Grames

That's a damn good question because in the U.S. elections are made by voting for individual candidates not political parties. It shouldn't matter what the political party thinks, only what your guy thinks. Hence the aphorism "all politics are local". When representatives get to Washington D.C. they then organize into blocks in order to vote for congressional leadership spots and control of the legislative agenda. Beyond voting for the same leaders, members of a political party do not necessarily have to have anything in common.

Stray thoughts about this have been nagging at me. I think symbols are actually intended for the benefit and use of those who already know the meaning of the symbol. Just like a word concretizes a concept, a symbol does the same thing. A symbol does not belong to any language, a useful feature when going global. A non-linguistic symbol is compatible with an assertion of universality. The drawback is it cannot be spoken or written but that is the function of the word 'Objectivism'. It also struck me that a symbol for a philosophy which looks like a 1 inside a 0 is pregnant with implications about that philosophy's relationship to modernity, and right and wrong versus shades of gray.

It means observation is the standard because it is the final authority on what is possible. Caloric theory could have been true only before the contradicting experiments and observations were made. After the observations have been made, we know that caloric theory does contradict the concept of existence and always has. The concept of existence refers to existence, this particular existence. There are not multiple existences and therefore not multiple concepts of existence. The concept of existence has a unique referent is not about some hypothetical construct(s) rationalistically derived from alleged first principles or axioms. "Could have been true" refers to the theory's epistemological status at the time. Caloric theory was never metaphysically possible, but that was not known until after experiment eliminated the possibility.

The ancient Greek who was a naive realist should have realized the limits of what his senses could tell him and not assert things he could not know. But then he would not still be naive, which is required for this explanation to work. If we banish naive observers, the metaphysically possible and the physically possible are identical. The case against the caloric theory of heat you recapitulate can be construed as a modus tollens argument: If A, then B Not B Therefore Not A You seem to attribute to the premise "If A, then B" metaphysical possibility simply because it can be understood. But observation (Not is the standard of truth and the possible. After observation "Not B" is made, conclusion "Not A" follows and it is wrong to allow A any continued possibility, even though it can still be understood.

That thing looks sinister. It coud work well for the Objectivist secret society.

By definition one cannot define the indefinite. A precise equation describing a hypothetical sphere if it existed is not the same as an actual thing that exists. Just as the meaning of a concept is its referent not its definition, having a definition does not evoke an existent into reality. We do touch tables and rocks, the repulsive forces between atoms are not identical with the macroscopic entities we interact with. Is using the fallacy of composition and reductionism what mereology is about?

The Law of Identity. To be is be something definite. A sphere is definite kind of shape, but your open sphere lacks any shape. How could it be said to be a sphere, or to be touching anything if its size is indefinite, or to have any relationship at all with anything? How could one find or define the center of an open sphere?

The banner of Leonard Peikoff's website has an image of a greek word DISKOBOGOS which appears to be on the base of a small metal sculpture of a discus thrower. Anybody have a clue what it means? "Study of a discus thrower"?

I like the circle and its symbolism. It can also be the finite context of knowledge. But the equal sign as a stand in for identity is weak. First, it is simply wrong to think that the Law of Identity can be expressed as A=A, it is A is A. Second, the Law of Identity is does not distinguish Objectivism from other philosophies. What is essentially Objectivist is the theory of concepts. At the same time as it dissolves the problem of universals, it establishes epistemological unit-economy and creates a hierarchy of knowledge. A single vertical line in place of the equal sign could be the idea of unit economy, being like a finger and the numeral one, the universal unit. To think and especially to perform an integration is to create "one from the many". "E Pluribus Unum" makes a great Objectivist latinized slogan, come to think of it. (p.s. use a gif or png for a bivalue graphic file) edit I disagree, a valid philosophy is as noncontradictory and unified as the universe which it is about. The 2 crosses are visually busy, and look like an asterisk. Overall, inside a circle it looks like a wheel with spokes.

This is pure rationalism. How can an open sphere be said to exist at all? With no boundary points, it is an indefinite figure that can be asserted to do anything at all with no risk of contradiction.

It could fall up, if there was a reason for it to act that way. Birds and airplanes don't refute the law of gravity, they have a means of lift which is greater in magnitude than their weight. In the absence of any reason to fall up, it won't. You used the phrase "a law will act", which reifies laws into things. Only things are things, and laws are about the actions that things do. The issue here is accepting and expecting the arbitrary to happen. Metaphysically the arbitrary should be rejected because of the Law of Identity, the principle that contradictions cannot exist in nature. A law will apply the same way every time so long as the entity acting is the same thing. Epistemologically, accepting the arbitrary means accepting as true and treating as knowledge propositions which are neither observed nor deduced nor induced. The arbitrary should be rejected because there is no reason to accept it. Another issue is the word absolute. This use in regard to knowledge means in effect, "since I know this to be true I can stop thinking about it and take it for granted in all future circumstances." But this is wrong because it claims a kind of omniscience in asserting that there can never be a context where something known no longer applies or is offset by some other factor. Omniscience, being a kind of infinite and indefinite knowledge, contradicts the Law of Identity. The application of the Law of Identity to knowledge itself means that its validity is limited to a certain context, the original context of observation and reason that created it. Limited knowledge applies conceptually. Once you know something about pens, you know something about all pens not just the specific pens you have observed. But you only know with certainty when they share the same context.

No, but that's why I said "petty compulsions". Somewhere, a line gets crossed between the petty and the serious tyrannies that compels rebellion in a self respecting man. That threshold can be different for everyone depending on other obligations to provide for dependents and prospects for successful action. The current situation is not close to that threshold for anyone because it is still possible to live and speak out without oppression.

Multiple philosophers have founded entire systems of thought upon intuitions. Start with Plato and follow forward his Platonist successors. Modern philosphers are especially fond of moral intuitions, because that is all that remains to base ethics upon if one accepts that ought cannot be derived from is. Intuitions fall prey to exactly the same objections that being born understanding "television" does.

The man who wrote "The Concentration Camps" chapter of the Ominous Parallels is quite capable of understanding what goes on in a POW camp. But a POW is not a victim in the same way as a civilian concentration camp prisoner. A POW knows why he is there but camp victim does not. I think Dr. Peikoff gave a good evaluation for an ordinary concentration camp victim, but the context is significantly different for a military officer held as a POW.

My moral status is completely determined by my own actions. To submit to the petty compulsions of the state does not affect my moral status precisely because they are compulsions. The purpose of morality is not to guide us to live a moral life. That is a circular and rationalist understanding. The purpose of morality is to guide your actions to achieve life, your own particular life. Life and morality do not award points for martyrdom operations. There are no morality points by which to keep score of your moral status, only your life. The ideal to be striving for is your life, not a morality apart from life.

All of the similarity across cultures is accounted for by two causes: an historical cultural antecedent held in common or a product of solving the same problem and arriving at the same solution. Language is a mixture of both in that subjects and objects and their actions actually exist, but the words that denote them are passed along from person to person. Alien and human languages would have subjects, objects and verbs because they both deal with the same "underlying structure of reality". An alien word form could be radically different from a sound, but it would refer to the same thing. Objectivism refers to the ability to hold only a small finite number of entities in awareness at once as the crow epistemology, after certain experiments about fooling crows. Babies are quite capable of doing mental feats that crows can do. The Reimer case is a demonstration that people are not infinitely malleable clay figures, but this says nothing about innate knowledge. Nature vs. Nurture is a false dichotomy between two versions of determinism. Determinism is false. The entire philosophical field of epistemology (not just Objectivist epistemology) is premised on the notion that knowledge is about things that exist and can only be gained by a proper method. Knowledge that wells up from inside automatically negates the need for any method and destroys any possibility of claiming all knowledge refers to reality. Innate ideas, instinct, intuitions, and a priori concepts all accomplish the denial of very possibility of an epistemology. A moral intuition creates ethical subjectivism, destroying the philosophical field of ethics. The doctrine of innate ideas destroys all of philosophy.

A version of tabula rasa which denies that people have bodies is of course incorrect. Pinker's target with this book seems to be a radical egalitarianism which denies all differences between people, and the possibility of such a thing as human nature. The Objectivist version of Tabula Rasa does not deny physiology, and from my review of Locke at Plato neither did Locke. Everyone is born with certain senses and capacities to learn, males and females differ, etc. The physiological prerequisites of consciousness comprise the power to be concious, but not the contents of consciousness. It is correct to say one is born with the ability to perceive colors, it is incorrect to say one is born knowing color. The second formulation is wrong because it omits the step of looking at something in particular which has a color. Knowledge derives from experience. I can cite popular science books proving the opposite conclusion about hardwired, inherited knowledge. For example, The Brain That Changes Itself presents evidence that nothing in the brain is hardwired, it exhibits neurological plasticity throughout a persons life.

I once met a mathematician who claimed to be able to visualize 4 spatial dimensions. The trick was to start with a figure in 3 dimensions out of a 4 dimensional space (x,y,z,w), and then visualize the various orthogonal views or projections (x,y,w), (x,w,z) and (w,y,z). Spend enough time doing that and it can become intuitive.

I have long had an abstract curiousity as whether or not OO.net forum posts had length limitation. The question has now been answered definitively in the negative. Emotionalism and altruism in combination were transmitted through American establishment pragmatists. Additional means, such as the exotic conspiracy you have cast doubt upon, are not required.

The Profit Motive Behind The Sexualization Of Tween Girls Love this headline. People act stupidly and the problem is identified as their freedom to act. The money comment that cashes in on the premise behind the headline is right here: The mass of the comments pick out the parents for blame, despite the headline. There is something to be said here about social leadership, which I am not yet able to name. The headline and the reaction it begs for is a similar mechanism to the MTV led culture that sexualizes young girls.

I did study it, up until the point I grasped that any reverse wave theory contradicted the results of the Aspect experiment. It doesn't take a PhD to make it that far, so I have my doubts about what the PhD's that can't even reach that conclusion are really up to. Objectivism comes into this in the following fashion: once one understands a particular idea is false, it is immoral to continue to act as though it were true. It becomes difficult to continue to associate with those who do not yet grasp their mistake, even if they are not immoral.

There is always a fundamental, or you wouldn't be able to have a clear thought of what a concept is about. In this case, I would equate the fundamental with the 'conceptual common denominator' described by Rand in ITOE. The CCD is what unites a concept with its genus. The fundamental goal of remaining alive is simply inherited from his nature of being a living entity. It really is the broadest thing one could say about action. There is no getting behind it or beneath it.

Inspiration to your fellow POWs. Integrity, respect and honor. The tangible manifestations of these are a senate seat, and nearly the presidency. If he could escape he should do it, but if it is at a perceived cost of a quid pro quo for the enemy then it is unacceptable. The principle of not cooperating with the enemy has the purpose of maintaining the will to resist among the captives. It is a morale issue inside the camp, and to the extent it prevents use of prisoners for propaganda purposes it is a morale issue outside the camp. The negatives of being released improperly would entirely offset anything McCain could say about the nature of the enemy and their treatment of POWs, which were already known to those who would have listened. Morale effects every service member and the civilian political will to fight. Napoleon Bonaparte estimated that “the moral is to the physical as three is to one."

I was catching up on my collection on Peikoff podcasts when I heard this (from episode 41): The question is: Peikoff says: I say the questioner has got the grounds for not leaving wrong, it wasn't McCain's personal quirks at issue here. Unlike the victims of concentration camps, captured military personnel are still in the military and subject to its standards of conduct while captive. There is a de facto chain of command based upon the most senior office present even in a prisoner of war camp. Offering preferential treatment directly to the prisoners is a means for the enemy to attack that chain of command and set the prisoners against each other as they vie for favors. Egalitarianism has nothing to do with it. It was not self-sacrificial for McCain to keep his integrity and his honor.

Now that the fate of Mr. Scott has been settled, is this thread about the death penalty? Because in my bound volume of the Objectivist Newsletter, issue Vol. 2 No. 1 Intellectual Ammunition Department, Branden simply states that death can be justified as a punishment if the legal and epistemological problem of proof can be solved. This is identical with Peikoff's position unless he said something different that day than he does today.