Plasmatic

The source is the very contexts that the concept refers to and originated from. I dont personally care what is in a dictionary ,if it doesnt fit experience I discard it. Again you are ignoring the fact that in EVERY example youve given you are enumerating a causal chain of events ,and /or providing examples of evaluated criteria for judgement. This is NOT what faith is. Otherwise the differentiation between proof and arbitrary declaration is meaningless. Now there are folks who actually do believe in religious myths because they have msintegrated facts. Those are people who given the correct differentiation of the facts will discard those misintegrations. I know because Im an ex minister myself.

Nice try! You ask for "proof" which rest on the foundation of reason. Your attempt to discredit reason only expresses its relationship to proof and exposes the stolen concept in your question. It only shows the presupposition of reason when speaking of proof . This also highlights the contrast to faith which expresses the lack of proof.

You dont understand the concept of identity. The percieved essentials of the identity of the rational animal is all one needs. Perception of these essentials is the basis of ones expectation. This is NOT faith. Faith again is belief WITHOUT causal justification.

One does not need the personal experience you are proposing in order to attempt persuation. One only needs to know what persuation is and that its possible. The "belief" is then based on percieved instances of the concepts one is applying in actions. Causal expectation.

Its not faith its deduced causal expectation.

Faith is non-causal belief. It produces non-causal expectation [hope]. None of which are based on rational identification and integration of the facts of existence. My confidence that my legs will work is causal expectation based on integrated facts already identified. The connection to religion and spirituality is now clear. Spiritual,miraculous,supernatural and all the words that pertain to articles of Faith are at root based on the concept of acausality and violations of Identity.

Sorry Dave I had the wrong quote in there!

"I am therfore Ill think" youve got it backwards. Consciousness [identification] is the third axiom for a reason. Primacy of existence.

I love SHOGUN. I just recently scored 2 copies of the original hardbacks. I watch the movie all the time for inspiration. Im building my own Japanese country style home. The visuals keep me motivated.

I thoroughly enjoyed POPPER AND AFTER. Popper is a huge barrier in science and needs to be dismanteld explicitly. I also have Dragsdahls Lecture KARL POPPERS ASSAULT ON SCIENCE. IPP is next on my list as well as Corvinis lectures.

Alton: Thought youd appreaciate Rands comments above.

Good form gentleman !

Hi folks, this thread was born out of a direct conversation between Alton and I. The interaction is what lead to my recent post on 'The locality of abstrations". I just wanted to comment to the effect that Alton is truly sincere in his questions and he is asking out of honest desire to integrate his knowledge. Alton has grasped much of our talks on Oism quite fast. This is an oppourtunity for all of us to persuade an active mind in a positive manner.

Nice responses all, thanks . I agree with the above,however I think if we take Grames comment Which I agree with 100 % ,we resolve the justice question. music EMERGES from the full interplay of the cd and player along with the speakers. We can affirm this qualification and still use the word exist consistently. We can also affirm the spacial locality or primary physical origin of abstractions without denying consciousness as such. The naturalism Curtis mentions is denying the direct observation of introspection.We directly hear music when the requisite components are interacting. We directly observe the results of our biological identity in consciousness. Im reminded of the Lecture where Peikoff says he is listening to a Opera and ask where is the music?

Im trying to nail down something here. I know about 'separating the metaphysical from the manmade' ,and the difference between the perceptually concrete and the conceptually abstract.I know not to reify abstractions etc. My question is if 'abstractions, as such, do not exist. Only concretes exist.' ITOE , yet : ITOE ITOE Why would concepts as 'mental entities' not be spatially located in the brain? Certainly the data recorded on a cd is on the cd. Ive read of studies of brain stimulus stimulating memories in folks consciousness. Certainly my thoughts {mental entities} exist and are located in my brain. I simply identify what context they exist in . I realize that consciousness is an axiom. Im not trying to prove it. Im simply wondering why one would claim that thoughts do not have spatial locality in the qualified context of ' a mental entity in actual being' and in that context exist. For the record I am not claiming Rand is invalidating concepts or consciousness.

The book is based on Poppers black swan example . He is building off of his skepticism of induction. I recommend reading POPPER AND AFTER by Stove and Bo Dragsdals KARL POPPERS ASSAULT ON SCIENCE. to see the problems with Poppers theory.

B is B, can you name any of the positive changes in any culture that weren't a result of the application of reason? Or employed the the fundamental principles of logic Aristotle was the first to explicate and Rand expounded on? Bottom line is ALL of the things Objectivism calls "positive" required exactly what Objectivism says reality dictates in order to pursue life as such. Even the deepest altruist or collectivist must obey the 3 axioms to exist,and must apply reason to remain alive. Why? because "reality to be commanded must be obeyed"[bacon] Rand simply pointed to reality and identified it for what it/we are. Conversely do you refute that all of the decay and disaster cultures have visited upon themselves were no the very things Aristotle and Rand repudiated. [the parts in Aristotle Objectivism upholds] You say Rand "oversimplifies" Kant. So what if she did! Did what she say his metaphysics and epistemology meant miss the mark? Does not the acceptance of his and Plato's philosophy lead to exactly the results Rand pointed to? These are the things you at root must repudiate if you are to claim what you have. So how does Kant's and Plato's philosophy not reflect/ lead to the evils Rand claimed? What Progress was made without the use of reason? What exist that does not obey the axioms?

It may be useful to differentiate history from the past. One could say the past is the sum total of all the interactions of existents till the present. I seem to recall history would be specifically related to the relationship of Man to the past,specifically the written record of mans interactions in the past. Not sure if this is a necessary dichotomy yet ,still pondering it.

"So, one could identify this struggle of Hank Rearden as one between intrinsicism versus rationality." I am not implying he should stand by the worthless hag of a wife he had. First of all I understand Hank is in progression towards an explictly rational value set and is struggling with the in between stage. I find his choice to not leave his wife before acting on his desires for Dagny as a fault.He at LEAST should declare his choices openly after realizing this and treat his wife accordingly,with integrity.Its not his choice of Dagny as one who is worthy of his highest value[which is just]. I realize he is in transition ,but when he realized he wanted Dagny he should have the integrity to live as such openly ,rather than sneak around and pretend he doesnt value her,all the while living a farce towards his wife. I am in no way suggesting an intrinsicist preference.I am going to finish AS ,but no matter what the level of conscious individuation he attains his previous acts will be what they where. 'What I feel for you is contempt. But it's nothing, compared to the contempt I feel for myself. I don't love you. I've never loved anyone. I wanted you from the first moment I saw you. I wanted you as one wants a whore—for the same reason and purpose. I spent two years damning myself, because I thought you were above a desire of this kind. You're not. You're as vile an animal as I am. I should loathe my discovering it. I don't. Yesterday, I would have killed anyone who'd tell me that you were capable of doing what I've had you do. Today, I would give my life not to let it be otherwise, not to have you be anything but the bitch you are. All the greatness that I saw in you—I would not take it in exchange for the obscenity of your talent at an animal's sensation of pleasure. We were two great beings, you and I, proud of our strength, weren't we? Well, this is all that's left of us—and I want no self-deception about it." "I had never committed an act that had to be hidden. Now I am to lie, to sneak, to hide. Whatever I wanted, I was free to proclaim it aloud and achieve it in the sight of the whole world. Now my only desire is one I loathe to name even to myself." " I want no pretense about love, value, loyalty or respect. I want no shred of honor left to us, to hide behind. I've never begged for mercy. I've chosen to do this—and I'll take all the consequences, including the full recognition of <as_239> my choice. It's depravity—and I accept it as such—and there is no height of virtue that I wouldn't give up for it." These are the words of a duty ridden tortured existence [to his "oath"]. A man who does not know his values cannot have consistent integrity.A man who holds contradiction cannot in those respects have integrity. One cannot be for and against oneself.

Personally I dont care if she was inspired by a previous story as to her fiction. I have only read her non-fiction. Im currently reading AS . I must say I think those who read her fiction first are missing out. I love technical philosophy. ITOE is my favorite Oist book. I think that her plot is no less valuable if it has a bit of inspiration from these books. I mean anyone whos read Aristotle will see that his ideas are as much a part of here themes as one can get. Its her removal of the remnant Platonist nonsense that Aristotle still had along with here uncanny ability to speak in absolutely essential language that makes her a genius in my book. As an aside. I find the scene of Dagny and Reardens first intimacy repulsive. The idea of losing integrity for any desire is revolting. But enough of that.

Tenure: I know your into Kung Fu [i did it for many years] but all I can say is if you step on the mat and try to do it against a well rounded MMA fighter you will within 1 min learn the usefulness of wellroundedness. I wrestled in high school and coached imeadiatley after, the whole time training with a friend of mine who fought twice ion the UFC. I promise you that glare in your eyes for kung fu as a fighting style will disappear. Now I love kung fu as a artform dont get me wrong ,I appreaciate its movements. You need to watch Goerges St.Pierre in action and see if you arent impressed. By the way my old nemesis Danial Cormier is wrestling again in the Olympics this year at 96 kg. I have the proud boast of being the only guy who stood chest to chest pommeling and never being thrown by him here in louisiana. I however always ended up 2nd. Hes wrestling on the 21st.

The 2 questions your asking ,and applied to "God" are answered thus. Objectivist reject "GOD" and with a strong certainty because: 1. An omniscient "God" cannot exist for the same reason that there cannot be any such thing as a "square circle". Omniscience is an invalid concept for the same reason as "square circles",it would be an existent infinity. It would violate causality ,and the Law of identity. 2. All other postulations adhered to by mystics that do not involve invalid contradictory concepts are arbitrary. There is no evidence for any such existent [irrespective of the lack of contradictory attributes].You could substitute "half dolphin tigers" if youd like it would be arbitrary to assert their existence without verifiable evidence.

Perhaps understanding the observability of the effects of consciousness in others and realizing that it is the same result that is caused by our own directly observable consciousness. Therefore the observation of the same effects in others would be enough to include them in the concept . I think Peikoffs statement about induction is relevent. "induction only works for honest folks." paraphrased.

Like Galt said. " I am therfore Ill think... My favorite quote.

No , what Rand is saying is if reality wasn't objective and absolute one couldn't "say" anything meaningful at all. Which is why the idea that there are no absolutes is self refuting and inconsistent. The reason for this is because knowledge is hierarchical and contextual. In the chain of concept formation the starting point is absolute objective existence. To say that things are what they are and are not what they are not is to affirm that the metaphysically given is absolute,that reality [being all that exist or is real], is the origination point of of your conceptual content. Therefore To claim that reality is absolute is simultaneously to claim the law of identity and that existence has primacy. it is all connected in the hierarchical chain from existence. That reality is absolute has nothing to do with the fact that things change . Your confusion is a result of misunderstanding time. Time is the observation of relative change between objective existents. This does not mean that because I grow old my identity is not absolute. My identity in the "context" of rational animal does not change. That's the point . Things are what they are and they are defined by their essential characteristics which is always in a specific context.. This is a consequence of the absolute nature of reality. Things change as a consequence of being related to one another absolutley as existents with identity acting according to their nature .