Leaderboard

Philosophical Detection The Ayn Rand Letter Vol. III, No. 10 February 11, 1974 Philosophical Detection--Part II I will list these essentials for your future reference. But do not attempt the shortcut of accepting them on faith (or as semi-grasped approximations and floating abstractions). That would be a fundamental contradiction and it would not work.1 The essentials are: in metaphysics, the Law of Identity—in epistemology, the supremacy of reason—in ethics, rational egoism—in politics, individual rights (i.e., capitalism)—in esthetics, metaphysical values.2 1. This paragraph essentially rhymes what Mr. Boydston articulated at the beginning of his generous reply. ([T]he idea that Objectivists need a Creed is an insult to them.) 2. I would suggest that the difference between the two listings comes from an extemporaneous delivery on behalf of the citation from the Ayn Rand Column and the edited for print version initially provided in The Ayn Rand Letter and later reprinted under the title of Philosophy: Who Needs It?

LB, the idea that Objectivists need a Creed is an insult to them. Objectivists (I'm not one, if you can really sustain attention on criteria in the following, given my views on ethical egoism) are not fideists or idiots, contra your insinuation.

If memory serves correctly, she highlights these also in her essay Philosophical Detection which can be found in her book Philosophy: Who Needs It?

What is "Objectivism while standing on one foot"?

While art does impact those who experience it, Leonard Peikoff explained how a picture (or a picture show) is not an argument. (ARI Campus: Ford Hall Forum presentation, and some further commentary by James Valliant.) Global Warming has been discussed in many threads on this forum here. Please feel free to explore some of these before launching another thread. As of January 23, 2022, there are: (53 pages of "Global Warming" mentions.) (2 pages of " Global Warming" in title only.)

I would say that scientists (e.g, physicists, biologists, chemists) have one definition of fact, being whatever can be established within a certain degree of certainty by application of the scientific method (which involves statistical analysis and other mathematical analysis). The U.S. legal system has a different definition of fact that can be looked up in legal dictionaries. The various systems of philosophy have their own definitions of fact. For example, I imagine that experts in Aristotelian philosophy can describe how Aristotle defined facts and how he arrived at facts.

As you claim... and yes, this I believe is an error. Explain conceptually why it is conceivable? What criteria do you have for "overcome it" and "only way"? If the world had a problem, how many inventive minds, far greater in creativity and ingenuity than the average person, could be brought to bear on it? How many people like Nikola Tesla, Einstein, Edison, the Wright brothers? Even if only 1 percent of the population were such creative geniuses, there would be over a million of them. And you have the confidence to say you can conceive of problems for which the only way to overcome it is socialism? You think the kinds of people who rise to power in socialist systems have the creativity and benevolence of mind so many of these inventive geniuses had? You think a socialist society is the kind to raise people to be more like people who discovered new medicines or more like goosestepping weasels and sheeple? You think a society is best able to meet a challenge when headed by a Stalin or a Reagan? And you, could you advise all the greats of the past of your doubt there is any solution to flying, artificial light, or an electric motor? What other problems would you erroneously deem unsolvable? How many countless situations would the likes of you or some thoughtless leader impose the "only" solution you or they can conceive of? I hope to God that if and when an actual threat rears its head, a flourishing, free, and capitalist society is there with individuals ready to meet it with free and willing minds of great creativity, genius ,and objective virtue, rather than the dull-witted, fear ridden ,"obedient" souls, produced by some spirit crushing Socialist society... I for one fully unshakably believe the highest probability of success against any threat is with the former rather than the latter. You had a question. THAT, is my answer.

Thank you for your reply. In your prior post you stated "Integration is essential for truth in Rand’s theory. Fact is interconnected and multilayered in Rand's picture." From my personal experience, the essence of that "interconnected", there is always a subject item and a comparative item(s). The comparative items are normally subconscious but affect the fact or perception. As Binswanger has said "consciousness is a difference detector". A ) change the subject item and you change the truth or perception B ) change the comparative item and you change the truth or perception. Yet people usually only take the end result as the fact ignoring the elements in the equation i.e. the context. Example: Stephen invites a friend over and around the kitchen table a discussion regarding the front faucet outside the picture window comes up. Stephen makes the statement "righty tighty lefty loosy" regarding turning off or on the faucet, that's a fact he says! His wife says oh no! It's lefty tighty, righty loosy! At this point, the friend says " Well one of you is wrong! (After all a fact can't be contradictory). They head out to see who is right, both Stephen and his wife convinced the other is wrong. While the friend knows one of them is wrong. As Stephen gets outside and turns the knob open his wife watches from her normal viewpoint inside the picture window with the friend. Sure enough the friend agrees the wife was correct. Steven agitated with their conclusion pulls them outside to show them his perspective (comparative item). The friend now sees they were both correct in their statements based on using different comparative items. By now they have made so much noise outside, the neighbor has come by and they explain to the neighbor what they have discovered/been discussing, and describing the lefty loosy righty tighty concept. Then the neighbor tells all three of them, oh no it is lefty tighty righty loosy and Stephen, his wife and their friend all think - are you kidding me - this guy is an idiot! A discussion argument goes on for an extended period, frustrations mounting on both sides because everyone is focused on the end result and not the elements of the equation. Both sides are correct. Just using different subject items. Stephen, his wife and friend are referring to the top of the knob while the neighbor is focusing on the bottom of the knob. Facts, truths (concepts), perceptions - always a subject item and a comparative item(s). IMPORTANT

This is crucial. A player who joins and participates in an NFL team is voluntarily agreeing to contests in which limited physical force plays a role. This makes it an example of the trader principle. This is not physical force. The money is obtained, not from the defeated students, but from whoever is funding the scholarships. Any stock market transaction is a voluntary exchange consistent with the trader principle. Outsmarting or outperforming or outlucking someone while operating under mutually agreed-upon rules is not physical force. Politicians obtain their offices from the voters, not from their rivals. They are subject to judgment by the voters for broken promises and other failings. Prize winners get their prizes from whoever is funding them, not from the other competitors. Your concept of "mental force" is nonsense.

Thank you Stephen, So a fact is out there in existence. Truth is our grasp of the fact. Located in different arenas but otherwise essentially equal - referring to the same thing. Therefore based on the law of identity, a true statement and the opposite of a true statement cannot both be true at the same time. Does that make sense? Bullet proof? Also, separately and distinctive, i believe i saw a John Dewey quote in a post of yours that stated "a fact is an idea that is non-contradictory". Any comment on that statement relative to the concept fact? Im thinking you might be good with it if fact was changed to truth?