TLD

For clarification: certainty, as you saw in the definition, is an assessment that leads to a general conclusion about an idea or concept. The pregnant woman is a concrete example with (in your statement) no evidence available. Conservatives bring people to the Rep. party but long-term do not help the conservative movement. Do you see what was meant there? Those who became atheists as a result of reading Obj. are at least clear on their beliefs.

Sure, even when they are not violated.

That does not negate their rights in principle. A criminal loses ability to exercise rights as well; having inalienable rights does not mean one is necessarily always free to exercise them.

See the Confirmation Thread: my posts on 3:45p 22nd, 7:52a 23rd. You can just click on my name and scroll down my posts.

Inalienable, inalienable, inalienable! They simply are not as free to act as most. Like children....

Certainly! Dawkins did not understand the concept of certainty and the fact that knowledge is contextual.

As I said at the beginning of this thread, CLM was asking a whole lot and needed to state his status re readings (and understand) of Objectivism. I never saw him do that. I am also beginning to believe that "few" was the wrong word in the title of the thread. I trust he is trying to understand rather than playing with everyone, and I would give him a lot of credit for that. But it sure sounds like discussion is far too circular to get anywhere at this stage. I could be wrong....

Where is the contradiction? It's about hierarchy - as everyone has noted. There can only be 1 #1. Does that cause a concern to you?

You seem to keep coming back to this question. You quoted Rand who said that if someone else was a high enough value where you felt you could not live without him/her, than it is not a sacrifice to risk or compromise your own life. Your context is very different; and as such, holding something or someone (with few exceptions) of higher value will inevitably lead to self-sacrifice. Life requires that one possess a defined hierarchy of rational values. Without such a hierarchy, neither rational conduct nor moral choices are possible. Putting something else ahead of self is not rational hierarchy; it is sacrificing - putting a lesser value over a greater value.

To the point of whom to support: I have thought on this subject for a long time, agreeing with some of Peikoff's arguments and disagreeing with others. I have been an Independent for some time, troubled by many of the Rep. and Dem. views as discussed here already. I always agreed with Rand that Conservatives are potentially more dangerous than Liberals (by today's connotation). No longer do we have true support for Capitalism on the right; and that is primarily due to religion/altruism. In the '08 election, I detested McCain: from his personality to his lack of pride and rational values to his inconsistent and compromising political views, I saw a man who would be an even worse representative of Capitalism than Bush. Obama was pretty transparent: I expected what we are seeing from him and certainly could not bring myself to vote for him. But I concluded that Americans were going to have to see the true evil of Obama's Multiculturalist/Egalitarian/Statist views before we would ever turn this country back to accepting our root principles. Thus, I voted for neither. That I believe was the most rational conclusion: we had reached the point where voting for the least harmful of the 2 candidates was no longer acceptable. And unless a rational spokesman on the right materializes to oppose Obama in 2012, I will probably do the same. I expect by then that most people will at least deny Obama his worst Statist programs.

This is such a big question, I would suggest that you first state what you have read to date on Objectivism? If little, it might be best to read further before asking for so much. Having said that, I will simply offer the following: 1. Metaphysically, objectivity is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a man's consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic). Objective reality certainly does not suggest that man is infallible. Re free will, you have a big issue here if you can't accept that you have the freedom to think or not; that to think is an act of choice; that you control the choices you make. Free will is what dictates the need for individual rights.... In ethics: if you hold someone else to be of greater value than self, than you would be sacrificing whenever you act selfishly. But rational selfishness is what is required to survive. Chew on that....

Absolutely! But in case someone wants to falsely conclude that there are many in the world today who don't have rights, remember that "rights" is a moral concept, not a political one.

It is violating but not taking away. Remember, "rights" is a moral concept, not a political/social one.

Having a right says nothing about the ability of someone or something else to impede on one's actions. The bear can not negate your right, only your temporary ability to exercise it. Inalienable means that which one cannot take away, suspend, infringe, restrict or violate; rights apply to all human beings.

ragingpanda A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. It is due to man's nature as a being of volitional consciousness that necessitates this concept. The key words are "moral" and "action." It preserves and protects individual morality in a social context - links ethics and politics. Children are not excluded: they have a rational faculty but simply need assistance at a young age to protect their rights. Their are capable at a lower level to exercise that faculty. Any non-human lacks a rational faculty, and thus the need for morality to survive. Man's rights are a requirement for survival, not any subjective need. "Needs", as you seem to use the term, apply to specific entities, not fundamental requirements for survival. Yes, animals would benefit if rights applied to them; but their nature simply does not warrent that. Activists you noted ask for protection of non-humans for subjective reasons. You can't distinguish between "man" and "rational being". Children fall in the same category as adults, development or not.

Jake, I have studied philosophy longer than you have lived and understand Obj. Epis. quite well. I can also read the Lexicon. I never countered that definition of proof; in fact, I followed that procees to come to my conclusion. I never spoke of "any knowledge"; I always referred to all knowledge/evidence available. The confusion is yours. Using the Ravens example: if an attribute of a raven is that it is black, than all ravens are black!! If you refuse to accept that conclusion, than you cannot fully define a Raven. That impedes concept formation. Your concern about "all" is misplaced. Your distinction between all Ps and the concept of P is meaningless here: the concept comes from the integration of all the Ps observed. This "debate" is concluded.

I am making a philosophical point. You are focusing on the Ps that man has not yet seen; I am focusing on the Ps man has seen and all the evidence man has about the Ps. I defined proof and certainty. Philosoophically, one can be "certain” of P if, in a given context of knowledge, the evidence for P is conclusive - all the evidence supports P and there is no evidence to support any alternative. In principle, if man waited until all Ps were observed before drawing a conclusion about P's attributes, concept formation would be very limited. One can't be so concrete bound. Logic is man's method of cognition; don't confuse that with Aristotle's rules of logic.

Evidence is not subjective. It's not my evidence vs. anyone else's. It's just all the evidence available to man. Ravens (in the hypothetical) are observed but not put in place like the balls. It is partially because, as you say, that I don't know where the balls come from that I cannot conclude anything about the color of the last ball. In contrast, Ravens (Ps in the thread) are presumed to be all black based on long-term observations by many people and the inability for someone to arbitrarily create a non-black one. It is now up to you to show the group what piece of evidence you might have that says all Ps are not Qs when, in fact, all sensual evidence points to Ps being Qs. That is where this all began.

We have been discussing a hypothetical. Ps and Qs - remember.

I never said 1 black raven points to the conclusion that all ravens are black. I don't understand your issue. I'll try this 1 more time. It does not matter what other attributes there are of ravens; we were only talking about color. Your last example is not analogous. Black is a significant attribute of ravens; color is not for balls. Ravens are not selected by man; the balls are, and the 1000th could be a different color. There is no principle to apply to the balls. And one knows that all balls are not black. Etc. There is nothing more to say.

Come on Jake, you know that's not what I said. Re-read all the posts. And understand that one need not have seen all ravens....

I implied that you would be evading if you ignored all evidence that has been reported beyond your own. The principle is the same for every entity: All evidence for P points to Q, therefore the rational conclusion is all P are Q. Period. you can't talk about "experience" with regard to any other non-P, apply it to P and conclude anything. Look at the principle, not the birds.

That is incorrect. Unrelated experience does not constitute evidence. There can be no doubt without evidence to the contrary. Certainty results from an assessment of the evidence for a conclusion - in contrast with possibility and probability. P is certain if, in a given context of knowledge, the evidence for P is conclusive. You cannot challenge a claim to certainty by simply making a declaration of a counter-possibility.

Given the original context in this thread, there was never presumed to be evidence except for the observation of Ps. Certainly not. What you can know is the observations/evidence of everyone else as well. No one said that by evading some evidence, you could draw a conclusion just based on your personal observations.

No one spoke of 1 instance. All evidence means all that has been provided to date and integrated by the senses. What do you mean here by "conceptual" evidence?