Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

aleph_1

Regulars
  • Content Count

    421
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

aleph_1 last won the day on June 8 2018

aleph_1 had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About aleph_1

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday October 17

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Texas
  • Relationship status
    Married
  • Sexual orientation
    Straight
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Biography/Intro
    Ph.D. Math, Professor. Enjoy hiking, most recently summitted Guadalupe Peak
  • Experience with Objectivism
    I have read all of Ayn Rand's novels, Peikoff's Objectivism, Tara Smith's book on objectivism and others.
  • School or University
    Lone Star College-Montgomery
  • Occupation
    Professor

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    The Woodlands, TX
  • Interests
    General relativity

Recent Profile Visitors

4113 profile views
  1. I am free to make my own definitions when making a point. Is my definition not grammatically correct? Does it not connect a subject and a predicate? I have used SK's process. You must deal with my definition. It is consistent with the proposed philosophy in question.
  2. My point is that often when we form a concept we do not know how many subjects are subsumed by that concept. When the concept of complete ordered field was created, it was unclear that there were any. Then two distinct constructions were made: Dedekind cuts and equivalence classes of Cauchy Sequences. It was not clear that these weren't distinct initially. It appeared that there were two subjects in this concept until it was proved that these two are isomorphic representations of the same thing. Finally, it was proved that all complete ordered fields are isomorphic to the so-called real number
  3. SK, First off, thank you for kicking off an interesting discussion. It has been most enjoyable. Now, I don't understand what you say on page 6 paragraph 3. In particular, you say I do not know what "subly" is. Was this supposed to be "subtly"? Let me subtly assume the existence of a concept that is tailor-made, etc. There is a concept in mathematics called a field. Examples of fields include the real numbers, complex numbers, finite fields and so on. Would it be fair to say that the concept "field" subsumes these subjects? Now, there is something called a complete field.
  4. This whole thread seems like quibbling over minutiae--about issues that cannot in any way affect me. Cruz supports getting the government out of our business and keeping to a limited view of government's role in our lives. Compare that to Hillary Clinton, a statist, who believes in the intrinsic right of government to interfere in every aspect of your life. What about Trump, a narcissist, who is governed by whim? You can expect him to do random acts of horrible governance. The point is, you can look at each of the candidates and conclude that their ideas are at variance with your o
  5. CoryDeskins, Your professor's ire at your comments indicates that she cannot be reasoned with. Don't try to reason someone out of a position that they did not reason themselves into. She felt her way into her opinions and there is nothing you can do about that. Concerning your intellectual isolation, I can relate. It is almost as though you are a different species. From the conceptual point of view, you are and that's a good thing. Perhaps someday cultures will evolve from their current pitiful conditions. That said, there is nothing in this world that can prevent you from achieving good
  6. This is entirely a question of values, not of facts. One who is innured to an act will not have much emotional response to it. Similarly, one can suppress an emotional response through rationalization. Emotional responses are based upon ones values. When the umbilical cord is cut, a fetus becomes a baby and achieves the virtue of independence. Absurd! The new baby is certainly not more rational after cutting the umbilical. It doesn't gain life when cutting the umbilical. If your claim is that it becomes "human" at that point, you are experiencing an extreme case of rationalization designed
  7. SL, SNerd, Nicky and splitprimary, do you agree that Planned Parenthood should receive no federal money?
  8. ... puking in my shoes abhorrent.
  9. That these babies have value is obvious (since they are being sold for parts). Using words like "fetus" is only misdirection from the fact that these are human, living, and feel pain when they are killed. One of you once said that since you consider these only as tissue that you would go to Planned Parenthood and have a BBQ eating the "tissue". I guess that would make you Cap' N Crunch. At the very least, can we agree that no government monies should go to Planned Parenthood, just as no corporation of any kind should receive subsidies? Can we agree to that? (We should also be able to a
  10. Watching the gargoyles haggling over prices for baby body parts in videos such as that found here (https://youtu.be/jjxwVuozMnU ) is sickening. Surely we can agree that profiteering off of lungs, livers, brains and leg muscles is morally wrong. The game of selling service contracts is a ruse to conceal these sales and avoid felony convictions concerning existing laws against such sales. That deception is also morally wrong. The only question that remains is, "Do you want your babies crunchy or not?"
  11. Collectivist, Hasn't the collectivist nature of people in the United States been worse before? Wasn't it worse in the 1930's? A significant number of people in the US supported Mussolini and many others supported Stalin. As pointed out above, Bill Clinton was responsible for letting North Korea get nukes. Harry Truman's devotion to the United Nations prevented any sort of "victory" in Korea and Eisenhower went along. Same goes for LBJ in Vietnam. It seems to me that the lesson here is that negotiations and entanglements together with international partners precludes attainment of national
  12. By releasing the $100 Billion that has been frozen, we are in effect paying for their entire nuclear program. They get nukes whenever they want and europeans get a lot of lucrative arms deals. Is the world safer because of this?
  13. It is my observation that Catholic societies are more left-leaning while protestant societies are more right-leaning. I believe that this stems from the Spanish colonial centralized form of government and legal system in the former. The British common law legal system is predominant in the latter, except in India which became independent in the golden age of socialism.
  14. Indeed. On her death-bed you cannot possibly be trying to persuade her of anything. If you can comfort her in the manner she requests, then you are showing her human compassion and respect. Isn't this objectively the right thing to do? Besides, you are not practicing religion for your own sake by reading religious passages to a dying woman. You are enabling your grandmother to practice her own faith. Well done.
  15. It must be pointed out that the industrial revolution was underway at least a century before you claim and its effects were commented on by observers such as Adam Smith in 1776. What is more, we have the example of the agrarian south vs the industrial north and who won that conflict. There are monuments to industry all over the place, including sky scrapers, sports arenas, rail road stations that resemble cathedrals, etc. These are not just syllogisms or worse, simple inferrences from analogies. It is true that there are monuments to the industrial capacity of communists, but there are two
×
×
  • Create New...