Tomer Ravid

I don't get that thread's point. May you explain?

It is immoral to share intellectual property which you call 'an illegal downloading stuff'. (I doesn't mean to show your friend a book, but, for instance, to print it for him.) But if you succeed to get the notes for a favorite musical work, to discover a physical formula or to alayze speech from a fiction book your friend had shown you, I don't see any moral problem. Intellectual property rights are about business, and are no proper if you want to keep your intellectual property for your own. T.R.

LAST DAYS I was reading the brief Objectivist theory of esthetics in OPAR, which seems to be the most progressive philosophical field of it (which I however have to discuss and improve as required to fully grasp its great consequences). (By the way, it consists some official answers to all the Randish romanticism's naturalist regarders as childish or unreal!) After finishing the first part, I listened to Rachamaninov's (wonderful) quite dramatic second piano concerto, and then to Still Life by Van Der Graaf Generator. Twas the first time I actually got this album fully (i.e. the horrible second), in effect the most exciting one. The following is a beautiful modern jazz observation, talking to you with Hammil's incredible voice about how mindless man is and what a monster he becomes without the social support. Since of that I have never willfully heard any rock album. The passion, to VDGG at least, has simply been gone. And then I'm thinking to myself: "FUCK ME, Rand was right again", and about how many for then unknown mistakes I've done in evaluation throughout my life (and how longer shall that take till I can perfectly write my own, only by thought). That music really was about a bad philosophy. I thought about stop listening to progressive rock music, until or unless I can write my own philosophically and esthetically valid. Although I do not yet remove my avatar and profile picture (which I'm quite pleased with – I think that Anglagard is dramatic but no mystical, and I know that Kurt Rongey's music's 'bad end' is about the nature of dictatorship, not about the nature of man) and I know I'm gonna miss that stuff I know much before I do philosophy, that genre combinates too much about reason and mystics (and we know about a compromise between good and evil)… . . . This (not-selective nor artistic – this is reality as it is!) story's publicity's main point is sort of a recommendation to take seriously and deeply esthetics' philosophy (as I know that many Oists are to ignore it), its motto: you can hardly understand philosophy without art. It is supposed to be a general thread about you, your philosophy and your (approaches according to) art. T.R.

That's mine: AS (Galt's speech as an introduction) IOE OPAR RM LL OP (Ominous Parallels) And: "Reasonable Living" (Hebrew introduction by Dr. Moshe Kroy from 1974 if I'm not wrong)

To challenge you, I shall say that no certain nation consists any common fundamental characteristics – nation (in the conservative – collectivist and standardless context you have mentioned it) is only a group of individuals that holds that has any rights such as stealing a territory or having an economical relief to realize their own wills only by the fact it exist – that there exists a genetic proximity as a result of a faith or an arbitrary faith as a genetic result – although in effect even while getting farther away of a certain place or (mystical) ideology you can reproduce. Although, to clarify the facts of the a-correction about this anti concept named 'nationality,' I am about to analyze every of the well-know "clear" characteristics of the nation: 1) Language: In effect, concept are extract formed by perception and sensation of common, fundamental characteristics – and is given to be humanely taught relatively easily after choosing to think. Nothing about faith. (Although if you believe that faith shall be a cause to grammatical succession you actually do not know what a concept formation is.) Most highest purposes of the language, i.e., the visual or audience symbols you use to describe those concepts, are about precisely, fluency and communication. English language, today, is not "built" on any nation and is the most logical, aesthetical and business language. More over, a legislation to the need of keeping a language used shall not occur in a free society – i.e., a one that has a justification to exist. 2) Culture: Culture is the sum of intellectual achievements at a society by individuals with full or non-full to its laws and way of living. It does not set the laws nor the way of living of a state in a free society – but is set by them. It is not created by a mystical belief and not necessarily by the fact of a nation ('a group of individuals with a related belief that is united while arguing to a its own right to get regions to realize their ideas accordingly to their beliefs' – this definition is the real one to character those who call themselves 'national'. Their term is an anti-concept.) People that've been forced to renounce their property or to stay in a country that will sacrifice other rights of them are not given to represents in the exhibition of 'culture'. 3) Genetics: It might be true that X ideology believers group or Y country livers have some common genetic related characteristics, but it is irrelevant since those are qualified to live whenever they want a country or an ideology and still bring children to the world. There are also certain people who live in a country although the are suffering by its moral goodness (which is by the way very sad as exists). 4) Policy and history: It is maybe the closest argument here to reality – but that is only since it is the most far away one of the mystical-collectivist belief of the nationality – for the same reason it is no proper to justify nationality in considerated context. Arguments such as "I love Hong Kong because there is a relative freedom of market there" or for the sake of an illustration "I love New York since skyscrapers give me an emotion of joy" are crossing the short borderline that differentiates between the national subjectivism, the ''love" of something only since it is consistent in the arbitrary emotion of nationality which simply exists for no reason, "I think that X nation has a right to exist because I am one of it," and basing on an objective standard and on you own love by your own ultimate value, "I am just since I think that justice is right. X country is also just". Ms. Rand used to belong to that sort of state-evaluators. This post is based on a lecture I had en my public school. After having that, teacher distinguished as an example that 'make-up is a characteristic of females although a male can have it too'. Now, as most of you know the objectivist theory of concept formation, although it includes some sexual stuff that no philosophy should analyze, -- what is the problematicalness in this argument. Can a concept be formed and differentiated from others although it has no definition or fundamental characteristic? In our days in Israel, some quite important objectivist have left to the conservative, the more popular side, probably because of their hate to the left-wing side. Though, it is important to remember that those who deny any right to live and think that faith is upper than rationality are no better, at all. T.R.

To clarify it, I'll just to set no doubt: definition of initiated force: an act consists a contradiction in the right it assumes. With a little sorry for my English, I think I was quite clear by what I mean in initiated force. Please don't confuse my things with yours: it's me who said that no one is allowed to use force after someone else does, it's been what you said: that nobody can defend his own property after you will to have it for yourself, and as a justification saying that you should use force after somebody initiating it. By saying that, you may philosophically induct at least either of these two: a ) Nobody has rights, but I do. I have the right to take something only by the fact I want it. My arguments are right only by the fact they exist. b ) Universe is evil, man cannot deal with it and has no free will, only the see and island which control we animals do, and it's not my, or any man's, fault that I've \ he's been lost in see. Though, it is the fault of the island's owner since he does face it and give me what I want to deal with that force! Decide if you want to live in reality by these contradictionary and mystical ideas, but don't be surprised while discovering ideas holding there's no reality valid to man's rational faculty and that he has no rights do not work in reality to men! Nor any other animal by man is, by definition, a rational animal! T.R.

Yes. Then while saying "it is" I meant "it is immoral" (Replying to Is it immoral to keep getting refunds for books you've bought?).

That it is not what? Moral or Immoral?

I mean that since man can logically identify the just rights he can have them. Animals are not rational enough to agree with these rights or contradict it. I doesn't mean that people with mental hardship should not have rights all long they are people. The rights should be just for any of those innocents by these rights' standard with the faculty lets you have them. For example: I can contradict unreal rights in some different ways. All about the same idea: how can you have a right to contradict rights? How can you agree with rights and not agree with rights? T.R.

I don't think I'm adult enough to get along rationally in states about life or death. There also may be reason to justify that a certain force in not initiated: for example, if you've been lost out in see only because of the ship's captain's fault, or even if you couldn't have sent an extrication only because a country had forced you to pay income taxation. Though, as now I am not controlled by gloomy emotions and inclinations, I may currently tell you that: every initiated force is never moral. That isn't true. Pacifism is that which thinks that no force (e.g., not necessarily an initiated one) is allowed -- not about human rights. It is a double standard because it assumes that no force is allowed, but still ignores the fact that human are physically able to initiate force. E.g., that you can and cannot use force. I'm not telling that you must not use force. On the contrary: that if you are trying to steal my bread I have the right to shoot you or call the police. Pacifist think you have every right and no right. You are the whole only pacifist here -- you think you can rob me while I have no right to do anything about it. Since rights are determined from the fact man can logically identify them, refusing to rights is refusing to logics and to the fact you may have rights -- therefore, you don't have a right to live and I have the right to shoot you in the street. End of the story. Edit: about the self-interest part: No. Self interest doesn't mean political subjectivism. Ayn Rand is not Nietzsche as many have failed to think. She taught of a rational self interest. While hurting others' rights, you are hurting others' self-interest. This is not self interest in any way. T.R.

Yes, sure: all I'm saying is that you simply must never initiate any force.

Only when I already have a relevant post referring to the contex of the consideration well enough. This specific time: I didn't.

I do not exactly know since I have no big experience range of philosophy. All I can say is: that it apparently does do with sex as a part of sexual passion between the sides: it does have a clear metaphysical connection with the idea of having children, that's known. Yes, there are serial concept in the word of 'love'. You can love a car or a career, and that has a relation with the original definition of love; it means: 'There is something I own which is well in a certain standard of a certain thing', or 'I am realizing own my values while producing these things' or 'I could admire the guy whose been making it I met him'. The second one, I'd say, is more like the verb 'to like', as you like your own parents and you anyway will, independently on who they are after a certain thing they've done for you. I'd define it as a mix of gratefulness, mercy and simply an acclimation to something. But it's only context with love is the fact you may feel a sort of joy with them both as a creation of knowing people (or dogs), but nothing serious else. Anyway, I'll call the concept love however I like, if that word is more clearly connected with other definition. But still, if you keep occurring to it as you can love a sock in that context of love I defined, you are destructing this concept! T.R.

(Moral) people are having children because of: a ) Love of each other and the value of (the will to) love by the child b ) Productively, all of those things you can learn by educating him c ) Sex You love somebody because it has same values of yours (in proper to all the standard and ultimate values etc.) and some well virtues, not as an evident of its existence, nor by mercy and negative of admire. You can love a baby after educating him, after willfully educating him very well, that which requires a lot of intellectual work, and belief in ideas. To educate somebody is to (try to) make him moral, to make him qualified to be loved and to love. Then please, don't doubt what I'm saying as 'hating your own children' or anything else. T.R.

The point is: * Man get rights from the fact they can rationally set them. Animals do not have that faculty. * Less primitive animals consist a minimal freedom of choice (for example, when a dog chooses whom to come to) and emotion. Therefore, they deserve rights familiar with the fact they have their anti-concept of identification of rights by suffering. They do not have rights such as life, property and happiness, but about not to be emotionally suffering (about a specific level of it) which is proven that had been by man's physical force. * Animals are a property of someone as a result of acts he had on them to justify them as so. Then, hurting them shall be hurting a property of a man. * Animals are eating lower customers, excluding some of the plants that some of them which man eats are 'interested' (no freedom of choice – that 's why that range is so tricky) or rather are 'designate' to be eaten so they are able to reproduce. Therefore, they agree with the standard of the food chain. No double standard. * To go and shoot cows in the street would be immoral, not because of cow's rights, but because of the man who does it. Though, to fight it using legislation would be more immoral either. * Man has more right than an animal by all of those arguments. Many more. Less primitive animals deserve only minimal rights against actual abusing. If man has to kill who has less rights \ almost has none, nor a right to live – he has to do that. T.R.

If it is not distinguished ahead in the terms you like to it -- it is. If you have returned a book using big government's bonuses -- then I'm allowed to drop you out to jail. T.R.

To initiate it by your own side? Way not!

Law of identify comes first: If you assume you can look for any answer upon that specific physics -- therefore it is right and characteristic of 'particle' does not contradict the characteristic of 'wave'. As it does, something cannot be both, none or the middle of wave and particle, that specific modern physics is not proper to the law of identify and and you don't have to refer to it at all. T.R.

For sure: a child is not his parents property. But since: a. his parents have made him b. he cannot get alone as he is a child. It is his metaphysical nature. c. he has rights because his rational faculty exists - but can become a real rationality only after growing up a bip d. death is not the negative of living, but the stop of living, bound in anti life thoughts. Death ahead is worse than unliving ahead. => Parents who do not care for their child to be alive as they are normally and metaphysically able to. T.R.

They do all long they are people, and have that rational faculty. As their not, they 90% belong to their owners \ parents (I do not know yet about fully. I still have to think of nonprimitive animals' right: ethically for their emotion and a tiny bit of free will [like when a dog chooses who to come over] probably demand emotional rights -- not rights to live and to property [about why they don't I'll speak in the consideration about animals' rights], but not to be suffering as a result of physical force of man up from a certain level of -- still I've got no way to prove it, yet). T.R.

My senses are different than yours (and yours are different than mys) and I think that there is no difference between senses (sorry, twas just pleased). T.R.

In that question, you are getting into a whole complex metaphysical world of metaphors and abstractions. Monopoly is an idea of physical property: when somebody forces you not to have your own creations, but his. Intellectual Property is about what allows physical property to exist: it's the consciousness of man a rational being, having rights as an evident of the fact he has the faculty to logically determine them. Though, you cannot set an intellectual property right on rights since that idea of objective rights hold them as objective: to set an objective right and to hold it nonobjectively is a double standard. The same about anti-intellectual property: it is to think that nobody is allowed to set copyrights on his creation, but you are. Now, my favorite part, the logical one: Rights are contextual. A theft of an X (= property, physical property) is when you steal an X. Theft of an X + Z (Z is a variable of a variable - has no certain meaning, but says: there is something - existent - more in any of that cases. In context: something about intellectual property, an invention) is when you stal an X + Z (intellectual property). Monopoly of an X is: the state where a man doesn't allow you to have your own X, not because you cannot honestly have it but because some force other not to give you one. A monopoly of an X + Z is the place where a man doesn't to have your own X + Z. I remind: Z's common and necessarily is: it is something in reality, anything in reality or anythings over reality. Therefore, a monopoly of X is when somebody forces not to buy an X. A monopoly of X + Z is where somebody forces you not to create your own intellectual property: not to have intellectual rights. As I said, it has another contradiction that no original force does: it is also a double standard. X's Z (a variable of a variable, something unroutine) is physical ownership and different pieces of the own idea. X + Z's Z: the idea. So, you can't figure monopoly of an intellectuality in terms of s physical one does not consist an intellectuality, since reason isn't physical: and does not obey physical laws, although does exist and is itself. T.R.

Proving certain things is a right value in proper to the objectivist standard and self esteem concept. It is way productive, neither objective and rational, independent of any social ideas instead of reality.

There is nothing necessarily wrong or wired about helping others. Though as you are, there are few certain fact you have to understand to set its (im)morality level: A. Helping is not to make you more moral. B. Helping is not a duty. C. Every standard that presents your life as its value and pretends to dictate your goodness by prices of a goodness you are consciousness of is evil. It exchanges your ultimate value with another's. Even as you are worthwhile about that business, it requires building and being built of altruism, and your lies for an altruist. D. Every sacrifice is immoral. What is a sacrifice? It is: 1. Acting against those laws (absolutely clear. Why do you think I've said that as assuming that you are basing on my definition to sacrifice i.e., on my comment. 2. Even while basing on facts of your life as your ultimate value, losing from a business always comes among with a contradiction of it. There is a whole complete philosophical world of positions to contradict the idea of "Rational Egoist Altruism". Though, I'll just remind the most basic one in context of that kind of moral laws: to earn =\= to 'unearn'. 3. Basically, to act not for your own side and not precisely by your own will, but actually from it (e.g., when there's no force). I don't have to detail. E. NO GOVERNMENTAL WORKING FOR SERVICES DO NOT DEFINE CORRECTLY HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOM PAYED BY TAXES. No physical force. It seems that majority of social workers do not fact it. Though, you may consider with your girlfriend of that asking her not to use arbitrary crying emotions about the fact she arbitrarily thinks that someone is having arguments against her methods as an argument because it is an altruism. T.R