dream_weaver

Logic is a mental construct? What would you suggest the concept of logic constructed from?

This is just a variant on the fantasy 2d creature only capable of seeing 2d is impoverished compared to the reality observed by 3d capable creature - so how do we know that as 3d creatures our means of cognition is not impoverished to some fantasy 4d abilities? Funny you should try to refer to an example Miss Rand uses to illustrate that color has no cognitive significance in the case of swans.Along the way you go from logic being "just a mental construct" to logic is "like a rough estimate". The law of identity cannot be circumvented. Then again, while reason is not automatic, I was not aware that it actually caused agony to some.

You seem to be under the impression that Objectivism is seeking people to spread Objectivism far and near? What if Objectivism is a superior philosophy? What if Objectivism can only be discovered by those who truly seek to understand how to know where they are and what it is that they find themselves within? What if Objectivism can only be understood by those who learn how to validate knowledge by the reliance of the power of their own minds ability? What if expecting others to provide proof is an obstacle to, rather than a stepping stone to understanding what is contained to be discovered by those who seek the ability to discern for themselves what constitutes as proof per se?

Given that you have found empirical psychological studies to be far more practical than the ideas presented by Objectivism, why would you even be interested in being proven wrong? Do you consider empirical studies the sole criteria for proof? How do you distinguish between correlative and causal relationships within (and outside of) these studies?

Because you would be using the concept of contradiction as a stolen concept, for one.

In the spirit captured by the OP, Merry Christmas "The charming aspect of Christmas is the fact that it expresses good will in a cheerful, happy, benevolent, non-sacrificial way. One says: “Merry Christmas”—not “Weep and Repent.” And the good will is expressed in a material, earthly form—by giving presents to one’s friends, or by sending them cards in token of remembrance . . . ."

Looking to the paragraph before in both AS and FTNI: "The task of his senses is to give him the evidence of existence, but the task of identifying it belongs to his reason, his senses tell him only that something is, but what it is must be learned by his mind." As you posit in your OP: "So, in Objectivism mind and consciousness are different faculties. Consciousness identifies existence and mind processes this data by forming concepts. What is less clear is a relationship between mind and consciousness. As we've seen, Ayn Rand observed that mind may or may not been presented to consciousness, and this is not a volitional process." Is perception the processing of the sensory data into percepts, end of story? Sight and touch are integrated into "solid object". This is part of the percept that is retained and integrated by the brain. Is this "identification"? Does it satisfy the "What is it?" at this point? Is this capturing the intent of your question?

The mind brain is able to automatically retain and integrate sensations into percepts. Percepts are the raw materials. Animals demonstrate the ability to remember percepts in say a dog's ability to recognize individuals they have encountered before, the ability of other animals to recollect where they stashed food for later retrieval. The distinction is that man has a conceptual consciousness. It is this ability by which he differentiates and integrates his percepts into conceptual form expanding his knowledge to be able to grasp such things as the subconscious mind.

I'll stick with being perceived as having a pretentious literary tone.

To start with, Grames brings up two points I neglected as it complicates an already complex topic. My objective in responding to your inquiry was to try and select what I considered the most relevant issue to address. If you are going to proliferate all over the map by interjecting all the what-ifs, you will find it more difficult to discover the principles that provide the greatest illumination on the topic. If you are interested in an entire treatise on economics, consider investigating Austrian Economics for a broad depth coverage of the topic, keeping in mind that it is at odds with aspects of Objectivism in some regards. This would give you a general overview of how employers make their money. I consider productive endeavors that involve neither force (against human beings) nor fraud (which by grasping the concept necessary means against human beings), ethical. If you are considering the Federal Reserve as a banker, the money is made via a printing press as well as held in the form of electronic digits. (Which I consider government abetted monopolies in this realm fraudulent, but I am not interested in discussing that at this time.) I only selected the top and bottom of your list. What I stated, I consider equally true at every strata (barring government intervention, but since we have government intervention it is certainly a factor). Are you asking about the sanction of the victim here? When you spend your money at McDonald's, are you aware of where any particular employee may spend their particular share and upon what? What criteria do you choose to select a bank? The availability of your funds when required? The interest rate they offer you to entice you to select them? Or do you ask them to open their books so you can review them for what you may consider to be economic or ethical anomalies? As I sit here responding to this, my gut reaction is "Why the shot-gun approach to this. Is there a sense of bitterness about money, or the lack thereof? Is it Objectivism's stance on subjectivism or altruism that touches a sore spot?"

How many people in the world are qualified to be stock analysts, bankers, engineers, facility supervisors, teachers, etc. Scarcity of resources applies in this arena. You did not mention if everyone in your listing is employed by someone who had to make a decision of how much each resource is worth. <br> If a company employs someone for any salary, they expect the employee to produce or provide services which exceed the salary paid, or go out of business eventually. As an employee, you cannot earn more than an employer is willing to pay. <br> Hard work includes many things. The effort you put into doing your job is just one aspect. There is the effort in acquiring the skills required. There is also effort in determining what skills will be needed in the marketplace. <br> Your uncle provides a service that the market is willing to pay him about a million a year. Your sister-in-law does not. <br> How do you measure a "grave injustice"? Is there some form of force or fraud here?

Is there any evidence in favor of creationsim? Can the assertions used to argue in favor of creationism withstand being critically examined for stolen concepts, floating abstractions, invalid concepts or other contradictions in accordance with an objective theory of concept-formation?

We must appeal to something besides perception in order to know this? Like what? Reason perhaps? Why does the following passage come to mind here from pg 269 of OPAR: "In regard to motive, intellectual honesty means seeking knowledge because one needs it to act properly. Such a person intends to practice any idea he accepts as true. The alternative is the pretense of a hypocrite, who fakes an interest in ideas as a form of role-playing, usually for the purpose of impressing others."

I knew there was some reason I've always appreciated your posts.

Taking directly perceived existence as identity, and using consciousness the means of identification, - what facts of reality give rise to the concept of "contradiction"?

Jacob, Do you consider anything to be an irreducible primary?

Cult does have a usage which is defined as: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad. However, when I have inquired as to what the individual means when stating that, they usually reference individuals who they consider to be obsessed with religion. I would have to say brian0918's take cuts straight to the chase.

The issue seems to be one that I do not question that the data of sense is given, and also accept the relationship between first level concepts and the non-propositional concretes they represent as given. Even the concept of contradiction requires an understanding of where they arise. A contradiction only exists as a refusal to accept that our propositions have a relationship between the words used to express them, and the data of sense from which the concepts were derived. A contradiction is admission of an error of knowledge, A contradiction is an indicator that the method used to conceptualize ones grasp of reality has erred. It is an epistemological, not a metaphysical term. If you are wondering how you know that contradictions cannot exist metaphysically, perhaps you are applying the test of validity to the wrong realm.

I would consider a "sub-standard" public defender against a seasoned lawyer a fair trial, if and only if the trial adhered to an objective consideration of the relevant evidence available. There is a U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence available. I've read through an older revision of these rules many years ago. I do not consider myself adequately versed in this to critique them directly, but these are the guidelines which establish the minimum requirements. As I understand, the O.J. Simpson trial permitted many arbitrary speculations in as a tactic to cloud the clarity of the decision making process. Does this mean that a fair trial took place, or that seasoned lawyers are able to create enough confusion to generate a "reasonable" doubt? Your question is still one of "Is justice fairly and objectively adminsitered by the current process in place, or are verdicts purchased by monetary means rather than objective adherence to a rationally discovered process."

The reasons I outlined are why there are people who do not beleive that a fair trial might be had. The price of fairness, however, is not monetary, it is adherence to the guidelines that ensure the proper procedures are being followed to adhere to the rules of evidence. If these rules are not grasped by the judge, jury, or legal representation, how can they be followed? The issue is not simply addressed by breaking it down to public defender vs. a paid advocate.

Actually, it is not so easy to look at a trial objectively, and determine that evidence is all that matters. This would require an understanding of how one determines what qualifies as evidence objectively, and ensuring that that evidence is objectively relative to the case at hand. To state that juries are not completely objective is just another way of saying that people are not completely objective. The last I checked, judges and lawyers are also people. If a person decides to study law to become a judge or a lawyer, does this somehow transform them into providing objectivity to the situations they are involved within? How does it follow that because objectivity is not automatic, that the amount of money spent in a given situation determines if it is fair or not? This seems to suggest that under the guise of stating that a person has a right to a fair trial, but fair trials are not possible because verdicts are "bought", rather than determined by an appeal to the evidence available. Yes, in America there is are documents that state an person has a right to a fair trial. This alone does not ensure fairness. The criteria for fairness is outlined, and can be obtained, if those involved in providing it adhere to the criteria. Can this be purchased by monetary means?

A fair trial is one that strives to discover what the evidence weighs in favor of.

An Objectivist, a rationalist and a subjectivist gather in a room. The Objectivist knows that when reality is the standard, and reason is the means of adhering to it, that truth will prevail. The rationalist and subjectivist do not adhere to this principle. What they do seem to know though, is that reason is their mutual enemy, and may be willing to set their differences temporarily aside. When the sheep sit down with the wolves and coyotes to discuss what is for lunch, the outcome is usually predictable.

Abstinence is no longer a choice?