dream_weaver

Another thing worth noting, is the observation of "the fact that axiomatic concepts are the guardians of man's mind and the foundation of reason—the keystone, touchstone and hallmark of reason—and if reason is to be destroyed, it is axiomatic concepts that have to be destroyed." (ITOE pg. 60) While trying to explain how one might approach the validation of identity, having actually validated identity for myself (one cannot perform this feat for another) concertizes for me, experientially, how they serve as the guardian of one's own mind. The fact that I may not be able to provide "justification to the satisfaction of the one desiring it", in no way undermines the fact that it is indeed justified. If anything, it only has me questioning my own efficacy of being able to communicate it clearly enough. Special thanks to Plasmatic. The analysis of the transition from non-propositional knowledge to propositional knowledge was indeed a treat, and provided greater insight to the power that Objectivism can provide in facilitating understanding.

The Contents looked interesting enough to add to my Kindle for future consideration. Thanks.

After a whole slew of bad guys was eliminated, the entire planet, bereft of the enforcement of communism and fascism, was left to discover the social libertarianism and economic capitalism that tended to develop in the absence of human initiated force. Political freedom was ubiquitous and infinite. In governmental terms, perfect justice was achieved. Couldn't help thinking of the passage in Atlas Shrugged, which pointed out that you cannot force man to be free. I would look forward to seeing an episode of Vengeance is Mine.

That secret Objectivist handshake is so much easier to learn than it is to teach. Thank "reason" for those 33rd level Objectivists out there that lead by such fine example.

A slave is the individual who has no right to dispose of the product of his efforts as he sees fit.

deja vu. If reality is not self-evidently convincing enough, . . .

Would you consider a recollection a percept?

One can, and must appeal to perception in order to validate the axioms. In short, they are universally true for the same principle that concepts like man, animal, justice, etc. refer to every instance that is, was or will be. All valid concepts are reducible by identification of their referents (which may involve other abstractions which in turn are reducible by the same manner) until you reach "X" ("X" is what I perceive, "Y" is the form (material content) I perceive it. "Z" is the integration (abstraction) based on perceptually given similarity. "AA" is the word I assign to the concept "Z" which is an integration of "Y"'s derived from "X"). What I perceive is reality. Percepts are simply the form I perceive it in. Concepts are integrations of differences/similarities observed (again, perceptually given) among the percepts. Words are the visual/auditory symbols to condense and represent or symbolize the concept.

Percepts cannot be validated by perception alone. They simply are. Your only choice is how/do you apply reasoning to the concepts derived from percepts in order to validate them.

Actually, what I perceive is reality. Percepts is are simply the form I perceive it in.

Interesting example. I would suggest that while perception is essential in every living organism's means of survival, your example also illustrates that man's means of survival is reason. "She was reduced to an animalistic state, completely incapable of survival" - until she connected W A T E R to the wet liquid on her hands. At that point, reason simultaneously differentiated and integrated the two percepts together (from all the other sensations of writing on the palm combined with contact of other objects) into a single new mental concrete. The implicit A is A had its foundations laid in W A T E R is "the wet liquid on my hands". By going on from there, she could add C H I C K E N is "this meat", C O R N is "this starchy tasting vegetable" - and would be able to integrate at some point in her future that every thing is what it is. A is A is only an irreducible primary in a philosophic sense. It can, however, be conceptually reduced back to the precepts which gave rise to it.

I see the ARI provided pamphlets now. I do not think I have the Andrew Bernstein's lecture on spreading Objectivism. I'll have to look into it. Thanks.

As a former minister, my father always leaves a tip at a restaurant inserted in a religious tract. I've tried a couple of online searches to discover if any such brochures exist with an Objectivist message.which could be utilized in a similar fashion. Is anyone aware if such an tract exist?

That concretizes it more nicely than my example of having 7 billion people scavaging the world (like animals) for food, water, etc.

You are trying to divide something that by its nature is more of a bridge. Metaphysically, a thing is what it is. Epistemologically we create the perceptual visual/auditory percept "a word", to represent the "concept" derived from the perception of the thing. Generally, on the first level concept - there is little margin for contradiction to occur there. If you look at a dog, and call it a cat - contradiction is in calling the dog a cat. In this sense, the contradiction exists epistemologically, not metaphysically. In this sense, the contradiction does not exist metaphysically in the dog, rather it exists in your identification of the dog as a cat. The interesting part in the justification aspect comes from the paper Plasmatic referenced earlier. A thumbnail sketch would be a child seeing, feeling, hearing others refer to "table" and eventually integrating and uttering "table". This is how we build commonality among people in language of language among people. As children, we learn what others have learned to identify things as. This works well at first-level concepts. There are few arguments based about "this is a table" "no, this is an elephant". As the concept moves further from the perceptual level, i.e. "identity", it becomes obvious that abstractions from abstractions are not as "cleanly" transmitted. Have you considered using a color spectrometer? Color ranges are measurable today.

Jacob, It doesn't seem to matter how you rephrase the question, the same thing keeps showing up to me. Contradiction is an epistemological term. It references the relationship between a concept and the perception that gives rise to it. When they are in harmony or aligned (the cat is black, looking at a black cat) there is no contradiction. When they are not, (the cat is black, looking at a brown dog) the contradiction exists in the "the cat is black" The dog is not a cat, It is brown not black. The contradiction is not out there in the existents, rather it is in the cognition. In that sense, contradictions do exist, it is percieved when you identify an error in your own, or someone elses thinking. To tie that in with the axiom of identity applies universally to everything, The dog is the dog. Brown is brown. A contradiction is a contradiction. Hmmm. I wonder. Is it possible to mentally hold a contradiction about the concept of contradiction?

You are refering to available here? Further note: I see these are 8 question/answers - offered independently of the lecture it followed? Is the lecture itself available to set the context?

Private roads existed prior to government's usurption of that business.

From Miss Rands notes on morality: This is the difference between my morality and hedonism. The standard is not: "that is good which gives me pleasure, just because it gives me pleasure" (which is the standard of the dipsomaniac or the sex-chaser)—but "that is good which is the expression of my moral values, and that gives me pleasure." If you are looking for the answer to racism, you might consider what individualism has to offer. The racist basis its "moral evaluations" only on the visually distinguishable attributes they observe in others, be it skin color, the slant of the eyes, and even historically, the combination of the color of the eyes and hair. The individualist requires an intellectual element, to evaluate based on criteria which is not immediately available to the senses. Being this is a forum and I cannot see you, the only criteria I have to evaluate you by is what you say and advocate. Thus far, it appears that you are pouring placebos into the well while declaring the placebos are poison. Note: This was posted in response to: Hedonism as an answer to racism.

Neither did Miss Rand as she eloquently wrapped up her essay on Philosophical Detection II: "I will list these essentials for your future reference. But do not attempt the shortcut of accepting them on faith (or as semi-grasped approximations and floating abstractions). That would be a fundamental contradiction and it would not work."

So you are advocating that man should only live long enough to reproduce, and then lose their lives, or just having difficulty trying to identify what is fundamental to survival for man?

Validation certainly preceeds proof. Both validation and proof require a grasp of the elements and relationships involved.

There are even threads on OO.net which dispute aspects of her philosophy. A dispute is not a proof.

I'm not asking what the concept of logic is predicated on. If logic is a mental construct, what is the concept of logic constructed from - of what is it made?