phibetakappa

Good premises.

Thanks for the clarifications, they help me understand your positions a little better. ?What is the ultimate purpose or goal of making the distinction of "modal logic" as opposed to just logic? I.e., what is one trying to accomplish?

I reviewed the first video and I was not turned off or annoyed, nor did I think it was "cheesy", or in an "ad-like form." I thought it was very well done, and appropriate. The ideas are presented as important, and are not undercut at all by the presentation. Regards,

*What do you mean by "axiom"? *What do you mean by "proof"? *How do you believe "proof" is given, i.e., how does one "prove" a statement to you?

What are some examples of the concept of "possibility" without human will? What does it mean for "will" to be involved with a concept as opposed to "will" being uninvolved with a concept? What do you mean by "possible"? What do you mean by "impossible"?

I agree: in a "succinct way" would you please state what the contradiction is supposed to be?

I would guess you are unconvinced because Objectivism's ethical system is not "derived as an imperative" from our nature. Ethical statements are not imperatives, they are normatives. It sounds like you believe the purpose of ethics is to formulate imperatives, commandments, edicts, dictates, dogmas or orders, i.e., that ethics is a subject for restraining men, or reigning in their choices. It sounds as though you have accepted some variant of the mind / body dichotomy. Proper ethics is not found in imperatives, ordering or dictating how men should restrain themselves and/or resist temptations, or mortify the flesh. Objective normative statements ask, given I am a certain kind of being, living in a certain kind of world, and I have no automatic means of knowing what to do, what actions am I to choose? Ayn Rand, called ethics “hypothetical.” If we choose to live, then a certain course of action necessarily follows. And, if we choose to consider the full context of our nature as men, and the nature of the world around us, then further refinements of our choices necessarily follow. But, if you take the Objectivist ethics as a system of imperatives, and then look for evidence supporting why one should choose to restrain one’s choices; choose to restrain one’s mind, and blindly follow those imperatives; you will never find an answer, because you are looking for a reason to support un-reason. The quotes you started with are Ayn Rand stating she has discovered a metaphysical phenomena (when considered epistemologically, i.e., when conceptualized), which stops the potential infinite regress one would be trapped in if one concluded that values are just means to ends, which are means to other ends, etc. etc. She discovered that the phenomenon of life, i.e., life by its nature, is an end in itself, i.e., that it is conditional in nature, i.e., it constantly requires maintenance, for it to remain in existence. She notes: the term we have for those things which provide the necessary conditions for sustaining that existence as a living being, are known as “values;” in other words, when we conceptualize living beings, and what is continuously required for them to remain in existence; concepts such as value and need arise. In Garry Hall’s course, “Ayn Rand’s Philosophic System,” he demonstrates this point with a “Plant, cat, table.” If you had a plant, cat and a table, and you go on a very long trip, leaving the three behind. If the cat is in a cage or strapped to the table, when you return you will find the table unaffected, but the plant and the cat dead. Why? As living beings, the existence of the plant & the cat, is conditional, they have continuous requirements to remain in existence as living beings. The table is not living and its existence is not conditional in the way the living beings existence is. Ayn Rand states, “The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do.” The concept of values or needs do not apply to non-living beings. One does not observe non-living beings acting in ways to sustain their existence. The absence of food or protection does not lead to their death. There is no need to pursue the necessary conditions for their further existence as non-living beings, because there are no necessary conditions for them to remain what they are. But what a living being is by its nature as a living being, requires it to get what it needs, or else. If a living being does not get what it needs it ceases to “be” what it is: it ceases to be. “The fact that a living being is,” means that a living being is what it is, i.e., that to be a living being is to face a constant alternative of needing to sustain its life with values, or else. As men, we conceptualize this state of our own conditional existence. That is to say, when we realize we are members of this class of living beings, we formulate our own needs or requirements into words, because that’s how we as men sustain our lives. We express the problem of being alive by formulating statements containing “should” and “ought” words. These statements, implicitly acknowledge this entire context, including the context of our own free will in the matter of what to do. Again, she states “The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do.” What is determined here? Neither man nor beast has any choice about the fact that their lives depend on sustaining their needs. A man can choose not to sustain those needs and die, but he cannot wish those needs out of existence. But, no man is born knowing what his needs are. No man is born knowing how to know what his needs are. It is the purpose of philosophy/ethics to tell him, but it is still his responsibility to convince himself what is right and how to go about getting it; which is why no system of ethics, consisting of a set of imperatives could ever provide him with what he needs. Regards, Michael

I would assume the effects would depend on the capitalist's country's aggregate trade surplus or deficit with it's trading partner's and in turn their trade relations with their trading partners. However, if there was such a country, and it was the only one in the world, one could suppose the rest of the world would almost always suffer from "depressive" symptoms when compared to the free country. What kind of answer are you looking for?

Do you know if Kant provides any justification for his formulation, prior to this arbitrary statement? And/or does he just state it here for the first time as if were a self-evident axiom that he "must not" be used as means of some other will?

It would be great if we did automatically, "want to be alive so that you can continue to experience life." Or, If many did not believe there is an, "outside" or "higher" reason or motivation or purpose for living." Or, It would be great if automatically we, "choose to live and the goal of your life is... your life." Unfortunately, it is just not automatically the case because of man's nature as possessing a conceptual/volitional consciousness, which you, so eloquently implied in your progression of "justifications," for acting towards, X, Y, or Z goal. It is a proper science of ethics, which builds a convincing case as to why each of these three statements are proper to any given man, given his nature. Your post is a great example on concertizing using homey everyday examples.

“end in itself” is a common phrase in the History of Ethics. E.g., Aristotle, notes that Ethics is the study of means and ends, that any value is a means to some end, but it is impossible to have an infinite series of means, so he wanted to find an ultimate end, or an end in itself, which all other ends where a means to. He eventually concludes that ‘happiness,’ meets the criteria, so that all goals/values ultimately are intended to lead to happiness. Ayn Rand, in the “Virtue of Selfishness” (VOS) recognizes values are only means to an end, noting often values form chains of means leading to ends, which are means to further ends etc. E.g., you wake up to go to work, go to work to earn money, earn money to buy food, etc. Also, like Aristotle she realizes that values, being only means to an end, must stop somewhere or else there would be an infinite regress of means never terminating. She searches for some fact of reality that gives rise for the need of the concept value, (or means to ends as such), while at the same time searches for some fact of reality that, by its nature, terminates the potential infinite regress problem. She abstracts away all the complexity of man’s nature, simplifying her view of him not as a man, but as a certain kind of being. (Note: I’m not going to attempt to recreate her inductive validation; rather I’m going to continue through some of my favorite parts, while attempting to keep highlighting, man’s nature as a certain kind of physical being, i.e., attempting to repeatedly keep a thread regarding his nature as a living being, and the implications this gives rise to.) She discovers a certain kind of being/phenomena called “life” that by its nature, is an “end in itself”; a phenomena that is conditional depending on constant maintenance of self-sustained and/or self-generated action. In other words, she finds this physical phenomenon (life), which depends on sustaining a constant implementation of one means after another after another, in order to just sustain its special status, and thus keeping itself from going out of existence. She summarizes on page 17 of VOS: (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ultimatevalue.html, “The Virtue of Selfishness” “The Objectivist Ethics,” VOS, 17.) At the level of metaphysics, i.e., when we abstract away all the complexities and consider man in his simplest form, we find that a man is a member of the group of living beings. Or in other words, he shares their distinct of “being,” which is to be an end in itself. He is a living being, which faces the constant alternative of life and death; of existence or non-existence, just like all other living beings. As Ayn Rand progresses, moving step by step, considering one additional property of man’s nature after another, while retaining the full context of all her prior notes; she integrates further implications of man’s nature as a living being into her building context of relevant knowledge. For example, eventually she considers man’s nature as a living being in the context of other men, i.e., as he exists in a society. Having noted that life is a special phenomena, a certain kind of “end in itself,” i.e., a phenomena that is conditional existence, always depends on a constant supply of ends, thus requiring a constant set of means to achieve those ends; she recognizes that men just do not lose this aspect of their nature because they are living among other beings. Therefore, just because he is acting among other living beings, his conditional nature stays intact; his definition does not change, i.e., his fundamental nature as a conditional being does not change. Thus, he does not become a means to the ends of others, nor do they become the means to his ends, all the men retain their living nature. Note: this is not to say, that he "should or should not" become the means to the ends of others, nor that they "should or should not" become his ends; but rather, by the very nature of the being of man qua living being, it is improper, and self-destructive: I.e., prior to him ever considering whether he has any choice in the matter, i.e., far prior to him ever considering the issue within the conceptual framework and/or context of morality, the nature of his being, dictates maintaining his life by pursuing values by some means, is a necessary condition for him to remain in existence qua being. As such, it is this metaphysically given fact about his nature, recognized in a much fuller context (which Ayn Rand provides in her work), which gives rise to the need for "moral" concepts, which he can volitionally adhere to, in order to proactively make sure he keeps his status as a living being. Again, physically, by his nature, each man is still an end in itself, like every other living being. But, we don’t speak of men as being “it,” we speak of men as being, unique or distinct entities, thus we employ personal pronouns such as “him or her.” Thus, man in the context of being a living “being” is an “end in itself,” but in the context of being a man, he is an “end in himself.” I highly recommend you read her VOS article many times.

Dr. Amen is doing some interesting research/treatment in the area of Brain abnormality. Check out the SPECT scan images, and the research provided on the site: http://www.amenclinics.com/brain-science/s...-of-depression/

I'm not sure what this is a "rationalization" for? Or even if it "is" a "rationalization." It is definitely a curious thing for a teacher to say. ...And definitely an out of context, response by the student(s), if the complain was much more than a lead-in to asking for some new material to work with. There's no reasonable expectation, or way for a substitute teacher to know what some student has or has not studied. Obviously, the irate student felt he was not getting his money's worth. Did this take place in a public school? Or at a college? Public schools get their funding from the looting of the countries citizens, i.e., literally robbed citizenry. In the case of a public school I'd say, get emancipated and get out of there, get a library card and educate your self. In the case of college, I would complain I was not getting my moneys worth, i.e., what I agreed to when I applied to the school and what my tuition pays for. But, it is a waste of time to complain to a substitute teacher. They are there as an emergency measure. Regards, Michael

Without assuming the claims in the quote are true, and arguing for free markets, I would point out the following elements of this quote: The term "artificial" here is dubious. What do we contrast the term "artificial" with, in relation to prices? What is a non-artificial price? All prices are artificial, i.e., man-made. In general, it is very difficult to find a valid use for the term "artificial." Often I've seen it contrasted with the term "natural," but this is dubious because it implies that man-made goods are artificial, and unnatural, or against nature, or outside nature; as if man as such is an "unnatural" entity. This idea is one of the roots of the man-hating fad, environmentalism. In the context of Metaphysics, "artificial" seems like a decent analog to the idea of man-made, and would be contrasted with the idea of the "metaphysically given." However, this is a very different thing than contrasting "natural vs. unnatural." What is an example of something "unnatural?" I.e., what kind of effect does not arise from the nature/identity of an object(s) given? "Entities of a certain kind, act a certain way." (law of causality) Further, there's nothing "unnatural" about using a loss-leader to give people incentive to patron one's store. There's nothing "unnatural" about the resulting exchange(s). There's nothing "unnatural" about the resulting price, i.e., the amount of money for which the transaction took place. Prior to the sale of the marked-down item, the business man may call out the asking price he wants. In the case of modern business, the asking price is often set, and marked on the item well in advance to being directly offered to potential buyers, i.e., before it is place on a shelf for review by a customer. If that item did not sell, even at the marked down asking price, the vendor would continue to mark the item down, or remove it from the shelves, or just give it away. Volition is still in play, and the process is objective. The same point can be made from the perspective of the potential buyer of the good. In a fast exchange market, the bartering is very rapid, as asking prices and bids are called out in the moment. But in a modern business this process still exists but is slowed down, such that the customers "bid" is voice by his refusal to buy the good. His "offer" is not called out, because there's no seller, standing there to reevaluate the potential exchange. But the customer still has volition, to buy the good, or not, and the process is objective. There is no physical force/compulsion or threat of force. The fact is Wal-Mart has applied the very “natural” recognition of the phenomena of "economy in scale", by finding a vendor who is able to produce goods in a massive scale, i.e., China, therefore supplying massive amounts goods at a reduced price because their cost is lower. This very natural use of reason by the procurement managers at Wal-Mart, provides then with a surplus of capital they can then invest in their business. The key word here is “invest.” There is no difference between an person or business taking a surplus of wealth and in effect, removing it from their possession for a long time, for the promise of some worthy return on that investment later. E.g., we take our surplus of money and invest it in a bank account for some promised interest rate. In the context of a business, often a business buys an inventory of goods, i.e. creates a stock of goods, they can warehouse, so it will be available in quantity to facilitate rapid exchanges. E.g., if we are selling cars, we may stock 12 cars at one time, without having any buyers lined up, so that we don’t have to expend time and effort to order the cars one at a time as each order is placed. We do not believe that the car dealer has bought the 12 cars at a loss, or that he is losing because the cars are just sitting there in inventory for some time. If a company did use a loss-leader, i.e., buying a good at one price, and offering it at a mark down, below its cost, they are doing so to purchase something else. They are using the loss leader as a kind of currency, and they are making a kind of investment. They are investing in building a market, i.e., they are providing incentive for potential buyers to congregate to their particular location for “voicing” potential goods for sales, and receiving offers for exchange. They are subsidizing potential customers to take the risk of coming to “learn” a new market; subsidizing them for their potential loss, which would occur if the new business turns out to be just a bunch of hype, and/or does not live up to the hype, marketing, gossip, rumor etc. The implicit question on the lips of potential customers is, “why should I drive all the way out to your new business, look around and learn something new? Why should I expend the time to figure out your particular angle or product offering? Why shouldn’t I just continue to use my current vendors? What’s in it for me?” The loss-leader or “Grand Opening Sale,” is a means of investing in a new market. A “market” as such, may be an abstract object, but it is a product, which has to be built, and for which can command a price. Some markets are better than others. Wal-Mart, invests in the market with their loss-leader, sending an economic message to potential customers, that if they frequent their market, Wal-Mart will be commit to providing good deals. A loss leader is the price of getting potential customers to expend the effort of not only driving to the new market, but of learning the nature of the new market and its conventions, layout, quality, etc. The loss-leader is like a “retainer” or a “good faith payment” in the case of using a real-estate agent. I highly recommend Harry Binswanger's recently published course, "Philosophic Issues in Economics", which clarifies many of the principles needed to understand modern economics. http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=DB76M Regards, Michael

There is no such entity as society. Society is an abstraction, for designating a collection of individual men. Further, to speak of "owing" society is to invalidate the meaning of the concept of "owe" or "debt." Both concepts are genetically dependent, or inherited from the concept value, and as Ayn Rand has taught us, value has the necessary conditions and/or essential attributes, i.e., for a value to be a value, it requires both a "beneficiary," and a "standard," i.e., a value is a value to some person, for some purpose. A debt or an amount ‘owed’ is a value from the perspective of another individual man who has made a loan, in other words, a ‘debt’ also requires some beneficiary and standard; else there would be no implicit obligation to return the ‘value.’ There would literally be nothing owed. But, why is value dependent on “a” beneficiary, or some “one” person’s standard? What facts of reality give rise to the need for these concepts: beneficiary and standard in relation to value? What is a value, at its root of roots? --at its epistemological base? A ‘value’ is at root only a concept. A man’s value is a certain kind of concept. Concepts are the ultimate tools of consciousness, of cognition, which is a clue to the ultimate refutation of this non-sense. Consciousness is an attribute of an individual. As L. Peikoff puts the point in OPAR, on his chapter on the nature of men: men are neither ants or coral bushes, but individuals. Consciousness is not and cannot be shared among men. The point is not that men should be individuals, but that they are individuals, metaphysically, that is by the very nature of their being. Now, combine this fact with the axiom of volition, i.e., the fact that each individual man’s consciousness, is his own, and only his own; and that that consciousness possesses the fundamental nature of requiring to be mediated at every level by the choice of that man. Furthermore, each man only has direct access to his own consciousness, and the conclusion that others exist and possess a consciousness; a consciousness that is motivating their actions is a very advanced inference reached by some individuals mind, through a set of volitionally initiated and sustained steps of logic. We can conclude that man is responsible for himself all the way down to the root and core of his being. This is not to say that each man should be responsible for himself, but that he “is” responsible by virtue of his nature. All that exist are individual men, possessing individual consciousnesses, with individual volition, making them primarily, their own first cause, and prime mover, or the fountainhead of their own essential nature qua man. Now, after recognizing these facts it is absurd to claim that any man owes a “society” for anything; it is absurd to state he is in debt to anyone qua man. As Ayn Rand acknowledges, man does owe some debt to ones parents qua baby, qua child, qua not-yet-fully-formed-man. But, this claim or debt is not unlimited. Each man owes only himself for each and every conclusion and/or recognition he makes, because it is only each man who can validate and convince himself of the truth or falsehood of any statement, whether it has been originated by some other individual man, or by himself. That’s right, each one of your own conclusions, not only has to be validated, and argue for, and has to be volitionally accepted as true; but also, any such conclusion has to be maintained, sustained, and serviced over the entire course of one’s life. A conclusion once accepted does not become a dogmatic absolute, possessing intrinsic value: no. It is true that, each previously accepted idea will resurface, automatically via the automatic functioning of our subconscious; and will do so at the first meta stages of the process of “recognition”; that is to say, we will recall a concept when the context of the events around us remind us of the utility of its use as a tool for our cognitive action. But once the concept resurfaces and is made available for explicit use; it is only with a new, volitionally initiated conscious affirmation that we can proceed. It is only with a new process of logic (no matter how simple) that the recalled idea can be judged as right for the current context of the events unfolding before us. It is only with this new assessment that we can proceed with using that idea, and proceed with living our life, i.e., to proceed with the recognition of the present context, and with selecting the appropriate actions to succeed. Now, again think of the absurdity of stating you owe some portion of your money, time, or effort to others, just because you interact with them; they, who just like you are individuals all the way down, having to engage in the same process, with every, single thought? No, we only owe, what we agree to owe, when we freely decide to trade with another. A debt is owed to another, when that other has a good or service you want, and you have something he wants, and he believes that it is not a sacrifice on his part to extend the time required for completing the exchange in full. This is what we call a loan. Regards, Michael