RSalar

I like the fact that there is no dictator type here deciding which post will stand and which ones get sent back. Most of these forums are similar to talk radio. If you listen to talk radio for awhile you will notice that the callers who agree with the host get help in formulating their ideas, but when an opposing view starts to show that the host is wrong (especially when the caller's position is logical and well presented) the host will shut him down by employing a variety of techniques. If I am going to read, post questions, and state my case, I want to know that everyone is treated equally. The dictator type moderator will tend to form a group of supporters who he will allow to post just about anything they want in any way they want. Then when an outsider comes along and disagrees with the clique the outsider's posts get the heavy hand of the law. In other words a double standard is applied. This forum, based on my limited experience, does not appear to be run that way. So far so good -- keep up the good work!

You capialized the word "Objective," did you mean to? What are these? I read the piece but did not find a definition of "Objectivist." The Kelly School/Peikoff School split (in general) is caused because of a difference in opinion of what it means to be an Objectivist. If we had an objective definition we might be able to determine which of them (if any) is actually an Objectivist.

Seek: 1. To try to locate or discover; search for. 2. To endeavor to obtain or reach: seek a college education. 3. To go to or toward: Water seeks its own level. 4. To inquire for; request: seek directions from a police officer. 5. To try; endeavor: seek to do good. 6. Obsolete. To explore. Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V., further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved. "Seek" seems to imply action for a specific purpose--it implies volitional choice. Maybe there is no significant difference between the two different definitions and she just chose one over the other. It is interesting that Dr. Peikoff specifically stated that the change was intentional and it had significance.

The term "Objectivist" is a concept that many people use. A critical aspect of Objectivism is that we should root our concepts in reality. How can we root this concept in reality without an objective standard? The answer to the question posed here would provide a basis for evaluating myself. I do not want to say I am an Objectivist if I am not one. I think I am one, but how do I know? Don't we owe it to ourselves to define the very term that we use to describe ourselves? What kind of Objectivists would we be if we were unwilling to objectively define that which we so willingly call ourselves? I think it is a very interesting topic and hope others will take it seriously.

If two self-proclaimed Objectivists disagree about a particular aspect of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, only one of them can be correct. It is possible that they both have it wrong, but they both cannot be correct. Can a real Objectivist disagree with a particular aspect of Ayn Rand’s philosophy? If so, to what extent? These questions boils down to: What objective criteria must be met to be an Objectivist?

I tried to find where someone said that, "mathematical methods can only be discovered by deductive inference," but was unable to. I said (post #20): "Without deductive reasoning there would be no mathematics..." By that I mean that math is deductive. Are you saying that because it may be possible to discover another method, other than deductive inference, to describe the relationship between integers, that my statement is not universally true? Based on that principle no statement is universally true, because in all cases there exists the possibility that there might be an exception discovered someday (even though we have no way to show that there might be an exception).

All mathematics is is a language of symbols used to identify relationships between units that exist in reality. Reality is what reality is. The language we use to identify it does not change what reality is. If another intelligent life form has evolved in another part of the universe they might symbolize the number 1 with #, and the number 2 with %, instead of using + to represent addition they might symbolize it with >, and instead of = they might use @. The symbols would not change the fact that # > # @ %. The relationship is not affected by the symbols used to represent it. If this were not universally true then reality would not be real. The problem with that type of reasoning is that it misses the point.

Back to "deduced reality" for a moment … it was hypothesized that by deducing realty I may somehow be conjuring reality up out of thin air. How is it possible to make a deductive conclusion about anything if you do not start with an observation? The only source if information about the outside world is through our senses. Take a newborn baby and clip the connections from all of its sensory organs so that its brain can pick up nothing from its body or the outside world -- how much deducting will this human being ever be able to do? Zippo! The astronomers that I mentioned who are discovering new planets in other solar systems do not directly observe these planets; instead they conclude (based on both inductive and deductive logic) that they MUST be there. There is no other explanation for the observed phenomenon. Without deductive reasoning there would be no mathematics, and without mathematics all the sciences that depend on mathematics would be reduced to only that which can be directly observed—a mere tiny fraction of what these sciences are today.

AR -vos_p16: ""Value" is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. The concept "value" is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible." I have to go back and list again to Dr, Peikoff's explaination of why Ayn changed her definition, because it would seem from the above quote that Ayn intented there to be volition involved. Note: I obtained the quote from Oliver Computing's excellent CD --"The Objectivist Research CD_ROM" and I highly recomend it. You can search virtually everything she wrote for a word. In this case I selected Virtue of Selfishness (because I knew that is where the term, "value" was defined), typed "value" in the search window and clicked Query. Bingo - every instance of the term "value" is highlighted and you can move from one to the other. You can also copy and paste directly from the CD. http://objectivism.net/order_cdrom.htm

Astronomers are discovering many more extrasolar planetary systems every day! No one yet has actually observed a single one. They concluded that they exist by the way the light waves from their distant suns shift indicating a gravitationally induced wobble that could only be cause by (a) planet(s). No observation ... yet conclusive evidence has yielded new knowledge. As far as induction goes … how many times must we observe something before we can conclude with certainty that it will act the same way again? Deductive logic is 100% certain! I'd rather be called a deducer than an inducer any day!?! :-)

Deduce: 1.To reach (a conclusion) by reasoning. 2.To infer from a general principle; reason deductively. 3.To trace the origin or derivation of. [Middle English deducen, from Latin deducere, to lead away or down : de-, de- + ducere, to lead.] Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V., further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved. Let's remember the original question: What does it mean to "deduce reality?" All the side issues only serve to push us away from what we set out to accomplish.

Let me begin by acknowledging my flawed assumption regarding our brotherhood. Before I state my level of agreement with Ayn Rand’s philosophy. I would like us to agree on the assumptions that will govern this debate. I do not refer to the rules of etiquette because that issue has been addressed and agreed upon. What I mean is that we need a “common ground” on which to do battle. That common ground must have certain attributes, which allow us to spar in such a way that it is our reasoning alone that will tip the scales. I propose the following: By entering this debate we agree that there is but one reality and that reality is what it is regardless of our opinions of it. We also agree to provide verifiable evidence to back up our assertions and when there is none to be found we will admit this fact and quite asserting the truth of our unsupported claim. We further agree that our task during this debate is to determine what that reality is through the application of our senses and our rational thinking. We accept the fact that there are certain laws of nature and certain laws governing logical reasoning and we will indicate which of these laws we are applying when asked to do so. And finally we both agree that logical reasoning is the only method of obtaining the truth. By making the following statement I hereby agree to the terms and conditions spelled out above: I agree with all of Ayn Rand’s basic philosophical principles as spelled out by her in her own words (those works of fiction and non-fiction which were published prior to her death). Note: I specifically used the term “basic” to avoid getting side tracked by minutia. I swear that once you have agreed to these terms I will step upon this level battlefield and engage you with all the vigor I can muster!

#1) Because by "deducing" I am coming to a conclusion based on reasoning--I am determining what reality is by making logical connections and coming to a conclusion. In other words I am thinking. Can I know reality any other way? A.R.(VOS_p22): "The process of concept-formation does not consist merely of grasping a few simple abstractions, such as "chair," "table," "hot," "cold," and of learning to speak. It consists of a method of using one's consciousness, best designated by the term "conceptualizing." It is not a passive state of registering random impressions. It is an actively sustained process of identifying one's impressions in conceptual terms, of integrating every event and every observation into a conceptual context, of grasping relationships, differences, similarities in one's perceptual material and of abstracting them into new concepts, of drawing inferences, of making deductions, of reaching conclusions, of asking new questions and discovering new answers and expanding one's knowledge into an ever-growing sum. The faculty that directs this process, the faculty that works by means of concepts, is: reason. The process is thinking." (Bold added by RSalar.) #2) No, I am not speaking about history; I am referring to things in nature that we observe in the present. I sit out side on a clear night and I see the moon. I watch it transit the meridian and finally set. Where did it go? Is it gone for good ... or will it rise again? I deduce the reality that the earth has rotated so that I can no longer see the moon (it is below the horizon but it still exists). If I know something exists, that I cannot see nor touch nor use any of my senses to detect, I must know it exists through the process of reasoning. Since deducing is act of concluding through reasoning it could be said that I am deducing reality when I conclude that the moon exists even when it cannot be seen. Based on this reasoning I would say that "deducing reality" must be a good thing. In the context that it was said, however, I got the sense that he was implying that it wasn't a good thing. Anyway I did a search on the internet and could not find the meaning of the phrase so I posted my question here.

Regarding point #1: It is true; I have been banned! But as a brother Objectivist I am sure you know that there are two sides to these things. The mighty King rules with a very big sword and I am but a peasant. That aside—I assure you that you will be most surely respected in every way. I sense a worthy opponent and I yearn to debate thee. Point #2. I fully understand the stakes involved and although life itself is that which I love the most I will of course do my best to honor my worthy opponent with my best logic. You have thrown down the gauntlet and I have accepted your challenge—let’s linger on this preliminary jabbing no longer and let the battle begin. State you case or quite the cause!

If someone says, "I think you might be deducing reality," what is meant? Does it mean that he thinks you are "creating" a reality through the process of deductive logic? Where does one get the information to use in the deduction? Don't all rational people use their senses to obtain the raw data of the world and then use logic to deduce how it all works? I would think that is would be good to deduce reality. Even when the moon is on the other side of the earth and not visible to us, we still know it is there. How do we know it is there, if not for deduction? Or is that "induction?" (I have always had trouble with the difference between deduction and induction.) If that is the case; is it better to induce reality or deduce reality?

Does the reciprocal also hold true; that which I do not act to gain or keep I do not value? I value my freedom of speech, but I do not act to gain or keep it. The government is gradually violating many of our rights and freedoms--we do value them, but do we always take action to protect them? Centenary Reminiscences of Ayn Rand By Leonard Peikoff Ayn Rand Bookstore

I guess I would have thought about that differently. I wouldn't have said that plants "seek" things; I would have said that plants do not seek things. And if plants do not seek things, they do not value things (this follows logically from her first definition). But if all a plant (or any living thing) has to do is “act to gain or keep” something for it to be a value, then they do value things. It seems a little odd to say that plants have values. Like many things that she declared, this seems a little "different," but that doesn't mean she was wrong. And I may be unintentionally misrepresenting what she meant by these terms.

I have just finished listening to Dr. Peikoff’s "Reminiscences," and he explains (track 21) that Ayn changed her definition of "value" from "that which one seeks to gain or keep," to "that which one acts to gain or keep." I would be interested in discussing the significance and implications of the change. All living organisms “act” to gain the necessities of life, so is it proper to say that plants “value” water? Doesn't a living organism need to be conscious in order to value something? Am I confusing a noun with a verb, or what is going on here?

I am amazed that you think you have a chance! If you can hold your own at all I will be stunned. Regarding point 5, as quoted above, why don’t you go first. Let the games begin!

There have some excellent points raised. The critical question of, to carry or not to carry, is worth carefully thinking through. How many cops have been killed by unarmed criminals who stole the cops gun and hot him? More than a few. And if you decide to carry you should do so knowing that there is some risk that you (or someone you love) could be at risk of dying from the very weapon you chose to carry for self-protection. Keeping a loaded gun in the house has a similar risk. I agree with the poster who made the point that there is little to be gained by carrying in a very low crime area. You may actually be increasing your odds that you will get shot. A excellent book to read is: More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, by John R. Lott, Jr. See also: An interview with John Lott, Jr, @

In Objectivist terms a floating abstraction has no connection to reality, like the concept, "god." I don't know if it requires brainpower but when think of something I see a mental picture, not words. Even when someone uses a word to represent a concept I change it into a mental picture. For me words are nothing but symbols that need to be translated into mental pictures. You say, "fireplace," I see a fireplace; I don't see the letters of the word f i r e p l a c e scroll across, I see an image of a fireplace. Do you see words?

First of all you should only use deadly force if your life (or the lives of your loved ones) are truly in danger. In other words you have to be in a situation where you either kill or you will be killed. If that threat does occur in your home you want to stop the attack. In other words you want to hit the attacker. Do a little research on shootouts and you will learn how many shots are fired by trained police officers using handguns that miss. Hitting a target is one thing but try hitting a madman who is shooting at you! Stopping power only counts if you hit the intruder. All the theoretic talk about which caliber is best is mute when you are blazing away and hitting nothing but air. And as far as ricochets are concerned: Would you rather be struck by a ricocheting soft lead pellet or a ricocheting jacketed bullet? Why not go to a gun club and do a test. Set up some targets 20 feet away and blast away. Try a shotgun and try a pistol. If you give this an honest try and hit more targets with the pistol than with the shotgun I will fly to wherever you are and buy you lunch.

I've been using firearms for 40 years. I've competed, I’ve hunted, I've built my own firearms, and I have hand-loaded many different calibers (not to brag but to give you a point of reference). I have discussed the home defense with many fine marksmen. Get a pump action 12-gauge shotgun (with no choke) and load it up with buckshot. You might even hit what you are aiming at (you will miss with a handgun—because even the professionals do), it can be reloaded even when there is still a round in the chamber, and it will stop a lion (literally). Research what weapon is used in Africa to back up lion hunters -- I guarantee no professional guide will carry a wimpy little pistol (and even the biggest handgun calibers are wimpy compared to a 12-gauge). Like I’ve said I have spent years shooting firearms—I am a very good shot with a pistol, but I would never even think of (if I had the choice) choosing a pistol over a shotgun for home defense.

Maybe this whole subject comes down to language! The term "concept" represents a large number of things within a category—they all have something in common (CCD). That is close enough to what a concept is for this discussion. But there is another mental construct—that idea that you or I have in our individual minds—that single idea for a new invention. It's just an idea—but it is very specific and describable. It has everything that a "concept" has except that it does not have a name. This idea for the invention encompasses an infinite number of actual products that could be built, it has a definition, and it will have a name (and as you said we can just call it, "that thing that I will invent," for now). So is this idea a concept? Or is it something else? If it is not a concept, what is it? What do you call the mental constructs that are not concepts?

Ok -- More food for thought. Helen Keller was able to associate words spelled out on her palm with the objects she felt. Her mind formed a concept that included all objects within a specific category--liquids, balls, faces, cups, etc. --all simple physical objects. This process would also work for scents, tastes, temperature, erogenous, physical pain, and maybe some emotions. It would be interesting to know if she was able to grasp second-level concepts—the concepts that are made up of two or more first-level concepts—like supply and demand. What level would Helen’s conceptual knowledge be limited to and why? Was her conceptual faculty able to formulate new ideas? If for, example, she was taught to wash dishes with a sponge, be able to figure out that she could use a rag in a pinch to accomplish the same result?