Nicky

No, I'm asking what standard you are using to determine what is and what isn't wise.

So your idea of sapience (aka wisdom) is applying an unspecified but subjective experience to the question of what's beyond our awareness or imagination, and coming up with God? Why is that sapience? By what standard? What would be an example of stupidity then, that contrasts with this wisdom?

You misunderstood my questions. You alleged that A was applied to B, and the result was God. You stated that A is "knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense or insight", and you said nothing about what B is. My two questions were: 1. What is A, more specifically? 2. What is B?

So why are you acting as if that keyboard you typed this on, the forum you posted it on, and the people you're speaking to, also exists? Why are you acting as if the words you're using have meaning, and will be understood by anyone? You are defeating your own position. Perception and sensation are not the same thing. Sensations are the components of perceptions. Perceptions are the result of a group of related sensations automatically integrated (and retained into memory) by our brains. But you cannot "prove", by some outside method, that perception is what it is, because there is no outside method. The concept of proof means to reduce something to direct perception. There is no other kind of proof, that could be relied upon to "prove" perception right. However, the fact that perception of reality is undeniable (in any manner that is even remotely consistent with the message being conveyed), is an excellent reason to treat it as given. The only logically consistent alternative to that acceptance is total silence and inaction. Anything else automatically undermines the claim. That is why, in Objectivism, perception of reality is accepted as self-evident (not individual instances of perception, but the abstract concept, mind you). Objectivism does acknowledge hallucinations and crazy people. I'm sorry they poisoned your mind with such nonsense in primary school. Denying perception of reality by means of words, concepts, and other tools based on precisely that perception, is not a valid point. If you wish to deny our notions of reality, ignore everything we accepted and built on to help us live in it, first. Then try to deny it, using nothing but whatever you think exists. The only thing teaching that nonsense to children accomplishes is that it undermines the significance of words and concepts in their minds. By using concepts outside the context they were created in (a context in which perception of reality is treated as self evident), it confuses them about what words and concepts are. It makes them think words and concepts are somehow divorced from reality and our perception of it, that they exist in a void, and that they should be taken as self evident, instead of our perception of reality. That divorces philosophy from reality, and allows mystics to manipulate its concepts at will, with no one questioning how the concepts being used came to be. Sorry, I'm not an expert on various dictionaries and how they choose to define this or that. I don't think it matters how dictionaries define the word "objective", to be honest. Odds are, the person defining it isn't even an authority in the field of philosophy, let alone an authority that is worth paying any attention to (most of them aren't). I think the proper definition is the one Ayn Rand used, and I described in my original post.

Should we always ignore cultural norms? I think fights between men are acceptable in many cultures. That means that, if you are challenged to one, you should consider accepting the challenge, provided that you wish to be a part of that culture, you're not just an outsider trying to mind his own business. And getting hit by a man is considered a challenge. However, fights between men and women aren't acceptable in too many cultures. So you shouldn't treat getting hit by a woman as a challenge to fight. It probably isn't, it's just an expression of anger. That means that you should only fight back to the extent you need to immediately protect yourself (in most cases, that wouldn't involve punching her).

Retaliatory? No. Getting hit once, especially by a woman, isn't proof that she's trying to beat you up, so it doesn't warrant reacting with a punch. You should only start punching someone once it's clear that they are there to fight you or beat you up. Until then, there are better ways to handle it. That's especially the case with a woman, who probably expects to get away with slapping or hitting someone once, so it's unlikely that she's a danger to your physical wellbeing. You can always file a complaint with the Police, if you don't want to let her get away with it. But there's no reason for you to punish her yourself.

Shion ( I like your username, are you Japanese or just into anime?), you seem like a smart guy, and I would love to have a conversation with you. However, your post seems to contain about 30 or so questions. I have no desire to answer 30 questions in one go, especially since a lot of those questions seem like statements to me. Even just reading them with the attention I'm sure you expect of me, would be a bit much. It's very hard to decipher which of those questions are inquiries on my thoughts, and which are just a roundabout way to communicate your thoughts. Don't get me wrong, I love the occasional loaded question (and I will even tolerate the Socratic method, if I must), but two pages worth of questions is a bit much. My suggestion would be to just state your position (because you obviously have a position), and then ask a maximum of three questions about aspects of my position that are unclear to you. Then I'll be happy to reply in a thoughtful manner.

The central theme of Fight Club (and its main attraction) is not the rehashed, nihilistic, anti-capitalist nonsense Tyler Durden preaches. That's just a device used to further the plot, give it another dimension. The real story is the conflict between the mundane, uneventful life of its protagonist and his true potential as a human being. The quality that attracts movie goers to Tyler Durden isn't his philosophy, it's his personality: specifically, the ease with which he is able to be remarkable and inspiring. The central message isn't "Let's destroy Capitalism", it's that people should strive to be remarkable and that regular people have the capacity to be remarkable (hence the final twist). If all the movie was about is politics, it wouldn't be the hit it is. Most people who love this movie aren't anti-capitalists.

Alright, so with your definition in mind, what knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense or insight was applied to produce the concept of God? And what was said knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense or insight applied to?

Actually, the purpose of this entire forum, including this thread, is to answer questions from an Objectivist perspective. Not to debate some troll about how his religion is logical.

That statement is just as easily verifiable as your previous one. Check if people who don't have faith are sapient or not. If they are, then you're wrong, faith has nothing to do with sapience.

Ok, that's an easily verifiable statement on the human condition. You are saying that faith in God is a necessary condition of sapience. Now you need to go out in the world and verify your hypothesis. Talk to some people who don't have faith in God, see if they're sapient or not. I'm one of those people. Am I not sapient? Go ahead, test me.

I wouldn't. Like I said, I don't think any political framework can ensure that rights aren't violated, if the general population want collectivism and welfare. My position is that the right checks and balances coupled with democracy work to limit the government in whatever way the general population wants it limited. Leonid's position is that a government with a monopoly on force is unlimited. Your position is that checks and balances can work to limit a government to the protection of individual rights, even if that's not what the population wants. This is getting very off topic. There are threads on how the US Constitution should be improved, in a Capitalist culture and country. I also made a thread recently on whether a Constitution should contain penalties for major crimes by lawmakers (also in a LFC country). I can't think of any other improvements needed to the US system of checks and balances. It has worked very well at its stated (and only realistic) purpose: to keep the power with the electorate, instead of politicians.

Let's say I walk up to a person, and ask them "Haven't you stolen that car you're driving?". Wouldn't you say that's both a statement and a question? Wouldn't you say that what I'm really trying to communicate is more "I think you stole this car. True or false?". How about these last two questions I just asked you, wouldn't you say they're also loaded questions? In fact, all four questions I just asked also communicate a belief I hold. So does your question. I don't think it's any misunderstanding, I think that you have some kind of an opinion on the matter, and your questions speak to what that opinion is.

That's not what I mean by relative.

Need is a relative term. What is this need for? To accomplish what purpose?

Why? Who would care if they didn't make a good case?

Everything allows for leeway for rationalizations. Gee, I wonder what the workaround is around a rule that says "no mandates". Oh yeah, make a mandate, and call it something else: like a tax. What's that, there's also a rule against taxes? Fine, call it a cookie. Or a puppy. Are you now gonna put in a rule against cookies and puppies too?

You really think any honest interpretation of the current Constitution allows for the health-care mandate?

His stated point is that in a democracy with checks and balances, where the government has a monopoly on force, such a government can do anything it wants. That is obviously not true. The history of the United States and many other democratic countries prove that, given the right checks and balances, a democratically elected government is limited by what a significant majority of the population agrees with. In 230 years, no US government leader has managed to usurp any more power than the population agreed to give them, and never for longer than the legally prescribed term limit. That's a significant limit on power. It may not be the limit he likes, but that doesn't mean he can start pretending no limits exist, or that the limit isn't working. It is working remarkably well. In a more rational, individualistic culture, that limit could very well be drawn at the protection of individual rights. If that happens, the evidence that it will be respected is overwhelming: western democracies (which all have checks and balances in place to prevent abuse of the democratic process) have all been able to preserve such limits for quite a while now. In conclusion, Leonid is wrong: the problem with modern democracies isn't the monopoly the governments have on force, it is the collectivist culture of the voters (and, to a lesser extent, the imperfect checks and balances that have been put in place to begin with, even in the United States).

The explanation for American socialism lies in American society and culture. The American government's actions are driven by the wishes of the American people, not the other way around.

Sweden is semi-planned, much like the US. You initially stated that there have been planned societies which did well, and free societies which failed. That's what I asked examples on, not semi-socialist countries which are doing well due to their private sector being allowed to operate in relative freedom.

Actually, it does. And, more importantly, it has plenty to say on what contracts are. Local laws and ordinances aren't contracts.

Equivocation on the word "America". First you use it to mean "the geographical area between the borders, second to mean "the US government".

If we were to take your assertion that checks and balances and the democratic process can't work, then no one. Luckily, your assertion is baseless, so the answer is: the checks and balances and the voting public does.