Mindy

The more I read of this the more confused I get. I went back and searched for earlier threads on bounded or unbounded universe, and came across some great stuff. mroctor, 1-16-2010, wrote that "unbounded" means "can increase without limit' but that that doesn't imply infinity, because an unbounded variable always has a particular, finite value. That makes sense to me as a description of the finite universe. What happens as the javelins of the "Two javelin experiment" travel to (or, say, one of them reaches) the furthest point of the universe? Well, if it has enough energy to continue (its progress would be slowed by the gravity of the whole universe, now opposing its motion, and, of course, it started out with a finite amount of energy,) if it has the energy to continue, it continues, and, in doing so, it expands the universe. Presumably it could continue indefinitely, though it would always have traveled a finite distance, and the universe would remain finite in extent. This leaves me struggling for the proper language. Some things are unbounded and lack a boundary, some are bounded but lack a boundary. Some are unbounded and have a boundary, and some are unbounded and have no boundary. If I've got it sorted out correctly, I want to say the universe is unbounded, in that it can expand, and without a boundary, in that there is nothing "outside" or apart from the universe to represent a limit to its extension. Yet, it is always finite. Add all the extended things up, and you get a size, and that is the size of the universe. Same for time, though the highly relative nature of measurement of time needs to be respected. Space is an aspect of existing things. Time is an ordering of changes of all sorts. Extended things undergoing changes make up the universe, so it has a sum of extension and time "within" it. That doesn't contradict Rand's statement that we can't ascribe space or time ...to the universe as a whole. If I understand correctly, she was saying we can't ask where the universe is in space, or when in time. Mindy p.s. Being finite means it has an actual extent. But there is no metaphysical significance to what its present extent is. If there is nothing that limits the expansion of the universe, are the "infinite universe" people satisfied?

While a bound implies that something is ending, does it also require that something is beginning? Mindy

I don't think anyone has ever lived by religion. One can't live by a contradiction. Do you practice "eye-for-an-eye" justice or "turn-the-other-cheek" tolerance? Do you really look on newborn babies as disgustingly sinful? It's not possible outside a pathological personality. Could St. Augustine have been a sincere, benevolent person? I suppose so. He had to reject much of established religion, and set himself to straighten out its errors. That he didn't see all its errors is not a condemnation. But he would have had to be a rebel in his heart, if not in his public persona. And that means he did not live by the religion of his day, even if he bowed to the social/political need to appear to do so. Mindy p.s. I've been assuming Christianity is the religion in question. Regarding the Eastern religions, it does appear that some religious figures have lived by their precepts, meditating and begging and wandering throughout their lives. Were you considering such people?

I suggest that it is misleading to call conceptualizing induction. The process is only akin to induction. Induction proper is the formation of general propositions like All S is P. Trying to form an undifferentiated concept of induction that applies equally to the process of forming such general propositions and to conceptualizing existents is a mistake. Same, of course, for deduction. Applying concepts you alredy possess to a particular thing is akin to deduction, but only that. Don't try to understand deduction as something that encompasses deductive logic and conceptual identification of new particulars. It is worthwhile, to repeat myself, to understand how concept-formation is like induction, and how applying concepts is like deduction. It is a mistake to regard those similarities as defining. Keep the four concepts distinct. Know how they relate. Mindy

I'm not sure I understand your conclusion. A circle is defined as the group of points equidistant from a point in a plane. That point is its center. A circle is not a disc, but the circle that is the circumference of a disc shares centers with the center of the disc. In the case of the disc, the center is a part of the disc itself. In the case of the circle, it is not. I realize we are talking about the surface of a sphere, but, as an analogy to a circle proper, doesn't the center of a sphere's surface coincide with the center of the solid sphere of which it is the surface? Mindy

Your claim that genus-species relationships are examples of cause is the subject under discussion. The relation is assymetrical. The species possesses all the characteristics of the genus, but not vice versa. That cannot be called similarity, which is a symmetrical relation. One can't resolve the genus-species relation into species-species relations, because the first species formed could be the only species formed--to that point. The orphaned members of the genus do not necessarily form a species of their own. The only possibility I can think of is that, e.g., "being a rational animal causes one to be an animal." That is foolishness, of course. Mindy

The center of a circle does not reside on the circle, so why does the center of a sphere need to? Mindy

Right. I was asking which meaning was correct. I did that because they were not equivalent/consistent. Mindy

I take it that "chronologically prior" means "prior." I take it that "concluding" here means some person's reaching a conclusion that there is a genus-species relationship in the case. Then, you say the similarity between genus and species is the cause of the person's concluding there is a genus-species relation. I won't argue with that. Evidence causes knowledge. It doesn't touch on the question at hand, though. How does being an animal (genus) cause some animals to be rational animals (species)? That is the issue. Clearly, the answer is that it doesn't. If you meant something different by the genus-species relation, what was it? Mindy p.s. Wouldn't it be better to say the genus-species relationship was based on recognizing a difference, not a similarity? If you have the genus, you come to see that there are distinct sub-sets, types, groups, categories, or such, within that genus. You name the difference, and that is the differentiation that defines the species.

Is that a typing exercize? Mindy

Starting a new thread? Mindy

If that is a response to me, you'll have to say which meaning of "boundary" you are using. Edit: I'm advised that the proper meaning of "boundary" is that it is the furthest extent of something, so I'm adopting that use. So, my point is that the universe does have a boundary. That fact is inferred, not observed, of course. The foundation for that belief is that what exists must have identity, and infinite extent is an indefinite attribute. Mindy

Yes. If you wish to argue that the OP is being immoral with regards to his own character, that is an interesting question, but not at all a given. However, that is patently not the question that has been so hotly disputed here. The arguments have said he was cheating the book-seller. Show me where I intimated anything to the contrary. You have bought into DO, et. al.'s straw men. Don't tax me with having made them. I can't imagine how you suggest such a thing. If I promise my friend I'll pick him up before 7 p.m., there is no legal aspect to whether I fulfill that promise or not! If I buy a newspaper from someone, the transaction is purely legal. If you can argue otherwise, not just assert it, I'd be happy to hear about it. Mindy

I don't understand some of this. Why can't the universe have a center? How it could be known is a different question. If by a boundary, you mean a limiting factor, I agree the universe has no boundary, but if by boundry you mean the outer extent of the universe in a given direction from oneself, then the universe, being finite, does have a boundary--(defined that way.) I think the error in your argument about a universe of finite things is that how many such there are is open. Mindy

n DavidOdden, today. Your argument here is that my position reminds you of a Libertarian one. That is the ad hominem. It would be worth your while, I guarantee it, but I also understand your reluctance. Mindy

First, it is agreed, then, that he did nothing legally wrong? "No matter what the OP said, if there is nothing but a legal transaction going on, the legal considerations determine the moral question." I wrote that earlier today. I would like to better understand the moral dimensions of the purchase that exceed the legal ones, if you would be so kind. Do speak of the specific case at hand, however. I understand that you are dropping context in speaking of "there can be any standard of moral evaluation other than legality." Do you really think people won't realize this discussion is about a very specific interaction? That I have spoken only about that situation? That some interactions are nothing beyond a legal interchange? (Here's a hint: instead of waxing on about my "taking comfort," "[being] puzzled," etc., speak to the issue at hand.) I've never stooped to that tactic, myself, though many people do. It strikes me as a way to claim that one possesses the whole knowledge and wisdom of somebody else's work. For me, it is much more satisfying to say what needs saying. What now needs saying is how, if this was just a legal transaction, and it was fully legal, did the OP commit a moral wrong? Mindy

No, if there are none but legal issues, then how the legal issues get settled is precisely how the morality is settled. Are your dropping context in order to argue that legality is a subset of morality? Sometimes, in legal determinations, intent counts. But intent alone is never sufficient to constitute a crime. Do you? Are you unfamiliar with this quote? Do you think it is material to our discussion? Mindy

"Intention" is one kind of thought. What did you have in mind? Mindy

Just a technical adjustment: Deduction may provide propositions which then are used as premises in further deductions. Of course, they all depend on the earlier, inductively-produced premises. Mindy

It will take a little more than I should stare at a word to disprove the ad hominem. No matter what the OP said, if there is nothing but a legal transaction going on, the legal considerations determine the moral question. Actually, that's another ad hominem, once the issue has been brought up. What are the grounds for judging the morality of this situation apart from the legality of the situation? Mindy p.s. You'll recall that Rand pointed out that one's thoughts aren't judged as moral or immoral, only our actions.

I am not familiar with Libertarian theory except that it often contemplates anarchism. The logic of your point is fallacious, though. It is an ad hominem. Can you define "logic?" This is a purely legal transaction we are talking about. What grounds are there for the OP to morally offend the bookstore, other than the legal ones?

I think, in fact, that it is extremely romantic to be suddenly, and--let me say surprisingly--seized by an uncontrolable passion, and that passion cannot be controlled. That leaves a lot out of your statement, of course. What I think is worth writing a response to are the implications that passion is chosen, controlled, reasoned out. You write, "Objectivist romance is a chosen, developed passion..." I disagree. I am taking "developed" as parallel to "chosen," as that is its context. That means that the passion is actively developed, rather than it develops on its own. Emotions, interests, attitudes, etc., are not decided upon, chosen, or developed. They are responses to things as we know of and understand them. Passions, as the strongest emotional attachments, involve the depth of one's values. They are experienced as reflecting oneself. Since knowing about a thing/person, and coming to understand it/them may take time, passion may develop (on its own) over time, yes. It is not the case, though, that one makes a purely intellectual evaluation of a thing/person, and decides that it/they qualify for a passionate response, and then makes that passionate response. Rand makes it clear that "every thought is an emotion, every emotion a thought," but that just says that fact and value can't be divorced. What emotions we feel, how strongly, etc., are a matter of our knowledge and values, which is to say, our knowledge in the broadest sense. Knowledge is the cause, emotion is the effect. That doesn't mean emotions are on a leash. They are the least controllable aspect of the self. I suspect the OP was accustomed to speaking of emotion as "irrational" just as a matter of course. Many people do. He didn't understand how emotions relate to thought and knowledge. It is an unpleasant simile, but I would choose your cat-in-heat scenario as the more accurate description of passion. Mindy

Perhaps it has a constantly moving center. Do you conceive of the universe as static in size? I don't. Mindy

Joint-use property, like roads, require cooperation, driving on the right side, for instance. The roads are safe only because people know of and follow the rules. While there are bad rules, recognizing even those may be important, because they set the expectations of others on the road as to how your vehicle can be expected to behave. Obviously, then, if you make up and follow your own, assuming they violate the established ones, you are creating risk, even if your rules would, if instituted, be better. Most people are too casual about the rules of grammar, thinking that in the present case, a comma, for example, won't make any difference. But grammar, which is crucial to thought and language, is just rules and conventions we set. If we don't also follow them, they are eroded, and everyone's ability to communicate, and even their ability to reason, is eroded. There is nothing but the combined effect of individuals' following or violating grammar to cause grammar to exist. Justice is a man-made thing. Most people are concerned with justice only when it is coming their way. They are more or less indifferent to being the source and cause of justice. But justice only happens if someone makes it happen, out of regard for it on principle. Degenerate cultures disregard their own structures and values. They cut corners, indulge in any excess, and license provocative abuses of value and virtue. They flaunt the rules in order to feel superior. And ours is, of course, a degenerating culture. One can always find excuses for breaking rules. Slip-shod thinking will let you believe something someone does but shouldn't means you are exempt from what you find it inconvenient to follow. Maturity consists, in large part, of achieving the broad perspective on civilization/society/culture such that you recognize legitimate rules as such. Honorable men are those who act on principles, who are not just willing to act on principles, but desire to do so. They are eager to put justice in the world, to make the effort to speak and write clearly, to act in public so as to foster cooperative use of public spaces, etc. (and, if those were private, they would be the ones who were scrupulous in adhering to the contractual rules.) I learned from Objectivism to understand, and value, the man-made. The Objectivist view of man's life is an affirmation of his efficacy. The Objectivist view of living is that it is purposeful. A hero doesn't regard himself as involved in a struggle against society, but as progressing towards achieving his purpose. He doesn't look at others as powerful and pernicious. He doesn't think of Toohey at all. He is preoccupied with his purposes. He knows that his happiness depends on himself. He knows that living remains to him even if he is reduced to cutting stone in a quarry. Mindy