Tanaka

Everything that exists in a perceivable way is part of the "physical world". It doesn't have to be made of atoms to be physical. Gravity is a physical entity. Magnetism is a physical entity. If there was some mysterious force causing human beings to "choose", that would be a physical entity by definition. If you could prove that God created Earth, that would mean God is a physical entity, which only manifests itself by creating planets. "something more", and "non-physical" are meaningless phrases used by people trying to escape the need for actual evidence when making a claim. They're not concepts referring to actual existents. If you wish to tell us about something that exists that we don't know about, tell us what it is, don't tell us what it's not. Telling us that it's not physical tells us only one thing: you don't actually know what the subject of your own sentence is.

Thanks for the feedback. What I would add to your definition of love is that it's not just about some values, or about what a person's overt beliefs are, but admiration for the highest values, which define his/her character. Not just the values he chooses to show, but the values you recognize in him or deduce from his actions, as you get to know him.

Not necessarily. There are times when the right choice is not to make a decision between the two seemingly equal options, but to instead look for more evidence. Is there such a thing as arbitrarily choosing? Is the human mind capable of making a decision without any criteria to base it on? I know computers aren't. And I don't think the existence of volition (the ability to focus or not one's mind) can result in such a "choice". As far as I can tell, our ability to choose is restricted to applying Reason to a problem with two or more potential answers, or unfocusing our minds and allowing our subconscious to apply some other, less than rational method to the same problem. Either way, we don't just pick, there is a conscious or subconscious process involved. When the problem doesn't have a single solution (because two options are equal within the context of our knowledge), we have several value judgments (choices) to make: 1. Is the problem important enough to learn more before deciding. 2. If it isn't - and since there is no such thing as "just pick one" - what 'less than rational' method should be used to pick the semi-arbitrary answer. Should the whole process be left to the subconscious, or are there rational reasons to focus on this aspect of our mind, and understand it?

You've done a great job of not putting words in my mouth while arguing against my position. Until now. If you read up some more on Objectivist epistemology, you'll find that it differentiates between a decision that is rational, and one that is absolutely correct independent of one's context of knowledge. One can be perfectly rational and still make a decision that later (once more knowledge is acquired) turns out to be wrong. That is what I'm basing my claims on. I did not say that one can never be rational. For instance if you decide to buy the smaller tiles, and in a year they all crack because it turns out they were made from a defective batch of material, that doesn't mean you were irrational when choosing to not investigate further to make sure they aren't defective. But it is clear that you weren't omniscient when making your decision. Had you known the batch was defective, you could've made a better choice. In some other situation (when the tiles are not meant for the kitchen, but as insulation for the space shuttle), NASA engineers refusing to acknowledge that they have this third option of gathering more data about the tiles, and instead pretending that their current choice is absolutely equal (as opposed to it being equal only in the context of their knowledge, and therefor open to differentiation once more information is gathered), is deeply irrational. In their case, the third option is all of a sudden glaringly apparent, because, unlike in the case of your kitchen tiles, it is the moral choice. Ignoring it is worse than even knowing about it but not choosing it.

You can never have a situation in which all the rational evaluations have been made. Even the tiniest corner of the Universe is way too complex for that. I can't even begin to list the number of movies I've seen lately, where the filmmaker habitually commits the same mistake you are describing: coming up on an alternative that's seemingly "all things equal" and ignoring that elusive third option, of spending more time searching for a criteria to help the choice. The fundamental choice, whenever there is an alternative where two or more options are equal, is always between making an arbitrary selection and looking for further criteria. Sometimes the rational choice is to somehow make the arbitrary selection (and that also has implications, which I addressed above), other times to search for more criteria. The one option which is always irrational is to convince yourself that you are omniscient, and that searching for more criteria is not an alternative. I understand that this is the scenario you are asking about. But in that scenario you set up, you know everything there is to know regarding your object, you are omniscient. That makes your scenario impossible. There is always more to find out about your alternatives. It may not be worth finding out, but the existence of that third alternative is inescapable. It's there. There is at least one great filmmaker (Kubrick), who tended to make the mistake of always choosing that last alternative of spending more time on the decision, even when the right choice would've been to make an arbitrary choice and finish the movie in under a decade.

Speaking of choices, I have an admission to make: in this thread, I just made the wrong choice when I decided to launch into about 12 paragraphs worth of explanations for something relatively simple. I would've been better off if instead I would've clicked on the red X in the corner, went about my business, and came back an hour later to post this answer: When faced with two or more alternatives and no rational criteria to choose between them (so called all things are equal decisions), the answer isn't to allow ourselves to be irrational. Consciously selecting a specific method of making the arbitrary decision has its benefits. It can be argued that some of these methods are objectively better than others (I can think of reasons why having a default preference in color or other ranges of attributes can be beneficial in some situations, while forcing oneself to choose at random could be beneficial in others). Another reason to choose these methods consciously and be aware of them is that it becomes easier to recognize them if they creep into important decisions, where all things aren't equal. In general, one of the most important things a rational individual must spend time on is thinking about thinking. There is of course no such thing as a truly random act, anywhere in the Universe. We all use specific methods to make arbitrary decisions, it's just that we're not all aware of them. They result in patterns of behavior, and when we recognize those patterns we refer to them as quirks in people's personalities. We all know people who's "quirks" are no longer quirks but have invaded most of their rational decision making, and yet, miraculously, they are still perfectly oblivious to them.

We could indeed. You're never going to come up with a scenario in which all things are perfectly equal. Right now, the rational option would be to leave it up to the store clerk, making his work a little easier (being considerate towards others is moral). If that's not an option, you should pick the larger size, because it's likely easier to transport and lay down. If you find a way to eliminate that criteria, you should pick whichever size you spot first, in the list of options available to you on the online form you're filling out. Spending time looking for the second size, even though you already spotted the first size which is just as good, would be irrational. And, if by some miracle you eliminate all possible criteria, then that's not a choice anymore: to choose, one must have a criteria to choose by. We are, at that point, literally in a situation where it is impossible for a rational human mind to choose between two equals. Then the choice is between using the first arbitrary method that comes to mind to make the selection, or refusing to make the choice. Obviously, the first option (coin flip is what came to my mind first, btw.) is the rational one. It is I guess possible to make that process automatic, to let your subconscious use an arbitrary method you're not even aware of to select one option or the other (i.e. last time I had to make a choice between something small and big, I really enjoyed that big portion of soda from McDonald's, so let's go with big again), but I wouldn't recommend it. That would make it to easy to develop a habit of making decisions by association, so it's best to take the extra time to flip that coin. Keeping track of the exact reasons for one's decisions, no matter how minor, is a good thing.

I think you are misrepresenting the range of your choices. In reality, your choices are: 1. Pick form whichever pile is closest to the door. 2. Pick whichever size is farthest from the door. 3. Flip a coin. 4...(n-1): some other arbitrary method of choosing. n-th choice: Spend more time studying your options until a criteria arises. Depending on other circumstances (like whether your wife wants to be part of the decision making process or not), your rational choice is either 1. or the n-th. The rest of the choices are in fact irrational, and therefor immoral. I also think that the fact that in reality, unlike in your fictitious scenario, the size of the tiles usually is important, might confuse the issue. That's why I propose a second, more realistic scenario, in which what the choices actually are is more apparent (it's always easier to work with a realistic scenario than with one where an unrealistic premise must be remembered and assumed the whole time). My alternate scenario would be that you've chosen the texture, color, size etc. of the tiles, and now your only decision is which specific, pretty much identical tiles to buy. Then it becomes more obvious that your choices are between picking whichever tiles are on top, picking whichever tiles are at the bottom, coming up with a complex algorithm to decide which random tiles you want, bringing in an industrial grade sonar to make sure the tiles you're picking have no hidden cracks, etc. Then it's more apparent that the right choice is to pick the tiles which are on top, discarding the ones with obvious defects.

That's not what Rand meant by moralizing. She meant condemnation without judgment, which is the act of an irrational person, who's cognitive process has been corrupted. When moral judgment becomes moralizing, that has nothing to do with the subject of the condemnation, and everything to do with the mind of the person doing the condemnation: "Just as reasoning, to an irrational person, becomes rationalizing, and moral judgment becomes moralizing, so psychological theories become psychologizing. The common denominator is the corruption of a cognitive process to serve an ulterior motive." She made it very clear that : "One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment." and "There is no escape from the fact that men have to make choices; so long as men have to make choices, there is no escape from moral values;" Moralizing, in the sense you are using it, is not a bad thing. Ayn Rand didn't use it in that sense, she used it to mean irrational condemnation. Nowhere does she suggest that some choices are amoral.

He's right. But, when deciding what you want, you must decide by weighing everything, including the consequences of pursuing what you want. The process shouldn't be: 1. Think of things I want. 2. Obtain them no matter the consequences. Instead, it should be a long process of constantly repeating a few of these steps and more: 1. What is morality, how does it apply to everyday life, and even more importantly: How can I become a moral person? 2. What specific things do I want (what are my values), why exactly is it that I want those things (is it a rational goal, is it a whim, is my psychology damaged by fear, insecurity, the absence of self esteem, anger etc. and driving me towards self destructive behavior). 3. If what I want is irrational, back to step 1. If what I want will affect the people I love in a way that is unacceptable to me, back to either giving up the plan, or reconsidering the reasons why I love these people who are placing themselves in the way of my values. 4. If what I want is rational, how important is it? (where does it fit into my hierarchy of values). 5. What is a practical, long term plan to make it happen, and is it important enough for me to be worth making it happen. If it isn't, back to step 2. If it is, accomplish it, but in the mean time continue thinking about my entire life, and the lives of those I love. This process is something I speed typed out, off the cuff, nowhere near complete or fully thought out, definitely not meant as a road map for you or anyone to follow like a checklist. I'm only posting it to give you an idea of what some of the specific elements are in the process of "constantly thinking and weighing the consequences", as opposed to whim worship. Objectivism is a philosophy that preaches rational egoism, not whim worship. The difference is huge. P.S. I'm editing this because I feel a little guilty about talking to a teenager about love without further explanation. Both in my personal experience, and from what others tell me, teenagers confuse infatuation with love. You should also learn what love really is (as part of that first step), don't make the mistake of acting on your feelings for someone you don't even know very well.

No, I'm directing you to the explanation to your question: Objectivist Metaphysics. The notion that everything that exists actually exists is a very basic premise of Objectivism, and it doesn't rest on concepts like volition, or anything to do with men at all. You should start a new thread on the subject, and take your best shot at arguing against that axiom. That would narrow down the discussion to that one issue, help everyone stay on the same page. Men exist, because everything exists. The more fundamental issue is that everything exists. Settling it has nothing to do with men or volition. Start a new thread, offer an alternative to physical existence, and if it's at all coherent I'll join in that discussion.

Oh no, an anti gravitational theory. Hold on to your hats, kids.

I see nothing wrong with your concept of free will. And yet, here you are denying that it can exist in a place where we know it exists: in the physical world. Conclusion: you are wrong about how the physical world works. My suggestion is to go back to the Objectivist description of causality, and Metaphysics in general. Objectivism does not hold that all causes result in a single, predetermined effect. The Objectivist view of causality states that every existent must act according to its nature, as a consequence of the Law if Identity. In the case of a non-living or non-volitional being, its actions don't involve choice. In the case of a volitional being, his nature allows him to choose. There is no contradiction between that and the Objectivist view of causality.

Mathematical probability is valid. So in what way did you use it to come to that conclusion?

My position is that the explicit claim you made in your previous post (that science and philosophy are two unrelated areas) is false. I was curious if you are familiar or not with the Objectivist position on that topic, and if you are, why you disagree with it.

We don't, in fact we know the opposite to be true. The best example of a life form that is not objectively valuable but in fact an objective threat (meaning its eradication is objectively valuable), is the small pox virus. Most lifeforms are valuable to a person the extent they further his life. Other people are of course potential trading partners, inventors, etc., while the frog you mentioned is part of an ecosystem people in the area should keep stable (lest a species overpopulates their area and becomes a nuisance). It might also be a useful object of scientific study, now or some time in the future (it might be the catalyst to some kind of medicine, for instance).

I agree with the general sentiment, FDR is the worst US President. Deficit financed government spending is not the ultimate criteria by which a Laissez-faire Capitalist should judge government policies. LFC is, fundamentally, about limiting government power to the defense of rights, not deficit spending. In fact, deficit spending can be justified when done for the right reasons (like funding a war), and when it doesn't increase debt to dangerous levels. While I don't like Bush's policies in general, I see nothing all that wrong with his deficit spending. It was not pre-planned, it was precipitated by the two wars he had to finance. Also, the size of the Bush deficit is due to another legitimate, and in fact beneficial policy: the tax cuts he enacted early in his presidency. If you look at the more fundamental aspects of the Bush and Obama presidencies, you'll find that Obama is guilty of far more egregious power grabs, both through fiscal means (increased, dangerous spending to finance illegitimate government involvement in society: auto bailouts, stimulus, welfare, etc. at a time when the economy is bad and government debt is already high), and through regulation and plain thuggery (health care, financial reforms, etc.).

Ayn Rand's works describe and demonstrate the logical relationships between the spiritual and the material world. Are you unfamiliar with her statements on this issue, or have you found good cause to ignore them? If it's the latter, I'd love to hear your reasoning.

I think peaceful coexistence is only possible in a free, secular society, where the principle of separation of Church and State is strictly enforced. In such a society people are free to simply ignore each other. Of course, cooperation between scientists and theologians is futile, and harmful to science. Theologians simply have nothing of value to offer. However, scientists do need to trade ideas and values with another group of intellectuals, who also study our spiritual world: philosophers and artists. Specifically, philosophers and artists who rely on Reason and Logic for their study of morality, arts and spirituality in general.

I just did, based on specific criteria found both in natural and man made structures and sights. There is nothing in nature that is incomparable to man made things, when it comes to aesthetic judgment. If you evaluate the aesthetics of mountains and skyscrapers in different ways, you should list those differences. I don't do that. Functionality is not an aesthetic criteria, it doesn't make something beautiful. Neither is origin (incidental or volitional). P.S. Just to clarify the various things we're talking about, my original point was that a structure's origin has no bearing on its aesthetic value. I believe that fully answers the OP, who assumed natural and man-made structures were comparable the second he phrased the questions the way he did, and he was just wondering which is better. But I agree with his assumption, I don't think there are two or more unrelated ways by which we can make aesthetic appraisals. And if there were, we should definitely find different names for each.

If a philosophical system encompasses the possibility that truth is not fixed, then that system can only be contradicted by one idea: the truth is fixed. That's the one idea it doesn't allow for, and the one idea its proponents tend to frown upon. Every other idea you can think of is not a disagreement. The system allows for them, since it encompasses the possibility that "the truth is not fixed". That means the philosophy's track record on rejecting disagreement is one out of one. By my calculations, that's still 100%.

If figuring out what's going on is a waste of your time (or beyond your abilities), doesn't it logically follow that figuring out the solution to what's going on is also none of your business?

Harmony is the absence of conflict or contradictions. I can be more specific in the case of mountains and skyscrapers (conflicts of color, texture, shape etc, plus, if it's a picture of the object, conflicts in the composition), but not in general.

Well, that's not what 'qua Man' means. So, if you are making the extraordinary claim that she assigned a whole sentence of unrelated meaning to something that basic, you're gonna have to provide evidence. Otherwise, I'll just stick to my guns and say that that's not true.

There's no mention of any sliding scales of morality in my post. And you're suggesting that 'qua Man' means 'to the full extent of a rational morality'. But 'qua' just means 'as'. All 'qua man' tells me is that I must apply the law of identity to our race, to remember that men have a nature. It doesn't say anything about morality. So yes, the choice to live is not the only building block for Objectivist Ethics. Another is Logic. Yes, a person must not only choose to live, but they must also be rational, and live according to their nature, 'qua Man'. What you're missing is that there is a hierarchy of concepts, and 'living qua Man' is not on the same level as living to the full extent of rational egoism as described by Rand. Living qua man (the choice to live and respect the law of identity) is the goal, rational egoism the means by which to do it. Just assuming the law of identity is not in contention, and saying that the goal is 'to live' is also reasonable, especially on an Objectivist forum. As for whether 'to avoid death' and 'to live' are synonymous, I just don't understand how that could be unclear.