derEikopf

I recently returned from a trip to the midwest and I saw some wind farms and thought they were breathtaking. The local residents hate them and think they're ugly...

"It" refers to our means of thought. Without "it", we would not be able to conceptualize anything, much less "it", so I suppose it is an axiom of our existence. And by abstract thoughts, I mean all of our thoughts. They are abstract because they are seperate from reality and rationality; the contents of our thoughts do not have to conform with reality. That is what brought me to the conclusion of the means of thought, perhaps consciousness (depending on your definition), as an axiom. But if that is so, does that mean we will never be able to understand how our brain works? I understand that existence has primacy over consciousness. That is not the topic, however. Consciousness is a product of the brain...if consciousness is an axiom, does that mean we will never understand the brain? Does this necessitate a limit to science and to our knowledge of reality? But these questions are not the main topic...I'm having a very hard time verbalizing myself...it requires a very complicated thought process to conceptualize...I'll think about it some more and get back to you. I have read OPAR, along with most of Rand's and Piekoff's publications. You're making yourself look like a fool in assuming that I know nothing of Objectivism. Do not assume that I do not believe in Objectivism because I question it. (Edited the quotes to add names, to make clear that two different members were being quoted - sNerd)

Perhaps the reason it is not answerable is because it is an axiom. It's a hard question to ask...I don't know if I can completely explain what my dilemma is. I suppose it's similar to computers. You can program a computer to say "Red is blue". While this is obviously not true, the computer doesn't know any better, and it's not breaking any laws by saying it. But the computer can't conceptualize and reason that red is in fact not blue. That conceptualization, the recognition that red is not blue, the actual meaning of the words, is only possible through me. Is that a function of the axiom of consciousness? If so, does that mean we will never unlock the secrets of the brain and how it works?

If the gold standard was reestablished and the Fed abolished, that would leave an $8 trillion hole hanging over our heads. How would the government pay that money back if it only gets money from the people it owes that money to?

I've been having trouble with this one...looked through all kinds of forums, literature, articles, thought about it for hours on end, and still I cannot come up with an answer. How are abstract thoughts possible? How can they exist apart from reality? Nothing can exist that does not follow the laws of reality, but thoughts don't have to...why? What constitutes "thought"? Since thoughts exist, they must have some sort of physical identity...but if they did, then they would be subject to reality and volition would be eliminated. I'm probably missing a very obvious premise...so please help!

Then why is there even a poll option? What context is needed? It's a simple question of the status of Alan Greenspan. The poll results will not change my opinion; I just wanted to see what the majority of Objectivists thought.

Early in his career, Alan Greenspan was active with Ayn Rand in political philosophy (some of his essays appear in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal). Now, he is the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, the socialistic establishment that single-handedly caused the Great Depression. Is Alan Greenspan the Gail Wynand of today?

You'd be surprised... I went to one of the best public high schools in my state. Over 75% of the student population regularly got drunk, smoked marijuana, had promiscuous sex, orgies and gangbangs, got in fights, stole, lied, cheated, abused, pranked, etc. Almost every time I went into the bathroom, a haze of marijuana smoke was present. People regularly came to school drunk, high, rolling, or even occasionally tripping. There were girls who would give football players "warm-ups" before each game in the locker room. People would defocate in the urinals and throw toilet paper rolls down the hallways. I regularly got a stream of water in my face as I went to turn on the water fountain and someone had put a piece of gum over the spigot. I had all four of my tires slashed in a random attack (over 20 cars had their tires slashed). We had over 20 bomb threats in one year (most by my fellow students to get out of class). And we were ranked an "A" school. It is quite obvious that the public school system is rapidly declining, while everyone yells "MORE MONEY MORE MONEY!" when, in fact, that is what caused the decline at the start.

I noticed that many people use the "right to [insert noun here]" such as "the right to property" or the "right to privacy". As Peikoff pointed out in O:PAR, rights only pertain to actions, not actual objects. There is the right to own one's property, the right to exist, the right to live, the right to pursue happiness, etc. But there is no right to happiness, or a right to money, or a right to property. Creating rights to objects is a sure-fire way to destroy a society. As for the "right to privacy"...I don't think it even applies to Objectivism. If you want something private, you make it private. Nobody would have the right to initiate force to find the truth. If somebody can find the truth without initiating force, then that's perfectly moral. Once again, there are no rights to objects, including privacy. If you had a "right to privacy", then you would be permitted to lie about anything in order to retain your privacy, because it would be a right.

The problem is that it's a double standard and irrational. You recognize your right to property (and, therefore, life), but not anyone else's right to life. If you recongize your right to life, why don't other people have that right? What seperates their existence from yours? While they may hold different beliefs, ideals, concepts, etc., this does not change their existence or their consciousness...which means they still have the right to life. If you give yourself the right to life because you are a human, then it stands to reason that every human should have that right to life.

I've always been under the impression that if God were omnipotent (and omniscient, omnipresent, etc.), then he is inherently undefinable, which means he does not follow the law of identity and, therefore, the axiom of existence. In order for God to be conscious, he must exist possessing a definable identity. Otherwise, he would break every single axiom by his consciousness having primacy over his existence (and identity). Those questions are irrelevant, because they assume that God follows the primacy of existence.