y_feldblum

"Measure" is an epistemological tool, a function of cognition. One can measure qualities, relationships, etc. The way to measure the distance between two locations is to take a ruler to it. You are measuring the ruler, not the ether. Or if it's not the ruler that you're measuring, it's the angle between incoming rays of light, etc. It's decidedly not ether because there's no way to detect it and measure it.

RadCap is right in this - nonexistence only means you're not talking about anything. However, going back to Galileo, the statement this entity moved ten feet is invalid. Location is not a primary, like an attribute; it is a relationship between attributes or between entities. Eg, an entity is the same entity - absolutely the same attributes, absolutely no difference - whereever and whenever it is. But an entity changing locations means that its spacial relationship with all other entities has changed - in this example, by ten feet. Moreover, there is nothing detectable, nothing with identity, where entities are not. There is no universal reference point by which to judge what is moving. There are plenty of reference points - eg you, me, the planet, the sun, the ocean current - and one can compare any one with another, but he can't say "this is at coordinates 12, 3, 54" without saying "from this reference point." Like the number line which extends to infinity in both directions, you have to put the "0" tick mark somewhere, but you can put it anywhere. Only after you place it can you specify the location of other things. On another topic, the term troll most often designates avowed Kantians and Marxists who troll, and not necessarily people who would be better advised to keep their scoffing inside their own head. Satanist, you're hereby advised not to snicker or call people names in print.

die Vernunft is German for reason - as in Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Make of that what you will.

Two points. First, satanist is a welcome breather from Matt and Capitalist. Second, as I understand it, movement sans ether is only a contradiction if it's movement through. Movement is, however, in relation to.

Hypothetical imperative. Beautiful.

"Pirates - you shall ph34r m3, the g0d1y n1nja, or you shall be banging your heads against brick walls!" Whatever happened to throwing-stars and walking the plank?

How about terrorists, dictators, and thugs with Nobel prizes? Alright, so he was, morally, a thug.

There are people who say "things are whatever I wish them to be". You've just got to reduce the former (your people) to the latter (my people). My idea of peace is: capture and exile a randomly selected city today. Demand some set time of total peace, and if it is not achieved, capture and exile the rest of the territories. Right now, the Israelis' idea of peace is, "Hey (ow), stop (ow) hitting me!" And the world's idea of peace is, "Israel, shut up." America's response is, "I'll chide the bullies for you." It's revolting. Israel carries a bick stick for precisely this reason. And now they're using it merely as a crutch.

How, specifically, does Objectivism claim to bridge the is/ought gap? Has the answer to do with ought being a concept of cognition, as opposed to a metaphysical fact?

"One guy says hi, some more say hi back, and boom - meesa on the third page!"

Probably so that you can see how many times other people clicked the report button in a post of yours by accident, when they were just trying to reply.

Another thought ... the mind recognizes entities by contrast, by differences, by their boundaries.

Wow - that is decidedly true. I read it, no problem. Of course, that only is the case when you read each word as a unit. When you focus on the individual letters within a word, everything falls apart. This might be a handy trick for jumbled-words games.

Has anyone read the EU constitution? Its usage of the word "competence" is just as devoid of meaning (connotation) as Samoht wants the word here. Samoht, you're exactly right in your analysis and solution. The only two things required for success are freedom and will (let's stick to normal people - ie, without handicap). You could argue, then: in the case of the lazy unwilling, they don't deserve higher wages. When was the last time anybody deserved free money for mindlessly picking up and putting down heavy boxes all day? It is only the mind that can create value; the lazy forget this and try letting the body create value. As in all evasion, it doesn't work. In the case of the unfree laborers, the ones with the will but who are blocked by immoral laws, the solutions is decidedly not to enslave the hirers; the solution is to free the laborers. You may want to reword that, though, if the dainty sensibilities of sociology professors are easily offended by non-politically-correct emotive propaganda.

I'm having trouble visualizing exactly what pitch has to do with genitalia. No help would be appreciated.

BlackSabbath, and I quote, Read the incomprehensible just for the sheer pleasure of not understanding it.

... dead Palestinians, especially victims of their own government, aplenty. Most of the PA propoganda (or any media that makes it through PA cencorship) is photo-op.

And reflex is the right word. Reflex is hardwired right into the muscles (and spinal cord). Instinct is (is not, in the case of humans) hardwired into the subconscious.

True. What you may have had in mind was Gandalf, wit, and talent with throwing one's voice. edit {purpose: spell-check(from="with", to="wit"); }

MinorityOfOne: Correct, that is exactly what I am saying; only, for lack of the right words, I used the ones available (already used in this discussion). Socionomer: Recoiling when one touches a hot iron is, as I understand it, below instinct. Recoiling like that is part of the hardwiring of the arm (via the spine), almost like recoiling when the doctor bangs on your knee with the strange triangular hammer. Digestion, heartbeat, etc are subconscious action; that recoil is just like the recoil of a spring. And since I don't have the rights words on hand here either, I'll let you all debate my meaning .

That is the fundamental premise of Marxist economics.

The origins of the ending section (as well as all) of the message is - astonishingly - the facts of reality. For a contentious source, try this Capitalism Magazine article about Joan Peters' From Time Immemorial, or this Capitalism Magazine partner site, Israel Is Moral.

Rome defeated itself from the inside - by proclaiming a king.

I'm taking the contents of your wallet now. What, you tripped over that wire I set to stop you from stopping me and you broke your ankle? Here, take a bandaid.

Humans certainly have drives and instincts - but they provide him with absolutely no knowledge how to satisfy them. All man's action is volitional; whether he is hungry or not isn't. He can override the drive to act on hunger, but he cannot override the fact that he is hungry with the fact that he isn't.