Tanaka

I agree. Otherwise, the foreign exchange students would have to interact with the people they came here to interact with. That would be ridiculous. Next thing you know, they're banging white chicks.

Let's instead just isolate them all in a corner of the campus. Send over some fertilizer and diesel while we're at it, in case they wanna start a farm.

I agree. Otherwise, the foreign exchange students would have to interact with the people they came here to interact with. That would be ridiculous. Next thing you know, they're banging white chicks.

Let's instead just isolate them all in a corner of the campus. Send over some fertilizer and diesel while we're at it, in case they wanna start a farm.

No. "to follow the rules of evolution" is not an attribute, it's a normative abstraction. If you try to identify facts of reality, you should use cognitive abstractions (answer the question "what is?"). After establishing what is man's nature, you may ask "what is good?" for men.

But you can't say man's nature is to consider this or that good. That is just begging the question, not building an argument on some facts of reality you've previously identified.

Man is a rational, volitional animal. That is his nature. He is an animal, but the essential attribute which differentiates him from all other animals is his rational capacity.

Nature and reality don't have the kind of rules you claim they have. There is no rule of nature telling us we should behave like animals.

If you want to ask why we are different from other animals, the answer to that question is: we just are. I could go into a long explanation on how it came to be that we are rational and other animals aren't, but that's not really relevant. The arbiter of whether a statement is correct or incorrect is reality. And, in reality, men are separated from other animals by a very important attribute, which allowed us to achieve so much more: rationality.

Your "underlying question" is loaded with a mistruth. Nature does not contain any rules telling us how we should behave. Nature just is, it does not speak in abstractions. It is up to us to decide how we should act, based on what is.

The essential way in which you should correct your thinking is this: when studying nature (including the nature of men), you must form cognitive abstractions, in answer to the question "what is?". Once you move past that, and are attempting to decide what type of morality will help guide men's choices to better achieve their fundamental goals in life, only then should you form normative abstractions, in answer to the question "what ought to be?" or "what is good?".

But you should not use normative abstractions to describe nature. Nature does not think, it does not choose, its actions are not good or evil. Nature just is.

I think it is simply the fact that MOST are ignorant of the concept "synergy", and how it operates in Universe. Synergy means behavior of whole systems unpredictable from examining ONLY the parts of the system. One should not be "in awe" of synergy, i.e., when one discovers gravity between two things, but not in any one thing, it does not mean their is a ghost in the machine -- it's simply how things work. Another way of seeing it is that systems have INTEGRITY, and that is a holistic thing, can't be broken down into pieces, by definition. And the integrity of systems is GREATER THAN the sum of the parts. Not magic; SYNERGY.

- ico

There are interesting parallels between religious devotion and devotion to reality.
In these parallelism, pantheism perhaps could help previously religious people to transfer their zeal to reality.
I was also a deeply religious man in the past, and I find interesting to tell mayself that I am now a missionary of reality.

Look: emotionally, the axiomatic nature of "Existence exists and I am concious of it" evokes a sense of awe, deeper but nevertheless similar to the emotions caused by the belief "God exists and He loves me".
Both theists and Objectivists seek purpose in their lives.
For the theist, the quest goes in this direction: "God will help me to discover the purpose of my life"
For the Objectivist, it goes in these lines: "Understanding reality will make me discover the purpose of my life".
In both cases, there is the recognition of an intimate self ("conciousness", "soul") making connection to something "bigger" ("God" for the theist, "existence" for the Objectivist). The great difference is that while the method of cognition of the Objectivist is logic and introspection, the method of the theist is a kind of evasion (faith).

Faith will produce in the theist a false link to reality. A false sense of connection and purpose. It will eventually impair his ability to think and be happy.
Pantheism extolls reality, and promotes a search for reality through reason. Understanding the pantheist's God is an effort to understand reality, which can be understood only in logical terms and introspection, the methods of Objectivism. So the result, in terms of a lucid, bountiful life, should be similar for the pantheist than for the Objectivist.

All Objectivist Politics, Ethics and Epistemology are in the end derived from a devotion to Reason and Reality. "Devotion" cannot be overemphasized. Devotion means full integration of reality into your daily life. The religious man is well acquainted to the concept of integrating God into daily life.

"It is not me who lives anymore. It is Christ who lives in me", says Paul in the New Testament.
"It is not me who lives anymore. It is reality (from which I am part) who lives in me" would say an Objectivist, meaning that he doesn't live out of whims and fantasies, but that every single thought and action is guided by reality. This is honesty, integrity. Do you want to be a saint? Live a life of unbreached integrity.

The sense of "community of the faithful" is something a pantheists with a theist background could bring to Objectivist circles.
As Objectivists we recognize the value of living among rational people. People devoted to reason and reality are still few, and we should strive to build up a strong world community of rational, self-interested men, for the single reason that each member would benefit from it. Why not organizing "Objetivist Parties" at home, and inviting over our friends to have dinner, read philosophy or literature, listen to music, dance, discuss films and art? Why not organizing a local version of Ayn Rand's "The Collective" in each community?

Missionary zeal is another strong point that people like dmasst could bring, helped by his pantheism.
What role did other people play in our "conversion" to Objectivism? Could we help other people that we care about to discover it? Wouldn't it be in our self-interest? What about developing easy-to-understand pamphlets in multiple languages? What about a version of The Fountainhead for children? What about a set of stories for Children? Songs? Illustrations? Sport and recreational activities? Ayn Rand suggested we should teach Capitalism to African nations, if we really wanted to help them. How are we teaching it?

So it's okay to suggest that Obama could be a closet agnostic, but suggesting that Obama could be a closet Muslim is "bizarre" and "paranoid"?

If the resource is truly limited, one could make more money by only putting a certain amount on the market each year. Not too little, not too much. For a minute, imagine that the Saudis and every other oil-producer somehow extracted and sold all their oil in a single year and put it on the market. Would this really be the way to maximize their profits? They might earn more in that one year, but it would not be enough to compensate for their loss of revenue in subsequent years.
If they did do this, wouldn't it make sense for someone to build huge warehousing facilities and buy up oil, that they could then sell next year at a large profit? And, if warehousing the oil makes sense to a third party, it makes even more sense for the original owner to "warehouse" it at a much lowest cost by not extracting it in the first place.

There's an important factor that a owner has to ask himself: how long will I own this? If the Saudi's think their monarchy is going to last for just another decade, it might make sense for them to exhaust their supplies over that decade. If you look at Russia, you'll see very speedy exploitation of reserves. I suspect those who control Russian assets realize that their tenure is not secure and that they have to take all they can as fast as they can.

In contrast, if a private owner holds the asset and if his tenure is secure, he can look to an extremely long-term profit-maximization. Even if he wants to get out of the oil business, it makes sense for him to work it as if it is run for maximum long-term profit. Then, whenever he wants to get out, he can capitalize the future stream of earnings, by selling to a new owner. Capitalism allows a stream of earnings to be exchanged for a lump-sum and vice-versa. In turn, this allows profit-maximization over an extremely long time-horizon.

The property owner does not have the right to interfere with the Police doing its job. As long as their use of force is objectively justified, the property owner's wishes are irrelevant.

In case the Police do destroy his property (or reduce its value) in the course of a justified action, the property owner's legal recourse would be against the criminal who caused the Police to act. If the Police action was not fully justified, then he would also have a case against the Police.

As a (partially relevant) aside, I have to disagree with this part of your premise. A criminal act in his area ought to concern the property owner. His right to be irrational an unconcerned about it ends when he decides to get in the way of justice because of that.


The principle of non-initiation of force, out of context, does not fully describe Capitalism. In its proper context, it is dependent on the principles of rights and justice. Initiation of force occurs when a person is interfered with, when his right to self defense is interfered with, or when the right to retaliation that he delegated to the government is interfered with.

So, when initiation of force is not used as a floating abstraction, but is instead put in the context Ayn Rand used it in, a property owner which seeks to interfere with the just actions of the Police is helping the criminals, and is initiating force against the victims and against other potential victims (society).

Property rights, in Objectivism (as opposed to Libertarianism) are actually a positive right: a right to action. The property owner has the right to all the actions involving his property, except those which interfere with others' rights. He does not have the right to put up barriers (physical or legal), in front of a justified action by the Police.

Sure, but writing legislation that makes this clear is not rocket science. This bill is so tiny that it is hard to get it wrong. Also, this bill has been discussed in committee. So, the Republicans are well aware of the ambiguities.
Now that various pro-choice sites have created a stink, the Republicans will probably change the wording, but they had a chance to do so before this and chose not to. Better not to have any bill at all than to fall for such tricks.

This is how they work. A similar example is the Republican attempt to hinder minor girls from getting abortions. There is no need to give in to these little incremental pushes just because they seem fine in isolation. If the Republicans want these reasonable changes, let them enact them within a context of making abortions legal. Anything else is simply poor negotiation: giving them something while getting nothing in return.

They're boiling the frog slowly.

You should live by your own values and principles, as you understand them. Following other people's rules, even if you don't understand where they come from, is pointless. It's definitely not Objectivism.

Objectivism is not about rules, it's about values and principles. It's not about the laws of society, it's about who you are. Your concern (if you see Objectivism as the right philosophy) should not be to follow the perceived rules of Objectivism. Instead, it should be to become an Objectivist. There's a huge difference. For starters, and Objectivist has to understand the abstractions of the philosopy.

But, beyond understanding, the most important thing an Objectivist has is integrity. His beliefs and values/actions are in sync. This youtube thing is pretty trivial, but are all your important actions and values in sync with beliefs you profess to hold? Do you always work as hard as you could, do you always treat others justly and with the kindness they deserve, do you always have the courage to claim what you believe is yours, to say what you believe should be said, to talk to the woman who's lover you believe you deserve to become, etc.?

If the answer to all those questions becomes yes, then doing the right thing about some stupid youtube rule will not be tiring at all. Not living up to a principle you profess to hold (or one you have judged to be correct) would become the strenuous, intolerable action. Treating the owner of Youtube unfairly (and make no mistake about it, violating the terms of service of a private enterprise means treating the owner unfairly) will seem unconscionable to you.

Look at it this way: if you were alone on an island, an no one could ever find out, would you kick a puppy (not hard, but enough to scare it away) just because it would be easier than actually picking it up and moving it out of the way? If the answer is "No, that would be horrible.", that's because you truly believe in a set of principles that prevent you from doing that, and that belief you accepted is entirely in sync with your values and actions. Once treating others fairly becomes just as much a part of who you are, you will be one step closer to being an Objectivist, and not acting like an Objectivist will become just as horrible as kicking a puppy.

It's useful to consult a dictionary. consent:



Indifference or passivity is acquiescence. I call it consent by default.

Well take Section 2 as it is today, without the underlined changes. It can clearly be read to allow a father to kill someone who is going to harm his child. Now, add in the clarification that this covers an unborn child. Clearly, the father can now kill someone who is going to harm his unborn child. Nothing in that section says that such harm must be illegal. This is not an oversight, because this bill has been debated in committee and Democrats raised this objection. The Republicans could easily have added simple clarifying language. In fact, according to ABC News 'South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley told Jensen that he might want to consider adding the words "that is unlawful and" after the words "to a degree."
Overreacting? Well, yes and no. After failing at more radical attempts, anti-choice groups have adopted an explicit strategy of making small moves on abortion: by slowing firming up various laws to treat a fetus more and more like a person, or to make special laws to restrict what minor pregnant girls may do, or to make laws that restrict the freedom of clinics under the pretext of health and safety. This is their slow-boiled frog approach. The pro-choice groups realize this. Of course this bill is not going to create a rash of killings because South Dakota has managed to throttle back things so that people mostly go out of state for abortions: in other words there are hardly any South Dakotan doctors to be killed anyway. On the other hand, pro-choice advocates realize that this bill is simply one more small step in a larger plan to deprive women of their right to an abortion. So, that explains their attempts to stop each small step: it is the right thing to do.



What really matters is for intent to be expressed in the words of the law, for instance using language that the S.D. attorney general has suggested.

The "initiation of physical force" is itself not a very clear line. It is not immediately clear, looking at any particular case, whether someone has initiated force or not. For example, what constitutes a threat and what does not is a very complex question (threats to initiate force being equivalent to the initiation of force itself). Here is an example thread that discusses this question. For another example, it can be very involved to discover whether or not intellectual property rights have been violated in any particular case. Questions of "how similar is too similar" must be answered contextually and therefore individually. While the initiation of physical force as a concept is very helpful and is correct in principle, those four words do not contain everything we'd ever need to know to determine when rights have been violated in any particular case.

I take issue with this, Grames. Only individuals have rights. Government has CONTRACTUAL responsibilities, which must be carried out to the letter and to the best of the ability of the individual government agents. Government has corresponding CONTRACTUAL powers necessary to act as my agent, to the sole purpose of defending my Right to make my own decisions.

Government, indeed, has not rights at all. Only individuals have the fundamental Right to make decisions, and hence only individuals have any other right, since any and all valid rights are logically connectable back to the root Right.

This is not anarchistic. Government is my agent, your agent, our agent. Government's job is rigidly circumscribed and precisely well-defined. Ideally, government acts as a robot, as my agent, protecting my Right to make my own decisions. And is in no way involved in making value judgments, or any attendant economic plans per se, beyond what is naturally needed at minimum to fund and run the government -- but, this funding/running must be accomplished by voluntary payment for service provision.

Government is IMPORTANT and ESSENTIAL -- just so long as it respects and protects my Right and your Right to make decisions. That is clearly not an anachronistic position.

- ico

Does anyone else find that "If you double cross me, I will destroy you." line more fit for an Oliver Stone villain than an AR hero?

My response on why liberating a country isn't altruism was pretty short. Why not read it instead of going on repeating the same meme over and over again.

That's really your issue though, not that person's.

I mean in the long-long-run. Trade between nations recognizing individual rights is more profitable then trade with tyrannical countries. Thus, the best long-term solution is to impose universal individual liberties.

I taught at the High School level for a few years -- maybe that's why. However, some teens can and do make good choices, as I saw time and time again. Nevertheless, they are not self-sufficent and thus do not bear any of the responsibilities of providing food, shelter, education, clothing,....on and on and on. Therefore, as hard as it is for a young person to accept, their parents are the ultimate authority and until they are providing for themselves they ought to respect that authority regardless of whether they agree or disagree.



Not if they are in conflict with the wishes of one's parents. They're paying the bills and are legally responsible for you -- you can indulge your thoughts and feelings, if they are in conflict with your parrents, when you're not living off of them.

Please revisit the extensive discussion on epistemology earlier in this thread-- OR if you'd like to bring it up again, I'd be happy to begin a new thread on epistemology.
You are assuming a faulty epistemological principle that the ONLY method of verification is through empirical observation and that apart from empirical observation, NO proposition can be known to be true or false with certainty.

*Notice, I emboldened the categorical words above ("only" and "no")- these are the key words which make the assumption false. Replace "only" with "one" and "no" with "some", and I would totally agree.

I disagree. I think you talked past everyone until most people decided to just ignore you. Then you chose to pretend that meant we don't have answers for your questions.

The finished work...

Tanaka gave a list above of the kinds of things being referred to. "Physical" is not synonymous with "material" because it includes forces and energy. But in order to avoid the hazard of appearing to dictate what is possible to be discovered in physics it is desirable to have a principle. To be physical is to exist in a causal relationship with some other existent. Non-physical is acausal, meaning magic.

The distinction between "physical" and "existential" is merely different perspectives of the same fact that existence is identity. Identity implies that to exist is to be a certain set of intrinsic attributes, and also implies a certain relation between existents in action.

Physical- made of matter, which is a concept referring to particles, sub-particles, atoms, and molecules.

Has anyone provided a definition of "physical" yet? Might be helpful.