Black Wolf

Leonard Piekoff claims that the universe is "the total of that which exists—not merely the earth or the stars or the galaxies, but everything. Obviously then there can be no such thing as the “cause” of the universe".

What is the proper way to define the universe? Is Piekoff's definition question-begging, or is his definition already the proper one?

I've gotten into arguments with many people, and they've objected that the universe only pretains to what is within the space-time continuum. I responded, using the etymology of the Universe, which means "Rolled into one" (Unus = One, Versum = Rolled into). I argued that he was the one who was begging the question, based on the etymology of the word, as there is no reason to conclude that "universe" is strictly limited to space and time as domains.

I acknowledge that, despite the lack of overall conention, that I was rather inexperienced. I didn't put my argument into syllogism form. He didn't really argue any further than that, but what is the proper way to define "universe"?

Republicans are calling him a democrat, Democrats are calling him a republican. But this man obviously has no consistent principles - he likes Mein Kampf, he likes the Communist Manifesto, and he likes We The Living. I think it's safe to say that he has no consistent principles, and can be best described as "the man without a purpose".

"The man without a purpose is a man who drifts at the mercy of random feelings or unidentified urges and is capable of any evil, because he is totally out of control of his own life. In order to be in control of your life, you have to have a purpose—a productive purpose . . . . The man who has no purpose, but has to act, acts to destroy others. That is not the same thing as a productive or creative purpose." ~ Ayn Rand, playboy 1964

If a political system depends on the conditions that it's started in, it's not prosperous. Prosperity can only be the result of a political system, not the other way around.

It's more than just a denial of economics this author has, but a denial of reality.

He anthropomorphizes "society", saying that the wealthy "owe" society, because generations before that wealthy person has created certain medicines and technologies that the wealthy people of today may benefit from, so as a result, they have an obligation to.. some other people who have no relevance to the things they benefit from.

It's more than just a denial of economics this author has, but a denial of reality.

He anthropomorphizes "society", saying that the wealthy "owe" society, because generations before that wealthy person has created certain medicines and technologies that the wealthy people of today may benefit from, so as a result, they have an obligation to.. some other people who have no relevance to the things they benefit from.