dondigitalia

It also depends on whether the threat was present before you chose to live there. Nuclear power is so safe, excepting extremely bizarre circumstances, that any power plant which truly presented a physical threat to the surrounding area would have to be really back-asswards, and again, I seriously doubt any business running with that kind of inneficiency would last very long at all. Not to mention that the first people to be damaged by it would be their own employees, so what makes your friend think that any power plant would consider it in their best interest to operate under unsafe conditions? What makes your friend think that the government has a greater interest in upholding safety than the company itself?

That's all fine and dandy, except Scotch is gross. Gimme a Guinness.

Ditto. Something funny that always comes to mind whenever people bring up Zeno's paradox is the way Peikoff describes him. I've been listening to some of his lecture courses recently and whenever he mentions Zeno, he always say, "You know, that guy who couldn't walk across the room."

I hereby call a linguistic showdown! My money's on Odden.

Something can be done against it, although it would be significantly inconvenient--don't use their electricity. In a completely free-market society, where there is no regulation, would there not be competing power companies as well, giving incentive for each company to perform at its absolute best? In that situation, I find it extremely hard to believe any "ticking timebomb" would last very long.

I beg to differ, lol.

Um... you've got some pretty...er...interesting...taste in women, Felipe. Translation: Check your link, dummy.

It is equally meaningless to talk about existence have having a motive as it is to talk about existence as having a beginning. Motive, like all teleological concepts, is only applicable to living things. Please do not continue to cite Aristotle's metaphysics until you understand it fully. Because if an existence-causer is part of existence, he would have had to exist prior to causing existence, so you are positing the existence of something outside of existence, i.e. the existence of a non-existent. The entire idea of an existence-causer is self-contradictory. Space is not characteristicless. Space is a positional relationship between entities. It's characteristics are the positions of the entities in relation to one another. No existent is charateristic-less. That is a self-contradiction. If something has no characteristics, then it is nothing. This isn't possible because the entire question is absurd.

First off, no I do not agree with Aristotle on this. For the Greeks, motion was synonomous with change. And we don't know that motion, even in the Greek sense, is a defining character of anything that exists. In fact, that was one of the things that Aristotle argued against. I'm in agreement with you, but I want to point out that there were some pre-Socratics (Heraclitus and the Sophists) who thought that things did have to be in motion in order to exist. Even Plato, while he didn't regard the world of forms as changing and in motion, did regard the real, sensory world in that way.

That isn't entirely correct. Aristotle's Prime Mover is that which puts all things in motion, but NOT that which creates or causes existence. It was Aquinas who turned the Prime Mover into the cause of existence. Because of Parmenides, here is no Greek thinker who ever talked about existence as having been caused. In fact, the Greeks would have said it is impossible for existence to have been caused by anything at all, and they would have cited the exact same reasons that were given earlier in this thread. The notion that existence was caused by anything is unique to Judaeo-Christian philosophy.

Sometimes the reason behind doing things is just: because that's the way you've always done them. A lot of the things we do in life don't really merit serious examination, so we just do the things we've been "trained" to do by our culture, family and friends. A great deal of our behaviors are like this. But when you finally DO think about it, there might be reason to change it. And for that reason, I'm telling you, for the non-existent God's sake, go out and have a cheeseburger! And get bacon on it!! Seafood is gross, though. You can do without the shellfish.

She lives in the US, so I think she's safe. But yes, she is brave and truly heroic for the things she says.

Here is a "debate" between her and some Mullah. She defends the West on grounds that would make any Objectivist proud. Clickity [Here is a transcript Video #2 - GC] (Edit - Sorry, I just wanted to copy the link! -- Free Thinker)

Now, I whole-heartedly disagree with the entire idea of "community service," but there is a way to make it selfish. I think most high schools require doing community service to graduate (which is ridiculous!). For mine, some friends and I sang old jazz favorites at an old folks home. It was selfish because I really love vocal jazz, and it was really nice performing for people who lived their youth in that era.

Helping other people isn't a bad thing as long as its based on your values. If you don't believe in God, though, and reject it's form of altruism, then you aren't a Jew--your a person who participates in church activities for social reasons. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but you should never pretend to support their philosophy to gain their approval (I'm not saying you do), and you should be careful not to involve yourself in activities which betray your values. Edit: I see you're new here. Welcome to the forum. I hope you find it to be a great place to discuss and learn Objectivism.

I don't think you're rationalizing. I'm well-aware of how expensive urban living is (see where I live), and you're right to tough it out in your parents house as long as necessary to prepare yourself. You might not be able to. They know that young people screw up. No matter what they do, you're going to make mistakes. They're right to advise you, but worrying over it is kind of pointless. I actually think its good to make as many mistakes as early on as possible (with some specific exceptions), because you have to make mistakes to learn from them.

If your parents are empty-nesting, and talks with them haven't helped, the best thing to do would be just to bide your time, and work extra hard until you can get out of there. Living with your parents always has strings attached, and you just have to deal with them. Is getting a second job to speed things up an option? Sticking around there isn't doing you or them any good. It's preventing both you and them from living your lives. You from starting yours, and them from figuring out how to end theirs. Until you are moved out, they won't learn how to cope with an empty house. One thing you might want to throw out there to help minimize the nagging about your girlfriend is to explain to them that they are putting you into a position of being very uncomfortable living there, and making you want to move out before your really financially ready, which may land you exactly where they don't want you: living with your girlfriend in her apartment. It is important to listen to their concerns about a hasty wedding. I'm sure you understand them, but ask them about their concerns and show them when you agree. This will let them know you recognize that their concerns are valid (if they are) to put their minds at ease, and let them know you will consider those things fully before you take the plunge, but also make it clear that the decision is yours, not theirs, and if there are mistakes to be made, their yours to make--and learn from. You might also explain to them that you plan on being with this woman for a very long time, whether you marry her or not, and that the nagging, overbearing way they are showing their concern is driving a wedge between them and her, which means, ultimately, a wedge between them and you. Point out to them that it would have been the same for them had their parents tried to interfere in their relationship, no matter how well-intended such interference is.

All things are property (or ownable, at any rate) by default. It is rights that remove humans from the mix.

Besides that, Harry Binswanger has indicated that in private conversations years later, Miss Rand acknowledged the inadequacy of that view and said that she could not say for sure that all homosexuality was immoral, and that a lot more work needed to be done. I don't have a reference for HB; it comes second hand to me from someone who I think got it from HBL.

Not speaking for Dave--well maybe a little: You could put it as "recognizing a fact," informally, but technically what you are doing is identifying an existent, and then giving it the epistemological status of fact. Do you have a copy of ItOE? If so, check the appendix for Ayn Rand's discussion of "fact." They are concepts. Specifically, they are concepts of method. They are non-physical, like all concepts. Although they have a relationship with the physical brain, they are not themselves physical. The following reasoning (which you used): 1. The brain is physical. 2. Concepts are made up of physical phenomena in the brain. 3. Therefore, concepts are physical. is the Fallacy of Composition.

I don't have the where and when, but what she actually said was that it "involves a sort of psychological immorality." Also, it was an answer to an on-the-spot question, and later, she said that homosexuality involves a heapload of psychological issues and that it is improper to make a judgment one way or the other until one fully understands the psychology.b

Which traits? All of them? This breaks the rule of scope--it's too wide.

I've never considered this before. I'm interested in your reasons.

You might like to read this essay in progress by Betsy Speicher.

I have a hypothesis that the Judaeo-Christian morality has a lot to do with the kind of misintegration of Objectivism that's so common at the beginning. Not the concretes (altruism), but the principle behind it (intrincisism). The traditional Christian morality has gotten so entrenched in Western culture that morality, to most people, means: a dogma of rules restricting action. Even for those who weren't raised Christian, it's in the culture. I haven't listened to Understanding Objectivism (yet), but I'd be interested to know if Peikoff says anything about it. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find some reference in the DIM Hypothesis, either.