Thoyd Loki

I'll have to ask you support your claim then. But, you cannot do it by reference to any kind of choice. The male black widow doesn't weigh options, it doesn't "know" his end is coming, neither for the praying mantis. Why then, has nature programmed that to happen? Who knows and who cares. But, I am willing to bet that every single cell of that male black widow is fighting for its life. An animal that is mortally maimed defending its young, every part of that animal's organism is fighting for the preservation of that organism. You can't take life out of life. Biologists that want to play philosophers notwithstanding.

You guys mean Ayn Rand's point don't you? You are saying that the foundation of Objectivist ethics are on a mistaken premise. That one's life can't be the ultimate end as biologists have "proven" that humping is. The propagation of an organism's genes is one activity of an organism's life. Sometimes it is an activity that is never pursued (dogs and cats that are neutered and spayed, and humans that choose not to propegate their genes). Through the countless instances of action in an organism's life, one activity of only a small handful of species is to shoot down the wealth of data subsumed under the principle of life as the ultimate end? It is also a mistake to look at the actions of the whole organism without reference to the billions upon billions of actions within the organism that happen daily with the end of preserving that organism's life. Eating and nutritional absorption, breathing, immune system functions, heartbeat, tissue regeneration, elimination, the actions (on just the physio-chemical level) of the senses, the instincts and reflexes of the animal. The rejection of life being the ultimate standard of value ends in a series of open-ended actions. The ultimate standard is not then a thing, but the action of preserving the contiuation of the action of propagation. This is a Heraclitean-like concept of life with a never ending series of actions and the entities disappear.

I noticed this is the second question you have in relation to Peikoff's essay (it is Fact and Value that you are referring to in both threads, right?). And both times you have entirely misread or misunderstood it. Did you read it online? Do this if you did. Print it out, and sit down with it for a while. I have terrible reading comprehension on a computer screen, I really, really (are two reallys really necessary?) have to focus. I always print out online philosophy. Non-Objectivists as evil is not a conclusion of that essay. Could I suggest though, that you give us actual quotes? Some here may be able to give you a hand in digestion.

Here is the one and only reference that I was able to find. "On a more adult level: a heroic man, the skyline of New York, a sunlit landscape, pure colors, ecstatic music--or: a humble man, an old village, a foggy landscape, muddy colors, folk music." Ayn Rand, The Romantic Manifesto: Chapter 2 page 27

Did you go to the Immanuel Kant school of writing? Am I expected to read that?

I will check it out at my first time slot. I have one bastard of a week coming up at work. Thank you.

I doubt he said this to you over tea, so provide a source, you are just putting words in his mouth. I know that this is not a true quote since he himself admits to suffering from rationalism for a number of years, and I know that he would not say that he was engaging in nonsense. That is not even a good description of rationalism you gave. I have his longest exposition on rationalism (Understanding Objectivism) and he didn't say anything like this in it. So, where did he say this? That being said. What the sam heck do you think you've been engaging in for the entire thread? You have been repeating the same syllogism over and over and over and over again. Where is your sensory data here? All matter has mass All universe has matter Therefore the universe has matter You are the one stuck in rationalism here. You can't even consider anything outside of that nice, tidy, orderly little syllogism you have except to vent and snap at others - the irrationalists apparently intent on destroying your castle in the sky. BTW. Wacko is entirely offensive; worse than mad and insane. It is specifically of a derogatory nature. Please don't compound the errors by trying to weasel out of something that is a matter of public record.

It is very clear from his posts that he had little knowledge of Objectivism, and it was recommended that he cease until he acquired a better understanding. It makes his actions that much more objectionable that he was trying to sell something of which he had little idea. It was thesweetscience guy that pulled the first hostility by saying he was refusing to answer to Mr. Speicher's posts. There was nothing in Speicher's post #13 that warranted that. Not if you give an honest consideration to your actions. There seems to be a paranoia about admitting error. Some seem to want to pick on the delivery of argument rather than on its Objective validity. Right, just as thesweetscience didn't want the first thing he told someone about Objectivism is its atheism. Just how long would you let someone compound their error before you decided that mutual agreement wasn't the standard of communication of ideas? Why can't disagreement be the starting point? A warning? Put very softly so he would never know the nature of his action? So that it is presented to him in pragmatic terms so he goes away thinking that he only committed a "tactical" error of strategy? He was revealed (in terms of what the essence of his action was) when he said how he went about telling people about Objectivism- LYING. Whether that was his conscious intent or not is not up to anyone here to point out, (until it is pointed out) only the nature of his action. I was actually referring to thesweetsciences's not telling people the truth about Objectivism. But, since you asked the question. How about honesty! You don't make something that which it is not. Rationality for the thinking involved in seeing the nature of actions through analyzing them objectively. I was actually referring to thesweetscience on that. But, since you want it... I have. You are a pragmatist. Whatever your focus is on, it is not about truth. My proof is your last post to me (and the others). Now, for once, don't focus on the messenger, but at least take a glance at the message. Edited for clarity and spelling.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have seen on this forum. Since you have now specified your post as being against Mr. Speicher, let's examine the facts. Thesweetsciece openly acknowledged engaging in deceit to get others interested in Objectivism. Mr. Speicher called him on it with a succinct analogy to the shoddy used car-salesman. The sweetscience made further errors that were also called. Now you are asking him to engage in the very behaviour that is in question here; that of deceit. You asking that a spade not be called a spade so as not to "scare" someone away from Objectivism. Honesty is not a complex part of Objectivism, and as Peikiff has noted (Understanding Objectivism) is hardly unique to Objectivism as a virtue. And your example of the standard of value was not a topic of discussion. It was a clear issue of honesty in dealing with people. Particularily when introducing it to ones that are unfamiliar with it. It is not a complex issue to know that misrepresenting something as something that it is not is a vice. I have seen this happen here again and again, and again and again the same charges are brought up. "You shouldn't have scared him away like that, maybe he doesn't know any better." Well, is that not one of the virtues of letting the person know and not engaging in the deceit by pretending that person did not commit the error (or crime)? Every principle of Objectivism should be proudly and explicitly laid out in a discussion where it is relevant. And the proper response when an error of yours is called is : "Thank you."

OPAR pages 297-303. Better to read the entire section on productivity (of which this is an aspect) for context. But be sure to read the entire book for a thorough grounding. If you want to experience a central purpose in life, read The Fountainhead, although that is not specifically its theme, the hero is certainly the clearest presentation of it. jedymastyr, Whereabouts in Tucson do you live? I grew up there. Still love that place. Only city I ever lived in where all the city streets were north to south or east to west, non of this stupid NW, SE crap they have all over Seattle here! Edit: Ooops I answered too late! Oh well!

Have you looked at what the root of the term "biological" comes from? The word derives in our language from the Greek "bios" meaning life. So your first question translates to this: "Would this count as non-life life as the robot runs on organic matter?" Likewise "non-biological consciousness" has no meaning. Combining terms in such a contradictory manner requires the mind of Hegel (who I dated) to accomplish. Please look up and study the etymology of some of the terms here. Maybe not known to yourself, but some of these are like saying " a non-existent existent" or "a deterministic morality" or "a banana with rights".

Based on this topic?! Man does not follow philosophies according to their veiws on whether the universe has size/mass! Get a grip. If the vast majority of mankind gave a rip about such things Aristotle would have squashed all competitors at the beginning. BTW Matter has weight The Universe has matter Therefore the Universe has weight. I'm going to write now, and go to bed. When I get up, I better see some measurements of what this thing weighs or else!

I'm sorry, I totally missed your reply! Yes I would be interested, if you still have time that would be great, thankyou! I wasn't specific about the distortion deal. I like distortion, but only if it is the clean type through a Marshall turned up loud enough to get it hot. But, I live in an apartment so I've been using the artificial stuff through a Crate(!). I love an E7 (full chord, not the two finger job) but I'm very picky about what kind of distortion I have, I don't like it muddy, but tough and punchy.

Was this covered in OPAR? I missed the physics section of the book...

Well, then you are talking about Ed From OC (it was in response to his post that you made that smear) or me (apparently I am not a sane adult). Were you implying that Ed from OC is not an Objectivist? That is the direct implication of your post. Who made you the designator of Objectivists or "Objectivists"? I am also sorry to say that physics is not a part of Objectivism nor is physics a branch of philosophy. You are arguing from intimidation. And a cowardly form of ad hominem.

I voted absolutely NO. Manpower my left foot, we don't have the will power. I don't see a single indication that we would ever dare lift a finger against Iran. Or any other state for that matter, we've run out of wimps that we fake we're doing favors for. Our current leaders don't have the moral certainty to do something for the self-interest of America. I can see us giving them loads of money. Didn't we do so when they had their earthquake? Don't you see Bush falling over backwards to help Indonesia right now? Like bringing flowers to the schoolyard bully, he hopes this will buy off the muslims by our show of generosity...that we really are a sensitive people. We be good people, massa! War? In your dreams. Besides, don't you think Iran, as a state, makes too much sense for Bush? Iran is his goal, he would just do it better...nicer. To paraphrase his father: "A kinder, gentler, fundamentalist state." You know how the liberals would do their communism better, Bush would do religious state better.

Why two versions of this topic visa?

Why must it? And what shape would it have, and from what angle? If I looked at it from due west, would it be more oval shaped as opposed to traveling a couple billion light-years east and from that perspective it looks rectangular? And since we are going to say that it has shape, we have to say there is something out there ("beyond" the universe) from which it is going to have shape in. Unless we are going to say that the universe is in a container, then I want to know the shape of the container. And if we are going to postulate all of this then we can legitimately appliy time to the universe since now we have something that is greater than it. Namely, that greater thing from which it has shape. If it is merely a part of something bigger, then we can apply time as well. Shape is not applicable to the universe for the same reason that time is not.

I like some of his work. But somebody has to give the women in his paintings a sandwich or something, they look malnourished.

Sorry, not trying to step on your toes. But, passing it by reading twice I felt compelled to give a definition. Who knows, maybe you didn't have time.

I just got it today. First new thing I have read from her in years. What a renewed delight to be repeatedly astounded! Haven't digested anything yet, but she's already flagged through at least a dozen errors of mine! It is like someone coming in and removing mountains from your path with a sweep of an arm. Still have to walk through the valley now before me (and really digest the material, of course) , but what a book! And you were certainly right about its practical use for any kind of writing in general. This would even be of use in the simple activity of writing a letter to my mother. Thank you a thousandfold for the suggestion! I can't wait to unrestrain my subconscious. I can hardly contain myself just on the little I've gotten out of it already!

According to his post it means he merged two threads that had similar subject matter.

I don't think he's going to give you a definition. If no one minds, I'll divy it out. Cyber-punk is a sub-genre of science fiction. Its focus is on the information technology of science, "cyber-worlds" and so forth. Most action takes place with the character's minds "jacked-in" to worlds that are merely computer constructs. It is dystopian in nature (at least that is what its practitioners have made it) and largely value-neutral, and sometimes nihilistic. Character development is even more minimal in cyber-punk than other science fiction genres. Heroes are usually non-existent. So far it is largely a worthless genre in that it offers no values, no hopes, no future, no answers, and little if no semblence to anything we can relate to except a loose semblence to the technology we are familiar with. Since you indicated you were unfamiliar with any of the examples (and I wouldn't waste your time with suggesting a reading of any of this material) the best taste of it is the The Matrix movie (the first one, view other two at your own risk). It has heroes, a tight storyline-a plot even! Ends on an upbeat note, and was very innovative technically for film. Don't go see it for philosophical content, you could drive a truck through that. It even has stuff in it to appreciate from an Objectivist perspective, again in storyline, not ideas. The rest of it, I believe, belongs in a garbage can. But, I have not sampled widely from the field, just the representative pieces.

What does that mean? Look, there are two alternatives to the scarcity of goods. Force and war, or freedom and production. Japan certainly is a country that follows the second way. And, if you look at how limited her natural resources are, she has been doing a quite impressive job.

I am starting to see that. It would also explain the tug and pull between having to plan vs. just jumping in and writing which is a really long way to go about it. I have completed pieces by writing a zillion drafts: "No, that is closer...what's missing?" Then hitting another "unstewed" or unbrainstormed wall. I think you have uncovered (at least to me) a whole sphere of pre-writing that I hadn't even considered. I think that the process I use is actually to cut off my subconscious from the activity. I get an idea, bam!, plot, theme, characters, write. I am theorizing that I am asking my subconscious to be an instant plot creator on scant data. I have not even read it. For the main reason that I don't have any personal interest in non-fiction. However, I will certainly check it out. I wish Barnes and Noble would have a single book in-store that I want!