New Buddha

Wouldn't it be a true statement that salt's dissolution (behavior) is it's nature, it's identity? As is water's reaction to salt?

I would say no - neither a causal sequence nor a sentence is retained in the mind as "one thing". Entities and events are in fact "one thing", but their description/explantion occurs through propositional statements that are bound by both the "crow" limitations of the mind and time.

Wouldn't it be easier to become rich by "moral" means instead? Is it really easy to become rich by stealing? And I'd hate to become immortal, only to end up serving a life sentence in jail....

I'll attempt to answer #2 & #3. In general, and this is an over-simplification, Rand was writing about broad historical trends. The last 300 years in the West can be seen as a battle between the British Empiricist and German Idealism. Both were (are) flawed, but both have had a tremendous influence defining the world we live in. The neomystics that she refers to began with Kant, who influence Hegel, who influenced Marx, Communism, Nazism and so on. Kant concluded that objective knowledge was impossible, and therefore truth was subjective and socially agreed upon – this applied to all fields of knowledge including science and ethics.

Jacob, My question was rhetorical. I knew the answer before I asked it. I knew that you would be incapable of providing another example of the particular method of cognition that you advocate. Your changing the argument to a question of “the problem of induction” or “the validity of the senses” was a deflection. You do understand the importance of the question – because it is THE question at heart of this entire post.

Jacob, Your position seems to be that God is something which you have logically deduced to exist, but for which you have no empirical evidence. What other things have you deduced to exist, and yet have no evidence for? Is God the only thing? And if so, why?

I have trouble with the word "beauty" in the same way that I have trouble with the question "what is your favorite color?" or "what is your favorite building?" An aesthetic experience should go beyond identifying some thing as just beautiful. I love Bach and Thelonious Monk, however, much of their work is not "beautiful" in the conventional sense of being "pleasing to the senses" . Their works can be fascinating, intriguing, sad, wistful, arresting -- but always more that just "beautiful". The question should not be so much why is something beautiful, but rather, why do we ask this question in the first place? What are the neurological underpinnings that give rise to an aesthetic experience? Why can the colors of a thunderstorm illicit a feeling of tension while a pastel sunset calmness? Regarding human beauty, and speaking as a man, a woman's beauty can be playful, harsh, regal, nurturing, cunning, distant, etc. This can be the collective assessment of the sum total of your observation of that particular person. In the same way, I've known some women who have all the hallmarks of the western idea of beauty (large eyes, full mouth, high, well defined cheek bones, etc) but who are so uninteresting that I'm not attracted to them beyond an almost clinical appreciation of their attributes. Regarding the underpinning of emotion to thought, Antonio Damasio's book Descartes' Error offers an intriguing explanation of how the body registers response to stimuli by changes in body state that are perceived as feelings. It's more complex than this, but it's an interesting read.

The form of the modern American city is derived from the municipal corporation's ownership of the basic services such as water, sanitation, stormwater, power, roads, etc. A city formed under a laissez-faire system would look nothing like the city anyone lives in now. This makes it difficult to provide a counter arguement to the OP's question about a monopoly on the water supply. An existing city would have to be entirely re-engineered if it were to allow for competition among the basic utilities. For example, currently sanitation, stormwater and domestic waterlines run (for the most part) under city streets. Streets are only so wide. If we had multiple water, sanitation, and stormwater service providers, they would be hard pressed to find space to locate their lines -- as city's are currently designed. If the roads were also privately owned, separate easements would need to be negotiated with each road/transportation provider. The point of this post is not that a laissez-faire city cannot work, but that it would be extremely difficulty if not impossible to convert an existing city to such a thing.

When I see an apple on a tree, it is an act of perception. When I hear someone say the word “apple”, it is an act of perception. When I say the word “apple” in my mind, it is an act of perception. When I see the letters “apple” on a printed page, it's an act of perception. When I see the letters “apple” in my mind, it's an act of perception. The above statements apply to “actions of concretes”, as well as concretes. The above statements apply to concepts derived from concepts as well. For your claim that “analytic” knowledge exists and (by definition) is not reducible to perception, you would need to first demonstrate that knowledge exists in some form other than perceptible form.

You completely missed the point of my post, and then proceeded to re-state what you've said time and again. You didn't "agree for the most part" because you didn't understand what was stated.

That which is being analyzed IS perceptual. The concepts that you are analyzing are words which exist in either a written or spoken form. Thought does not exist with out words – and words are perceptual. Man, by his particular method of thought, creates concepts that can be perceived. This is one of the most important (and often overlooked) parts of Objectivist Epistimology – and one of Rand's greatest observations. It closes the loop, so to speak. Grasping this means you understand that there is no dichotomy between the “signifier” and the “referent” . Grasping this, and it's implications, puts to rest any justification for an analytical/synthetic argument.

The following are some statements which I hope can help clarify what I see to be a different use of terms between you and Objectivism. Their order is not meant to imply an argument to a conclusion. 1) The term “a Universal” in other philosophies equals “a Concept” in Objectivism. 2) The terms “a Universal” and “a Universal truth” are not interchangeable. A Universal (or more specific to Objectivism – a Concept) is either a thing or an action of a thing. A “Universal truth” (a term not used by Objectivism) is a propositional statement. 3) Objectivism doesn't use the term “Universal Truth” in regards to propositional statements. Truth can be said to be “objective” and “right” to the degree that it is non-contradictory with the sum context of knowledge that you have at any given moment. If I say “all apples are red” and the only apples I have ever seen are red, then it's an objective statement based upon the context of my knowledge. If at some later time I discover that apples can be green or golden, then I will amend my proposition. 4) However, the statement that “an apple is an apple” is NOT a propositional statement – it is an Axiom. A is A. A thing, what ever that thing might be, is what it is – regardless of my level of knowledge of it. 5) Objective knowledge does not equal Omniscience knowledge. This is not necessarily a “perfect” statement of Objectivism. I'm trying to translate Objectivism into terms that you are using, hoping that it will provide some clarity to the issues under discussion.

There is no dichotomy between the word (concept) and what the word “signifies”. We only know the signifier by means of the concept. Conceptualization is our “method” of knowledge. Concepts are not formed in a vacuum or given to us by a god, or exist in some supernatural plane – they are derived from perception. This is the bed rock of Objectivism.

The “principle or truth to which the sentence refers” is found in the words (concepts) that form the sentence. The principle is not a disembodied idea which exists independent of concepts (words) or independent of your mind or independent of reality. You cannot know-of or state a principle except by the “use” of concepts which are ultimately formed from percepts. Knowledge, meaningful, truthful knowledge, is Objective.

Words are concepts that have been concretized in perceptual form (written or spoken). Concepts are formed from percepts. Propositional statements are made up of words which are concepts (which are formed from percepts). “Logically Necessary” propositional statements (formed of concepts, formed from percepts) don't need to be “based on” or “proved by” or “linked to” perception? Can you posit a meaningful proposition that is not comprised of concepts, that are not derived from percepts -- when every word in the proposition is a concept derived from a percept?

A wonderful book (three volumes) that addresses this issue in fictional form is Neil Stephenson's The Baroque Cycle. He writes of the period from around 1650 to 1715, centered mainly in England. It's after the restoration of the Monarchy and prior to the Glorious Revolution. He explores the development of a stable currency, individual rights, and science and how they impacted the “System of the World” (which is largely a British system). Absolutely a must read for anyone interested in how the ideas that influenced the Founding Fathers came to be.

When asking "why does 'X' exist?" and "why does 'X' behave in the way that it does?, it's all too easy to fall into the trap of asking (or believing) "why couldn't 'X' not exist?" or "why couldn't 'X' behave differently than it does?". This type of question lead to an infinite regress and/or the belief that "something" or "someone" in the Universe has the power to change the identity and behavior of other existents. No one has that power. When a scientist combines two or more elements he does not personally effect the behavior or outcome of the event. The elements will behave in a manner that is independent of the the scientist making the combination. This fact is the source of the the scientific method and the reproducibility of experiments and of the axiom(s)the Primacy of Existence and the Law of Identity. When I was in college and taking engineering courses a student asked one of the professors "why does electricity behave the way that it does?" The professor answered, correctly, that he could not explain "why" electricity behaved the way that it does -- that he could only tell us "how" it behaves and some of the things that we can do with it. Neither animate or inanimate matter has the power to alter the identity or behavior of other matter. Things are what they are and behave as they behave.

If two meteors collide in the depth of space, which is the cause and which is the effect? If you and I are driving cars and collide in an intersection which is the cause and which is the effect? All things, including the cue ball and pool table, are in motion. And, as Newton pointed out, each action has an equal and opposite reaction. My position is that your Law of Cause and Effect is tantamount to asking "why" - which as I stated is an unanswerable and incorrect question. One can only observe the Universe one cannot change it.

From post #83. It is incorrect to state that the pool stick "caused" the ball to move. Just as it would be incorrect to state that a pool stick caused a bowling ball to "not" move. In both instances, the most one can say about the cue ball and the bowling ball (and indeed the pool stick and the person moving the pool stick too) is that they all behaved in accordance with their natures. You cannot explain "why" they behaved as they did, you can only observe how they behaved. An engineer or scientist might ask the question "under what conditions might I expect to observe similar behavior?" and then proceed to conduct experiments to see if he can replicate a similar event. But to ask "why" is an improper question. And to try and trace back the genesis of the "event" leads to an infinite regression. This is very important in understanding Objectivism because it is the foundation for Rand's position on Individualism. By Objectivist metaphysics, no one person can CAUSE another person to behave in any manner. Each individual behaves in accordance with their nature. In this senses, each individual is a Immovable Mover – an end within himself.

Each entity is an end within itself. No one-thing causes the behavior of another thing. Each thing behaves according to it's own nature. When I strike a baseball with a baseball bat, neither I nor the bat "causes" the ball to fly out to right field. The ball flys to right field because that is it's nature. This, as I understand it, is the essence of Objectivism (and Atlas Shrugged). Rand tried to demonstrate in Atlas Shrugged that no one-person can cause another person or thing to behave in a manner not in accordance with it's nature -- not through praying, intimidation or blackmail. Each person, and each entity, is an end within itself. The notion that you, or some undefined god, "control" the behavior of other entities or other people is the "cause" of most of the worlds problems.

I hate to attempt to "put words in your mouth", but I do want to understand your postion correctly. I am willing to accept that my postion on "preventative law" could be wrong, so I am open to learning why. If you could elaborate in your response or provide links to a more elaborated postion on this it would be appreciated. I'm sure that I'm not the first to raise such a question. Here is an example of what I understand you to be saying: Under Objectivism, there is nothing that adjacent property owners or the government can do to prevent a property owner from building a jet fuel refining and storage facility in the middle of a downtown, high-rise district. Is this a true statement?

Per the IBC Life/Safety Code (which is developed by a private organization), buildings are classified by the type of activity that takes place within, i.e. Business, Mercantile, Institutional, Residential, Storage, etc., and each classification has a corresponding hazard level. These hazards levels are determined by laboratory testing, empirical observation of use, forensic analysis of failures, etc. These codes have been built-upon for well over 150 years and represent an incredible achievement in rational, scientific thought. The Haiti earthquake is an example of what can happen when codes are neither adopted nor enforced. Too often people believe that codes, plan reviews, permits etc. are designed by the state to "thwart" property owners or infringe upon their rights. However, the reason they developed historically and the role they play in society is to provide legal protection to property owners. This is in keeping with the true nature and purpose of objective law. Say a developer is spending $120 million on a new high-rise condo building. By documenting with the city -- prior to the start of construction -- that he is meeting current legal and industry standards for safety, he is gaining a measure of protection from lawsuits that adjacent property owners or future users could bring. Without a code that has been legally adopted by the courts, property owners would be open to endless lawsuits and would have no objective way of resolving disputes. Also, in the event that something unfortunate did happen, such as a fire that results in the loss of a life or damage to adjacent property, the owner (and architects and engineers!) can show that they did design a building to meet current industry standards (a term which has a legal definition). Without legally adopted codes and legal approval prior to the start of construction, ALL development and construction in the U.S. would come to a grinding halt. Codes are not created by governments -- they are adopted by them. Codes are developed by business and industry to provide guidelines for action. This is not a weakness of our type of system, it is a strength. It is an expression of the role that individual rights and private property plays in our lives.

UL (Underwriters Laboratories), ASTM (American Standard Testing Materials), IBC (International Building Code), FM (Factory Mutual), ANSI (American National Standards Institute) – these are some of the private, non-governmental codes that architects, engineers, manufacturers and insurance companies use to establish safe standards in construction and manufacturing. Cities adopt these codes to provide objective standards which serve as the basis for any dispute in courts of law regarding potentially unsafe conditions. If the cities (and their courts) don't adopted standards, then businesses and home owners could be subject to endless, frivolous lawsuits. This would make long term planning impossible for everyone. People will not spend millions of dollars on new homes, business and factories unless they can have some assurance that they will not be shut-down every time a suit is filed.

The key is understanding the role units and measurement omission play in concept formation. You perceive things: a flag pole, a piece of string, the edge of a table. You abstract a similarity i.e. that they all have "length". The specific length is un-important in developing the concept of length. Units such as length, depth, weight are mental tools and as such do not exist independent of existents. There is no such THING as length. Things HAVE length as one of their attributes.

One way of looking at the issue is as follows: While you have a right to live in a society and trade with other members of that society, none of them are obligated to trade with you. Other members of a society could isolate you by refusing to trade with you if you engage in un-safe behavior (or even if they just don't like you). Refusing to trade with someone is not a use of force. If you CHOOSE to live in a city and enjoy the benefits of safe buildings, sanitation, fire protection, clean water, electricity, etc. then you are obligated to abide by the laws of that city. You can always move to another city with laws and a government more to your liking, or you could go squat in a cave and live apart from other men. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't expect to enjoy the benefits of society without some obligation to abide by the laws that make that society work. Safe buildings, clean water, sanitation, etc. don't just happen, like that cave in the woods. They happen because people choose to act in a way that 1) benefits themselves and 2) happens to benefit others. This is why City or County Governments are preferable to State and Federal Governments. 95% of the government that you come in to contact is at the City (or County) level. Local governments are much more accountable to its citizens and open to feedback. This is what our Founding Fathers understood when they set up the Government they way they did.