tim3

Well, you did offer more assistance than everyone else in this thread and thanks for doing so.

Looks like he was - http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/keynes_jm,3.html http://www.users.muohio.edu/shermalw/honor...000/arling.html http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/search/ar...nesian-thought/ But why does it matter?

Colonialism and Imperialism vary from place to place and era by era. Each case needs to be evaluated separately in its own context.

In my experience fundie moms never give up hope her kid will see the light. Tell her and she'l be shocked but after a few months she might do what mne did, not mention it escept for the occasional "one day you'll see...." and everyone is happy.

Hi Greg, thank you very much for your reply. I have not the time to tackle a new epistemology right away, but may soon. What you said (which I quoted above) seems to hit what I was asking from a different angle. We are all bound by where we sit so by applying Objectivism (from what I understand) different people will create different answers. To use a politically neutral example (my first instinct was to go for Iraq), 2 Objectivists can be told different things, one that smoking is bad, the other that it is not so. It would make little since for them to attack each other as being "unsympathetic to the Objectivist position" if they meet and one of them smokes. Individual contexts are ignored and some absolute, omniscient, and immaculate context seems to get asserted. Did we approach the same problem from two angles there or am I wrong? I guess I could be way off there as you were talking about proper action not proper knowledge.

I wanted to edit that post again for clarity as I made it far, far too complex. Here is my essential question - Doesn't an "Objective position on the middle east" blur the lines between facts in our world and Objectivism to the point where attacking a position such as global warming or our role in the middle east is falsely construed as attacking the philosophy itself? Can I be an Objectivist and believe Global Warming is a fact or that America is causing terrorism through disastrous interventions? Why or why not? Who decides what issues are so closely part of Objectivism?

My question is simple, ultimately, are there facts about the world included within Objectivism? If so are they both descriptive and prescriptive; how and why were these facts determined, by whom, and what other facts are seen as self evident? Thank you for your reply JMeganSnow, it answered my questions, albeit indirectly. Your reply had the seeds of a complete answer but didn't say these answers overtly, because of that I want to take this conversation forward by examining what you said. First is about questioning facts about the world versus questioning Objectivist philosophical positions. My understanding is that in Objectivism "A is A" or "Free Will" can not be doubted without the questioner assuming them in order to refute them. No rational doubt is possible. Facts about the world we live in however can be questioned rationally, I could be 12 feet tall or not, a quasar could be 3 billion light years away or not. Further these facts about the world are open to change with new evidence whereas Obejctivist axioms are not. I believe this was confirmed with the following: You contradict yourself here, saying facts can not be doubted then say they are open for validation. You then say however that while particular facts can be questioned reason itself can not. Okay, you don't come out and say it but the process of determining truth is the process of applying reason in this quote, no other method to judge reason itself is offered and that's the Objectivist position so I assume you agree - particular facts can and ought to be subjected to reason to determine whether they are true or false. My question was what, if any facts (both descriptive and prescriptive) about the world exist in Objectvism. 1) This could be saying 1 or 2 things, I'm not sure which. The first, and a large part of my main query, is that in Objectivism Global Warming is not true. It is descriptively not happening. If so can this be subjected to verification, can it be honestly doubted? Or is doubting the falseness of global warming akin to doubting "A is A" or other major parts of the philosophy? If Global warming is self evidently false enough for Objectivists organizations like the ARI to bring its falseness up to this level (if again it does) why stop there? Why not other facts as well? Can we bring other facts like 4 dimensional space time or the causes of middle east violence up to this level? In terms of prescriptive facts I am confused by the following: That argument seems pretty subjective. People deal in all issues with limited information. Not all issues are black and white, in fact very, very few ever are. We fought tyranny in Iraq and the results have been far worse because of it. Very, very few decisions are like "Destroy or Save Civilization",its an unrealistic dilemma, an extreme situation. The real world consists of these higher level derivations you mentioned. Are there imperatives though in Objectivism, self evident moral truths that can not be questioned? 3) If facts about how we should act are clearly self evident and thus a part of Objectivism as much as reason or ethical egoism, who decides what these are? Is it left to the individual Objectivist? If so attacking Vlad as being "against those who sympathizes with the Objectivist position" is nonsensical. Is the "Objectivist Position" then simply agreement with the ARI?

Some of you know me, others not. I'm interested in how Objectivism exists as a movement, what its beliefs are and where they come from. My understanding based on speaking to people in the chat service as well as some web browsing is that "Objectivism" is an abstract philosophy concerning the big 5 - Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, and Aesthetics. Facts about the world and how we should act in it can be derived from Objectivism but are not part of Objectivism. This means that "Man is volitional", "There is no God" and "Romanticism is the only valid art" are "Objectivist" positions, self evident and known philosophically whereas "I am 12 feet tall" and "Ron Paul is bad" are applications of Objectivism, not part of it. These issues are therefore open to debate amongst Objectivists as they relate to descriptive and therefore prescriptive facts. This post me off though. Where is this "Objectivist view" derived from? Is it mentioned as some special self evident fact within the system of Objectivism? Is interventionism really as justified as "A is A"? Is it simply the ARI which determines this "Objectivist view"? If this is an "Objectivist view" are things like Global Warming also covered under this umbrella? What can and can not be doubted in the realm of facts about the world?