Mindy

Perhaps you mistake rhetorical questions for a request for information? Jonathan is circumspect in his responses. I suggest that you have failed to get his point, at least some of the time, if you make this interpretation of his posts. If you thought you were responding to specific questions, wouldn't your responses line up with them? The difference between arguing a matter and declaring one's opinions on it is exploited with fabulous effect in Rand's writings. Look at what is said in the committee to re-design Cortland homes, or in one of James Taggart's back-room meetings, if you'd like to refresh your sensitivity to the difference. Mindy

Yes, and I am glad to have the opportunity to explain. This thread has been essentially a discussion, at places sharpened into an argument, about how a particular commercial situation should be judged. All, or almost all the participants have given reasons why it is to be interpreted as proper or improper. Please note that "reasons" is not a normative term in this case. Reasons can persuade or convince or be found insufficient, etc. because they supply grounds for arriving at different conclusions. In your post, however, reasons were conspicuously absent. Expressing your opinion, and calling that an "interpretation" doesn't substitute for reasoning. A person who enters an actual discussion and only expresses opinions (and I am glossing over the begged questions, etc. in this) is offering his view as if it were to be accepted on authority. When it is done with a pious attitude, it is doubly insupportable. Mindy

"I swear by my life and my love of it..." but if I have to strip a child of his life preserver in order to survive, you can bet your life I will do so? I don't think so. Where Rand discusses emergencies and their exigencies in the Lexicon, her exceptions are aimed at helping others. This subject has been debated endlessly, and I find the best counter-example for those inclined to say they would kill another to save their own life is that of organ-harvesting. Would you, had you the chance, kidnap someone and remove his kidney if it were necessary to survive? Again, I don't think so. When you value life, it is automatic to value all life. It isn't that you have no reason to value a stranger's life, but what sort of vile behavior would cancel out its automatic value in your eyes. Mindy

Absolutely! Nobody is making others enter into the discussion of the OP's hypothetical. If it doesn't interest you, do not waste time and space on the thread at all. If you do choose to join, you are obliged to respect the dimensions of the problem set by the OP. Keeping that in mind, each may contribute or keep silent. Mindy

I've been thinking of getting a Droid. Great information. Thanks.

A child "relates concepts", in the sense of forming sentences, long before he is capable of forming definitions. Explicit definitions would themselves be sentences, of course, but they are not the first kind of sentence children form. Is there an error in your question as to whether first-level concepts precede others (specifically, the "others" that "form the terms of the definition"?) What case are you considering in which first-level concepts were secondary or derivative? Mindy

Yes, the issue of the relation between the object of thought and the grasp of the object of thought is the issue of essence or universals. The "grasp" is abstract as compared to the object. This difference brings up all the classical problems concerning universals. Mindy

You say you are proposing the correct understanding of the trader principle. Yet, all I read are opinions. I would be loathe to assume you were being authoritative rather than operating from an exchange based on reason, but I am forced to conclude, in light of your final comment about you "walking" us through life's actual cases, that you did not intend to offer other than personal opinion. I am puzzled at whom you expect to replace their own thinking with your ruminations, as above. It is an attitude foreign to many of us posters. It is foreign to what I see as the norm here. Mindy

Those are the scenario the OP set. That's how you know. When a person sets an hypothetical, he gets to define the situation. If you want to discuss a different situation, you might set your own scenario, but you can't, logically, question the defined structure of the one you are engaged in discussing. Mindy

I found the paper interesting. He mentions Rand as the root of his choice of theories of induction, and, in his summary, he repeats that theories of induction that relate it intimately with concept-formation was his focus. He doesn't need to keep mentioning her name, as the reader is expected to be able to keep in mind what her emphasis is, and the material fits that perspective, so there is no confusion. Mindy

Tall Poppies Cut the tall poppy, Cut it right down. That's where we want it, Flat on the ground. It's blocking our view, It's taking our light, It must be too tall, 'Cause we aren't that height. --Mindy Newton

Is that a yes? Or just: the poll expects that people who voted had read the book? People certainly have posted about it without reading the book, as you would, of course, know. To form an opinion from that and vote based on it is certainly within the norm of behavior for people here. If some forty people here have read the book, only a small fraction of them are posting about it. Midy

I am separating them just as Gotthelf did. Mindy

So, in your bar, the "stuff" isn't actually free. You set up the appearance of free snacks, but you don't mean it. Does that sit well with your own take of the "trader" principle? Mindy