KendallJ

No if you look at the previous post, I deal with the arguments that you and Johnathan13 seem to think justifies you. And I quote Rand against you. hellooo... These two posts, answer quite sufficiently your original claim. You have yet to respond. http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=241239 http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=241181

Not if you've shown why they are, i.e. if you've made the argument. If you want this to stand as your evidence, then yes it is. srsly.

And just a clarification. Ad hominem is a very specific logical fallacy. It is commonly overused as an excuse for not dealing with someone. Option 1 Socrates is a man You have a funny nose therefore, Socrates is moral Option 2 Socrates is a man All men are mortal There fore socrates is mortal and oh by the way, you have a funny nose. Option 3 You have a funny nose. Only option 1 is ad hominem. Options 2/3 might be considered rude or not very effective or maybe even considered "blunt". They may or not be reasonable to the social context of the situation. However, the one thing they are not is ad hominem. Ad hominem is the substitution of a personal attack for valid reasoning in making an argument.

Oy, this is so full of misunderstandings and misfacts its disappointing. a. Roark's designing the project is not a fraud. I'm not sure how anyone would think it so. If it is fraud then every buildilng designed by Keatings firm is as well. But if you'd like to specifically cite the clauses in Keatings contract that make it legally so, I'd like to hear them. You're whole argument them is based upon this particular point. I'm not sure how Roark might differ from any other "contractor" a firm might hire and for whose services they are paid. Keating directs the design of buildings (up to and including key creative decisions as he is so "ably" demonstrated) done so by any employee or contractor he chooses to hire under any terms he chooses to hire them. How this could in any way constitute fraud is really stunning. b. But putting that aside, lets say for an instant that Keating had a clause in the contract that stated that he personally design the building (we'll call it an "artistic integrity" clause) that does not give the other party the ability to do anything it pleases in case of breach. This is the other part of your argument, that "simply altered the terms of their agreement with Keating, who had first violated their agreement by claiming to have designed Cortland." This is not legally allowed. Most contracts have specific remedies and ways to manage conflict or assertions of breach. One cannot and is not simply allowed to do whatever you feel like if they think the other party has breached the agreement. c. but the real issue of course which you fail to mention is that this is not the reason the government cited for violating it's contract with Keating. What is the real reason? Well maybe actually reading the book might help. Let's go look: That is the only legal mention of his contract in the entire book. It obviously implies that he had concrete terms in the contract, ie that he had terms by which t stand. Otherwise he would have been told "Oh, our contract says we can change the design at our discretion." He's not told that. He's told try to sue. Nor was he told "oh well you've breached your contract and by the terms of article 2.3 we have the right to change the design." He was in effect told, you can't do anything, government can do anything it wants. Ahem, and you suggest that this is not a moral and legal afront and that Roark by virtue of his contract doesn't have ground? Oy, someone needs to go to law school, eh? Roark is certainly justified in taking his case directly to the government owners of this project. He has a contract with Keating, Keating has a contract with the govt, and neither is in breach nor does the govt have remedy. The only principle Roark violated was the one that suggests that you don't take the law into your own hands, but then, against a government that is clearly exercising arbitrary, illegal power, well one could claim that his is an act of revolution, and rightly so. And the fact is that he followed that principle and was willing to suffer the consequences.

But this is exactly the point. Keating is well within his right to agree to what sort of constuction contracts he will voluntarily enter into in the future. It's done all the time in commercial contracts. If he was already under contract to construct then you'd have a point, but he was not. The question would be legally who does Roark have to address his issue with, Keating or the financiers. Depends on what terms Keating agreed to afterwards. However, the basis for your particular argument which is this, is invalid. I'm not quite sure how this relates to your second point, but I'm curious if you have some background on why someone like Brook argues for a phase out. What is their rationale. It seems before one would state that something wasn't "Objectivist" that they would deconstruct that argument using O'ist principles. And I'm not sure that Objectivism rather than political science speaks to such matters. There is nothing in Objectivism for instance that specifies the form of govt such as we have. That is a matter for political scientists. Only that it must somehow be limited by individual rights. Nor I think would it stipulate in what manner is best for governmental wrongs to be rectified. In the same way that metaphysics doesnt' really say much more than Existence -Identity-Causality, and it is therefore up to the specialized sciences to determine the nature of existence, you might consider that you'll have to make a case for why political philosophy and not political science has something to say about this.

Hey, there's an idea. Of course, you have to say something in front of the sig that actually makes someone interested in friending them...

21 posts, and gone so soon.

Do you think it reads as being particularly inviting? Forums are the wild west. Good people can be found anywhere. So can bad. Objectivism is not immune from kooks and weirdos and a few inhabit the board. But then you're bound to get lots of em show up if you actually don't care who you trade with. Being an Objectivist doesn't make one valuable in and of itself. Nor does knowing you're one make you so to anyone else. Get more discerning about your personal relationships and you might find that it doesn't matter where you hang out. The best people here wont respond to such a plea. You'll have to earn their respect. But he worst certainly will. Consider tha you may be fueling your own disappointment.

Then best not to use the imperative. No big thing, but the obvious question that arises, is "why would someone want to?" How have you made yourself a value to someone? It's a bit like walking up to a girl you've never met and asking her out. What would you think about the kind of girl who simply said, "oh sure.." Don't get defensive, why not stick around, make some friends and do it the old-fashioned way...

Great time was had by all. Thanks to everyone who came out!

and you are worth the effort because.....

bump. Meetup is tonight. PM me for the location if I haven't sent it to you already. Mimp, Stella, Atlas, Matt, bluecherry? confirmed. See you there!

You're better than that. Back up your opinion.

Blech, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen meets Raiders of the Lost Ark...

bump. Meet up Monday 6:30! Be there. PM me for location.

A few thoughts anyway. http://crucibleandcolumn.blogspot.com/2007...s-on-china.html http://crucibleandcolumn.blogspot.com/2009...as-success.html

and "Pizza and beer" is not a good enough reason? Not really a discussion group. It is a meetup. Just introductions and social. You should "do it." We are "awesome!"

I don't agree either, but not for this reason. The rand example and this one are not the same. For the same reason that point source pollution immediately causing damage to someone's health or property is objectively is quite different than diffuse pollution (say from a million cars) is not. If one person can directly damage you, then the govt has a right to call such damage a crime. If a million people only by virtue of each of their individual actions can, well, that is a state of nature. It is not an objective threat and should not be considered any sort of crime. You are correct that context is important, but this case does not provide the context to justify. Plus, there is not this sort of evidence.

I don't think you can separate these aspects. The reason we pursue any values is to advance our lives, i.e. to flourish. That is the meaning of the concept in Objectivism. If our relationship with someone is a top value, then the death of that person prematurely is not only a loss of that person in and of themselves, but also simultaneously and inextricably the loss of the relationships and hence a diminshed level of life for ourselves. The answer to your question as I see it is "both". Unless of course you can think of any situation where one can lose the value and still retain the benefit of it. In essence all value pursuit involves risk. How much is reasonable to take on is relative to how important a value it is in your value heirarchy. I think the volitional aspect of the pursuit of values is what makes the distinction. It is in the course of pursuing our value that we risk death. Unlike the suicide case where we might have lost the will to live. Suicide is not the pursuit of a value. We are "risking" nothing.

The meet is on. I'm not posting the location publicly, but if you're interested, please PM me and I'll send you the details.

Well, no one can give you the choice to live so in that sense this is above analysis isn't an ethical choice. There isn't a should there. I think a real difference here is that mortality is a given, while the untimely death of someone is not necessarily. In one case you act to preserve a value at the risk of your own life. In another the value is gone, and you must decide what to do next. Man's mortality is a fact that is known a priori. It is a fact that you will face in absolutely every relationship (either you'll die first or she will). Assuming you lived a life of self-esteem based upon rational principles, then I think to suggest that it is a rational option, it is to suggest that you can't deal with the reality of this fact. Not wanting to live because reality is what it is... hmmm. The untimely death however is not something that necessarily has to be. This doesn't mean that life holds the same meaning afterwards however, but for it not to have meaning at all... hmm... Here was Rand's personal take on the issue. at 7:45

This is my issue and you repeat it here. You are confusing the epistomological way that we arrive at the idea of an entity, and the metaphysical nature of the entity itself. As you said before "Anyway, a thing existing as what it is means that there has to be something else that it is not." This is a metaphysical statement and it is not true. It is a statement of metaphysical necessity. There is nothing about the existing of anything that requires something else to exist. Your second statement is an epistemological statement as you use the term "self-defined". Things just are. Things have identities. There is nothing in the existence of anything that requires the existence of anything else, as your first statement would suppose. The fact there there is more than one thing, just is. It is a fact of existence. There is nothing about any of the things that requires any other thing. However, we learn about things in themselves by comparing them to other things. We have to subdivide the universe in order to form the concept of existents, and the wider concept of existence, an identity. But that implies nothing about their metaphysical interdependency the way you have phrased it. I used the example of the universe because you were having such a tough time with the idea of something that is made up of other thigns, ie that existents can be composite. The universe is certainly a thing, the way that an apple is thing. It is not a special case, but what that particular entity does is negate the metaphysical statement you made without negating its implications for our epistemology. You started this thread asking about the metaphysical nature of existence. You still haven't quite got it. Your whole confusion here is the confusion of the existent with the concept we hold for it.

Peikoff recommended in one of his lectures "A History of Western Philosophy" by Jones. 5 volume series in paperback. I have read 3 of the volumes and they may be what you're looking for.

Looks like Monday night is the tentative date. Let's say 6:30 pm. I'll propose a location next bump. I assume somewhere in center city would be ok with folks. If not, let me know and (sigh) we can do the burbs. Stella, I'll have a talk with the FDA today.

Alright, options: a. this weekend (Sat/Sun) b. lunch next week (Mon-Wed) c. evening next week (Mon-Wed) Stella could only make b or c. Anyone else? Options that don't work for you?