dbc
-
Posts
56 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by dbc
-
-
How do you know that the class property is identical for all members of the class?
The "class property" you refer to is a particular way of regarding an attribute shared by the entities in question. The attribute exists "out there"; regarding it as a "universal" reflects the human method of knowing. Rand spells this out in the first chapter of ITOE.
For Objectivists, there is no "class property" separate or apart from the attribute(s) under consideration. I recognize your statement that you regard this, Rand's treatment of attributes, as deficient--at least as it relates to the problem of universals. Be that as it may, that is the answer to your question:
Is a class property identical between all objects of a class? In the class of all purple books, is the purpleness of one book the same purpleness of another book? In the class consisting of all men, is the manness in one man the same, that is, identical to the manness in all other men?The answer you find unsatisfying has already been provided numerous times: The "manness" is identical in each man because the only thing under consideration is the relevant attribute(s)--with their particular measurements omitted.
Dan
-
Now it may be that the painter is far too broke to pay any part of the total. However, his penury does not negate my right to full compensation.
I agree; your right to recover does not hinge on whether the guilty is able to pay. The existence of a right however is not synonymous with being successful in being made financially whole.
If someone cannot “be compelled to protect [another’s] rights without compensation,” then I should not be assessed any amount above what is required to protect my rights. I should not have to subsidize the rights protection of others.Again, I agree. My point still stands: you are not being forced to pay for the protection of your rights when you pay a fee for that protection.
Dan
-
QUOTE (Galileo Blogs @ Feb 19 2008, 12:37 PM)
I see nothing wrong with paying for enforcement of contracts.
It makes property rights conditional, therefore it is wrong.Property rights are absolute; protecting that right is conditioned on a great many things. A "right" is not self-executing; men must establish governments to protect the rights. If those who seek the protection offered by a rational government do not pay, who will?
Dan
-
Unless the citizen pays the contract fee, he would be unable to recover property he might lose in a breach of contract. Since he has a right to that property and its recovery, requiring him to pay a fee is involuntary.
Your statement is incorrect. You do not have a right to have your property recovered for free. A "right" recognizes that sphere of action where you ought to be left free to act. It does not mean that someone can be compelled to protect your rights without compensation.
Dan
-
QUOTE (Ogg_Vorbis @ Feb 19 2008, 09:37 AM)
It involves a process of identification, that is, identifying exactly what the problem of universals consists of, and exactly where Ayn Rand dropped the ball.
Is it your claim that the "problem of universals" is that people cannot figure out what "X-ness" is, for various properties such as "purple, 5, man"? If so, Rand has solved the problem, and the answer is "X-ness" is the concept X, expressed as an abstract noun meaning "the property of being X". Once you understand the concept "purple", "man", "5" and so on, it's really simple to understand "the property of being 'purple'", "the property of being 'a man'", "the property of 'being (of cardinality) 5'". If you think the "problem of universals is something else, you need to say what you think the "problem" is.This is why I asked Ogg V (and have not yet received an answer) if he read Rand's account of measurement omission and whether he agreed with it, and if not, why not.
It is Rand's discovery of the connection between measurement and conceptualization that is revolutionary. OV, if you will not address the role measurement omission plays in this process, then we are talking past each other.
Dan
-
A couple of good ones, both with Robert Redford: Three Days of the Condor and Spy Games.
Dan
-
You guys don't like Obama only because he is the ANTICHRIST!
Well sure, there's that.
-
Attributes belong to entities, properties are attributes belonging universally to classes of entities; a property is "a basic or essential attribute shared by all members of a class." http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=property
Apples share the property of being bruised easily. A bruise may or may not be a characteristic or attribute of a particular apple. Being shared by all members of the class converts attributes into universal properties. An attribute may or may not be a universal. If, let's suppose, all apples were by their very nature bruised, then that attribute (bruisedness, the quality of being bruised) would be universal to the class of apples.
The "property" you refer to is still an attribute; it is our ability to regard the attribute as a unit that seems to be at the root of (at least one) complaint.
A particular apple may not be bruised; yet, as you correctly point out, the property of being easily bruised belongs to all apples. What allows for this shared "property"? The apples are easily bruised because of their chemical makeup--they share the same chemical composition that allows for being bruised. We may properly regard the apples' chemical composition as an attribute and all apples (all apples that ever existed, exist now or may exist in the future) share the attribute.
Dan
-
As for the participants being voluntary, if government is the only permitted means of enforcing a contract, then paying for government contract insurance is not entirely voluntary.
What part of the transaction is not voluntary?
Dan
-
Since Donald and Daffy can outvote Scrooge, wouldn’t they have an incentive to raise the rate of the fees? Admittedly, their own rates would go up, too, but they would be reaping increased government benefits at the expense of those who pay much more. If the fees are doubled, Daffy pays $500 more in fees but now gets about $3,800 more in benefits. Not a bad trade-off. Scrooge, by contrast, also gets $3,800 more benefits but has to pay $10,000 more in fees.
The only way to determine who "gets . . . more benefits" is how many man-hours/use of equipment, etc is used on behalf of each person. It is possible that the fellow who only pays $1,500 in fees gets more benefits because of the number of times he calls the police. If that is the case, there is nothing wrong with assessing a usage fee.
The protection of liberty, like every other value, must be paid for.
Dan
-
Why are they still considered rational animals? Only because we idealize them into a mental compartment known as 'rational,' even when this requires a great deal of straining when trying to fit such square pegs into a round hole.
I do not know what you mean by "idelize[ing] them into a mental comparment". It appears you are suggesting some kind of classification of men based, not on observable similarities but on some kind of psychological convenience.
Yet, we cannot intellegently speak of a "degree of rationality" without assuming the existence of a rational faculty.
Have you read Rand's account of measurement omission in ITOE? This is a key tenet to Rand's theory of concepts. You seem to either not be aware of the role of measurement omission in her theory of concepts or you have dismissed it out of hand. If you have read it and disagree, please tell us what specifically you find objectionalbe.
Dan
-
And 'straightness' implies an impossibility.
What is that you mean by "straight"? Doesn't straight refer to a particular shape? A relationship between two or more points? What, specifically, is the "impossibility" you refer to?
Dan
-
As for the title of the book, if she had called it "A Brief Pictorial History of Motocross Racing," would that have made it a book on motocross racing? And so here I am, still sitting on my thumbs waiting for an Objectivist theory of knowledge and not just a theory of concept-formation.
As she stated in the Foreword, Rand intended that ITOE be a "summary of one of its [Objectivist epistemology's] cardinal elements--the Objectivist theory of concepts."
Dan
-
But the problem involves properties which are allegedly identical: if reason is a distinguishing property of man separating him from animals, then how do we know that the rational faculty in one man is the same as the rational faculty in any other men, such that all men may be classified under the same category of rational animal? The general classification 'man' does not necessarily speak to any particulars whatsoever. And unlike the concept of a straight line, I don't hold the concept 'man' to be a mathematical idealization at all.
First, it would be helpful if you told us to what you refer when you speak of one man having "the same" rational faculty of another man. Regardless, Rand tells us that the fact that men possess rational faculty is a characteristic that justifies us in regarding them as members of the same class. The degree of a man's intellegence (assuming that is what you were refering to) is not an essential characteristic.
-
To my mind what is really rude is not taking a benevolent attitude toward someone making an effort like this.
Amen.
Fellow Objectivists should welcome the effort. Nothing wrong with asking questions but if we are serious about exploring ways to spread the philosophy, we should encourage Atlas and save the ridicule for those who preach explicitly irrational ideas.
Dan
-
Whether you seek a paralegal certificate or a J.D., you should concentrate on the topics at hand and seek to integrate them with your philosophy.
You will not have many opportunities to argue for Objectivist principles in your papers. In law school, the majority of your writing will take place in the context of end-of-semester tests. The exams will consist of the professors presenting you with fact patterns and asking you to analyze the facts under legal concepts specific to the class (torts, contracts, real property, etc.). With few exceptions, you are not presented with an opportunity to argue for what the law ought to be.
There are some exceptions to this. A Philosophy of Law (Jurisprudence) class will likely require you to critically analyze some particular legal philosophy. Law reviews also offer a place to present a particular way to address some legal issue.
Good luck!
Dan
-
Thanks. I called the Journal last week and they had it up shortly after that; I downloaded a copy as quick as I could.
Dan
-
Welcome, JacobR.
Dan
-
By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog
I caught a few minutes of Keith Olbermann last night as he and John Edwards mocked the Republicans because they are outraged that they had to answer a question from a Democrat. If they can't do that, do they have what it takes to be President of the United States? Of course, if an unidentified Republican asked tough questions of a Democrat during a debate, Olbermann would lead the charge against "Republican dirty tricks."
It's also worth remembering that this is the same John Edwards who was the first Democrat to refuse to appear on a previously agreed to Fox News debate. Something about the questions being too slanted.
By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlogOnce again, no conspiracy is necessary to explain suspicious leftist action. Conformists don't need to coordinate their actions, they need merely to act on the premises they hold in common.
Good point. Ayn Rand once observed that the continuing spread of socialism was not a conspiracy of men but rather a "conspiracy of ideas."
Dan
-
Patience??? Ok, I'll give it a shot.
Normally, how long does a reboot take?
Dan
-
Related to this topic, see Tara Smith's recent paper in The Duke Journal of Constitutional Law and Public Policy, available online here.
I just read that article. Thanks for the link. I highly recommend it to the lawyers and law-students here. Very thougthfully argued. Also, great to see an Objectivist article in the Duke journal.
As a lawyer who really wants to read the article, I am getting frustrated that my link is not working. Any suggestions?
Dan
-
Excellent news. Objectivism's reach continues to grow.
Dan
-
What about the fact that he tried to rape me, I said? Attempted rape is difficult to prove, they said, followed by the words, and I quote "he's probably just an admirer." !!!!!!! My tax dollars pay these men to tell me these things!!!! ahh!?! I proceeded to say a lot of angry things and walked out in disgust.
"Hard to prove", "easy to prove" is not the point and the police officers know this. You have a right to file a complaint with the police regardless of what they think the likelihood of obtaining a conviction is.
First, go back and tell them (politely of course) that you want to file a complaint. Emphasize the physical assault but put in all the details you shared with us. Keep in mind that you want to give every possible fact that would establish that this guy is the one putting the roses on the car. If the officer(s) you speak with refuse to take a complaint, you can see your city's District Attorney. Actually, you will probably see an Assistant District Attorney or one of the investigators that work directly for the DA. (Given your previous experience with the police, you may want to start with the ADA.)
You can go to your local Justice of the Peace and apply for what (here in Texas) is called a Peace Bond. The basis for a Peace Bond is a fact-based concern/fear of physical assault or damage to property. Like the complaint, you swear to the particulars in a form the JP court will provide you. A constable will "serve" your application for a Peace Bond on this guy. The Court will require him to post a bond (in Texas, it can be as high as $5,000) to guarantee that he will not approach you or your property. (The Peace Bond will spell out the specifics, but check it carefully.)
If this guy approaches you or roses appear on your car, you immediately 1) report this to the JP Court and 2) the police/ADA. A constable for the JP Court will haul him before the Court where he will likely be held in contempt (for violating the Court's order via the Peace Bond), will forfeit the amount of the bond he had to deposit with the Court and may face jail time for his disregard for the Court's order.
(In some states, the police are authorized to write tickets that order a person to stay "x" number of feet from a person or property. If that person violates the order, he is subject to arrest. I do not know if your state grants the police such authority but it is worth asking about.)
Once he violates the JP order, the police/ADA will likely be more motivated to get involved: the police hear, and sometimes become indifferent to, the numerous complaints from people claiming to be harassed or stalked. Sometimes officers will take a violation of a court order more personally than a complaint from a "civilian".
Now an obvious point: whether you get a Peace Bond or a ticket issued to this fellow, they are only pieces of paper. K-Mac made a couple of excellent suggestions regarding personal protection. If obtaining a gun and a concealed handgun permit is too much, you can still purchase a pocket-sized container of mace or pepper spray.
If you have the time, please let us know how it goes with filing the complaint and whether you were able to obtain a Peace Bond.
Dan
-
A different issue would be if they started campaigning in his name or if their endorsement / donation was connected to a political commitment on the side of Ron Paul. If he did not speak out in those cases then the accusation would be perfectly justified.
Ron Paul SupportRacist ties exposed in the Times article go far beyond a single donation. Just below links to information about the "BOK KKK Ohio State Meeting", and the "BOK KKK Pennsylvania State Meeting", Stormfront.org website announced: "Ron Paul for President" and "Countdown to the 5th of November". The links take readers directly to a Ron Paul fundraising site from which they can click into the official Ron Paul 2008 donation page on the official campaign site. Like many white supremacists, Stormfront has ties to white prison gangs.On October 11 Stormfront Radio endorsed Ron Paul for President saying:"Whatever organization you belong to, remember first and foremost that you're a white nationalist, then put aside your differences with one another and work together. Work together to strive to get someone in the Oval Office who agrees with much of what we want for our future. Look at the man, look at the issues, look at our future. Vote for Ron Paul, 2008."
As of November 11--the Ron Paul donation link is still up and active on Stormfront. No IP address has been blocked. Stormfront's would-be stormtroopers are still encouraged to contribute to Paul's campaign.
The white supremacists do more than raise funds. Blogger Adam Holland reports:
"one of Rep. Paul's top internet organizers in Tennessee is a neo-Nazi leader named Will Williams (aka ‘White Will'). Williams was the southern coordinator for William Pierce's National Alliance Party, the largest neo-Nazi party in the U.S."
Pierce is author of the racist "Turner Diaries".
Dan
So where's the solution to the 'Problem of Universals'?
in Metaphysics and Epistemology
Posted
While in the chat room a few minutes ago, Ogg_Vorbis was kind enough to let me know that he does think their is an answer to his question about universals and that all of this, to use his words, is a "paradox".
I enjoyed the back and forth but given his foregone conclusion on the topic, I think I have had enough.
Dan