dream_weaver

There are a few terms in Objectivism that either have sensitive contextual delimitation, or a use that is not in alignment with the conventional mis-use of the term in the public arena. 'Subjective' has usually been easier to find synonyms for rather than embrace the way it has manifested itself here. Once again, concepts, as well as knowledge, are both hierarchial as well as contextual in developing their integrations.

A short video clip advertisement. Same clip with the previews that are available at Amazon.com

That was more an attempt to describe how they operate than to suggest disembodiment. David Kelly's book looks as if it would be another valuable asset to a library. In ITOE, Miss. Rand does not utilize the concept subjective very often. In fact, these are four of the seven times it appears in the main body of the work. These do not really touch upon metaphysical as much as the epistemological. Yet, in the Appendix: Is this the perceptions of sensations? The root of the word Subjectivism is Subjective. Yes, the primacy of consciousness, and arguably, emotionalism, are the building blocks of subjectivism. The point that everyone is not a subjectivist shines a light on the awareness to sometimes be oversensitive to it at times. This seems also to be the arena to develop a broader grasp of the terminology and its usage.

When comparing leaves on a single maple tree, then observing the similarity to other maple trees of the same genus/differentia, when tasting the similarity of 'roma tomatoes' coming from different plants, observing different squirrels in the neighborhood over the years, taking note of the commonality of anatomies from specie to specie, there are plenty of observation that suggest that things can be categorized as similar and observed as such. While we cannot view the world through another's consciousness, the similarity bore between the examples above suggest to me that what my sense organ provide to my consciousness is likely to be similar to others. Granted, hearing can be demonstrated to have different ranges, there are the color blind, but even in the above examples there can be subtle differences to outright anomolies that can be encountered as well.

Because sex is pleasurable. That aside, people choose to do things based on what their values. Should/ought - is it a 'duty' to have children? Imposed by whom or what?

The sense organs are an automatic conduit between consciousness and existence. Due to the nature of the sense organs, they are, by their nature, necessarily limited to providing the data received with respect to(subject to) the location and orientation of both the sense organ and perceived existent. Using subjective seems to suggest being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Subjective, which gives rise to subjectivism, leans more toward something being dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.

There can be no consciousness without existence. There can be no knowledge of existence without consciousness. Each consciousness experiences existence independently, yes, but how does existence subjective, except to consciousness? Existence is the metaphysically absolute or given.

Harriman's book has been out for a while now. I am curious, has anyone that has listened to the Objectivism Through Induction and also read The Logical Leap say if the two offer similar material, or differ significantly enough to recommend having both in one's library? Thanks.

No it does not follow from what I stated.

Try the breach between the concept and reality, where the wish for the concept to trump or manifest itself in reality is substituted for the objective relationship identified by Miss Rand between them is sacrificed.

Pg. 185 of OPAR suggests: Whenever a man promises to lead you to a value, remind yourself of the fact that remaining in contact with reality is a requirement of achieving values. This will help you to resist the philosophic hustlers. It will tell you that the precondition of values is the use and absolutism of reason. Still, to equate promises in the dark with selfishness is to default on the responsibility to grasp for ones self the issues at hand. Yes the seniors want to have their medical bills paid. Over the decades, they have had their money stolen from them, albiet by their votes (they did get what they voted for). Like the law of gravity, or identity for that matter, ignoring the laws of economics does not repeal their effects or alter the consequences of the causes which have been put into play. Putting your hope in government integrity does not appear to be in one's self-interest. How selfish is that?

Giving up a lesser (highly valued even) value for a greater value is in what way a sacrifice? Poor definition. As to the moral shrimp who ate all the shrimp, definately rude. How is it in his selfish interest to alienate all the others around him by his lack of regard?

Nice find. Especially for those of us who have not allowed a television signal in nearly 15 years.

And the band plays on. Blue notes for one and all. (Pun intended.)

All the congress and senate have to do is repeal the laws prohibiting the use of a living president's image on the 'official' currency of the realm.

In OPAR, pg. 145, subjectivism leads to the view that knowledge is the creation of an object through the active inner processes of the subject. On point 2., matters of personal preference, such as I like apple pie, or I do not care for the taste of liver. These are rightfully subjective matters.

Your tagline seems to sum it up rather succinctly. "If you permit it to be done, you deserve it." Ayn Rand Is it even possible to divorce economics from ethics?

Thoughts and fantasies are quite real. We can identify thoughts via introspection. We can identify fantasies via introspection. We can identify in what ways they correlate with the perceptual, and in what ways they differ. Fiction, fantasy, myth, etc. are terms under which we categorize stories to distinguish them from documentaries, biographies, autobiographies, etc. That is why Objectivism recognizes that the concept God refers to nothing in actuality that actually exists - the arbitrary; i.e., a myth, fantasy, fiction, etc.

Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal covers this starting on page 130 as does The Objectivist Newsletter: Vol. 3 No. 5 May, 1964 Intellectual Ammunition Department. Identifying it as a government-granted monopoly blurs the issue of ownership, by enshrouding it with a pejorative term.

So the imaginary numbers are utilized as a concept of method, similar to infinity, neither having a physical equivalent, but both providing a utilitarian purpose within math for resolving equations therein.

The only things that you can come to truly understand are those things which exist.

So far, so good. And a little more confusing. Reasonably reliable? Reasonably accurate? From a science of measurement? 'Not only intuitive they may be' is really throwing me for a loop.

Is this a social consensus? Or have we found the 650 or so people who actually changed their mind when they discovered they were in the wrong?

Perhaps I am stuck on 'I have seen something that you will never see' - assuming that the claim comes from someone who relied on his physical senses for the original observation.