New Buddha

It's not meant to be a logical argument, but merely a re-statement of Objectivist epistemology/metaphysics from a different angle. It's anchored around the premise that all thought, i.e. all propositional statements, are limited - and only relevant in a contextual sense. There is no "ultimate" Identity of any one-thing -- nor is that how we humans think. We make statements... and then move on. Reality will determine the truth, or lack thereof, of each proposition, when we try to act on them. In a similar post elsewhere, I stated that you could enter a room -- see three objects on a table -- and not know what they ARE. However you can know what they are NOT. Meaning, they are not the table, they are not the walls, they are not the ceiling, etc. Nor are they one another (even if they are perceptibly identical). And the fact is you may never come to "know" what they ARE. But that doesn't preclude you from learning things about them, or even making use of them -- either for their intended purpose or some other purpose, such as a door stop. This is the nature of all knowledge -- whether it's of the most mundane thing or the most complex of abstractions. The Identity of things is not contextual, but our ability to think about (and make statements about) things is, and it's very limited. I deal with things every day of which I only have a smattering of knowledge (this computer I'm typing on is one of them) and I would be foolish to get into an argument with another person over what something IS. It is what it is to ME and reality will decide how right I am.

"Perception provides a form of non-propositional justification." Well stated Grames. I believe that too many Objectivist are "scared" of perceptions.

"The greatest cunning is to have none at all". -- Carl Sandburg

Saying "A is A" is the same as saying "A is not B, is not C, is not D, etc." Knowing what something IS is not so important as knowing what something is not. We can never grasp what something IS in some omniscient sense -- only in a contextual sense. All thought is limited by both the "crow epistemology" and time. Aluminum is not "Aluminum". What Aluminum IS is not gold, iron, boron, calcium, hydrogen, etc. Getting into augments with other people over what something IS is a waste of time. It's also why there's precious little discussion of Ontology or Universals in Objectivism.

Boydstun, You are missing a fundamental point of Objectivism, and it's one that I failed to grasp for many, many years. "....the essential characteristic of items under a concept should be additionally a fundamental one,..." There is no fundamental characteristic which has any more weight, value or meaning than any other characteristic -- except in an explicit context, and then only for that context. Your use of the word "under" is very telling. There is no "under" when it comes to concepts. "
The truth accepted by one of those minds you speak of and rejected by the other would not be a truth accepted with fully justified full certainty by the one and rejected with fully justifiable full certainty by the other....." You are looking at this from a "third-person" perspective -- not the first-person perspective of the people who are doing the actual thinking. This was the point of Grames' reply above. And by the way, we ONLY possess a first-person perspective. Each and everyone of us. You cannot know what you don't know. "To say that one was powerfully justified and perfectly reasonable in taking such-and-such for certainly true is not quite the same as saying one was fully justified in taking such-and-such for certainly true. There will be economy of time to factor into pursuit of assessing how highly certain one should be...." More "third-person" perspective.

"....the fundamental characteristic serving as the essential characteristic of a concept is both metaphysical and epistemological;...." Essence is not metaphysical, it is epistemological -- and it is contextual,

Has he asked for your forgiveness?

Probably the best sentence I've read on this web site in the three years I've been visiting it. People, be happy. Someone who can pronounce Ayn Rand's first name correctly has been nominated for Vice President of the United States! For those of us old enough to remember the cold war, this should be viewed as a positive step in the right direction. Only children expect the world to change overnight, and are disappointed when it doesn't happen.

You don't experience the world subjectively - you experience objectively. Even when you do so in error. What you don't do is experience it omnisciently. This is a crucial distinction. Rand demonstrated that "subjectivity" does not exist.

Isn't this very post an example of where "highly rational men" cannot resolve an issue? Or are the people who disagree with you irrational? I hope you understand that I'm not taunting you with this reply. The point is that this web site is full of examples of where people -- who hold VERY similar ideas --- have disagreements that remain unresovled.

I too have a limited understanding of finance, but my understanding is that fractional reserve lending is wrong mainly because it's a form of inflation. By lending more than a bank actually has, it's increasing the country's money supply.

To be clear, the 2012 International Building Code (IBC) was created by the International Code Council (ICC). This is not a government organization. It is a non-profit organization created and supported by the architectural, engineering and construction industries. The IBC is no different than the standards published by Underwriter's Laboratories (UL), Factory Mutual (FM), ANSI, ASTM, etc. These are private trade organizations that create and publish standards -- and they have been recognized, by precedent, in the courts as an industry standard. Following these standards demonstrate that a design or construction professional has met the standard of care for his profession. Having established, court tested, standards is absolutely necessary in a modern society. To not understand this is very naive. Financing, professional liability insurance, etc. all depend on this. Any notion that "codes" are less than safe because they only require that minimal standards be met is just wrong. The building code is a very technical document that has tables, equations, empirically tested assemblies, etc. that shape a building. If someone wants to take this position, then they need to quote chapter and verse on exactly what should be changed. I'd like to know, since I work with it on a daily basis and have done so for over 22 years. Many other industries have similar standards. Medical, computer, industrial engineering, etc. These professional, private organizations in no way contradictory a free market economy. One might debate whether or not a city, county, state or the federal government should require, by adoption, that a code be followed – but to dismiss the role that the IBC fulfills in the economy is to not understand it.

No, it's not the "bare minimum". To even make such a statement say's that you do not know what is in the building code.

Which part of the building code (the IBC), per your experience, is inadequate and leads to unsafe building?

It's important to understand that the building code (the IBC in the U.S.) is created by the architectural, engineering and construction industries and adopted by city, county, state and federal government, etc. It is not created by "the government". it is often times amended by local jurisdictions, but by and large, it is wealth of information on building safety that has been compiled over the years. It's adoption by the courts gives the owner of a building (and those who design and build them) a reasonable assurance that, if built to code, a building can be deemed safe by an objective standard. A building built to the latest code meets the standard of care of the industry. Without this objective standard of care, no developer would invest his money in a new building. Without an objective standard of care recognized by the courts, the owner, architects, engineers and contractors could be subjected to endless lawsuits by anyone who "feels" that a building is unsafe. The building code not only addresses egress (by type of occupancy) but also determines the size of the building, it's placement on the property (distance from other buildings), seismic standards, HVAC, electrical, etc. The building code serves a very objective purpose. And even in a laissez-faire system, it would still exist.

I never stated that objective moral principles are impossible to form. They very much are possible. My point is that I don't care if others live by objective moral principles -- so long as they don't try and force me to live by their principles. But Objectivism does not tell us to FORCE others to conform to those principles. And, indeed, Objectivism tells us very clearly that it is impossible to force others to think. There are 6.8 billion people on this planet, and life is way to short to try and police them all, or convince them to see things they way that I do. I'm only concerned about myself, my family and friends.

This is not a true statement. Take for example the Newton/Einstein argument. Einstein did not "disprove" Newton, and Newton was not "wrong". Newton quite properly gave a very accurate description of orbital mechanics that can still get a rocket ship to the moon. While it is true that Einstein has offered a more complete explanation, it in no way invalidates or renders meaningless Newton's observations or equations. Within the context of knowledge available to Newton, he was right. Furthermore, Einstein is in no way the "last word" on gravity. It is very likely that in the future someone's ideas will replace Einstein's in the exact manner that Einstein's replaced Newton's. Or take for example if a child has a tummy ache. He might think that his stomach hurts -- while a doctor may understand that, in fact, the actual pain resides within the brain. What the doctor knows does not invalidate the child's perception or understanding of what the child is observing. It's not a case of the doctor is right and the child is wrong -- they are both right within the context of knowledge available to each of them. The Objectivist basis for respecting the rights of individuals rests upon the understanding that each individual must think and decide for himself -- based upon the knowledge available to him. No one person is omniscient, and there is no third party "god" pronouncing who is right or wrong -- each individual must chose for himself what is right or wrong. And no one person can force understanding upon another -- the doctor cannot force a young child to understand that the child is "wrong" (and nor should he).

I don't see that he is saying this at all, and I can't imagine anyone on this board taking such a shallow position. I believe he (and I) would argue that a moral decision is always made by an individual. You may have an opinion on a moral issue but it its YOUR opinion and yours alone. We may share the same opinion, or we may not. If we agree then all is well. But if we disagree, there is no "metaphysical" body sitting in judgement to render a tie breaker. Imagine that you and I are alone on an island and have a disagreement. How would that disagreement be resolved? By a court of law? No, because we are alone. If we could not reason through an equitable solution, then resorting to force might be the only solution. At that point, it matters little if you are "right", because you would be unable to enforce your position. This basic equation does not change if there are three people or three hundred million people on that island. A position that cannot be enforced is meaningless. It and $1.85 will get you a tall coffee at Starbucks.

That is not what I wrote. I stated that it is up to each individual to conclude what is right OR wrong -- not what is right AND wrong. Do you disagree with this?

I think the unstated point that intellectualammo is making is that it is up to each INDIVIDUAL to conclude what it right or wrong based upon the context of knowledge that he possesses and any given time. To often, Objectivist treat rights as "universals" -- and yet the fundamental epidemiological premise of Objectivism is that knowledge is contextual to each individual, and that one must always think and act for oneself. To rape or not to rape - objectively-- must be the decision of each individual -- and while there is individually a right or wrong answer, there is no universally right or wrong answer.

Your right Jonathan, right about everything. I'm a idiot to not have recognized it sooner. Everything I know about Architecture, Painting, Music -- it's all wrong. Have a good day.

13 We are saying the same thing. The only difference is that you believe that there actually IS something "beyond" the narrative (the noumena of Kant?). Regarding "my interpretation". The International Style of Architecture sought to remove from architecture any sense of type: A house was to look like a factory, which was to look like a bank, which was to look like church, which was to look like a school, etc. And this was to be followed whether in Europe, the US, South America, etc. There was to be no sense of "entry" or "arrival", human scale was deliberately distorted. There was no "up" or "down", "back" or "front". Materials were not to be indicative of their structural purpose. White brick, white limestone, white concrete, white paint, etc., etc. etc. All this was done in the name of Purity, or as you put it "casting away what artists believed were not essential". But, once all these non-essentials were cast aside, what's left? The same can be said of Modern Music and the development by Schoenber of the 12-tone mode.

Jonathan, Objectivist reject Kant on the basic level of metaphysics and epistemology -- and disregard anything he has to say regarding aesthetics because of the premise upon which it is built (meaning, his metaphysics and epistemology). Your claims to be able to "objectively" explain meaning in abstract art is no way "Kantian". Kant would laugh at you for doing so -- especially in his name. Kant's position is that there is no objective link between the ideas in one's head and the world "out there". Kant was a 18th century mystic. Period. The main premise of Modern Art (and Architecture and Music) is that the Classical Language (base, shaft, head in Arch. or figurative painting), the Compositional Modes (Major/Minor modes, movements, chord progressions, etc) are a priori and obscure an appreciation "pure art" -- and that by rejecting the language of art, we can experience truth directly, we can experience "pure art". This is the "Kantian" in modern art. Non-representational, Non-figurative painting was an attempt to jettison the "baggage" of language in order to get in touch with reality "as it really is" - meaning not influenced by thoughts and ideas. Pure Art. Yes, non-figurative painting can evoke objective , emotional and visceral responses in the observer (see some of my posts above), but these emotional, aesthetic responses are not "Art". Art should have meaning - it should be about ideas, ideas supported by emotional responses. Emotional responses devoid of ideas are not to be valued.

I should add to the above post, that the premise that non-representational art is based upon (as argued by 13) is that by removing recognizable objects from paintings, one is dealing with "pure" art. Not a position that I accept.

Thomas, Developing an understanding of the objective foundations upon which aesthetics is based is vitally important to understanding the "philosophy" of art. As I'm sure you are aware, Schoenberg's rejection of the Major/Minor modes of Western composition, and the creation of the 12-tone row, was driven by the very Kantian idea that the mind is infinitely malleable, and that cultural alone dictates the foundations of music. Schoenberg saw the Major/Minor modes as mere social phenomena, and a hindrance to the direct perception of the noumenal. Baggage to be thrown off. Also, the reductionism of the Bauhaus school of Architecture was driven by the very same Kantian idea. Architecture was not only stripped of all cultural and historical references, it was also stripped of color, texture or any expression of the nature of the materials used in construction. Again, the assumption was that aesthetics is social, and not dependant upon the objective, perceptual mechanisms of the mind of the individual observer. While not addressing aesthetics directly, the book "Descarte's Error" by the neurologist Antonio Damasio is well worth reading. So too is a short book titled "Body, Memory and Architecture" by Kent Bloomer and Charles Moore.