Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Durande

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified

Recent Profile Visitors

1331 profile views

The Durande's Achievements


Member (4/7)



  1. Constitutions are restrictions on government, and rules for governmental procedures like elections and appointments or military decisions. Laws are restrictions on people.
  2. Does a proton or neutron have mass? YES Does an atom have mass? YES Does a molecule have mass? YES Does dirt, rock, water, ice, or air have mass? YES Do living beings have mass? YES Do decaying ex-living beings have mass? YES Does the planet earth have mass? YES Do all of the planets have mass? YES Does the sun have mass? YES Do asteroids have mass? YES Does the solar system have mass? YES Do all of the solar systems have mass? YES Does the galaxy have mass? YES Do all of the galaxies have mass? YES Does the universe have mass? YES It is all of you who are ARBITRARILY making a different kind of thing out of the universe than it is. It is simply everything. Always has been, always will be. Now, ADMITTED RATIONALISM (nonsense) aside, how can one conclude otherwise? Even if there is a "net zero gravitational effect," how does that change the fact that all of the things producing that net zero have mass, and when added up to form the universe they (in total) have mass? Don't put the cart before the horse. Even if a "net zero" gravitational effect could be detected or proven, that doesn't wipe out the other properties (including mass) that are present. The entities are here. That is given. It is our job to make discoveries about them, NOT to rationalize about their properties based on the SUPPOSED absence of one other property. We must look at what we khow. We know the answers to all of my questions above. We especially shouldn't WIPE OUT a property that we know to exist in its constituents. The only POSSIBLE explanation for doing so is that one is engaging in RATIONALISM, or nonsense. This net-zero-gravitational-effect-proving-the-universe-has-no-mass nonsense is equivalent to my standing in the street and looking at a cinder block building with no windows, and saying, "There is no light coming from that building, therefore, there are nothing capable of illumination inside that building." Or, a business whose liabilities and assets exactly cancel each other out to zero, and some misguided accountant saying "This business has NO financial activity." THE UNIVERSE HAS MASS WHETHER SOME PROPERTY OF MASS IS BEING CANCELLED OUT OR NOT. A tug-of-war match that ends in a tie STILL TOOK PLACE. You cannot blank out a fact of reality based upon your ASSUMPTIONS about one of its properties. That is VINTAGE primacy of consciousness. (In other words, it is what wackos do.)
  3. I attacked an ADMITTED RATIONALISTIC view as being "wacko." Guilty. I basically said that those who agree with it are "wacko." Guilty I implied that those who knowingly defend it are engaging in dishonesty. Guilty. BUT I AM RIGHT, AND YOU, MY "INTELLECTUAL BETTERS." ARE WRONG. Just like on the other thread, when Stephen said I was wrong about my denying the existence of an honest, informed argument against Objectivism. I simply asked for one example - EVER - of an honest agrument against Objectivism that does not misrepresent it. NO ONE came up with anything. Yet he still has not admitted he was wrong. No, as far as I can tell, it is Stephen who has NEVER admitted he was wrong and it is HE with the character flaw.
  4. I will respond one more time. 1. No, Betsy, they DON'T mean the same thing. I am looking at an Oxford Dictionary AND THESAURUS and: a) the definitions aren't even close, and "population" is not given in the thesaurus section under "populace." What made you think they mean the same thing? AND, I'll have you know, that my using of the word "population" was the CORRECT choice to begin with, and that is why I made it. 2.About the anti-lock brakes, please don't be rationalistic. The universe is NOT a container, as the garage in your example is. The only thing you can say for YOUR example is that in that instance, if the garage is vieved as a container, it contains anti-lock brakes. 3. The rest of this post is not specifically for you, Betsy, but to everyone in general. 4. The following is a quote from post #8 (Ed from OC) "I bring this up because I speculate that there may not be a net gravitational attraction between everything in the universe, and therefore there would (again) be zero mass to the universe. How is that possible? If an object is attracted equally in opposite directions, then there is no net attraction; the forces cancel. If a large astronomical object is located midway between other large astronomical objects, then it would not be attracted in any preferred direction. But each of these other objects would themselves be in the same state, unless one was at the edge of the universe. And there is no edge of the universe! That means there would be no net attraction between objects in the universe, when the universe is taken as a whole. (This speculation is admittedly rationalistic, but as far as I know, it hasn't been made elsewhere, and I'm curious if it's true. Maybe there's something known in astrophysics or general relativity that answers this, but I'm not familiar enough with either to say.)" Ed says that he speculates no net gravitational attraction, and therefore zero mass. HE THEN AT THE END ADMITS THAT HE IS BEING RATIONALISTIC. 5. I have FIRSTHAND heard Leonard Peikoff say that those who are engaged in rationalism are literally engaging in NONSENSE. Literally in the sense that what they choose to deal with is ENTIRELY non-sensory data. (Living in the world of concepts and words instead of observing reality.) To me, those who willfully engage in "non-sense" are wackos. 6. "Wackos" may not be the nicest way of putting it, but it's not the ultimate condemnation that you are making it out to be. To me, it's almost a loving way of looking at someone who has gone over the edge - not necessarily permanently, but only for isolated instances. I have an uncle who is a "wacko." No big deal. I just don't expect it here, and from so many people at once. 7. Stephen, it was VERY convenient of you, in post #14 to quote me out of context: "It simply must have size. . ." It would have taken about 5 seconds more of your time to include all of what I typed, but you chose not to. I wonder why. EVERYONE, please note that I have in parentheses (mass) (total atomic mass) immediately following the word "size." AND then read post #8 where ED from OC basically agrees with me, before he goes on to his ADMITTED RATIONALISM. 8. This whole thread is basically about ED from OC basically agreeing with me, but THEN going on into his ADMITTED RATIONALISM. 9. I must say something about this "Fallacy of Composition." The Fallacy of Composition is basically: drawing a conclusion about every thing in a group, based on a fact about one thing in a group. This Korean is intelligent,, therefore, all Koreans are intelligent. I am NOT doing that here, and, not only that, I would argue that anyone who says that I am is either being rationalistic or dishonest. If I said:I have mass, I am a part of the universe, so everything that is a part of the universe has mass, THEN I would be committing that fallacy. So, stop misusing that fallacy. What I am saying here is that: We have a definition of universe that I find adequate, from THE AYN RAND LEXICON, "The universe is the total of that which exists - not merely the earth or the stars or the galaxies, but everything." Notice it says "The universe IS (emphasis mine). . ." It doesn't say "The universe CONTAINS. . ." We also have the fact that whatever the "ultimate constituents" may be, "whether one or two or ten" (paraphrased), they will have identity. Well, one of the aspects of identity that I have discovered in anything I have ever enountered made of matter is that it also has mass. I AM NOT SAYING, and have never said that there aren't some things in the universe that may or may not have matter or mass. I AM saying that, when you look at the definition of "universe" and then look at the world around you, you can reason: 1. the things I encounter have mass, 2. the universe IS these things, NOT "CONTAINS" these things. 3. The universe has mass, because these things that it "IS" have mass. SIMPLE. 10. Last, but not least: Who owes whom an apology? I called someone a "wacko" who was ADMITTEDLY BEING RATIONALISTIC. Maybe that was too strong for your context. I throw that word around - you have to admit it is much lighter a term than "insane" or "mad." But if THAT is all this is about, I can apologize for using that word. But, Stephen, I apologize for nothing else. Not my tone, not my occasional capitalization, and not my attitude. I see rationalism as one of the key things that has to be "learned" out of the students of Objectivism if the philosophy has any chance to survive another generation. If someone new to Objectivism comes here and sees post #8. They will run away - and they would be right. Over and out.
  5. I understand what it is now. It is not some fallacy I am committing, or that you are committing. We differ in what we mean by the word "has." It is as simple as that. As far has I can see, when I use the word "has" in the simple sentence, "The universe has mass," I use it as meaning: posesses OR includes OR has as an attribute. I have O - Positive blood. I have blue eyes. I have cells. I have teeth. I have skin. I have mass. As can be clearly seen from my posting history, I uphold reality as the ultimate arbitrer, not scientists, not "fallacies," and not even Ayn Rand, and especially not someone's interpretation of what Ayn Rand meant. I ONLY look at reality and then think. Ever. When I look at everything I've ever encountered, one of these thing's traits is always mass. Now, you all want me to believe that the group of all these things does NOT posess this trait. Okay then, lets play fair: I understand that you all take the position that I should not go out on such a limb, but does anyone care to take the position that the universe DOES NOT have mass????????????? I have been put on the defensive for stating the obvious before. As you all wish, I am done playing this silly game. Does anyone here care to make an assertion about the real world, rather than the assertion that I am wrong???
  6. Israel, in my opinion, would be an example of "a far far far lesser of two evils in that part of the world. For instance, Canada, as bad as it is, is far, far, better politically.
  7. Would you feel better if I used the noun "populace" instead of "population"????? Geez, are we nit-picking a bit??? There are anti-lock brakes in my car. My car HAS anti-lock brakes. I really don't know any other way to say it. This is painful.
  8. All of this is very simple. If the roads are someday to be privatized, presumably the government must auction them off, or some other type of sale. Well, one of the coniditions of the sale would be that the buyer of a road or a group of roads would have to also have to agree to a stipulation that his prices must be uniform (and by that I don't mean the same for everybody, neccessarily) they could be set by a variety of factors (veh. weight, tolls,annual odometer reading, etc.). The buyer would also have to agree that he doesn't have the right to deny any U.S. citizen who has reached driving age and pays the fee, however established, access to the roads. There is ABSOLUTELY no sense in discussing what would happen if the roads in the U.S. had always been private, with no safeguards in place against abuse, and somehow someone wakes up one day with his house completely surrounded by people who won't let him on or off of his property. (Read: The Ethics of Emergencies) But, to be sure that things run smoothly, if anyone wants to take a chance and build a house up in the hills where there are currently no roads, then the rule would have to be: Let the buyer beware. Or the buyer of this secluded property could just build his own road as well that links up to an existing road. And, let me add that if someone here comes up with an imaginary nightmare-like problem that I have now overlooked, I GUARANTEE that I will have an adequate solution within ONE HOUR of reading the post.
  9. No. Not yet. In fact, that gives me an idea. If I am able to get up my stomach strength, AND somehow a copy of his book falls into my lap without having to pay for it, I might publish a rebuttal myself. But seriously, I was over at a Barnes & Noble and it was there on the shelf, and they do let people just hang out and read there without buying anything, so I guess if I had ABSOLUTELY nothing else to do I could kick back over there someday and do it. But my values just probably won't allow me to waste a day like that.
  10. Actually I have read excerpts, because a few years ago he had them posted online. He said he was working to make it a part of a book at the time. He misrepresents Objectivism, and this is no exaggeraton, in just about every paragraph he writes. He is one of the most dishonest people I have ever had the displeasure of reading. I won't even do him the service of repeating some of his nonsense here. You'll have to read his typing (I refuse even to call it a book) for yourself.
  11. The bricks that are part of my house have mass. My house has mass. The water molecules in Lake Erie have mass. Lake Erie has mass. The each page of my copy of Atlas Shrugged has mass. The book has mass. Each person in the world has mass. The world's population has mass. Hydrogen and Helium atoms have mass. Stars have mass. Stars,people, books, lakes, and houses have mass. Those masses can be added up. So can the masses of all the other things that are composed of matter. The totality of everything is the universe. It would, yes, have mass. Why the hell is it that when I talk about something very big, like the universe, you people want to change the definition of the word mass? The universe consists of all those things above - and many more. So what? Why is it so hard to say that the universe has mass. I realize that there may be things that are a part of the universe that dont have mass, and that the mass of the universe would be difficult to quantify, but that difficulty doesn't change properties of things, or definitions of words.
  12. That is pure rationalism. If, like you say, the universe includes consciousness, it doesn't follow that the universe is conscious. If the Red Sox baseball team includes Manny Ramirez, the Red Sox team is not Manny Ramirez. Let's not turn into a bunch of pathetic linguists here, okay. I am saying that the cells of my body are A PART of the universe. They have mass. The universe hass mass. Someone, please try to make the case that the universe DOESN'T have mass. Please. I understand that proclaimed Objectivists have a strong tendedncy toward rationalism, but please people, try to fight it just a little.
  13. [he "ultimate constituents of the universe" needs to be broken down. Ultimate is confusing. i know that matter is a constituent. i know that matter hass mass. what else is needed?? i didn't "fail" to address it. i refused to.
  • Create New...