phibetakappa

Again, extending devils advocate: If you want evidence to support the thesis that children are similar to property, just examine what makes pets and lives stock property, especially pets. Pets are living non-rational animals that depend on us for sustaining their lives. Now, obviously, these similarities end when we consider the full context of the specific kind of animal a child is a species of, i.e., the type of consciousness it possess, and what a child will be. As I stated before, the relationship between parent and child has many of the same characteristics that conventional ownership displays. The parent can exercise control of the child to some degree similar to how they exercise control over their pets. Parents can even sell their children and/or give them away using surrogacy and adoption. Parents can even exercise limited use of force over their children in terms of punishment and restricting their actions. We even speaks of their children as if they are property, stating these are my children, this is my child, which indicates a belief of "possession." However, context needs to be maintained, and what a child will be is accounted for and thus we develop set of complex hybrid rules, which apply to children differently than those applying to adults. For example, "the age of consent," "the legal drinking age," "being tried as an adult", "selective service", "voting" etc, etc. etc.

To play devil's advocate: Children do share many of the same characteristics of what is conventionally thought of as "property", especially when that property is of a living kind. Barring their potentiality of growing from non-rational living beings, into rational beings; children are not unlike pets and/or livestock, i.e., other non-rational animals one owns and/or maintains. One could argue that parents do assert a sort of ownership over their children. Of course, they don't stay non-rational for very long, and quickly start actualizing aspects of their rational potential. The potentiality of their species and what they will inevitably will become ( i.e., a fully formed adult man); plays a large role in how we as individual and society treats children.

I'm pretty sure that Ayn Rand was morally for abortions. She's stated that parts of humans don't have rights, as a fetus part of the woman. More importantly, the women does have a total right to her body and its parts, such that if she wants to remove/abort the fetal part of her body it is her choice. The Ayn Rand Lexicon

I was hoping you could confirm my supposition about Hume's argument. What gave rise to your question? I'm having a trouble locating where Hume states his case in the way you've stated it. It's been a very long time since I dealt with Hume, but I remember part of Hume's case as you've stated. For example on Wikipedia they give 2 points related to the so-called "problem of induction," but they are typical skeptic angles: **I suppose point #2 is at the root of your question? I'd greatly appreciate if you could point me to where Hume states your thesis. And I'll keep look too.

Never heard of Lester H. Hunt or the Ayn Rand Society. ... google ... Interesting I just went to there website http://www.aynrandsociety.org/ There are several prominent O'ists scholar members such as: Allan Gotthelf Robert Mayhew Tara Smith Darryl Wright Sounds like a wonderful opportunity, congrats.

Luckily my native language is English, I say luckily because I feel bad for anyone who has to learn it because it's difficult. I've taken courses in French, German, Latin and Spanish. I've been learning Spanish by immersion for just over a year now. I've studied German the most, and it is the worst. The articles for nouns have 3 arbitrary genders: der, die, das; depending on the arbitrary gender of the words. There's some insane number of ways to make words plural. There are long compound words, where multiple words are crammed together. Verbs have a tendency to come at the end of sentences so for a long sentence you may have to wait till the end to know what is going on. For enjoyment, and Epistemological research I recommend Spanish because it has some interesting features such as two different senses of the verb "to be" (ser, estar), which English lumps together. Two different words for "to know" (conocer, saber) [something like German]. Most of the vocabulary already exists in English, but with different pronunciations; however, it is mostly Latin based words it shares with English. The sentence construction is much looser than English. All the words are spelled phonetically. In some ways it is more efficient than English because you can leave a bunch of words out of sentences and indicate the means by the endings of the words. E.g., you hardly ever need to use pronouns such as he, she, it, we, etc. Some problems Spanish has is that it derives mostly from Latin so it has some really long words, but this is off set by a rapid influx of English words. English is very cool because it is so purposeful and adaptive, and steals so many words from other languages. In general it follows the pragmatic rules that if a word is used often it tends to be small, while less common words tend to be larger. There are many ways to say the same thing using words from many different language origins. You can use long Latin words, or short Greek words. It has well established specialized lexicons for business, computers, science etc.

Applying a concept is essentially a deductive process, not an inductive process. However, you are correct about forming a concept being essentially an inductive process.

Gives where?

I'm not sure this is precisely what Hume's problem of induction states. Doesn't "validate" in this context mean deduce? Such that in order to make a syllogism we need a major premise, and that that major premise necessarily has to be formed via an induction. For example: (major premise) Men are mortal. (Minor premise) Socrates is a Man (Conclusion) Socrates is mortal. The premise: "Men are mortal" is not the product of a deduction, it is a product of induction. So, that deductions, which for Hume is synonymous with "validation" presuppose an induction. However, in O'ist terms "validation" is a wider term describing the demonstration of a concept and/or conclusion's relationship to reality/fact. In other words, "deduction" is not assumed as the only legitimate means of validation. Properly done induction builds validation into the process. One starts with already validated facts and forms premises, conclusions, inferences, judgments and/or generalizations. Induction is literally the process of predication and/or the process of judgement, i.e., it is starting with a given true subject and stating something true above it. These judgement have a huge range of possible complexity: from the first predications a toddler makes, up to the thesis statement a doctoral candidate makes. In the case of a toddler, he forms generalizations using observation of very simple primitive facts, which are very close to the perceptual level. For example: Balls roll. Blocks do not roll. In the case of a doctoral student, it may take hundreds of pages of detailed evidence to demonstrate a valid connection to the facts of reality, which provides support for the truth of their predication, i.e., the conclusion of their thesis.

In the manner you have been using the term, induction is a process of inference, describing how a conclusion/judgement/inference/generalization is made. An axiomatic concept is conceptual representation of a primary, irreducible fact (I.e., a representation of a perceptually given self-evident fact.) such as existence, identity, consciousness, volition. Induction qua concept does not qualify as axiomatic. Induction's genus is a process or a means, or a method, i.e., it describes "how" a certain effect is caused. A concept with a genus of method is not axiomatic.

Since the universe by definition is everything that is, space is some aspect of the universe. If you were to state "the universe is in space", then the implication would be that there is something more than everything. Most of the text above your quote is discussing what epistemological criteria is used to ascribing properties to an object as a whole. The section just happens to close with the subject of the universe as one possible whole of which properties can be ascribed. So, I would look for hints in the discussion above your quote. E.g., I think this section on page 272 is relevant to answering your question:

Hopefully, without creating a mega-thread on determinism... *The mode involve aspects of subjects they liked *The mode is hard/challenging for the particular individual's degree of intelligence: Ayn Rand's heroes have grand-scale intelligence, therefore, they take on grand scale projects. * (probably millions of other very personal reasons for why various peoples selections) But let's not forget several of the heroes in Atlantis were not grand scale industrialists, some were "ivory tower" philosophers, scientists, teachers, and mothers. Probably most interesting one hero is a part-time pirate. There is a media interview with Ayn Rand (you can probably find in the new "Ayn Rand Answers" Book), where she states that any work one chooses is proper, as long as it is productive and is challenging for individual's degree of intelligence. Other than that, the sky (and beyond) is the limit.

It's in Part 3: Chapter 4, page 446

Peter Schiff lays out a some scenarios that hyper-inflation could be likely. The main scenario involves China's shifting economy and their estimated 2 trillion in US currency reserves. See his book Crash Proof 2.0, for the details. Our politicians seem to be doing everything in their power to position America's economy in a state vulnerable to massive inflation; everything to place downward pressure on the dollar, promoting China and others in the world to dump their dollar reserves back into America's already inflated economy. Some conditions promoting hyper inflation in America: *Our government is pumping trillions of dollars into the economy with their spendulous programs. *US government debt is at all time high 11 trillion + *US government adding trillions more debt with ever widening programs such as healthcare *The FED has pushed billions $ out into the reserve banks to promote loans to push more currency into the economy. *The US Treasury is constantly monetizing debt. *The US Treasury bonds are becoming increasingly unattractive promoting the US government to monetize more debt, printing more money. *Our trade deficit is still massive, such that we are not manufacturing our own goods *China's economy is growing rapidly with a super massive untapped consumer base ready to buy up all the used goods they built and exported to the US. *The US sitting on over supplies of goods we'd be eager to sell back to China and elsewhere. *China sitting on 2 Trillion dollars of reserve which is rapidly depreciating as the dollar is pressured downward. *Gold is at all time high and shows signs of going into backwardization. -When is China going to get sick of funding our deficit spending to keep importing their goods? -When are the Chinese going to have a significant consumer class eager to import and enjoy some goods, rather than continue to produce them and ship them to America and the rest of the world?

Rationality is not an all or nothing proposition. Men have volition. They can choose to be irrational about some things and evade others. The numbers of wholly irrational men, especially in this country are very small. Because people hold a few irrational ideas does not make them essentially irrational. The vast majority of people give only lip services to "god," because it provides them with some sense of control over aspects of their lives where they feel are out of their control; and/or they like the pleasant social aspect of being around perceived peers. You overgeneralize. Most men hold contradictory premises, premises which they apply and use only in specific contexts. Most men don't have knowledge of rational philosophy. And they have been filled with bad ideas. There is a huge difference between errors of knowledge and moral offenses. Bad ideas such as: holding a few bad ideas makes a person wholly "irrational." You haven't proved this thesis. This is an out of context absolute. You have chosen to look at non-essentials and leap to an unwarranted generalization. Holding a few bad ideas in certain contexts does not make a person "irrational." It makes them irrational in specific contexts, and with regard to specific ideas. Further, people can be acting on incorrect ideas, i.e., on errors in their knowledge. What is a rational person to do? So, far in the context of thinking about other people and about what rationality consists of, you have been proving yourself again irrational. You refuse to consider the context of rationality. "Certainly, that's not rational, is it?" But, I don't pronounce you as irrational. You refuse to concertize you ideas. "Certainly, that's not rational, is it?" But, I don't pronounce you as irrational. You continue to use the word "rational" with only kind of knowing what it means. "Certainly, that's not rational, is it?" But, I don't pronounce you as irrational. You keep over generalizing. "Certainly, that's not rational, is it?" But, I don't pronounce you as irrational. You continue to use the word irrational out of context. "Certainly, that's not rational, is it?" But, I don't pronounce you as irrational. Advice: Keep context. Knowledge is contextual.

Are you reading what I write? If I did not have any tolerance addressing the topic I would not have written a single word back to you. No you don't have to give thanks. But the product of rationality is what you are surrounded by. But you choose to consider only irrational people as important. Irrational people don't move the world, they are impotent by definition. But your philosophy is to make them such a high priority that you complain about things being hopeless, and act as if your high priority is to figure out some magical argument to convince irrational people to somehow be rational. Why are you obsessed with other people, especially the bad ones?

You need to check your premises. As I stated in great detail it is possible for people qua irrational to survive as parasites by the production of some other rational men. I am not arguing that parasitism is not possible. But just because men have the choice to be irrational, and to behave as animals using force to seize goods from other rational men, does not mean they have to. That is what is meant by the ‘free’ in freewill. You are not giving volition, freewill, i.e., choice it’s due. Ayn Rand makes the point this way: You only accept one side of the implications of this fact about man’s nature. You whine that man is doomed because he has the horrific burden of having to be moral, i.e., to choose to think. Rather, than considering every single blade of grass, synthetic carpet fiber, building, productive material; rather than dropping to your knees and praise the productive genius of all the great men who provided you with your central heating, clothes, plush chair, keyboard and computer. You choose to look for sewers, and people who have made their own souls sewers, and claim that it is stupid irrational brutes that need to be taken seriously, and who provide proof that existence is a hopeless sham. Rather, than choosing to exist on a sub-human level, some men can choose to be men; they can choose to act according to their nature, and use their minds according to their mind’s nature. And if the world is as you complain it is (and it’s NOT), then how much more wonderful, and how much more thanks you should give to those few wonderful men who have made your beleaguered existence possible. Howard Roark in “The Fountainhead” makes the point: Look around you. REALLY LOOK, and you THINK! Everything you are surrounded by is a testament to the great, rational men who have blessed our existence with the residual artifacts of their choice to be men. In my perfect world…if I were god... But to the extent a given person is irrational, does not plan for his future, or does not follow productive plans of actions, he produces nothing. You act as if you acknowledge this fact. Further, you act as if this is some kind of evidence that supports your position of metaphysical futility and hopelessness. You seem to hold the premise that: “In my perfect world men would have no choice about being rational.” This is called “rewriting reality.” You subjectively state as if you want to be god, that if I were to have made the universe, I would have made it impossible for men to be irrational. I would have given them no choice about choosing to think. You seem to want to press your subjective whim on to reality; and now you are frustrated and malevolent because you can’t delude yourself in to accepting your own fantasy. Take the simplest good you can think of, such as something that supposedly occurs abundantly in nature, such as a bunch of grapes or bananas. It likely took thousands of years for men to figure out what few plants he could safely eat. Note: “figure out” is a euphemism for rational thought. He would have had to observe, identify and integrate what, where, when, how to collect every scrap of food he would need for his prehistoric survival. But, we stroll down to the nearest of dozens of available SUPER markets and pay a few cents for a bunch of grapes and never give a thought to all the THOUGHT that makes the purchase possible; the thousands of years of thought that brought our modern society into existence, and all the advancements (thought) needed to keep it and/or to make it flourish. Some tribes of savages still attempt to survive using only a modicum of reason, there’s thousands of hours of TV programming and research dedicated to the various savages around the world. To the extent they are rational & figure out how to get their food they survive. When they reach the limits of the knowledge they or their ancestor’s reason provided them they die like animals. It is not possible to live as a man qua man irrationally. A man can only survive irrationally living off of victims; victims who in some capacity, degree and time have to be rational to produce the goods and services man in general needs to live. The goods and services man needs for his life are not "just here,” to be used. Goods must be produced. (period). Ayn Rand makes the point in Galt’s Speech: Man has a volitional consciousness, i.e., he has freewill, and he can choose to think or not; therefore, he can choose to be a man or not. If he chooses to think and produce what he needs for his life and well-being, he's choosing to behave as a man, i.e., in a way that is consonant with the nature of his mind, his basic tool for survival. You could not be more wrong. The entire history of man demonstrates that being rational is necessary. Advice There is no argument that is going to “force” someone to think. But for some reason you seem to be obsessed with trying to make other people think. You should really worry about your mind, and your own epistemology. Until you understand precisely what rationality is and what it actually, in concrete detail, makes possible around you you’ll never be able to form a persuasive argument as to the benefits of reason, and/or why men should spend more time fostering it in their lives. Stop saying you do not disagree with whatever, and actual do the thinking required to agree or not. Look at the various goods and services and ask how did they get here? Ask, whose more important, and what should I take more seriously: modern savages, bewailing the hopelessness of their existence; or the evidence all around of the power and potency of reason.

I don't know where you live, but if you are surrounded by irrational people; and the government does not uphold individual rights. My advice would be to move, because your life depends on it. America still upholds sufficient individual rights that one does not have to loot the looters. If the world does get to the point where fundamental rights are not upheld and the vast majority of people are fighting over scraps; then a rational philosophy is what one would need the most because society would have collapsed and we will need every bit of our ability to live in the wilderness, as it is much more difficult to try to live under primitive circumstances. But the situation you are describing is not the way things are in America today, but how it is in many 3rd world countries. If one does try to live in such lawless circumstances, where it is killed or be killed, then the situation is amoral, until and unless individual rights can be upheld. Read Ayn Rand's VOS chapter entitled "The Ethics of Emergencies." Here is the conclusion of the article: This last clause is my point: "values, not disasters, are the goal, the first concern and the motive power of his life." The production of values, not disasters, (including the disasters people make of their own mind and/or life) are the goal, the first concern and the motive power of his life. Values are the goal. Values are the first concern. Values are the motive power of his life. A world full of irrational pseudo-human parasitical cannibals would be an ugly and dangerous place to live. But if one was to continue to live then maintaining one's rationality would be critical. The same way it would be critical if one lived in any primitive wilderness surrounded by dangerous man eating creatures. The solution would not be to try to reduced one's self to an animal mentality and attempt to live on a sub-human level. The solution would be to try to live as a man or die trying.

So what?

Why do people continuously ask this question? What does it matter if some or the great majority of people are not rational? This is just not true. There is no such thing as trying to "live" an irrational life. Life absolutely requires rationality. You need to concretetize what life is, what it requires and what rationality is. Examine in detail what life as a man requires, and what part reason plays in it. Reason is man's basic means of survival. (period). Concretize this! It may take you many hours but do the work. You are using all these terms semi-floating-ly. If you take the time to concretize these terms this particular question would just seem like non-sense to you. Rationality is not an alternative life style, where there are alternatives of other ways to live. Again: there is no such thing as trying to "live" an irrational life. Life absolutely requires rationality. Life for a man requires rationality because production of the goods/services our lives require absolutely requires rationality. The only alternative is if one steals the goods/services they need from others who think to produce them. So-called 'living irrationally' literally means living as a parasite; it means waiting on the fringe for some real thinking man to produce some good and/or money; then sweeping in either: 1) forcibly taking it from him or (loot it) 2) some how convincing him to give it to you. (mooch it) There is no alternative. Reason is required for production, i.e., for sustaining and/or enhancing man's life. (period). Any proposed alternative necessarily is some form of parasitism and necessarily requires victims. Thus victims either give up their rationally produced goods/services voluntarily (I.e., stupidly) influenced by the evil philosophy of altruism; or they are forced to give up those goods. Life requires the production and use of values, and values require reason. (period). Here are some of the rational requirements of any given value: *A value must be selected qua value, i.e., some man must rationally evaluate a potential value. *A value must be produced via a rational plan of action, i.e., some man must formulate a plan of action to produce the value. *A value must actually produce the value, i.e., some man must sustain a rational process, working through the given plan, step-by-step until the value is actualized. *A value must be guarded and/or kept, i.e., a man must figure out how the value is going to be maintained. What kind of up keep does it require, what kind of cost does it incur. *A value must be used or consumed at the right time, i.e., a man must rationally know when to use the value with in the the context of his life. This is what life requires. To try to get around these requirements necessarily requires literal parasitism of some form described above, either by force, fraud, and/or mooching. The goods and service life requires are not just here somehow. They must be produced. Production requires reason. (Period)

As I stated, stating "nature has primacy over reason" misuses the term "primacy." I don't know what context you think an invalid statement put "reason" in. Is there someone some where arguing that "reason has primacy over nature" and you don't like it so you're trying to argue the opposite? Because the statement "reason has primacy over nature" is just as absurd and invalid. What is a "function of nature"? How do you know what an authority is and is not? What did you use to come to that conclusion if it was not reason? Is this statement authoritative? What are reason's limitations? How did you come to know them? Is this an authoritative conclusion? Good for you... What is a search for meaning? The meaning of what? What is a true sense of union with nature? I.e., what's the opposite of a "false sense of separation from nature."? How did you come to this conclusion? I've never known anyone to believe they are a "reasoning mind." I don't understand. Such a claim is implicit when you use the term primacy in relation to two object. If reason is an aspect of nature, then it makes no sense to claim nature has primacy. Primacy is a statement of order, specifying a relationship between (at least 2) different objects, as I explained in my post. It specifies that one thing depends on, precedes, and/or makes possible another thing. But if two objects are of the same kind, it makes no sense to state that one has primacy over the other. Reason is a certain kind of nature. Saying nature has primacy over reason is like saying nature has primacy over our stomachs; or nature has primacy over my heating and AC; or nature has primacy over animals. Its nonsense. What is a "function of nature"? Nature has many "functions" can you name some? Are the functions for some purpose? So? What's your point?

Exactly. "They," whoever "they" are, consented to the plans to be build them to spec when "they" approved the plans. It was Keating who had his rights violated as his project was hijacked from him. Of course, Keating would have not won the contract if Roark had not draw the building for him. Keating violated his contract with Roark.

It was Keating's contract, and he made a promise to build it to Roark's his spects. as he drew the plans. I.e., he made a verbal contract to Roark. Keating submitted the plans exactly as Roark drew them, and the plans won the contest, i.e., they were given the "consent". Further, all the parameters for the building were specified in the requirements provided before Roark designed the winning plan. Roark's plans won the contest because met and/or exceeded all the requirements. Approving, Roark's plans gave Keating the contract to build the building to the plans. Later, it was without Keating's consent that the building was horribly altered and Keating did not halt the production of the building. Keating's plans and contract was violated, in effect, having his plans stolen out from under him. By destroying the building, Roark only did what Keating should have done. Of course, if Keating had merely to assert his contractual rights and not allowed the horrible changes to be made, Keating would have honored his contract to Roark.

You need to read the book more carefully. "Aggression" didn't have anything to do with it. Aggression is not even a valid motive, its a non-explanation. Roark explains, in detail, why he dynamited the housing project during his court room speech. What "owners"? Again, what owners?

I gave you the answer. I can't help it if you are not convinced.