And they’d have to pay for the fish, too, if they want to eat’em.
You can buy a lot in today’s world. But do the means justify the ends?
“a system of objects with relations between the objects defined”
Yup, we’re not talking about the same thing as each other when we’ve been saying “space.” Sans perhaps whatever the absolutely most basic, smallest forms of stuff that everything else is composed of (which are not points, points as defined in math are purely a conceptual thing, just a way to refer to a single aspect of locations even though that one aspect cannot ever be had on its own in reality), everything contains some kind of system of objects. You could say that the systems are part of the things, sure. That’s got nothing to do with the location of that thing compared to other things outside the object though, not unless maybe we start referring to another, bigger object, like going from referring to one single atom to talking about a whole bar of gold. The identity of that one single atom would be the same still if you moved it some place else outside the bar of gold.
" . . . we are not getting the aforementioned interactions directly from our own natural environments . . ."
How is this restricting? And if it is restricting, what makes the restriction bad? Additionally, technically, no matter what we do it would still be a natural environment. Everything that can exist is natural. This point about “natural” may not be all that important though to the current topic.
“The reason I say that yellow light is neither ‘go’ nor ‘not go’ is because under different conditions there are different answers. You started by saying that it is 'go,'and my grandpa said that it is ‘not go.’ Who is right? Neither one specifically, but both.”
Nope, I’m right, he’s wrong. 
Here’s a simple proof that yellow is a form of “one may go”: You cannot be ticketed for driving when the light is yellow, only when it is red. If you got through the intersection just by the skin of your teeth before the light turned red, still no ticket. The instant the light turns red though, you can get ticketed if you go through that intersection. So, you MAY keep going when the light is yellow, but depending upon circumstances, it may not be a good idea to keep going just because you still may. “May do so” doesn’t necessarily mean you must do so. Yellow light says you may go, not if you should or should not. Should or should not is up to a human to determine on a case by case basis depending upon the rest of the circumstances going on while the light is yellow.
“You are correct in considering that anything in addition to ‘A,’ if it’s inseparable from it, is also ‘not A.’”
Do you mean that an “A” with anything else added to it is now also a “Not A”? I want to make sure I’m clear on what you were saying here.
“But this logic breaks down in this area, so integrating it cannot be done by a black and white identity mechanic. It is grey because once you try to separate the colors, you get gibberish, like in your teddy bear example. . . . but I don’t see a point in doing these types of examples unless to go insane.”
Or maybe, the problem isn’t the black and white identity mechanic but that you’re just wrong. ;D
" . . . but two teddy bears are more similar than a rubber ducky but they are different at the same time."
Sounds like you’ve already declared them both to be "A"s, not some third option. I’d say both of them are Teddy bears too. With and without blowtorch could just be considered two sub-types of Teddy bears, like how there are brown eggs and white eggs, but both are still eggs. As for the bear with a rubber ducky, supposing we do not treat the ducky as part of the bear, then I’d say we have a group of things - a Teddy bear and a rubber ducky - not just one thing which is both/neither Teddy bear and/or rubber ducky. If we wanted to refer to the group as a whole with the ducky still being treated like it isn’t part of the bear, we’d need to come up with something else to call said group rather than just calling it “a Teddy bear” or “a rubber ducky”.
“You cannot make wealth (energy) out of nothing.”
I mentioned earlier on in the thread that I thought it sounded like you may be of the belief that wealth (or maybe I said value or something else like that, but not important yet) is a fixed quantity and I see I was right. I also said though that Objectivism does not hold wealth to be a fixed quantity and instead holds that it can be created. Do you believe that every person on earth sum total on average has the same standard of living (or less maybe? just want to be thorough again) now as they did way back tens of thousands of years ago or more? I don’t. I think we’ve got wildly higher standards on the whole. We didn’t poof energy or matter into existence though (maybe converted some of them back and forth, but not poofed them up out of nowhere). What we did was come up with ways to use what exists that give us more benefit. For example, if you had a stick you could use it to poke food to eat with. However, this wouldn’t work for hard or crumbly food. If you broke the stick in half and used the pieces like chopsticks though, then you could pick up all the same food you could before AND the hard/crumbly stuff. Same amount of stuff, increased value though due to a change in how we used the stuff. No other person suffered any loss in order for this increase in value to come to the person with the stick.
Kind of aside here: “You can still use this thread for the other stuff, but I would advise against it, since discussions with me are somewhat taboo on these forums” Huh? That’s not true. There’s nothing against discussing things with you as such. The forum does have some rules for discussion (namely that the purpose of the forum is discussing Objectivism primarily, so something like somebody coming along for the sole purpose of trying to get us to vote for so and so on American Idol or convert us to Christianity would be unwelcome), but I’d say Objectivism is still definitely part of the topic. I’m not being asked to answer you from whatever perspective a Platonist might take for example. This is far from the only time we have discussed things about Objectivism on this forum with people who were not themselves supporters of the philosophy. We’ve had plenty of long discussions with some such people. I do think it was a good idea to move the “society” political issue to the debate forum though. That’s generally the section of the forums most suited for discussion with non-Objectivists who aren’t just asking us what we believe but also attempting to counter what we tell them we believe.
“although you don’t get any of the negativity - I do, and all the repugnance directed against me does hurt me inside”
It happens to everybody at some point - or more likely, at multiple points. You’ve got to not worry about what others think is true and focus on what is true. If you really, truly believe you are correct, then there’s no reason to feel bad just because somebody else doesn’t agree, doesn’t like it, may not be nice about it. Believe me, I may be in the majority on this forum, but in the rest of life I’m definitely in a minority and encounter plenty of hating on my own convictions. Claims like having me as a supporter of Objectivism having no feelings, being willing to sell out a friend for a dollar, being responsible for the suffering of other innocent people and so on - things like you’ve had to say in this thread and your other one already - are very common. I’m certain they are wrong about all of that though, so I’m not ashamed. If other people are wrong about Objectivism and the world and me, that’s their problem, not mine, just as long as they don’t try to use physical force against me because of it. Rest assured we don’t intend to try to use physical force against you, we’re not a threat. As abrasive as much of this discussion may be, it’s worth noting that we believe Objectivism can be a huge benefit to you. We don’t wish you ill, we wish you well. In general, we wish everybody well. It’s kind of a “tough love” sort of situation here though in a way because, while in the short term being told things like that you are wrong about strong, cherished views of the world (and coming to realize yourself that they are wrong, if you ever do get there) can be very unpleasant, overall in the long run we contend that there’s more to help you be happy in the rest of your lifetime in what we have to say than how much potential there is for bad feelings encountered right away while in the discussion.
(Not that I think ALL harsh things in this thread have been necessary and merited though.)
“bluecherry, I could not find the area of debate among Objectivists that you mentioned earlier, but, in light of my explanations of greyness, do you find anything grey in Objectivism or would you reiterate what you mentioned earlier?”
Assuming you don’t mean the debate forum (I expect that should be easy enough to find that you’ve found it already), could you please refer me to which specific post number of mine in this thread you are talking about?
Yes, it has nothing to do with location, but it has to do with a spacial relation of inner and outer. The identity of anything stays the same unless it changes in relation to the spacial relationship. The identity stay always the same if it is a free radical (like in the example when you move an object outside of its context - a no-no for me; besides, free radicals are bad like cancer, which undermines the system/whole.) This may sound way too complicated. Just look at the model. All examples are accounted for there.
Concerning restrictions, imagine if you only live in a house and never go outside for 10 years. Now, imagine that you all of a sudden go to a natural location (like an island) and feel the difference. You will feel less restricted, the air will be cleaner, the food more fresh, and the environment much better. So, the idea of restriction here applies to restricting oneself to something bad (i.e., constantly artificial and thus unhealthy).
Ok, concerning yellow light, we not only disagree on the basic logic, but we are even driving differently! You completely ignore the rules of the road that I quoted earlier. And who says that we live in the same perceived reality? Our realities are way different, like two different worlds. So, you go through an intersection and the other guy goes through as well (both on the yellow light). You don’t get tickets, but both of you have a high chance to get into an accident. Your statement: “Should or should not is up to a human to determine on a case by case basis depending upon the rest of the circumstances going on while the light is yellow” basically adds the part “but think carefully and watch out before you do” to “you may go.” Hence you have “A” (may go) and “not A” (some condition of not going).
So, yes, in this respect, an “A” is also “not A” when there is something added to it. It’s the same argument that Objectivists use about capitalism. Capitalism is “A,” but whenever you have economic regulation then it’s not capitalism, thus it’s “not A.” We can go on forever through a continuum of things that can be capitalism or socialism and that they are not. What’s the point of the argument, if neither A nor not A but both is a meaningless state? Hence the argument is meaningless. I reiterate my premises: A, not A, and meaninglessness. The question then is whether you accept that there is something meaningless in our reality or not. If you accept, we agree completely. If you do not, then we only disagree on the meaninglessness part.
You seem to think that teddy bear and rubber ducky example is the same as the traffic lights example. Let me show you the difference: green + red = yellow (look at a color spectrum picture); teddy bear + rubber ducky = toys (but questionable to take it further).
Our standards of living are higher only because of scientific progress (quality) and hygiene, which is the basis of wealth but not the same thing. The generation of wealth does not equal a higher standard of living. An example is a scrooge or someone who only invests but spends little. Do you agree with me that there are such people in the world and that we should let them be? Hm, but you may ignore a part of objective reality which they inhabit. Either way, to ignore corrupt individuals with their corrupt ideas is to ignore a part of reality in which we all live (to follow Objectivist thinking about a single and indivisible objective reality that is shared by all people in societies).
I will check out the forums if I get time away from this discussion But I was referring to something you said somewhere and cannot find where.
Consequently, what is the purpose of knowledge?
I agree on: grey area is compromise; knowledge of your own method is the prerequisite. The open-minded definition is that the purpose of knowledge is to gain more knowledge. However, this can become an infinite regression into transhumanism and humans becoming mere robots. If you want anything natural and organic in the world, then you should realize the binding glue and the roots of innovation and new ideas in science coming from imagination (fiction) and beliefs (religions and philosophies).
One final thing. Most people here consider an “Objectivist” to be someone who has read, understood and agreed with everything Ayn Rand ever wrote. So if you’re expressing anything that Rand didn’t also express, you might catch less flack if you explicitly claim some form of de facto non-objectivist status.
It’s stupid. But tolerating it can greatly assist with the discourse of truly beneficial ideas.
Ok, yes, when I said that I accept Objectivism I did not mean that I am an Objectivist. I am a non-Objectivist.