A is A

HA. And your entire sentence is a concept: lacbacfalao

There are many options, as discussed in the link from above.

1. Keep it. 2. Objectivism is not a system of rules but of principles.

I think your understanding is in error in the issues we've discussed. "Things named Jupiter" is not a concept. It is 2 concepts and a name. A concept is ONE word formed by the process described in ITOE.

i agree with you.

There are thousands of stars, comets, galaxies, etc, with names. I fail to see an epistemological difference between such a division of celestial objects. They all fall under the same concept, and the names are not concepts.

There is no contradiction here. You do not retain the sensations in memory. The sensations are automatically integrated into percepts which are retained in memory. It is your brain which does the integration from sensations to perceptions. Your consciousness is not aware of the neurological processes going on in the brain. Yes. But you are not aware that the brain has done this process. When you look at reality, you see percepts, not sensations. As I stated above, you don't experience the operations of the brain and the sensations it is integrating into a percept. Not true. When you respirate, you do not experience absorbing oxygen and expelling carbon dioxide, but you do experience breathing. You are mixing up the operations of the brain, a physical organ, with the operations of consciousness, a process of awareness that depends upon the operations of the brain as well as other sensory organs. As I indicated above, this is not correct. Integrating sensations into percepts is a neurological process. Experience is an awareness process, a process of consciousness.

Why? Why those? Aren't there already several concepts for which such objects are referents?

If Aleph really wants to claim that proper names are concepts, then the following example would serve this purpose. Integrate the following entities: The fifth planet from the sun; A summer resort on the Black Sea; A tugboat preserved in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Mozart's 41st Symphony; A large, round, slightly conic apple; The Roman king of the gods and the god of the sky and thunder. I challenge Aleph to perform a mental integration of these units, isolated by abstraction and united by a specific definition, yielding the concept 'Jupiter.'

Pick an object within your awareness, somewhere in your room. When you look at it, you perceive the object, you do not see the individual colors separate from the object. That is has color is later learned by abstraction from your perception of the object. Your brain automatically integrates what is striking your senses into the percept - the object in front of you. The same for touch. When you touch something, you feel the object - not the sensations on your fingertips, which are later learned about through scientific methods.

In other words, a word.

I thought you were supporting Aleph's position by implying that 'pad' was a name. Perhaps you need to amplify your meaning.

Pad is not a proper name; it is a word for the concept. Clearly, that is what she is here calling a name, as she often says in many other places. And it is a word formed by the mental processes used to form the concept 'pad'. That is not how proper names are arrived at. No integration is occurring when a model is called "Accord."

It is not I who is ignoring it. Names are not concepts.

Wrong. The concept you're talking about is "model" that is formed by these cars. Accord is the name of the model. Don't impune motive to me. You're not my psychologist. "Ordered field" is two concepts. As I said before, I don't accept your concept of singleton, so I do deny it. I have no idea what "mere proof" means. You are free to judge whether I use reason or not, just as I judge you. But, as I said before, we'd better stop discussing the issue, otherwise others might think we are using reason.

Because it is not a mental integration of two or more units. It is a name given to a style of car designed by an engineering firm.

Your situation is what I call Steven Mallory vs. Howard Roark. Too much of Mallory's world view was concern with what others thought. Hence, he tried to kill Toohey. Roark, on the other hand, while aware that other people were different than himself, was not primarily focused on what they were concerned with. Roark focused on his own happiness, his own goals, his own character. That was what he controlled. That's why his pain only went down to a certain point. He knew that there was a part of his soul that other had no entrance to, that other's values had no effect on. Of course, in real life, the evil around us affects us greatly. Sadness and anger is a natural result. But we must remember that we are still responsible for our own achievements, our own goals, our own character. We still live in a society where much is possible. We cannot let the pain go too deep. Our life is our own, and the good is to live it. It is very important to understand the errors of other thinkers because society is a product of their thinking. But an egoist does not live in or for others. This would be true no matter how rational society was.

It is obvious that you don't grasp what a name is if you regard 'Accord' as a concept. So, I will leave this discussion at this point.

Names not only stand for individual entities. They can stand to distinguish any group of entities from other entities. Take cars for example. "Accord" is the name of a car model and stands for millions of individual entities. "Accord" is not a concept. The United States is a name for a country that designates a large geographical area. The US is not a concept, nor is it a unit of the concept country. The same for Sun and Moon, except they name only one entity. McDonald's was at one time the name of a company with only one store. Now it has thousands of stores and McDonald's still is a name and not a concept.

First of all, I reject your concept of "singleton." Names do not differentiate units of a concept. My name does not distinguish me from other humans any more than it distinguishes me from dogs. It identifies me from all other entities and regards me as an individual entity without regard to what concept subsumes my defining characteristics. Again, ancient man regarded everything that occurred in the sky as being distinct from events on the ground. The Sun was a name to identify the big yellow ball from other celestial observations. It was given a name because there is only one, just as there is only one of me and I have a name. Observe that even though we know today that the Sun is a star, we still call it the Sun. Same for the Moon.

Moon is a name, just as Sun is.

The name Moon differentiated it from other celestial objects, of which there were many.

Children are NOT property. Property can be used and disposed of as the owner sees fit, whether it be physical things or pets or animals. As to the question of property rights, children cannot exercise such as legal rights but it would immoral for parents to give away something the child wants, even if the child doesn't use it anymore. A child must learn what property and ownership means as it grows up, and giving away things the child has under its control is one way to destroy such an experience.

Thanks for the correction.

Please demonstrate that our modern concept of "moon" is the same as the concept prior to Galileo and not just the same word.