lex_aver

What is this "identity"? The way you're talking about it makes me think about Plato's forms, but clearly this isn't what you mean. And how do you define similarity of entities? The only way I can think about is by seeing how many attributes they have in common, but then your argument becomes circular - that is, if you can even define what it means for two entities to have an attribute in common without treating attributes as predicates. This is just one example, consider "this lava is hot" and "this lava is in Europe". Your argument doesn't apply in this case. Also, I asked about difference between attributes if we consider them unique to entities, I can't see how your argument would address that.

Vik, you may disagree, but for now it's my method of choice. You don't have to participate in this discussion if you don't want to. Nicky, your animus is amusing.

Vik, it's most definitely not in any library in driving distance

sNerd, are "folk meanings" really enough? Rand was claiming to have an axiomatic system capable of justifying laissez-faire capitalism, yet people can honestly disagree on what they mean. Doesn't it concern you? Doesn't it warrant some elucidation of these basic concepts?

Vik, I don't want to give money to people who may spend them on furthering Rand's political agenda. And she's a terrible non-fiction writer (as I can see from the lexicon quotations), so I don't want to subject myself to slogging through hundreds of pages of her writing while I have better things to read.

That at least something exists. Descartes said: "cogito ergo sum". Rand said: "Sum, cogito". I'll elaborate a bit. It seems that treating attributes as predicates implies that they exist independently of existents. For example, consider a sentence "our sun is hot, and this area of lava is hot". Are the two instances of "hot" here referring to the same attribute? Suppose that "hot" in the above sentence refers to the same attribute for both sun and lava. Then "hot" doesn't seem to depend on either one of these existents. It may in some way depend on all existents it's applicable to, but not a single one in particular. Suppose now that "hot" refers to different attributes for sun and lava. Now, let's introduce another attribute of lava: "liquid". Consider the following sentences: "lava is hot", and "lava is liquid". Is there a difference between them? It seems not: both these attributes are unique for lava, so I can't see any distinction one can draw between them. The problem here is that "identity" is a very opaque concept: to my knowledge, Rand never elaborates on what it is, except by saying that it's related to attributes. So until we clear up the mess with attributes, your explanation is really meaningless. And what is identification? In the lexicon quotations it's never given a definition, or any kind of explanation, really. Fair enough. Then I'll replace the question with a related one: how could non-determinism, in principle, could have evolved? How does it fit our understanding of physics, by which process could it have been acquired, and what possible evolutionary advantage could it have provided? I'll rephrase: what is the difference between the propositions "humans are indeterministic" and "humans have free will"? No

A fair warning is due: I'm an ex-Objectivist. Back when I liked Rand's ideas, I didn't have enough money to read her seminal non-fiction works, so I'm going by bits and pieces here. Also, I've only recently have overcome the shame I used to feel for having been a randroid (in the worst way possible), so if you look up my messages on other resources, you will see a lot of inflammatory comments. I'm sorry I've made them, I made a promise to be more considerate in the future. As you can see, I'm a veteran of this very forum. In case you're interested, here's a thread which started my divergence from Objectivism. It was a product of reading a small yet really great, concise and highly mathematical exposition to a simplified version of Keynesian general equilibrium, its applications to international trade and optimal economic development. As you can see, I've made some erroneous claims there, but by large it represented the shift in my thinking: from largely rhetorical and imprecise philosophizing (even where it was inappropriate) to rigorous and highly mathematical, using mathematical models where they can be constructed. The following is patched together from my Reddit posts. The discussion there didn't take off, and eventually I was redirected to objectivistliving.com. It didn't take there, either. Here are the topics where it was going on: (1), (2). My goal is to "scientifically" break down Objectivism to see what it's made of and how the pieces fit together; I'm doing it to get some closure for myself. These questions are debate-ish. While I honestly don't know the Objectivist position on them, I may challenge it when I learn it, so you can view this topic as an invitation to a debate. I'll try to keep it civil, but may fail to do so (ask Boydstun). I'll heed warnings, and will leave if asked by the moderators. I don't mind this topic being moved to another subforum if it'll be more appropriate there. I will not buy Rand's books unless I have compelling evidence that my questions are answered there and that a small summary or quotation will not do. I'm starting this thread to ask for some clarification and hopefully to start an interesting discussion. Here is my parsing of the description of Objectivist Metaphysics on Wikipedia: Existence (the sum of everything existing) is non-trivial, which is self-evident. To be conscious is to be conscious of existence Existence is composed of entities, which are completely defined by their attributes. There are no contradictions in reality. The first two statements are the familiar cogito ergo sum, told backwards. That is, where Descartes used deduction to arrive from (2) to (1), Rand simply posited both separately as self-evident. While (1) and (2) are easily understandable, (3) and (4) give me trouble. On the subject of (3). (Question 1) What are attributes? Suppose we have an entity X, and an attribute P. How does P work? Is it akin to a logical predicate that we can evaluate at X to get some truth value P(X)? If so, can we apply it to another entity, some Y, to get P(Y)? From Rand's description it seems that we shouldn't be able to. Firstly, P is something X has, but this description suggests that P exists independently of X; for example, should X cease to exist, P may still exist if it is applicable to some Y. Secondly, if P is applicable to more than just X, then the sum of all entities to which P is applicable - what is it? Is it a concept? But we haven't described epistemology yet. Is it a Platonic ideal? Rand doesn't describe such a thing. Is it yet another entity? And is P then an entity in and of itself? Does it, in turn, have attributes? Suppose, on the other hand, P is not something that can be applied to other entities (we'll denote it X.P then). Then what is it? Consider two attributes of X: X.P and X.Q. What distinguishes them? On the subject of (4). (Question 2) What exactly is a contradiction? I'm serious. Contradiction is usually defined as a part of some logical system (like natural deduction). But Rand doesn't specify how any logical system is connected to reality. We could try and save contradictions by using (4) as a definition, but there is something in the way: while it makes sense to say that contradiction is something that cannot exist in reality, it is clearly not enough to say that contradiction is something that doesn't exist in reality. To be able to say the former, we have to introduce the notion of possible reality (something that could exist, but doesn't). And if in the discussion of (3) we decided that an attribute is not something that can be applied to multiple entities then such a notion is impossible, because if we replace one entity X with another entity Y, how do we compare their attributes if not by applying them to both X and Y? The last two questions were originally from another Reddit discussion. How does Objectivism address the following issues with the free will hypothesis: The free will theorem states under very mild conditions that if humans are indeterministic, then so are elementary particles. Humans have evolved biologically from more primitive species. Also, studies of animal intelligence show that other mammals have (limited) capacity for abstract thought. Both facts highly suggest that if free will is there, it's not limited to humans. In particular, if one wants to maintain "human exceptionalism", the following questions need to be answered: (Question 3) What is the difference between simple indeterminism and free will? (Question 4) What human ancestors had free will? By which process had free will evolved?

That doesn't help at all. How do you judge man's actions? By judging man himself? But if that does not require evaluating his actions, you got trashy moral theory. If it does, on the other hand, you simply got circular dependency.

I'm yet to understand what's wrong in "separating" motives and consequences, because they are separate! If you want to judge them as whole you need to first integrate them into one entity. What is that entity?

I fail to see the difference. Strictly speaking, the latter is generalization of the former, but in context of the discussion, it doesn't seem to matter.

It is irrelevant to the concrete issue Kelley raises: wether to judge action by it's intended consequence or by its actual consequence. I fail to see how it does. And even if it's so, there is obvious difference between intended and actual consequence, so what should you question in that case is your rejection of the dichotomy. You make good points later in your post, and I agree with them, but until you explain to me how does intended/actual translates to mind/body, I cannot accept them as relevant.

I didn't want to read all this lengthy discussion, I hope what I'm about to say does not repeat it. This part is irrelevant to the question, alas. What's not exactly what Kelly was writing about. He was writing about judging action by its intended consequences as opposed to judging action by its actual consequences. There is obviously a difference the two, and you can't simply, hm, wish it away. Also irrelevant. While it might not be how Rand viewed it, if she did, you are yet to show why isn't it compatible with Objectivism. Again irrelevant to the question, since intentions are usually quite conscious.

End spoilers below: 2 NineInfinity: you are SO wrong, man. 2 All: watch this movie. It's great, and don't worry: it has a bit of anit-capitalism in it (anti-corporativism, actually), but its message is very humanistic, and the movie itself is fun. BTW: let's try to collect all references to Rand in it =)

I'm reading Zeleazny's "This Immortal" now, it seems very good. You may try it too, if you haven't read it already.

Actually, it often does, indirectly. Self-fulfilling prophecies come into mind as example. Sorry, I said stupid thing

What did you do to green-eyed?

Gold certificates are not currency, this term only applies to credit money, AFAIK. Do you really think that a gram of gold has intristic value? The fact that gold has value even while not being used as money doesn't mean much by itself. So far I fail to see why gold certificates are better than credit money. Inflation is a curse of modern monetary system, but money emission is not its greatest cause.

GreedyCapitalist, we are talking about currencies, not about marks of gold. I believe you can tell the difference between the two. Kendall, what you're writing makes sense, and I tend to agree with you. I still need to think it over, though.

International trade is being made in gold, AFAIK. For imports and exports, only two currencies are involved for huge markets of US, EU, UK and Japan. So no, it's not the case. Maybe it's possible. I'm not very familiar with issues of emitting money, so I can't say for sure.

Because with many currencies it is very hard to track their value and exchange rates. Additionally, many local currencies would be rejected by shops two states away. One of the most important aspect of money is that everyone in a country accepts them as money, and local currencies lack it. That would turn trade between states - sometimes even between adjacent cities - is handicapped by the need to constantly exchange currencies, and that would be real pain with about 100 currencies in the US. The only real way to keep privately emitted currencies while keeping trade intact would be to use symbolic or natural money, abolishing credit money. But that's comparable pain.

A question bothers me: if a country would abolish national currency and allowed banks to print their own, what would be effects on that nation's economy? IMO, that would raise transact expenses tremendously. So is it rational to do so? And if Central Bank and Treasury are inappropriate, what system do you suggest instead?

Well, with 100% reserve requirement all deposits would be just lying in banks' vaults. So banks would be able to actively use only those money they got from selling their bonds, and that's not too much considering all the expenses. Am I right?

But 100% reserve requirement would prevent banks from making profit altogether, wouldn't it?

Well, Deep Purple is more of Hard Rock, but they, along with Black Sabbath, are considered fathers of Heavy Metal. Machine Head, for example, features very hard sound, comparable to the ones of Black Sabbath and Paranoid.

Avampirist, what do you mean by 'immoral' music? I know about immoral people and actions, but not about immoral art. Did you enjoy Star Wars? Did you enjoy Dostoyevskiy? If so, you've probably found value in them, in spite of the fact that they advocate values different from Objectivist ones. Oh come on, how can 5-minute track EVER disintegrate your mind? That's simply false. Try albums of Deep Purple mk.II or Black Sabbath's Paranoid. Or Iron Maiden's Later albums. First of all, it's purely thought experiment, since Rand never spoke of rock since Woodstock. Second, hating metal just because Rand probably hated it is second-handed, don't you think? Some lyrics are just funny (like Iron Maiden's Prowler), some are social (like anti-war Black Sabbath's War Pigs or Ozzy Osbourne's anti-alcohol Sucide Solution). You generalize falsely. Moreover, you DO can just enjoy the music, believe the guy who doesn't understand them all well Do you claim you know me better than I do? Speaking of rock in general, I like Sex Pistols' God Save the Queen and Anarchy in the UK for great many things, but I am not an anarchist. Strange, eh? And how soon will I start worshipping devil Kant? Thanks, I'll better ask Eddie Van Halen, Paul McCartney, Ozzy Osbourne, Angus Young, Paul Dianno, Axl Rose, Alice Cooper... People need to own up to the fact that one can't replace Holy Bible with Atlas Shrugged and call oneself Objectivist. And in fact, a lot of them are very uplifted and romantic, but most are still puritans. And until they own up, they can't make the right decision to start thinking. I've made the decision, because I now am certain that it is unhealthy, If that's something you need to do, do it. P.S.: Religion Run Amok banner spawned below. The time is right, for once.