Plasmatic

This tells more about your introspective skill, than Objectivist epistemology.

Every “why” and “how” pressuposes a “what”....Entities are causal primaries...In both Existence and Consciousness. (axiomatic concepts) Entity>action>relationships

Easy truth, I take your comments as a form of what I coined as rhetoric mining. You say that you decided to try to: I am curious if you actually decided consciously that pointing out this persons stolen concepts publicly would serve to embarrass him? I have more thoughts but want to hear your response first.

What debate are you referring to?

Yes, and these two distinct concepts when taken as a package deal provide a handle in the minds of those who hear the arguments for “reasonable” compromise and “civility” amongst contradictory opposition.

Thank you very much for digging those quotes up, Greg! They have done more good than you know....

Would be nice to know what insults you are referring to and what knowledge you claim to know I lack? Language games have a historically philosophical history and in particular using quotes to neutrualize a concept within a context where your comment would make no sense given the addition of the quotes. The philisopher David Stove wrote about this quite a bit... For example “sacrifice” in scare quotes already means that you arent talking about giving up a higher value for a lesser one so there is nothing to “permit” as far as rational egoism goes.

I have already given you what you originally asked for. I am fine with you interpreting that however you want. I comfortable with others drawing their own conclusion. This is a non sequitur. Repudiating the type of socialism known as “cultural marxism” does not make one either a non-socialist, or a non leftist. I am working on extensive demonstration of Peterson’s actual traditionally leftist rooted philosophy and anyone interested can see it when I finish.

This is why I find discussion with you useless. You reliably move the goal posts every time you are cornered. You clearly stated nothing about my comment on the goals of cultivation and explicitly asked: ”Who specifically sees risk tolerance as an innate trait” and stated “I mean I would like to read something about it” Which is exactly what I responded to. Because that is exactly what he is. By his own words. The fact that many think he is not is a testament to the utter lack of understanding in the culture of his philosophical background.

Regarding commensurablity and life as the standard: Two humans A and B both are alive and have digestive systems. A has an ulcer and B has a normally functioning stomach. A family dinner A and B are attending has only ulcer inflaming foods prepared. Is this dinner equally good for both A and B’s life? Clearly not. Both A and B equally require food to sustain life. But the means to which each individuals context of survival is different. That is the whole premise behind why the state cannot serve the interest of the individuals composing its citizens.

Is “temperament” a skill? I am not interested in discussing this issue with you beyond what I am posting here. The SEP article on risk contains no less than 5 definitions of risk. (So much for “anything other than”) In that very article “risk perception” in the psychometric model is claimed to be better understood as influenced by “attitude” and cited with sjoberg 2004 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1038/sj.embor.7400258 However, I am largely thinking of psychologist’s like Peterson who use “temperament” as a sort of inbuilt predisposition for things like political philosophy and risk avoidance.

You benifit no one by doing this kind of word game. It only serves to needlesly muddy communication and provides a pretext for others to gain an “anchor” or handle to steer a conversation manipulatively. NLP practitioners look for this sort of linguistic opportunity often.

Yeah, I think it said your username because I snipped it from your post quoting Easy Truth? I will just quote it generically to fix it.

Easy Truth said: “there is a rational complication with the issue of life qua man rather than "staying alive". It is in the case of "risk". One person wants to advance their life by knowingly doing something very dangerous ... but if it works, with great reward genuinely improving their life in every way. The tallying in that case is highly influenced by personal temperament (risk tolerance) rather by some universal determination.” Many have made issue with survival vs flourishing... Highly skilled athletes performing dangerous tasks consider techical skill to mitigate risk such that someone performing the same action is at a much greater risk. The academic leftists who have infected much of the literature on risk like to use it as an out of context innate trait they are seeking to cultivate in a would be revolutionary subject...

I have not read the OP or anything beyond this page yet.... Rational self interest refers to the intentional benificiary of the individual performing the action. Though one can say “but the “individual” is the self”, that is an equivocation of the actor with the intentional object, or benificiary of action. Do not confuse the object performing the action with the object of the action. Objectivity is a relationship between subject and object. When one acts to persue ones own interests as the benificiary, in a way that accords with the nature of ones life and the nature of the existents instrumental to ones values as a means to sustaining and enhancing ones life, one is acting rationally and objectively in their self interest. You could say, one object is instrumental to the object weilding the instrument. People like Jordan Peterson have danced around the topic of self interest equivocating back and forth on this very issue. Oist need to take note of this. One in a rush to be “agreeable” will easily be manipulated by such nuance.

Perception is the non propositional “base” of justification....I do realize that causality is identified explicitly, conceptually...

Rand called that genus validation not verification. You may be confusing her with Positivism....

The methods of the Frankfurt School Marxist are very real and pervasive. Social Constructivism, which infects the education systems everywhere, is derived from their nonsense. You can hear the Frankfurt theorists in their own words in my playlist on this topic: Many formerly self professed marxist hate to admit the extent to which this evil is present because they still want to hold on to the rebranded nonsense that is still in their thinking but by another name... One can also read on this in The Dialectical Imagination by Martin and Dialectic of Enlightenment by Horkiemer and Adorno.

I havent read this thread but I have brought this up many times here. Ms. Rand is referring to "exist" in the primary sense when she says "abstractions as such do not exist". She uses "as such" in a few places in a way that seemed to signal that she was aware of a nuanced usage of language being deployed. Concepts are "mental existents". They exists within the primary entities that possess abstract consciousness. They are held by the device of concrete substitution in language.

Trump should have responded to the frantic reporter who asked if he was putting the alt-left and the alt-right (the tiny racist minority therein) on equal moral footing, he should have said "ABSOLUTELY!"... How many more commie idiots are at all these stupid protests waving red flags? How many times have these Marxist clowns been busted faking hate crimes, impersonating Nazi's? How many white supremacist idiots have tenure in american universities? How many Marxist's??? This chimera of "white supremacy" is a farce.

Laika, I'm sure NB's foolish comments lead you to think that I am questioning the veridity of your comments on Marxist doctrine (regardless of the doctrines falsity) but that is not at issue here, at all. A agree with your last statement and thats why I object to the things I quoted that are contrary to it.

So, because some irrational people don't value truth an Oist should use a non-rational method similar to the way religions spread, to "persuade" others???? OK, has anyone checked to see if Grames' account has been hacked?

If they have something to gain from doing so. And this is not even the issue being contended with.

You threw it out because you wanted to make a strawman without having to argue the merits of the actual discussion, or what ideas within the link may or may not have merit. Do you have any idea how your last statement is dealt with in Oist philosophy and how it informs my question initially posed?

This is not just any philosophical forum and what you suggest is ridiculous. It may be your only reason for being here but there any number of reasons for folks to visit this Oist forum. Nowhere have I claimed that mere disagreement makes one guilty of "holding evil beliefs" nor have I claimed Laika is not questioning Marxism. But not on their terms, conceding their errors as praiseworthy and without moral tolerationism. Your clearly ignorant of the wider debate on this front. Nor the understanding, clearly....