property rights are absolute; protecting that right is conditioned on a great many things. A "right" is not self-executing; men must establish governments to protect the rights. If those who seek the protection offered by a rational government do not pay, who will? Dan
  5. dbc

    Voluntarily funded government

    Your statement is incorrect. You do not have a right to have your property recovered for free. A "right" recognizes that sphere of action where you ought to be left free to act. It does not mean that someone can be compelled to protect your rights without compensation. Dan
  6. This is why I asked Ogg V (and have not yet received an answer) if he read Rand's account of measurement omission and whether he agreed with it, and if not, why not. It is Rand's discovery of the connection between measurement and conceptualization that is revolutionary. OV, if you will not address the role measurement omission plays in this process, then we are talking past each other. Dan
  7. dbc

    spy movies

    A couple of good ones, both with Robert Redford: Three Days of the Condor and Spy Games. Dan
  8. dbc

    Barack Obama

    Well sure, there's that.
  9. The "property" you refer to is still an attribute; it is our ability to regard the attribute as a unit that seems to be at the root of (at least one) complaint. A particular apple may not be bruised; yet, as you correctly point out, the property of being easily bruised belongs to all apples. What allows for this shared "property"? The apples are easily bruised because of their chemical makeup--they share the same chemical composition that allows for being bruised. We may properly regard the apples' chemical composition as an attribute and all apples (all apples that ever existed, exist now or may exist in the future) share the attribute. Dan
  10. dbc

    Voluntarily funded government

    What part of the transaction is not voluntary? Dan
  11. dbc

    Voluntarily funded government

    The only way to determine who "gets . . . more benefits" is how many man-hours/use of equipment, etc is used on behalf of each person. It is possible that the fellow who only pays $1,500 in fees gets more benefits because of the number of times he calls the police. If that is the case, there is nothing wrong with assessing a usage fee. The protection of liberty, like every other value, must be paid for. Dan
  12. I do not know what you mean by "idelize[ing] them into a mental comparment". It appears you are suggesting some kind of classification of men based, not on observable similarities but on some kind of psychological convenience. Yet, we cannot intellegently speak of a "degree of rationality" without assuming the existence of a rational faculty. Have you read Rand's account of measurement omission in ITOE? This is a key tenet to Rand's theory of concepts. You seem to either not be aware of the role of measurement omission in her theory of concepts or you have dismissed it out of hand. If you have read it and disagree, please tell us what specifically you find objectionalbe. Dan
  13. What is that you mean by "straight"? Doesn't straight refer to a particular shape? A relationship between two or more points? What, specifically, is the "impossibility" you refer to? Dan
  14. As she stated in the Foreword, Rand intended that ITOE be a "summary of one of its [Objectivist epistemology's] cardinal elements--the Objectivist theory of concepts." Dan
  15. First, it would be helpful if you told us to what you refer when you speak of one man having "the same" rational faculty of another man. Regardless, Rand tells us that the fact that men possess rational faculty is a characteristic that justifies us in regarding them as members of the same class. The degree of a man's intellegence (assuming that is what you were refering to) is not an essential characteristic.
×