TetrisGod

Since it was on a CD that I had borrowed I can't go and get it right now to qoute and tell you the exact time. Although I relatively sure it was in Understanding Objectivism. The closest I could come to confirming it to you is this link here Now, I didn't read the article, so I don't know if I agree or not with it. But just do a quick word-find of "Peikoff" and you'll be able to find the paragraph that mentions this.

Just so you know, Dr. Peikoff likes horror movies (he mentioned it in Understanding Objectivism during a FAQ session I believe)...he must be irrational. (to give an argument from authority :-P )

The choice is a value to who and for what reason? Thats what makes it objective and not intrinsic. To say that something has a value apart from any valuer (that its an intrinsic value) would be like saying that food is a value regardless of if its ever eaten or not.

On a side note that may help you program a bit more efficiently in the future, try to use words for your variable names. Having words that describe what data is held inside the variables, instead of merely letters, helps to keep your code clear and readable. Try to keep your use of single letters to things like counter variables. Also, if the data is a constant, declare it as such in all caps. It may seem lame to do this stuff in the beginning, but believe me, you'll thank yourself during debugging and when you go back to your own code later on :-P

Actually, logic can be shown to be logical (in other words consistant) by showing how it is based in reality and does not contradict reality.

Not necessarily. In the books its mentioned a few times that Leia and Han's kids remember being very young. So its not that big a stretch to figure since Leia is force sensitive also she could have memories of when she was in the womb or just born.

I'm sorry, I perhaps judged too quickly. It had seemed to me at the time to be jab at Objectivism and just wanted to point it out as such. I think its pretty clear why Objectivists aren't for the Libertarian position; and it had just seemed like it was saying that Objectivists are being hypocritical. If it wasn't meant as such then my apologies.

Can you say troll?

If you don't think that viewing a tree is objective then no amount of purple elephants will help. Go read the chapter on the validity of sense perception in ITOE. It should answer how questions quite thoroughly on why the viewing of reality through our senses is valid. If you still believe in purple tree elephants ...

HEY! I like my paper made out of purple elephants. Remember kids, watch out for trees...they might steal your peanuts Ever wonder why you don't see a tree and a purple elephant in the same place at the same time...makes you think eh? thank you thank you, i'll be here all week

I think the answer to that would be: not enough

Actually, I agree. We can't prove it. But I also can't prove that little gremlins are hiding under my feet and force me to go everywhere, but that you can't see them because invisible and can't touch them. You can't PROVE such ideas because they are arbitrary. They are outside knowledge, and therefor on the scale of knowledge (false, possible, probable, certain) they aren't even on it. Such an idea is ARBITRARY and should be immediatly dismissed.

I saw Lemony Snicket last weekend...it wasn't horrible but I wasn't impressed. The scenes just kind of happened. I've never seen Phantom before but from what I've heard I'd say go see that instead.

Mr. Speicher, I absolutely love reading your posts because of your insight and clarity. This might be a bit off topic, but why keep responding to this guy? He's obviously ignorant and an outright troll. At first it was slightly amusing, but now its almost insulting to see someone as yourself dealing with this "Bridget" person.

The definitition of a concept is not directly interchangeable with that concept. In other words, yes - a human IS a rational animal but "rational animal" does not equal human. The concept human includes everything that makes a human a human... not just being rational. We define human as a rational animal because that is what is essential to being human; ie. the attribute that explains most of the other attributes. We wouldn't define a human as something with teeth.

A major reason for still having a gov't in society is because there can still be honest disputes between two completely rational people. People are not infallible and can make mistakes, honest though they may be, that would have to be taken care of by the government.

Well, I definitely don't see the alternative working

wow, what is this and Drexel turning out the Objectivists

I think we have ample evidence on how John Kerry would fight terrorism...only with the backing of the entire world, dictators and all, and not before then.

I am quite fond of dark blue; especially on a car. However, since I stare at a computer most of the day I like the color scheme of black and green because it reminds me of those old-school computers...mmm....nerdy

Hello, I might as well introduce myself in this post since Andrew is my roommate at Drexel. He's the one who introduced me to Objectivism and Dance Dance Revolution (although i'm sure thats purely a coincidence). I'm just a newbie, having only read AS, Fountainhead, and a few others. I quite enjoy this forum though. I also enjoy this pirate happy face which others should use more often