CriticalThinker2000

What is it that you think the concept 'consciousness' refers to in reality? As Ms. Rand said: All philosophic con games count on your using words as vague approximations.

They do? Any evidence? They do? Any evidence?

Oh, OK. I don't think that I really have a complete grasp of the issues at stake in this discussion so please excuse me if I say something silly. Should there be a concept for what people often mean when they speak of 'possible' colloquially? Like, 'I could imagine a scenario in which this fact was otherwise' kind of possible. Would the falsity of the axioms qualify under either kind of 'possible'? It doesn't seem like it.

Is this not an assertion of the arbitrary? You've used the word 'possible' several times but according to Objectivism: "“X is possible” means: in the present context of knowledge, there is some, but not much, evidence in favor of X and nothing known that contradicts X." It would seem that the falsity of the axioms is by this understanding of 'possibility' not possible. Also, it seems to me that the axioms of Objectivism are so integrated with every piece of knowledge I hold (I could trace every concept back to them) that discovering some arbitrary new thing that invalidated them would necessarily invalidate every concept I hold.

I've literally answered this several times. Well functioning is defined by what ought to be possible per the individuals context. I did not think it appropriate to define every single word I used. I thought we were communicating in English. I've gone over what thriving means and why its derived from the nature of life but you continue to claim that you can simply 'attach a different meaning' and collapse into subjectivist garbage. You're right in that I am a little upset because in my very first post to you I named your error: Now we've gone through nine pages of discussion and guess what? We come back to your same fundamental error. You've wasted my time and your own. You claim that 'thriving' is but a matter of opinion. I have shown that it is a concept derived from the fact that life is a process and processes are evaluated based upon the achievement of a goal. You ignore this and claim that it's all a matter of choice and if you just choose 'thriving' to mean something other than what it does, morality is out the window. Not once have you challenged what life actually is. You claim that anything beyond the definition of life is merely an opinion. Is it a mere opinion that man experiences emotions even though the definition of man is, 'the animal that is rational'? I told you PAGES ago that a definition is not interchangeable with a concept. Yet you continue to replace concepts with definitions. I have repeatedly shown this over the last nine pages. And every time I do you respond with: someone can define the terms differently. I'm done with this thread.

This is not my position! I don't think everyone will therefore know such and such. I think that 'life' has a specific nature which Objectivism identifies and everyone is capable of understanding. And by the nature of life, stealing is immoral and consequently leads to negative outcomes (negative by the standard of life). ?????? No, every time you ask I give you an answer and you go around in a circle ending with the subjectivity of concepts. Do you want me to define every word or something? Multitude is a synonym of many. Fulfilling is a synonym of satisfying. I gave you what I believe is the standard- what can be achieved in a given context. In fact, you quote that next but do not connect the dots. Again, I don't know what you want? A definition of every word? Completed to the fullest extent possible means that within a given context there is a limit to what values can be created/maintained. Creating/maintaining those values would be achieving them to the fullest extent possible.... Do you really want me to define each word in 'fulfills its task'? I can't understand why you need a definition of 'the fullest extent possible within a specific context'. You speak English... Sure, from Google: "The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death."

The standard is the process. Is the process doing what it's supposed to be doing well? In the context of life, is the person creating and maintaining a multitude of fulfilling values. There is no set number because it's open ended. But the context that defines it would be, I think, what is/should be possible to achieve. Look man, I don't care how you define 'running really well' because whether a process is being completed to the fullest extent possible is not dependent on your opinion or whatever you call it. Your conceptual subjectivity is a dead end. Just like every time I try to explain something to you. The standard for the motor that determines whether it is running well is whether it fulfills its task. Life, on the other hand, is an end in itself. Life is itself the standard by which you evaluate whether a life is good. Life is the standard of morality. The question is, is this process occurring to the fullest extent possible within a specific context. The standard is not, 'I won't die'. It's, 'I will thrive.' In which case neither stealing nor eating sand is a method of achieving that. Furthermore, I think that destruction IS inevitable if you live only by theft. You're a parasite which necessarily means that your life exists only by virtue of others. You want to chain your life to others via theft and then claim, nothing bad HAS to happen to me while blanking out the fact that you've given your life up to luck- to the whims/thoughts/desires/existence of others. Not to mention the fact that you won't gain self-esteem, pride is out the window, reason no longer becomes your means of dealing with the world, any principle of justice you held is kaput. I regard the decay brought about by theft (no matter the time horizon) as dying even if it doesn't mean your heart immediately stops beating because it contradicts your human capacity to create values and leads to destruction. I don't know. You're the one that's trying to define these things in terms of immediate death. You tell me. If I eat some sand and a lot of bacon for the next 20 years is that not anti-life because my heart kept beating? Is the only thing that's anti-life a bullet to the brain? I've stated my opinion a trillion times: life is a process- it's more than a beating heart.

Yeah, a sputtering engine is running well. I just have to FEEEEEL your concept correctly.

Because they're not exercising their life to the fullest extent. Again life is a process and a process can be well functioning (creating many values) or not well functioning (barely subsisting). It is NOT a matter of opinion!! Life is a process. Which means that whether or not that process is flourishing is not a matter of opinion but of fact. Suppose you opened an auto shop, FredAnyrepairman's Cars. I bring in my broken down El Camino for an engine repair. I get a call from you a week later and you tell me, the engine is running really well! I get to the shop and see that it's just sputtering, barely completing the necessary steps to continue the cycle. Wait, I tell you. This isn't running well- it's barely running at all. And you say, well, it's turning over and even though it's sputtering and spewing oil, it is running so any judgments beyond this fact are merely your opinion. Wait, I say, the running of the engine is a process. Even though a sputtering engine completes the necessary process, it is not running well. It is not flourishing because it is not completing the process to its fullest potential. No, you say, beyond turning over, there is no definition of what it means for an engine to run except for 'it turns over'. Therefore, it's only a matter of opinion. Of course, it is not merely a matter of opinion. A sputtering engine is not running well and a person merely subsisting is not living well. In both instances, neither the engine (running) nor the person (life) are flourishing. There is no difference between stealing and eating sand. Both lead to your destruction as I've explained. Sand leads to destruction faster although I'm sure you could survive quite some time off of sand (mixing in some food). It's not right to draw a line between these two examples. Neither stealing nor eating sand are compatible with your nature. Although you can do both and subsist for a while. What does or does not constitute a flourishing life is not a matter of opinion but is an objective recognition of what life is.

Life and flourishing life are fundamentally the same thing. Life is itself a process of attaining values. The concept of 'flourishing life' is created to distinguish between people who are really succeeding at life (creating, pursuing, maintaining values) and people who are merely fulfilling the bare minimum requirement to sustain the process of life. Contrary to Fred's assertion in this thread (which mirrors his conclusion in his first thread), concepts are not merely a matter of opinion but follow from objective facts.

Philosophy comes prior to science in the hierarchy of knowledge. A proper philosophy is required to interpret your observations. That's all. No philosophy could invalidate observations but it will definitely affect what conclusions are drawn.

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Objectivist-Epistemology-Expanded-Second/dp/0452010306/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403816708&sr=1-1&keywords=introduction+to+objectivist+epistemology But seriously, you're going to end this whole thing with, 'your concepts don't mean what my concepts mean'? Life is a process of attaining values and as a human being living means attaining values in accordance with your identity as the entity you are: a man. That is a statement of objective fact whether you choose to recognize it in conceptual form or not. It's not a matter of my opinion vs. your opinion. It's fact buddy. Yeah, it's just an opinion that life requires the creation of values and man creates values in a specific way I can't believe I wasted so much time under the pretense that you were honest. Oh well, lesson learned. Gotta love the interwebs folks.

The alternative of life or death is at the root of the concept value. It's what gives rise to values so you cannot remove that as the basis of values. That would be a stolen concept. I agree that you can argue all sorts of silly things if you remove that which gives rise to the objectivity of values. But given that life is the ultimate value, eating sand in pursuit of life is an objectively dumb idea. Yes, flourishing life is a concept I used to differentiate between merely surviving which is what people immediately think of when you say 'life'. But 'life' is a concept. I've noticed that several times you've replaced a word (a concept) with the definition of it. But concepts and definitions are not interchangeable (a la Oist epistemology). There is more to being a man than having a rational faculty (we have two legs, 10 fingers, experience emotions etc) even though the definition of man is, the animal with a rational faculty. Similarly, there is more to life than a beating heart. Life is surviving in full accordance with your identity as a man. Now suppose someone stops you from attaining the other values Rand outlines in The Oist Ethics. What if someone forcibly stops you from being productive (creating material values)? You can choose to steal, just as you can choose to eat sand, but both contradict your nature and consequently end with your destruction.

So if someone stops you from attaining food you can choose to value sand and eat that instead?

I don't understand where you're getting this. The morality of stealing is not dependent upon whether you have a nice life or not. It's dependent upon whether living qua man (in accordance with your nature) is possible. To quote my previous post: "What nullifies the context under which stealing is immoral is not the fact that the values don't exist but rather that the specifically human method of achieving values (using the mind) is not possible." It's not dependent on whether you are flourishing. See above.

Could you expand on what you mean here because I'm not following your reasoning? What nullifies the context under which stealing is immoral is not the fact that the values don't exist but rather that the specifically human method of achieving values (using the mind) is not possible. Flourishing under systematized coercion is not possible for this reason.

Ah, good point. This could be a spot of confusion. When I say lobbying I mean, the act of advocating for the use of government force in your favor. The end goal is to keep/protect the values that are taken by government or under threat by government. Well herein lies the issue I guess. I too agree with your general principle that if a company is being looted they should lobby to get their money back. But then you seem to apply the principle without regard for context. Lobbying goes far beyond an attempt to get back tax dollars. Lobbying involves asking for special privileges, forcibly stopping competitors, etc. Do you think that's all OK for Walmart to do too because it's taxed?

With respect to force, yes. More precisely stated, I think that Walmart should use force only to the extent that the use of force against Walmart necessitates Walmart's use of it. Walmart is not completely controlled. If we lived in a system where Walmart's creation of values could only be achieved through coercive means, the whole discussion is moot. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a system where Walmart has to be complicit in government force to some extent because of the system it exists in. And to the extent it's necessary is the extent to which it's OK. That doesn't mean it's OK to lobby for as much as you can get. I think Rand's opinion of a very similar issue is relevant: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government_grants_and_scholarships.html Yes, if those values are at risk because of force used against Walmart. Now, excuse me if I've misunderstood your position, but it sounds like you're arguing that Walmart should lobby for everything it can get. Is that what you're saying?

Well obviously I don't think that's what they should be reduced to. They should be left free. Because lobbying is evil. It's OK to do it if your survival requires it but force is not the method by which a moral man should attempt to gain values.

Flourishing life means the full pursuit and attainment of non-contradictory values and the happiness that results from the attainment of values. Each individual picks amongst certain optional values but the requirements of a flourishing human life were the same in the 5th century as they are today because they're derived from man's nature. Certain values didn't exist in the 5th century but the values people chose to pursue back then still required the same virtues to achieve. Rationality, honesty, integrity, productivity, independence, justice, and pride were as necessary 1500 years ago as they are today.

I think there is a big difference between accepting that lobbying exists or attempting to survive in the system and openly pushing/supporting new controls. Just like there's a difference between taking social security and advocating for more social security.

Yes, that is more or less correct. Suppose you're a Jew in Nazi Germany and the government has made it such that life as a human is impossible- by which I mean that the circumstances are such that you cannot live by your mind because values are not obtainable. That would be one such circumstance where I think stealing to physically survive would be morally justified. This is because the principles necessary for a flourishing human life presuppose that the action necessary to attain values is possible. This is different than being poor in a free (or semi-free) society where you may not have an opportunity you desire but you are not physically excluded from the attainment of values.

Please show where I defended the mixed economy.

Not very different at all. Walmart already pays far more in taxes than they'd ever have to pay for road use. Eminent domain, if it has contributed to Walmart's success at all, is completely trivial. I don't know what 'disposable' labor is but you're right in stating that labor prices are artificially high. Labor would be cheaper without the government imposed price floor. It is true that as the minimum wage rises, the less efficient companies are put out of business. However, claiming that this is a driver of Walmart's success requires ignorance of the company's history and the history of discount retail- which is why your claims are ignorant. It's not the minimum wage but rather small retailers inability to match Walmart's efficiency and scale that makes them unable to compete. That is why the Walmart business model is so successful. By turning the inventory over at such a fantastic rate, the company can substantially undercut the prices of competitors. It's completely at odds with reality to claim that Walmart's success is due to minimum wage. On the contrary, the company has been substantially damaged by minimum wage. Give me a break. Who do you think pays for government healthcare? And to attribute the company's success to the government takeover of health care is moronic. Again, forcing Walmart to provide healthcare and a specific wage to its employees whether or not there are other people willing to work for less is not good for Walmart. Naming a bunch of ways that the government affects Walmart is not evidence that their efficiency is a result of the government. Walmart is successful because it sells products for low prices. It sells its products for low prices, not because it has greater access to cheap labor than other companies (it does not), but because it can spread its operating costs across millions of low gross profit transactions.

This is a totally ignorant statement. Walmart does not depend fundamentally on state interference. Walmart's business model is that of a discounter: low gross profit per good with massive inventory turnover. Discounters exist in many different industries and are the product of free markets. There is no logical relationship between the business model and coercion.