The Durande

Well then, Leonard Peikoff also stole the concept of number. Or , more exactly the concept of "total" which includes the concept of "number." He wrote "The universe is the total of that which exists. . ." Quoted from the Ayn Rand Lexicon, which cites his "Philosophy of Objectivism" lecture series. ****Notice that it does NOT say that the universe merely contains the total of that which exists. He said it IS the total of that which exists. I don't see how it could be any clearer. The universe IS me, my cells, my laptop, its molecules and atoms. All of those things are things BASED ON THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE MASS. Refer to any periodic table of the elements, it will also tell you the atomic masses for any element. Now, if you want to make the argument that, while the universe IS me, my cells, my laptop, its atoms, the atoms in my cells, the dust on my laptop, and these things DO have mass, but the universe which IS all of these things combined somehow DOES NOT HAVE MASS, then you are free to do so. But from this point onward you can be sure that you are wrong. If you are not willing to use Peikoff's definition of the Universe, or allow my assertion that I, my laptop and everything else has mass, or further admit that the Universe is all of these mass-having things and much more, then what is the point? The proper Objectivist standpoint is that the universe (the sum total of everything which exists) has mass. The universe is NOT a "diferent kind of thing." The universe IS everything. Everthing has mass.

Once again, and for the last time, I am not merely "within" the universe. I am a "section" of the universe. The universe is every thing that exists. My cells are a part of the universe. The universe does not "contain" my cells; the universe "consists" of my cells (and cells of others and atoms and also sub-atomic particles.) The universe is NOT like my house, which has me "in" it. The universe is "my house and me and my furniture and the dust." The universe is NOT a container with things "within" it. The universe IS the THINGS. Since a golf ball has mass, so does a pile of them. And there isn't any "well established fallacy" that can blank out facts, as far as I know. Ayn Rand would flip over in her grave if she could see what you and others have written on this thread. In fact, I am going to take a road trip up to the Kensico Cemetery to make sure the ground in front of her headstone is not a mess. Catch you when I get back.

OH MY GODDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD! Lets just say it reeeeeeeeaaaaaaallllllyyyy simply: I really dont care if there are some imaginary things (?) that don't have mass. The fact is that I have mass. I am a part of the universe (whether you like it or not). Therefore, the universe has some mass. You see, even if you add a lot of zeroes (your imaginary things which dont have mass) to my mass (on earth it weighs about 188 pounds) on the moon about a 6th of that I believe (It is still the same mass), you still get a universe that has mass. I am not separate from the universe, I am a part of it. Add all the zeros to the atomic masses of all the atoms in me and my laptop and YOU STLL GET A UNIVERSE THAT HAS SOME MASS. I use capitals here because I don't possibly know ANY other ways that I can say it than I have already said on this thread. Why is this so hard to understand????? Please people.

You could not have put it ANY better!!!!! Existence has mass. So has the universe. And please, you know very well that I am not obligated to accept anyone's idea of what fallacy I am committing. I could just as easily say that by citing someone's idea of a fallacy, thatyou are making the classic argument from intimidation as described by Ayn Rand herself. It is VERRRRRRRRRRY simple: I have mass. (undeniable). I am part of the universe. (undeniable). The universe, therefore, has some quantity of mass. (undeniable) I am sorry if these facts perturb you. But if one of them is wrong, please tell me which one and how. And please, use a reality-based argument- not citing some invented fallacy that I am committing. Resorting to naming fallacies rather than referring to reality is a form of rationalism. Please try to tie everything you say to the world, not to other abstractions like "fallacies." Until you prove that I am not part of the universe, or that I do not have mass, you will have said nothing that I need to respond to. I am out of this thread until I see something written that is relevant to whether I have mass or am or am not part of the universe.

Something VERY crucial needs to be said here: Entities do not simply exist within the universe. They are the universe. THAT is the key to this debate. You guys are thinking of the universe as a container. It is not. It is things. *To paraphrase Ayn Rand: The universe is everything that exists. She never said, and to my way of thinking, never could have thought of the universe as a container of everything. The universe is everything. (That is, the sum total of everything.

sorry bowzer, i didn't see your reply when i spoke on your behalf. but, for the record, I also think The Godfather wasn't a bad film.

I think I am safe in saying that he was underscoring your casual reference to a great book. Usually when something is great, or even very good, one doesn't say that "it wasn't bad."

You have hit the nail on the head EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!! I admit I have said nothing important. One golf ball has mass, so does a whole bucket of them. The point is that, in this particular thread, nothing important needs to be said. Being a fly-swatter is not important. Sometimes, when a silly statement is uttered, a reasonable person just needs to state the simple and obvious, like I did. I really am sorry that I didn't have anything more dramatic to say. But the circumstances just didn't require any heroic speech.

Jennifer Garner isn't bad looking, either. Tiger Woods isn't a bad golfer. For that matter, I would be bold enough to say that Ayn Rand wasn't a bad thinker.

I am still waiting to hear about one argument ever that meets the above standards. I really would like to read or listen to it.

I am not slurring any Objectivists. I am slurring "Objectivists." Notice that I put it in quotes, which means - sarcastically - that I am actually referring to non-Objectivists - who happen to be posting on an Objectivist message board. I am "slurring" anynone who willfully is engaging in nonsense. To any whom to the shoe fits . . . P.S. And please don't take it to mean that I mean you, Stephen. You seem to be even further versed and grounded in Objectivism than I am. But perhaps I am much less tolerant than you. The things I am certain of I am certain of. The word "size" has a meaning. So does "mass." I don't change that meaning just because I am talking about something very big.

Atoms of elements all have an atomic mass. When I say the universe has mass, it is because the universe is the totality of all existing things. Since my body and presumably other people's bodies and laptops consist of atoms, they also have total masses. When you add up all of the masses of everything in the universe, you get the mass of the universe. I never said anything about weight which is the result of the pull of gravity on certain masses. As to the claim that the universe has size, it is quite simple: I have size, my laptop has size, and so do you. We are all in the universe (or rather a part of the universe). The universe must then have size. *Whether at any given moment the specific size of the universe can be determined is unclear to me. But it does have size, just as it has mass. As to shape, it seems that one would have to be viewing the universe from outside of the universe to view its shape, which is impossible. But, yes, any talk of the universe not having size or mass is nonsense. This is what bothers me, Stephen: words have meanings - and if someone wants to say that mass has one meaning when applied to me or my laptop, but not when it comes to adding up all the people and laptops and other things that exist - then they are engaging in nonsense. (And when engaging in nonsense becomes extensive - as it sometimes does among so called Objectivists, and, of course, other people - they then can be safely called "wackos."

I have simply said that I have never seen in print any article or book which: (a) shows that the author understands what Objectivism is, and ( gives an honest argument against Objectivism, without misrepresenting Objectivism. I used the word "stands" the same way that you did. You said that your agrument "stands." Well, until someone answers my request for a citing of a single written work which meets the above standards, then my argument is the one that "stands." As in, it "stands" at the end of a 15 round prizefight without having been knocked down. Sorry about the formatting issues.

Gravitational attraction has nothing to do with mass. (in the sense we are using here) It has to do with WEIGHT. I never said anything about WEIGHT.

I never said that it must have a constant and specific shape. Fluids dont have constatnt and specific shape, but they sure as hell have mass. How can the question of whether the universe has mass even be discussed by sane adults???

I have mass, you have mass, my laptop has mass, if I keep adding these things up until I have included everything in the universe, then the universe has mass. Please, don't be ridiculous. Ayn Rand herself said that the universe is the total of everything that exists, but it doesn't take her to strengthen this argument - any honest observer would conclude that since atoms have mass, and in the universe there are a lot of atoms, then the universe has mass. (I never said anythng about specific shape.) It is discussions like this on Objectivist boards that lead me to believe that "Objectivists" are morphing into a conglomerate of some reasonable people and some wackos.

It simply must have size (mass) (total atomic mass). There is no way around that.

By "understands Objectivism" do you mean understanding every single aspect of the philosophy in as much depth and in as much detail as did its originator, Ayn Rand? If not, then what I wrote above stands, but I would only add that "takes a long time" is a lifetime of learning and integrating for those of us who do not possess the genius of an Ayn Rand. I am not sure "understanding" can be measured. In my opinion it's like pregnancy. At this time I can honestly say that what I have said also "stands." I have never heard of much less read an honest argument against objectivism by someone who understands objectivism. I have almost always seen examples of people setting up an "objectivist straw-man" (a misrepresentation) and then knocking it down. But, to be fair, I must ask you if and where and when have you ever encountered a fair argument against objectivism by someone who even, say has a 85-90% understanding of objectivism?? (keep in mind that I don't believe in numerically measuring something like undertanding, but I will play around with the idea if you want.) ****Also, and this is crucial, the agrument must be against objectivism. It cannot be an argument that, say, upholds empiricism, or tomism, or any other philosophy without making reference to objectivism. The agrument must be against objectivism. I repeat this because I understand that Leonard Peikoff may have struggled for a long time with objectivism, and may have come to Ayn with some rationalist arguments. But what I doubt is that he came to her with arguments against objectivism. He merely wanted to hear her refutation of his professors. He did not argue against Objectivism.

Do you not acknowledge that learning and integrating complex ideas is a process that takes a long time, and that rational and honest people can test what is presented by forming reasonable arguments to the contrary? I think we have a misunderstanding. You are talking about people who are in the process of grasping Objectivism coming up with reasonable arguments based upon their incomplete understanding of Objectivism. I am talking about actual arguments against Objectivism by those who understand Objectivism. I have never heard an honest argument against Objectivism by someone who grasps what Objectivism is. By that I mean: someone who has read and understands Objectivism - and then coming up with a valid argument against it. I would like to know of one published article or book - ever - that: a. shows a full understanding of what Objectivism is b. does not misrepresent what Objectivism is c. shows a viable or even honest alternative.

Why would you even bring that term anywhere near me????? I would resolve disputes in court. Just like you. All I am saying is that rights are either rights or they are not. They don't get agreed upon. They are inherent in our nature as reasoning human beings. Buying a piece of property does not grant you any new rights, like the right to trespass. The imaginary situation which has been brought up here, where one owns a house and then somehow someone buys up all surrounding land (from whom?) (why wasn't my land bought also?) is ridiculous. Free men have never behaved that way. Use of land is usually open to bidding. If it is not, it is not. If you wake up one day and discover that irrational people have bought up all the land around you and don't want you to cross theirs, and still they don't want to buy your one parcel as well, then we will discuss that nightmare when it happens. But that discussion is really off the topic. P.S. Also, Mr. Laughlin, I am sure your viewpoints are well-respected around here, but I would like to point one thing out: For someone who doesn't hesitate to point out when someone forgets to use a capital letter "O" or some other small details, you seem to forget about some obvious courtesies that people here generally extend one another. That is, they don't make ad hominem attacks or silly arguments from intimidation. When you open with:" Assuming you aren't an anarchist. . ." implies that somehow, I am behaving like one. If you disagree with this assesment of mine, then just imagine if I were to open my lines of communication with members of this board with lines like this from now on: "Assuming you aren't a moron. . ." "Assuming you aren't a socialist. . ." "Assuming you aren't a social metaphysician. . ." "Assuming you aren't a christian fundamentalist . ." Please, the fact that I am here should grant that assumption. And even if the assumption isn't warranted, there is no substantive need for you to open with that nonsense. I am quite aware of my views. I am an Objectivist. That means 100% Objectivist. I have read every word that Ayn Rand ever published, and every word of hers that has been published by others. I understand and agree with every single word in the entire body of Objectivism. I have studied it since 1990. Even if you are older, that doesn't grant you one iota of license to condescend. The issue was a simple one. Either rights are absolute or not. The right to property is not being questioned. You simply said that there is a "right" to access ones property. I said that "right" to access is contextual. If you have a yard that boders mine and I am standing in the street, and it would be quicker for me to get home by walking through your yard, I still don't have the "right" to access my property in that way. There are countless other situations in life where one owns property, but does not have unrestricted or unqualified access to it.

A right is not something that has to be agreed upon.

As I recall my previous rapes, it occours to me that when the woman invited me back, the first time was no longer considered rape. . . But seriously folks, we have to remember that Miss Rand wrote that scene 65 years ago, and that the world, sexually speaking, was much more sane than it is now. Roark was a man, not a p***y. Most of today's men can only be classified as males. That is, their anatomy is the ONLY thing that makes them a man. Otherwise, today, they are indistinguishable from women. Women, for the most part, in America, are spoiled neurotics who have no clue what is best for them. They want to have their cake and eat it too. But these two characters were different. Ayn Rand knew that no decent single woman could or would resist Roark. But story-wise, every scene must have some degree of conflict. So the first few minutes of the sex were forced. Dominique's resistance broke down - not because she knew she couldn't stop him but because she no longer wanted to. Do you really think a man of Roark's character would continue to have sex with her if she was truly repulsed by him? The whole discussion of rape here is kind of embarrasing. I am embarrased for mankind when the scene is even an issue. One must take the work of art as a whole - not try too determine whether at some split-second of the novel Howark Roark was a rapist. A rapist is a man who can't get a woman any other way, just as those who can't create end up stealing or borrowing (Keating, other looters).

You just said it yourself: "You may have to work out a "right of way" agreement. An agreement presumes two parties agreeing. What if they don't agree??? If you say an agreement must be made, then an agreement must be made. But what if one isnt? Do you have the right to force an agreement??

I dont mean self evident. I mean that Ayn Rand's philosophy does not have any good arguments against it, just as 2+2=4 doesn't. One would have to know what Objectivism is, to argue against it. But, once one knows what Objectivism is, there is no "good" arguments against it. There may be questions. (Homeless people, courts, taxation, etc.) But there are no good arguments. I have never heard an honest one.

I have what I believe is a unique solution to the problem of people who are utterly helpless. Rather than make them wards of the state, which no doubt is actually forcing me to pay for them, why not have the government simply say to tax-exempt charity organizations or churches that they must practice what they preach. That is, if you want tax exempt status, you must take all fiancial responsibility for these helpless individuals. The government could simply have a list of these individuals that they have rounded up, through hospitals, courts, and the streets - and divvy up the responsibility based on the proportion of land holdings or known assets of the various chrurches or organizations that DON'T pay taxes. I forsee the objection that, in a proper society, there would be no forced taxation anyway, so since there would be nothing special about a church being tax-exempt when everybody is tax exempt, who would have the responsibility of taking care of the helpless then? My answer is simple: We are not in that beautiful situation yet. Many people are giving half of their income or more to various taxes. Until we are all free of the tax burden, churches and other organizations should, yes, be forced to put their money where their mouths are.