Avila

"Liberals do everything in their power to sabotage, hurt, and prevent people from succeeding. They are evil, cold, uncaring human beings who care only about themselves, while claiming to care about "the people"." I completely agree that Liberalism does all that you say it does. However, it's ridiculous to claim that all Liberals want to do what you say -- oftentimes, perfectly sincere people hold views that appear to be compassionate and caring, but, in actual results, fail and even have the opposite effect. But it is no credit to you to not acknowledge that many liberals are simply unrealistic, have flawed ideas about human nature, or just haven't thought things through, as opposed to being "evil, cold, uncaring". "Just wondering how the heck I can ever achieve anything when I'm so old. Most people have success in their teens or 20s or not at all." There's just way too much self-pity here. You appear to be setting yourself up for failure....when you fail, then, it will be because of your upbringing or being too old. You won't get anywhere with these self-absorbed attitudes. "Family just wasn't important to him." Nor was it important to Ayn Rand, so you're probably in the wrong place to look for a concept of family to strive for (a family of your own).

I don't think you are addressing the issues Jacob raises -- you are simply engaging in stupidity and/or ad hominem attacks. The questions he raises are valid -- I've wrestled with them myself -- and it doesn't help to have mere invective raised as an argument.

Forget the term "invalid" for a second. When we're agreed that "contradiction is metaphysically impossible," we're in complete agreement on this subject. Yes, we are in agreement, but only so far as we can agree as to what is metaphysically possible. One of the usual tropes sent out by the faithful unfaithful is the usual trash that, hey, can God lift a stone too hard for Him to lift? This is supposed to reduce Christians to blubbering, but actually Catholic Christians have an answer to thst challenge

"The reason why questioning "order" itself is invalid is because, were "order" anything other than it is -- were contradiction metaphysically possible -- then a person would not have any grounds upon which to question anything." You're right in saying that contradiction is metaphysically impossible, but you haven't demonstrated that the question, "why is there order instead of disorder?" is invalid. The "invalidity" you mention presumes a contradiction, but the question "why is there order instead of disorder?" does not presume a contradiction, but merely presents a line for further enquiry -- unless presumptions have already been made that squelch that enquiry. Most non-Objectivist atheists end up questioning "reason" itself, because they believe that the "order" we think we see is merely the result of biological determinism. I disagree with them, as I suspect you do as well, but I don't think the dead-end "the question is invalid" does much for any intelligent discourse and thoughtful enquiry as to "why" that order exists. What I have said here (a gazillion times, it seems like) is that the atheist and theist have come up with differing philosophical interpretations of the same observable data. The idea, so prevalent here, that all theists are knuckle-dragging idiots, just reeks of presumptions. It also ignores the history of science, which has Christians dominating science for hundreds of years. I have met some pretty sharp minds over the years, and the top two were Christian -- this just plain grates with me, this attitude here that any and all religious people are stupid and irrational.

"What, if anything, do you consider to be axiomatic, esp. in a philosophic sense?" The statement "Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another", would appear to be axiomatic. One cannot logically imagine a different conclusion. I can certainly imagine what a disordered universe could be like, as well as no universe at all. I think my real problem is the idea that if something is declared to be axiomatic, that any "why" questions that follow are "invalid". Invalid to whom? There are scientists who engage in speculation and theories as to WHY the universe is the way it is -- are they invalid scientists?

"Exactly - it is axiomatic. That which exists has a specific nature which can be identified by a conscious entity. It is invalid to ask why there is order (i.e., why everything acts in accordance with its nature), as any answer must presume what it intends to show." I don't think it's axiomatic -- it's a bit like saying "grass is green", but then positing that it is "invalid" to ask why it's green. We'd never know about photosynthesis, let alone any other process, with this mindset. "Assuming the traditional notions of "god", if there is a god, then contradictions can exist (A is not A), and all knowledge - as well as the very ability to know and communicate - is invalid. Such a world is not capable of being understood with certainty, so there's no point in trying to pursue your values. Best to simply stop existing." It depends upon which "traditional" notion of God you have in mind. Since many (if not most) scientists have been Christian, this would appear to contradict your assertion. This author contends that modern science is possible largely because of the Judeo-Christian concept of God: http://periodicals.faqs.org/201110/2468648881.html

"The order that exists in the universe (no, it's not a product of our minds) stems from everything in the universe acting solely in accordance with its nature. Hydrogen always behaves like hydrogen because it is part of the nature of hydrogen to do so, masses respond to gravity in a specific way because they are masses and it is part of the very nature of masses to respond to gravity in that way, charged particles respond to electric fields in a certain way because they are charged particles and it is part of the nature of charged particles to do so." Thanks, Steve -- but in essence, this boils down to "there is order because there is order".

"The order that we see in the universe is a product of our minds." Then the perception of ourselves as "rational" beings would be just as much a product of our minds, a completely human construct. Which means that Objectivism is simply one person's ideas (Rand's) about how a person ought to live -- no more "true" (another human construct) then anyone else's.

"There is no "order" in the universe, there is only "ordered" understanding of its many interacting elements." This is so subjective -- are you saying that the order that we see in the universe is merely a product of our minds, that ithe order wouldn't exist if we weren't there to see it?

"Not exactly. I'm saying processes exist, not as existents, but as part of the whole of existence (what you keep referring to as "observable data")." I don't think we're on the same page here: Earlier, in response to me using the term "processes", you seemed to indicate that "existence" and "processes" were rather synonomous. Now you seem to be refuting or at least backing off from that statement, and I have no idea what your logical premise is for any relationship of "reality" and your personal perception. I never conflated "process" with "existence", so I'm left wondering what your point is. A friend of mine stopped by the other day, a Mathematics professor (if that's the right word -- I think his particular studies have to do with probablities) and we got talking about the mathematical perspective on the origins of life. Interesting stuff....He is of the opinion that the ordered universe we experience is, mathematically speaking, so improbable that the positing of a Creator is no more implausible than the modern preferences of the current flavor of the day (Dawkins, Hawking), and of cour4e to extraterristials). I think it's fair top say

" And to clarify, I did not say one can never deduce purpose by looking at the results, I said one cannot necessarily deduce purpose from the results." I would agree with that. "I.e., existence." So you're stating that a process, such as causality, is synonymous with existence? "But he doesn't stop at an uncaused cause, he assumes volition on the part of that uncaused cause because he assumes "order" just cannot happen." That's a gross over-simplification of his argument. "He also refers back to the watch requiring a watchmaker." No, Aquinas does not. You have the wrong philosopher. It would help if you were actually familiar with his arguments.

"That is because when stated objectively, reproduction is the possible RESULT of sex, with "result" requiring no presupposition of design on the part of the one making the assertion." I simply do not see the "presupposition" involved. And looking at results certainly gives us valuable data as to the purpose of an act or entity: if I see copies of a document coming out of an office machine, this tells me something about the purpose of that machine. If a person stops eating and starves to death, it is rational to conclude that one purpose of eating is to sustain life. "On the contrary, he's using mere existence as evidence of how that existence came to be when that existence only provides evidence that it exists, not of how it came to exist." I don't think your assessment of Aquinas's arguments is accurate. He's using observed processes -- causality, for one -- and employing reason to determine that, using causality as an example, that there is an "uncaused cause" (otherwise you are stuck with an infinite regress of causes). That does not involve a presupposition. "On the other hand, I'm NOT asserting how existence came to be, I'm simply asserting a lack of evidence to demonstrate one of the specifically asserted explanations." I'm not asserting it either. My contention here on this thread is that the theist and atheist arrive at differing philosophical interpretations of observable data. This is to counter the idea, so prevalent here, that all theists are irrational idiots. It might make you feel better personally, but it is not honest. One of the aspects of Aquinas that I most admire is that he stated opposing ideas and assertions very accurately, probably better than most of them could do themselves. He then systematically -- and honestly -- addressed those assertions. This is not something that Rand was able to do, though I admire her ability to preceive flaws in our economic system.

"Except that the lack of evidence of "something" is more supportive of nothing than it is of "something". But that is hardly an accurate assessment of Aquinas' arguments. He looks at observable data (causality, design, etc. -- those are "something") and draws his conclusions based on the data. You don't have to agree with the conclusions, but the point is that you have simply come to a different conclusion based on the same data. "This is similar to saying the purpose of "2+2" is to equal 4." That is not a useful analogy: the "purpose" of a mathematical equation is to assert the equality of two expressions, understood abstractly. It is not a physical "act" or entity, which can have purpose. ""Purpose" is determined by a goal-directed acting entity or entities." I think we agree here: the primary purpose of eating is to satisfy hunger and nourish the body, though it can also give pleasure. (If it were not pleasurable, we might not eat enough to sustain our existence). Likewise, the primary purpose of sex is procreative. It also serves to facilitate pair-bonding (thus ensuring the optimum environment for nurturing offspring). It also gives pleasure -- if it were not, we might not reproduce ourselves. "That doesn't mean that is the "purpose" of sex independent of goal-directed entities." We'll just have to disagree here -- reproduction is one of the purposes of sex, and it seems to be a matter of common sense to recognize that. "But if you want to put forth an argument, it would behoove to recognize when you are making assumptions." It would behoove you to do likewise.

"You must be using the word differently. A value is that which one acts to gain or keep. Plants and animals act to gain food and water - food and water are of value to plants and animals." Yes, I am using the term as it is generally used: "Values can be defined as broad preferences concerning appropriate courses of action or outcomes. As such, values reflect a person’s sense of right and wrong or what “ought” to be." -- Wikipedia Plants and animals act according to their natures, not their preferences. However, you're using the Objectivist definiton, so I don't think we're in disagreement.

"Non-human lifeforms automatically act in accordance with their values." "Values"?? Values are human constructs, not non-human constructs. It would be more accurate to say that non-human lifeforms act in accordance with their natures. "The difference between what I said and what you say here is that you are willing to assume something lacking the evidence to support that assumption and I am not. Actually, I don't see any evidence to support your assumption that there is no design (and thus no designer). You can theorize, but you can't provide conclusive proof. This is not a scientific question, and so you -and I simply aren't able to. You have simply come up with a different possibility than a theist does. "My larger point was that you are using terms that involve presupposition to begin with and as such do not provide a good basis for an objective argument." Earlier in this thread (quite some time ago) I pointed out that Aquinas's arguments do NOT start with presupposition. I find his arguments are rational, and thus I don't think that "presupposition" is any more a hallmark of what I have said on this thread anymore than what you have said. I'll say it again: you have come up with a different philosophical conclusion than a theist would, but with no more evidence than a theist. "If you are arguing in favor of a creator, you can't take his/her existence as a given in the argument." I agree, and I don't. Neither should you give a creator's non-existence as a given.

"If the proverbial lightning strikes the proverbial ooze and results in life, there is no reason to assume that that event cannot also have resulted in the "purpose" of reproduction as well, without the need to presume design." It seems just as reasonable and rational to ascribe reproduction as a purposed process. It's an arbitrary bias to rule out design. "The result of following your logic to the man of today is that the "purpose" of sex is to reproduce. Despite that, many people have no desire or urge to reproduce and use sex for other "purposes" besides reproduction." Yes, I find it quite rational to state that one of the primary "purposes" of sex is reproduction. Other purposes, such as pair bonding, also contribute to the upbringing of offspring. That many people have no desire to reproduce is interesting, but without external technology (birth control), or methods such as withdrawal, the act will produce offspring (assuming the fertility of the couple). "Who said that's how life started? Nobody knows yet how life can come into existence. You're arguing from a straw man." I'm simply using one of the theories proposed for the purposes of the discussion. I'm not asserting anything -- it doesn't change my basic point, which is that reproduction appears to be a purposed act. A purposed act, or process such as natural selection, presumes a universal "good", by which we understand that "existence" is a good.

" The concept has one meaning - one definition - one essential characteristic that unites all of the referents of the concept." But where does that "one meaning -one definition - one essential characteristic" derive from? What is your source? The problem I have with a non-directed, non-purposed abiogenesis is a logical problem: OK, a chance lightning strike hits a mass of a primordial soup of amino acids, and, voila, "life" occurs. But unless that odd bit of "life" has within itself the purpose to reproduce itself(a beautifully complex dance, with the purpose of reproduction in mind), it simply lives its life and dies out. The next lightning bolt that hits could just as easily kill whatever "life" exists at that time. If there is no "bias" or purpose for life, there is no survival, let alone natural selection. Natural selection, by its nature, depends upon a concept of "good" -- survival -- that doesn't explain itself: Is the good that which enables an entity to survive at the least cost to itself? Is the good that which enables a person to violate the "rights" of others? What is the "good"?

"Rand herself said that these characters were not meant to be people as they are but rather people "as they could be and should be"." Yes, I am aware of that. However, I doubt that very few (if any, really) people actually could be, and frankly I'm not so sure they should be. Again, I think Rand makes excellent points about what is wrong, but her characters are so wooden and one-dimensional that I would rather people aspire to something more human. That's why it's hard for me to see its applicability to the real business world, which is why I balk at an employer requiring it (just as I would balk at an empoyer wasting my free time by requiring me to read "The Lord of the Rings", even though I'm very fond of the books).

"All attributes, if altered, would change an entity metaphysically. But essence refers to a minds grasp of an existent through perception according to the requirements of the type and kind of consciousness perceiving the existent." This sounds like subjectivism. What am I missing? "Because metaphysically, there are no 'certain characteristics' of an object that are more essential to its nature than any other characteristics." But isn't man's rationality more essential to his nature than, say, having opposable thumbs?

I think I'd be more comfortable with "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal". You make excellent points, Dante -- I guess I'm fairly persuaded by what you're saying. I think my reservations are due to what I see as the unrealistic depiction of Rand's characters -- they don't seem like real human beings. I think that's a limitation when trying to apply that to the real world of business.

Certainly Thomism would reject the idea that faith and reason were mutually exclusive -- Rand admired Aquinas, and for good reason.

Dreamspirit, The way you have reacted to other's well-meaning (and generally wise) advice on this thread, and on the one regarding your boyfriend, suggests to me that it is highly likely that "racism" is NOT the real problem here. You come off as brittle, angry, and thin-skinned, and based on that I'm guessing you've done a good job of alienating people around you. That's the problem, not your last name.

"What if I own a restaurant and require my employees to read a book by a certain chef because they will better understand our food? What if I own a custom carpentry business and require my employees to read about a certain style of woodworking? What if I am an architect and require my employees to read about Frank Lloyd Wright?" Those are all relevant to the employer's business. However, "Atlas Shrugged" is FICTION. Its characters don't exist, and though I think Ayn Rand does a pretty good job at pointing out what is wrong with the welfare state in its pages, it is just fiction. I don't think the characters are realistic at all, so its application to business and personnel management seems thin at best. It boils down to an employer taking his personal reading tastes and forcing it on his employees, though it has nothing to do with their performance. "Your argument concerns me, Avila, because you seem to be making the assertion that the need of the worker for their job somehow trumps the right of the owner to run the kind of business they want to run and to require that their employees make an effort to understand their ideals." No, not really. I am all in favor of the rights of businessmen to run the kind of business they want to. But I think basic respect for the employees is a reasonable expectation, and I don't think demanding that they read the employer's particular favorite fiction is reasonable. It's not a business manual, for heaven's sake -- it's FICTIONAL. If an employer told me that I had to read "The Lord of the Rings" because they liked it and it informed their worldview, then I would expect to be paid for taking the time to read that fiction, or at least make it a suggestion as opposed to a requirement. If they required me to read some manuals or other non-fiction materials that directly related to my job and/or the business as a whole, then I don't have a problem with that.

"What, just like the employer forces you to actually do work for him? You are following the same logic that has people saying you are "forced" to buy products, etc." The employer contracts with an employee to do particular work. If that employee does not do the work, then the contract has been violated and the employer is justified in terminating employment. That's not force, it's common sense. Nor is it analagous to people claiming that they are "forced" to buy products: for starters, there are generally many choices of products at many different stores or markets, and one obviously cannot be forced to buy a product if one lacks the money to purchase it. It is not necessarily the case that an employee has a choice of work options. It is subject to factors beyond his immediate control, such as the state of the economy. In a tight job market, an employee who does not have the capital to start his own business, and who cannot afford to be unemployed, does not really have the option of leaving his existing job -- theoretically he does, I suppose, but not in reality. I think this has to do with the recognition of reality versus nice-sounding absolutist theories.

"if they don't want to read it they don't have to work for him." That's such a pat answer, but it completely ignores reality. A person who has, perhaps, a family to support and bills to pay is NOT necessarily in a position to walk away from an employer who makes certain demands. It makes for a nice theory, but it does help to look at reality. Someone else suggested, "he can start his own company". Really?! Just like that? Have the people making these breezy recommendations actually done just that? And did they do that when they were married with kids. with bills to pay? I'm not saying it can't be done -- I'm saying that it can't always be done, and in reality is seldom done. It's easy to say those things when you're in high school or college and are living on someone else's dime. Dante had a good point about the Mormons, but in response I would say that a person's religious affiliation within a religious institution is obviously of prime importance. Of course a person in the Mormon hierarchy would be expected to be familiar with the Book of Mormon -- that would probably be assumed, not forced. But I just don't like the idea of a businessman forcing his employees to read his idea of good fiction. I don't have a problem with him suggesting to his employees that they read Ayn Rand, as her fiction was important to him and influential to his business ethic, but to require it? If they are doing their jobs well and are productive, then their particular preferences in fictional novels ought to be of no concern to him.