Xall

bobgo, you seem to have a Kantian approach towards knowledge and I would suggest a read here for a brief understanding of this position and its relation with Objectivism. Also, this thread might be useful

Your flaw is the assumption of something "else", the necessity of a "cause" (in the sense that it *causes action*). As per "All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe[...]are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved. Nature is the metaphysically given—i.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition.", existence does not require a cause and as such (as you put it) action and reaction are both contained within it. You proceed to postulate an "outside cause", 'god', that does not rest on your two premises. Yes, entities act according to their own nature. React (to use your words) if they are non-volitional, act of their own accord (your words) if they are volitional. Because the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition (its nature being in this sense reaction), I don't consider necessary a "prior" action for there to be any reaction whatsoever. If it is in the nature of nature that elements react (requiring no "prior" action, only the existence of existence), then by the fact that we are volitional (something I can validate, consciousness), it means that contained within existence, the elements interact in such a manner that they can be reactionary or actionary (my browser underlines this word, I'm not sure what else to use here). Your statement, "unless there is an entity which by nature can act on its own rather than REact, then there would be no action" is the Primacy of Consciousness because you necessitate a volitional "action" for there to be subsequent reaction and action. I would say that the fact that I can validate my own consciousness as a volitional entity fits perfectly under the "forms, motions, combinations" that can eventually give rise "from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life" and further to the formation of consciousness from a simple "biological reactionary being". Existence exists, therefore the elements contained within it possess both action and reaction (your words). There is no logical necessity - you are postulating, from this point of view, the arbitrary. I conclude than there is no "cause" for my being volitional other than the interaction of elements within existence (and this is not determinism). As for the Primacy of Consciousness, you deny asserting it, however you attribute god both the identity of a consciousness (being volitional in nature) and claiming that it is "existence as such". So which one is it? If god were existence and also would possess a consciousness this would render the primacy issue moot since they would be interchangeable. Your postulation requires a metaphysics based on the Primacy of Consciousness (because god is both volitional and eternal, therefore consciousness is eternal...) The first statement is self-sufficient, the second one is a non-sequitur and I don't see your reason for positing it at all, the first one subsumes that all its elements, 'existents', exist independently of consciousness. You cannot add to everything and expect everything + 1, or everything that is everything but also not quite.

This is what is meant from my part as Rationalism: That's why everyone is insisting that your position is arbitrary (amongst others)...I further concluded that it is rationalist because it only results from deductions which are not validated by reality, and I think Rand dealt with such an issue by way of Kant's "noumenal" world, which as your concept (god), was not available to perception, only to some arbitrary deduction.

"We've never experienced anything like that" is your attempt, I think, at projecting empiricism. You made another attempt in a previous post, in showing that the Objectivist positions on epistemology were somehow inconsistent along this whole thread, yet you misunderstood. As with justice, you can't "point" at it, however you can reduce it to something perceivable. It's not empiricism, but it uses logic; it's not only logic, it requires perception. Postulating a consciousness as you do, is reducible (because, in your own words, we haven't experienced something like that) only to mid-streamed formed logical arguments which IS rationalism and an arbitrary assertion. Well, if you didn't, how do you otherwise explain this?: Unless the meaning of the words is foreign to me, I don't see how it does mean anything else. This contradictory position of yours, how do you reconcile it with "The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness)" whilst negating that it is also NOT the Primacy of Consciousness, as defined "the primacy of consciousness—the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). "? Because I can't otherwise see that it is not contradictory in that sense. Since you clearly assert that the "bringing into existence" implies the consciousness you identify as god...how can you reconcile this with the fact that existence exists independent of ANY consciousness...

Here is where I believe you are creating an unwarranted dichotomy. If you take 'existence exists', it is of sufficient nature to cause both reactions and actions to take place and I do not see how the postulation of the necessity of a volitional entity would supersede that and is therefore justified. Moreover, the fact that "the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition" completely undermines your position, as it advocates strongly against the Primacy of Consciousness, whether it applies to volitional entities, such as humans, or 'gods'. The existence of existence is owed to nothing outside it, and that's why the axiom establishes the Primacy of Existence. Since we're here, I would like to know, if possible, if you ascribe to any of the following positions, if any at all (and if any, why): either that (a) 'god' created the universe (and by implication, the laws that govern it), and afterward "retired" and henceforth does not and cannot interfere in existence as such or ( B ) 'god' dissolved itself into existence that could be subsumed under a pantheistic viewpoint (Deus sive Natura). The only reason I'm asking is that I want a clarification of this volitional entity 'god' "after the moment of creation". Here you are making 3 errors. Firstly, concerning causation, a "thing" is an effect of existence itself (and why we say the universe is eternal and not god, I'll tackle it in the next paragraphs). Secondly, as others have notoriously pointed out along this thread, you are concept-stealing, and applying them, whilst divorcing them from their context of existence. You cannot divorce "consciousness" from the physical existence of a brain, even if consciousness is not in itself physical. Your claim is considered arbitrary because it fantasizes (sorry if harsh, but for the point of contrast, I considered it appropriate) consciousness out of context and this gives rise to my pointing out to you that you come about as rationalistic because by divorcing concepts from their context (nothing coming into existence, creation ex nihilo etc) you are creating a spiral of logical arguments devoid from reality as can be perceived (reminds me of the "noumenal" postulation of Kant, of which "we cannot know anything about" so why would he?). Just for the sake of clarification, I bring about this distinction: and point out that whilst your rationalization produces (in this context) valid arguments, as from the premises you state, however it does not and cannot produce a sound argument, given the fact that the premises cannot be true since their formation requires divorcing concepts from reality. If it were permissible that such a divorce of concepts were possible, even within the realm of consciousness, then one could stop at nothing when fantasizing about life (as in the existence of consciousness) after death. Since the divorce is a contradiction, then "life after death" does not follow, because consciousness requires a physical brain, and by the same measures, your divorcing of consciousness to explain a volitional entity that brought about existence is necessary invalid. Now, thirdly, and I would say this is your gravest error and unforgivable, is the assumption of the Primacy of Consciousness, and I would be surprised if the others wouldn't berate (did I use this correctly?) you for doing so, after all your arguments thus far. As per the parts I bolded out and your argument as a whole, I offer you the true meaning of the axiom of existence (bolded mine): [quote name='“The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 24'] The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness—the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness). The source of this reversal is the inability or unwillingness fully to grasp the difference between one’s inner state and the outer world, i.e., between the perceiver and the perceived (thus blending consciousness and existence into one indeterminate package-deal). This crucial distinction is not given to man automatically; it has to be learned. It is implicit in any awareness, but it has to be grasped conceptually and held as an absolute. Your argument fails at this point due to your contradiction in assuming both the Primacy of Consciousness and the Axiom of Existence. You agreed that existence exists, but you required a volitional consciousness in order to bring about its existence, and in this point you are contradictory and invalidated. You divorced the concept of consciousness (the faculty of perceiving of that which exists) from its context and not only committed the fallacy of the stolen concept as others have pointed out, but made a contradictory statement about its nature (if god, a consciousness brought about existence, and the consciousness is the faculty of perceiving of that which exists, then god would firstly be conscious of nothing but itself, which is the Primacy of Consciousness explicitly), as per "the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness)" (You also divorced the concepts of volitional action and value from their context and proposed the concept of "supernaturalism" without it being able to be validated by relation to reality [since it would be superreality], but at this point this is just a nitpick - and furthermore, you have failed to grasp or understand the fact that divorcing these concepts [to apply them where you require them - which I guess would "contradict their nature", for they were not meant for such contexts as you put forth] is in itself invalid, a process you started when you failed to understand, despite numerous objections in this thread, how concepts are formed and thus you did not see the invalidity of misplacing them out of context) Finally, you advocated plainly the Primacy of Consciousness when conceding "God's first action of creation", an epistemological stance that invalidates your whole inquiry into the subject, in the form you have presented it so far and is contradictory, not only to your support of the Axiom of Existence but also to your claim of understanding anything on Objectivist Epistemology (since it leads to this contradiction, as I have made clear enough). And please notice that I did not at any point mention determinism, as I believe it is irrelevant to the issue at hand in any form whatsoever. To be honest, at this point, if you still continue in your assertions in the forms presented thus far, ignoring the contradiction of what the Axiom of Existence really means and what you are purporting it to mean, whilst proposing the Primacy of Consciousness, whilst it is clearly false, then your enterprise with epistemology is a hollow one and not meriting further consideration, as shown above, by your (1) context divorced concepts, (2) contradiction of what you say about the Axiom of Existence and how it was clearly enunciated by Ayn Rand (leading you further into unwarranted dichotomies and further usage of stolen concepts) and (3) your admittance of the Primacy of Consciousness, an invalid position, one that if you will continue to hold would mean your being here on this forum is a redundant venture.

Jacob, at this point I would like to motion to you (is that a correct expression?) two points: Firstly, the reason I brought the quote up is not without reason; I believe it expresses clearly that volitional action (your words, action) can be the result of prior non-volitional actions (your words, reaction) and that the "reactionary" status of non-volitional entities is contained within their nature and does not require prior "action". Secondly, in your Prime Mover position (sorry for the labeling if inaccurate, however I think it's a fair description of it) - and this has been pointed out before, I don't recall you addressing it - what would exactly cause the *first* action (I'm not referring to this in a deterministic manner)? If nothing, would you imply it escapes causality altogether? And if so, why would it be exempt from it? As I've noticed pointed out in other places on this forum, if you deconstruct 'god' in such a manner that his attribute of existence becomes synonymous to that of the Universe (i.e. existence itself), it therefore (as a concept) becomes invalid, as you can ascribe everything to existence as such; and your point about *first* action would be contained within this, as per the quote, since the existence of existence would be sufficient for such a development (enabling "action" and "reaction", without reason for a "Prime Mover"), thus contradicting that otherwise

Herein, I think, lies your problem; yes, there is action, but you "necessitate" a cause. Ayn Rand explicitly points out that every "form, motion, combination [...] are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved". They form their own cause, [every form of] action is contained within existence. The quote validates existence in itself, your "necessity" therefore comes off as arbitrary, not because you don't "have enough percepts", but because following Ms. Rand's validation, your position is unwarranted. Else said, you are introducing an element out of place, out of reason, out of validation...

You put it better

what I wanted to underline with the quote was that everything within existence is caused and determined by all the elements involved, with no volitional requirement, even if eventually it gives rise to "the emergence of life", i.e., eventually volitional actions from other existents. Their interaction causes it, it is not necessitated from a "prior" action, whatever that means, since time has no referent outside existence. I also believe you're a bit loose when applying "naturalism" and "empiricism" to Objectivism, when the abstract 'justice' cannot be validated by those forms of "reasoning"; however, as Eioul pointed out even it (justice) must trace itself back to something perceptual in order to be validated. Your position comes very rationalistic in trying to explain a "necessity" without pointing to anything perceivable and relying only on logical argumentation, which in itself does not validate anything if the premises are, as Greebo put it, arbitrary, or in another sense, rely back on logical argumentation and not on anything perceivable. I provide this quote against "empiricist/naturalistic" claims of Objectivism and again refer you to the concept of justice put forth by Eioul, validated theoretically, but ultimately reliant on perceivable elements of human nature, unlike your concept, which "necessitates" its existence on rationalistic argumentation.

[quote name='“The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 25. ']To grasp the axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the Law of Identity. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe—from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life—are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved. Nature is the metaphysically given—i.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition.

You should familiarize yourself with the Forum Rules however, bobgo, if you intend to tackle the issue as such.

As far as anti-matter goes, it's quite real (and expensive to make in labs) and it's essentially nothing more than reversely charged particles (so if the electron is charged negatively (-), than the antielectron (or positron) is charged positively (+); several million atoms of antihydrogen were produced, actually; unfortunately I'm not very well documented in electromagnetism to offer more details on the subject.

Jacob86, I think you missed the part were Greebo explained in post 511; I only pointed it out because I saw that you continued with the assertion about Objectivist epistemology that everything needs to be perceived for it to make sense about itself.

I'm from a former socialist country and from what I've been informed about and read at university there are many issues regarding the relative unscathed reputation of communism, even after the fall of the Soviet Union and the revealing of atrocious crimes perpetrated by that regime. Firstly, Western nations have not ever experienced communism first-hand and the details of acts in history becomes easily selective (the so called politics of memory and amnesia). Therefore, it is easy for them to support theoretically a system of which faults they cannot be convinced but in its destructive practice. Secondly, most such supporters contend that communism is a good idea and only that it has been applied bad, by such individuals as Stalin, and thus became perverted; they still claim that the model is theoretically good and the fault lies in its misuse and human lust for power. Thirdly, which I consider most important from a historical perspective, is that communist/socialist parties have played a major role in Western countries (see Italy and France, for instance) in the fight against Nazism, and the legitimacy is established by acts against the Nazis during the Second World War and the subsequent rebuilding effort, in which they participated greatly; hence, bereft of the actual practice of communism, they were free to construct themselves into the democratic processes of said countries. I personally abhor these individuals that speak of utopias (or should I say dystopias?) devoid of even the most basic respect for human rights and dignity and am rather looking with despondency upon the wretched remains of the countries that were under communism and now are struggling for real rights and liberties...sadly, the international media is always over-optimistic about such things as progress.

Do the tuition increases affect the private universities also?

This is a very interesting article taking a rather philosophical approach towards Facebook (less towards the movie)...pertinent read

Also, I don't think it will be shown to exist anywhere in the short to medium future of the human race, given wikipedia, "For example, a detector with the mass of Jupiter and 100% efficiency, placed in close orbit around a neutron star, would only be expected to observe one graviton every 10 years, even under the most favorable conditions. It would be impossible to discriminate these events from the background of neutrinos, since the dimensions of the required neutrino shield would ensure collapse into a black hole". Furthermore, as to gravity's "speed", I've found this: "To begin with, the speed of gravity has not been measured directly in the laboratory--the gravitational interaction is too weak, and such an experiment is beyond present technological capabilities. The "speed of gravity" must therefore be deduced from astronomical observations, and the answer depends on what model of gravity one uses to describe those observations." http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html

Must've misunderstood, though it makes sense

More or less related to this, I have a question of my own: have there been any (valid) attempts at an explanation for why gravity is so pervasive (over immense distances that would make it seem as if it's acting at speeds faster than light - although this might just be convenience-naming)?

Actually, it was my memory playing tricks on me; around the 33rd-34th minutes he says that such travels close to the speed of light "would permit us to circumnavigate the known universe in 56 years, ship-time; we would return tens of billions of years in the far future, with the earth a charred (?) and the sun dead".

Now it's been some time since I've watched this series, but I remember Carl Sagan saying something that if you travel close to the speed of light for about 47 years (in your frame of reference) it would be enough that when you decelerate, you will have come to the end of time (as understood as the "ultimate fate of the universe, cooldown); however, don't hold me on that, I might be mistaken as to the details (it was in episode 8, I think, when he was in Italy filming). I'm just curious how factual (supported by some serious calculations) that is, or was it just pulled out of the hat, for hyperbole's sake. Otherwise, what thoughts have you of Cosmos in general and Carl Sagan in particular?

I didn't assume so; it was more of a thought exercise to clarify some confusions I was having. Moreover, in my country (Romania) the political imaginarium of "absolute details" for anything worthwhile to be done is dazzling; if any decision does not suit the immediate greedy irrational need of the decision-makers, then nothing would most likely be done...and nothing is being done, while the country slides into anonymity and collapse. Speaking of implementation, my above statement was inspired by something Jake_Ellison said on the "Spending Cuts" topic, namely that "some formerly communist countries in Eastern Europe and Asia, after the fall of the Soviet Union, transformed from 100% socialist economies into countries with smaller governments than most Western nations". I would only wish it were so

I'm most appreciative of your (especially legal) clarifications, 2046

I understand this and agree, but would it mean that he would be also able to walk on sidewalks made by other individuals free of charge? Say, going to the pharmacy, 3 blocks away from his property, passing through 2 or more privately own roads (sidewalks, streets, name it). Also, relating to the other issue, from what I've gathered from the topics you have pointed out, in case of war (so to concretize the situation where the government would protect you from abroad initiation of force), those who pay for the war effort, voluntarily of course, treasuring their freedom, would also consequently entail the protection of those that have contributed nothing, which would mean they receive said service (the protection of their rights by another party, which may not necessarily consider them 'of value', as a side effect) free of charge. This, by and large, confuses me, as it violates the principles of free, uncoerced interaction between individuals (confusion insofar as it prevents me from further being able to argue into its details; to put it more simply, I find a contradiction in everything and I don't know how to go about it).

Firstly, I would like to apologize if the topic has been discussed before, but the search function yielded no results (or pertinent ones) regarding my question. I am quite familiar with Objectivism, having read Ms. Rand's fiction works and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (the rest of the non-fiction works are on my to get list); I have also listened to some interviews on the Ayn Rand Lexicon and have followed some topics on this forum as well (the one regarding the morality of taxation, and the one regarding government corruption by individual's donations spring to mind). If I understood this correctly, in a capitalist society, men would engage one another under free trade, and differences, as well as the initiation of force would be mediated and dealt with by the limited government set in place by individuals for the protection of their freedom. Under such a system, taxation is impossible (since it implies the use of force by the government) and the government exists due to the individual's donations. I have no problem with that; however, Ayn Rand argued that donations for the functioning of proper government would be obvious to rational people, since the use of one would also appear as obvious to them. Else said, rational individuals, aware of the necessity of proper government, would contribute to it voluntarily (and thus no need for taxation, since the government, acting only by its proper functions, would be sufficient in doing so). All this follows, and my question arises subsequently: since we cannot rely on all the individuals to act rationally (their, goodwill if you like, hence necessitating a government), how would an individual that refuses to donate benefit from the government's functions? Ayn Rand spoke of a fee on the signing of any contract that would ensure its enforcement at any later date. However, in that case, if the individual refuses the fee, he would also be refusing the contract, so the situation does not apply; rather, speaking of the function of police, would he be protected by the government from another's initiation of force, and thus receiving assistance for free? I'm unclear on this. And on a side note, just to clear up a confusion, I have another question. What is now provided by the government (say, parks and sidewalks for the purposes of this example) should be undertaken by individuals. However, a confusion arises in my mind: if one or more individuals would make undertake the construction of parks and sidewalks (both for the profit resulted from charging those who would want to enjoy the park and their necessity of walking on the sidewalk, as well as their own use of it), it would be the government's function of enforcing that any one that did not agree to the price who would trespass nonetheless be sanctioned legally (I gather ); however (assuming the scenario forthwith), if one's own property would be surrounded by parks/sidewalks that are privately owned to the point that he would need to pay to go anywhere off his property, should his refusal to pay be the consequences of irrational acting (and thus suffer from acting so, by not being able to remove himself from his property without infringing on someone else's), or ... not? (here's the confusing part which I find hard to argue) Thank you for your time.