dream_weaver

That is an awkward way to state that. Confederate states did claim the right to secede, by announcing their intent to do so. None of the states stated that they were seceding simply because they had the right to do so. The Confederates opposed states' rights??? That is, the Northern states should not have the right not to support slavery. In skimming the many posts in this thread, another tidbit comes to mind. Peikoff hints at this in his OTI lecture. Slavery was not viewed as the moral issue it is examined as today, rather it was more metaphysical. The barbarians were not viewed as just uncivilized, rather a sub-human which may not be capable of being civilized. The 3/5ths compromise incorporated in 1787, and history up to that point - when we look back through the hindsight of 20:20 vision - the corrected image, compliments of the winners writing the history books, can obscure a perspective by substituting a different grasp. An good idea, once discovered and embraced, seldom spreads round the globe as an instantaneous eureka moment, rather, as the case of Aristotilianism, acknowledging full humanity to all races, and even Objectivism itself, needs to permeate deep into the social fabric and infuse itself in such a way that the only way to root it out would be to balkanize civilization down to the unit level. A bad idea, like any contradiction, will eventually reveal itself through the honest seeking and discovery of the proper premises.

So the fact that we breathe in oxygen to live, and breathe out CO2 as a natural byproduct of that process, and that plants use CO2 as a building block and emit oxygen as a natural byproduct can become a political issue if science aligns themselves with the consensus?

And from Mar 15th,2006 it would appear this is not the first time this has been queried. Freakonomics? Things that make you go . . . hmmmm.

According to the New York Times, Israel Tests on Worm Called Crucial in Iran Nuclear Delay. Not really a big surprise, judging from the poll results.

I did a search for 'repossessed' on the Objectivism searchable cd. There were no matches. You might have to resolve this one the old fashion way.

Which old assumptions are increasing the prospects of violence in the future? From the notes of Atlas Shrugged, humility—the acceptance of one's moral imperfection, the willingness to be imperfect, which means: the indifference to moral values and to yourself, So humility is a rejection of morality. Do not point fingers or assign blame. Do not evaluate, identify and point out - all necessary in the realm of morality. So far, it seems to read moral abstinence of 'judge not' which is an old assumption that ought to be challenged - rather once again, it is invoked throughout this message. Expand our moral imagination - how, after being exhorted not to evaluate and judge, is this to be accomplished? Sharpen our instincts for empathy? Understanding what someone else feels, or thinks - to do what with? Our hopes and dreams are bound together? If we dream of a system under which we are free to pursue happiness - that system can bind for good or evil but without judging it to be good or evil, which stands to profit? The words are perfectly good - the propositions leave a sour taste in my mind.

Many factors contribute to the longer lifespans we are likely to embrace today. As we continue to expand our understanding of the universe in which we find ourselves, more factors may be discovered. I find the statement that our genes are 'programmed to make us die' language that suggests short-circuiting or by-passing identity. If anything is wrong here, it would be the idea that the mind is capable of transforming the nature of nature.

It was not meant to suggest that 'beauty' is a response. Beauty is an evaluation. It would be the positive emotional response (side-effect?) that would prompt you to say that something is beautiful. I would also include satisfaction as a positive emotional response as well. The tie-in to the mind would be the emotional response being generated via one's sense of life. A little rambling would include consciousness as a difference and similarity detector. Relating that along with perception as the arithmetic of cognition - suggests that patterns and symmetry may produce a natural 'visual harmony'. The early Greeks certainly liked the triangular (1, 3, 6, 10 . . .) and square (1, 4, 9, 16 . . .) numbers, among other patterns they found within numbers and the relationship they connected them to in the world around them. I know you are looking specifically within the human form, but something like a spiders-web I consider more attractive with a noticeable pattern than when it does not possess one. Snowflakes and flowers are almost all with patterns and symmetries, and when choosing flowers, I tend to pick them where the pattern is more uniform and not choose the ones that appear 'malformed' to my senses.

Sorry, I thought we were dealing a little closer to the perceptual level here. Must be the electromagnetic interference scrambling the automatic integrations performed by sensations prior to being confused by the . . . what the heck are we talking about here again???

beauty: the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest). A reduction of beauty should point to the elements that are necessary to validate it. Intense pleasure, and/or deep satisfaction to the mind, strongly suggests an emotional response. If we accept that emotional responses are generated automatically, an evaluation of what we identify as beautiful can serve as a tool for introspection. Those who do not recognize the relationship between emotion and stimuli will lean toward the popular bromide that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. More accurately restated, this bromide could be restructured something like "Beauty is a mirror that reflects is reflecting the Sense of Life of the beholder."

You were walking through the forest, looking for someplace to catch a fish (brain food?), when you came across the fallen tree.

Yes, on page 500 of the Fountianhead. Is this a suggestion that you should just be blatently ignored?

One alternative to a 'series which does not begin' is a series which has always been. You do not contest the need of an irreducible starting point, as long as it is a form of consciousness; what you find unsatisfactory is the idea of existence as the starting point. [paraphrased]

That would change the tenor of my initial presumption considerably. Even so, the questions posed, not knowing the nature of the [implied?] contractual agreement, would still make the assessment you request difficult here for myself. The action sequence went well with the dialog. If the inventor had no contractual agreement with the committee, then by all means he is free to dispose of his property as he deems fit.

If this was to illustrate that Galt destroyed the motor he had a part in developing for the company he worked for, there are a couple of issues that are out of alignment to me. Do you approve of the inventor's actions? In the book, he just abandoned the motor. He knew it would serve no purpose to those who did not comprehend it. Does a company own an idea of one of it's employees? Most engineering companies exchange the promise of pay, for the product of the employees it pays. Is it moral to break a contract? You agreed to the terms of the contract. Is it moral to compromise your values if a contract you signed in the past demands it? Again, you agreed to the terms of the contract. If your values have changed since entering the contract - you can offer to renegotiate the terms of the contract. Will you recommend this short? Not as having captured the spirit of novel as I had read it.

Ayn Rand distinguished between the Intrinsicists (American Right) and the Subjectivists (American Left) pretty well.

Interesting. Ayn Rand hated chess? While she was neither an enthusiest nor a player, her analysis of the game as it related to man's life to Boris Spassky did not appear to come across as very supportive of your proposition here. Her comments on chess in her journals was more tersely stated as "What's the use?" in regards to the attempt to "calculate a chess game".

And what you are ignoring here, is that in order to have a 'continuous flux' as you put it, requires that there be something (identity) to 'flux' into something else (causality: the law of identity applied to action) This sounds like a statement from Hegel when he declares that "you can never step into the same river twice", which ignores that the concept river encapsulates the fact of moving water. Your grasp of Nihilism (mentioned on another thread) being a destructive force is quite accurate. Embracing Hegel as the antidote to it, is exposing your susceptibility to one of many Philosophical Snake Oil Salesmen throughout the history of its development.

In Dr. Harriman's book, "The Logical Leap", starting on page 212, leads up to where he cited: The term you seek is 'discredited' in lieu of 'disproved'.

Would you consider 'certainty' as attainable?

Peikoff also points out that "[p]roof presupposes the principle that facts are not "malleable."" Axiomatic concepts are grasped conceptually via sense perception by a process of validation. This usually requires more that a cursory familiarity with concept-formation, and the various aspects of reality which interact to make knowledge possible, including the validity of the senses and volition. After that, you may begin to grasp "to what extent we can know anything" and the degree of certainty which can be subsequently attained.

It does not take much effort to twist a statement around. What grants any entity any claim on humanity? edited to add: While we are at it: Do you consider rights to be an ethical matter or a political matter? Do you consider abortion to be an ethical matter or a political matter? And finally, How would you describe what a concept is in general?

The 'claim on humanity' as you put it, is the parents choice to bring a child into this world. The child is a "value" to the parents. As such, they should have already determined their responsibility in regard to such a matter. Again, if you choose to put a fetus on a pedestal next to an infant and wish to confuse status of the potential with the status of the actual - it is only your ability to discriminate the crucial differences at stake.