Skylab72

Bad start, I wish I did not have to start two posts with both an apology and a wish-had-more-time disclaimer, but… StrictlyLogical, again sincerely I apologize for not having/taking time to be more clear. Allow me to try to avoid that now, and again proclaim that subsequent posts are going to be subject to 'holiday delay'. My objection is to the corruption of concept by allowing an admittedly imprecise language to lead a conversation, to accept concepts as not identity related, when they are (or should be for the sake of consistency.) For example 'Are virtues "intrinsic" or "subjective"?', you ask. In a consistent and complete reality they are intrinsic. Any entity occupying that reality has a real nature and their best interest is always, from their point of view, the virtuous approach. From the point of view of the finite inconsistent entity, virtue will quickly become subjective due to the inherent inconsistencies of a finite system. Your next example is is from my point of view the best example yet of the corruption of which I speak. You ask, 'Which school of philosophy is correct, "Rationalism" or "Empiricism"?'. My immediate unfiltered reaction is 'how can you even ask that?' The empiricists assert that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge. Why would one think that, when daily we discover knowledge imbedded and encoded in the very reality we study? Giving empiricism equal billing (asserting the delta is subjective) with Realism is a slippery slope leading straight to the brain in a vat bullshit. I would suggest Gödel's completeness theorem covers this rather well with a very solid mathematical footing. Simply for completeness the decision whether or not a proposition is analytical rests completely in the whether the supporting intellectual infrastructure of that proposition is based in an analytic chain with rationalism in every link. May I express some puzzlement, without meaning any insult as to why you embrace such a Kantian dichotomy. All these pairs have a bearing on whether or not one sliding toward a position that denies reality. For me that is part and parcel of any valid definition of anti-realism. I'm calm, just adamant. An infinite, complete, consistent Reality exists and is always the final arbitrator.

I apologize Strictly Logical, but your posts seem to belie your monicker. I am really not in the mood tonight to track down and regurgitate the epistemological underpinnings of Objectivism, and I will freely admit Rand did not seem to be motivated to do so a logically comprehensive treatment. LP however, filled in many needful gray areas, so I usually refer folks to him. However, I must object to this prattle "in some sense BOTH realism and anti-realism are flawed...". Please stop bastardizing the language. Existence or non-existence is a binary condition. Objectivism, by definition, by the definition of it's author, IS a realist philosophy. If you do not understand the difference between reality and thinking about reality go back to the epistemology. If you are having trouble coping with the truism that man and mankind will forever be incomplete in their knowledge of reality, I would suggest you pick one or more favorite religion(s). Consistency however, we can strive for, and suggesting there is some middle ground between is and is not, between realism and anti-realism, is NOT StrictlyLogical. Contradictions do not exist. If you think you have found one, what you have found is one or more of the following: an erroneous premise, a bogus constraint, a logical fallacy, or the limits of your own mind.

tjfields must be working on his reducto ad absurdium merit badge. Why is it so hard for folks to see the absurdity. The method, when done well, will push you back to your epistemological roots. When done antagonistically, just gets stupid. Pardon me son, but I'm gonna cut you off at the pass. A little epistemology: Cognito ergo sum. That is Latin, it means think therefore am. Logical extension; to be aware of existence something must think. When consciousness constrains itself to nothing but that beness, there must be some entity to be. Ergo I think therefore I am, and by extension to continue to be I must think. Therefore my first choice is to be or not to be. I choose be, to live, my base value is life. If you disagree expect mortal animus. Next thinker discovery, my perceptions seem to indicate I exist in some sort of environment, I call it reality. I discover entities in reality that seem aware of me, and some of those seem also able to think, in varying degrees. I also note things that seem completely unaware and seem to never think, but continue to exist anyway. I find the inanimate things remarkably consistent. The animate ones remarkably less so. I find that when the thinking ones and I share a goal like staying alive, and cooperate, the goal is more readily achieved. I value life, all life, my own is simply the instance of it most valuable to me. If you disagree expect mortal animus. I find consistency promotes my value. I find awareness promotes my values. I therefore value the trustworthy and knowledgeable among the sentients. If you disagree you gain potential threat points. In order to promote these values and my life to the maximum I can, I logically must consistently behave in a manner supportive of their logic. Imagine what you will, you do not exist in a vacuum tj. Your desert island is simply an attempt to resurrect the brain-a-vat argument, and it consistently breaks down as much more difficult to support logically than admitting that reality exists. A is A. Believing that it is O.K. to kill anyone without a very good reason to kill them, is to me, adequate reason enough to kill you. Is that clear enough?

Prepost disclaimer: I abhor calling someone out online. However... After 930+ posts, Harrison, you've taken some risk of this and I assume I may not be the first to take exception to your words. I would suggest you do a more diligent research of the properties and effects of the autism-spectrum disorders before asserting they inhibit the formation of a concept. I am an individual on the spectrum, Aspergers, mild enough to never be formally diagnosed even though visits to psychiatrists form some salient memories of my childhood, yet strong enough that visits to psychiatrists are some salient memories of my childhood. Allow me to assure you the "disorder" can in no way be held responsible for "failures to form" concepts. Those of us "on the other side" sometimes wonder if being normal inhibits forming concepts as well, you see, we are just wired different, not wrong, just different. There are concepts I find self evident that normal people find obtuse, and similarly there are concepts that seem disjoint and disconnected from reality to me, that normal people get frustrated when I ignore. One of those is, I cannot understand why normal people like talking about themselves, it is almost always boring, so I am going to stop and get back on topic. I would suggest the root of the "paralysis" to which AR referred is fear. Fear of failure, fear of frustration, fear of social pressure, perhaps fear of the unknown should one succeed. In the words of Mr Churchill, "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself!". Nothing alleviates fear like effort. If you put forth enough effort to beat back your fear, success will follow. Assuming of course, there is a modicum of rationality in your effort.

Incest & Beastiality as a topic took over two years on the forum before anyone began to apply Objectivist epistemology to the issues involved. To all those posters who opened with their personal disgust over the topic, why were you moved to post? To those who opened with firm statements of their conclusion, please check if you offered any support to the position. Root value: human life. Resulting goal personal longevity. Secondary goal species survival. Supporting goal for both of the former, personal freedom. (Objectivist framework) Issue Beastiality: Pro[if so inclined]; sensory gratification and/or temporary release from evolutionarily induced behavioural pressure. Con; Health risk, most if not all sexually transmitted diseases humans are subject to, have their origins in other species. This risk is statistically significant and inhibits both major objectivist moral goals. Physical risk; depending on the species and your knowledge of their mating habits, you may be injured. Risk level may depend on what species you are turned on by, but there have been fatal examples. Social risk; it is a rather common and long standing societal tabu, for the health risk reasons, and discovery of such behaviour almost always has negative social impact, usually bad enough to limit your success in other endeavors and perhaps even your freedom. Conclusion; Looks like the rational Objectivist would avoid it for moral and practical reasons. Issue Incest: Pro; Propinquity, common view of the world, familiarity, in short all the advantages espoused by racists for same race mating, applies. Con; Genetics and social stigma. Yes that is it. However don't underestimate either one. Worst case social impact has been multiple murders, and mother nature has a long history of favoring diversity in every gene pool. The list of diseases and disorders related to inbreeding is formidable IN ALL species. Conclusion; Again, the rational Objectivist would avoid it for moral and practical reasons.

Let's get some things straight! Reality: The body of phenomena consistently experienced by sentient beings. {If more is needed on completeness or consistency Google 'Kurt Göedel'} Hypothesis: An Idea or consistent set of Ideas based in; Opinions, Hunches, Suspicions or Gut Feelings An hypothesis a tentative statement about reality. But for it to become a theory, it must lead to deductions that can be tested. As deductions are verified, the probability that the hypothesis is correct increases. When deductions are shown to be incorrect, the original hypothesis must be either abandoned or modified to accommodate the accumulated evidence. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations of observed phenomena or hypothetical relationships. Scientific Theory: Organized FACTS in EVIDENCE A scientific theory is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. Theories are based on the body of relevant facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. An Hypothesis becomes a Theory when a substantial body of it's deductions are tested and shown by the resulting evidence to be true, while NONE of them are shown to be false or incorrect. FACT: Experimentally verified statement about reality, accepted as true. In Science, an Observation that has been repeatedly confirmed by experiment is accepted, for all practical purposes, as true. In Science, however, -truth is never final.- When new observations or new experiments disprove any of the deductions supporting a theory or fact, like an hypothesis, all science, is subject to review. None of this begs the questions about wave-particle duality or any other esoteric quantum concept. It simply states reality is real, we are trying to describe reality, and reality is the final arbiter. Kurt Göedel proved we will never have a complete description, but the one we already have is incredibly useful and we all know we can do better. The EPR paradox is alive and well in the results of the dual slit experiments, but it does not matter, reality is real, A is A. IF YOU DO NOT GET IT, READ IT AGAIN or avoid science discussions. IF YOU DO GET IT, BUT REFUSE TO ACCEPT IT, I seriously doubt you accept Objectivism either.

For NateTheGreat; You opened, "If I understand laissez-faire capitalism correctly,". You don't. It does not now, nor has it ever, actually existed. Almost no one understands it. It simply means the function of government is limited to protecting the citizens from force, fraud, and other abuse from all sources, both foreign and domestic. Everything else is a market opportunity. Bottom up capitalism works. Schools: All due respect to Horace Mann, his efforts did benefit our great nation for a time, but now it should be clear government managed education is inadequate for the modern era. The poor you seem to have such concern for, are dropping out and taking life paths that seriously limit their potential RIGHT NOW, in record numbers. And more government money has consistently failed to fix the problem. Roads: Your argument boils down to; tort law is broken so leave the road funding alone. Americas roads were user funded for years before various governments got involved. If businesses were not allowed to use the government to tilt the playing field to their advantage, then money would have a chance to flow to the most efficient producers of the highest demand goods. That includes roads. Business information; Secrecy is the handmaiden of FRAUD. One of the areas government has a valid role to play. Fraud is intellectual force, faking reality to someones detriment. It should be illegal across the board. Businesses should not have to ever disclose future plans, but past events should be openly accessible. ALL past financials should be open records, if you think you need to hide them you are considering fraud. Courts; Avoid confusing the function of the courts (interpreting the LAW) with the function of regulatory agencies (making up rules to attempt some social engineering goal and attempting to enforce them if you have adequate funding). When you suffer property damage you want a proper court to adjudicate your problem. Similarly if you are harmed, such as real food poisoning, the courts have a role to play. If you just ate somewhere and got the runs I suggest you take your business elsewhere. Licenses: Fraud prevention, one does not allow people to perform services or exercise privileges for which they do not have the requisite skill and knowledge. Protect the citizens from fraud and force. Reality is the court of final appeal.

If you need a rule. It is NEVER moral to initiate the use of force in human relations, responding to force already initiated is moral for any defender.

Why do so many people seem to think it is O.K. to kill a man simply because you disagree with him? It is neither fun nor prudent. I do not recommend starting fights you cannot finish without a good exit strategy, your intended victim may have friends who agree with you about killing people.

The only valid reason for an ethical construct is that it's principle benefits the actor. You can only construct circumstances to provide a benefit not sought for the sake of testing by asking the actor to forsake his values. Forsaking one's values is never beneficial (assuming they are valid). QED

Yup, me too, about 1959, mum was a huge fan of Frank LLoyd Wright. That year an architect friend-of-the-family gave her a copy of The Fountainhead, indicating Ms. Rand was strongly influenced in her characterization of Roark by her acquaintance with FLW. Mom took the bait, but I devoured the book and did not slow down (much) until I ran out of published works, the following school year. By then I was a "raving Randite". Bought Rand paperbacks of anything new as soon as they were released, and gave away (Not altruistic I believed it would make my world better.) three or four copies of Atlas and half dozen or so FTNI. The rest of High School convinced me that proselytizing was a slow boat to China, but I shipped out for college with a few extra copies just in case. My second roommate turned out to be the most gratifying intellectual sparring partner. He came to me a classic Beltway (Washington D.C.) liberal, and by the time he graduated we were both much closer to what might be termed mature Objectivists. That was the year we landed on the moon.

Mmm, only a couple of week into the post, but I find it interesting that a thread initiated with the liars paradox, has had no mention of Kurt Gödel's completeness theorem.