Ed from OC

On the contrary, I'd argue the universe, taken as a whole, has no mass. Consider the classical understanding of intertial mass as the ratio of an applied force to the resulting acceleration. Push two objects with the same amount of force and one moves faster than the other. Other aspects, like friction and air resistance, being equal, the faster object has less mass. There's no way to step outside the universe and apply an external force. It's not as if you could push the universe two feet to the right, because there's no meaning to that "location". I'd also argue that there's no angular momentum, because there's no external location to serve as a reference or axis. By this kind of reasoning, you can further rule out location, velocity, acceleration, orientation, and so on of the universe as a whole. Now if you mean "the sum total of masses in the universe," then that's a different issue. We certainly have an ordindary, everyday sense of mass around us, and nothing that we conclude about larger contexts will change that. We observe the consequences of mass on a larger scale when we look through telescopes at celestial bodies. At this point, it would be valid to add up the masses of everything we see and call that the total mass of some region of the universe. (There may be epistemological problems with that, but that's another issue.) But the universe is bigger than that. Is it so big that we can't specify our location within it? We can certainly give a local location (e.g., near galaxy X), but what about specifying a global location -- one relative to the universe as a whole? I'm not convinced such is possible. I bring this up because I speculate that there may not be a net gravitational attraction between everything in the universe, and therefore there would (again) be zero mass to the universe. How is that possible? If an object is attracted equally in opposite directions, then there is no net attraction; the forces cancel. If a large astronomical object is located midway between other large astronomical objects, then it would not be attracted in any preferred direction. But each of these other objects would themselves be in the same state, unless one was at the edge of the universe. And there is no edge of the universe! That means there would be no net attraction between objects in the universe, when the universe is taken as a whole. (This speculation is admittedly rationalistic, but as far as I know, it hasn't been made elsewhere, and I'm curious if it's true. Maybe there's something known in astrophysics or general relativity that answers this, but I'm not familiar enough with either to say.) A whole other issue develops when the time required for gravity to propogate large distances is considered. But suffice it to say, it can't be taken for granted that the universe as a whole has mass.

Aren't we already "isolating" them? The same thing we've been doing with Cuba for decades?

Thinking about this some more, the phrase "initiation of physical force" could itself be a definition for a concept. That could be why attempting to "define" it ends up being circular.

The fact is the time for an easy answer to that question has come and gone. However, we still have an advantage in the nuclear standoff because the Norks are still in the development and deployment stage of nuclear weaponry, at least according to the news. Every day that we do nothing, their arsenal progresses in reliability, power, and number. This means waiting will raise the stakes. I don't think there's an obvious answer here.

A related question: "Zeitgeist" translates from German as "the spirit of the times." As it is one word in German, it is a concept, right? (Not that that's the only requirement.) So why can't we likewise say the English translation is a concept, even though we don't represent it with just one word? If it is not a concept, how should it be characterized? "Descriptive phrase," perhaps?

I saw it and am thinking about it. I'm a bit overwhelmed with the number of responses and the difficulty of the issues.

Here are some common definitions of aggression. I think the phrase "initiation of force" is more specific in meaning.

How does my proposed definition not identify the nature of the units subsumed? That's true, but there are such things as accidental deaths that do incorporate the violation of someone's rights -- for instance, a car accident. Is such an event not an instance of initiating force? That's what I meant: they're innocent of initiating force. I think there's something wrong with my proposed definition, but I'm not sure what it is.

The problem is that the "certain degree" of rationality may be too small in some cases. If someone is unwilling to listen to reason, there is no point trying to reason with them.

2112 is based on "Anthem." The album is dedicated "to the genius of Ayn Rand." Of course, the flip side of the album has an ode to pot smoking ("Passage to Bangkok"), so don't expect complete consistency with Objectivism. Some of their songs are directly inspired by or explicitly refer to Ayn Rand's novels and philosophy, but the band have said over the years that they are NOT Objectivists. Neil Peart (the drummer and lyricist) described his own political views a few years back as "left-leaning libertarian" -- whatever that is. They have their moments, but an explicitly Objectivist band they are not. I first heard of Ayn Rand through reading a biography of the band. I wonder how many other Objectivists did as well.

I was thinking along the same lines, but "initiation of force" is a concept that isn't represented by a single word. It's the kind of thing that might be represented by a single word in another language, but not in English. "Joie de vivre" is something similar. "Aggression" doesn't have the same meaning. I can drive aggressively, or an investor may take an aggressive position. Also, thank you for the compliment. Incidentally, I'm glad the topic came up. It immediately raised my interest and was a nice challenge.

A few notes: 1. It need not be intentional. An unintended consequence of, say, an immoral law would still be an instance of the initiation of force. Or, if a bank robber's gun accidentally goes off and hits someone, is that not also an initiation of force -- though not intentional? 2. The examples you give are all crimes. Are there examples that aren't? If not, should crime be in the definition? 3. What's the genus of the definition? When defining, it helps to identify the broader category (genus) to which something belongs, then identify other instances of that concept, then identify the most essential trait (differentia) that distinguishes the instance of interest from the other instances. 4. It may help to list not just instances of the initiation of force, but lots of traits of it as well. From that list, identify the most fundamental. 5. It looks like you're trying to define the phrase through parallel definitions of initiation and force. --- I would identify the genus as: vice. Evasion, dishonesty, and sacrifice are other instances. With these examples in mind, what differentiates the initiation of force? Note that only this vice can violate the rights of others. My stab at a definition: The "initiation of force" is the vice of violating the rights of innocent individuals through physical compulsion. (The prepositional phrase at the end may be superfluous, but it stresses the force aspect, while the use of the adjective "innocent" stresses the initiation aspect.)

For anyone interested in philosophy, I certainly support the idea of seeing for yourself what the other sides have to say. But if you aren't looking for a career in the humanities, there's a limit to the benefits of taking mega-expensive college courses over just reading the same books on your own. If you're looking for an overview of the history of western philosophy, the W.T. Jones is probably the best out there. For something more condensed, look for the two slim volumes by Wallace I. Matson. Both book sets were used in my college courses, and the first series was also recommended years back in the Objectivist literature. Also, Dr. Peikoff has a comprehensive taped lecture set.

It looks like we're on the same page here. I agree his immediate reaction was intense, and he enjoyed playing with her, but he did find out more about her as he did so. Had she, for instance, gone after the Italian laborer, he would have lost interest in her. He was playing with her as well as testing her. BTW, I like the analysis you did of the several scenes between Roark and Dominique. In his screenwriting book "Story", Robert McKee does a similar analysis of the scene in Casablanca where Ilsa is looking at some lace fabric in the market. He steps line by line through the scene, making explicit just how much passion there is between the two.

There was nothing literally "engraved;" it was a metaphor. "Engraved invitation" were words Ayn Rand used in answer to this issue, in order to stress that BY NO MEANS was Roark an unwanted lover: "If it was rape, it was rape by engraved invitation."

The word "faith" can refer to more than the concept of belief without (or despite) evidence. It can also be a synonym for confidence. I don't let people get away with that equivocation, which is why I ALWAYS use the word "confidence" when that is what I mean. Notice that they are starting out with an arbitrary claim (Jesus' resurrection) for which they have no evidence and flies in the face of everything we know from science. You can't argue that by just asserting another arbitrary claim. The burden is on them to prove their claim. Don't take their argument as a given that you must disprove; challenge their foundation, go after their assumptions, make them quake in their boots with a simple question: why? Where's the evidence? If they claim their faith justifies their claim, then that's that. There's no means to rationally argue with that. If you haven't already done so, I suggest reading the section in OPAR on the arbitrary as neither true nor false.

If someone explicitly declares to you that they have no interest in reason or facts, on what grounds is debate possible? If you are trying to prove something to your debate opponent, then you have to require they accept that which proof requires. If they declare instead that they believe what they want to believe and are not concerned with logic, then anything you say -- no matter how air-tight your argument -- may not cause them to change their mind. So, as a matter of principle, I don't bother trying to argue religious issues with devout believers, just as I don't try to persuade rocks and trees. The caveat is that people often don't integrate their beliefs, so they may declare wildly irrational ideas without really processing their meaning. They may also compartmentalize their faith, and be quite rational in other areas of life (as I see daily when I deal with conservative engineers). The other issue: what's in it for you? What do you get out of debating with these characters? There are certainly some issues that you and they can discuss rationally. But why topics about which they have shown no interest in hearing your views? If your purpose in debating them about religion is to get them to change their minds, forget it. For that purpose, spend your energy on those who look for a rational discussion of the issues. Finally, keep in mind that the details of the stories in the Bible or Koran are beside the point. The fact that something was written in a book is meaningless. Don't debate on terms set by an irrational standard. They are effectively saying: "Here's what I believe, and it's up to you to prove I'm wrong." The burden of proof is on them. You can't prove a negative -- i.e., prove something doesn't exist by the non-existence of evidence. And if you are looking to argue religion (presumably with more rational people) determine what's essential: the existence of God or trivia about some particular belief system. If you can prove that God doesn't exist, then there's no reason to argue over the details of kosher foods or of the meaning of some passage in the Book of Matthew. IOW, focus on principles, using concretes as necessary. (Also, see the discussions of supernaturalism and faith in OPAR for arguments against God.)

More importantly, it takes the objectivity out of Objectivism! I skimmed Hudgins' speech, and there's no explanation of why the Objectivist base of ethics is any more rational, true or objective than any other foundation. IOW, he presents Objectivism as just another item on a buffet from which one can select any philosophy one wishes, with none better than the others. You don't have to show deficiences in other theories of ethics every time one takes on a discussion of ethics, but in that context, you have to at least indicate why your theory is better than another. I've had no respect for TOC for a long time, but this is just ridiculous. These guys are like the conservatives of Objectivism: they claim to uphold an ideology, but at every opportunity, they sell out their principles in order to be more acceptable. Well, screw the masses. If they want to worship fairy tales or old trees, cows or dirt, that's their problem. I ain't no Christian and I ain't interested in saving their souls.

This is a bit off-topic, but as an aside: What's the source of this quote? Color can, in fact, be measured. Color can be given numbers in terms of two coordinates. Also, I don't see the logical connection between the two clauses in the sentence, even if one couldn't measure color.

Betsy, thank you for the detailed analysis. But I disagree on one point, at least as stated: I don't think he was actively seeking a woman. He didn't have a plan in mind, or a checklist of items to look for. I don't think there's a mention of his romantic life at all until the quarry scene. It is Dominique's entrance that begins that aspect of the story. (By contrast, many movies have the guy dating lots of women until he finds "Miss Right.") When he first saw her, he liked what he saw. As they began to interact, he gradually determined what kind of person she was. He was attracted to her -- to a concrete, specific individual, not just anyone who fit the description you gave. Moreover, while I agree he wanted a passionate valuer with an independent mind, I'm not so sure that a challenge per se is something he desired. Remember the pain he went through when she married Peter and Gail. Each time he would have rather married her himself, but knew that she needed time to take care of her baggage. He wanted her so much, and cared for her enough, to bear the pain. But I don't think he desired the pain or the challenges that caused it. I bet he'd prefer that she not have those issues. What if it had been Dagny's quarry instead? I think he'd be attracted to her as well. --- One other point with which to refute the rape charge: after Roark left Dominique, she crawled to the bathroom and fell asleep on the floor. Real rape victims often (if not always) have a desire to wash off every trace or reminder of their attacker. She easily could have taken a bath, but chose instead to revel in the aftermath of their encounter. I can't say for certain, but the deliberate inclusion of such detail leads me to believe that Miss Rand was aware of this behavior among rape victims. The dramatic contrast between what Dominique does and what a rape victim would have done underscores her desire for Roark. (Maybe Miss Rand included it to show that she was not raped, but I think there's enough evidence already by this point that it wouldn't be necessary.)

Let me caution against armchair strategizing. Military science is a field unto itself, as deserving of respect as history or physics. A proper strategy would be integrated with a proper philosophy; one can't reduce strategy to mere deductions from philosophic principles, or dispense with those principles in favor of range-of-the-moment thinking.

When I worked for Sony Electronics, I once searched the internal e-mail addressbook and found a John Galt working for Sony Pictures in L.A.

I resolve to: -- dance with lots of pretty girls -- drive a fast car -- read great books -- kill terrorist scum (brother, can you spare a nuke?) -- release a rap album Yeah, this year's gonna rock!

Ditto. There are so many things I'd like to do in parallel, rather than sequentially. Like work full time AND do grad school AND have a social life AND martial arts AND writing AND ... Until we solve this 24-hour day problem, we're stuck with prioritizing.

Here's to a more rational, more value-achieving, fewer-terrorist-breathing New Year!