JayR

Ive never understood why people have funerals in the first place. Its a morbid ritual, Ill be cremated.

There is no cognitive justification for the grouping of an invalid concept with a valid one.

Forgive me, I havent read the whole thread but it appears that youre conflating means and ends here. Using your mind, pursuing knowledge is a means to the ultimate end of survival. The pursuit of knowledge (or mental achievement)is not an end in itself.

Yeah, freedom works. I can see myself using the term volition freely, and "free will" in quotations. As in: A fundamental key to understanding the Objectivist epistemology is a firm grasp of Oist theories of sense perception and volition, or "free will".

The term "will" can be (falsely) attributed to certain instinctual behaviors in man as well, which adds to confusion. i.e. the "will to survive" or driving forces in man such as Nietzsches "will to power". Using the term free, implies that theres some other kind of will. If man is born tabula rasa, I dont see how there could be any other kind. (?) I agree that "volition" is better tied to reality.

Ethics will not tell you what the purpose of your life is. It defines what actions are proper, given the fact that you want to live. And you cant equate the automatic behavior of non conceptual life with the chosen behavior of men. The latter is ethics, the former is just nature and causality. Rand didnt hold "survival" as the ultimate value, or the ultimate purpose. Objectivist ethics hold a mans own life as his ultimate value, and a productive achievement and a flourishing (kick ass) life as his ultimate purpose. Given what type of creature man is, he ought to do certain things to achieve this goal.

Yes, you are correct. Youve made the crucial distinction that Freidman and others have failed to grasp. The Objectivist ethics is for humans, not mantodea. Binswangers book adresses epistemology and meta-ethics, survival vs. reproduction is just a part of it.

A philosophic system cannot be primarily against something, it has to be primarily for something. Or, put another way, Objectivistst are not on a crusade against religion, they promote reason in every aspect of life. Objectivism is not rationalism, you cant be serious with your claim about Rand "validating" a philosophy around her atheism. And I dont know what you mean by "the ethical objectivity of religious belief". Religion prescribes intrinsic ethical norms, not objective. This confusion is not helping you in the other thread either. When I was thirteen I wanted to be an astronaut who played professional baseball. I now own a nice telescope and play wiffle ball in the summer.

The question is uploaded via text file. I watched last night, the thing is fast. Its a free standing super computer, i.e., its not connected to the internet. It chooses the three most likely answers for a given question, each answer is ranked by percent chance of being right. If the most likely answer is beyond the "buzz threshold" it will ring in. As one would expect, on the easier questions at the beginning of the round the computer schooled the other contestants. But as the questions (answers, whatever) became harder and more analytical the computer struggled a bit more. Although even the people who wrote the code for the machine said they are often surprised at what it can figure out. It remembers where "daily doubles" are most often hidden and actively searches for them.

Theres an interesting thread on inutition and instinct here if your interested. JeffS has some good posts that deal with your subject matter.

Your trying to evaluate an ethical theory with the same scrutiny as one would a math equation. "Viable Values" answers all these questions, as do most of Rands essays on the topic, have you read any? That would be a good place to start. There are people on here honestly trying to help, giving good info, and then there are people here "answering" your questions who probably have less knowledge on the subject than you do. Go to the original source.

I looks like youre off to a good start. Ill give my (brief) thoughts on each question: 1) The page you quote (31) also states that "infinite does not mean large; it means larger than any specific quantity, i.e., of no specific quantity". What he means by this is that a metaphysical infinity violates the axiom of identity, because to be is to be something specific. Infinity is what Oists would call a mathematical concept of method, it doesnt refer to an actual referent in reality, its a conceptual tool. 2) The concept color refers to two things: a specific wavelength of light refected by an object and the percetual apparatus registering it. Without one of the two, its meaningless, so theres no real answer, it all depends on how you define color, semantics I guess. 3) The amount of context needed to answer that is staggering, I tried, and came up with nothing meaningfull.

True, but, To the extent that a Government can enforce objective law, theres a measure of security (freedom). But try telling a gang of thugs lopping your familys limbs off about your inalienable rights, youll end up with alienable hands.

I Think the average adult human being is far more rational than you give them credit for. You shouldnt think like this. Egoism is for furthering your own life, dont get bogged down with thoughts like that. They serve no purpose.

I like the overal premise. Two points: 1) morality is not created, its discovered. 2) dont give "faith" any credit for ethical norms. In other words dont just say reason is better than faith, make it clear that faith as a means to knowledge is not even possible. in reality there is no such thing as faith, theres only reason and pretense. I look forward to the final result of your thesis, but before more speculation on what advice I might venture, I'd like to hear your definition of "Ethics".

The pupose of ethics is to define what people should do (or how they should act) to enhance their lives, agreed? In order to measure any activities effect on your life, there must be a standard in which to measure it against, agree? Im just trying to pin down your actual argument. Do you believe its possible for anything to be an objective value? Edit: Objective values are not intrinsic values. Something objectively valuable to me may be of no value to you. Agree? Being agent relative doesnt make it subjective.

Obama with a first edition of Atlas Shrugged? Now I know where my tax dollars are going.

I dont know what it is about this topic, but there seems to be crests of honest discussion followed by troughs of intelectual dishonesty and supercilious remarks. Im puzzled.

Heres the problem as I see it: Youre confusing Rands meta-ethics with hre normative prescriptions. "Choosing" life as the standard is not a subjective decision that you make when you wake up in the morning, its a recognition of the fact that only life makes value possible, and that which furthers life (flourishing) is good, that which destroys life is bad. Theres nothing subjective about that. You cant say "well, you need food to survive, but Ive got this other method.... I use poison", its not a choice. It not open to debate. If your confused about her meta-ethics, than I can see how her normative theory could seem subjective to you. However, its not. The virtues that are laid out in Atlas Shrugged and Tara Smiths "Ayn Rands Normative Ethics" are objective in the sense that: given what type of creature man is, theres a certain way he ought to act in order to further his life. The virtues that she lays out all get their moral status from their practicality in furthering mans life. The fact that some people live as parasites, like the ones you mention, doesnt negate the fact that there is a best method for living a good life, and thats with a principled approach, adhereing to certain virtues. All of this assumes that you want to live. Edit: I can go into much greater detail about the isuue with your "free riders" or parasites living happily, later though, Ill want to use quotes and I dont have access to them now.

Unfortunately (for all of us) David Odden has been inactive for a while now. Id trust his answer to your question more than most others. Its one Ive had a hard time with also.

Yeah, agreed. That was a good one.

Yeah, thats how I meant it.

It was an honest question. Expecting an honest answer, free of your unrelenting pretentiousness was irrational of me. moving on.

Strict logic may define it as arbitrary (I dont know), but check the Drake equation. In our current context of knowledge, and dismissing mystical fantasy, it appears extremely unlikely that we could possibly be alone in the universe. However, alien visitation to earth can properly be written off as arbitrary fantasy without evidence. (for which there is none, to my knowledge)

The Huffington Post? ewww.