knast

Everybody, newcomers as well as "old-timers", should feel welcome to discuss Objectivism, philosophy, horses, women, or whatever they want. Unfortunately many newcomers leave the chat, never to return, because they have been badly treated or because it sometimes just seems impossible to have a civilized discussion. Therefore we need some basic rules. The premise for my rules is: what promotes a civilized discussion? What is a civilized discussion? It is a benevolent and polite discussion. Not necessarily a *rational* discussion, a discussion where everybody only say true things or make rational arguments. It is true that in any heated discussion people will get emotional and they will therefore say things that hurt other people's emotions. This is a natural part of any discussion. I will, within reason, show tolerance for this. So far there is only one rule: • No trolling. What is it? To write things *for the sole purpose of provoking people*; things to make people mad, sad, hurt, offended, etc. To merely say something that some people *may* find provoking is not enough. Example: "Why are all of you Objectivists cultists? Can't you think independently?" vs "Premise 1, 2 and 3. Therefore are you irrational." The former comment is obviously made for the purpose of provoking. This will not be tolerated. The latter comment may offend, but it was not said for the purpose of offending anybody. Remember also that it is virtually impossible to say anything without offending somebody. This will, therefore, be tolerated. Do not worry. There will be room for jokes and humorous comments. Context will determine how these rules apply. For the sake of simplicity I will try to limit the number of rules as much as possible. I hope there will never be more than three simple rules. Those who break the rules will get kicked. If you repeatedly, over a long period of time, break the rules, when it is obvious that you are just a troll and nothing else, then you will be banned. If you got any objections to the rules, then please let me know.

A very good and intelligent question. You can think of it like this: For something to be a value to you, it has to make some difference to you whether you gain or keep it. Now, for whatever thing you consider you can always ask this question: What difference does it make? Now, take your life. What difference does it make whether you live or die? If you realize that this difference make "all the difference", that nothing would make any difference to you one way or another, if you died, then you realize that it is because you, as a living being, face this basic alternative between life or death that things ultimately matter to you, one way or another. Now, what about the immortal and indestructible robot? It is good that you recognize the robot is not the argument. The robot is an illustration of what happens when you remove the basic alternative between life and death. Now, in fact, nothing could make any difference to the immortal and indestructible robot. Nothing. After all, what difference does it make whether it has a clock or not? Whether it eats something or not? Whether it reads the news or not? Study economics? Make a living or not? Whether it finds a sexy female robot or not? Whether it has a "good time" or not? None of it makes, in the end, any difference to this entity. It does however make a real difference to humans; it makes our lives better or worse. The immortal robot has no ends, no values, no goals because it has no survival needs, because nothing literally makes any difference for or against it. It does not have any physical needs nor any psychological needs. Now, what about the fact that you can imagine the robot wanting all sorts of things? That means nothing. Imagination is not reasoning. A fantasy is not an argument. So it does not matter what you can imagine. You can imagine whatever you want and it would not mean anything or prove anything. The fact that you can imagine something does not make it logically possible. I can, for instance, imagine that I can fly if I flap my arms, yet in reality that is logically impossible. Imagination does not change the facts. The facts are that it is only for living beings things matter, one way or another, because something is ultimately at stake for them, namely their lives. What about the idea that the robot can value some things as "an end in itself", such as allegedly knowledge or wealth? Can the robot not value something even if it does not make any difference to it or not? This idea implies intrinsicism. But intrinsicism is false from start to finish; intrinsic values are impossible and nonsensical. That is why they are impossible to prove; there are no facts in reality that gives rise to any "intrinsic values". (How do you _know_ something is good if it is not good for anybody or for any purpose?) Values presuppose a valuer. Intrinsicism denies this. Yet to talk about values without valuers is to steal the concept value. So the whole proposition is a contradiction. For a longer and more thorough elaboration on all this, and more, I refer you to Don Watkins: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=8254&view=findpost&p=95797 One more suggestion to get over your troubles with the robot: stop anthropomorphize the robot. I think the reason some people have a hard time getting over the fact that the robot, or any other thing similar to it, such as a "stone with arms and legs", cannot value anything, is because they automatically assume the things is like a human. It is not.

I agree with everything CS says. I have nothing against being a moderator in the chat, if the majority of the chatters think that would be a good idea. There should, obviously, be some explicit rules so people know what can get them into trouble. Whoever the moderator is, he or she should have _limited_ powers to stop trolls. This to minimize the risk that the moderator/moderators would abuse their power. Kicking for a day or hours should be enough. Banning is overkill and tragic if abused. (One suggestion: If the moderator is not around and somebody wants the moderator to act, then there must be objective evidence in the form of witnesses and quotes from the chat.)

I have been thinking about this and I have realized that it was as I suspected: I made a serious mistake in my thinking. I looked my at the words, not at what actually happens in reality. The basic CONFUSION (on my part) came out of this syllogism: Rand says that using a concept, to subsume a new instance under a concept, is in essence deduction. (This is true but as it turns out irrelevant.) Yet Peikoff says that we use and apply concepts to reach inductive generalizations. Therefore (this sounds like) we induce by deducing. But I have realized one thing (with the help of primarily Roderick Fitts). Namely that to merely use concepts to describe, conceptually, what you are observing is NOT a process of DEDUCTION. Example: If you merely look at an apple and you use concepts to identify what you are observing: "That's an apple." Then you are obviously NOT deducing anything. If you see fire burn paper and you use concepts to identify what you are observing by saying: "What do you know, fire burns paper." Then you are, again, NOT deducing anything. So to USE or APPLY a concept to DESCRIBE or IDENTIFY what you OBSERVE is NOT to deduce. There is no deducing going on here. In fact, as Grames says, this is indeed induction since it gives me NEW knowledge, not some implications of OLD knowledge. The NEW knowledge consist of the conceptual identification and integration of a causal factor. Now, ONCE you have conceptualized your observation and, therefore, generalized through a process of measurement omission, then you can say: "Fire burns paper. This is a fire. Therefore it (can) burn paper". Now you are indeed deducing. I.e., subsuming everything you know about fire to this new fire. But to do this, you first had to induce, by conceptualizing the observed causal connection by using concepts.

I am confused. In Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology Rand says that applying concepts is basically a process of deduction. I quote the Lexicon: "The process of forming and applying concepts contains the essential pattern of two fundamental methods of cognition: induction and deduction. "The process of observing the facts of reality and of integrating them into concepts is, in essence, a process of induction. The process of subsuming new instances under a known concept is, in essence, a process of deduction." http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/induction_and_deduction.html However, in The Logical Leap Peikoff-Harriman says that applying concepts is what makes a generalization, i.e., induction, possible. I think I understand this point. Let me quote The Logical Leap: "In *utilizing concepts* as his cognitive tools, he is thereby omitting the measurements of the particular causal connection he perceives. 'Fire' relates the yellow-orange flames he perceives to all such, regardless of their varying measurements; the same applies to 'paper' and to the process of 'burning.' Hence his first statement of his concrete observation: 'Fire burns paper.' This statement is simply a *conceptualization* of the perceived data-which is what makes it a generalization." What is "a conceptualization"? The book seems to define it as both the "the forming and *using* [of] concepts." And: "New instances are *conceptualized*, i.e., placed under the appropriate concept, as and when they are encountered." Induction is also described as the conceptulization process "in action". As opposed to deduction which takes for granted the product of this conceptualization. Let us now go back to the quote from Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: "The process of subsuming new instances under a known concept is, in essence, a process of deduction." So conceptualization, i.e., identifying something in conceptual terms, by applying the concepts, i.e., by placing new instances under the known concepts, is what makes possible the generalization. Yet the whole process is in essence a process of deduction, according to Rand. So if I understand _all of this_ correctly, then it SOUNDS like Peikoff is saying that deduction makes induction possible. And that sounds like pure nonsense. Especially since Peikoff-Harriman argues in the book, and elsewhere, convincingly that induction comes first. I also happen to think so. But if so, then it nevertheless leaves me confused. I am pretty sure _I_ am missing something. But I do not know what. Hence my frustration with myself. Any suggestions?

Thank you very much. That did clarify things for me!

Hey Grames, Thank you for the notes, very interesting. I have some questions, though, if you do not mind. Under the premise that this is a fair presentation of what Peikoff actually says then I have some issues that needs to be clarified. I understand that reality is one and that our knowledge therefore has to be one if it is to be objective, i.e., correspond to reality. I can therefore see the value and necessity of integration. However, you say that: "To grasp any item of knowledge fully implies the total of human knowledge." Later you add: "The totality of human knowledge is the context that makes any particular principle knowable." This SOUNDS like he, Peikoff, is saying that to know anything "fully" we have to know everything. But I doubt this is what he means because this SOUNDS like the coherence theory of knowledge and the idea that to know anything "fully" we have to be virtually omniscient. (Peikoff also seems to deal with this possible misinterpretation in the Q&A.) He does make one important distinction that I guess is suppose to preempt any such possible misinterpretation: "Nobody can be a universal scholar and know everything personally, it is sufficient to grasp the categories of knowledge implied in a vast hierarchy stretching across many centuries." And: "The totality of human knowledge is the context that makes any particular principle knowable. Every part of that totality was discovered and known by somebody but no one has ever known all of it or even most of it." So while I do not have to know everything myself I nevertheless has to know what _categories_ of knowledge that made possible any item of knowledge. Example: I personally do not have to know much about biology or evolution or human anatomy to know that modern medicine can cure me. But someone had to know about it for modern medicine to be possible. And I have to know that these fields exist and what they deal with in principle to ("fully") grasp why modern medicine works. Is this correct? If this is correct, then I think I might see what he is getting at. But even so, I have another problem. My problem is his particular example: "The plane will be two hours late." The problem is that I simply I cannot see why I have to know all the things he mention to grasp that "the plane from LA will be two hours late." I can see why we need to know some of it, but not all of it. I am not saying Peikoff is wrong, I am only saying I have a hard time seeing why I have to know, for instance, anything about food production. Why is this necessary to "fully" grasp that the plane is two hours late? I think I have a lead however. Earlier you said something that probably is essential to understand his example with the plane from LA. You said: "Any one advanced item of knowledge which is the product of division of labor and specialization is part of the total fabric of knowledge and makes the next step possible even if you don't know it yourself or even who grasped it initially." So for there to be planes, computers, telephones and all the other things Peikoff mentioned, we do not only have to know all the things he mention, but the things he mention must be there for the plane, computers, telephones, etc to be invented in the first place. Because if, for instance, people did not have the knowledge to produce enough food then there would not be any advance division of labor, and without that there would be no specialized thought or production, and without that there would be no way for man to to eventually invent things like planes, computers, telephones, etc. So Peikoff is not saying that I _personally_, who telephoned the airline, have to know how a telephone work or the science of physics. But this type of knowledge still had to be there for it all to be possible one day. Personally I "only" have to know that these fields of knowledge exist and what they in principle are about in order for me to integrate my knowledge properly. Is this what Peikoff is saying? If not, could you, Grames, then perhaps clarify?

I only aimed at giving the "skeleton".

"Do you need to share the same hierarchy/context for knowledge to actually communicate with someone about anything? Who can we actually communicate ideas with?" Let me first say that you have a very important discovery and you are absolutely right. To communicate ideas we have to think about context of the person you are dealing with. But we don't have to share more or less the same context to be able to communicate our ideas objectively to others. You have to know where is coming from and address his arguments and questions from that angle. We usually do this most of the time without thinking much about it. You don't talk the same way about economics to George Reisman as you would have when you talk to someone who does not know anything about economics. You don't talk, in general, the same way to children as you would have to adults. You recognize the difference of context and try to approach it differently; you ask different questions, give different examples, different amount of elaboration, etc. But when it comes to arguing for or against ideas it can be a good thing to think about this consciously. So here is my advice if you want to achieve (greater) objectivity when communicating with someone with another context: try to figure out why people hold certain views; what are their main arguments or premises. Think of how you can address these arguments or premises before you procede to argue for your point of view. Most of the time the reason they hold certain ideas will be obvious, but sometimes you have to ask them why they hold certain beliefs. Just ask them: "Why do you believe in X? What made you concerned about issue Y? What are your arguments?" Classical example: If you want to communicate the idea that environmentalism is evil to a person who have bought into the whole environmentalist craze, then the first step is not to say: "Well, environmentalism are haters of man because they are against the industrial revolution". This is true but the normal environmentalist will usually not have a clue of what you are talking about. If anything you will come across as a loony. It is way more common that they are environmentalists because they really believe that science have "proven" that there are serious environmental issues that we have to deal with. Thus the first thing to address is the issue of the alleged scientific case for environmental concerns. Show him how most if not all of the science is bad (the studies they refer to have weak statistical correlations, they almost always confuse correlation for causation, they don't recognize that the dose makes the poison, they don't recognize that what is poisonous for rodents is not necessarily poisonous for humans, they engage in the arbitrary when they argue for the precautionary principle, etc). Give him some examples to illustrate this point (e.g., DDT, the Alar scare, "the population bomb", the unscientific case against nuclear power). Refer him to some books on the issue. Once the main reason he bought into the environmentalist craze is undermined, he have a reason to start questioning his premises. Where you procede from here is up to you, but the point is that no matter what you do next, it is crucial to recognize the main reason someone bought into a certain idea and then give that idea a deadly blow. Another classical example: If you want to communicate the idea that altruism is wrong to a deeply religious Christian, then it does not matter one iota how many arguments you offer against altruism, because the reason he believes in altruism is because of his religious views. So the basic issue here is not altruism; it is whether God exists or not or even more fundamentally: faith vs reason. This is the issue you have to deal with, before you even attempt to argue against altruism with this guy. So what you do is that, on the premise that he is open for logic and reason in the first place, then you have to ask him why he believes in God.

Who have discovered it before her? I suspect many people have known about it at least implicitly for some time. But in any event, I have not heard of anybody who saw the implication of the explicit realization of this fact before Ayn Rand.

How to reduce the concept of "knowledge"? To know what facts give rise to this concept I must know what knowledge is. Ayn Rand defines knowledge as: "a mental grasp of fact(s) of reality, reached by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation". So what do we have to know to form the concept of knowledge? We have to know the difference between the two types of awareness of reality, namely perceptual and conceptual. We have to know of the process of reasoning. We have to know the concept of consciousness and reality. Are we at the perceptual level? Yes, more or less: all these concepts are either axiomatic, and thus perceptual, or very close. The distinction between perceptual and conceptual is not axiomatic, but once you have formed some concepts then you can introspectively observe the differences between your abstract ideas and your concrete percepts. (Plato discovered many such differences through introspective observations, e.g., concepts are general but percepts are particular, concepts are eternal but perceptual concretes can go out of existence, etc.) We can also form the concept of reasoning or thinking introspectively by observing what we are doing when we form concepts, generalize, make judgments, integrate, etc and contrast that to other mental actions, such as when we experience emotions or when we are trying to remember something. Reality or existence is an axiomatic concept. So is consciousness. It is therefore not necessary to reduce them. To _validate_ them only requires direct observation; that you open your eyes and look at reality. So this is were we begin.

If you are interested in validating Objectivism inductively then I recommend Objectivism Through Induction by Leonard Peikoff. That course blew me away. I was about to recommend Peikoff's Induction in Physics and Philosophy, but since The Logical Leap is out now, I see no reason for that. I have read parts of The Logical Leap in The Objective Standard. I think it will be an awesome book, I think you will get a lot of "bang for your buck".

Observation: Most superheroes spend their time saving other people in need. They believe it is their moral duty to do it. Their own happiness is not that important. This is altruism. Observation: Most people know that moral perfection is not possible if altruism is the ideal because that would entail that you commit suicide or at the very least spend your time suffering while sacrificing yourself for others. If altruism is the ideal, then you would have to be a "superman" to be able to practice it. Why should a superman care to be an altruist? There is no rational answer to this question, just like there is no rational answer to this question when it comes to us mortals. It is just assumed that since they are the strong they should sacrifice for the weak (the normal in need). This is essentially an expression of egalitarianism; the total opposite of justice. This reflect the conventional morality. It also reflects the total perversion of justice made possible by the morality of altruism and egalitarianism.

That's false. Ayn Rand did NOT deduce her philosophy from the axioms. Not only did she not do it, it cannot be done even if you tried to. To see this for yourself just try to deduce the fact that reason is man's basic means of survival, or that man have rights, or that selfishness is right, or that honesty is a virtue, or any other idea from the fact that A is A (or any other philosophical axiom). If you try then you will discover that it cannot be done. It is impossible. A is A only says that whatever exist, it is what it is. It does not say what there is out there, what man's nature is, how man survive, if man have rights, if there even are any rights, etc. The truth is that Ayn Rand INDUCED, with few exceptions, her philosophy. See for details: Understanding Objectivism, Objectivism Through Induction, Induction in Physics and Philosophy.

The basic question is: "So, did Ayn Rand present sufficient evidence to justify her psychological and historical claims?" Yes. Absolutely. As a writer you have to assume some knowledge on part of your reader. Some of her articles were written for an Objectivist audience. A few of her articles were written for people with specialized knowledge of philosophy, history, psychology or some and other special science. Most of her articles were written for the intelligent and knowledgeable layman. I have noticed that some articles I read years ago only make sense now when I know much more than I used to. That's why it is important to "spiraling" as Rand and Peikoff called it. That is you go back to the old issues you have dealt with before but now you read it in light of an expanded context. All of a sudden you will see things you did not notice before; the importance of some formulations you earlier did not understand, new implications you did not consider before. Whatever you see, you will see it clearer and with a greater understanding. Ayn Rand did not always give the "complete proof". But that is a problem any writer faces; you can only say so much given the time and space you've set out for yourself and your audience. (Many of her articles were speeches that she gave under time restrictions.) But even when she could not offer the "complete proof" or validation of some idea or claim, she always offered some evidence, in terms of essentials, to clearly _indicate_ where one can look for further proof on your own and what type of observations would constitute proof of her claims. You have to validate and prove Objectivism on your own. Ayn Rand gives you many suggestions on how you can do this: look for more examples on your own of the type that Ayn Rand have indicated and where Ayn Rand have indicated; reduce crucial concepts and principles back to the perceptual level so you can see, with your own eyes, that these concepts and principles are, indeed, based on the facts of reality; integrate everything you learn with everything else you know and everything else you learn (e.g., economics, psychology, history). Ayn Rand can fairly be accused of one thing: She did not spoon-feed her readers. You have to do some thinking on your own. Ayn Rand did not seek out blind "followers." She never wanted you to take her on faith. She wanted you to see the truth with your own eyes. (Ayn Rand offered on many occasions, explicitly and implicitly, many suggestions on how they you can go about to do this. See for instance Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. In addition to this Leonard Peikoff have held at least two courses with the purpose to help you prove Objectivism inductively, namely Understanding Objectivism and Objectivism Through Induction.) I will not comment the specific claims being made here. In part for reasons I have already mentioned. In part because some if not all of the accusations here rest on a false premise; the false premise that philosophy is dependent on the special sciences and not the other way around. What is a philosophical question and what is a "scientific" question? A philosophical question is a question about the _fundamental_ nature of reality, man and his relationship to reality. When we say that a question is scientific that is not to imply that philosophy is unscientific. It is only to make a distinction about the fundamental science, namely philosophy, and the special sciences. Philosophy does not deal with the nature of physics or with animals or rocks or layers of dirt or DNA or computers. It deals with the fundamental questions about reality: What is reality? (Metaphysics.) It does not deal with the specific claims within any special science, such as whether the theory of evolution is true or false or whether the general theory of relativity is true or false. No, it deals with the fundamental questions about knowledge: How do you know? Can we know? What is truth? (Epistemology.) The answer to these, and other fundamental philosophical questions, constitute the precondition of every single claim to knowledge. To concretize the relationship between philosophy and the special sciences, just ask yourself the following questions: What is the point of making experiments to determine the nature of things and to discover, for instance a cure for cancer, if reality is not an absolute, if what is true today may not be true tomorrow? What is the point of making any observations if our senses are invalid? Unreliable? If everything is an illusion? And why use reason, if there is no objective basis for our concepts or generalizations? Given this very clear distinction, is it a question for any specialized science whether man have "innate ideas" or "instincts"? No. Whether emotions are the products of your ideas, knowledge and values? No. The basic philosophical truths do not rest on specialized scientific knowledge. It is specialized scientific knowledge that rest on philosophy. "All" you need to _prove_ both claims is to, primarily, engage in introspection and then integrate these observations with everything else you know, including observations of how of other men react all different to the same facts, the only difference being that they have different ideas, values and knowledge.

This is not really a reply to ctrl_y, but a comment to those few who have a hard time seeing through his reasoning. Ctrl_y asks: "s that (choosing all actions and values by one's own thought) actually a good idea?" This is means: Is it good to _always_ go by reason, even when it comes to _all_ your values and actions? Well. What is the alternative? Only thinking _sometimes_? When one _feels_ like it? You see, in the end, the only alternative is emotionalism. And since this is a matter of principle, is there no room for compromise. It is either reason or emotionalism: faith, feeling, intuition, whim, etc. Now, ctrl_y, as usual, grasps at straws to make a point. But, as expected, he fails. He claims that maybe thinking all the time is no good nor necessary because Eddie Willers liked the Bible. But even if Eddie Willers actually liked the Bible, that would not prove that it is good to not think _all the time_. If he does not like the Bible, then ctrl_y:s use of him as an example is meaningless and one wonders why he even brings it up in the first place. In fact, ctrl_y knows that it is irrelevant to his point. He even admits as much: "Rand might even deny it. But it makes sense, either way". So all of this is irrelevant. Then he makes the point that non-thinking can perhaps be OK because there are, still, some values in popular culture and some knowledge in the conventional wisdom that we can rely on. But this is a non-sequitur. There is no excuse to stop thinking, not even "once in a while", merely because you can find something of value in the popular culture or some real knowledge in the conventional wisdom. How do you know what is of value in popular culture? How do you know what is knowledge in the conventional wisdom? To properly evaluate that, you still need to do some thinking. He finally makes the strange argument that maybe thinking all the time is no good because if you think all the time then you might end up with opinions that goes against the mainstream. And to go against mainstream can be hard. It can be tough. It demands that you can stand your ground. That you have integrity. And even if the majority does not oppose you, thinking is nevertheless hard. Some, he claim, may not be able to take it. They may "crash and burn". I don't see any real evidence for that. (The only people I know who have "crashed and burned" are people who never did a lot of thinking in the first place. Some even claimed to understand Objectivism, but once you scratched the surface it turns out they do not know even the basics and they never made any real attempt to grasp it. No wonder, they had a hard time dealing with other people. They cannot stand their ground, if they do not know why it is right for them to stand their ground. Integrity presuppose real convictions. Real convictions presuppose knowing your ideas and values are true and right. It presuppose thinking.) So, granted, it is hard to think and it can be hard to go against the mainstream. That is true, but so what? The alternative is no easier and no better. If the majority wants to jump off a cliff, is it then "hard" to think all the time, and choose one's values and actions by one's own thinking, rather than go with the flow and jump off the cliff along with the others? You have to think to know this is not a good idea. So what if that makes you impopular. Popularity is not important. Neither is taking the "easy way out" by being mainstream. The real question is not: Is it good to think all the time, even when it comes to choosing your values and actions. No, the REAL question is: Why is this issue important to ctrl_y? Let me "speculate" about ctrl_y:s motive: Because he wants an excuse to be irrational. At least from time to time. If so, then it is unspeakably low that he uses Eddie Willers, of all the good characters in Atlas Shrugged, to rationalize this evil desire of his.

WARNING THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILERS. ctrl_y wrote: "On nearly every page, there is some touch that whispers 'even if you reach your highest ambitions, you are nothing but a maggot and a parasite on the truly moral.'" So ctrl_y:s "highest ambitions" leaves him with the feeling that he is "a maggot" and "a parasite on the truly moral people"? If so, then maybe it is time for him to reconsider the nature of his "highest ambitions"? I cannot help but wonder what could have given anybody the impression that Objectivism is only for "human gods" or something like that. It is not true. Your moral worth does not rest your intelligence. There is nothing in Atlas Shrugged to suggest that. What is important is not your level of knowledge or intelligence. It is whether you use your knowledge and intelligence to the best of your ability. "Moral perfection is an unbreached rationality—not the degree of your intelligence, but the full and relentless use of your mind, not the extent of your knowledge, but the acceptance of reason as an absolute." (Atlas Shrugged.) There are many good characters in Atlas Shrugged, moral people, who are not extraordinarily intelligent. Now Ayn Rand writes about the Pyramid of Ability in Atlas Shrugged. This is her answer to those who say that there is a conflict of interest between the (intellectually) strong and the (intellectually) weak. It is, however, clear from the book as a whole, from John Galt's speech in particular, and from simply observing the facts of reality, that the strong gain from the weak and that the weak gain from the strong: "It is the value of his own time that the strong of the intellect transfers to the weak, letting them work on the jobs he discovered, while devoting his time to further discoveries. This is mutual trade to mutual advantage; the interests of the mind are one, no matter what the degree of intelligence, among men who desire to work and don’t seek or expect the unearned." (Atlas Shrugged.) To be (intellectually) weak is, as we have seen, _not_ a moral flaw. It is simply a fact. (Observe that babies are helpless. They need the stronger, their parents, to survive. Does this mean that babies are worthless, immoral, parasites who should feel ashamed of themselves? No.) A person of low intelligence who have no desire to think, does not think, does not take personal responsibility, does not attempt to be the best person he can be for the sake of his own happiness, he should feel bad about himself. A person of low intelligence, with great dreams and ambitions given his context, who take active steps to achieve them, who wants to be the best person he can for the sake of his own happiness is, according to Ayn Rand, a moral hero: "By the grace of reality and the nature of life, man—every man—is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose." (The Virtue of Selfishness.) The weak do, however, gain more from the strong: "The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains. Such is the nature of the “competition” between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of “exploitation” for which you have damned the strong." (Atlas Shrugged.) This is not controversial. The weakest would have a hard time to survive without the thinking of the strong. Without the thinkers who invents new drugs (e.g., the inventors of penicillin), many who today survive would die. Without the the thinkers who invents new ways to produce food (e.g., Norman Borlaug), many who survive today would be dying of starvation. Also observe how life is in countries where the (intellectually) strong have no chance because they have no freedom. Look at the standard of living there. Look at how miserable life is there. Or study history and observe how life was before the men of the mind was liberated in the 18th and 19th century here in the West. What is the moral implication of all of this? If you really understand what this means, then you should feel an enormous gratitude towards the men of ability. I do. I have not invented anything that I use daily for my own benefit. Businessmen, inventors, philosophers, scientists such as Steve Jobs, Isaac Newton, Aristotle, Thomas Edison, among many others have all made my life better. Consequently I feel an enormous gratitude for the men of ability; the thinkers and creators. I remind myself of this fact every day I use a computer, iPod, printer, microwave oven, cell phone, my inexpensive eye glasses that I bought over the Internet, and million other things. I do not take the thinkers or the creators and their achievements for granted. If you can clearly see the value and importance of the men of ability in your own life, then you should to.

You are baffling to me. The alleged message you talk about is not in the book at all. Not even implicitly. The problem is that you are reading into things which are not there objectively speaking. This makes me wonder if we have even read the same book. If we have read the same book, then I suspect that this is a sense of life issue, but if so then I cannot help you. I can however tell you that you have no reason to mock people who love Atlas Shrugged merely because your basic view of the world is the complete opposite to Ayn Rand's and mine and millions of others. Not only because I think our sense of life is sound (and the complete opposite sense of life is not), but also because one's sense of life is not under one's direct volitional control to change. Another possibility is that you have some serious self-esteem issues. If one misunderstands Objectivism then this can cause some serious problems. Objectivism says you should NOT let others achievements, intelligence or ability be the standard for your own self-worth. So if you believe you must be like John Galt in terms of intelligence, ability, achievements, to be a morally perfect person, then you're gravely mistaken. There is also the possibility that you dislike all the "dinunciations" in the book because they hit close to home in philosophical terms. If so, then you should check your premises instead of mocking those who love Atlas Shrugged. The reason most people, millions of them (me and other _adults_ included), get inspired are many. The main reason it has inspired me is its concretization of the idea that you have a right to live for your own rational happiness sake, i.e., its concretization of rational egoism. That is one of the most _morally_ and _psychologically_ empowering ideas I have ever been introduced to. Whenever people, intellectuals and politicians wants to push me around, Atlas Shrugged have convinced me of my right to exist for my own sake. That they have no right to take my life, my values, my property or my freedom away from me. Hank Rearden's speech in his own defense is wonderful in this respect. The book also presents a philosophical defense for reason as man's basic means of survival and rationality as the primary virtue. It is therefore a celebration of man - the rational animal - at his best. Who cannot get at least _some_ inspiration from this? It's been almost ten years since I first read Atlas Shrugged. I've read it a couple of more times since then. I have often read it when I've felt really bad, when I have been depressed (usually over the state of the culture). To escape into the wonderful world of Atlas Shrugged, to meet all these inspiring heroes again and relive their electrifying moral struggle, is and have always been an exhilarating experience for me. I go from depressed to energized. I know the same is true for millions of others who read the book. As a matter of fact, I think I will soon read Atlas Shrugged again.

I have studied Objectivism for about ten years. I have heard plenty of objections. I myself had plenty of objections and questions when I first encountered Objectivism. And I still get plenty of objections and questions from others. I love objections and questions, intelligent and honest ones. So do not make any assumptions about me nor for that matter about anybody else. I do, however, not find any pleasure in answering really bad and ridiculous objections. I think it is a pure waste of time. It is good to play the Devil's advocate if you seek a good understanding of Objectivism. That is, to present the BEST arguments against one's position and to answer them. Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff have both argued that you should engage in this. I have done that and most serious students of Objectivism do it to for the same reason; if you cannot answer the best case from the Devil then you have to check your premises and see if you can come up with an answer or, if they turn out to be false, drop them. There is another value of being able to answer the best arguments of the Devil; not only will you discover that your ideas are true, if you can defend them, and that the ideas of your opponent are false. Another value is that your clarity of thought will also improve. You can only communicate clearly what you really understand. So if you manage to answer good arguments, then you will get a clearer understanding of your own ideas and this, in turn, will allow you to answer other objections and questions with even greater clarity.

I see no reason to refute people who do not have the slightest clue of what they are talking about. Example: accusing Ayn Rand of subjectivism because she, correctly, says that you can only judge reality using your reason and that reality is the standard of truth and false. This criticism is dishonest and makes no sense. If this is "subjectivism", what is then not subjectivism? And this is what I found in the very first sentences of this nonsensical mess of lies and contradictions. I will not engage it. There is no reason. I submit that any honest and knowledgeable observer can see for himself that this makes no sense and is dishonest. It is a prerequisite for a rational discussion that you know your subject and that you do not intentionally engage in bizarre misinterpretations, the arbitrary or outright straw man-attacks. If you have read OPAR, which you claim you have, then you should easily be able to spot all the obvious fallacies and distortions in these futile and silly attacks on Ayn Rand and Objectivism.

None of this is relevant to the fundamental point I made in my post. (Also, even if you ignore my point or simply misunderstand it, which is why you do not even attempt to address it, none of these points suggest the existence of a God of any kind.)

Is Deism compatible with Objectivism? No. Why? Because, if you think about this issue in terms of fundamentals, then you will quickly discover that Deism amounts to the primacy of consciousness. Since the primacy of consciousness violates every single basic philosophic axiom and is false, Deism is therefore also false for the very same reasons. There is really nothing more that needs to be said. Furthermore, I find it very interesting that some people insist on believing in something for which there is not a shred of evidence and never will be (because according to the very false premises of Deism nothing in this causally orderly universe suggests God, and there is no need for any God to explain, prove or understand anything). Even when they know that this supposed God would make no practical difference in their own life whatsoever. Since there are no facts that suggest the existence of any God, since there are no logical reasons to believe in God, and since Deism suggests that God makes no difference in your own life, this strongly suggests that this is a matter of WANTING to believe in something regardless of the facts of reality, i.e., of putting one's emotions above reality. It therefore seems to me that Deism is a rationalization for those who for some emotional reason still want to cling on to the belief in God. The reason to strongly suspect that it is a rationalization is the very fact that this belief in God makes no difference in their life except on a emotional level (they have some emotional connection to the idea of God that they, for some reason, cannot let go of). Deism is not compatible with reality or reason. It is not compatible with Objectivism. Check your premises.

Atheism means only one thing: that you do not believe in God. It says nothing about what you actually believe in. For instance, it does not imply that you believe in evolution or in ex nihilo creation (i.e., that the world was created, somehow, out of nothing). Therefore this is a "straw man" argument against atheism. (Google straw man if you do not know what that is.) It is, therefore, not a refutation of atheism. It is, however, a good refutation of the belief in a creation ex nihilo. Ex nihilo creation makes no sense. There is no reason to believe that there was nothing and then, somehow, all of a sudden something came out of this nothing. The rational position is that existence is and have been and always will be. Which means: the universe, i.e., the sum of all that exists, is eternal.

What we have here are basically three questions: 1. What is the relationship between Pragmatism and abduction? 2. What is the relationship between scientific realism and abduction? 3. Can abduction be valid? Can it be justified on rational grounds? I will let C S Peirce, the founder of Pragmatism and the original proponent of abduction, answer the first question: Source: http://www.textlog.de/7658.html For an elaboration see, for instance, here: http://books.google.com/books?id=W5JTAizNQ...tism&f=true As for the second question, I have noticed that scientific realists use "the argument to the best explanation", i.e., abduction, to argue for realism. But it is one thing to use this argument for this purpose and to use it to come up with good scientific hypotheses as such. It is also one thing to use it within the originally Pragmatic context and another thing to use it outside of that context. To defend scientific realism on the grounds of abduction is, within the context of modern philosophy, a bad idea because, among other things, the invoking of the arbitrary is an accepted practice among the moderns. This means, within in the modern context, that abduction will never give us "the truth", but only "the best truth" available. Something pragmatic minded people might settle for, but proper realists would not. Also, the fantastic "arguments" of many anti-realists against realism indicates how dangerous it is. Now, is there a sense in which abduction could be considered valid? Yes. If you define abduction as a method of coming up with good hypotheses and nothing else, then within the context of a rational philosophy, i.e., a philosophy that, among other things, do not allow for the arbitrary, i.e., Objectivism, then it might be viewed as something entirely rational and good. Objectivism, obviously, has nothing against abduction, i.e., the creation of good hypotheses. I would like to add that from what I have read, Peikoff does give a good explanation for why abduction, in this sense, works. His explanation is that we, as scientists, do not start out as babies. We have an enormous context of knowledge, consisting of many first level generalizations. This is what guides us when we form our hypotheses and design our experiments. I quote from David Harriman's essay "Induction and Experiment Method": http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues...ntal-method.asp But induction is, according to the moderns, at best not reliable and at worst invalid. And some moderns use the very fact that we have this context of knowledge, as an argument against induction. Thus the only thing that could ever make abduction, the creation of good hypotheses, valid is rejected by the modern mainstream philosophers. Thus if you want abduction to make sense, to work, you can only make it happen within the context of a rational philosophy, i.e., Objectivism.