AndrewSternberg

I want to temporarily abandon this thread so that more of my time can be spent discussing ITOE. I vaguely recall one of the chapters mentioning the different types of words and their metahpysical and epistemological roots. I will revive this thread once we reach that part of ITOE.

The second, third, and fourth paragraphs of Chapter 1 in ITOE, discusses the distinction between the stage of sensations, of perception, and of conceptionalization: And then AR says: Does anyone know the science behind that discovery? Ayn Rand wasn't a scientist, so how was she able to figure this out?

The first sentence in the first paragraph of the first chapter of ITOE states: I am focusing specifically on the part, "Consciousness, as a state of awareness". Why does AR choose to say it this way? Is there a consciousness, as something else? My thinking is this: A very general model for the functioning of the mind could be as follows: Input ---> Processing --> Output “Input” represents sense-perception; “Processing” represents volitional integration of sense-perception into concepts; “Output” represents all consciously directed physical action as a product of one’s ideas/concepts. If this model holds up (something that should also be discussed), then I view the phrase “Consciousness as a state of awareness” as isolating the input and processing stages of this model, and distinguishing it from the output stage.

Perhaps. But it is nevertheless the responsiblity of the Moderators to be good at it. So I suppose this simply emphasizes the need for competent Moderators who are willing enough to put in the time and thought that all important tasks require. Continue to be on the lookout, GC.

I see no reason why there should be a difference in rules for the Premium Forums. The moderation should be the same too. I do however expect an increased level of etiquette, since there will be a higher percentage of members more dedicated to Objectivism. Would a troll pay money to do his trolling?

We can aim for a chapter a week, but if that ends up being too fast, so be it. The chapters vary in content and complexity, so a fixed timeline is probobly not all that useful. Instead, I think we should just read, think, ask, and discuss until everyone wants to move on. My initial questions about methodology were secretly directed at Burgess, but don't tell him.

I have read Ayn Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" twice, but I have yet to sit down and study it. I am ready to begin. If you have any suggestions on a methedology for studying this or any other Objectivist work that is ripe with content, such as OPAR, then this thread is a request to share your insights. My current plan is to read a chapter, then isolate any interesting ideas or puzzling questions that enter my mind. Afterward, I will discuss them on OOForum and/or HBL. Resorting to HBL if the issue is significantly complex and requires the surgical knife of experts. 'Resorting', because the format of this forum is signifcantly more discussion friendly. I also intend to eventually apply the same method to many of Rand's other works. Is there a different method that should be used for different branches of Philosophy? For those of you who have more experience with this, any advice? PS: I will start by posting some threads in the comming days for Chapter 1, "Cognition and Measurement".

What I meant was that man has the faculty of reason, which when he chooses, enables him to be rational. However if this is what I meant, then I should have used words that stated it more clearly. As for your "nitpickiness", I will expect and hope for more from you and anyone else that understands that philosophical precision is indispensable when dissecting such complex issues. Of what you say here, I am focusing specifically on the words, "taken together". I am not quite sure what this means. Can you elaborate? I am not to the point in my understanding where I can either agree or disagree. I don't yet know what the essential difference and relationship is between concepts and collective nouns, so it would be premature for me to start positing what once can and can't say about one and not the other. Lets make a note to return to this question later, once we have "parsed" more of this issue. Would you agree to a summary to your above point is: a collective noun counts as a concept too. Or at least, these specific collective nouns count as concepts. These thoughts lead me to another question: Do all collective nouns count as concepts? I have nothing else to add to this point other than to agree that yes this is a good example of another collective noun and perhaps we can use it later. Complete? On the first attempt? I think you can afford yourself just a little more leeway than that.

Yes, I do agree. But what then are the principles that a moderator can use in detecting the difference?

What is the relationship between concepts and collective nouns. From www.Dictionary.com : “n : a noun that is singular in form but refers to a group of people or things” This definition was not very illuminating, so perhaps someone else can do better. The word ‘man’ is a concept, whereas ‘mankind’ is a collective noun. Now take the following two statements: "Man is rational." "Mankind is rational." Is there a difference? It might be useful if anyone can think of and list any other pairs of concepts and collective nouns, (I was originally going to ask a question about the language used when discussing the universe, but I quickly realized that I should investigate the above distinction first. Once this thread is exhausted I will start a separate thread for that topic)

I forgot to answer the actual question of this thread: "Should Forum Rules violations be made public?" Taking the "probation of a post" idea further, what happens when the poster fails to correct their violation? A failure would be either, they repeat the violation in their attempt to correct it, fail to correct it with in a certain time frame, or they refuese to correct it. The status of the post should be changed from "hidden" to "deleted". Instead of the post being where it was, there is just a blank post with the words "post deleted". If a poster does fail in the above, then they deserve to be publicly reprimanded. However,the fact that their post was deleted is displayed publicly is a public reprimand. It tells all other readers that this person violated the rules and didn't correct their violation. For anyone who values their own reputation, this is sufficient punishment. Repeated violations warrent other additional punishment, but the current policies and rules already take this into account.

I think that posters should be reprimanded for any violations of the forum rules, however I don't think a moderator should ever modify the content of someone's post (misspelling and miscapitalization are content-idenpendent). If you think a post is in violation, then put that post on probation (with a notification stating the reason) until the author rewrites it. Is there a way to change the status of a post back and forth between hidden and non-hidden? (I agree with AisA here.) If you are going to advocate different moderator actions for each of these three categories, then you need to objectively define what the dividing lines are. There should be no question in the mind of a moderator over which action to take. I think it is debatable about whether or not a moderator should edit to correct misspelling or miscapitalization. I think, since these errors are content independent, that editing is permissible, but only when a moderator is certain about the word the author intended to use.

So far you have implictely revealed that you believe to be living is all that is needed for an entity to have rights. What other premise would allow you to attach rights to a being at the moment that its life begins. You should be asking what else an entity needs in order to have rights, which goes back to answering AisA's most recent question. Only after and understanding/agreement is reached about the source of rights, can you then analize any particular case such as the present one. Once it is realized what an entity needs to be in order to aquire rights, then you can analyze whether the entity in a mother's womb has those attributes.

Is "Objectivism" a concept? I understand it to be a noun that refers to a set of principles and uniqely formulated concepts, but is not itself a concept. The reason (that stands out most in my mind as I write this) is that there would be only one referent to this concept. This would contradict my understanding of the purpose of concepts: mental economy. With that said, if I substitute this usage of Objectivism, as a set of principles rather than as a concept, then I would agree that someone could be an Objectivist if they held and agreed with all of the principles to which the noun "Objectivism" refers. However, in the fictional world of "The Fountainhead" there is no such noun, and thus I would conclude that Howard Roark could not be an Objectivist, even though he would agree with each and every principle that Objectivism refers to in our non-fictional world.

If a criminal steals from you and then offers to give some of the money back, is he offering it for free? The concept, 'free', does not apply here; 'reinbursement' is the proper concept. Also, If you know that this criminal has stolen from others as well, but you don't know whether the specific pieces of paper (money) he is offering back to you were originally theirs or yours, does this alter the situation? Clearly not. In both cases, which are actually the same, it is proper to accept reinbursement for a crime that was commited against you, as long as you do not advocate crime. If you advocate crime, or in this case taxation, then you are saying that man does not have rights. If man has no rights, then neither do you, and then what basis are you left to claim that the money is yours and should be returned? Thus you are free to accept government money or assistance of any kind assuming you do not advocate taxation.

Yes, excelent idea! I would certainly like to see this introduced.

I am saying that the best way to deal with the situation now is, not to accept the situation Bush's naive policy has put us in, but to replace it with the correct one. This means we should be explaining the reasons why we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place; why a self-sacrifical policy (to our soldiers) of collonization is the wrong approach; and why we should, as soon as possible, adopt the correct foreign policy, the one advocated by Yaron Brook and others. Within the events of Atlas Shrugged, the proper way of achieving the neccesary transition from the wrong policy to the right one was a strike. I am not entirely sure what the transition from wrong to right in our current crisis should look like. However, If the transition requires immediate departure from Iraq, then so be it. The concern of our government is not to increase the world's 'index of freedom', it is to protect its citizens. I understand that If the world was more free, it would be easier for our government to protect us, but it can't spread freedom at the cost of our soldiers lives. We should only be spreading freedom by example and by free trade with those who are willing and with whom it is safe. We should only be colonizing in a spiritual sense, not a material one.

This reminds me of the pleas that Mr. Thompson makes of John Galt near the end of Atlas Shrugged. He is trying to get Galt to accept the position of complete control over the economy to fix their problems. Galt recognized that it couldn't be done because of the inherent contradiction of controlling the economy. Similarly you are asking MisterSwig to accept the goal of President Bush, without question, and try to find a solution. There is a contradiction inherent in your position as well which prevents there from being rational solution: the more we attempt colonization the more we must pay with American lives. In other words, you are asking the government to protect American lives (collectively) by sacrificing them (the individual soldiers). The only way to get out of this contradiction is to do what MisterSwig and Yaron Brook, and others advocate: A COMPLETELY non-sacrificial foreign policy, that includes our soldiers with American population. At least this is how I see it thus far.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned choice yet. Yes, all evil is at root the product of errors. However the question is not WHETHER but WHY someone commited that error. Do they choose to be irrational? If they have, then their errors are chosen. They are guilty. If they choose to be rational, then go on to miss some facts neccesary for proper conclusion on an issue, and then act upon that conclusion, then they have not acted immorally even though their action was also the product of error. They are innocent. In this case, the innocent's error is explained by the non-omnicience of their mind, not by the choice of not to use it.

Stephen can correct me if I am wrong, but I think he meant that the Big Bang is presented as and widely understood to be a creation event. When I first heard of the Big Bang, it was presented as an explanation for the creation of the universe. Since then I have learned (through Objectivism) that the notion of a created universe is ridiculous. My current position is that IF it happend, it was not a creation of but rather a change in the form of the universe. Furthermore, in my mind this IF is also arbitrary, so I don't spend much time contemplating this issue.

As a side point and response to something you said earlier... The fallacy of composition is not invented. Are you saying that logical fallacies do not refer to reality? All of the logical fallacies are simply different flavors of a contradiction. Each is a specific way in which the law of non-contradiction can be broken. And since logic is derived from reality, any break with logic, such as engaging in a contradiction, is proof that someone has automatically broken with reality. The purpose of pointing out a logical fallacy is to point out that your opponent's argument is disconnected from reality, not to provide positve evidence connecting one's own argument.

Good, so you agree that 'universe' is a collective noun. Stephen, in his most recent post, does identify a mistake you made in your argument about assuming all matter has mass, but assuming you were to incorporate his point into your statement and adjust it accordingly, your new statement would be: "Obejcts with mass have mass. The universe includes objects with mass. Therefore, the universe has mass." The reason why I can't accept this statement is precisely because 'universe' is a collective noun. You can't assert something about a collective noun without implying that it is true of ALL members of that collection. The universe consists of more than just objects with mass, and how is the recipient of your statement, "the universe has mass", know to delimit the collection down to "objects with mass" There is nothing in the statement, "the universe has mass" that would exclude all massless things that are also part of the total. Thus, your statement can be interpreted to mean "massless objects have mass".

The Durande, I have two questions for you. I need clarification on your position. 1) Is the universe and entity unto itself? 2) Does a statement made about the universe apply equally to each and every entity/existent that is subsumed in it? If you answer to the second question is yes, then the statement "The universe has mass" can be taken to mean "each and everything entity/existent has mass". Which would then mean that time, color, shape, etc. all have mass. And clearly this is not so. If your answer is no, then what does "The universe has mass" mean?

It certainly is not meaningless. As I see it, one of its primary purposes is economy: it is far easier to say and think 'universe' than it is to say and think 'the sum of all that exists'. This is exactly what is being discussed in another thread (a tangent discussion in the thread titled, "Defining 'initiation of force'"), and your question emphasizes why thinking is more easily achieved by using concepts over phrases, whenever possible.

I think you may be underemphasizing the importance of keeping a crystal clear understanding of everything one deals with. While you may not think this issue of great importance, a physicist would probobly disagree.