dream_weaver

Come on b.c, I was just trying to accomodate the future I am trying to create!

It sounds like the answer lies in your explanation. The "responsibility to others" is instrumental in achieving your own happiness. By recognizing that aiding someone to be a mooch or thief is not in your interest, you are establishing the criteria by which you choose individuals or groups to be philanthropic toward.

The chicken/egg question is a metaphor for the question of how did life, or often (incorrectly, I think) applied to the universe, originate. This was the essence of my later question to you which you answered: This was essentially what I was asking you here. If we attribute the chicken/egg to abiogensis, there are still metaphysical interactions which are anticedent to the emergence of life. In an existence which is eternal made up of a plethora of actions as diverse as the existents that cause them, is this enough to identify what the regress of interactions is delimited by? Or: Is there enough information to delimit the regress of the metaphysical interactions which are preceded by other metaphysical interactions, etc.?

In your case of red/orange nectarines (what do you do with the nectarines which measure 255,63.5,0? Eat them to avoid the controversy?) the axis of measurement and the standard have been identified. In your chicken/egg example, the axis of measurement and standard by which to take as the unit are not as easily apparent or readably communicable. This is the issue of concepts. While color now has a scientific basis for segregating them, for thousands of years the commensurable characteristic by which to measure it had not yet been discovered, eliciting similar controversies. Edited to add.

Touche', Grames.

Fair enough. That may address the issue at the abiogenesis level, Are there metaphysical interactions which are anticedent to the emergence of life? Are those metaphysical interactions preceded by other metaphysical interactions?

In an existence which is eternal made up of a plethora of actions as diverse as the existents that cause them, is this enough to identify what the regress of interactions is delimited by?

I should have identitifed that more humorously. The bumper sticker idea would be less than second-rate though, I think.

Though you would probably find out pretty quick if you broke your teeth on the rocks you tried to make your soup from. .

I would be surprized if it was none other than "The Art of Reasoning". I started it some time back, and ended up setting it aside. It is more like textbook approach.

Good observation. I no longer have the power of edit. I should have started on the 0's and 5's and ended on 4's and 9's. And after some consideration, it really won't desensitize the time with regard to coming and leaving. It will only keep your original demographic selection.

While this poll may not be bullet-proof, just select the range that applies to you and answer n/a for the other question to meet the software requirements. This should desensitize the poll to the passage of time. For a poll which will let you know the average age members discovered Objectivism Online, you may go here.

A time desensitized poll has been created here for those who might be interested.

I had not really looked at the ducks psycho-epistemologically, but they do seem to be pretty metaphysically grounded. As non-rational animals, the basis for their activity is pretty difficult to explain from a psycho-epistemological level.

Heaven forbid that observations from nature of non-rational animals should provide any data that could be used to make the distinction between metaphysical and psycho-epistemological behavior.

Nah, that would just convert an invalid proposition (God is good) into another way of restating the law of identity (good is good).

Someone really ought to share this with the male mallard ducks that frolick in the lake, sometimes in front of the females.

I recently came across this question on Objectivist Answers, where the answer referenced this book found at The Ayn Rand Bookstore which can also be obtained here from books.google.com. While I am far from being 'an advanced student of logic', objectivity does require a rudimentary understanding of the subject. When I check my mental toolbox to identify what I have to work with, 'A is A' in conjunction with some basic algebra and a strong background in descriptive geometry is there to be utilized. I see this book is touched upon in the premium forum section here.at OO. Three chapters into the book, and I am already back tracking. Burgess Laughlin suggests explicitly identifying the purpose [of reading] for the best approach. When I reached the section on the types predicates, the initial categories were Aristotle's, listed as substance, quality, quantity, relation, place, time, situation, state, activity, and passivity. My initial approach was to try and correlate these with Miss Rands conceptual categories of concept of entity, concept of action, concept of attribute, preposition, etc. At first, substance seemed to go with concepts of entities. Later, substance was used with concepts of materials. Relation, place and time have elements of preposition within them. Situation and state left me back tracking to try and find something I may have missed. In part, I think I want to understand logic better in order to identify how it is applied within ITOE, and to also understand how ITOE can facilitate a better understanding of logic overall. At the same time, I wonder if I am not just over-micro-analyzing this stuff and not really "getting it". Is there another way to approach this without trying to organize it piecemeal from the web?

So to borrow the example from green objects and long objects, there is no commensurable basis to serve as the necessity for such an integration, more or less.

Would this validity test fail due to "meaning a lot of different things simultaneiously", or a contradiction arising within the simultanity of the different things it tried to mean?

At one time, the formulas used to determine the possibility of flight were applied to the knowledge derived from the observation of bumblebees. It was concluded that bumblebee's 'theoretically' cannot fly.

More generally, in order for a businessman to create a profit, he has to sell his product at a price the the customer can afford, which simultaneously must be higher than the material/labor cost of producing it. The value of the product can exceed the cost of material/labor to produce it. While there may be other issues with your premises, this one, in particular, stands out to me.

Man must produce to get values, qua man. Putting money aside for tomorrow, that is savings, makes it possible for the specific men to plan ahead through their productive years for the times they recognize the reins will be turned over. In this case, even the production of the vehicle (money, another product of reason) which serves as a store of value, qua man for those who take advantage of it, is in itself a product of production. Man must produce in order to get values thought his who life, qua man. The other animals, living by perception alone, do not / can not do this. Reason, once again, is the faculty, or basic means of survival. Production (be it of money or any other good or service) is the application of reason to the problem of survival, no matter how you try to slice it.

You disagree with the fact that logic is the fundamental concept of method, and that it's nature, as a method, needs to be discovered, identified and validated, it's relationship conceptually reduced to the units which comprise identity, as outlined in this very thread, and wish to reject and evade this in favor that it is some form of innate ability or process, a priori to that of differentiation and integration, disregarding that fallibility stemming forth from mis-integration or in this case dis-integration precludes this?

Are you trying to confuse me here? What is the logical chain of percepts that you used to integrate this from in order to differentiate it from the rest of your perceptual field?