Grames

Because the contemporary world is not compatible with such art. It would be a ridiculous juxaposition even as fantasy. Clashing philosophical premises make some things impossible.

No, its you. I appreciated the link.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/benevole...se_premise.html You are still misreading it. Truth, knowledge and your mind are the referents of ideas, they are what the word means. Subsequent is not the relationship.

Continuing with the idea that a concept is not to be equated to its definition: Definitions of concepts serve the purpose of identifying the referents, and doing it in such a way as to distinguish one concept from another. Some definitions can be done ostensively, others are written in terms of other concepts. Definitions make explicit the relationships and hierarchy between concepts. A correct definition will specify genus and differentia. See Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology Chapter 5. Definitions. Although "consciousness exists" is a metaphysical axiom and can only be demonstrated ostensively, there is more that can be said about consciousness. This is because everything exists in a relationship to everything else that exists. A genus will point out a similarity relationship while a differentia will point out a distinguishing element in contrast to all those that are similar. Consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists. It is the power to be aware of something. Consciousness as concept refers to the entirety of the subject, the object, and their relationship. Although any entity can be the object of awareness, only some entities are capable of being the subject that is aware. Those are living entities. Living entities continue to exist by continuously acting, and of their many types of actions perceiving other things and being aware of them is just one. To be conscious of something is a type of action establishing the relationship of awareness between the subject and the object of awareness.

Your own life is the standard of value. Your own evaluation of yourself with respect to that standard is variable. But aren't you by definition always good if you evaluate yourself by the standard of your own life, and if so then what is the meaning of good and evil? The good is objective, and you are volitional, thus your acts are not always automatically good. Being a good (moral) person means choosing to act to achieve the objective good. Considering yourself good is a judgement that you have chosen well. It is also an anticipation that, because you are good you will choose well in the future. Thus being good increases desire for life. Being evil is not choosing to act to achieve the objective good. Considering yourself evil is a judgement that you have not chosen well. It is also an anticipation that, because you are evil you will not choose well in the future. Thus being evil decreases desire for life. It is an improper formulation to state "being evil is choosing to act to achieve the objective evil" because it leaves unevaluatable the choice not to choose. If throwing yourself off a cliff is evil, so is sitting on the edge of the cliff until you starve to death. Life requires action therefore passsivity is a moral failure.

Me too. The Meta Blog is completely FUBARed. Impossible to read the page toward the bottom. Using IE7 if that makes a diff.

I will just respond to this part of the post for now, I must get away from my computer. To have identity is to have form, particularity, boundaries, borders, limits, and finiteness. To be finite means to be definite. It is always possible to define the definite. There can be no infinite regress from the finite, or from the relations of finite things to each other. And because some definitions are ostensive, it is not the case that definitions are always in terms already defined and therefore circular.

Ok I see now what you mean. I agree that a concept must come before its definition. Concepts can be poorly defined, or even undefined while being created because the ultimate meaning of a concept is the referents, the things that actually exist. Definitions are based upon observations of the referents, so the concept must come first in order to know which observations are of the referents and that observations of other things are irrelevant. Technically, concepts before they are defined are referred to as 'implicit concepts'. There is a discussion of 'implicit concepts' in the appendix to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Implicit concepts are created by noticing similarities. So when we create the concept of a circle, we first start with a number of particular shapes which are similar based on their attribute of circularity (even the word for circularity has to come after the concept circle was fully formed and defined.)

Consciousness certainly can be defined. Everything that exists has identity, therefore one can say more about the attributes of consciousness, compare it with other forms of awareness, and define it as a type of action performed by some living entities. Consciousness is explainable, we just do not have the explanation yet. The axiomatic status of consciousness means that one cannot ever validly reach the conclusion that consciousness does not exist. Reductionism that denies consciousness exists is invalid. Explanations of how consciousness is possible are not reductionism. The denial that consciousness has identity, or that if it did it would no longer be consciousness, is the essential position of Kant.

Freedom to act is a prerequisite for moral responsibility. To offer 5% when 10% was demanded at gunpoint is actually a form of resistance. It is a logical equivocation and point of confusion to use the word 'offer' for actions under duress and actions not under duress.

No. If you are not acting as a rational free agent, then the response to the demand does not and can not matter. If you can bargain down the amount of the robbery, that is actually a good thing in the sense of cutting one's losses.

Whether or not one is under duress is an objective fact, not a subjective mental state. When the gov't demands X% of your income on pain of imprisonment you are under duress. No degree of compliance with a demand constitutes sanction when under duress.

I'm against you because you are being too broad in your formulations. Perhaps you can amend your position to accomodate the following objection. Not all judgements are moral judgements. Not all decisions about a person are made based on his moral status. For example, many jobs with a physical component have a minimum performance requirement (be able to lift/carry 50 lbs), physical fitness requirement, or even a minimum height requirement. Specific judgements that can be made are: a certain age - minimum age requirements relating to legally discriminating adults from children objectively born in a certain place - initial citizenship status can be based on place of birth born in a certain status - Are a citizen or not. Are an orphan or not? (What kinds of status do you have in mind?)

Once you learn something, you just remember the information. Recall does not change its status, truthfulness or value. Neither does writing it down or communicating it to others. Why the hostility to the possibility of knowledge?

WTF. What is the relation?

Article claims current pop. is 61 million. Decreasing to 30million is a -50% cut. Every second brit must die or be deported.

Donuts dissolve in hot coffee.

This is skepticism. Trivially easy to refute. Self-refuting, in fact.

Protection should not be granted strictly on the basis of citizenship, but on geographic extent defined by borders. If the jurisdiction of the government is a patchwork quilt of properties owned by citizens excluding other properties owned by noncitizens then this creates anarchy and the competing governments situation.

What is the legal reason this disclaimer is necessary for a bookstore? One often sees it from broadcasters whose licenses to operate are held hostage by the FCC, but an online bookstore?

Is it still mysticism when you can actually see the angels? hmmmm I think everything they did in the wrap-up was dictated by the decision to set the arrival of the rag tag fleet 150,000 years ago in this Earth's timeline. The only thing they failed at was Kara Thrace/Starbuck. Her just disappearing is an admission of total failure by the writers that they had lost control of the continuity and arc of that character. That is what happens when you make stuff up as you go along. And don't use spoiler tags if the thread title warns of spoilers, its redundant.

You throw down that word 'tautology' as if it were a bad thing, and a refutation of my statement. But every true statement identifying the nature of a thing is necessarily and unavoidably tautological. When selecting which attribute of man is fundamental, this is not self-evident so it is non-obvious and a useful statement and still tautological. You will not find meaning in the whole of your life by tearing yourself into its parts, consciousness and body. If for some arbitrary and a priori reason you settle on one and exclude the other, any answer you arrive at will necessarily be distorted and incomplete.

Secret charges and secret evidence are nonobjective, unconstitutional and immoral. But the publicly available indictment of Susan Lindauer has plenty of non-secret counts that formed the basis of holding her. In addition to the defendant being a loon, this was never going to make a good test case because the gov't could simply drop the secret charges and still have a case. Susan Lindauer was no martyr for anything.

It looks like word wrapping turned off for the metablog posts beginning with the http://rationalpursuits.blogspot.com/2009/...llionaires.html post.

Skepticism is never okay whether in science or religion or socioeconomic subjects. Have a particular objection.