KyaryPamyu

I was addressing the origin of the name, not of the science (Aristotle didn't originate metaphysics). The first metaphysician in the western tradition was likely Anaximander. The SEP article on metaphysics suggests Andronicus of Rhodes as "in all probability" the originator of the term. As I said, opinions in metaphysics range from naturalism to full blown mysticism. --- To add to the biology - metaphysics connection, let's imagine that Homo Sapiens has evolved an innate biological instinct of procuring as much meat as possible. A biological adaptation occurs, namely a science called 'meatosophy'. The function of this science is not truth, but helping people persuade or trick other people into giving away their meat supply. What does this theory entail, metaphysically? Existence: there is something, as against nothing. Identity: biological theories can be true, even if theologians disagree. Causality: biological organisms act in ways which further their survival and reproduction. This tongue-in-cheek example illustrates how the philosophical approach works, more or less. You are already operating under a metaphysical framework, whether you argue for nihilism or the best TV drama. And this fundamentality to human cognition or living is what makes it philosophy, not physics or biology.

The part in bold is the category under which WW2, femininity and your other examples fall in. Rand herself changed her mind on some of these, such as homosexuality. More is explained here. As for the fundamental principles, they were gathered into a single volume by Peikoff (OPAR). Nothing wrong with trying to complete a system. IMO Kelley's additions are at odds with several important O'ist principles. Maybe somebody in the future will author a system that is in line with Rand's but much more comprehensive.

In the first century CE, an editor put togheter a few fragments of Aristotle into the treatise now known as Metaphysics. The word means 'after the Physics' (the Physics was another of Aristotle's works). It does not mean 'beyond physics', but the order of study within the curriculum, i.e. that the study of nature comes before. Though the proper hierarchy is obviously metaphysics first, since the study of nature relies on its assumptions. Colloquially, 'metaphysical' is used to describe the occult and matters of the supernatural, but that is not what the term means in philosophy. There are naturalistic metaphysics that reject the supernatural, and also many mystical metaphysics. To illustrate what metaphysics means, take this statement of yours: What is presupposed by it? That the world is the way it is, independently of people's knowledge. What is true, was true before B.D. (before Darwin), it's just that people only started being clued on it in the A.D (after Darwin). This is an instance of the law of identity, a part of metaphysics. Are you, then, relying on B.D superstition to discredit B.D superstition? I assume that the biology of philosophy means: for what survival and reproduction purpose does philosophy occur in living organisms; and how does this play out? If so, that's not a question for philosophy, but for science. Say a bird suddenly develops reason, but does not shed its programming, which dictates it must build nests. Such a creature would have the ability to obtain a much better and safer type of shelter, but its programming would force it to backwards-rationalise reasons to keep the nest situation, even if it means obfuscating the truth. This is because its survival strategy is hard coded into its nervous system, and is inflexible. This seems to be the trend in modern views of human nature. Many scientists do not clearly delineate the difference between need (food, reproduction), instincts (such as nest-building) and biological features (e.g. high calorie foods tasting better). It's not metaphysics that needs to catch up to biology. It's advocates of evo psy et. al who need a tighter grasp of logic.

ARI is an institution which, in the public eye, is more knowledgeable about Objectivism than, say, a NY Times columnist or a random Internet commenter. Lots of people put words in Rand's mouth. If ARI wants to make an impact and spread Objectivist ideas, it is also in their interest to dispell falsehoods which circulate around, and indeed, mention if the author of a theory is Rand or some ARI board member. 'Closed', in regard to a system, does not mean complete, nor does it mean that it is perfectly accurate as far as non-essentials are concerned. For example, there's discussion as to whether percepts are really integrations of discrete sensations, as Rand said. But this doesn't affect her theory of epistemology. Compare this to changing some essential, e.g. denying free will or the primacy of existence; that would require massive revisions throghout every branch, to the point of reaching a different system altogheter. There are many closed systems in philosophy, the most famous one probably being Hegel's, which is outlined in his three-volume Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences. Some philosophers, like Schelling, authored several ones, involving vastly different premises and methodologies. Although followers of these philosophies altered or repurposed some parts for their own views or systems, their views were never considered to be Hegel's or Schelling's actual systems.

Roark's meaning is crystal clear if you read the novel. The creation of goods should be motivated by the value of that good, not by any other consideration. Even if your product is a game changer in terms of qualiy-of-life improvements, it's possible that people will not understand it right away, or will resist it because they feel it threatens the comfort of some established tradition. Thus, if short-term profit was everybody's motivation, we would still be hanging around in the Savanna. Innovative creators are betting on the fact that if the product is good, it is good. It will eventually become a staple, simply in the light of its benefits. Even if the process will be annoyingly slow. Yes, this applies to politics as well. There is no connection between Schiller's brotherly love, a warless world, and Roark's quote. The key to understanding any novel, or system of ideas, is to study it. No comparision is possible otherwise.

System building rests on the assumption that reality is a closed system, i.e. that facts are aspects of a larger picture, and merging them will reveal that picture. An 'open system' is an oxymoron. The term 'open', when applied to a system, means that its application to various issues is open to options. For example, Objectivism advocates the primacy of existence. It is not open to views which rest necessarily on the primacy of consciousness. In this, and other issues regarding fundamentals, it's closed. In regard to its application to concrete cases, such as a romance, hobbies and political events, it allows for a variety of options and applications, which is why some disagreements are possible. In this, it is open. Hearsay is never conductive to any fruitful conclusion or discussion. Always go straight to the source. Relevant: Peikoff answers this question Ditto for Objectivism being 'built on the chassis' of Aristotle. That's false. Agreeing with someone on big issues is a completely separate issue from building a system on top of his system. On this matter, one resource I suggest is the course 'Objectivism Through Induction', available for free on the ARI website. There, Rand's methodology of system-building is explained.

True. People bend definitions and principles, not out of some ill intention, but because otherwise their explanations do not match their actual, real-life experience. This is a bad strategy, for two reasons. First, you will get into trouble. To give a crude example, jumping into a fire is not life-supporting, even if your PhD thesis states otherwise. Second - and this is why most people do it - is because they feel that an 'alternative' truth would force them to make painful or uncomfortable changes to their lives (or at least make them live with the knowledge of being an outlier). This is also wrong. Of course, we are shaped by factors such as childhood experiences, natural inclinations toward introversion/extraversion, the knowledge we have and so on. An accurate view of how things work (reality) will increase our ability to thrive and to stand proudly for who we are. The Stanford definition you quoted mentions three classes: doing stuff solely for yourself; doing it for others; and doing it simply to harm others. Say I do something for someone because it gives me pleasure. Under the above definition, this is selfish, because I do it for my enjoyment. But it is selfless, because it's for someone else. See the problem? If two opposite terms can convey the same thing, the definitions fail to fulfill their purpose.

Depends on how you interpret the quote. If you simply read it and leave it at that, then the answer is yes, she would praise both dictators. If you add the other relevant facts, such as her philosphical views, then no, definitely not.

None of the examples in your post are instances of altruism, even if they're all followed with the word 'altruism' colored in red. Consider what money can get Andy in prison, compared to the outer world. Now consider the benefit of improving the collective he's stuck with for the rest of his life (barring an escape). A person's situation dictates where his time and energy is best spent. In the Mozart scene, he concludes that the potential punishment is a good tradeoff for what he gains by playing the recording. Was his judgement right? For him it was worth it, for others the punishment might be a deal-breaker. Depends on the person. Doing things for your friends, as Andy does for Red, is not altruism. The movie is fine from an Objectivist perspective. Reminds me of a question to Peikoff about superheroes. He replied that fighting for justice (if that's a top value for you) is completely selfish, not altruistic. I'd say that your view of what altruism is differs significantly from Rand, as presented in The Virtue of Selfishness and elsewhere. So for you this movie might not resonate very much with selfishness.

It's a talk on Vedanta philosophy, but it's almost a word for word exposition of Rand's take on metaphysics. He explains how the validity of perception ('appearance') cannot be denied through reasoning, because the concepts used in reasoning are derived from perception. Unfortunately, he then claims to have a solution, which is to 'go beyond' the notions of space, time and causality. But one can easily retort: 'beyond' and 'within' are spacial concepts. You can go the whole way and say that without those structures of thought, it would be impossible to cognize concepts such as 'true reality', 'illusory reality' and so on. ---- What about 'outside' and 'inside'? They are a pair of mental concepts, so your mind can theoretically use them to postulate an external world without there actually being one. Right? Nope. Let's put it this way. I possess this pair of concepts, 'outside' and 'inside'. I assume that this is true independently of anybody's opinion, including attempts on my part to deny this. An idealist system will never make sense, because it describes how the structure of reality is solely mental while simultaneously assuming it to be fully mind-independent. This was one of Rand's genius insights. She showed that a metaphysics is possible, but unlike the grand systems of the past, it's short and sweet.

Reason is a method of drawing conclusions, or some animal's ability for it. Rationality is choosing based on conclusions reached that way. Biological needs, or star clusters, are not instances of 'unreason', but natural facts. Different class. But yes, reason is a tool in the service of biology; Rand would fully agree. The nature of the universe is such that life can arise within it. So it can be said that, through us, the universe is 'expressing its nature', achieving all that it can. But that's a weird way of putting it, because what would be the alternative? You are what you are; it's impossible to go against your own characteristics, to move from being you to not being you. Those philosophers were right in saying that we want to develop the most we can, but that is a consequence of our nature, not the other way around. We possess reason, which enables us to calculate our future and solve problems related to our quality of life. Naturally, we don't want to waste this opportunity. But are we fully capable of guiding ourselves by reason, 100% - no exceptions? Absolutely. Not always because we like it, but because the alternatives are much more inconvenient than simply giving things the requisite thought. Reluctantly, we aknowledge that what we are oblivious to can bite our backs, and we proceed to think. This tradeoff is context-dependent, because humans are not invincible. Fatigue, stress, overwhelm and other things can erode our reasoning ability. The rational thing to do in such cases is to rest and temporarily halt making more decisions. This is one example of being guided by reason - you take the best course related to the goal (life). If despite our seriousness we make mistakes along the way, that's not irrationality, but our natural limits. It's definitely worth it to guide our lives and society rationally. Because in the case of fulfilling our needs, some strategies fail and some succeed. And we want to be on the winning side. The human species is definitely equiped for it, moreso if people combine their brainpower. Just look around.

This analogy might help you. Think of a piano string, and the sound that it makes. The string (1) and the sound (2) are not identical, they are two different things. You can say that the sound is caused by the vibrating string but you can't say that the sound is identical to the string. The sound is the sound, the string is the string. So you won't describe the sound as 'a very long and thin wire made of steel', and you also won't describe the string as 'a high-pitched squeak'. The sound is irreducible to the string. The same thing applies to matter and consciousness. Certainly consciousness is caused by material things (a nervous system), but the experience of an apple is just that, the experience of an apple. The fact that the experience has material causes does not mean that the brain (1) and the experience of the apple (2) are identical. The brain is the brain, the experience is the experience. When you talk about the brain you talk about neurons, synapses and so on. When you dissect the experience of the apple, you analyse it on its own terms - color, smell, how vivid or clear the experience is etc. It's in this way that consciousness is a thing in its own right, irreducible to its material causes.

It could not, because those particles only act according to what they are, not according to what they aren't. You can't arbitrarily hack anything. You can't do more than its possible to do given the nature of what is, particles and 'meta-energy puffs' included. The fact that things are made of more basic ingredients does not invalidate the existence of those things. Explaining something doesn't invalidate its existence. By the way, Objectivism is not a materialistic philosophy. It holds existence, not matter, as the primary. Matter and conciousness are specific things that exist. No, there isn't. When you say that two bottles of water are the same thing, you're saying that both of them are man-made objects with a shape and material suitable for carrying liquid. You retain those characteristics and ignore their measurements (in reality everything might be different about them: their size, their exact shape, whether they're made of plastic or glass). But those bottles are not the same thing at all, i.e. instances of an Archetype. They are two different concretes which man can classify togheter in order to reduce the complexity of the world. According to your views, if there is a higher-lever 'spec' which defines what things are and ought to be, what is the even higher level spec which defines what the previous spec is and ought to be? In other words, causality. But actions don't cause objects, it's objects that act. Causality is an instance of the law of identity: because something is what it is, it acts according to that. A thing isn't the way it is because it ought to be what it is. What is, is. 'Ought to be' is a specialized category applying only in a specialized context, that of choice. In no way does it apply outside that context. In morality, when you say that you ought to do something in order to achieve a goal (man's life), you mean that you ought to do it because of certain facts, i.e. because of the identity of man and the world. Everything is what it is, i.e. has a nature. Not an abstract nature. Define your terms, otherwise your arguments will go all over the place. The ability to mentally isolate certain characteristics of an object and to contemplate them apart from that object is what abstraction consists of. It allows man to observe similarities and differences between objects and thus to form concepts and the whole body of human knowledge. Abstractions themselves have a nature. For example, they are formed in the brain of a particular living being, they require a certain type of action on the part of that being, they are made possible by a very complex kind of nervous system. In your view, do the abstract universal archetypes which define the nature of things have a nature themselves? In that case, what do you think defines the nature of these universals? Other universals? If those universals are primaries and their identity is not set by previous universals, do you think that by the same token we can dispose with universals altogether and simply accept existence as a primary?

These four objections are common criticisms of the Objectivist ethics which I've encountered in discussions or occured to me in my own study. I sum up the answers as follows: 1. Short and long-term actions are the component and symbiotic parts of one irreducible primary (i.e. happiness). 2. The process of life does not need justification, any more than any other existent. | The emergence of life, consciousness and free will from non-conscious processes is neither miraculous nor signaling the presence of an unconscious intelligence in matter which is blindly striving towards full self-consciousness. 3. The pursuit of excellence is an inherent, necessary and non-optional aspect of what life is (as against existentialism). 4. The metaphysical relationship between man and the universe is also the ideal/absolute best (i.e. that which is - the facts of reality - are the very roots and constituent parts of phenomena such as 'best', 'ideal', 'good', 'bad').

1, 2

Yeah, as I said my focus is not on Anatta (non-self) because it's radically different from Advaita or Objectivist approaches. It blows my mind how sophisticated schools like Advaita were, since they precede classical german philosophy by more than a millenium. Buddhism is on my list of study though, so I might form my objections to Anatta later, though what you describe seems to be the kind of stuff that would drive any follower of Oist epistemology insane 😂 Well, let's say that a man is born in the US, spends his childhood there and then moves to France to study painting. He gets kidnapped by some mind-hackers and has his memories replaced with memories of spending his childhood in France, having completely different french parents, french friends etc. Would he still be the same person?

Objection #1: Long range philosophies cause people to get stuck in the future while forgetting to enjoy the present moment. Answer to objection #1: Long range planning and productive work are activites that one does for his present-moment happiness, not solely for future benefits. Not planning for the future compromises your immediate enjoyment of life by causing anxiety and worry; planning for the future elevates your mood in anticipation of the good things that will come; finally, if you are able to enjoy the present moment, it's probably because you've done something right in the past, and you are reaping the results right now. There is no real dichotomy between enjoying the present and planning for the future. They are both the integral parts of your moment-to-moment enjoyment of life, since life only happens in the present moment. _________________________________________________________ Objection #2: Objectivism fails to justify the pursuit of happiness. Clause one: if life appeared by cosmic chance and not by some pre-determined universal goal, life has no justification at all. Answer to clause one: the labels 'justified' and 'not justified' are value judgements, and value judgements presuppose the goal of life. Clause one is therefore unintelligible, basically amounting to saying that living is not a good strategy if your goal is to live. Secondly, the way something got here does not invalidate its present, factual existence. Even if life appeared without some pre-determined universal teleology, it still exists and its existence is the starting point of discussion; only the unreal is not a subject of debate. Clause two: In Objectivism, there is no justification for the choice to live. Variation one: you cannot justify choosing to live, because the choice is a primary (it is not necessitated by some previous, higher goal). Answer to variation one: 'justify' is used here as a stolen concept, dropping its root in the concept of life. You are trying to justify why choosing to live would help your goal of living life. Variation two: choosing to live is a whim, because it is a primary (it is not necessitated by some previous, higher goal). Answer to variation two: a whim is a goal for which there is no actual necessity to engage in, relative to a preceding goal which is consonant with the root of values (life). Saying that choosing to live is a whim steals the concept and amounts to claiming that if you want to live, choosing to do so is a whim. Variation three: In Objectivism, the choice to live is defined as an acceptance of reality, of your existence. Therefore, you are merely dutifuly being nature's servant. Answer to variation three: accepting one's own desire to live is not an act of submission to nature, any more than an inanimate object being itself is an act of submission to its identity. The desire to live is a metaphysically-given aspect of living organisms. In accepting this desire, people are not submitting to a natural edict, they are simply observing what is already true, i.e. their nature. Variation four: Choosing to live is a moral choice. Answer to variation four: a moral choice is a choice that furthers man's goal of living a good life (it already presuposes that goal). _________________________________________________________ Objection #3: Objectivism tells people to grow and actualize their full potential. But why should you grow if the path is infinite, there being no particular point at which you can retire and be satisfied? Answer to objection #3. This boils down to metaphysics. The concept of infinity cannot be actualized in practice. No matter how long a counting streak is, its actual lenght is dictated by where you stop counting. If growth was a limited endeavor, it would actually hurt happiness by physically limiting the amount of things you can enjoy. The only way to ensure long-term happiness is by never reaching a dead-end in your possibilities. Asking why you should grow is akin to asking: how will making myself happier make me happier? _________________________________________________________ Objection #4: If existence, not consciousness, is a primary, then the universe is my direct antagonist. It is not aware that I exist. It is not somehow linked to me in a common ground between consciousness and matter. Nothing happens for a predestined purpose or teleological program towards complete self-consciousness/merging with god. It has no ability to protect me. It can't hear my prayers. It has no will to decide against randomly sending a tsunami onto my house. I am to be held responsible for absolutely everything in my life. Answer to objection #4: Man alone has a real, genuine capacity to use the metaphysically-given to further his own personal goals. This is in direct contrast to the universe itself, which is not alive and does not have goals. A universe that is 'separate from man' is implied to be a universe outside his reach, rendering him incapable to use it for his goals. But the universe is here for the picking. In fact, only the universe is here for the picking, being the only reality that exists, and both the source of life and life's value-warehouse. Given that values are a type of fact, choosing the correct values is not an instance of being a slave to the metaphysically-given, but the act of identifing the goodness which is already there for the picking as long as you earn it or work to create it. Saying that the universe limits your options is unintelligible insofar as 'values' becomes a stolen concept - different values are only made possible by a specific context of facts and cannot exist in a vacuum. The enjoyment and meaning of values would be robbed from man if values were arbitrary (not objective, firm, absolute) or if the universe was alive and played favorites (personal achievement plays a big role in the ability to enjoy a value). Luckily, the universe is a given and not the product of the Absolute's fully free (i.e. arbitrary) desire to reach full self-consciousness.

Interesting. I practice a form of IF but only recently started incorporating coffee and tea. The opinions on this seem to be mixed, ranging from 'coffee will break the fast' to 'coffee enhances the effects of fasting'. The latter camp claims that coffee and teas enhance autophagy, one of the major mechanisms through which IF improves overall health.

I've only started drinking the stuff a few days ago, it gives me a nice kick though it will probably get tamer as my tolerance level increases. If you like the subject you can check out this meta-analysis of twenty studies.

Anti-aging studies are all the rage nowadays, and several experimental interventions were proven effective in extending mammalian lifespan (the class to which humans belong). Practices that work on humans include: Drinking coffee Drinking teas (green, red, black, hibiscus, ginseng, mint etc.) instead of plain water, due to their antiadipose quality and antioxidants Intermittent fasting (IF) - having your meals in a restricted window of time, e.g. eating during an interval of 4 hours, fasting for 20 hours. While hunger levels and fatigue drop after months of consistent practice, elevation of ghrelin (the peptide responsible for hunger) increases the expression of BDNF, which heightens neuron proliferation in the brain area associated with learning and memory Fasted exercise. Aerobics sessions deplete the glycogen from your liver and muscles, forcing the body to use its own body fat and labile proteins for energy. Resistence training (weight lifting) during a fasted state can increase HGL levels to exorbitant levels, preserving muscle and aiding the construction of new muscle tissue 30-40% caloric restriction, or more (CR) - consuming all of your essential nutrients, but ingesting less energy (calories) than you burn in a day. This forces the body to cannibalize its old proteins for energy, making way for a faster production of new proteins (and as a result, slowing down aging). Hard to implement in a three-meals-a-day scheme, easy on one meal a day since it's difficult to overeat in a single sitting. In time, your body adapts to caloric restriction by increasing energetic efficiency, slowing down metabolism and decreasing core body temperature. Using less energy to run physiological operations, as well as spending less time assimilating food results in decreased production of free radicals, a major factor in aging. Methionine restriction (MR) - decreasing intake of the amino-acid methionine (currently only practicable by moderating or eliminating consumption of animal products) Protein restriction (PR). Generally, bodybuilders consume 1g of protein or more per lb of bodyweight everyday. This is the surest way to make your liver explode, even if you are healthy. For contrast, you can Google a powerlifter named Dr. Amen-Ra which maintains a muscular body on roughly half a gram of protein per kg (kilogram) of bodyweight. Glycation restriction (GR) - reducing the process in which sugar molecules bind to bodily proteins, rendering them resistant to removal. Can be managed by reducing sugar intake, intermittent fasting, incorporating beans in your diet and supplementation with teas, spirulina, brewer's yeast, isolated amino acids, isolated soy protein Cooking foods in ways that reduce advanced glycation end products (AGEs) Supplementation with various substances: creatine, probiotics, cocoa, ginger, broccoli extract, glucosamine, resveratrol, curcumin/turmeric etc. Stress management, including meditation Reducing the time you spend sitting I currently practice some of those but not others. For example, I still eat animal products, sugary sweets, moderate protein. I tend to skip morning aerobics due to lack of time and I don't really supplement with a lot of stuff. Reducing the time spent sitting is itself a challenge. But in my opinion, the things listed above are all worth a go as long as two golden rules are met: 1. There must be no dichotomy between what you want to do and what those practices entail. For example, a ketogenic/low carb diet can be a nightmare for most people, since it involves giving up on pancakes, bread, sugary foods and basically everything that is nice in the world. However, incorporating coffee and tea in your diet is something people would do regardless of any anti-aging properties. 2. Transparency and ease of implementation. The practices must not take away from the time you would otherwise spend enjoying other activities. For example, aerobic sessions can be a drag for most people, unless they combine health with utility. Brisk walking to your workplace (if it's not very far away) or to your nearby store is just as efficient as a walk in the park or on the treadmill. And people with busy schedules might be attracted to the prospect of freeing up their time by skipping breakfast/lunch and eating a kingly dinner when they get home, especially since fasting can allow them to eat 'bad' foods while decreasing their negative effects. So what is your approach to health? Do you make provisions for your long term health? Do you prefer to live life now and hope for the best?

For this thread, my focus is on denominations (predominantly Hindu, such as the Advaita school within Vedanta) that declare the ego to be a subjective construct and the Witness/Seer to be grounded in (or identical to) Atman or the universal Self. The non-self (Anatta) doctrine of Buddhism isn't of particular debating appeal to Objectivists - after all, if no subject exists, who made the claim that there is no subject? But the ego-self distinction is sightly closer to home given Rand's views. Eastern philosophy is a rich field, so you might disagree with the propositions depending on what you are familiar with. GITS's influences also include elements of eastern philosophy. In particular for this discussion, what defines one's identity/individuality? Just how important is that individuality to which we cling to?

What is the self? The standard line of reasoning in eastern philosophy looks somewhat like this: 1. People associate themselves with their ego, a conglomeration of their beliefs, tastes, ideas, wishes, fears, self-evaluations. 2. The ego, with all of its constituent elements can itself become an object of consciousness. Therefore, the ego is not actually the subject, the observing self. 3. The real self is the pure faculty of awareness which observes the ego and perceptions, unadultered by any other property. The japanese animation film Ghost in the Shell famously tackles this problem without providing a solution. If your faculty of awareness remains intact, but is transfered to a completely diferent (prosthetic) body, your old memories being erased and new fake memories being implanted, are you still yourself considering that the ground (the faculty of awareness) is still exactly the same? Ayn Rand defined the self as: (Note: by perception of reality, she means perception through rational appraisal, not mere observance) Quite a different approach. While buddhists refer to the process of thinking as "monkey mind" (which never stops chattering and giving opinions), Ayn Rand sees the ego or self as one and the same with the process of thinking. Which interestingly, is not the same thing as one's feelings or dreams. That being said, my objections to the eastern view are as follows: 1. It assumes that the faculty of awareness is not tainted by any nature, being featureless and infinite. The empirical ground of this claim is the meditative state, where all thoughts and external perceptions are removed from consciousness and one feels as though the faculty of awareness is at root infinite, limited simply by the brain of whomever that eternal self manifests as (billions of living beings that have this faculty). But actually, the pure faculty itself definitely has a nature, dictated by physiological factors: the integrity of the brain and its qualities, since practices like meditation can improve the sharpness of awareness and focus via physically changing the brain, and other factors can weaken it. 2. It claims that since awareness is our sole contact with anything at all (such as internal thoughts, extenal things), and because the contents of our consciousness are subject to change (self-appraisals can change, our perspective can become broader, perception of external things can itself be muffled through voluntary yogic techniques), only the eternal Self (the subject) exists. The phenomenal world is in constant flux, a mere illusion, but the underlying, observing Self, is the one thing that remains constant, similar to Kant's transcendental apperception. Again, this conclusion implies that pure awareness is not mediated by any material or external factors, which it clearly is. 3. Critics of the primacy of existence sometimes bring out the argument that your sense of self is dependent upon neural networks and structures in the physical brain, which can suffer changes (for example, in an accident), therefore your self-image can't truly be the self. This assumes that since our image of ourselves is a mental appraisal (subject to errors, inaccuracies or accidents), the self is an illusion. This fails to take into consideration that self-appraisals can point to facts of reality. 4. It claims that the self, to be a self, must be a perfect unity. It can not be made of component parts, such as habits, tastes, goals. This is akin to saying that if my body is made of several limbs, organs and cells, it is not a body at all. What surprises me is that Rand's view, while obviously different from the Buddhist view, shares some features with it. For starters, it aknowledges that the self is not your emotions, since emotions are fluid and change according to your appraisal of things. The self is also not your dreams, because what you dream about depends on your values and philosophy, and that aspect is subject to change. But what about memories? Are you still the same person if your memories get replaced? Well, think of it in the following manner. The faculty of awareness is like an organ in your body. If you replaced it but kept the rest of the structure intact - degree of intelligence, memories, tastes, reflexes etc. - You would still be yourself. This is a sort of reversal of the Ghost in the Shell dillema. Rand is ultimately completely correct: your essence does not lie in your accumulated knowledge, skills, beliefs. Those are merely your achievements. It actually lies in the distinct way you are using your mind, which is at the root and cause of any reflexes you might form. So: If you transplanted someone else's faculty of awareness into your brain, but preserved your formed habits including the attitude toward reason, you would be the same person, just as you would be the same even if you got a kidney transpant. Awareness is simply a physiological faculty. Your reflexes are a fact, which will condition that other person's awareness into becoming a replacement part for your own consciousness, like a replacement wheel for a car. If you transplanted your own awareness into a prosthetic body that holds different memories, values and reflexes, it would stop being a part of you immediately. The other person's mental makeup will simply assume it as its own. This is my personal view. What are your thoughts about the self? What is it, and is it real? In closing, just before you think eastern thinkers are weird: According to Fichte, Thesis: When you are aware of yourself, that which has self-awareness (the subject) is identical with the object that's being perceived (the object). Antithesis: But we're talking about two different things here. Subject and object are two different things. But they're the same. But distinct. What is going on? Synthesis: The self and the act of being aware of oneself are one and the same thing. When you are thinking the self, you are not observing it, you are bringing it into existence. The self which you bring into existence is self-aware, so it's also bringing you into existence. You are born from the world and the world is born from you, and that world gives birth to you and you give birth to the world in a neverending loop. This is why subject and object are the same thing, even though they appear to be distinct from each other.

Concepts are formed in the mind. So I assume you mean that the mind is not produced by the brain but is a type of faculty which you somehow have without physical organs to produce it. Well, proof to the contrary is not that tricky. Look at people's abilities to think or form concepts when they miss a lung versus when their brain gets physically damaged. I suggest you study her theory about how concepts of consciousness are formed; either way, your awareness is not limited to sense data, you also have awareness of your own thoughts and emotions. To arrive at a theory of concept-formation you must use introspection.

The problem of induction is in no way a primary. First, the fundamentals must be discovered: the validity of sense perception, concept-formation, the hierarchical and contextual structure of knowledge, the open-endedness of concepts. The fundamentals are non-deductive; they are arrived at by induction. So you can't actually solve the problem of induction until you have performed valid inductions in the areas upon which discovering the solution depends. Peikoff's 'solution' is that there is no problem of induction at all, just like there is no problem of deduction. The real issue is knowing how to perform the induction correctly, i.e. by not dropping the principles of objectivist epistemology. You could write volumes about proper induction, but you would still be merely working out the implications of the basic principles. This is what I meant by 'encyclopedia', a philosophical encyclopedia that fully explains all of those derrivative issues. It's not as much an issue of judgement, but of objective fact. If somebody believes that he practices Objectivism but, without knowing, he is actually largely misinterpreting Objectivism, he is not factually an Objectivist. Sure, he is free to label himself as he wishes, but his belief will not turn his 'version' of Objectivism into the real thing. Now, if he later realizes that he understood the philosophy all wrong and eventually comes to truly understand it, his claims will no longer clash with the facts of reality. I have not adressed his character, unless you claim that if he's wrong in some aspects then it's some kind of purposeful evil on his part. Either way, you do not need to read the whole book before you can spot instances of various claims by Rand and Peikoff being taken out of context or blatantly misinterpreted.

Certainly Objectivist epistemology can be expanded, but only if by 'expansion' you mean a fuller and more detailed working out of the fundamentals. The solution to the problem of induction, which to my knowledge was not adressed by Rand in print, is implicit in her writings on epistemology. Peikoff is merely using the basic blocks in order to figure out what the solution might be. If his solution is in perfect alignment with that base, it can be called an Objectivist solution, but not Objectivism per se. Philosophy is not an all-encompasing encyclopedia, but merely the seeds out of which that encyclopedia is grown. The solution to the problem of induction will vary according to which philosopher tackles it, because it depends on the fundamentals they hold: their view of sense perception, of concept-formation, and of course of metaphysics which by its nature is very tightly linked to epistemology. As far as the additions are consonant with the fundamentals, you can accept any number of them and still call yourself Objectivist. My point is that the validity of the labels we apply to ourselves is still tied to objective facts. So I'd say that, at a minimum, the precondition of legitimately labeling oneself as 'Objectivist' is a true understanding of the principles, not merely acceptance based on how reasonable they sound. If one does not grasp why those principles are true, he cannot truly apply the philosophy, either to his life, or to new issues. Instead of being guided by Objectivism, he is guided by incorrect assumptions of what Objectivism says. I believe that a person who has a solid grasp of the fundamentals will have a much easier time spotting contradictions higher up in the chain, and will have an easier time correcting his own errors because the contradictions will quickly become apparent to him. This is why Rand could easily see why a disagreement in something as apparently optional and irrelevant as aesthetics actually reveals a superficial understanding of the method by which she reached the judgement, as well as of the first three branches of philosophy. She and her associates had a party game which involved putting various principles in a hat, picking up two at random and connecting the two principles in a non-rationalistic way, i.e. private roads + the validity of the senses. For the record, Kelley strikes me as a non-Objectivist, or rather, he's practicing a different kind of philosophical system. I say this because I've skimmed through The Logical Structure of Objectivism and his disagreements with 'official dogma' actually reveal gross misunderstandings of what Rand's actual positions were, a type of carelesness which also points to rationalism.