0096 2251 2110 8105

Yes, I forgot. Well, since that is a special case, you can simply take it as "true" and ignore the "proven to be", there, problem solved. Yes, of course, axioms as such are not knowledge, they're axioms, but you have knowledge of them. And yes, knowledge presupposes all three axioms, a belief too presupposes all three axioms, everything presupposes all three axioms. What's your point? You may experience axioms automatically, but you have to analyze them and derive your understanding of their nature and attributes from reality, it doesn't just get automatically into your head. And I don't see how it matters if knowledge becomes possible because of them, they're still "what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information" (knowledge) in any case. They are known: "a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation." Anyway, my whole point is that "belief" still leaves room for falsehood, which is completely uncesessary when the case has been already proven, and even more so when the source of the conviction is automatically to be held true.

The word "belief" isn't necessary when the statement that is being examined is true. You pointed out 3 definitions, I assume you're using the last one, which provides an additional particular use of the word "especially when based on examination of evidence" as an extension, still leaving room for the contrary, which isn't appropriate when referring to axioms, since beliefs that are proven to be true automatically become knowledge. Consider this: "The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true. A false belief is not considered to be knowledge, even if it is sincere. A sincere believer in the flat earth theory does not know that the Earth is spherical. Similarly, a truth that nobody believes is not knowledge." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief ..So, no, I still don't think that the word "belief" is necessary.

Hey! Put the rest back!

Say what? That I disagree with axioms requiring belief? Don't you too?

Yeah, fortunately no one is doing that. If the statement were "The first axiom of Objectivism: The belief that nothing is nothing and everything is something" that may be so, but it wasn't. And even if it were, it's still wrong. I'll have to agree with Cmac19 and his estimation of the actual statement.

A dead body proving the abscense or non-existence of its consciousness?

I recall you saying that there is such a thing (here). I'm a little confused by this. Although many members of this board have said there is, I think that Peikoff said in his podcast that there isn't. Maybe I'm getting it all wrong, but if...for example, you place a book on a carpet floor, and then take it away, it will leave marks, and there you would have evidence of the abscence of the book on the floor, although this is probably not the best example. Is this wrong?

I hope that you're only saying this as a joke. I have only one pair of shoes. Are you implying this is something bad? And who are you trying to quote here? You don't even know him/her to come up with this sort of clever "deductions." Are you saying that because someone can somehow have access to the internet and engage in debates, without any context or any knowledge of his situation whatsoever, therefore he must by nature be a "succesful" man with the purchasing power to go around shopping for shoes, regardless of his needs, priorities or interests? What on Earth is the relation between discussing ideas and having more than one pair of shoes? Can you elaborate on this? Because your statement is nothing more than a typical ad hominem argument.

I like that. Too bad that it doesn't work when your opponent has only one pair of shoes.

Yeah. Maybe I should've phrased my question a little better. I wasn't asking anyone to go and personally debate with her. I was just asking for some short analysis or any thoughts on the argument, rather than the person, and your answer was simply a dismissive non-answer. So that's why I tried to clear that up, so that you could give a proper response. But you're right, I should rephrase that.

Another one from some other guy: Jeez, maybe because they would go bankrupt? In any case...

Yes, I can think of a proper response. I know this is a tremendous case of context-dropping, but I can't just explain the entire Objectivist ethics and politics to this person in a Facebook post, so I was just looking for a more direct and short response to her statement. I'm not interested in the person per ser. The person is completely irrelevant, I just took her status as an example. I'm interested in the claim, because I hear it all the time, and wanted to hear some good ways to address it.

Fine, let's assume this has to be analyzed for an assignment, or that this is someone of value, like a friend or family member, who has only been exposed to the wrong ideas, or whatever. There. Now you can post an actual argument, if you like.

I saw this earlier today in someone’s Facebook status: How would you respond to this statement?

What does it mean to be American "in spirit"? I've always heard that expression, and never quite understood what it really means. What does it mean to be anything "in spirit"? Why is it even necessary to use that expression? I'm just curious.

While I agree with most of the usual anti-environmentalist denouncements and everything, I just find this peculiar method very odd. How is wasting as much energy as possible a celebration of advancement? What on Earth is the rational connection? I’ll use whatever amount of energy my needs require. That’s my protest. Acting how I would normally act, using energy like a normal person, instead of turning every light in my house out of pure spite, and then just sit and use one or two at a time, running up my electricity bill like crazy, to make some sort of "symbolic" unnecessary counterstatement which could be explicitly, intelligently and efficiently done in any other way. I can’t dispose of them all at the same time, I’m not enjoying or making use of most of them, and neither is anyone else. How about getting a wood-fired steam turbine for tonight? I mean, you could quadruple your net energy consumption with that and celebrate even more! I don't agree with Earth Hour, I disregard it, and I'm not participating in it. There, that's how I make my statement. One very valuable resource to me is money, and I'm not throwing it away on this.

Why do you need to respond to it? I would ask whoever you got this from to define what he means by "nothing" in the first place, since that is a tremendous over-simplification. It seems that "nothing" here means "God didn't do it" or something. In order to disprove anyone's assertion, you must first ask him to prove it, to support his use of words like "belief", "nothing", "reason", "magically", "sense", their logical realtion to atheism, etc. Otherwise you're just wasting your time, and engaging in this type of discussion is clearly an error from your part. Your first question is really the entire case for atheism, so look it up. In any case, what evidence is there to suggest that someone created us? What do you mean by "create"? Nothing is nothing, it has no capability of creating anything, since the nothingness is the absence of all things, and nonexistents have no potentiality whatsoever. I don't know what the fallacy is, appart from the obvious straw man, probably the argument from ignorance, which are enough to dismiss it.

Speaking of State "capitalism", or some of its various varieties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

Jeez. So does Mikhail Bakunin, you know? I shouldn't have to say this, but Marxism is the economic and political model of Karl Marx (and Friedrich Engels), meaning, Marxism is not Barack Obama's favorite aspects from it, even if they're "many", since being a marxist is not an issue of "quantity" of premises, but of full understanding and consistency to actual marxist tenets, which btw are in conflict by the mere fact of having a marxist president in the first place, since socialism can only by achieved by a proletarian revolution, resulting later in a certain form of direct democracy, after the working class assumes the State power in order to socialize the means of production (this according to Marxism) and not by the implementation of transitional reformist methods, which have been always strongly criticized by actual marxists, since Rosa Luxemburg. If this works or not, which I think it doesn't, that is irrelevant, and I don't care to discuss it. I'm just saying that if Obama is to be called a "marxist" (even if marxists who agree on this are extremely rare to find), then we should be just and start calling Glenn Beck an Objectivist.

Well, he is obviously none of the above. I just refer to him as a man with inconsistent mixed premises.

You can't be serious about this...

I'll have second Determinist and ask how you arrived at this conclusion. Is it simply because both terms end with "archism"? Or this there some crucial reason for "minarchism" not being a good term?

Well, first of all we have to know that they actually said it, so, do you have a source?

Well, I don't know, I think that would be a complete disrespect and lack of consideration towards the kid's family, and many others would think so too, if the pictures were taken from a real situation (the ones from the seatbelt campaign were). But, even if they weren't, exploiting suffering and agony in that way would be perceived as moral reprehensible, probably grotesque and repulsive to some, but still selling, and I think that would give an indication of some psychological flaws from the people behind the ad. But let's stay on topic. I just want to get this clear: 1) so is the BK ad absolutely moral then? As long as it sells? 2) Isn't that a sort of pragmatic approach?

Hmm, OK, but what I'm looking for is the moral evaluation of the ad, within that frame. And..I'm still not clear about this, it's not obvious to me, if X company sold a health product, and promoted itself by presenting an ad with a mutilated kid and his mother crying next to him, with a "this could happen to you, buy X" or something, would the publicity be moral? Let's pretend that tactic would actually work and it would increase the sales (it probably would, a similar campaign promoting the use of seatbelts worked prett well here.)