Jesse Abbott-Dallamora

I can now see why you made the above comment. I was not meaning to say measurements are not exact. This was in an attempt to dispute the people saying that because you can measure within a range that measurements are only approximations. I was trying to say that in the context of comparing measurements of length, let's say a table's length and inches, that just because the table may not be evenly divisible by inches does not mean we cannot know its length. That, if a table is 48" then a measurement in inches would give you an exact measurement of 48", and if the table is 47 3/4" then a measurement in inches would give you a range of accuracy, that being within an inch, between 47" and 48". If you needed to be exact you would have to switch from a measurement in inches to a measurement in quarter-inches. In essence, to achieve an exact measurement, the object being measured must be evenly divisible into the unit of measure being used. In my reply to your question, I was referring to the fact that 1 represents something specific and that not all units are commensurable. 1 apple + 1 banana is not 2 apples but rather 2 fruit or 2 entities. But what is 1 pound + 1 inch? These are incommensurable. Basically, the context of what the units represent must be kept. I am still not seeing why "This pencil is longer than that pencil." is not a measurement. You are first abstracting length as your standard and then making the shorter pencil your unit of measure, right? Thanks, I appreciate your feedback!

There is no range of answers to 1+1, but you are still working within a range. 1 is 1 of something. 1 apple + 1 apple is measured in the range of apples. Just as 1 inch + 1 inch is measured in the range of inches. In the excerpt you pasted above, the quote, “This pencil is longer than that pencil,” is still a measurement as far as I can see. The range, in this case, would be the shorter pencil. That is the unit of measurement determining that the other pencil is longer. The first pencil is longer than what? It's longer than the shorter pencil.

The term approximation seems to have been used incorrectly here a few times now. An approximation is not the same thing as a range. Measurements are scales based on a delimited range. All of which are reducible back to perception. An inch is an inch is a fact, not an approximation. When you measure in inches, you are measuring within a range: Within the range of an inch. When we measure we are not looking for exactness, we are looking for preciseness. How precise? Within an inch, within a meter, within a nanometer. This does not imply subjectivity in knowledge just because we cannot measure something exactly. It gives us the knowledge that measurements are not exact; they are precise. Remember, measurements are relationships, not exactness in a void.

The problem is that you can't obtain knowledge from a false premise. To acquire knowledge you need both truth and validity. If you end up with a conclusion that is true which is improperly validated or based on a false premise your conclusion is not knowledge. It is not knowledge because it has not been integrated into your totality of knowledge contradiction free.

Your question essentially reads, "How are workers not living for the sake of employers?" The answer is, it is a voluntary trade and whether a worker is working for himself or for others is up to him, as is the choice to work at all. Your question implies that it is not a man's choice that determines whom he is living for, but the income gap between him and his employer. Are minimum-wage employees of small businesses that can't afford to pay more than minimum-wage living for the sake of their employers? Are middle-class employees of billion dollar companies working for the sake of their employers? What are the rules to this "sacrifice determined by price gap" and how do you justify them?

I have found some Objectivists' writing to have rationalized elements and even some fully rationalized articles, but I would not call those Objectivists rationalists. And I have not found that to be the case at all in regards to Peikoff. Could you please explain (maybe in a new topic)?

I would say, you should read most if not all of Rand's nonfiction. This will give you example after example of abstract principles being applied to real-world situations, which will help give you the ability to apply them to your own life. From there I would go on to Leonard Peikoff's OPAR in order to systematize all that you have learned from Rand's nonfiction. When you are not up for reading you can check out some free lectures at the ARI Campus online, buy lectures from their e-store, or check out their videos on YouTube. And don't forget to go back and reread her fiction every now and then. Happy reading!

Correction: "-itys"

Harvey Meale: If I am understanding you correctly, you are looking for the "badness" associated with the idea that death is bad, just as some philosophies would look for the "triangularity" in a picture of a triangle. If this is so, it is in contradiction to Objectivism. Objectivism denies that there are "-nesses","-hoods" and "-aritys" metaphysically that we use to form concepts. In Objectivism, concepts are formed not through what is in an object, like seeing the '-ness" in something, but rather by a process of differentiation and integration, via measurement omission within a range. For more on this, I would recommend Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and Binswanger's How We Know. I hope this helps clear up this ethics vs. Objectivist Metaphysics vs. "regular' metaphysics confusion.

Dustin86: I am curious to know if you believe in innate knowledge? Your statement above implies that you do. The concept of rights is a high-level concept hierarchically. To say "people are genetically hardwired to think in terms of group rights" obliterates that hierarchy. What does it even mean to say that "people are genetically hardwired to think in terms of group rights?" The rights of whom? You say the group or the tribe. Where and when, historically, did one tribe and another think and deal with each other in terms of rights? Who oversaw these dealings, and who enforced them? You are applying this pseudo-concept of rights used today to the entirety of history and prehistory, to a time before this concept had even been formed. If you truly believe in innate knowledge, this discussion will never get anywhere without us first coming to common ground on this issue; meaning, you coming to terms with reason. If you do not believe in innate knowledge, you should try to acknowledge this error and correct this contradiction. Otherwise, this discussion is null and void (at least for me).

I would have to say yes it still counts as force. Governments are institutions of force. Force is their only means of action. Whether a government acts in accordance with its proper function or not, does not change the fact that it functions solely by the use of force. For example, in a properly functioning government, the use of self-defence (excluding an immediate threat) is delegated to the government. This is to help ensure a proper, objective, judicial process. But, even though the role of defender has been handed to the government, and it has (presumably) been done willingly, the government still holds you to this delegation by force. Therefore you cannot enact your own justice, even if it is done as objectively as the courts, without retribution from the government. And the same goes for voting. If you condone something by vote, you are still held to it by force. As far as it being an initiation of force, I would also say yes. Being that a government's only means of action is the use of force, you are only left with two main choices. One being the initiation of force and the other being a defensive or retaliatory force. The question then would be, is the government defending itself from the initiation of force? Or, in other words, are you forcing it to tax you? And that answer is obviously no.

Hello! My name is Jesse. I first learned about Ayn Rand and Objectivism about five years ago, and it has been a daily part of my life ever since. I don't know any Objectivists personally, so I look forward to the discussions.