Dominique
-
Posts
288 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Dominique
-
-
I've been watching these series and while the images are incredible I find (not neccessarily suprisingly considering the source being the BBC and the Discovery Channel) that it is more politically motivated then even necessarily scientifically accurate. I am just wondering if any one has actually refuted the science, for example the time lines. They seem to not ever mention anything existing prior to 6000 years ago which seems to show a very Chrisitan based version of Science.
I guess I was just wondering if anyone had noticed this and maybe had more information on it for me.
-
Congratulations!I might be in the area. [i am taking the bar in MA on July 26 and 27. I will be out there some time prior to the bar, but I am not sure how much prior.]
The July 4th one? That's the only event I'm going to besides the general admission seminars. That's the most I can afford and that's even pushing it. Couldn't miss the cruise thoughI might attend one event. I am leaning towards the cruise.[i guess emoticons are required in this thread.
]It is a bit absurd isn't it
Sorry 'bout that-I'm an emoticon junkie. I just love those little guys. 
-
Its good to see you too and thank youAh, that explains it.
Good to hear back from you anyway, and I hope you'll make it to the conference. 
I'm glad to see you back Sarah.
I am probably going to try and attend this year since it isn't out of the Left Coast this time. Hope to see you there!
Good to see you too Eric! I'll keep an eye out for you
-
You gonna walk there from FL?
Hahaha jokes on you-I'm back in DC-that's why I haven't been on much-too busy cavorting about the US
I might be there. Total travel from Las Vegas and registration is going to be a big chunk however.Yeah, I'm not familiar with those flight costs at the moment, but I know the hotel where the conference is is going to be very expensive also. I'm looking into local cheap hotels or trying to split costs somehow. Otherwise I really just can't afford it.
-
I won't be attending, but then, I'm not a female either.
I'm interested to know all that are going to be there, but especially girls because the rooms are expensive and it'd be nice to split with somebody. The cost is almost prohibitive, but lucky I don't need to fly there. -
I'm sorry if this is posted somewhere and I missed it- but who plans on attending?? Any females wanna be roomies?
(Added: Link to OCON - sNerd)
-
Kant did not believe that time existed in different frames of reference, he was a Newtonian and thought it was objective. What he did believe, however, was that time is built into the very way that we think and perceive and so it should only be thought to exist in us and not in the thing-in-itself. It would be similar to, though not the same as, thinking that because we perceive time to flow the same everywhere that it is objective and not relative. Another analogy would be a person with poor eye-sight believing that things at a distance become blurry--not just that it would appear blurry, that it would actually be blurry.
“Is that Kant's position, or yours?”
Both. But don’t take this to be a statement that we cannot know the thing-in-itself. We aren’t there yet either, in respect to this particular quote.
[Emphasis Mine]
How very simplistic, "Lifesimpliciter" . You live up to your title. Cheers!
Where does "subjectivity" figure in, if at all?
-
At any rate I changed:
"This requires that he not deprive another individual of *his* ability to maintain *his* own life"?
to
This requires that one not deprive another individual of his ability to maintain his own life.
Better?
-
Are individual rights not an intrinsic quality? What do you mean by "intrinsic" in that context?
Well geez, I thought that's what I explained in my essay.
Intrinsic implies a negation of context and consequence. Individual Rights are a concept. Concepts demand context. Intrinsic rights or values therefore are a contradiction.
See Also The Ayn Rand Lexicon entries for these terms.
In the mean time, here's a quick look.
-
Philosophy. The ethical doctrine holding that only what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences is intrinsically good.
Objectivism does not hold that "what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences is *intrinsically* good". In fact I doubt it would hold anything but life as *intrinsically* good.
Objectivism holds that what is right (what supports and maintains one's goal of life) is good, and ultimately-pleasant. That is an effect, not a cause-of value judgement.
-
Agreed- I'm stuck on that topic and let it slip in (tsk tsk)-It has been removed.I think you could leave out the last sentence of this paragraph. The mind-body dichotomy is not directly related to the topic you are discussing, so it would require some longer explanation of how this is the beginning of it, but that would unduly interrupt the flow of your argument.
Again agreed. I took out the first two sentences and replaced them with just this one. The flow is much better.I think I know what you mean by this, but you're trying to say it in too few words. Here is how I would say it: "A society can only prosper if its members are productive, and individuals can only be productive if their sovereignty is respected."
Ok this is what I had done with it prior to reading your post here:I love the way you phrased this, so I'm reluctant to mess with it, but it can easily be misinterpreted as implying that rights are all there is to morality, i.e. that you could be a drug addict or a Mother Theresa or something like that and still be moral as long as you don't violate the rights of others. Hmm, I'm thinking about how you could best clarify this ... it's not easy to fit it in ... perhaps you could leave this part as it is and add the clarification further down, after the paragraph about the responsibility to maintain one's own life, confirming that yes you ARE morally responsible for your own life, even though not legally required to maintain it."A man can survive alone; he does not need society to survive. However, even when alone, man needs a moral code to guide his action. A code that is focused on the value of his own life as the standard, and reality as perceivable, is the only one which will ensure his survival. If a man, stranded on a desert island, rejects the facts observable by his senses; if he sits back and waits for instinct to tell him how to build a shelter, or a fire; if he waits for the gods to provide him with food, he will not survive long."
This comes prior to the statement in question, so I was hoping to set the stage and thereby clarify the idea before they get to it. What do you think?
Yeah, I caught that, and I changed it to this:This sounds like it is "the rights granted to other individuals" that do the protecting of the newborn; this is probably not what you meant.[...]Here again, you could use a bit more words...Although the connection between the two sentences can be easily guessed in this case, it would be nice if you made it explicit so the reader doesn't feel like you're making him "jump." Somehow like this: they should find a couple willing to adopt it, ...""Once an individual entity is born, he gains protection by the rights granted to other individuals. This means that after birth a parent may not deprive an infant of the ability to sustain its own life, either by abuse, or neglect. [if the parents find themselves unable to support their child after it is born,] there are places established where parents may legally give them up.
Before birth there is only one individual, the mother, and she has sovereign control over her own body."
Does that help?
Again, Thank You soooo much!!!
Uh oh, shoulda been a bit quicker...LOL you were like 4 mins behind me. I appreciate it truly. This was a lot harder undertaking than I had expected. Soo many aspects are subsumed under this concept, and non-objectivists are likely to still pick it apart, but at least I straightened a couple things out in my own head
-
I would still punctuate as suggested, although the web has a bias against any hard and fact rules on hyperlinked titles.
Ok, advice taken.
Thanks for the feedback Tom.
I've gone ahead and posted the essay on my blog. I edited it from what you see here, but will still welcome feedback (I know I didn't give a lot of time to get feedback before putting it up).
-
Ok, to avoid further distraction I have done a preliminary editing job.
I'd like to get some feedback regarding the content before posting if possible. I have read and re-read and am still somewhat unsatisfied but cannot pinpoint exactly what it is that is bugging me.
Thanks again. My apologies for posting in haste without editing first.
(Remember the titles are hyperlinked. This is sufficient is it not? Or should I also italicize? Just seems like overkill to have all three, but I'm not sure what the proper method is)As I began to explain in The Metaphysical Error, it is the foundation, or premises that men have accepted throughout the centuries which have undermined man’s rational faculty to the extent that he does not even know where his own individual rights come from.Individual rights are not an intrinsic quality, some divine gift; nor are they some arbitrary agreement among the collective hordes, decided by majority vote centuries ago, never to be questioned.
To understand the concept of individual rights, one must take existence as a primary. One must accept the observable world as reality. And one must accept reason as man’s tool of cognition. In other words: existence exists; the metaphysically given is absolute; A is A. (For a more thorough discussion of the steps leading up to this point I refer you to “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand”)
Man is a being of volitional consciousness. This means that what sets men apart from the lower animal species is his ability to choose. All living organisms act for the purpose of sustaining their own life, but only man can choose to shut down his mind, to take actions purposefully that harm him, and to end his own life. Man does not have “instincts” as animals have. Man must choose the course of action that is most suited to him and his environment, given the context of his purpose. Even when a man acts without purpose, he first had to make a choice, even if the first choice was a refusal to choose, or to think.
This volitional consciousness is something people bemoan as an undue burden, and constantly try to abnegate their responsibility by either granting a “higher being” power over them, or claiming subservience to “society”. This is the beginning of the mind-body dichotomy.
When an individual gives up his rational faculty, and places above it “divine revelation” or the “common good”, he has given up the right to his own life. He is now at the mercy of the priests or the pollsters (who are simply other individuals).
In reality, the individual is sovereign. The individual must sustain his own life by a process of constant action, beginning with thought. Another individual may bring him water, but he cannot drink it for him. Another individual may bring him food, but he cannot digest it for him. Another individual may know how to read, and to write, but he cannot force him to understand it.
A man can survive alone; he does not need society to survive. Society can and does provide a great many benefits, but a society is only a collection of individuals, and can only function to the extent that its individual members do. If each individual member is expecting some entity called “society” to provide for them, if each individual member stops producing and merely waits for “divine revelation” or “welfare”, what will become of society?
A productive society must respect the individual as its sovereign. Without the individual, society ceases to exist. This is where the concept of individual rights comes in. Rights are man’s moral code, his means of survival, put into law. As such, all rights are necessarily individual. Group rights only mean that some individuals are given (wrongly) special rights over other individuals. They are necessarily illegitimate.
All rights stem from the need for the individual to maintain his own life. Hence, we have the “right to life”. The right to life does not mean that a man must live, only that no other individuals may deprive him, by force, of his means of survival, which are: his body, the products of his labor (his property), and his cognitive tools (right to free press and free speech).
A fundamental aspect of the “right to life” is the right to control the functions of one’s own body without interference. In this day and age of organ donors, feeding tubes, assisted suicide, abortion, and even drugs, there is much talk of “responsibility”. The only true “responsibility” is the responsibility to maintain one’s own life. This requires that he not deprive another individual of his ability to maintain his own; if he does then he has violated the law of reality and has nullified his claim to his own life.
Once a fetus becomes an individual entity through the process of birth, he gains protection by the rights granted to other individuals. This means that after birth a parent may not deprive an infant of the ability to sustain its own life, either by abuse, or neglect. There are places established where parents may abandon unwanted children or give them up for adoption.
Prior to birth a fetus has no ability to sustain its own life, and so has no individual rights (it is not an individual entity). Before birth there is only one individual, the mother, and she has sovereign control over her own body.
There is no “responsibility” to potential. Responsibility applies only to oneself and to the explicit contracts one enters into. There is no contract (explicit or implicit) inherent in entering society. However, there is only one moral code that a society may rightfully adopt as its law, and subsequently determine its rights from. That code is reality.
[edit: ack, now my paragraphs are merged-separating]
-
Microsoft Word will tell you that you misspelled "consciousness" and "necessarily." However, unless your version of the software is better than mine (a distinct possibility), the errors I pointed out won’t be flagged.
Quite Right. Keen eye. Thanks again.
-
This *requires* that he not deprive another individual of their ability to maintain their own; if he does then he has violated the law of reality and has nullified his claim to his own life.Pronoun must agree with antecedent: “deprive another individual of his ability.”
Are you saying that this should read:
"This requires that he not deprive another individual of *his* ability to maintain *his* own life"? This looks very unclear to me.
[edit to add: Should the whole sentence just be scrapped and re-worded, or is the above actually correct? It seems it would stop the reader to wonder which "he" I was referring to.]
-
Yes, my fault certainly, I was using a logical fallacies page for reference, not a dictionary.
One Prime Mover wrote, “I've heard many people say that Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand; to be an Objectivist, you must adhere to it in its entirety, as it was set forth by Ayn Rand.”A.A wrote, “The way I see it: Ayn Rand was the inventor of the philosophy; she called it Objectivism, and if I am not mistaken, that name is a trade mark of hers (maybe now its Leonard Peikoff`s, I don’t know) . . .”
My discussion of the generic nature of the word “objectivism,” its history in both philosophy and literature prior to Ayn Rand, and the absence of any proprietary claim on the word by Rand or her estate was therefore entirely appropriate in the context of these posts.
Very Well, we are beating a dead horse at this point. I am not overly concerned with continuing in this way and will simply leave it as is. Both points have been stated and are (I believe) irreconcilable.
-
If the title refers to an essay, it should be placed in quotation marks.
“throughout”
If you can, italicize or underline the title.
“cannot”
“its”
Pronoun must agree with antecedent: “deprive another individual of his ability.”
Thanks Tom, I meant to mention that I have not run this draft through Word, as I am still working on the actual content. Usually CF gets me on this stuff and I knew it was coming
Any comments on the actual content?
Also this is copy/paste from my website and so the titles are hyperlinked and underlined in the actual version (which has yet to be posted).
-
Actually I found both spellings in use by searching the web, and could not honestly tell if one was more correct than the other.Did you mean “non sequitur”?If the rules of this forum are that "Objectivism" refers exclusively to the philosophy of Ayn Rand, fine.An egregious example is failure to capitalize proper names -- for instance, writing "objectivism" when referring to Ayn Rand's philosophy; the correct form is "Objectivism."
What did they say specifically that made you think they were referring to any of the other uses of the word? Unless I'm completely lost, this discussion was about whether or not Ayn Rand's name (and person) should be included in the definition of the philosophy she originated, and whether or not that philosophy could be altered and still called by the same name.I was speaking about objectivism (or "Objectivism") in the world at large, which, I believe, is what One Prime Mover and A.A were addressing in their posts.However, I did not for one moment suggest that, within the context of a discussion or forum, the participants or moderator could not stipulate what a given term means. Thus, no straw man, no non-sequitur.Objectivism refers only to the philosophy of Ayn Rand.Dominique, that would be true only if Rand had obtained a trademark on "objectivism" that would exclude all others from use of the appellation "Objectivism" in philosophy. -
This one was much harder, and I'm not sure I'm getting my point across. It's in response to a comment I got (more like a discussion) on my website in response to the first essay (The Metaphysical Error). I'd like to get some feedback from you all here before I post it as to what it's flaws are and how I can possibly go about correcting them. I am trying to cover so much information but all of seems essential because I am writing to a non-objectivist audience. Ok, well, thanks again in advance
As I began to explain in The Metaphysical Error, it is the foundation, or premises that men have accepted through out the centuries which have undermined man’s rational faculty to the extent that he does not even know where his own individual rights come from.Individual rights are not some intrinsic quality, some divine gift; nor are they some arbitrary agreement among the collective hordes, decided by majority vote centuries ago, never to be questioned.
To understand Individual Rights one must take existence as a primary. One must accept the observable world as reality. And one must accept reason as man’s tool of cognition. In other words: existence exists; the metaphysically given is absolute; A is A. (For a more thorough discussion of the steps leading up to this point I refer you to Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand)
Man is a being of volitional conciousness. This means that what sets men apart from the lower animal species is his ability to choose. All living organisms act for the purpose of sustaining their own life, but only man can choose to shut down his mind, to take actions purposefully that harm him, and to end his own life. Man does not have “instincts” as animals have. Man must choose the course of action that is most suited to him and his environment, given the context of his purpose. Even when a man acts without purpose, he first had to make a choice, even if the first choice was a refusal to choose, or to think.
This volitional conciousness is something people bemoan as an undue burden, and constantly try to abnegate their responsibility by either granting a “higher being” power over them, or claiming subservience to “society”. This is the beginning of the mind-body dichotomy.
When an individual gives up his rational faculty, and places above it “divine revelation” or the “common good”, he has given up the right to his own life. He is now at the mercy of the priests or the pollsters (who are simply other individuals).
In reality, the individual is sovereign. The individual must sustain his own life by a process of constant action, beginning with thought. Another individual may bring him water, but he can not drink it for him. Another individual may bring him food, but he can not digest it for him. Another individual may know how to read, and to write, but he can not force him to understand it.
A man can survive alone, he does not need society to survive. Society can and does provide a great many benefits, but a society is only a collection of individuals, and can only function to the extent that it’s individual members do. If each individual member is expecting some entity called “society” to provide for them, if each individual member stops producing and merely waits for “divine revelation” or “welfare”, what will become of society?
A productive society must respect the individual as it’s sovereign. Without the individual, society ceases to exist. This is where the concept of “individual rights” comes in. Rights are man’s moral code, his means of survival, put into law. As such all rights are neccessarily individual. Group rights only mean that some individuals are given (wrongly) special rights over other individuals. They are neccessarily illegitimate.
All rights stem from the need for the individual to maintain his own life. Hence we have the “right to life”. The right to life does not mean that a man must live, only that no other individuals may deprive him, by force, of his means of survival, which are: his body, the products of his labor (his property), and his cognitive tools (right to free press and free speech).
A fundamental aspect of the “right to life” is the right to control the functions of one’s own body without interference. In this day and age of organ donors, feeding tubes, assisted suicide, abortion, and even drugs, there is much talk of “responsibility”. The only true “responsibility” is the responsibility to maintain one’s own life. This requires that he not deprive another individual of their ability to maintain their own, if he does then he has violated the law of reality and has nullified his claim to his own life.
Once a fetus becomes an individual entity through the process of birth, he gains protection by the rights granted to other individuals. This means that after birth a parent may not deprive an infant of the ability to sustain it’s own life, either by abuse, or neglect. There are places established where parents may abandon unwanted children or give them up for adoption.
Prior to birth a fetus has no ability to sustain it’s own life, and so has no individual rights (it is not an individual entity). Before birth there is only one individual, the mother, and she has sovereign control over her own body.
There is no “responsibility” to potential. Responsibility applies only to actual contracts. There is no contract (explicit or implicit) inherent in entering society. However, there is only one moral code that a society may rightfully adopt as it’s law, and subsequently determine it’s rights from. That code is reality.
-
You pulled my statement completely out of context. Not just the context of this thread, but also out of the context of this forum. The forum rules clearly state that on this forum we use the capital "O" Objectivism to separate it from and avoid confusion with all other uses of the word objectivism. Your statement is not just a straw man but a non sequitor.My comfort level is not the issue. I merely sought to correct the error in your statement, "'Objectivism' the title refers to the philosophy of Ayn Rand."However, this development does not give Rand or her estate special title to “Objectivism” anymore than McDonalds® by virtue of its development as a restaurant giant has a special claim to the word “Hamburger.”Since "Objectivism" is not a trademark of Ayn Rand or her estate, there is nothing illegal or even improper about calling oneself a capital "O" Objectivist -- even if one has significant differences with Rand on a number of positions. Ok I get it, it's a game: Go out side the discussion, attack it from behind, and then interject an irrelevant tid bit for distraction, and quickly slide on the appropriate hat. Like musical-fallacies Or duck, duck, hamburglar 
To avoid confusion and promote clarity when dealing with such terms, simply make it clear what you mean by the word when you use it.From now on-when I use the term Objectivism with a capital "O", I'd like it to be clear that I am referring to "Objectivism-The Philosophy of Ayn Rand"
-
Suppose a dear loved one of yours is brutally murdered but that during trial the murderer manages to get off with a much lighter sentence than death or life without parole by giving the government information leading to the capture of Osama Bin Laden. Is justice for your loved one served?
Did you know about this? It's surprisingly similar-I thought it might have inspired the question.
A federal judge has allowed accused Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui to plead guilty to unspecified charges and he will do so Friday afternoon, the U.S. District Court said Wednesday.It was not clear if Moussaoui would plead guilty Friday to all or just some of the charges against him.
Moussaoui was indicted on six charges related to the attacks: conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism, to commit aircraft piracy, to destroy aircraft, to use weapons of mass destruction, to murder U.S. employees and to destroy property.
Four counts carry the death penalty.
-
No, "Objectivism," the capitalized title, does not refer exclusively to the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Louis Zukofsky was writing about "Objectivist" poetics three decades before Ayn Rand began the public promotion of her philosophical system. In 1932 he published An“Objectivists” Anthology. Yes, there is only one “Earth,” but there is more than one Objectivism.
Would you feel more comfortable if we clarified "Objectivism-The Philosophy" and opposed to "Objectivist Poetry?"
I still don't think this changes the fact that it is a proper noun. It refers to either a specific type of poetry or a specific philosophy-that of Ayn Rand. I think you are purposefully diluting the point here- Straw Man anyone?
-
No, I have already said it refers only to ITOE. Adding to that the other works of Ayn Rand herself doesn't confuse the issue, she is the legal author of the philosophy. What ARI puts out is the application and study of "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand' (Not the book, just that, the philosophy of Ayn Rand). ARI isn't pushing Objectivist policy that is different or separate from Ayn Rand's philosophy (that I can tell). They apply it and *take credit for their own interpretations and applications*. They are scrupulous in pointing out what comes directly from the original works of Ayn Rand and what has been edited, expounded upon, or inferred. THAT is honesty. Any rational mind may decide if they are true to their agenda or if they are not. TOC tries the same thing and IS NOT. None of this changes the definition of Objectivism or of Objectivists.Great. So if the non-trademarked Ayn Rand Estate’s version of “Objectivism” refers to the philosophy of Ayn Rand as interpreted by the Ayn Rand Estate, any other non-trademarked versions of Objectivism which does not stem from the Ayn Rand Estate’s non-trademarked version must necessarily refer to some other non-trademarked version of Objectivism not approved by the Ayn Rand Estate. Yes, this clears things up nicely.I can’t imagine that the atheist Rand could have come up with a better analogy herself.Your snide remark elicits no further discussion, however as I already mentioned, substitute Earth and earth, or try English and english, etc.
(hint: it's called a proper noun)
-
Dominique, that would be true only if Rand had obtained a trademark on "objectivism" that would exclude all others from use of the appellation "Objectivism" in philosophy. In fact, The New Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1958) -- published before Ayn Rand had begun disseminating "Objectivism" as her philosophy -- defined “’objectivism" as
“opposed to ‘subjectivism.’ The conception that the object has its own structure. In epistemology the objectivists affirm that truth is objectivism i.e., independent from the subject.”
I understand that this encyclopedia’s definition is not Rand’s, but at the same time it should be understood that Rand did not invent the term “objectivism” and holds no special rights to that term.
But that's precisely the point. "Objectivism" the title refers to the philosophy of Ayn Rand. This is to differentiate it from "objectivism", which has a different connotation all together. This is the same as "God" representing the Judeo-Christian God, as opposed to the gods of other religions. They also have two separate definitions. I doubt "God" (or his disciples here on Earth-hey there you go, another example) trademarked it.
[edited for spelling and grammer]
Scientific Validity of Discovery's "Planet Earth" Series
in Movies, Shows, and Theatre
Posted
I mainly got that impression from the focus on global warming and endangered species as the declared purpose of the documentary but I was wondering if anyone had actually found anything refutable in it. They did play the middle ground to some extent by pretending it was pure observation and there were only a few spots that disturbed me enough to ask about it but I was just wondering if anyone had noticed.