mrocktor

The question is about the rationality of speculation. Observe in your example: 1. We know "organic" life exists. I quote organic because it is only the word we created to designate that pertaining to the type of life we know. Strictly speaking, "chemical life" would be a better term. 2. We know the properties of "inorganic" compounds and observe that some (or all? I really don't have enough specific knowlege) of the required properties of life are present, or may be present under certain conditions (temperature, pressure etc.). 3. We speculate that "inorganic life" is possible. On a side note, if (3) happens do we define a new term or are those compounds now considered "organic"? Note that the concept of organic depends on what forms of life we know. Notice the difference: 1. We have no evidence that an "origin" of causality exists, we have the certainty that an "origin" of existence is impossible (it contradicts identity). 2. We know that consciousness presuposes existence (something must exist to perceive, something must exist to be perceived). A consciousness as a primary thus violates identity by the fallacy of the stolen concept. 3. People speculate about a metaphysical consciousness, or god, as you will. I think the difference is clear: in one case the evidence gives rise to speculation, in the other imagination gives rise to speculation. In the first case, it is rational. In the second it is not. How is this different from "belief in things without reason" except by the fact that the definition begs the question ("that are true")? The definition is the same. I have the utmost respect for those truly in search of reason and truth, no matter where they currently stand. mrocktor

Actually, while I may have been wrong about the color experiment, you proved my point. To show that I was wrong, you resorted to perceptual experimentation. You didn't offer "think about ... and you will see that you can experience such a thing", you offered "do this and you will see that". Introspection is not a tool for obtaining perceptual knowlege. q.e.d. mrocktor

I'll further reinforce the opinions given: the subject matter is interesting for the most part, the data is good (better in some sections), the presentation is apalling. The fact that the author does not attempt to derive a theory, nevermind any normative consequence, and is proud of it (for some reason) takes the "book" out of the book. It is a statistical report, even calling it an essay is stretching it. On the other hand, every issue - when analyzed from the Objectivist point of view - shows exactly the result you would expect if Objectivist metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics are valid. Obviously. The author's lack of interest in analysis at least has left the data free of the manipulation typical of someone with an ingrained altruist mentality or trying to prove something that is wrong (that welfare is good, for instance). mrocktor

To "reject" is an act of volition. The concept "rejection" implies judgment and choice. To assume is also an act of volition. There is no reason possible without volition, there is only reaction. mrocktor

Megan's answer was excellent, I'll just point out some specific issues: 1. You can experience a patch that is red and green all over at the same time--a patch that is both colors (not mixed) at once. ***Note this states "experience," not that there is a patch all green and red. The question is: can you "experience" something that not only does not exist, but is also impossible (red has identity, green has identity, objects have identity and they cant be both at the same time). What is his definition of "experience"? You certainly can imagine the concept of an object of two colors at the same time and in the same manner (as to write it down), you certainly cannot visualize such a thing, even in your mind. 2. If you look at a yellow circle on a blue background, and the luminance or brightness of the yellow and blue are then adjusted to be equal, the boundary between the yellow and blue will disappear. Why should introspection provide information about the sense of vision? 3. There is a sound, sometimes called the auditory barber pole, which seems to keep on rising in pitch forever, yet it never actually does. Why should introspection provide information about the sense of hearing? At most you can say if you have ever experienced such an effect. 4. There is an herb that if overdosed on it, you become incapable of understanding your native language, even though it leaves your hearing unimpaired. So you hear the sounds just find, and you recognize that it is your native language, just you don't understand it. Why should introspection provide information about states of mind you have never experienced? 5. If you are blindfolded, and a vibrator is applied to a point on your arm while you touch your nose, you will feel like your nose is growing like Pinocchio's. Why should introspection provide information about the sense of touch, specifically how it reacts to a situation you have never experienced? In all, the exercise itself is absurd. It is an attempt to prove that introspection does not provide data about the outside world as do the senses. Shocking. mrocktor

Not to be needlessly confrontational, but faith is what it is. Faith is belief without reason and thus is another word for irrationality. You can use the word to describe more or less, you can apply faith more or less in your life. The extent of your faith determines how far from reason you are. You cannot claim to be rational unless you are 100% rational, knowlege requires integration. Many want to have their faith and eat it too, because it makes them feel good. That is evasion. mrocktor

At this moment you say: point to one. mrocktor

Guacamole. mrocktor

The thing is, Objectivism is entirely rational. You don't have to take Ayn Rand's word for it at any point - you can understand and see that it is true. The philosophy stands on it's own, Ayn Rand's genius was in figuring it out the first time. mrocktor

And who exactly is this "average taxpayer"? mrocktor

I'll second RationalCop's words. For me as well Objectivism "clicked". I was drawn by the fact that the Objectivist stance on practical issues was so close to my own opinions (though I had no structured system to support them). Understanding Objectivism allowed me to grasp the important principles, priciples I already had grasped but had not integrated (or, in some cases, even thought explicitly about). While the practical issues may seem more pressing, it is the principles that are important, that is why everyone will refer you to the literature - which explains them superbly. mrocktor

Of course there is more

I have been listening to Rush for 10 years now. Their music is universally (though not uniformly) good. Which is to say their worst albums rank as "that's pretty good", and their best as "that's #$%*&'ing awesome". If you picked up 2112 looking for an Objectivist message, I can see why you were frustrated - the song is metaphorical. I sugest you look up the following songs: Anthem Freewill The Trees Tom Sawyer Subdivisions Grand Designs Bravado They are all superb compositions, and the lyrics are also fantastic. If you are going to pick up an album, check out Permanent Waves or Moving Pictures. mrocktor

It's the individual against the collective, that they chose a star to represent the collective is probably not a coincidence (red stars being a favorite of communists and socialists). mrocktor

Neil Peart Freewill There are those who think that life is nothing left to chance, A host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance. A planet of playthings, We dance on the strings Of powers we cannot perceive. "The stars aren't aligned Or the gods are malign"- Blame is better to give than receive. You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill; I will choose a path that's clear- I will choose Free Will. There are those who think that they were dealt a losing hand, The cards were stacked against them- they weren't born in lotus-land. All preordained- A prisoner in chains- A victim of venomous fate. Kicked in the face, You can't pray for a place In heaven's unearthly estate. Each of us- A cell of awareness- Imperfect and incomplete. Genetic blends With uncertain ends On a fortune hunt that's far too fleet.

Exactly, clearly he wants a standard of morality that does not require judgment. mrocktor

Thanks for the link David, and thank you for moving the thread to the political forum - I was unsure about whether I should post here or in the "questions" forum. Having read the thread on threats, I think it addresses the issue in part but not fully. The question that remains unanswered is this: if someone has tons of explosives at home, or successfully builds a small thermonuclear device - no crime has been commited. On what authority would the government question him as to his intent? How do we objectively draw a line as to what presents enough of a risk of a rights violation to warrant governmental intervention? mrocktor

There are several points in your scenario that disqualify the thesis you seem to be defending: that the publication of information garnered about you through legal means can be unethical. If you are gay and are trying to hide it, there lies your problem. If you are not gay and someone says you are, sue for diffamation (in the sense of spreading falsehood, not that being gay is bad). If you go to a bar and are assaulted, for whatever reason, that is also a crime. If your purchasing habits lead to some information about you that you don't want to share, you can always enter a contract with your supplier that forbids him to share information (if he is willing to do business with you on those terms). mrocktor

I started to think about this while reading a thread on border control. In a free society there would be no government intervention except for the protection of rights. Assume someone is entering the country and at the border declares to be carrying 10lbs of plastic explosive. Should he be questioned as to what purpose he has so much explosives? i.e. does the government have the right to do so? Why? Assuming that the person has a record of affiliation with a terrorist organization, should the explosive be siezed? Should the person be arrested? How much evidence is suficient? In essence, when no crime has been commited, is it ever within the government's authority to use force? What is the objective standard as to when this is acceptable, if at all? If not, how does that affect crime prevention? mrocktor

"In the Laissez Faire system of the 19th century" Where protection of individual rights against the initiation of force did not exist, or was not effective... mrocktor

Their goods will flow into our country only if they bring us benefit. When they impose restrictions on the flow of our goods to their country they are hurting themselves. I should know, here in Brazil I can't get a computer for less than twice its price in the USA. How much does constantly working with 2 year old technology hurt the Brazilian economy? And I would say: take your money and put it into something else. If some foreign non-objectivist country can do it cheaper - let them! If the USA (the people, not the government - which should do nothing) had put its effort into developing those things that China is incapable of doing (creative thought and scientific development does not flourish under duress) instead of trying to "protect" menial labor, the trade balance would be a lot different. In trying to "protect" factory jobs, government and union action is destroying industry itself. None? mrocktor

You will remain uncomfortable for as long as you continue to try to fit reality to theory. When you decide to fit theory to reality, you will realize that all you know about physics is not all there is to know about physics, and that somehow volition is possible, as it must be since you observe it every conscious moment of your life. mrocktor

That line of reasoning always interested me. What is an "unfair advantage"? Assuming the non-laissez-faire country is subsidizing something, basically what you have is the people of that country paying taxes so that people in our country can buy goods at lower prices. Is the imposition of trade barriers not detrimental to the Objectivist country? mrocktor

I'd say moral power. The USA does not have a record of unequivocally supporting resistance in non-democratic countries, in fact the USA installed non-democratic governments in many countries to suit the country's perceived interests. No one is buying the "we are liberating Iraq" claptrap. The war was started based on fudged intelligence and misrepresented to the public. Moral authority was given up before the war started. If the USA consistently supported resistance groups in non-free countries (including China, for instance) and openly stated that every dictatorship is free game should expect to be paid a visit should America's safety or interests be affected in any way, that would clear up the guilt load when dealing with international criticism. As it is, I do not trust the USA government to act in America's interests (to do what is right) nor do I trust them to act in the right way. mrocktor

So well said. Reading about the creation of the "ministry for equality of oportunity" in France, having just finished Atlas Shrugged, definitely rung a bell. mrocktor