Dante

I see this too when I try to access the main page.

I deleted your post and warned you, not sNerd, and posts which violate the forum rules will continue to be deleted. If this is not to your liking, then this is not the forum for you.

I assume what 2046 is referencing here is Ayn Rand's argument in her essay "The Objectivist Ethics," where she proposes that the concept of value presupposes "an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible." She goes on to argue that the only fundamental alternative that exists in the universe is existence or non-existence, which pertains only to living things (i.e. entities which can cease to exist qua living things). She illustrates this point by contrasting living things with a hypothetical immortal, indestructible robot, concluding that such a being "could have no interests and no goals." I did not really understand this argument when I first read this essay by Rand, and it greatly helped me to read Tara Smith's explication of it in Viable Values. The section particularly relevant to this argument (that immortal beings cannot have values) is "Imagining Immortality," a subsection of "Life Makes The Concept of Value Possible." I believe that the entirety of the section "Imagining Immortality" can be viewed in the Google books preview here (if the link doesn't work, simply Google "tara smith viable values imagining immortality" and its the first result). The section spans pages 87-90, which I believe are all available to view on the Google books preview.

Dwayne, do you know if PC rejects general relativity? Wallace Thornhill certainly seems to, and the Wiki article on PC indicates that it might. If so, they've lost me already.

By "the fabric of the universe," I mean the vacuum, which we now know is a little more interesting than just empty space. An example of the type of spontaneous action that I am referring to would be the vacuum fluctuations consisting of virtual particles zapping in and out of existence. Of course, I am not proposing that these phenomena are causeless, but rather that they result from the nature of the vacuum and that they do not require other entities interacting with the vacuum in order to occur. Hence, I see no reason to conclude that explaining them requires reference to previous actions; thus the term 'spontaneous.' This is the extra step that you continue to make, that I am questioning; that 'choosing to act' and 'acting entirely of its own accord' are always and everywhere one and the same thing, two different ways to reference the exact same group of phenomena. I see no support for the proposition that volition is the only quality of an object that enables it to initiate action, or that "volition" and "the ability to initiate action" are two different ways of saying the same thing. Your argument fundamentally relies on your assumption that you can simply hash together self-directed with volitional as you do, when I am saying that you are importing additional things when you do that; self-directed becomes consciously self-directed when you move to volition.

Are you serious? It is most definitely not our job to rid the world of crackpots; that is a fool's errand. The way to deal with crackpots, once you have identified them as such, is to ignore them. People who are so strongly supportive of ideas with very little evidential support are obviously operating on (what else?) faith, and the vast majority of people like that cannot be argued out of it, and we should not spend out precious time trying. If, during a 'scientific' presentation, the speaker spends more time talking about how 'oppressive' and 'dogmatic' mainstream scientists are than they do talking about the evidence for their own ideas, that does not bode well for them in my judgment of whether or not they are crackpots.

For starters, your packaging of non-volitional and reactionary together, as well as volitional and non-reactionary. Yes, it is true that all volitional action is self-caused in a sense (non-reactionary). However, your claim is much stronger; namely, that all non-reactionary action is volitional action, and I see no support for this claim. In fact, in a universe where spontaneous actions seems to be an inherent capacity of the fabric of the universe, I see only evidence to the contrary.

Or the people that care about you help you out, or people who care about the cause of combating Alzheimer's donate to charities which then help you out, etc. The point is merely that no one should be forced to help you, that charity and assistance be voluntary activities.

What you have said is that motion in the universe requires a cause. Which begs the question; do you think that energy is eternal? I mean, a basic law of the universe seems to be that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and motion is simply a type of energy (kinetic energy). In fact, kinetic energy gets transformed into other types of energy, and vice versa, all the time, by purely natural processes. If energy is eternal, then what exactly is so special about kinetic energy, that requires a starting point with zero kinetic energy present in the universe, and them some initial volition transforming other types of energy into KE? That's essentially what you've argued must have happened, if I understand you correctly, but it makes much less sense when one recalls that motion is simply a form of energy, and energy is eternal.

That is not necessarily altruism. Altruism consists of sacrificing one's values. When I donate to, say, the Ayn Rand Institute, I am not sacrificing my values, I am supporting them. Do you ever actually consider the issue being supported and whether you would like to see it supported? Or do you just object to anything labeled charity?

You also need to consider the fact that it is not always easy to determine whether some proposed theory contains a contradiction or not. In fact, it must be done with the greatest care. Consider your insistence above that mass is a necessary component of absolutely any physical object, and physicists who say that photons have no mass (which, incidentally, is all of them) are drawing "Ridiculous and illogical conclusions..." What is mass? Well, it's an attribute of a particle that gives it inertia, and allows it to be acted on by the gravitational force. Now think about electric charge; that is an attribute of a particle that allows it to be acted on by the electromagnetic force. You don't have any compunctions, I assume, when physicists declare that neutrons have zero electric charge? Yet you insist that all particles obviously must have some gravitational charge (mass)? One of the dangers in forming concepts such as "particle" is that you might include things in there which are not actually essential to the concept (like insisting that all of them must have mass). That is an empirical question that we must answer through experimentation and induction. When people first started to obtain evidence of wave-particle duality, there were scientists who insisted that this evidence was being wrongly interpreted; we know that waves and particles are two mutually exclusive types of objects. Therefore, to say that some entities have properties of both is obviously contradictory. Well, it wasn't the conclusions that needed to be rethought, but rather our very conceptualizations of the concepts "wave" and "particle." Might you need to do the same with "mass?" We are still obviously searching for a theory without self-contradictions, but along the way we might find that things which we thought to be mutually exclusive or contradictory are actually not. The laws of logic actually give us relatively little guidance in pushing the frontiers of physics.

I think there are no state income taxes in Dallas, TX or something, not completely sure (my ex used to live there). Also, there was a short thread about good places to live here.

Yes... many issues. Not all issues. That's why my previous post began with, "It depends on what the issue is, and what Ayn Rand's philosophical system of Objectivism has to say on the issue." It's not about disagreeing with 'this or that leading Objectivist,' but about the issue in contention.

If you think the philosophy of Objectivism has anything to say on the issue of whether homosexuality is a choice or not, you are deeply misinformed. Peddle your homophobic drivel if you like, but don't call it Objectivism.

Welcome to the forum. Rand actually wrote her most extensive and explicitly philosophical stuff on the subject of epistemology, in the form of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. I would highly recommend a very careful reading of that to gain an understanding of how Rand thought we gain knowledge and conceptualize it properly. There is also a more accessible reference that you can view free online that does a good and faithful overview of the Objectivist viewpoint on the nature and features of knowledge. It doesn't go in-depth into Rand's concept-formation methodology (subjects like measurement omission, for example), but it lays out the proposed nature of knowledge and the support for that nature. It's called The Logical Structure of Objectivism. The relevant chapters are the Introduction and Chapter 1. The discussion of knowledge begins on page 7 of the Introduction and continues through the entire first chapter, entitled 'Knowledge.'

Her definition was very simple: concern with one's own interests. That is the dictionary definition. What she took issue with was the idea that our interests often involved clashes with those around us, that there are widespread conflicts of interests among men, that an individual pursuing his or her own self interest is a danger, rather than a boon, to those around. She sought to change the connotations of the word, not strictly the definition, and she sought with her philosophy to establish principles which fleshed out in more detail exactly what types of activities are in every man's self-interest. ...You do realize that her whole argument centers around the idea that these things do not need to be put above one's self-interest. They constitute part of the interest of every human being.

A) It's not arbitrary. B.) It is entirely true that the ethical philosophy of Objectivism is based on self-interest. There are no altruistic aspects, only principles which clarify what exactly is in a person's long-term interest and why. C) As I said before, Ayn Rand spent a great deal of time explaining how her conception of self-interest differs with the mainstream conception. She devoted the entire introduction to "The Virtue of Selfishness" to the question of (I quote verbatim) "Why do you use the word 'selfishness' to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people to whom it does not mean the things you mean?" It's the very first issue she addresses in the collection of her essays that center on ethics. It's not her fault or ours that the occasional person wanders into the conversation expecting to be able to know exactly what she means without actually reading a word she wrote.

Have you ever actually read Ayn Rand? Because she drives this point home over and over... and over... The Ayn Rand lexicon entry on selfishness is filled with nothing but passages that clarify this point and precisely what she means when she refers to selfishness: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfishness.html Example: "There is a fundamental moral difference between a man who sees his self-interest in production and a man who sees it in robbery. The evil of a robber does not lie in the fact that he pursues his own interests, but in what he regards as to his own interest; not in the fact that he pursues his values, but in what he chose to value; not in the fact that he wants to live, but in the fact that he wants to live on a subhuman level..."

Thanks for the link, I've been looking for the text of that.

It depends on what the issue is, and what Ayn Rand's philosophical system of Objectivism has to say on the issue. You throw around the term 'excommunicate' like that's what we're talking about, but what we're actually talking about is correctly classifying people into philosophies and systems of belief. It would be improper to refer to a Platonist as an Aristotelian, because they're distinct schools of thought. You're not 'excommunicating' the Platonist, you're correctly classifying him. Otherwise, I guess I've been 'excommunicated' from every single belief system that I disagree with; that's a lot of excommunications, wouldn't you say? If any of those people you named holds a position that contradicts something in Objectivism, then the proper thing to do is to refrain from calling them an Objectivist. We're not talking about the truth, we're talking about Objectivism. Everything that you're saying is true when we're talking about pursuing the truth. However, if you pursue the truth and find yourself at a position which contradicts Objectivism, you don't change what Objectivism is... you just relabel yourself and continue living your life.

Here is a blog post that discusses Rand's views of masculinity and femininity and ties these in with her views on the immorality of homosexuality. The author then presents his own slightly different views which can be reconciled with homosexuality as a moral lifestyle.

Who said anything about its validity or value in the passage we're discussing? All anyone did was clearly define what does and does not fall under 'Objectivism.' Your whole theme of anti-authoritarianism simply has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

But the issue is that mass and particles are not the same thing. A photon does not have mass, but it is still a particle, and the question is whether or not energy can exist independently of physical objects which possess the energy (e.g. particles), or whether it is simply an aspect of objects. Although I disagree with Egosum's characterization of energy as always matter-motion (for example, mass energy is a potential energy that is not manifested in motion), I agree that energy is always an aspect of particles. Just look at the definition: "The property of matter and radiation that is manifest as a capacity to perform work." It is a property of physical systems. EDIT: To add... we're finding out that even the fundamental forces of the universe are transmitted through 'carrier particles.' See Gauge bosons.

I'll try to comment on a few of these things. Yes, parts of the transition could be quite difficult. Large chunks of modern society have been built upon the premise that the government is and will continue to be involved in activities that, fundamentally, the government shouldn't be doing. It's a very complicated question as to how, with any particular area, to get the government out with the least amount of transitional damage, and rational people can easily disagree about those things. Nevertheless, we know from fundamental principles which activities we should be attempting to, ultimately, get government out of. She most certainly did not maintain that women should not have careers; one need only to look at the character of Dagny Taggart, one of the strongest female characters in modern fiction, to see Ayn Rand's vision of female productive potential. She championed the virtue of productiveness as a general human virtue, to be incorporated deeply into the life of any person. In fact, she stated in a 1968 article in The Objectivist, "whether married or single, women need and should have careers, for the same reasons as men." She did have some unique views concerning what it means to be masculine or feminine, leading to (for example) her statement that a truly feminine woman wouldn't want to be President. I don't have a particularly good understanding of her views in this area, and what I do know leads me to disagree with her entirely, so I'll let someone else flesh this out if they want. It depends on what sense the phrase is used. The way that first comes to my mind, to be a "contributing member of society" is to be someone who takes responsibility for supporting his or her own life, someone who understands that he or she must produce; basically synonymous with a "productive member of society." This obviously jives with Objectivism; an individual should not expect or strive to be 'taken care of' by society. You should not attempt to mooch off of others, but rather support yourself by producing values and trading with other people, offering them values in exchange for what you need to further your life. In this sense, a "contributing member of society" is contrasted against a parasitic member of society. However, one should not attempt to make oneself a sacrificial lamb for the sake of others. Your goal in life should not be to produce as much value as you possibly can for as many people as you possibly can, and your own life be damned. In short, one should not hold "contributing to society" as one's primary and motivating goal in life.

When we say "high entrance costs" in this context, we're talking about natural monopolies where the features of the business itself impose incredibly high costs on potential newcomers. The industries that you have cited a.) are not monopolized in the first place, and b.) to the extent that they are dominated by a few large firms, these firms maintain market share primarily through regulation levied against potential competitors, rather than costs inherent in production.