Egosum—

1. I know this might sound strange to you: but that man who inherited a billion dollars, let's call him Bob, is actually being productive by living a life of luxury, traveling and donating money. Why is this, you posit? The answer is simple: the virtue of productiveness is that man is always attempting to reshape the earth as fit to his values. His ultimate value, of course, is to live. All other values derive from this. If Bob's value is to lie around and do nothing, travel and donate money, he is being productive. We can condemn him, however, because we believe that Bob's values are not good ones. We can do this in the same way you would judge engineering. If Bob inherited amazing math and engineering skills, and yet he does not use them wisely, like using rubber to hold up a building instead of some better substance (excuse my poor engineering skills), then we should judge hise stupidity. My analogy, however, is not perfect. Engineering has a much more narrow guideline, whereas life and subsequently moral systems are not always so narrow. The point is, however, that Bob is still being productive because he is reshaping the earth with his own values -- he's just not doing a very good job of it. 2. I would like you to consider the time we are in. It is the 21st Century. The epicureans were much more successful at spreading their philosophy, and so were Christians, because it was simply a different time... there are so many other factors. For example, people were probably not so skeptical because they might have believed things easier back then. There was less of a population so it was spread around easier. Christianity, for example, has been around for so long. Parents have taught their children this. Ayn Rand's philosophy has barely passed one generation. You're supposed to give it time. I'm sure Christianity was not the most popular religion in the world the first hundred years it was propounded. It takes time. Get it? 3. I do not believe that what most people buy is the superior product. There could be a number of reasons. Ever notice how some products are the same thing and yet they are more expensive, and more people buy them? All you need is something to cover your feet. We are not perfect pragmatists. Instead, they buy expensive footwear and brand name clothing because it derives more happiness. You could argue that that is the superior product in the sense that more people prefer it, but that does not mean their preference is evidence of a product's superiority. Just because more men prefer white women as sexual mates does not mean that any other race of women are always subservient or are subservient. Get it? I hope you understand. My argument may have holes in it. Especially 3.

Have any of you read Kripke's Naming and Necessity? In his Naming and Necessity, Kripke argues that proper names are rigid designations. Rigid designations designate the same object in all possible worlds in which that object exists. Conversely, descriptive clusters (not proper names, or just a description of someone) do not designate the same object in all possible worlds. For example: George W. Bush refers to the same object in all possible worlds in which that object exists. However, the 43rd president of the United States does not refer to the same object in all possible worlds. Someone else could have been the 43rd president of the United States. It is not, however, the case that George W. Bush is not George W. Bush. possible world 1: says that p2's x is not x, but Y. possible world 2: says that p1's x is not x, but Y. nevertheless, possible world 2: y refers to the same object in p1, which is x. nevertheless, possible world 1: x refers to the same object in p1, which is y. Y=X. Y=X is not a priori. I haven't studied symbolic logic yet in college, and haven't read the entire book because it's not available here.. I have to wait till I get back to school where my college bookstore will purchase it for my Post-Kant class... Anyone study this and want to chip in to help a fellow student learn and understand it more?

I wanted to know what Objectivists think of Kant's metaphysics. It would be appreciated if all replies did not exaggerate personal reflections on Kantian influence. As in, no bashing him just yet. I'm just really interested, after reading many introductions on him and his own works, what most Objectivists believe they know about him -- so I can compare and contrast, justify or make folly of popular Objectivist dislike for all things Kantian.

Dante and Grames, lesson learned: however, I was indeed referring to the rest mass in the equation of energy and should have mentioned that. Also, Dante, I'm arguing for the idea that energy is just a measurement of mass-motion. I took Greebo's statement as energy existing in itself. Which I thought was like saying height or weight exists in itself. one more thing grames: does a photon have a relativistic mass?

that doesn't refute energy as a concept merely being a force of matter-motion; Greebo was stating an energy outside the laws of nature -- a photon isn't. And yes, Dante, a photon doesn't have a mass, because it is never at rest; in order for something to have a mass it must be recorded so without velocity; a photon, however, never rests: 1) E2 = m2c4 + p2c2 2) if M2 = 0 3) then E2 = p2c2 Thus, in the case of the photon, energy is also a concept of a force of motion. EDIT: I also saw that I accidentally put a comma in "if energy without mass exists outside the law of nature" in my previous post; which separates 'if energy without mass exists.' I didn't want that.

it's still meaningless. ;\

So, would it be correct to assume that: consciousness is a property of our physical faculties--that which enables us to absorb sense data. And, because of the nature or possibility of fallibility of our consciousness, unlike fire whose nature shows that it must and will always light given the correct circumstances, volition can be thought of as a special property of our consciousness which is required in order to retain, reason through, and justify knowledge? i think i'm confusing myself here too. i hate my strange sentence structure.

Greebo, energy is without mass; however, that is because energy is just a concept of matter-motion; you're right, it is a force -- OF MATTER AND MOTION; energy presupposes both. Your phrase, "When energy is not in a material form," is a contradictory statement; form presupposes an object--your sentence before, "energy is not an object," contradicted you; furthermore, your metaphysics is meaningless: by establishing that your concept of energy is despite being separate and distinct of matter, you've banished it from sense data, ergo empiricism, ergo science, ergo how we achieve knowledge of sophisticated thought. Any reasoning of it from now on without the boundaries of our laws of nature is to dismantle the idea -- "in order to command nature, you must first obey it;" P.S: if energy without mass exists, and it is outside the law of nature, then it is equally as possible for energy without mass to have anything you want it to have.

"both [arts] are concretized representations of the philosophy of their respective cultures" ("The Psycho-Epistemology of Art," The Romantic Manifesto, 19). Could someone explain this quote to me? I understand that Ayn Rand is claiming an artist's culture affects his metaphysical value-judgements therefore his selective re-creation of reality as art, but . . . can an artist's art really represent the philosophy of their respective cultures? Would that imply art as merely a selective re-creation of cultural identity?

I'm planning on becoming a poet and a writer——despite these being contemporary-indie vocations, I'm set on publishing poetry, short fiction, and a novel. In order to achieve this, I think an English degree would, out of other several degree opportunities, benefit my desire the most: an English degree can be functional in other careers too. Nevertheless, I still have the decision of other credits and electives in college: I've decided to either minor in Philosophy and take electives, or shall I minor in another subject and take philosophy as an elective? Many of the schools that I've already prospected have great philosophy classes. The only problem is, though, the curriculum they teach. I don't want to learn the philosophies of modern philosophers Hume, Kant, and Descartes; I'm interested in a class with Aristotle, but not the former. I don't care for philosophical history, nor the philosophy of science (it sounds interesting, actually). I don't know what classes I'd like to take in philosophical courses because of the hindrance of being under a teacher or class who isn't worth the tuition I've paid for, and that hindrance grows darker in my mind because of the ignorance of Objectivism in philosophy classes. So, any idea to the question in bold? The former paragraph was my justification. I'm still in high-school, but I'm sending my transcripts and scores for review soon. (Also, if you can, raise a point of my English major decision coupling with another suitable major to help job prospects. I'd like a return on my college investment, you know?)

Are there any Objectivist essays/threads on the immorality of socialism and, as a staple, the morality of capitalism? Something detailed but not too esoteric, I'm hoping. If you need a reason: I want to learn, succinctly, the immorality of socialism (in every aspect) and the morality of capitalism (in every aspect) please provide book titles that could also help me in this search! I appreciate it.

I appreciate the chalk and blackboard metaphor. I understand, too. Thanks.

I couldn't find a topic dealing with my question: Leonard Peikoff states that we are born Tabula Rasa, but then how do we have the "ability" to acquire knowledge? Wouldn't that presuppose that it isn't Tabula Rasa, but we are born with an a priori of collecting it? I've been thinking about it, but I've been leaning more to side that I'm just missing some fundamental-epistemological flaw. (I'm guessing the "ability" to collect knowledge is exclusive of Tabula Rasa?)

If your wife takes your young children to a church one day——her decision could affect their epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and especially their rationality. Though, you said your wife wouldn't really do that. But, the possibility is in itself daunting.

Yeah, I further researched into him. He is no longer in my concern. He deduced, with reason, that reason is an illusion——that rationalism is his enemy, but he fought it with reason, and now it's just an infinite regression of fallacy. lame.