Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

FeatherFall

Moderators
  • Posts

    1633
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

Everything posted by FeatherFall

  1. Because color is an attribute of tables, and because color is an aspect of light which conforms in many ways to wave motion, tables could be considered to have wavelengths. But I understand your point and don't think that this is material to the discussion. I just had to get that off my chest. I agree that non-applicable attributes are not involved in concept formation, even during measurement omission. What I disagree with is the assertion that a lack of substance means that something isn't real. Distances are real; they do not only exist in your mind. To declare otherwise is an error of logic, and it may be due to the "primacy of consciousness" position. Location and path are necessary attributes for specific inches. Points exist. The distance one traces between them is real if the points are real. This distance can be infinite, depending on the path that is traced. A straight line is only the shortest path between two points. When we say that two points are one foot apart, it is typically assumed that the distance is being measured in a straight line. However, man is not always capable of traveling the space between two points in a straight line, so distance is often measured by circular paths, parabolic lines, or even routes that are so erratic that they don't have commonly used definitions (like if I were to give you directions to the library). Distance applies to all these different forms of lines. When we discuss two points that are 60,000 miles apart, we may even think of them as being in a straight line. But if these are two points on earth, and there is a "straight" road connecting the two points, these points are actually a little closer than 60,000 miles. However, because we are slaves to physical constraints and must travel along the road by avoiding the intervening mass of solid earth, we do not trace a straight line when we follow that road. Point one: The North Pole. Point two: The South Pole. The points exist, the distance exists, and it is important how you draw your travel path. Will you fly? Will you drive and swim? Will you bore a hole through the earth? RSalar, I maintain that it is the specific and concrete points and paths that are omitted when one forms the concept "inch." To continue this discussion, you will have to offer a coherent arguement that points and distances do not exist in reality. Please do not simply state that they are not entities, as I have already accepted this. The claim that they don't exist is implicit in the posts where you assert that points do not exist outside of theoretical exercise, or "in your own mind". Offer an argument to back up your assertion, please. -edited for clarity
  2. While "inches" do exist in reality, they are not entities. Other things also exist in reality as non-entities, like emotions. They are aspects of things, but we omit the specific things of which they are aspects. Inch only applies to things that have length. An inch is a distance (1/12 foot) between two unspecified points, along an unspecified path. This means that you omit the two points being measured, and the path. The example where you omit "wavelength" from "table" is inappropriate. It would be a better comparison if we were discussing the omission of emotions from inches. But we don't form either concept based on the absence of wavelength or the emotional state of the concept.
  3. These photos were taken at the Kirksville College of Osteopathic Medicine. The one with normal hair was me in 1999 after one of my sisters' graduations, the one with the cool hair was in 2001 during my mother's white coat cerimony. I'd find a better head close up but I don't get photographed often, and I don't currently have any on file. Edit: This is the best semi-profile, taken in 2000. I was 16 at the time, so add five years.
  4. It could be due to a third party arbitrarily changing the storyline to something more preferable for them. However, I think it is mostly due to the technical aspect of translating mediums. Also, there are more commercial aspects to think about when you are entering a medium that costs more to produce. If producers and editors think that something is wrong with a story, they are more inclined to change it if more money is at stake.
  5. Your numbers, if you don't have a perfect photographic memory, will likely come out differently if you try again. I tried to give the same answers I gave the first time, but my results were different. As far as Kant is concerned, I know little of his philosophy. I couldn't make much sense of what I read of him, and I don't like to take part in unrewarding chores. Kant is credited by some with validating altruism by destroying objectivity. From the Objectivist opinions I have read, he met with far more success than he should have, and was an extremely distructive philisophic force over the last few centuries.
  6. I didn't read anyone else's post until after I took the test. When I went back to find my answers they were gone, and I haven't been able to retrace my steps. I took the test again and got Aristotle at %100 w/ Rand in the high 80's.
  7. 1. Ayn Rand (100%) Click here for info 2. Aristotle (97%) Click here for info 3. Aquinas (81%) Click here for info 4. Nietzsche (79%) Click here for info 5. David Hume (70%) Click here for info 6. Stoics (67%) Click here for info 7. Cynics (63%) Click here for info 8. Spinoza (60%) Click here for info 9. Epicureans (59%) Click here for info 10. Jean-Paul Sartre (59%) Click here for info 11. John Stuart Mill (58%) Click here for info 12. Plato (58%) Click here for info 13. Thomas Hobbes (56%) Click here for info 14. Kant (53%) Click here for info 15. Jeremy Bentham (52%) Click here for info 16. St. Augustine (50%) Click here for info 17. Ockham (45%) Click here for info 18. Prescriptivism (22%) Click here for info 19. Nel Noddings (18%) Click here for info
  8. I just saw the post. Huzzah! What more is there to say about this subject? On a related note, does anyone have a progress report on the "Crescent of Embrace" project? Check out Cox and Forkum if you haven't heard.
  9. The following is a quote from Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology, Page 53: "The rules of correct definition are derived from the process of concept-formation. The units of a concept were differentiated -- by means of a distinguishing characteristic(s) -- from other existents possessing a commensurable characteristic, a Conceptual Common Denominator. A definition follows the same principle: it specifies the distinguishing characteristic(s) of the units, and indicates the category of existents from which they were differentiated. The distinguishing characteristic(s) of the units becomes the differentia of the concept's definition; the existents possessing a Conceptual Common Denominator become the genus." In my previous post, I made a mistake by not simply asking for the genus and differentia. The genus of an inch is a line. A line's length is the differentia that forms an inch; specifically, 1/12 a foot. So what has been omitted? Several things. First and foremost, it's form. The form of an inch can be an arc, a curve, a spiral or straight. Also, orientation has been omitted. In the case of some lines, such as straight lines and arcs the orientation is a specific part of a specific plane. Edit: Tag, Douglas, you're it!
  10. First it is important to point out that we are discussing inch as a concept and not as a concrete. I think the goal in this discussion is to find the "conceptual common denominator" of "inch." I am taking a short cruise through pertinent parts of The Ayn Rand Lexicon. I will report back after my trip.
  11. Wow. The VHEMT seems to offer moral support to even more heinous ideas. This just serves to add support to my theory that before islamafascism is defeated it will ally with envirotheism. But where is the study relating Mars temperature to solar activity? I don't think we will be able to do this one for some time.
  12. Well, they can start feeling virtuous when they realize that re-creation of nature is proper for man, and that non-rational animals don't have rights. Until then the can blaspheme all they want. Please, allow me to add the for sarcasm... Wait a minute! Isn't Bush trying to get his socialist paws on Mars? You actually might have something here.
  13. In my previous post, I wrote this: I think it would be helpful to reverse my examples to explicitly understand (as if there is any other way to understand) how they conflict with reality. It is only important to use one, and which one doesn't matter. So I will simply start by rejecting virtue, since both honesty and production are virtues. If one follows this consistently, one can see how this cascade systematically destroys everything. Rejecting virtue Virtue is an action by which one gains or keeps value. By rejecting virtue, one either rejects that one needs to act to gain or keep value, or rejects that one should gain or keep value. This splits into: Rejecting the need for action By rejecting this, one rejects the fact that man has requirements for life. In effect, one rejects the axiom identity, specifically his own identity and the identity of others. Or rejecting value Again, primarily this is a rejection of the axiom identity. This whole process will eventually be a rejection of existence by way of death. This most certainly wipes out the corollary axiom, consciousness. You gave another example with a different concrete. I do not know if this is a good example. The thrill of gambling is in identifying every variable possible before acting. If you are not doing this, why are you gambling? There must be some principle that one could use as an alternative to a coin toss. I don't have the time to create a context where every variable leads to a coin toss being appropriate. But I will try to address your comment anyway. I don't know what principle you are referring to here. A coin toss is not a rational method of making decisions. The result of a toss it is not a general truth on which any other truths depend. The frivolous gambler rejects the virtue integrity, or loyalty to rational principles. A person who accepts a trivial method for deciding how to act is not to be considered the same as a liar or a theif. If the measure of a good man is his rationality, then the measure of a bad man is his irrationality. While one might exchange pleasantries with a good natured but incompetent gambler, one might not allow him manage one's finances. One might refuse to speak to a liar but still save him from the cold if his car breaks down. One might save a thief from drowning if one knows the thief has no weapons or other means of extortion, or abandon him if he does. One might simply leave a murderer to die of any malady.
  14. You call this statement circular. A more accurate term for this statement would be oscillation (bear with me). Both the requirement for honesty and the requirement to respect other men's property can be independently related to the facts of reality. Honesty We begin with the three axioms existence, identity, consciousness. Man is capable of identifying reality through his senses and rational faculty, which requires objectivity. Man's only rational standard of value is life, the sum of all of his actions. Virtue is an action by which one gains or keeps value. Honesty is the recognition of the fact that only things that are real can be of value, therefore it is a virtue. Because virtues are required by all men to live, it is proper to be honest when thinking, and honest when dealing with other men. It follows that you have a right to be dealt with honestly by other men. Property (The first few parts should be familiar.) Again, we begin with the three axioms existence, identity, consciousness. Man is capable of identifying reality through his senses and rational faculty, which requires objectivity. Man's only rational standard of value is life, the sum of all of his actions. Virtue is an action by which one gains or keeps value. Production is the act of reshaping reality to create value, and therefore is a virtue. Your Property is that value which you produced. Because virtues are required by men to live, it is proper to decide how your property is used (which requires other men to leave you alone). It also means you should let others decide how to use their property. Both can be independently verified, and to reject one is to remove that principle from reality. This can not be done. If one attempts this, one rejects all principles, all knowledge, the axioms, everything. I will again quote your statement: Your statement implies, "Honesty and production are both virtues, and rejecting even one is to act without virtue." This is true. You did not prove (reduce to the self-evident) either one. What you did was identify two valid principles and the fact that they must be consistent with each other. I think your error is in accepting "proof" as a floating abstraction. You cannot prove something simply by logically relating it to another thing in reality. You can only prove it by identifying cause and effect down every level, eventually arriving at an axiom, the self evident. If you do relate something logically to another thing, it should then be easy to prove. I used the word "oscillate" to refer to the circular fallacy. I think it is appropriate because "circular" implies completion. "Oscillate" implies reversal and incompletion, and is a better indicator to check your premises.
  15. What you suggest occurred to me when I read the article, but perhaps it isn't conclusive... That article might be supporting evidence for global warming through solar activity. I wouldn't know if Sol affects Mars in the same way it affects Earth. It might affect Mars less due to distance, or more do to a lack of atmospheric shielding. In order to determine if it is evidence against anthropomorphic global warming, I think we need to crunch more data. To my knowledge, nobody has done the appropriate study yet. I think this story looks promising, but it will take some time before the envirotheists dispel one of their favorite doomsday theories. -edited for clarity
  16. Even a horror story can portray a conflict of values between or within volitional individuals. In other words, even a horror story can be a Romantic story. I don't know if The Exorcism of Emily Rose qualifies, but I can think of at least one example. Forever Night was a television series about a vampire who lived by a moral code that came into conflict with his nature as a vampire and his feelings for the vampire who made him what he was. He refused to drink human blood even though animal blood was disgusting, and he worked as a night time detective. More careful scrutiny might reveal that the series more often took a naturalist approach to plot, but it still illustrates my point.
  17. If you have been home schooled most of your life than you have already avoided many of the crippling teachers. In K-8th grade I went to a unique public school, but in many ways it was also representative of the worst parts of the public school system. The school was named after the environmentalist Aldo Leopold. The goal of the school was to let children learn at their own pace, but this often meant that bright students who didn't care for school were left to neglect it. We called our teachers by their first names, which isn't terrible in and of it's self, but was indicative of the lax attitude toward discipline. We had no objective grading scales, and had a "game time" that was supposed to be for students who were done with all of their homework. I never was, but I got game time anyway. One day I was awakened by a student who was looking for me while I was sleeping in class, and I heard the teacher say "Shhh.... Jake is sleeping." This type of schooling was bad for me, but it was terrible for my brother. My brother had a severe case of dyslexia, and the final answer from the city school system was that he simply would not be able to read. He had a first or second grade reading level in 10th grade, and he was a hard worker. My parents sent him to a school in New England called Landmark that was geared toward dyslexics. It was simply a school that used the best teaching methods and demanded superb work ethic. Over his four years there he raised his reading level to that of a 12th grader. He then went on to graduate tech school. He has a modest job and kept the amazing work ethic, and now has a lot more confidence. There were some teachers at the school who were great. I heard one of the good one's resignations was forced for having an "inappropriate" relationship with a student and his parents. Basically, the teacher stayed after school, helped the kid with his work, and the union didn't like it. My high school years were more conventional. There were some terrible teachers, and some amazing teachers. The terrible teachers were not intent on crippling anyone; they just didn't know what they were doing. GoodyTooShoes, you seem bright. In the Wisconsin school system, the bright can not be crippled, but they often will have a hard time achieving their potential. I think you'll do well.
  18. Maybe only one or two - Americans. Reports of what North Korea does shocked me more than any other atrocities I know of. While I empathize with the plight of North Korean citizens, I cannot justify altruistic US military action. Fortunately, when it comes to North Korea, I don't have to. Kim Jong-Il's crimes against his own people simply underscore the danger he is to the United States and it's allies. I don't think America needs any further justification for a pre-emptive strike against North Korea. But how will the rest of America be convinced of this?
  19. It is right to recognize that America should keep its word when dealing with other nations. When dealing with just nations, this is a matter of recognizing the other nation's sovereignty. When dealing with dictatorships, keeping one's word can only be a matter of practicality. However, it is foolhardy to maintain a diplomatic stance with a dictatorship when that stance is failing. America would only gain the moral high ground by reversing diplomatic course with North Korea. North Korea would certainly be offended and threatened by this. I don't think there is any conflict in recognizing that it is appropriate for a nation to keep its word, while also recognizing that a nation's word is only to be kept when dealing with proper sovereigns. A proper sovereign, North Korea is not.
  20. You do raise an interesting point. D'Anconia Copper may have had value in Francisco's absence. But would negating this value have had anything to do with the San Sebastian mine? Francisco was also unique in the fact that he had inherited value to keep from the looters, in addition to his own created value. My original position was that it was a difference of values that kept Dagny from choosing Francisco. Perhaps I was wrong, and it was simply a matter of degree. A previous post seems to support the degree of value theory (I have not read the journals of Ayn Rand). But, what is the explanation for the San Sebastian mine? This may be a question of every "striker's" values. Assuming the values were the same, what was the practical justification for the San Sebastian endeavor? Did they really think that it was important make the looters lose money on an investment? Was it simply a way to stick it to the People's State of Mexico, or an attempt to make them see the error of their ways? Was it a way to accelerate Dagny's decision? It could have been all three, or one I haven't come up with. Ultimately, the reason may have been non-essential. It simply could have been a plot device to propel the rest of the story. I suppose these questions have deviated from the intent of this thread.
  21. My understanding of the situation is that this is just another step in the same game the North Koreans have been playing for over a decade. I remember reading a news article from the Drudge Report recently that was right next to an article about Iran. Both article titles read something like "[iran/North Korea] abandons nukes." Does anyone really believe either country is abandoning its pursuit of nuclear weaponry? I don't. I remember reading another thread in this forum that commented on the assertion by Ahmadinejad that Iran will share nuclear technology, and I think both should be unified under the heading "US Appeasement of Opponents." The deal that we are pursuing with North Korea is a part of the same diplomatic strategy that the Clinton administration took. It is a Cold War strategy only appropriate to nations that already have nuclear arms. It is debatable whether or not we should conduct negotiations with North Korea now that they have nukes. I am not a military strategist, but I think the US would be able to cripple the delivery capability of North Korea if it were to strike first. Worse than our situation with North Korea, the US is taking the same "Cold War" strategy with Iran. Unless I am mistaken, our current stance will only lead to a nuclear armed Islamic theocracy. For the record, I think negotiations with either country are doomed. I don't think the current administration has the moral authority to assert our inalienable right to self defense, or the conviction to back that right up with force. Without these, all negotiations are prone to failure.
  22. As far as comics... I'm sorry, "graphic novels" are concerned, the Vertigo label puts out some good ones. You have to be picky, though. I liked Neil Gaiman's Sandman, but this doesn't really have an Objectivist bent. It is simply a good fantasy story with an interesting take on mythology. I consider this to be the best of all Vertigo label comics, which usually have more "meat" to the plots than other "Superhero" comics. Also, the Sandman is a completed series. (They knew when to stop) A Sandman spin off comic features a compelling character that has a value structure based on rational self interest... Lucifer! The main character of this comic does not pursue evil for evil's sake, but has a morality that some might consider "evil" for the same reasons some people are put off by Objectivism. He is proud, dashing, honest and integrated to the core. This series is not a completed story, and suffers a little from what all open ended comics suffer from. Because the authors didn't write the story with an end in mind, it continues after it should have ended. I continue to read the series because it portrays a sort of "superhero" who's morals seem closer to a righteous ideal than I have previously seen. The comic is based on characters created by Neil Gaiman, Sam Kieth and Mike Dringenberg. The quotes below are from issue 17 of Lucifer, written by Mike Carey. *Spoilers To The End* Lucifer is tired of hell. In the Sandman series he kicks everyone out and gives the Key to hell to Dream (The Sandman). He starts a nightclub in Los Angeles. Lucifer is polite, dashing, and very ambitious. His beef with God is that salvation comes only through worship. Lucifer's ultimate value is to be, himself, godlike not Godlike. Toward this end, his goal is to make his own creation, a goal which he realises during the course of the story. The story of Lucifer's creation is indicative of his character throughout the series. Lucifer goes about making creation much in the same way as God. But once he makes the first man and woman, his method changes. He shows himself to them and says, "You are the woman and the man. This is the Garden. It's yours." -Notice that Lucifer does not name them, but allows them to name themselves. The woman, "Thank you." The man, "But... Who are you?" Lucifer, "I am the Maker - of all this, and of you yourselves. I am the giver of Life and Death" The man, "What is death?" Lucifer, "Separation from this. Darkness and the absence of thought, forever." The woman, "it sounds terrible. Must you give us Death?" Lucifer vows to withhold death from them as long as they obey his one command, "Bow down to no one. Worship no one. Not even me." He then confirms that they understand and departs. Later, the snake loyal to God enters the garden. The serpent preys on the weak mind of the man, and very quickly espouses all sorts of mystic filth and contradiction, ruining the man's self esteem. Lucifer wants the man to have all of the facts, and shows him God's creation. The man begins to worship pain and God, and Lucifer destroys him, "Did the ten thousand years before thy birth trouble thee? Well no more will the ten thousand after thy death." The woman, her greatest value having been destroyed, requests death on her own terms. Lucifer grants it, and concludes that one out of two is not a bad start.
  23. You may be right. I'm not sure how I defined a superpower, and I'm not sure how I would now, actually... It is just hard to think of a "superpower" without tanks (the English invented the tank during the WWI, not before). But that doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't have a large technological and territorial advantage the world over. Good point.
  24. That obviously comes from their miscarictarization of her politics and a quote from Atlas Shrugged. It would take a long time to find the page number, so I'll just put this out there so you can keep your eye open the next time you read it.
  25. Iran's president recently declared his intention to share nuclear technology with other Islamic states, so maybe the current conflict will become a world war. However, if one is to happen, I expect it would be because we gave too much legitimacy to a world governing power, like the UN or an international court. "When" is another question, maybe never. Also, I don't think a world war would happen in the same way. Nuclear weapons would end the war very quickly. Remember, the first world wars happened before there was a "superpower"... Now there is only one.
×
×
  • Create New...