Iudicious

Commenting on #1 of Greebo's post: If the fundamental material of reality was consciousness, SOMEHOW (and trust me, I'm going "PFFFFFFFTTT" at this too), then yes, it would prove the primacy of consciousness, because that would mean that reality is consciousness and flexible to what we want to think. So your first premise is correct. Commenting on #2 of Greebo's post: Indeed, it would disprove the law of identity, because if we could decide what we want something to be using our consciousness, that would mean that every "thing" was essentially no "thing" unless we wished it to be some "thing." Something cannot be nothing, and nothing cannot be something. Also, what happens if two people want the same thing to be different things? Big problem there, and another contradiction of the law of identity. So your second premise is correct. If you weren't 100% certain about those premises, I am. And 3 and 4, of course, necessarily follow.

Everything seems to be working fine now on GC.

When he said that, he meant non-existence. You can't prove the non-existence of something, because proof relies on evidence. What evidence can something that doesn't exist leave?

I've tried from both pages. And again, it's not just the chat. It's also the front page itself that I'm having troubles with.

Only recently, I've started having problems while using google chrome when I try going into the chatroom on here. At first, it was just that I couldn't log in using a name no matter what I did. It always logged me in as (########), using random series' of numbers. However, today it got worse. Every time I tried opening the chatroom, it opened the URL of the chatroom, but the page that showed up was the front page of objectivismonline.net Further, on google chrome, the front page doesn't work. I see everything except the blog feed thing, where all the text, like the "Amazon Tax in Hawaii: Hope for Colorado" post, is. On firefox, I have none of these problems.

I don't particularly see anything wrong with it, so long as you make clear that you are not advocating the premises, just the conclusions. But, you have to ask yourself: are you actually helping them? Is giving them that book serving your purpose? Those people, holding those false premises, are going to constantly run into the same or similar problems, with or without that book. Challenging their bad premises helps them more, and if they aren't willing to be rational, why bother helping them at all?

You probably ought not to get into computer programming or science until you understand how to effectively use a computer as is. If you don't know how to do that, there's some websites that offer pretty basic stuff, like this: http://www.gcflearnfree.org/Computer/ One of the really useful skills is the ability to use things like word processors, power point, spread sheets, et cetera. I was trained in Microsoft Office during my freshman year in high school, and Microsoft offers courses on that, as well as certifications, but that can get rather expensive. I know each test right now is about $100 at least. Being able to use those things effectively, though, can be added to a resume, and is definitely something that has helped me. If you're interested in learning computer programming, much of it is really simple. Honestly, I'd say that if you can understand Objectivism, you can learn many computer programming languages, simply because things like C++ and C# are based on logic, and fully understanding and integrating Objectivism takes some pretty heavy thought work. There's tons of free guides for computer programming languages, all you have to do is search for them on Google. I know for C++ there's this website, which has a few free guides on C++, which is a good starting language: http://www.computer-books.us/cpp.php I've never used the site because my books and teaching were provided free by my school, but I'd say give them a try if you're interested in the programming aspect of computers. For resources on using the internet/coding for the internet (HTML, CSS), there's this, and I've used this a few times before: http://w3schools.com/ Again, as I said, before getting into anything like programming, you probably ought to get a basic knowledge of how a computer works. Most people have that kind of knowledge already (i.e. what is hardware, what is software, how can I protect my computer, how do I use the internet and other applications, et cetera), but it never hurts to brush up on specifics. This, by the way, isn't coming from a professional. It's coming from a kid who goes to a high school specializing in technology, but that's about it.

Lol, I don't use Twitter, but I just found one that made me laugh on the page that freestyle linked: “Yes I got him a gift. He had a kidney stone. You piss a rock through your pecker, you deserve more than just a pat on the fucking back."

My logic is solid. You don't need exact statistics and studies to prove the obvious. If man doesn't live by the mind, what does he live by? Does he create his tools randomly, without thought? Does he stomp on the ground until reality gives him what he wants? How do you propose to live by faith or emotion? Will any amount of sadness or anger force reality to give you the food and water you need to survive? Will any amount of drawing circles in the sand and praying to the Gods provide you with the means of your survival? How do you propose to live by brute force? That will last only so long as some men -don't- live by brute force. When rational men realize that they are only becoming slaves, what will they do but use brute force back? Once everyone is using brute force and no one is producing, how do you intend to survive? Brute force requires that someone, somewhere along the line, live by means of his mind. Why do you need such statistics about emotionalists? The fact is, people compartmentalize: they say they believe one thing, and they may believe it in certain aspects of their life, but when it comes to their bare survival, no one is gonna make sad faces until dinner poofs into existence before their eyes. How else would you determine whether someone is an emotionalist or a rationalist, but by seeing their actions and their philosophy in action? "Isn't there anybody here who bases their beliefs on serious study of the Facts? " Do you need studies and scientific research to tell you that wishing and making sad faces won't give you any of the necessities of survival? If so, "science and the humanities" probably isn't your place; simple logic ought to come before you get into psychology. However, if you really, really, really need some proof, I'll let google do the talking for me: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sou...p;aql=f&oq= http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&saf...p;aql=f&oq= I dare you to find me a result from a reputable source in those searches that says that emotions or wishing create the necessities of life. If you want statistics on self-esteem, that's rather hard to do, as there are differing definitions of self esteem, and rather contradictory studies. A lot contributes to self esteem, and in some twisted way, a person may be able to achieve a cheap, hollow, veil that looks like self esteem from religion. But I doubt it.

Self esteem is basically the confidence a man has in his own ability to do the things he wants or needs. It is his confidence in the belief that his mind is competent to deal with reality. That definition ought to tell you more than enough for all of your questions, but I'll elaborate. "Why is self esteem important, at all? " Man must deal with reality using his mind. That is how he survives. Man cannot live by brute force, and so he must use his mind to produce the things he needs to survive, and the means by which he does this is reason. A man without self esteem has no confidence in his ability to use his mind, no confidence in his ability to reason. Essentially, he is handicapped. He is left without the tools to do even the most menial tasks required to continue his existence. If he does not have self esteem, if he does not believe his mind is competent and capable of dealing with reality, he essentially has lost the one tool required for him to live: reason. "In what specific respects does having high self esteem make life better?" My answer to the former question basically applies here, but I'll elaborate. The mind is what makes possible every single accomplishment throughout man's history. From the most basic of tools, such as a knife or a hammer, to the complex machines that we use in our factories, all of these are results of our mind. If humans were not capable of self esteem, if they did not believe in their own minds and ability to deal with reality, in what manner would we have achieved any of the comforts we have today? In what way would we have survived at all? "How do we know religion lowers a person's self esteem?" What is religion based off of? Faith. Does the mind operate by faith, or by reason? You ought to know the answer to this one - you have almost 180 posts, so I assume you've been here sufficiently long enough to know. Reason gives us the means of dealing with reality. By means of reason, we can learn that "this does this by means of this because of this and I can manipulate it in this way to achieve this." Faith, however, tells man "you don't know how this works, just accept it." Which of these alternatives gives man the ability to deal with reality and live his life? Not only this, but all the virtues and sins professed by religions such as Christianity do a hell of a job of ruining your self esteem. Humility as a virtue leads to man believing that he ought to take shame in what he does. If he's not allowed to be proud of the things he does, what alternative is there? Why will he do anything more than barely get by if he can't even be happy about the things he achieves? Selflessness as a virtue has the same effect - how can a man make himself happy if it's strictly forbidden to him as innately evil, and that his only alternative is to serve the whims of others with no benefit to the self? "How do we know that having faith and believing without evidence lowers a person's self esteem?" See the above answer. I'd also recommend you read any of the books on this page, and preferably all of them: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/self-esteem.html

I've never felt that my clothing, when I was out to look nice, was boring. For example, my normal debate attire: However, at debates, I'm always the only male not wearing black or blue. "Maybe it's cultural, but I find that women themselves are the main drivers behind their clothing variety." I suspect that that's cultural. There's no reason a man can't wear a variety of clothing, nice clothing, and care about how he looks. I normally pay no attention to my casual clothing, but when it comes to dressing up for any kind of event, I pay a lot of attention to what I wear. The first thing that you note about a person is how they look, and I operate under the premise that a man who cares about himself necessarily cares about how he looks. He wants his physical appearance, to the extent that he can control it, to match who he is mentally.

There really isn't one. You get people who know of Objectivism from a young age, to people who discover her in their 60s or older. I personally first read her when I was 15, and was immediately enthralled.

That is what I meant, and I realized what Rawls was implying after I got to reading his other posts. A problem that was just resolved made it impossible for me to see his other posts. In order to exercise their faculty of a reason, a rational animal must have a choice. The hallmark of reason is volition; a choice made rationally is not a choice made at the point of a gun, and for that reason, rights are necessary in order to defend such choices that a rational animal would make that don't involve breaching the right to choose of another person. The right to live (to have the choice to live or not), the right to liberty (the right to have a choice), the right to property (the right to the product of such choices), are all necessary in order for man to exercise his faculty of reason, and thus to survive. An animal that does not exercise reason does not need any of these rights. The functions that they go through to ensure their survival do not require that they be guaranteed the choice to live or not (and for them, that choice is automatic), nor do they require that they have any choices at all (the maintenance of their survival is, for the most part, automatic). It is only a rational animal that needs those rights in order to survive, and in order to survive in a specific context: society.

"You need to read the rest of what Rawls has said in this thread before you go around making assertions about him being "right"." He was right in that instance. "Anyway, it is not man's possession of a rational faculty that means man needs rights, it is the fact that this rational faculty operates in a certain way (volitionally) and is necessary for man's survival." Does that change the fact that something without a rational faculty does not need rights? "What, exactly, is a "defining characteristic"?" When I use the term, I mean some characteristic that, without it, that thing would not be that thing anymore. For example, a table without legs would not be a table anymore - it would be a flat plank of wood. Similarly, a man without a rational faculty would hardly be a many anymore. It would, instead, be a two legged mammal who closely resembles us. For most intents, we could call him a man, simply because he looks like us and it would be a nuisance to refer to him otherwise, but what separates us from other animals is primarily the fact that we have a rational faculty. All the other things, such as opposable thumbs and the ability to stand on two legs, are secondary. On a side note, does anyone else have to click the "reply" button in this thread to be able to see the rest of the posts? When I open this thread, I can only see the first post. All the other posts can only be viewed by pressing "Reply."

*** Mod's note: Split from another thread. -sN *** How do you define man? The way I define it, the defining characteristic of man is his mind and thus his ability to think rationally. So the defining characteristic of man is his ability to think rationally. Man's rights extend from his ability to think rationally. "The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life." - Galt's speech. One thing you can take away from this is the focus put on the fact that the reason man needs rights is because he is a rational being, because "it is right for him to use his mind." Rawls, no pun intended, was right: the defining characteristic of a man with rights is his ability to think rationally, because rights are a necessity for the rational mind and extend from it. Does that mean that a man who chooses not to be rational does not have rights? No, because he has the ability to think rationally. Does that mean that a man who lacks a rational faculty does not have rights? Yes, because without it, there is nowhere from which rights can extend. He is little more than a two-legged mammal without his rational faculty.

I'm curious about what was happening on June 25th, 2007, at 8:36 AM to have that many people on, lol.

The example you're using seems rather loaded. An autograph being rationally useful in any way? Doubtful, in most cases. However, those autographed manuscripts? That's art. Writing is art, it is an expression of values, and the Fountainhead surely had a lot of heroic, rational values in it. I can imagine hanging that manuscript on my wall too, for the same reasons that I'd hang a painting, so that I could admire the rational, heroic values contained within. The signature is even a part of it, because it proclaims that THIS is MINE (the author's), that it was her work, her values, that created that. That's far more than just an autograph. Also, would you mind toning yourself down? Eiuol asked a question and made a claim, one that you could have responded to and refuted without the need for sarcasm or textual eye rolling. Your responses so far have had no content, nothing to speak of, just the aforementioned sarcasm and textual eye rolling. Edit: To Eiuol, I can imagine a case where an autograph is a rational value, and it is similar to hanging a piece of art on the wall. If you know that Ayn Rand, for example, holds rationals values and is a heroic and productive human being, than you might want an autograph, as a reminder of the values expressed by the person who made it. So it is similar to the art piece in a way.

Right now, I'd probably say that my favorite is Orson Scott Card. I absolutely love his Ender's Game series, and now I'm reading through the Ender's Shadow series. There are a few bad premises in it, but other than that, it's a very engaging and satisfying story. I picked up Shadow Puppets, the third in the Ender's Shadow series, yesterday and finished it last night. Hard to put it down. I only have one more book left in the series, and I know I'll miss the story just as much as I missed the Ender's Game stories, if not more.

A man's tendency to do something does not imply that it is good for him. A depressed, suicidal person will of course tend to kill himself - would that be good for him? What you have to look at is whether gaining power over others and looting is actually good for you, not how many people do it. People base their actions off of their values, and if their values are not proper, then they will not have proper, moral actions. So is gaining power over others and looting good for you? Well, think of this - to do either of those things, you have to rely on someone producing the things you take to survive. So in the end, your survival STILL depends on something being produced, not power. Further, as long as you have power over someone else, they will grow less and less willing to be subservient to you, and so there will be less and less for you to loot in order to survive. Is that good for you? No. Man's means of survival is reason. Does reason exist in the case of looters or dictators? Does reason exist when someone is forced to do something? Never - because they're not making choices based on reason, they're making choices based on what keeps them alive, even if it's something completely unreasonable. Look at all the historical examples of looters and men in power. While there are a few who remained alive, did the majority? Not really. An ideal example that I heard of recently while reading a book was the many dynasties in China, and how all came to rule by force, and yet all came to be conquered so quickly, some emperors killed within years of gaining the throne, because within their kingdom there were those who hated them and wanted to gain power instead. Is a power struggle good for your survival? I don't think the countless dead bodies as a result of such power struggles would say yes.

I actually fail to see why you're ethically obligated to worry about how someone uses something you sell. It's not -unethical- to be concerned with it, but why is it unethical to not be concerned with it? You're not causing harm, you're not making the decision to harm anyone.

I don't quite understand what you're saying here. I do understand how one abstracts, what I don't understand is how one defines such things as the line, the point, and the plane. If we define a point as a place at which lines intersect, then what of points that aren't connected to lines? And why do they still have no width, length, or depth? How can you conceive of a line or a plane when neither exist in reality. You can conceive of a very thin sheet or a very thin string or a very small ball, but not of the other things. I don't see how one conceives of something that has no length or no width or no depth. " If you can visualize a line, its because your brain has the machinery to visualize a line." But that's the thing - one can't visualize an object that's missing one of the dimensions. It has no parallel in reality. The only way I can think of defining these things is in the context of an actual, 3-D shape. A plane is the flat face of a shape, a line is the series of points at which planes meet, and a point is where lines meet. But those are not the definitions or the contexts given for these ideas in geometry, at least, not the geometry I'm currently learning.

Okay, so this has occurred to me more than once but it hasn't occurred to me until today to post about it here. I'm in a geometry class, and of course one has to deal with the concepts of the point, the line, and the plane in geometry. However, I was recently set about the task of defining what a line is, and when I went back into my geometry book, I found this: that the the concepts of the point, the line, and the plane are taken to be intuitional. Meaning, I assume, that even the writers of the geometry book were puzzled by the task of making such a definition. When I think about it, there's an obvious problem right off the bat with trying to define these things: definitions are based on concretes, and you cannot find a concrete of any of those three things in reality. A point has no length, width, or depth, we only represent it as having the such. A line has no width or depth, we only represent it as having the such. A plane has no depth, we only represent it as having the such. This means that they do not exist in reality, which obviously poses a problem for making a definition. And yet, they're such vital parts of geometry, one could call them axiomatic, and that's what occurred to me next - that no shape can be defined without these terms, and yet there can be no "proof" for these terms themselves. You can only point and say "this has lines" or "this has planes" or "this has points". My problem, I suppose, is this: are these three concepts axiomatic to geometry, and do they even exist?

You can't make a judge on this about which is "most ethical." Morality does not exist at the point of a gun, meaning, when force is involved - and if achieving a moral state means you must die, then neither dying nor living are more moral than the other.

"Nature does have volition" Prove it. "This cannot be argued with reason, its something you are either aware of or not." Really? How can you prove this? After all, you need reason to prove something... and since this mystical idea is beyond reason, I don't see how you expect any of us to believe that. "No one can prove my understanding of nature wrong as it does not come through reason." I'd disagree. The fact that it -isn't- reasonable proves that it is wrong. That method which establishes the correctness of an idea is reason, and at its base reason is established on the axiom that A is A. Reason works - and if your idea is not reasonable, then your idea is that which doesn't work.

I haven't yet seen this argument presented yet, and I feel that this specific argument presents a better case than any of the others presented so far. Rights exist because, by the nature of a man, they are necessary for survival in the context of a society. Without these rights, existence is literally -impossible-. You can't support yourself without any one of these rights. However, because they are HUMAN rights, to breach the rights of any one person is necessarily making the claim that all rights are irrelevant to you - including your own. To survive by sheer force is antithetical to your own survival in society, and a society based on such survival will not last long. Further, as other people have pointed out, Objectivist ethics are based on the nature of man. Man does not survive by force - he couldn't stand up to the animal kingdom with his sheer force, and at some point he will need his mind to survive. The only reason someone who lives by violating the rights of others survives is because others LET him survive - meaning, others don't retaliate. Once you take away that fact, that some people will be unwilling to retaliate, the man who lives by force will no longer have any means of survival. The simple fact is, man's means of survival, by his nature, is the use of reason, and anything that goes against that also goes against man's survival, and if ethics are based on the nature of man and his survival, anything that goes against reason is immoral.