Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

necrovore

Regulars
  • Posts

    243
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Everything posted by necrovore

  1. Maybe because this is a case of bad guys vs. bad guys, like two groups of gangsters in a gang war. Sure, one of them had to start it, and that one (Russia) was wrong for starting it, but that doesn't make the other group of gangsters "good guys." p.s. I do not know if my position here matches that of anybody else in this thread. I just saw that one statement and wanted to respond to it.
  2. I would say that your right to your own body is an unenumerated right, and such rights are protected by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution. Technically a right to production and trade could also be upheld in such a manner (although probably not by this Court.) More explicit amendments wouldn't necessarily do any harm, but I suppose the concern of the Founding Fathers was precisely that it's impossible to enumerate all rights. I think they preferred that the powers of the government be enumerated instead.
  3. Very true. It seems like Newspeak is on the rise. For example, do you have a "right" to a job? If you do, then the government is required to provide you with one, but according to Newspeak, if you do not have a right to a job, then the government can arbitrarily prevent you from having one, even if someone would have hired you voluntarily...
  4. The problem here is that failure to get vaccinated is not an initiation of force. The government exists to protect people from criminals (and invading foreign armies), but not to protect them from natural phenomena such as hurricanes, earthquakes -- or viruses. In a free country, people can organize to protect themselves against such things, and the government is only involved insofar as it prevents crime from occurring. In some circumstances it might be possible to sue someone for negligence if their failure to do something causes a natural phenomenon to be worse for someone else. Generally, however, I think you have to willingly assume a responsibility before you can be held liable for shirking it. Interestingly, the government has granted the manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines "immunity" from liability lawsuits.
  5. The purpose of government is (supposed to be) to protect individual rights. The only way to violate individual rights is by initiation or threat of force. Therefore, the government maintains a monopoly on force to ensure that it is only used in retaliation and only against those who initiate or threaten its use. As such, the only "mandates" from a proper government are negative obligations, e.g., don't murder people, don't defraud people, don't steal from people, don't extort stuff from people, etc. The government can enforce these without ever initiating force. Individual rights are not (supposed to be) subject to vote. Unlimited democracies usually end up tyrannical, as mob rule. As for vaccine mandates, the issue here is whether one has a right to one's own body. I would say so, and therefore I oppose vaccine mandates on the same grounds that I oppose the forced pregnancy and childbirth that result from abortion bans. A vaccine mandate is not the same thing as a vaccine itself, and it's possible to recommend a vaccine without supporting a mandate. I mean, I think everybody should read Atlas Shrugged to "inoculate" themselves against socialism and communism, but I absolutely don't believe that the reading of Atlas Shrugged should be mandated by law.
  6. The religionists always asserted that consciousness was supernatural, and that ideas were supernatural. The root of this assertion is Platonism. Aristotle (and a lot of his later students, including Thomas Aquinas) sort of inherited it without challenge. Objectivism asserts that it is an error. An idea is definitely a different kind of thing than a physical object. You can hold a solid object in your hand, or a gas in a tank, but only a mind can hold an idea. However, an idea is still a kind of thing and ideas have a nature. Consciousness is also a kind of thing with a nature, even though its nature is different from that of any physical object or substance. Materialists assume that the religionists are correct about consciousness and ideas being supernatural, and then reject the supernatural. The result is a philosophy that denies the axiom of consciousness. Objectivism denies the supernatural but asserts that consciousness is natural. This is more than saying consciousness is axiomatic (which it also is). Objectivist epistemology is defined under the premise that consciousness has a nature and that a proper epistemology has to work with that nature instead of against it. It is possible to discover the nature of consciousness through introspection. It is also possible to "compare notes" with other people (such as reading a scientist's account of how he became aware of some new scientific discovery). Although it's possible to ask questions about how consciousness arises in a brain, I think such questions are scientific rather than philosophical. The answers wouldn't invalidate anything, in much the same way that your knowledge about a table is not invalidated merely because you learn that the table is made of molecules.
  7. This looks like the mind-body dichotomy again, but in a different form. The ancient idea was that reason is a "spiritual" phenomenon which should not be "sullied" by connections to "the flesh." The modern, more "materialist" take would be what you are describing, that there is no spiritual phenomenon at all, that there is nothing but the flesh and that what we think is "reason" is actually nothing more than a phenomenon of the flesh and therefore subservient to it. Ayn Rand does not believe in the mind-body dichotomy. A man is an integrated being, and reason is the faculty that a man uses for living his life. Reason means applying logic (the art of non-contradictory identification) to reality, but reality of necessity includes the nature of a person's own body and its needs. (For example, you have to eat food and not poison, and reason is the most effective tool people have to identify what is food and how to find or produce it, and how to identify poison so that it can be avoided.) It is possible to deliberately put reason in the service of unreason, but that would be a lower level of evil than mere unreason. Criminals do that when they plot to rob a bank or to enslave a population. It is possible (but not sustainable over the long term) for men to prey on other men. The life proper to man is to deal with reality directly (rather than relying on victims to do it), and to deal with other people only as traders, offering value for value.
  8. Of course we have limits. What Ayn Rand referred to as "the crow epistemology" is an example of a limit -- you can only keep so many things in mind at a time. You can see | as one, || as two, ||| as three, but you'd have to count |||||||||||| because otherwise they just blur together. However, we can abstract over abstractions, and that sets us apart from the animals, even monkeys. Once you can abstract over abstractions, you can get to discoveries like those of Newton and Einstein (and Rand herself in her own field). Also, you seem to be referring to the reason-emotion dichotomy, which is related to the mind-body dichotomy. Christianity (and Plato) held that Man consists of an animal side (body) and a spiritual side (mind / soul) and that these sides are necessarily in opposition (which is not true). They would have put reason on the spiritual side and emotion (which all animals have) on the animal side. Aristotle probably followed Plato on this point, at least a little. The discovery of evolution did not come until much later, and merely provided a new way to describe this same dichotomy (reason being relatively new on the evolutionary scene, whereas emotion is much older). Ayn Rand found that reason is a volitional faculty. You have to choose whether to use it. If you choose not to use it then your mind "falls back" on emotions, but there is no way to validate those emotions, and they are not enough by themselves to allow a human being to live a successful life. (For animals, emotions and instincts are enough, but just barely -- they only need to breed more than they die.) For humans, trying to live without reason leads to failure and then to the emotions that come with that. Reason, on the other hand, can be validated (and must be, because reasoning errors are possible). Valid reasoning will lead to success and the emotions that come with that. I don't think it's possible (or "hubris") to "rely on reason too much." The only way to correct an error in reasoning is through reason.
  9. I suppose I was being too flippant so I'll try to be more straightforward this time. I don't think Ayn Rand's non-driving has any philosophical significance. If it did, I'm pretty sure she would have written something about it. Generally, Ayn Rand's written work has nothing bad to say about driving or operating any other machine. There are any number of non-philosophical reasons that someone might be unable or unwilling to drive a car, but I don't know which ones applied to Ayn Rand. Her philosophy is broader than her personal life. If she didn't know how to solve differential equations, that doesn't mean she was philosophically opposed to them. If she didn't learn FORTRAN that doesn't mean she was opposed to it. And so forth.
  10. Come to think of it, Ayn Rand didn't fly a helicopter, either. Is there philosophical significance to that fact?
  11. I want to reference the beginning of an article called "Lisp as the Maxwell's Equations of Software," where the professor of a class on electromagnetism (quoted by the author of the article) presents Maxwell's Equations, and then says: The article then quotes Alan Kay, saying that John McCarthy's Lisp interpreter, itself written in Lisp, is like "Maxwell's Equations of Software." Sometimes I've wondered if it's possible to create the "Maxwell's Equations of Objectivism," which would sum up everything about Objectivism in a very small space, like on an index card. I'm not sure it's possible. Even if it is possible to sum things up that way, the resulting situation is probably just like the one the electromagnetism professor described for electromagnetism: understanding the summary might be easy, but understanding all the consequences of the summary would be another matter. — Sometimes I think this one would be sufficient: "Existence is Identity; Consciousness is Identification." This statement sums up the proper relationship between existence and consciousness, and I suspect that if Objectivism were lost, this statement alone might be enough to enable it to be rediscovered. (Or maybe more is needed.) The consequences that need to be understood, however, are not merely the consequences of that statement alone, but also of all the facts in existence.
  12. I think Ayn Rand saw the details of the operation of Galt's motor as beside the point. The point of Galt's motor is that industrialists can invent new things, regardless of which particular things they are, or how they work. I am sure she made the best use she could of the knowledge that was available at the time she wrote Atlas Shrugged. But it would be too much to ask her to invent actual new working inventions herself and then ascribe them to her characters -- and it would also have been beside the point. The point of a novel is to present (some) things "as they might be and ought to be," not as they are, so she presented characters who had the virtues she thought were important, and who put those virtues into action in the novel. When she was asked if she thought Atlas Shrugged would be prophetic, she replied that she didn't want it to be prophetic. (I don't remember the exact words of either the question or the answer.) I think she wanted people to recognize the virtues of the characters and the reasons for those virtues, and then to adopt those virtues. If the virtues were widespread, and if they were understood, so that people would know why they needed to have those virtues, then they would provide a foundation for a freer and more prosperous society.
  13. I think John Galt's motor, which is described as being able to pull energy from static electricity in the air, is impossible in reality.
  14. Atlas Shrugged is a work of fiction. That's the "disconnect" right there. It uses many principles which are true, but the same principles could play out in any of a large number of different ways in reality, just as they could lead to many other fiction books.
  15. I think the rules are different when you have a small group where everybody knows everybody else. In such a case, people deal with each other based on their direct firsthand knowledge of each other, and specialization is much more difficult. Consider that if I were one person living by myself, I could not have a separation of state and economics, because by necessity I'd have to do both functions, since there's no one else to do them. And then, within the area of state, I wouldn't be able to separate executive, legislative, and judicial functions, because again, they're all me. If it were me and one or two other people, that's still not enough people to split them up properly. Even if there are four or five people, maintaining those distinctions would create all sorts of artificial barriers which would be costly and inefficient. (You're on an island with Bob and Carol and Dave, but Bob is handling the judicial branch today, so if a judicial question comes up between Carol and Dave, you can't work it out yourself; you have to go ask Bob...) I imagine that if a dispute breaks out, getting a "fair trial," the way you would want one in a large society, would be almost impossible, precisely because everybody knows everybody else, and there's no practical way to separate people's firsthand knowledge of each other from the issues at stake in the case. I mean, if you never liked Bob, you're more likely to convict him just because of that, and even if you could separate your dislike of Bob from your judgment in the case, you would have a hard time proving that you had done so. You could lay out your reasoning in writing, but people would still have grounds to suspect that what you wrote was different from what you were actually thinking. How does Bob get any right to an impartial judge or jury, when the community is that small? When you have thousands of people who don't all know each other, barriers between people exist anyway; they cannot all know each other anymore, so it becomes possible to use those barriers between people for separations of powers and other specializations. There have been small "communes" where people allegedly practice Communist principles, but in fact, since they all know each other, they can use their knowledge of each other to make everything sort-of work without genuinely relying on Communist principles at all. (Besides, since the principles are wrong, if they followed them strictly, their community would die out.) When you have a small group of people, such small groups are all very much the same, and any sort of political principles are premature. So a small group of Objectivist geniuses could well start their own little village or something, but they would have a hard time demonstrating to the rest of the world that it was really based on Objectivist principles, and not merely on the fact that they know each other well and work together well. Objectivist principles would probably help them work together well, up to a point, but if a dispute happened, they would probably fall apart. They are too small of a group. (Or else they might compromise their principles in order to stay together, but that introduces problems of its own.) (It is also a problem when you have a large society ruled by a small group of people, when each of the people in the ruling clique knows everybody else in the clique... and when they prevent anybody not in the clique from holding office... because they cannot police each other properly anymore, because they are not impartial... and they can collude across "separation of powers" barriers...) I think America came together because you had a large group of people who did not all know each other but had similar ideas, and they also had a blank canvas upon which to create a country. The blank canvas these days is hard to come by, but not impossible. But you also need the large group with the common ideas. I don't think a small group would be able to do the job. You might think that the Founding Fathers were a small group, but I think what they did was only possible because they were representative of a larger group from which they came.
  16. Sebastian, Next time you should combine all your posts into a single post. The value of the dollar comes from the illegality of counterfeiting. That's all. However, the government can legally print money, and if it does, and enters that money into circulation, then that diminishes the value of the dollar. Of course, the government doesn't want to be seen printing money directly, so there is some genius-level fraud at work. Somebody had the great idea that a central bank would print the money, and the government would then borrow it, and theoretically have to pay it back with interest, which is a great deal for the central bank. Prices go up during inflation when people receive the newly printed (borrowed) money and use it to bid up the price of supplies. Everybody else has to bid higher, too, or else they don't get the supplies. The effect is uneven because the newly printed money is not distributed to everyone evenly, and because the people who get the money first (usually the government and its beneficiaries) might want some supplies more than they want other supplies. It doesn't make any difference whether these trades cross international borders or not. I don't buy the idea that a "loss of confidence" causes hyperinflation. The loss of confidence is an effect, not a cause. Hyperinflation happens when there's a feedback loop: when inflation causes the government to have to pay higher prices, they print more money to cover the higher prices, and this causes more inflation, which causes even higher prices, and so forth. Technically this feedback loop happens with regular inflation, too, and is already happening now, but it is very slow at this point. It will speed up if the government decides to spend more. This will cause problems, the government will decide that even more spending is the answer, and so forth. The Federal Reserve is itself one of the biggest bond buyers. It buys the bonds with freshly-printed money. The Fed does accounting tricks to conceal this (I think it's actually illegal for the Fed to do it directly, so they do it indirectly.) The Fed encourages banks to buy bonds and then deposit the bonds in a reverse repo facility which temporarily (but repeatedly) exchanges them for cash. That way the banks are the nominal owners of the bonds but actually the banks are swapping the bonds right back to the Fed. If the repo facility were closed then the banks would not have enough cash for their operations, and bonds are too illiquid to serve as a substitute. Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself. "Legal tender" laws mean that the government forces creditors to accept dollars as payment for debt. The creditors cannot legally say, "No, we want you to pay in gold or something other than dollars." ---- My original post wasn't really about hyperinflation per se, it was about the idea that government money-printing can be used to influence the culture. If you have access to free freshly-printed money then you can buy up book publishers, record companies, movie studios, and so forth, and make them churn out propaganda, and buy huge ad campaigns for it. Even if audiences leave in disgust, the fountain of free money can keep the companies in business anyway (when normally they would go out of business). It can even create the illusion that the material is popular (because the ads are everywhere). Competing businesses, seeing the "popularity," may also try to cash in on it by imitation, and may refuse good work because it doesn't "follow the trend." I think this is happening now. I suppose what this boils down to is that, if you're worried by the way certain Leftist ideas seem to be taking over the culture, you shouldn't worry. When the money runs out, the illusion that this stuff is popular will vanish.
  17. I agree with this, but I'd generalize a bit further: "Who paid for that" is really just another kind of ad hominem. The evidence for and against a claim should be the only thing that matters for establishing its truth. The question is not who says it, but why they say it, and whether they have a good reason, rooted in facts. Too many people seem obsessed with asking "who says that," as if identifying the people saying something is enough, by itself, to determine whether it is true or false. "Who paid for that" is just another form of "who says that." Many of these people are tribalists. What they are saying boils down to, "everything my tribe says is true, while everything your tribe says is false." It's childish, really, and there's no way to reason with such people. I suppose such people find it easier to determine a claim's tribal affiliation than to actually try to assess the evidence. It's also far, far less accurate, but in my experience, a lot of people (in the general population) care more about fitting in with their group than about being accurate. Sigh...
  18. The evidence shows that, the closer we get to capitalism, the better the results are for a society. The evidence also shows that, the closer we get to pure communism, the worse things are. There is no evidence to suggest that these trends would change if capitalism or communism became any purer than they have ever actually been. There's no evidence that communism could become "so pure that it would begin to work," or that capitalism could become "so pure that it would begin to fail."
  19. Although my post was provoked by the Afghanistan debacle. it wasn't about the Afghanistan debacle... It was actually another perspective on whether the religious or the social variant of the primacy of consciousness is the more evil. (I debated whether to post again in that thread or start a new one; maybe I chose incorrectly...) In this case, I came to the conclusion that that there is less of a difference between them than I thought before.
  20. I'm talking about ideas, not people. Often people hold mutually contradictory ideas.
  21. Maybe I should just say that by the Left I mean the "American Left" and by the Right I mean the "American Right." True, but the pullout was done in an extremely careless, and even contemptuous, fashion.
  22. Earlier I wrote in the thread about whether collectivism or religion is the greater evil. Seeing Biden's disastrous pullout from Afghanistan has led me to wonder something again that I forgot about in that thread: why does the Left seem to get along so well with Islam? I've seen this cooperation before, because of the Left banning books critical of Islam, such as a bestselling book called Mohammed's Koran, by Peter McLoughlin and Tommy Robinson. (Amazon banned this book and I had to go to a lot of extra trouble to get a copy of it.) Leftist censorship has also targeted the cartoonist Bosch Fawstin on numerous occasions. The Left and Islam are both Primacy of Consciousness, but different consciousnesses. So why? It seems interesting to me that some on the Left are saying that the Right is "just like the Taliban" (and that's true, in the sense that both the Right and the Taliban believe in the primacy of God's consciousness), but the Leftists are saying it as if to excuse their cooperation with the Taliban -- while cooperation with the Right remains inexcusable. Why? I think I discovered the reason: all people who choose to believe any variant of the primacy of consciousness choose it because they want consciousness to have primacy over existence. A person who tries to believe that their own consciousness already has primary over existence soon finds that their consciousness is thwarted. What I said before was that they try to change ideas in their own mind, to see if some other ideas cause reality to conform. Maybe some of them do that, but begin to realize after a while that it is fruitless. But the idea of an existence that doesn't answer to consciousness at all is still abhorrent to them. So they might prefer to believe that existence answers to some other consciousness than their own -- some consciousness which might change its mind, or might be persuaded, or perhaps can be forced, or at least will assume the burden of doing all their thinking for them. That, they think they can deal with. If they can't be the ruling consciousness, then they can persuade, or force, or ride the coattails of, the ruling consciousness, and get the same results. So it's just plain second-handedness, of the Peter Keating variety. Everything in their minds comes down to persuading or forcing some other consciousness, or else, just letting another consciousness (even an imaginary one) do all the work. They won't dare try to deal with reality on their own. The problem that the Left and Islam have with the Right (and with America) is the same problem: "worldliness," i.e., the insistence that one should deal with reality firsthand, that people can actually do that, and that people can properly be expected to do that. The American Right tolerates a lot more "worldliness" than Islam. This is why the Enlightenment "sense of life," which is implicitly a primacy of existence perspective, still survives in the Right, whereas in the Left (and in Islam) it is almost completely gone. It is the fact that the Left and Islam both hate this sense of life, and the reality underlying it, that unites them. They both hate worldliness because they'd rather deal with a consciousness (whether society or Allah) than with reality, and they regard the ruling consciousness as more real than reality itself. (It should be noted that the Left's love of Islam is unrequited. The Left approves of Islam's hatred of "worldliness" but sort of laughs at their religiosity. Islam, on the other hand, though grateful for the help they get from the Left, is just as willing to kill the Left as the Right. So they probably plan to kill the Leftists last.) -- The Right still has some severe problems, and they have been worsening over the decades. Some Christians allow that it's okay to be "worldly" up to a point, because reality, they claim, was made by God. However, it's only up to a point: many of them are anti-conceptual mentalities, who are only willing to accept "worldliness" up to a certain level of abstraction, but no further. They reject whole fields of knowledge like calculus and science because they would rather believe in the book of Genesis than run the risk of obtaining knowledge that contradicts it. I've seen that firsthand. The result is that their knowledge of reality can't exceed the medieval level. Some Christians claim that reality has been corrupted by sin or Satan or the like, and they often use that excuse to declare war on various aspects of reality that they don't like. Both Islam and the Right's less-worldly Christians hate other religions in proportion to how different those religions are from their own. That's also a characteristic of the anti-conceptual mentality. The anti-conceptual mentality is also a form of second-handedness: it's the belief that thinking should go only so far and no further, because once you reach a certain point, another consciousness is supposed to take over for you. I think this is the product of not having confidence in one's own consciousness -- not having confidence in reason. I suppose some people who reason incorrectly, and find their incorrect reasoning thwarted by reality, decide to give up on reason altogether. (Some people might also give up on reason because their correct reasoning is rejected by other people, and they aren't sure of themselves.) They may not give up on reason after their first conflict, but they might do it after a few such conflicts. They learn the wrong lesson from their problems. They decide that thinking is dangerous or a fool's errand and that they will let "someone else" worry about it, so they embrace the primacy of consciousness. They're afraid of thinking for themselves. They're afraid of getting it wrong. (And they decide that, if they close their eyes, they don't have to see the problem!) Propaganda preys on this, of course. In the physical realm, the Right rejects the "something for nothing" mentality of the Left. They are aware that you have to work in order to eat. However, their mistake is that they still embrace "something for nothing" in the realm of cognition: they need to be taught that you have to do cognitive work to acquire knowledge, in the same way that you have to do physical work to acquire food or goods. Knowledge does not come from God. It has to be built up from reality by a process of reason, which has to be checked for correctness. Objectivism provides a complete picture of how to do that. Christianity not only doesn't provide such a picture, it rejects the idea that one is necessary.
  23. I think you can agree to surrender some of your rights in exchange for some other value. This is what happens in a boxing match where you might agree to get punched in exchange for a chance at some prize money or something. But if you surrender some of your rights, they aren't being violated. A rights violation requires that you didn't agree to it. It's an important characteristic of contracts that they are legally considered civil matters and people in contract disputes aren't in any danger of life and limb. Even if a contract is breached, the legal idea is that the breach can be compensated for by some amount of money. This is completely different from a matter of infringement of rights, which is a crime. Suppose we have Alice and Bob, and Bob declares that he can predict the weather, and is far too sure of himself. Alice is annoyed by his arrogance, so she challenges him to enter into a contract with her where he agrees to die if it rains in Memphis on Thursday. He does agree to it, and they sign it, and get it notarized, and advertise it in the newspapers and everything. Then, when Thursday rolls around, it rains in Memphis. As you might expect, Bob does not die as agreed, and makes a bunch of excuses, so Alice takes Bob to court and demands that the government execute Bob, since he agreed to die. I think a reasonable government would decline to execute Bob -- and if Alice decided to take matters into her own hands and kill Bob, she'd be charged with murder notwithstanding the existence of the contract or the witnesses or any of that. You can't really agree to give up your life in that way. (The judge might order Bob to pay Alice some money in lieu of dying and to teach him a lesson about engaging in frivolous contracts.) There's also the people who say, "By living in our country you agree to abide by our laws, and our laws require that you die just because of your ancestry, even though you personally didn't do anything. So you have already agreed to die and it isn't an infringement of your rights." That's the same sort of thing: it's a rights violation masquerading as a contract. So is the "social contract" nonsense that keeps floating around. So, no, you can't agree to a violation of your rights.
  24. If somebody punches you, that's a crime, unless it's part of a boxing match that you agreed to participate in. Even then, boxing has rules, and if your opponent breaks the rules, that can be "unsportsmanlike conduct," and there is a point beyond which it can be a crime, too, like if he shoots you with a gun. (Or maybe if he bites off your ear...) That is not part of boxing. Duels used to be legal, where people who got into a dispute could settle it in the streets, but those have since been banned, I suspect in part because they are dangerous to bystanders. Ayn Rand did say that the government cannot be compelled to enforce just any arbitrary contract. She said this in the context of marriage in Ayn Rand Answers, I think, but I take it to be more generally true. For example, how could the government enforce a self-contradictory contract? (If a contract requires a contradiction, the government has no means of providing it...) Also, the government might not enforce a contract if: one party was too young to understand it, one party was too drunk to understand it, one party was physically threatened concerning the signing of it, or other such things. A lot of it depends on, basically, whether it's an honest or a dishonest contract (including such issues as informed consent), and on whether it's an honest or a dishonest dispute, too. Whether and how to enforce a contract can be a complex issue. Contract enforcement can also be open to abuse, as when the government decides to base its decisions on some sort of agenda of its own.
  25. "Arbitrary" itself is one of those words that can have different meanings in different contexts. It helps to keep the contexts distinct. As Boydstun pointed out early in this thread, the word "arbitrary" can be validly used in statements of the form "Take an arbitrary triangle." A lot of our knowledge takes the form "For all X, Y follows." And in the latter case, if Y is true for all X (in a given context), then it doesn't matter which X you choose, Y will be true for it. So the choice of which X is "arbitrary" in the sense that the choice of X does not affect whether or not "For all X, Y follows" is true. A statement of the form, "If X then Y," may be true regardless of whether X is true. For example, if someone or something lights a stick of dynamite, it will (under normal conditions) explode. This "if-then" statement is true regardless of whether or not anyone or anything is currently lighting a stick of dynamite. (But proving the statement would require either lighting a stick of dynamite, or having a record of a previous lighting of a stick of dynamite, or having enough experience lighting dynamite, directly or indirectly, that you can infer principles that can then be applied to a hypothetical lighted stick of dynamite.) In all these kinds of cases, there's an X which we say "can be arbitrary" (e.g., pick any particular lighting of a stick of dynamite) but X is only part of the statement under consideration. That's different from saying that the entire statement is arbitrary. --- Consider two Objectivists, A and B. A says, "Hey B, what if we made a momentous philosophic discovery, and Dr. Peikoff or Dr. Binswanger thought it so valuable that we were invited to his house, and he would gesture to his bookshelf, and say, 'Pick an arbitrary book, and I'll autograph it for you!' Wouldn't that be great?" B says, "No, that would never happen, because an Objectivist like Dr. Peikoff or Dr. Binswanger wouldn't have any arbitrary books!"
×
×
  • Create New...