Eiuol

Plasmatic, can you expand on your critique to my earlier post? And as an aside, the principle of two definitions may apply to logic, which takes into account the use of deductive logic in valid yet unsound conclusions. While yes a contradiction is not logical if you truly want to be consistent, but not all people do hold a premise that perception is connected to all concepts. If your honest belief was that consciousness creates reality, you could figure that god could exist, for example, and remain consistent to a framework by using logic.

"your right to life exists because any act that takes life from you is objectively bad." This is what you wrote, which would mean that a right to life exists because there are objective bad actions that can be done to you. I don't think you intended to say *just* that, so it is more accurate to add that rights reflect a certain type of objectively bad action, which is an initiation of force. it's not any old bad action, such as lying. To be specific, it isn't true that lying is bad in all circumstances, but the point is even in when it is bad, it doesn't lead you to conclude there are rights. I could just say "your right to life exists because lying is objectively bad". You did say any act that takes away life is objectively bad, and in this context of life as a whole, someone lying to you does take away life to the extent of the deception. I don't mean fraud, but even when someone lies to you if they like you but actually don't that adversely affects your life. So, I offered further distinction from just the broader category of immoral action with the idea of the requirements to lead one's life in a social context.

This is problematic because you are saying that any immoral act done against you is a violation of rights. What you say is mostly true for ethics being objective (except the "possess your life" part). Enslavement of a person is both immoral and a violation of rights, and denies freedom of choice. The point is that rights are what is required to be able to coexist in a social context. There are requirements to that, but it's not necessarily whatever is bad for life. Typically, except for very few circumstances, lying is bad for anyone's life, but it is not a violation of rights because it does not deny the ability of a person to evaluate a situation and make their own choice. All that rights declare is that there are definite requirements to what one needs to be able to engage in life amongst others. When enslaved, you cannot make your choices and are forced to make others. All you really said is that because you can identify what is objectively bad, therefore you can identify an objective ethics. I don't have rights because they are good (this reasoning would apply to animals); I have rights because they establish what is objectively required to exist in a social context, which happens to be a good thing.

There it is. Looks like we'll need a periodic table of British slang as well.

Since I know a bit about Aspergers due to my own studies in psychology (partially as a student) I figure I should comment on those 5 points you made. 1. It's not really a continuum because autism is a totally different type of functioning in some regards compared to non-autistics. Aspergers is a type of autism in that sense where it is not merely an only slightly autistic person that is mostly a normal person. It's an entire condition in its own right, not just funny behavior. 2. Yes, people with Aspergers can and do lead normal lives, but I will say interactions online don't give a full sense of a person's behavior. 3. Actually, Aspergers is no longer simply Aspergers. Instead, for the DSM-V, it will be categorized as Autistic Spectrum Disorder. ASD is maybe what you heard about a continuum. 4. I think Aspergers is probably really easy to wrongly diagnose. It's one thing to understand social interactions yet not conform to them, and one thing to literally not get a full understanding of social interactions easily thus end up not conforming to social standards. Aspergers is not "social awkwardness" disorder. Many tests are probably inaccurate as you say. People say it comes with obsessions, but often that seems to be a misunderstanding. Aspergers leads to obsessions, but not all obsessions are from Aspergers. Sometimes it's just curiosity. 5. If you do have issues of some kind, it sounds like you're taking care of yourself well! Anyways, welcome. I'll hopefully read something of yours that you posted soon.

Can you elaborate? Logic can't be applied to a nothing like god, and you don't logically come to the conclusion that there isn't a god. It's just impossible on the face of it to apply any reasoning to the (invalid) concept; there isn't a connection to perception. Existence pertains at least indirectly to perception, and even though we can't *logically* prove that existence is real, all one has to do is look and see reality all around (related to Nicky's post above). I don't know if aleph_1 meant this, but it's how I read it. And it is indeed possible to be internally logical but not apply to how reality works. There's a contradiction to reality somewhere, but insofar that there are premises, logical conclusions can be made. Logical is not synonymous with rational or reasonable. As far as I know, the analytic/synthetic dichotomy applies to a view that there are metaphysically distinct *kinds* of valid facts. I've only said there are types of invalid facts (pseudo-facts if you will).

Which slang? Bollocks? I don't notice anything else. o.O This thing is well-made! The "woo" factor is neat too.

I disagree. I believe aleph_1's point is similar to mine in that god is arbitrary to a degree that logic can't even be applied to the invalid concept that is god. Most ideas of god cannot even be evaluated. What kind of logical conclusion can even be even made based on a nothing? Analytic-synthetic dichotomy would imply that certain facts are either contingent (ice melts at 100 degrees celsius) or not (1+1=2). There isn't a suggestion here that god is some non-contingent fact. Rather, *because* the dichotomy is invalid, ideas that pertain to a total disconnect from perception can't be evaluated in *any* manner. If someone bought into the dichotomy, they'd probably say some facts are valid and disconnected from perception, in particular mathematical concepts and god. That is, until one can make clear to them that even valid mathematical concepts can be connected to perception.

That's true, but if a belief is to be valid, it must at least be related or connected to sensory evidence/experience at some level. A person can believe in god simply because they want to, even if there is nothing to think about except the word itself. Moralist demonstrated that quite well: he has only talked about the word god, but nothing that can be thought *about* god. Just assertions.

The existence of god can't even be understood. The idea of god is just totally invalid. The nature of the Western concept of god is that there is no way to even think about it. The whole definition of the Western god is basically anything you can't possibly think about - there isn't anything you can think about! I can't disprove god because as a whole the idea is invalid. Hence, god is an invalid concept. If you want to talk about it, fine, but not if you aren't actually trying to engage in the purpose of discussing Objectivism.

Ah, I meant to say, I merged the thread with a recent one that was nearly the same question.

Productivity isn't really a commandment to build and make in the tangible sense. All it really means is that it is virtuous to be an active thinker, since it brings about the things that are good in life. Being busy all the time is not the point of productivity. Active use of your mind is productivity, trying to achieve values, that can be rightfully called productivity. The opposite would be sitting around apathetic, hoping values will fall into your lap. One way to be productive is to further a career, but other values worth achieving for you may be travel to foreign countries, learning to paint, understanding why Socrates philosophized as he did, etc. There really is no particular limit. Perhaps your hobbies are plenty productive, but relaxation time is great, too, in the sense it maintains your well-being anyway. Thinking is often productive too, even if you're not making something like a building. Intellectual endeavors are just as legitimate as concrete ones - it's just a matter of what kinds of values you want to pursue, and which values you discover on the way. Studying language may not result in a physical creation, but it makes all sorts of new values possible or more easier to attain. Traveling in foreign countries is a great way to use language. Or there is studying linguistics: language background only helps. You don't even need to go to that degree. If you like languages, just study them. You might not discover what you want to do with your knowledge until later. You can't predict the future, so you probably don't even need to justify learning languages. Personally, I do not like assigning a "purpose" to values other than to further my life. There certainly are values that help achieve an end, but from my own experience, a lot more is uncertain. So, you want to learn some languages? Great, tell us about that! If you start studying a language and become good at it, that will bring pride and self-esteem.

I rather liked posts on the first page, but the posts are rather hard to follow now, and the post I'm quoting didn't even mention Roark or the Fountainhead. I thought whYNOT was just suggesting what makes Roark moral is his virtue in being rational and fixing any acknowledged mistakes. He's not a "Divinely Perfect" person, nor did Rand intend that.

Heh, it's not even a valid question, because contradictions only even apply to epistemology. An epistemological concept that applies to metaphysics is basically the conceptual equivalent of god. It's an interesting question, if contradictions can exist metaphysically, until you realize it's treating contradictions as a stolen concept. The concept of contradiction doesn't even make any sense until you can establish that epistemology is a tool for dealing with reality. Metaphysically all you can say is "there is". Nothing else. Contradictions don't exist in reality with a form any more than concepts exist in reality with a form. You'll never find a contradiction or a concept "out there". I know this because I just opened my eyes. =P

It still fits what Vik is looking for. The premises are true, you can deduce the conclusion, but it is false. The only way to reach the conclusion is by dropping context or ignoring knowledge. I say it is a failure of horizontal integration for any of number of reasons. You certainly couldn't say it is obviously true or obviously false. It's faulty logic also because just because two things share a property doesn't make them the same, but can't disprove that the moon is made out of cheese with the deduction. You would have to integrate other knowledge, such as cheese is man-made from cows, so you would not find such a thing in space, formed naturally. (It actually might not be what Vik is looking for after I talked to him in chat.)

Swiss cheese has holes. The moon has holes. Therefore, the moon is made of swiss cheese.

The *why* is the most important part because it is the method which one uses to determine what is right or wrong. Removing the why is intrinsicism, because it would declare that the good is separate from you as an individual. Things aren't good regardless of your motivation, things are good based on how they further your life according to one's knowledge. Motive is not only a potential, but is also a causal factor in which actions that occur. Indeed, you are taking an extreme behaviorist position: the mind/what one thinks is irrelevant when judging. There is also consequentialism: the measurable consequences are all that count, why is irrelevant. I addressed this before, one liners get no where.

It's saying the concept alone is not going to tell you it is in fact good. Ethics is the way to then establish if selfishness is in fact good or bad. That is, you have to figure out if selfishness is moral or immoral. Later on, one may evaluate selfishness as good. So, again, it is not amoral. I don't know what your point is. I just want to emphasize though that the context of discussion here is Objectivism. It's cool if you want to discuss the validity of the ideas, just like Kangaroo is doing, just be careful not to take the stance of a philosophy free for all where everything goes.

No, psychological egoism is invalid, because some people pursue things in the self-interest of others. Again, the reasons why one acts establishes what is selfish. Part of that involves what one knows - if you honestly know something to be in your long-term self-interest, then it is selfish, even if it does not conform to what I know.

Well, this is incorrect, if you pursue destructive things knowingly, that can't be selfish. Acting selfishly by doing bad things, to put it simply, is not actually not selfish. Anything ultimately against life is unselfish - irrational or evasive. What you pursue is actually insufficient for an action to be evaluated as selfish. The *why* is most important here, because that's the basis any action is made. Does a fireman risk his life because it is his duty to altruistically save others, or because he has dedicated his own career for his own good? Only the latter would be evaluated as moral. Selfishness isn't either moral or immoral, it is wholly moral. When "what" is primary, that is intrinsicism, which selfishness per Objectivism is not. As relevant to the OP, a good question to start reasoning with is why make a religious sect as manipulation. Presumably, a lot of money. But how does the manipulation impact your life further?

Huh? How is selfishness amoral? It's what a proper morality is, therefore moral. Yes, it's determined by what you do, but it is not amoral. The other posts here clarified that I think.

The index is the happy *planet* index, so it's explicitly trying to see who is the happiest that also keeps the planet the planet healthy. I'll have to look at the happiness indices for Latin America that don't include footprint.

Yeah, you've pointed out imprecision in my word choice. Infinity as a property of sets makes a lot more sense to say (and perhaps as I suggested earlier infinity is a property of concepts in general, too). I'll have to think some more but you clarified a lot, thanks.

I'm fine with that implication and I don't think anyone has sufficiently demonstrated that this is a problem for Objectivist philosophy. Whether or not it is true is a mathematical issue, but it doesn't reveal a contradiction.

Dragons aren't reducible to perception, but infinite sets are. Reducible doesn't mean perceivable, it just means a concept can be connected to reality by figuring out how the concept was developed. There's nothing problematic about infinite sets, at least nothing problematic suggested by what was discussed about the nature of concepts.