Cogito

(sic.) Someone thinks not

If I didn't know the context of the quote being searched I'd say you were being quite rude

Well, my bags are packed, I'm ready to go... Today's the day! I've got a few things to finish up around here, then I'm getting on the 16:00 New Century Travel Chinatown Bus and heading to my new home!

Just read it... Great work! How much time did you spend on this?

Hi all, I just found this site http://www.goodsearch.com. Essentially, it allows you to select a charity, then half of the ad revenue from each search (powered by Yahoo, unfortunately) goes to that charity. ARI is on the list! This is a good way to do what you do anyway (search the internet) and support the spread of Objectivism through our culture at the same time. Make sure you type in which organization you're searching for and click verify before you actually search for anything.

Welcome, Kat! What sort of exposure have you had to Objectivism?

Hi all, Last night, my family recieved some terrible news: My 75 year old grandmother was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. The tumor is 4 cm and has spread to the liver, making it stage IVb. We do not have a full prognosis yet, and tests are still being done. Right now we are trying to contact everyone we know for information, which is why I am posting here. If you have any information regarding this or similar illnesses, especially treatment, it would be greatly appreciated. Also, my grandmother, who is otherwise very healthy and has had no previous major health issues, has been taking a very negative view toward this situation, convinced she is going to die in two months before we have any timeline at all, and thus any stories about survival, even for a year, would be very helpful. I will be checking this topic regularly, or you can contact me at [email protected]. Thanks in advance.

Well, I'm a theatre kid, so this list is going to be long... Les Miserables (by far my favorite two cds) Rent the musical (the movie soundtrack wasn't good at all) Wicked Hairspray Lion King the musical Lion King the movie Little Mermaid the movie (Ariel was my first crush and I think this has something to do with that) Les Miserables (it's that good) Avenue Q And there are probably many more that I'm forgetting. Already rememberd one: Star Wars. Duh.

Wow, Mimpy! That's amazing. Kudos and Congratulations and Kol HaKavod and Yaasher Koach! (you can get from context what the last two mean ) I can't wait to read your essay... Maybe it will give me tips for the AS one I plan to write for this fall

I can't believe you didn't

I have read through the entire book and I've been up since 9 am yesterday, so this is the end of my random babble so far.

In an off-the-top-of-my-head thought, I would say valid means "proper to a certain purpose", where the some-but-any rule applies to the purpose. In this sense, the senses are a valid form of cognition, i.e. using the senses does give true knowledge of reality. In this sense, the senses are not valid forms of, say, cooking, because, as we all know, watching a pot does not make it boil. Are concepts valid is not a valid question (not a proper to the purpose of asking for information) because it is unanswerable is it stands. Some concepts are valid as a means of cognitive economy and representation of reality (and for quite a bit of other stuff, check ItOE), some are not, and no concepts are valid as a means of directly influencing reality. The way to determine if a concept is valid is to check if it has actual referents in reality (not the plural of referents... at least two. In this sense, "universe" is not a concept but a proper noun). punk's explanation is not valid in the sense of being a proper way to answer your question, but it is valid as an example of the rationalism that has infected modern philosophy.

I can point to a concrete existent that supports his accusation of falseness *Cogito points at Cogito's self. Only one example is needed to disprove a statement of "full unanimity". I think I posted something to that effect on this very thread. Edit: I should take my own implicit advice and read the whole thread before responding. I'll leave this to Diana and Betsy.

What implications does this have for your chatroom romance, I wonder?

Well, I am unable to speak for others, but I am a member and infrequent poster on The FORUM and I don't think you're a vicious, nasty, horrid nobody of a non-intellectual who has never accomplished any good whatsoever, I just think you're involved in a personal dispute that has, at times, gotten out of control on both sides. I admit that I am unaware of your work other than your occasional blog post that is picked up by Meta-Blog (most of which I enjoy and agree with), but based on the character and content of your writing (when it isn't related to this particularly sore subject) and the fact that you are preparing an intro to philosophy course, I feel safe in saying that you are, in fact, an intellectual, and moreover one who is batting for the right team, which is certainly accomplishing good. So there is at least one FORUM member who doesn't hold those views, and it is nowhere in FORUM policy to hold those views. From what I've seen of your postings (again, outside this particular issue), I would find it to be of great value to meet and discuss with you at any future conference, but of course if you wish not to I will abide by that wish. WARNING: THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT WILL BE PUT FORWARD WITHOUT SUPPLYING THE EVIDENCE (THOUGH IT DOES EXIST) I would submit that there are more people than just me who don't hold those views, many of whom are regular, well-known members of The FORUM. I do not, however, want to go into a back and forth of who said what and what that means about that person's character, nor do I want to go into speculation about how anybody besides me feels about anything, so I am deliberately not going to support that submission.

In fairness to The FORUM (where I freely admit I am a member), none of the quoted statements represent a "vicious attack on Dr. Peikoff or other Objectivist intellectuals", but rather an attack of one of Dr. Peikoff's ideas. Not a moral judgement or disparaging remark, but a (imnsho honest) disagreement with a complex philosophical statement. People here have disagreed with me or with statements with which I agree, and yet no one could say that I have been attacked. The exceptions to my above statement are the "bullying" comment and the "purposeful manipulation" comment, which, while I think went a bit far, especially the one attributing malicious motives to Dr. Peikoff, were still only referring to that one statement and not an attack on Dr. Peikoff himself. I would also like to add that there are examples of those who support Dr. Peikoff's statement on The FORUM, and statements here which, if I recall correctly, suggest, among other things, that Dr. Peikoff's statement was due to his age and his probable senility, which were far more out of line than any of the quoted FORUM posts. I would finally like to add that disagreement with a satement of Dr. Peikoff does not imply disagreement with his character or status, disagreement with Objectivism, disagreement with ARI, irrationality, or dishonesty. While I do not like to speak for others, I think it is safe to say based on his position, the philosophy he represents, and his previous statements that Dr. Peikoff would rather those who weren't convinced by his statement remain against it until and unless they honestly accepted it rather than following it blindly (not that I am implying that anybody who agrees with it has done that). I would like to end this lengthy post by requesting that people judge the facts for themselves, provide evidence when making claims, and, except in the face of overwhelming evidence, attack individual ideas, not individuals (and even with the overwhelming evidence, a forum post about a specific topic, say ''the coming election'', is not a place for personal attacks, even if Kant himself drops by to give his two cents).

I've got a good one... The summer before ninth grade, I learned how to play volleyball beyond the level of "lets smack the ball randomly and hope it goes over", and I fell in love. The next spring, I tried out for my school's volleyball team, but didn't make it, and with good reason because I was hardly any good. The next year, I practiced quite a bit before tryouts, then went to the first tryout. The second one, however, was during a doctor's appointment, which I told the coach and he said it was ok because there would be a third. There was no third, and had I known that I would've rescheduled the doctor's appointment, but I didn't make the team. This past school year, however, I put serious effort into practicing before hand and in the tryouts themselves, and I made it. I started off as a bench player, but by the end of the year I was being put in at key moments, especially when the other setters started faltering or we needed a good serve (my best skill). After the last game, the coach pulled me aside and told me that he wished I had been able to come to the second tryout the last year, and that he was very glad to have me on the team. Two weeks later, at our school's sports banquet, I got the Coaches Award

Happy birthday, buddy... Tell me, what's it like being an adult?

I actually got introduced to Rand's ideas through Goodkind too. Had no idea he was an Objectivist until long after I read all of Rand's stuff, though. I thought it was a coincidence that my two favorite writers had similar ideas:)

These are very valid objections to the results of the survey.

Sure you did. The location and state of all of the particles within the reverse light-cone of your mind as you made your decision to do so determined it . They also made you miss the 't in can't.

What is the referent of "such a thing" in that sentence? Free will or bound will?

I sure hope not. There would have to be at least one other private company or building too, or else what fires would there be to put out?

I was never taught Rand in class, but the other day in the book store I saw AS on the "Summer Reading" table, so someone must be teaching it.

What evidence did you use to arrive at the conclusion that Optimus Prime was altruistic? Was it the TV show you never saw? The movie you never watched? Or was it the made-up scenario in which not just Section 7, but the whole planet was responsible for kidnapping Bumble-Bee? Because, guess what, Optimus Prime is not in fact altruistic. He is responsible, and therefore will do everything in his power to make sure that the humans don't suffer for things they didn't do. But, of course, if you saw the movie, you could judge this for yourself. If you don't want to see the movie, that's all right, there are tons of movies I never get around to seeing, but don't make up a baseless reason not to do so.