Eiuol

Lex, Sorry about not formatting, but I don't have a lot of time tonight. I went in order. Deduce from A to B? I don't think so. At the very least at a level like that, I only would be saying that I am conscious to the degree I am aware. It won't necessarily follow that therefore, you have thoughts. This can be established inductively, but to establish those axioms as concepts is all I'm talking about. Objectivism is not a deductive system, but metaphysical axioms do establish an understanding of reality in an explicit way. Recognizing that you think isn't fundamental, but being conscious is. Thinking was probably a bad word choice in that sentence. I should have said "I am aware of something, so at least something exists". The hallucination question though, how do you establish what a hallucination even is, enough so to even use it as a potential counter-argument? Err, every argument? I don't know what you mean it's ludicirous and unnecessary. Because it's simple and so trivial? It's certainly needed to say that there is stuff (existence). There isn't a lot to Rand's metaphysics anyway. You may perhaps say it's thin, but there really isn't much to say beyond some basics. It just means that A can't also be ~A at the same time, metaphysically, as an entity. Yes, it refers to observations. In a sense, it is empiricism, but not like the British empiricists such as Hume. But the next part about unneeded metaphysics, I don't understand. Why would it make sense to throw out something like "existence exists"?

Plastmatic, I'm asking you where I can look for myself to see how and if I'm wrong. I explained my position, so I'd appreciate if you explained why you think I'm wrong about Rand's position rather than use a quote alone. Lex, did you have any particular comments on my post #55?

I picked my words carefully. I said "perceptual mechanisms". In other words, I am saying attributes can only exist to the degree your mind or perceptual mechanisms notice particular kinds of data available in the world. As you said, red entities exist, but redness as an attribute does not exist in a literal, metaphysical way. Red is just used to describe some entity according to what is perceived. There are so many ways to view colors, and red is actually just conceptual. If you want to talk about innate to an object regardless of a perceiver, that's a little different, like mass of an object. Even then, it might be better to say what constitutes mass is metaphysical, yet mass is conceptual. You won't find "mass-ness" floating around out there. I am talking about color the same way. Entities exist, and the perceptual system just makes sense of whatever data gathered from those entities. From there, what is gathered becomes information (i.e. is automatically turned into something useful from an information theory perspective), and that's what an attribute is. I think I am right, and I think it happens to be in line with what Rand believed as well. If I'm totally misreading what Rand meant, please point me to something more than a two-sentence quote. If I disagree with Rand, that is fine, but I still don't think I'm misreading anything. If you want to discuss it more, can you clarify what you mean by metaphysical?

I would need a quote demonstrating that. If I'm misunderstanding Rand's position, then point me to a paragraph/chapter/whatever, and I'll read it. I mean, if attributes can only be separated by means of abstraction, then there isn't any actual attribute that can exist separate from an entity. There is no unique and independent sense of attribute, given that an attribute can only exist if your mind or perceptual mechanisms distinguishes something about an entity as such. An attribute only exists in relation to perception. An attribute I doubt would exist independent of a person's recognition. If I were color blind, there would be no way to talk about the attribute "red" because there is no content for me to use or metaphysical "redness" to extract.

Plasmatic, what you quoted is basically what I was saying. I said attributes are epistemological, and that the statement lex made is only true if we take it in an epistemological sense. Lex was interpreting it in a metaphysical sense like an Aristotelian essence.

Okay, getting back to your questioins. (Thumbs up for your Haruhi avatar, by the way. ) In the interest of honesty, you do not know too well what Rand posited about any statement, because you already said you haven't read any nonfiction by Rand. It is impossible for you know to what she meant if you never in fact read much of Rand. Read all her fiction that you want, it still is different than her non-fiction. So, don't presume you know, but certainly, you can say what you think Rand might be saying enough to warrant bothering with further investigation. On the other hand, you'd probably get more for your money if you read even *one* chapter of ITOE. If there is one thing anyone here would advocate, make your judgment based on what Rand herself said. Don't use our second-hand account. (1) and (2) are arrivaed at in a "natural" way, that is, self-evident to the degree it is a perceptual foundation. You seem to understand that, and agree. But this isn't "Cogito ergo sum" backwards, it's just that "I'm thinking, so that means conscious" and "I am thinking about something, so that means I am aware of something". If I am not aware that there is, the other clear option is that I am aware that there is not. But if there is not, then there is nothing to be aware. Between something and nothing is still nothing. Now, you may say I'm being deductive, and that is partially true, but the point is, these can be figured out inductively. I'm only explaining why this still makes sense even after the amount I've learned about philosophy and the world. At the very least, I'm trying to suggest there are many ways to think about (1) and (2). What are attributes? Well, it's not what you say Rand says it is. Entities aren't really defined by their attributes in the sense of an Aristotelian essence. And essence would be an entity defined by its attribute. If the essence of man is rationality, well, man is defined by rationality. Everything about the entity is due to its essence. This suggests that P (rationality) can be independent of X (man), by virtue of that fact everything about X is P. And if X ceases to exist, well, P still exists, and why not apply it to some Y (space aliens)? This is nonsense. What can P possibly be? Well, as you yourself is saying, this starts to fall into Platonism. Rand's solution is that P doesn't exist in a literal sense. Attributes are epistemological, nothing more. We will never find attributes "out there". Concepts, or something like it. What's important to note is that Rand doesn't even discuss attributes until going through metaphysics and began to describe epistemology... So, you are basically coming up with the questions Rand answers in ITOE. Just to be clear, (3) is true, but only if you keep in mind that Rand believed that attributes are epistemological, not metaphysical. (4) is also related to (3). Contradictions don't actually exist, but are certainly possible in your thinking. In other words, contradictions are epistemological. An apple can't also be notApple, but it certainly can in your mind. You don't need a notion of a possible reality with which to compare, only that certain ideas cannot be true simultaneously. For instance, a tree can't be a carrot at the same time. If you see a carrot-tree, it means it's not really a carrot, or not really a tree, or you just discovered trees aren't what you think they are. All of these points I'm making are epistemological. Anyway, this comes out of Rand's axiom of identity (which is implicitly where a logical system is connected with reality). Anything that exists exists as something. If you're even identifying something, you have to identify it as *not* something else. You can reach this conclusion inductively, at least based on repeated experiences in life. And I can also validate this with psychology research I know, so if you want that, I'll provide it. I did read all the posts in the thread, so you can refer to prior posts if you'd like.

Heh, it took some time, but I see what sNerd is up to now. =P

You'd have to read the rest of the context. If that is *all* Rand said about choice, you'd be right. But it's not all she said about choice. That quote explains Rand's viewpoint well (that's what quotes of a single line are for), but not why. I'll get back to your OP a little later though. The lexicon linked is just a quote collection after all, just as a means to see what Rand is about in terms of viewpoints. Actually, it is essentially true that focusing or not is a primary psychological concern, and I know this from my own studies of psychology. I suppose it's fluff if you don't like adjectives and anything besides dry mathematics papers, though. Really though, if you want to convince yourself *first-hand*, you have to read something. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology is pretty short, 200 pages or so of the main stuff, and a lot is just an appendix. Again, I'll get back to your OP questions later.

As the other posters suggested, it definitely sounds like you should consult a doctor about your suicidal feelings. Having to see a doctor is no failure on your part. In fact, acting to help your mental state is the opposite of failure, because you'd be taking some steps to dealing with your problem. I don't know what your specific issue, but mental health professionals are trained to help people with these troubles. A good one won't just prescribe some pills - they have knowledge and experience about thinking patterns that allows them to offer strategies and methods for helping you out. Cognitive behavioral therepy and dialectic behavioral therapy are just two possible things a doctor may provide or suggest. Depression (if it turns out that's what you have) does cloud judgment. It affects how one thinks about and sees life. Depression is different for any person and not really a character flaw issue. People are able to learn new methods to deal with life, making stresses a little easier to deal with. Also, depression is comorbid with many other issues, so seeing a doctor may help find any possible underlying issues. Yes, charting a course may right now be overwhelming for you to handle mentally right now. But at the very least, there are first steps to take even if you don't know where you'll end up. I can tell that you care about your life a great deal, that you want to do what you can. So, I hope you notice that. What you can do for now is focus on whatever values you do have now. But, I don't know the status of your life, so I can't suggest anything specific for that right now. If you need someone to talk with, you can talk to me in a PM.

Ecstasy doesn't necessarily mean pleasure. In this context, it doesn't mean pleasure. She might not have been happy, but at least her eyes expressed a deep emotion, which would be ecstatic emotion. Lydia likes the realism and seems to be crying at their pain. Kira may be feeling all kinds of emotions, perhaps seeing a strange beauty in the peasants not merely falling in submission to evil. I picture Kira paying close attention to every detail, while Lydia is merely reacting.

Not all terrorists are jihadists, Garshasp, let alone muslim.The only thing you've done is rush towards a conclusion in what may as well be racism. What would be dishonest is saying people know why - which you are doing. Take off the tinfoil hat, the media probably knows as much as you about this. How do you know in fact that a jihadist did it?

On an Objectivist forum, it is alright to have some premises in common without arguing their validity every time. That's a reason to visit such a forum. And in any case, everything wrong with the "Objectivist movement" (I never liked that phrase a lot) seems to be a judgment about one poster, IntellectualAmmo, and perhaps some other posters. You can't generalize to everyone like that; you made a sweeping generalization.

It would be more accurate to say the only illegal thing in a government based on proper principles is the initiation of force. There are many evil actions that don't involve force as it is. The whole issue, though, is you're making an argument for purely pragmatic purposes of reducing hired-crime. Unjust actions that result in the initiation of force are being let go entirely, even if the person is literally making it possible for murder.

Why presume they are crackpots? I mean, it's not like they're taught only Freud and that's it, and on top of that, I think most people find Freud to be ridiculous. Furthermore, I doubt any half-decent therapist is only trained in the humanities. You can always check their credentials to see if they have certification from a clinical psychology end or anything important to you.

1: Okay, so you're just proposing a law that would hopefully reduce a certain kind of crime. But I'm asking when a person did kill another by proxy and the murder was figured out. Would you let A get by unpunished if the proposed law were passed? 2: The only way to get B to do the murder is for A to provide a worthwhile offer. So I don't know what you mean by A not paying in most cases. 3: The cost would go up probably. In that sense you may be right. But it's possible being a hitman becomes more profitable because B needs more evidence that A will pay.

That's what your argument says. You are saying that only the person who actually goes out and commits a murder is guilty. Hitler falls into the position of "A", it's a fact, and so have many other people. You'd also by saying a mafia boss is not guilty of any murder. Nothing prevents A from turning in B as it is. But think about it - A wants someone dead. If B knows A wants someone dead, and if B is organized enough, he or she will be sure A isn't lying. A and B benefit. B makes money off of killing people anyway, why would B suddenly give up a profession? You could think of it in a free market way, except it involves rights violations. Game theory would apply still. The only way to totally stop any such market is to explicitly ban all planning of murder, and any involvement. Also, you presume a certain kind of hitman. Don't presume all economic actors are rational. Lying and trickery are part of the game. To some extent, you presume rational traders when at the outset we know both are willing to do blatantly unethical things.

You seem to be very focused to be involved in business ventures only. I wouldn't bring Roark up or any fictional character here, because they don't have even your emotions or values. Business is fine, but I don't find it interesting, so I didn't pursue it personally. I prefer academia/research/science. Maybe you'd be interested in that. Neurolinguistics and psycholinguistics are important fields, for instance, and I think you'd be able to find research opportunities at a university. I imagine you still find linguistics interesting? If you did well in school, does a PhD interest you? I don't mean you'd be more employable per se, but the point of going for a PhD seems to have a lot of opportunity for self-advancement by being able to direct your own interests. In fact, to do high level academic work requires a lot of independent thinking.

I think this is partially true (minus fundamental and rational), but the epistemological root is more in concepts of ownership of another person and men subordinating women. That's just the way it is. I read that article before, it's bad on many levels. There isn't even a suggestion that marriage is a good concept, just that implicitly somehow it is "wrong" to prefer equality in the law than unfair legal superiority granted by the government to prescribed relationships.

"Must" also means "can" in this context, but it carries heavier importance. In the paragraphs before it, about virtue, address pretty well the basis to why this is correct.

Here are some parts: "I quote from Galt’s speech: “Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice—and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man—by choice; he has to hold his life as a value—by choice; he has to learn to sustain it—by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues—by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.”" And then the part about virtues after that. "The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value." "The maintenance of life and the pursuit of happiness are not two separate issues. To hold one’s own life as one’s ultimate value, and one’s own happiness as one’s highest purpose are two aspects of the same achievement. Existentially, the activity of pursuing rational goals is the activity of maintaining one’s life; psychologically, its result, reward and concomitant is an emotional state of happiness. It is by experiencing happiness that one lives one’s life, in any hour, year or the whole of it. And when one experiences the kind of pure happiness that is an end in itself—the kind that makes one think: “This is worth living for”—what one is greeting and affirming in emotional terms is the metaphysical fact that life is an end in itself." Basically, you're asking about the whole subject of the essay. There are examples all over. It would be more fruitful if you bring up points that you think don't make sense, don't follow, or are contradictions. The quote you brought up isn't talking about rights, it isn't saying you have rights because you shouldn't be means to ends. The quote doesn't even use the word rights. It says "social principle", not "political principle". Life is an end in itself, simple as that. Nowhere does it say or imply "therefore, man has rights". Rights come into the essay later.

"So" in this context means "because". Life is an end in itself. Man has life. Therefore, man is an end in himself. The whole "end in itself" is a big part of what life is, and anything that isn't an end in itself, like a rock, doesn't have life. People *can* be means to an end too, at least in a short time period, but it wouldn't end well. Note the "must" for the quote in question, that is a claim about what one ought to do, not that it is impossible to make someone else a means to an end. It isn't "must" as in it's the only possibility. Also, it looks pretty clear to me Rand is introducing a conclusion first, but proceeds to explain what she means in the rest of the essay. Tj, have you finished reading the essay, or are you going line by line? I think the point of writing out a conclusion first, then explaining, is a good way to get people to come up with questions, then answer those questions later in the essay.

Everything after his Future History books are quite variable. A lot of the time they are something of a commentary on the writing process. By the time he gets to "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls", it's practically surrealism in a loose sense. Even still, he's fantastic at characterization, you just need to adapt to his nontraditional style in his later works. That makes him a writer who doesn't just stick to old tricks all the time. I'd say "Stranger in a Strange Land" is his best work, "Harsh Mistress" and "Time Enough for Love" are quite close in quality. I want to try reading "Friday", but so many books to read... Anyway, "Stranger" is very insightful, a unique analysis of morality and the good life. Besides Heinlein, William Gibson is good. His entire "Sprawl" series is good, but "Neuromancer" is the best of the trilogy. Despite that, the entire trilogy should be read all at once to get the whole sense of the world he develops. Gibson is great at using descriptive and brief language, so it really puts you in his world in a sensory way. I thought Neuromancer was nice after I first read it, but it was better once I finished its trilogy. Overall, he's as good as Heinlein for looking into and contemplating the future.

Well, personally I would say any psychological matter has choice involved. So, to that extent, sexuality of any kind is a choice, just a great many choices involved to end up as one sexuality or the other. Genetics and hormones probably have a notable impact on the psychology of sexuality, but that won't mean there is no choice whatsoever. The more important point is that it isn't immoral anyway. In fact, to look at history. the ancient Greeks didn't have a word for homosexuality, and love between the same sex wasn't seen as abnormal at least. Sexuality as a subject is not so simple as to even talk about what is biologically normal or typical, because sexuality is only really relevant to who you choose to have a relationship with. Sexuality simply doesn't apply to frogs, or insects, or birds, sex for them is only a function of procreation even if sex can and does happen outside of that for any animal. Humans too. But add in conceptual thought and human emotion, there is even less reason to suggest sexual relationships are immoral or bad. Stated another way, sexuality doesn't have to be connected to procreation, even if it does have implications on procreation. I also thought of IA's post suggesting non-vaginal sex isn't "really" sex. That's basically making sex between, say, two men by definition is immoral and faking reality before even defining our terms and reasoning. The conclusion has been made, and any evidence is ad-hoc rationalism. I was listening to Peikoff's "Unity in Ethics and Epistemology" and he discussed anyone who may say altruist morality isn't "really" morality. You know how the idea goes - if morality is acting in your self-interest, then a altruism can't be morality in any sense! But this totally ignores how one reaches a concept of morality. Your inductive material has to include any means or belief to be good, even altruism. Later though, you can figure out what is a proper morality, yet that doesn't mean altruism ceases to be a morality. If anything, any argument of "it's not really X" is an epistemological nightmare. All it does is suggest a dogmatism of declaring your definitions to be the only ones that should be discussed, everyone else is simply wrong and pursuing "fake" morality. Just change it to "fake" sexuality, and you've got the same thing. The issue is there is not even a half-decent argument to suggest there is a proper sexuality in the first place. But jeez, I'm glad writer1972's post was deleted. That was just... wildly over the top.

Actually, just to point out, it doesn't even follow that both are heterosexual. I don't think there is a such thing as a heterosexual species. You don't have evidence that *attraction for humans* is normally heterosexual, but of course it is true society tends to determine prescribe what is appropriate attraction. All you said is the opposite sex is needed to make a baby. Heterosexuality is just a 20th century invention basically, if you want to get specific about it. Cite research if you want any of your claims to matter regarding *sexuality* which is largely a psychological matter.

I am guessing that there is more to the story than is apparent. I don't see anything wrong with the assignment either. I found this on a Yahoo news article: "The allegations against the junior include 'acts of verbal, written or physical abuse; threats, intimidation, harassment, coercion; or other conduct which threaten the health, safety or welfare of any person'." I don't know what the student did, and apparently, the issue wasn't his refusal to stomp on the paper. Did the student become verbally abusive? I have no idea, but I'd guess that the university judged it properly. It isn't ridiculous to think many people made assumptions, created an outcry, then the university just found it easier to drop any charges because media damage would be greater.