Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

dream_weaver

Admin
  • Content Count

    4588
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    168

dream_weaver last won the day on October 27

dream_weaver had the most liked content!

About dream_weaver

  • Rank
    protégé

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Michigan
  • Chat Nick
    Greg
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Real Name
    Greg
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Diverse.
  • Occupation
    Designer

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

41058 profile views
  1. Words have their precise as well as their colloquial usage. In writing,, especially in book form, precision is what Peikoff touted in his course on Objective Communication while the colloquial form is more appropriately reserved for the extemporaneous, or public speaking venue were circling around and groping for the word to use is not unexpected. Until seeing the objection raised here, it had not occurred to me to consider "inbuilt" in the manner suggested. For just the word "inbuilt" itself, the following entry, attributed to Oxford was returned: existing as an original or essential part of something or someone. As such, this seems quite adequate.
  2. It is a phraseology with which I'm not familiar, Eioul.
  3. Here's Peikoff's statement from chapter 7 of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (OPAR): If life is what you want, you must pay for it, by accepting and practicing a code of rational behavior. Morality, too, is a must—if; it is the price of the choice to live. That choice itself, therefore, is not a moral choice; it precedes morality; it is the decision of consciousness that underlies the need of morality. Fairly explicit, in that regard. His footnote references page 941 of Atlas Shrugged, but I don't have the particular variant of the novel he cites.
  4. An organism’s life depends on two factors: the material or fuel which it needs from the outside, from its physical background, and the action of its own body, the action of using that fuel properly. What standard determines what is proper in this context? The standard is the organism’s life, or: that which is required for the organism’s survival. No choice is open to an organism in this issue: that which is required for its survival is determined by its nature, by the kind of entity it is. By such reckoning, with no choice being open in this regard, it appears to lie outside of this hypothetical imperative. This is where those who stay alive without exercising the choice in question, do so at the behest of those who have made that choice.
  5. From The Objectivist Ethics: “Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice—and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man—by choice; he has to hold his life as a value—by choice; he has to learn to sustain it—by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues—by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.” Being entirely contingent on some prior willing/choosing comes across as recursive. What gets tied into this elsewhere is the acceptance of the axiom that existence exists, and while the axiom is accepted by choice, it is not contingent upon ones choosing.
  6. Miss Rand, in her essay on The Objectivist Ethics added the following footnote: * When applied to physical phenomena, such as the automatic functions of an organism, the term “goal-directed” is not to be taken to mean “purposive” (a concept applicable only to the actions of a consciousness) and is not to imply the existence of any teleological principle operating in insentient nature. I use the term “goal-directed,” in this context, to designate the fact that the automatic functions of living organisms are actions whose nature is such that they result in the preservation of an organism’s life. She added that footnote at the end of this paragraph: Only a living entity can have goals or can originate them. And it is only a living organism that has the capacity for self-generated, goal-directed action. On the physical level, the functions of all living organisms, from the simplest to the most complex—from the nutritive function in the single cell of an amoeba to the blood circulation in the body of a man—are actions generated by the organism itself and directed to a single goal: the maintenance of the organism’s life.* Peifoff added "leaving aside his internal bodily processes". The paragraph leading up to and containing this is separating the volitional from what is not volitional, or in the terminology he used, "inbuilt".
  7. Definition of hypothetical imperative : an imperative of conduct that springs from expediency or practical necessity rather than from moral law —contrasted with categorical imperative. This is a position ascribed to Rand?
  8. To enjoy something provides a basis for valuing that something which is enjoyed. To value something in turn can provide the impetus to act to acquire it. Enjoyment serves as the reason for valuing in such a case. If developed no further and enjoyment is pursued for its own sake, it is called hedonism.
  9. The copy of the '76 lectures I possess has a disclaimer stating that the formulations in the book were superior, and the course was made available for those who might find it instructive to compare the differences. Perhaps the credit that Peikoff deserves is not for his ability to have preserved the "letter of the law", but to have captured the "spirit" of Objectivism in a well organized presentation. Her redacted public notice came out prior to the '76 lectures. As the composer of Objectivism, hers are the official scores. Furthermore, her verbal endorsement here was affixed to his verbal delivery. If anything, more benefit could probably be derived grasping the steps and criteria that establishes what can be taken as objectively true, and being able to communicate it in such a way that others find enrolling.
  10. Then consider framing the inquiry this way. How would you form the concept of "value" without having the concept of "life"? (That is, without having the concept of "life" explicitly or implicitly?)
  11. I don't understand how the concept of "value" is to be understood without first having the concept of "life"?
×
×
  • Create New...