jrs

If you ask a question which is unreasonably difficult to answer, then the other party may choose not to answer and/or he may decide that you are an unreasonable person. Even if he does answer, you should expect answers to more difficult questions to: be less precise; be more likely to be wrong; or have unmentioned exceptions. I study Objectivism; and I do not study any other philosophy. I use it as a starting point for my thinking about philosophy. However, I have disagreements with Ayn Rand on numerous particular points. What are you asking about? Is it "every element" or "the essentials"? You seem to be contradicting yourself. If you made it clear that you were only talking about the essentials (Reality, Reason, Self-Interest, Capitalism, and Romantic Realism; to put it generally), then I would agree that my objection was a straw-man. It is not hard to affirm or disavow these five things in a general way. (And I do affirm them. But I am sure that many people on this forum would disagree with me about the details of some of them.) Yes. Unfortunately, that is the state of most persons' thinking.

Saddam was cooperating with jihadists (Islamic terrorists), including Ansar al-Islam. It is in our interest to continue to fight the jihadists in Iraq rather than withdrawing and having them come to America and have to fight them here. Even if two people are rationally applying the same principles, they may reach different conclusions because the conclusions depend on their understanding of the factual situation as well as the principles. If they disagree about the facts, they get different results.

If it did not get passed on to the consumers, the result would be even worse -- the investments needed to repair, replace, and expand the oil industry's infrastructure would not be made. So we could be saddled with a scarcity of oil for years instead of just months.

I should have given a reference to support my statement. Here is a website which explains rainbows in some detail. Look at the drawings, and you will see that my description was correct: http://eo.ucar.edu/rainbows Apparently, even the physicists who wrote Science of Discworld can lie.

Actually, they are both correct. The light is: (1) refracted when it enters the rain drop; (2) reflected by the other side of the rain drop (at least once); and (3) refracted again as it leaves the rain drop. Also an elementary school student might not understand what refraction means. Nonetheless, I remember being frustrated that it was not made clear which formulas were Newtonian approximations and which were Relativistically correct. Now I realize that all the formulas are probably merely approximations at some level or other. It would be nice though, if there were some limits given on the possible errors. But that may be impractical also.

As AisA correctly inferred, when I wrote this I had not yet read the entire article "Causality Versus Duty" in "Philosophy: Who Needs It" by Ayn Rand. I did not realize that Ayn Rand had different definitions for: "duty", "responsibility", and "obligation". So while she categorically rejects the anti-concept "duty"; she retains some meaning for "obligation" and "responsibility" (which I will address below). I think what she means here is -- IF you want to achieve a goal, then you must be the means, i.e. you must do what is necessary to bring it about. And (as I said previously) your actions have consequences which affect you; so if they cause some undesirable effect, you have to endure that effect. In our case, if the parents abandon their child, then they have to endure being separated from him; and, if he is not adopted, they have to endure his death and the loss of whatever value he might have created. BUT this does not mean that they have to be subjected to additional punishment by the state. The difference is that duty is imposed upon you absolutely while obligation is contingent upon your choice of a goal. E.g. if you want to want to be trusted and known as a man of your word, then you have an obligation to keep your promises. The only obligation which I can see having a bearing on our case is the promise that one parent might have made to the other parent to help raise their child. If they jointly decide to abandon it, then this is not applicable. Yes. I am opposed to killing the child. That would be murder. A parent only becomes obligated to care for his child, if he makes a promise or contract to that effect, presumably with the other parent as a condition of conceiving the child. What is the strong argument? If she knew that she would encounter this situation (a defective child and insufficient resources to also care for a replacement), then it might be more rational to have an abortion. No he has not. You appear to be assuming that one has a right to be given whatever one needs to survive. There is not and cannot be any such right. Thank you.

Neither Oakes nor anyone else of whom I am aware has provided any proof that my position on this issue is false or that my argument is invalid or that either my position or my argument is repugnant to Objectivism. If Oakes has such a proof, let him make a rational argument. But this amounts to an appeal to emotion and an attempt to blackmail the administrators into censoring an argument which offends his prejudices. And lumping my position in with the advocacy of child sex is a "package deal" fallacy. Rational people can and do disagree on matters of Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics which are far more fundamental and important than this issue. But how are rational people supposed to arrive at the truth, if my rational arguments are censored because of your prejudices?

Vern, you have my condolences for the loss of your coworker. Your message raises an issue about the use of the word "suspect" which has been bothering me. Unless and until the suspect is convicted, we are supposed to presume that he is innocent, i.e. not the perpetrator. So we should carefully distinguish between "suspect" and "perpetrator". The person who killed Officer Stanley Cornell Reaves is the "perpetrator". Thomas Alexander Porter is the "suspect", i.e. the person who is suspected of being that perpetrator. So your first sentence above is correct. But your second sentence should be "This perpetrator took very deliberate actions to ensure his victim died.". By using "suspect" when "perpetrator" is appropriate, you tend to make "suspect" into a synonym of "perpetrator"; and that tends to deny the suspect the presumption of innocence to which he is entitled.

I thought that we had already reached agreement on this. Remember: I agreed with this in my Post #28. Let me emphasize your: "to the persons involved". - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Whether it is good or bad depends on the circumstances. It should not be done unnecessarily. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Asking about a particular principle fits into the flow of the discussion. And most intellectuals are able to answer questions of that sort without too much difficulty. Asking about one's entire philosophy requires one to stop and think about what one's beliefs are and how much of them one can reasonably explain. I think that if I were to try to explain COMPLETELY where I agree and disagree with Objectivism, I could go on for days. It is too big a question to fit within a discussion of a specific topic. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Full context is everything. And everything is relevant to some degree. But it is impossible to provide such a full context or to explain everything which is relevant. One must focus on what is MOST relevant.

I especially recommend chapters 1 & 4. Let us know when you have read it.

If a person has an idea of Middle Earth, then that idea exists and has an identity. It exists within his consciousness. However, there is no guarantee that it is congruent to the idea of Middle Earth which exists in some other person's mind. People can skip over things when they read; or interpret them differently; or misremember them; or elaborate on them with their own inventions. Similarly, the ideas of two people about the oak tree, based on the photograph, exist and have identity, but they may not agree with each other. In the case of the oak tree, one can say that an idea is true if it describes the oak tree or false otherwise. But case of Middle Earth is different from the case of the oak tree because no real Middle Earth exists to serve as a standard of truth. The best one can say is that an idea agrees or disagrees with some part of the description of Middle Earth in "The Lord of the Rings". However, that description may be ambiguous or contradictory in some parts, unlike the oak tree. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I have a technical objection to the use of the word "concept" instead of "idea" here. A concept is a kind of idea. But not all ideas are concepts. I do not see how Middle Earth can be a concept. What are the units (give examples)? I think that "Middle Earth" is a proper name, like "Empire State Building".

Truth and goodness are more effective than falsehood and evil, so they win out in the end. No method of imposing general agreement is required. On matters that require cooperation, unanimous consent of those involved is appropriate.

Yes. I think that what makes pain terrifying is that warns us of the possibility of impending disability or death. Could the fear of death be worse than death itself? I do not see how it could. So I think that choosing death over pain is giving in to a self-delusion about the nature of death.

I think that Halloween is about confronting your fears. That is why people dress up as the scariest monster of which they can think and go out at night.

Lance: GreedyCapitalist is the owner of this forum, so you had better take this seriously. If you are not a troll and do not want to be mistaken for one, then I have two suggestions: 1. Your expressions of enthusiasm for Ayn Rand seem a little "over the top". This makes us suspect that you are insincere. Tone it down. 2. When you make a statement about Ayn Rand's beliefs or preferences (as you did concerning Shakespeare in another thread), you should back it up with a quotation and a citation (give the book or article and a page number). Otherwise, your message may get sent to the trash can; and you may be suspected of misrepresenting her views.

Of course, it does. I have repeatedly stressed that works of art exist and have a complete definite identity. As I said in Post #5, "A work of art has identity as a work of art: ink on paper forming words; paint on canvas in patterns; sparkling colored lights on a television screen; or whatever. But this is different than saying that the 'things' which it purports to depict have identity.". Suppose there is an oak tree and I take a photograph of it. Then the photograph exists and has identity; AND the thing which it depicts, i.e. the oak tree itself, also exists and has identity. Similarly, if I draw the oak tree realistically, then the drawing exists and has identity; and the thing it depicts, the oak tree, also exists and has identity. Now suppose I make another drawing which is a surrealistic distortion of a "tree". It is not based on any particular real tree and its leaves and other parts are unlike any actual species of tree. Now, this second drawing also exists and has identity; BUT it does not depict anything. I say that the "thing" which it purports to depict neither exists nor has (a complete) identity. But dondigitalia is saying that the "thing" which it purports to depict has a complete identity in spite of the fact that it does not exist except in a fictional "reality". An attribute of a part of an entity is also an attribute (albeit maybe not the same attribute) of the entire entity. So if a person were described in a way that was ambiguous or contradictory concerning some attribute of his big toe, then this would also render the description of the whole person ambiguous or contradictory. Thus a defect in the identity of a fictional person's big toe is a defect in that fictional person's identity. Suppose I have a person stand in front of a house and I take a photograph of the person and the house with a pin-hole camera (so that everything is in focus). And suppose that I take the photograph from a position close to the person and just above the ground but angled in such a way that the ground is not in the field of view. Then this will create the illusion that the person is a giant next to the house (or that it is a doll's house next to a normal person). The person and the house are not illusory. The illusion lies in the photograph (as a result of the way I created it) together with the assumptions which the viewer makes when he interprets it. This is what I was saying -- it is not the thing which was depicted which is the illusion, it is the way it is depicted and the assumptions of the audience which make the illusion. I agree with all this. It is consistent with what I have been saying. I was trying to make a distinction between: (1) the drawing which purports to show the devil's pitchfork; and (2) the devil's pitchfork itself. #1 is fine; it exists and has identity which, as you say, includes the paper and ink. #2 does not actually exist nor have identity. I had been saying that the devil's pitchfork was conceivable, but that it lacked identity. dondigitalia gave a definition of "conceivable" which was different from the one I was using. So I was saying that with his definition, the devil's pitchfork is inconceivable. But he disagrees. You conceive of two different things whose drawings match along a line then you glue the top of one drawing to the bottom of the other along that line. Although the drawings agree along that line, the three dimensional objects DO NOT agree along the corresponding plane. Hence the lack of identity in the devil's pitchfork. I have personally seen mirages and I know how to recognize when I am seeing one. Yes, a chameleon can be a challenge. In the real world, there are no guarantees that one's senses or reason will be up to the task of understanding what is going on. However, we were talking about ART. Good art is supposed to be inspiring, i.e. to give one a sense of competence. Challenges to one's senses detract from that goal.

You seem to be equating a person's life with with his consciousness. I can understand how it seems that way subjectively. However, since we are discussing the objective basis of values, the subjective view is not appropriate.

When the gametes from your parents fused to form the zygote which was you, what "self" generated that action? Your life came from and is a continuation of the lives of your parents. It is normal for some cells in a multicellular organism to die. Periodically, the vast mass of somatic cells dies. But life may (or may not) continue via the germ cells which generate a new soma (body). I am not engaging in ancestor-worship. I am just looking at this from the standpoint of biology. If children did not carry on the legacy of their parents to the extent of producing grandchildren which carry their genes, then life would long since have ceased to exist on Earth.

What I said here is not quite right. A consequence may properly be mediated by another person IF he is acting according to the Objectivist ethics. For example, if you attack another person and he ethically defends himself, then the damage inflicted on you by his defense is warranted. Or, on the positive side, if you offer a trade, and he accepts. However, I contend that it is not ethical for anyone to force the parents to support their child in the example I gave in my previous message. What selfish purpose would it serve for them to do so?

Then the devil's pitchfork is inconceivable. What those who produce the illusion are intending you to do is to try to imagine a solid object, not merely a drawing or something constructed from wires. However, no such solid object can be made nor can it be imagined (pictured) in three-dimensional detail. "The things that art depicts" cannot include any illusion. An illusion is "something that deceives by creating a false impression" (according to Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary). If a thing is what it is, then it cannot be false to itself. The false impression must be introduced later when it is depicted and perceived. I was and am intending to use "identity" in the Objectivist sense. But I am not convinced that you are so using it despite your intention to do so. Well it appears that we do interpret it differently when the issue is its application to fictional "realities". Perhaps this is another symptom of the fact that fictional "realities" lack identity, i.e. they do not exist. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - An example of what concerns me occurs in "Full Metal Alchemist". The homunculi are shape-shifters especially "Envy" who can change at will into an apparently exact copy of anyone. This challenges the ability of people to rely on their senses in identifying other people. Is this person I see actually king Bradley or is it Envy pretending to be Bradley?

My belief is that if it were truly unbearable, he would just die. However, I must admit that since I have neither been dead nor in "unbearable" pain, I do not know for sure which is worse. Certainly, if someone felt that he had to commit suicide to escape his pain, I would not presume to stop him.

Are you not breaking down the distinction between a work of art and what that work of art depicts? Rather like confusing a drawing of a hand with a person's actual hand. Yes. But it is possible for different people to interpret the same words to mean different things. That is one reason why Objectivists make such a big deal about context and about having a philosophical foundation for the non-aggression principle. OK.

AisA: If you want me to notice and respond to one of your messages, it would be helpful for you to include my user-id near the top of the message either in a quote or as "jrs:". If we keep going long enough, maybe you will rule out all of Objectivism (joking). Suppose the parents have a child with a major defect; and they do not have enough resources to take care of second child without abandoning the first. Also suppose that they rationally expect that they could have a second child without a defect and raise it successfully, if they abandon the first one. Now, consider two scenarios: 1. They take care of the first child. So they do not have a second. They grow old and die. The first child is unable to fend for himself and he dies without issue. So the parents are left with no descendants. 2. They abandon the first child. They have a second child who is normal. They raise the second child successfully. The second child is then able to take care of himself and produces grandchildren. So the parents are left with descendants. Which of these scenarios allows the life of the parents to continue thru their descendants? Only the second. Therefore, the parents should abandon the first child. Q.E.D. OK, "dissatisfaction" may have been a poorly chosen word. I was assuming that their dissatisfaction was rational, not whimsical. Indeed. But if you examine the quotation, you will see that when applied to a child, it is the child's actions which are protected. There is nothing about anyone else being required to do anything. I was hoping that you would either admit that your statement makes no sense or expand it to make it easier to examine and validate or invalidate. What is your definition of "responsible"? From where does this alleged "principle that adults are responsible for their actions" come? Give a citation to Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikoff. So much for responsibility and obligation -- Kaput. Your actions have consequences which affect you -- that is all. This gives no warrant for anyone to impose any additional "consequences" on you. Such as, taking care of a child. You should stay alive to enjoy being aware and alive.

I do not know what you are talking about. And what does "IRL" mean? Your example is different from what I was saying. The "thing" is divided into three parts: top, middle, and bottom. In my example, I was looking at the top & middle to infer something about the middle. And at the bottom & middle to infer something about the middle. The contradiction has to do with the identity of the middle part. In your example, one looks at the top alone (to infer what?). And then one looks at the bottom alone (to infer what?). I was using the Objectivists' reaction to the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics as evidence that their concept of identity is different than yours. And what is your position on the Copenhagen interpretation? Mathematics is definite. I should not have compared them, to the extent that that means equating them; they are quite different. Let me reformulate my point: What do the axioms mean when applied to your fictional "realities"? Also, if a violation of the law of identity is not even conceivable, then what is the point of making such a fuss over it? Does it not then become merely the tautology that many non-Objectivists accuse it of being?

What is ethical for the parents to do is what is in their rational self-interest. Usually, that would be to take care of their child. But there might be circumstances (which I previously mentioned, i.e. a child with a major defect and not enough resources to take care of another without abandoning the first) in which it would be in their interest to abandon it. This is a passage from "Man's Rights". I do not see anything in it that entitles the child to support from its parents. Do you? I assume that you are referring to the following: Granted. Why? This is where your argument breaks down. Where in the Objectivist Ethics does it talk about man being "responsible" for his actions? These are weasel words which have no definite meaning and allow you to commit a logical fallacy.