Plasmatic

Repairman, it is a bit unclear if you are agreeing with the notion that Ms. Rand would agree that Marx et al were "well meaning". Are you agreeing that those people are "well meaning"?

Oops. I said: I meant to say "Objectivist"

Cube-ness and sphere-ness are abstractions (katholou). You appear to be equating "substance" with essence. Shape is matter in a certain form. Form, matter and essence are not the same thing. Objectivism rejects the notion of a metaphysical essence. You mentioned Aristotle earlier. Are you familiar enough with the text to tell me if you are referring to "ousia" (οὐσία)?

The only kind of "materialism" that is ever mentioned in objective literature is the kind that refers to the denial of consciousness as such. That is the scope of Ms. Rand's meaning of saying that Objectivism is not materialist. Dr. Peikoff in fact, says the opposite of what you claim in the 1976 lectures question period. He basically answered a question about the nature of consciousness along the lines of "how do we know there's anything more to know other than that when you have a brain and certain minimum amount of material conditions you get consciousness". I may have that particular spot noted somewhere, I'll look.

Where did you get the idea that Oism claims consciousness is "immaterial"? Can you supply quotes?

Strictly, that was an excellent post! Strictlylogical explained quite well why its arbitrary. It is false to anyone who tried to prove it because the statement contains a contradiction. "object", "thing", entity are all synonyms. Simple substances are metaphysically irreducible. All other objects are made of materials but that does not mean that these objects are multiplicities. Objects are particulars and are their attributes. They are integrated wholes. The merelogical difference between parts and wholes is where the differentiation needs to be made as regards a collection of entities that are not integrated but combined such that multiple entities are touching but not integrated into a whole. Homogeneity and inhomogeneity are the concepts that refer to this difference. What on earth is a non-metaphysical experience? Everything you said following the above seems out of place here. I don't know why you are making that point? It looks like you think metaphysical concepts are rationalistic deductions that don't refer to facts presented to the subject in sensory perception...?

Spooky said: Ostensive definitions apply to fundamental concepts. Santa Clause is both not a fundamental and is a proper name for a mythological entity. You cannot point to it because it is by its nature mythological and non-fundamental. Edit: Also does one "define" proper names or "describe" them? Spooky said: That is an invalid definition. Premise 1 is both arbitrary and false to anyone who wanted to attempt to prove it.

Yes, that is what a strawman is. lets look at some examples. Person A sates: And person B responds: Equating: "one does not prove philosophical tenets the same way" with the false assertion: "philosophy isn't like science and doesn't have to prove anything." And then accusing person A of "trying to get out of proving" a philosophical tenet and conflating axioms with hierarchically dependent philosophical premises, is in fact a strawman! Similarly, taking an invitation to debate another person, in another thread, on a premise that person made a positive claim on; as "bluffing and bluster" and hilariously, "a personal attack", is another instance of a strawman. Do you consider the invitation lets "take it on the mat if you want to wrestle because your claim that your takedown technique is better than mine is bullshit" an instance of "bluffing" and "attacking" the person? Or is it an invitation to put ones skill on the mat where his mouth is? Jonathan said: There is a disingenuous rhetorical device commonly deployed of using innuendo, in the form of a question, that presents the question as following same line of reasoning as your opponents premise. When that question does not correspond to the others premises, it is a type of rhetorical strawman often used to sway onlookers into branding the other persons ideas negatively . An example: Person A says: "A rational man is selfish. The definition of selfishness is concern for ones own interest." And person B says: Yeah, so a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment. is rational?" You claim that was not your intention, so I will take you at your word. But lets not pretend that I don't know what a strawman is. Jonathan said: Your failure to keep context is not a reflection on another's skill at expressing explicitly contrary claims to your strawmen. I'll be back later to address the parts of your post which actually deal with the discussion at hand and its relation to my actual premises.

Ground rules for meaningful communication: Premise 1. Know what a concept is and how its formed and validated. Premise 2. Know what a definition is and how to apply it to any concept you deploy. Premise 3. Require your dialogical counterparts to present the same when they engage you in philosophical communication. (especially when they want to derive a metaphysical principle out of moving symbols around) There is no such thing as nothing. You think so? Tell me how to form the concept you want to communicate and define it so that I can know what you are referring to. Otherwise there is no reason to make such an ado about nothing.... Fundamental concepts such as entity are defined ostensively. Can you point out a "nothing" for me?

I was in a hurry earlier and it occurred to me that I could have just dealt with "diameter" as a CCD instead of shape and size...

Selkc, lets concretize the following passage: Every concept has what I call its generative context of differentiation. That is, every valid concept has its origin in a set of experiences that require the observer to separate a certain category of existents from another group by means of something both groups share in common, while also integrating the new group (or particular, to itself) to each other by an essential difference the new group doesn't share with the "from" group. An example: Imagine you have a box with two holes in the top of different diameter. You are instructed to put all the balls from a set of balls you are given, into the box via the holes on top. You then find that, like the holes in the box, not all the balls are of the same diameter either. In order to perform this task you must separate the balls that are equal to or less than the diameter of the hole on the left from the ones that will fit the hole on the right. Both groups of balls have the necessary shape roundness required to fit in the holes but one set of balls is too large to fit one of the holes. The category of measurement that differentiates one group of balls from the other and to itself, is "size". The CCD is "shape" and the differentia is "size". All the balls are the right shape (similarity) but not all are the right size (difference). The task involved and the nature of the entities involved set the context for the conceptualization done. From's and to's. Differentiation and integration. This process will guide the creation of the definition used to cognitively economize the mental process described above. The balls that will fit the hole on the right could be called "group A" and the balls that fit the hole on the right "group B". A definition would be something like : Group A is defined as all the balls having a diameter that corresponds to hole A such that it will alow it to pass through.. Notice my error above? I said "right" instead of "left". I mixed up my "to's and "from's". That is what it means to "drop context".....

How the hell can she say this and this: I can quote several more instances of her expressing her estimation of whole groups of people's sense of life and emotional/psychological states..... For the record, I agree with the latter and not the former. Jonathan, I will address you in a bit.

There is more than one meaningful sense of objective, the metaphysical and the epistemic. I'd like to hear your definition of this sense of subjective you profess.

You appear to have been infected with the upside down view of philosophy. One does not prove philosophical tenets the same way one does special science theory via "research" or "testing". All the facts necessary to validate a philosophical premise are ubiquitously available to anyone in any age. Listen, if you want to debate the Oist conception of objectivity, start a thread on it. As it stands you don't appear familiar with it. Again there are no "philosophical theories" because the facts that are the domain of philosophy are ubiquitous and timeless. If your notion of objectivity regarding philosophy entails the above, you are certainly not accepting the Oist view on this (as your straw man below pretends to). I'd expect more of an "informed criticism" given your premises which lead to this thread. Nothing in the comment you quoted of me is remotely an instance of what you are describing, whatever. Nonsense! I have in fact expressed the opposite of "I've previously integrated all of my explicit philosophy, so now my emotions count as being objective". I described the process of challenging ones emotional states in this very thread and called it "emotional responsibility". What you describe above is a strawman that is impossible anyway. Emotional states are indicators of value judgments in relation to particular contexts, so no such passivity regarding justifying emotional states is rational. If you want to continue having a exchange with folks who are sincere in their intent to understand and be understood, you had better make a better effort to represent their positions as stated by them. Edit: Jonathan asked: Another strawman! I said nothing of the sort. The question doesn't even make sense to me. Again, nothing I said can be construed as such a non sequitur. Are you proposing that a sense of live is disconnected from ones values? By observing their actions in relation to their premises and whether they correspond to one another.

I understand that this is actually what she claimed she emphatically was not doing with art. She rejected the "didactic" view of art as a vehicle of proselytizing.

Never used it myself.

Louie asked: Romantic Manifesto

Epistemologue said: How do you have elongated tones without words in this context?

My frustration with WTL has always been related to this. If art is about "what might be and ought to be" then doesn't WTL fail to express these artistic virtues?

Epistemologue said: Could you do that for music without lyrics?

I thought I'd tell a personal anecdote. I went to Cruz sign holders on the day of the local voting recently to do a "interview" of sorts. I had just listened to Yaron Brook talk about how he thought Cruz was wasting an opportunity against Trump by thumping the evangelical drum. Yaron suggested that Cruz should be focusing on constitutional issues and not worry about pandering to the evangelical because Romney etc. showed you don't need that to get the nomination. So I wanted to ask motivated Cruz supporters what they thought was the #1 thing that differentiated Cruz from Trump. To my surprise both immediately said "the support of the constitution"! One even said that she thought "we can win the legal battle without the moral battle". I wish I had recorded the whole conversation. The very next day I was sent this video by a Cuban friend describing how the constitutional issue is a matter of our "rights coming from God":

Is this the video? http://injo.com/2016/04/576982-after-megyn-kelly-asked-ted-cruz-why-atheists-should-support-him-cruz-offered-a-mic-dropping-answer/?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=afternoon-newsletter&utm_medium=owned

I don't see the problem. There are ethical implicit concepts in the preconceptual stage like any other. Likewise, I supplied quotes explaining how a sense of life can be integrated with a fully conscious and explicit philosophy. I think it rather is a case of a sense of life that is consistent with having objective values. No, clearly not all Objectivist are at the same level of integration. At this point I have to table my views on what Ms. Rand claimed about music in particular and Aesthetics in general. I have studying to do and it doesn't look promising.... I will only say now that any emotion which is known to be unjustified by rational evaluations must be resisted. An example is an irrational fear of some harmless cause. That is part of emotional responsibility. Reasserting the facts that make that automatized response an irrational one. That process will eventually brings emotional harmony with factual evaluations. I don't mean pretending that you don't have such and such emotion but rationally evaluating its cause every time it shows up. Of course. What I am saying has nothing to do with conformity to arbitrary "ideology" and if you think the choice is emotional whim or conformity to ideology, I challenge you to check that premise. Not advocating repression, or hiding ones emotions either.

Louis said: The only thing I have found her say we have no conceptual vocabulary for is music. RM

That is the first thing I thought of while reading the quotes you supplied. Emotional responses to lyrics could not be subject to the same claims without severe philosophical trouble.