Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


merjet last won the day on February 11

merjet had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About merjet

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
  • Copyright
  • Biography/Intro
    I have several articles published in Objectivity and the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.
  • School or University
    University of Illinois
  • Occupation
    actuary (retired)

Recent Profile Visitors

1162 profile views
  1. You didn't say explicitly that learning higher level concepts must come after learning lower level ones. Regardless, learning higher level concepts may precede learning lower level ones. For example, we probably all learned the concept car before we had the concepts Ford, Chevy, Toyota, sedan, convertible, etc.
  2. Perception? Similarity but not being identical?
  3. That was decades ago, so I don't remember very clearly. When my parents or somebody else helped me learn red, blue, green, and so on, somehow or another I reckoned those words didn't refer to a thing, shape, motion, sound, etc. They probably also often used the word "color" along with "red", "blue", "green" and so on. Eventually I learned that "color" named the category to which red, blue, green, and so forth belonged. If that was stealing from my parents or somebody else, then I must plead guilty. 🙂 The first paragraph of my earlier post was an attempt to describe the essence of the process, not the whole story and context.
  4. To form the concept X, you need instances of the category -- call them x's -- and contrasts -- call them non-x's. To limit the number and variety of non-x's, both the x's and non-x's should satisfy a more abstract, wider, less specific, category. For example, to form the concept red instances of red are differentiated from instances of blue, green, etc. However, all the instances -- red, blue, green, etc. -- are instances of the wider concept color. I suggest "The Sim-Dif Model and Comparison" in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2 (December 2011), pp. 215-232. The entire essay can be read on jstor.org with a free membership.
  5. Why You Shouldn’t Be A Socialist #3 I tried to put a book review of Why You Should Be a Socialist on Amazon and met a barrier that was new to me. "We apologize but this account has not met the minimum eligibility requirements to write a review. If you would like to learn more about our eligibility requirements, please see our community guidelines." The guidelines say to post a review you must have spent at least $50 on Amazon.com in the past 12 months. I did spend more than $50 in the past 12 months. However, part was with a gift card, and my net spent was less than $50. 🙂
  6. Why You Shouldn’t Be A Socialist #2
  7. I crossed my fingers that Mark Twain would return in 1985. Alas, it seems not to have happened. He hasn't appeared in 34+ years. 🙂
  8. Edmond Halley was quite an achiever. He aided and funded Isaac Newton's Principia. He constructed one of the first mortality tables, which are the foundation of life insurance. Much more.
  9. https://medium.com/@ricosutioso/diogenes-the-beggar-philosopher-fdd71946f641
  10. Why You Shouldn’t Be A Socialist #1
  11. Amazon 2019, ITEP and its wake Free File, Gov't Audit, ProPublica
  12. Oops. I didn't see "referencing Ayn Rand" earlier. I only saw "Miscellaneous News." So I request an administrator fix it somehow.
  13. The author of the op-ed, Garry Galles, wrote, "The main problem with understanding Ayn Rand’s position on this today is that modern usage of the term has eroded his meaning of altruism to little more than a synonym for generosity, so Rand’s rejection of the original meaning — the requirement of total selflessness — is erroneously taken as rejecting generosity. Portraying the modern usage as "little more than a synonym for generosity" is a stretch. A parent, human or another animal, caring for its young is often not mere "generosity."
  • Create New...