UncleJim

Hey!!!!!!!! Is that a religious remark?

Can you go into your back yard and pick-up a fact? Can't do that with marriage either. But you can do that with dirt, stone, rabbit, rose, etc. In my understanding of this. Axiom selects out specific concepts which are primary denotes of fact. The ones upon which all others of simular nature depend. Yes. Of course. An "aspect of reality" is a physical existent. No. Reality is like marriage. It has no physical existence at all. Its totally epistemological. But; of course, when you reduce it to its root meaning then yes. If I have this correctly she used "object" to designate what exists in-reality.

That sums it up. The problem is they may not be able to hold an intelligent conversation on the issue. As a matter of fact they are likely to deny that Objectivism ought to be applied to them because they actually believe something else is in control of how they act. I really hate it when that happens.

I trust you will not be surprised to learn I have reservations about the depth to which she pursued important issues like life, survival, love, ethics, morality and; yes, even god. To name a few.

I see your point and ageee with it. To understand "Objectivism says..." One must fully understand what Objectivism is. And yes that can present a problem given the current state of the organization charged with protecting its integrity.

Uncle Jim, I am confused by what you mean by "fact." You claimed that "fact is not an aspect of reality." That leaves brain images. So when you say "the fact must exist prior to the uttering of the statement," are you saying that a brain image must exist prior to a factual statement, or that an aspect of reality must exist? Brains image what they know to exist. The brain-image must exist prior any statement made about it. The existence of brain-images is called fact. Alternately; Evidence of factual existence is called a brain-image. Therefore any statement made about what ones brain knows to exist is; by definition, a factual statement. Notice: A brain-image cannot exist in the absence of the absolute nature of reality. Since this is the case; then, a factual statement will reflect what the absolute nature of reality is. You said "there are Rand's repeated statements about axiomatic concepts being primary facts of reality." Is the "axiomatic concept" actually an aspect of reality. No it isn't. Its a resultant of it. The fact which is responsible for the existence of the "axiomatic concept" had to exist prior to it.

You spoke of the mind as on -object-. Now you are telling me it is a function. Please do make up your (mind?). And that is why you have to explain it. Your statements about mind were in no place explicitly about functions of something else. If you insist (now) that mind is not an object and is a function, then a function of what? I assume you mean mind is something that the brain does. Do I have this right? If it is right, why didn't you say so clearly in the first place? The mind as a substantial object is nowhere to be found in the physical space-time continuum. Nobody has ever located a mind (as an object) in a head that did not belong to him. So if the mind is not a substance, what is the mind assuming it exists? I classify minds along with souls, spirits, ghosts, goblins and wills of the wisp. Things spoken of but never witnessed by several observers concurrently. It so happens that I do not have a mind. I have a brain which does everything you claim your mind does. I have physical evidence that I have no mind inside my skull. Only brain and other neural tissue. Ba'al Chatzaf (the literal minded). Go to post 61. It denies your claim that I made reference to the mind as being an object. You said "It so happens that I do not have a mind." I really wish you had not said that! How can I now communicate with you?

I obviously use another definition of the term "Objectivist" than Rand did here. And I am quite comfortable with the meaning I use, since I learned English way before I discovered Rand. If one uses Rand's own standard stated above, being an Objectivist would mean somehow crawling into her brain and agreeing with every thought found in there, which is impossible, or else receiving her manifest consent to call oneself an Objectivist. Since she is dead, that is not possible any longer. So by her own declaration, if she did not ordain the person, he is not entitled to call himself an Objectivist (on penalty of "fraud"). That would mean no one after her death—almost no one at all nowadays. This would mean that no one at ARI except Peikoff is entitled to call himself an Objectivist. They would have to present signed or published statements by Rand to prove that she gave her consent for them to call themselves Objectivists and I can't think of anyone who has that except Peikoff (at the beginning of The Ominous Parallels). Well, there are those who wrote articles for The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist and Who Is Ayn Rand? (and pre-break lectures). Her later statements affirmed that the works contained in those publications and lectures are official Objectivism, but in those statements, she did not call the people who wrote them "Objectivists." I use the term "Objectivist" in the same way someone calls himself an "Existentialist" or "Kantian" or "Marxist," which means a person interested in, and highly influenced by, the ideas found in the bodies of thought designated by those words. Built into this concept is that fact that individuals exist and they are different from one another, thus there will be some differences of ideas between the author and the person interested/influenced. I would suggest that there be some kind of term set for Rand-ordained Objectivist and non-Rand-ordained Objectivist, but there are so few of the first (there is only one I know of) that it is not really necessary for general understanding. Michael Nicely done. Objectivism establishes who falls under its umbrella. In my view; Objectivism says that properly functioning human-beings are functioning as Objectivism observes them to be functioning. In other words: The actions of properly functioning human beings came prior to the observation of them which eventually ended in the philosophy of Objectivism as documented by Ayn Rand. This may not be Ayn Rand's intent. But ... So what? If I am acting objectively; then, I am acting in accordance with the principles of Objectivism. Whether I know that or not, is not (in my view), a criteria as to whether or not I'm an Objectivist. She would like me to accept the principle that I am somehow assuming her identity when I act or think as an Objectivist would act or think in any given situation. That is her privilege. I disagree. People were doing that a long time before she documented how properly functioning persons act and think.

Sure! No such right exists. We gave part of our rights to them. Go figure. Now we're trying to figure out how to deal with that. "We gave part of our rights to them." << I don't remember signing anything! lol You weren't even born then. It's called the Constitution for the United States of America. That document provided for how "the people" hire others to run the Federal Government. We gave these others instructions to use whatever means necessary to protect us from harm by others. Part of us is; of course, our children. When we become the instrument of harm to our own children our 'federal instructions' act against our-self and to the benefit of our children.

Again, I used to hold your viewpoint, in fact as recent as a few years ago. But unlike TAS I'm with Ayn Rand on this one: Objectivism is what Ayn Rand said it is and nothing else. She can reserve the word for what she means if she wants to. And what she means is: for the price of calling yourself an "Objectivist", you agree to strip yourself of your intellectual independence. She doesn't say that outright, but it is implied in her words in "The Objectivist Forum", and it is implied by those who she handed her power and authority to when she died. It is rather bald-faced actually. I would be embarrassed for it having taken as long as it did for me to recognize, except that Ayn Rand's works are genuine and sincere, the heart of her philosophy is indeed a philosophy of intellectual independence. That is what it is about in fact. It is only after she had created it that she implicitly attempted to destroy it with her later words and actions, not unlike Howard Roark destroying his buildings. With respect to Ayn Rand's philosophy: I revere the buildings, but not the act of destruction. I do not morally condemn Ayn Rand for this destructive act, since really it had power only over the sheep. Perhaps she looked at those who surrounded her and in an act of contempt, pulled the rug out from under them. Shayne We're on the same page. Even where it says she can define it in whatever she wants. It's that definition I use to support my position.

Harry Binswanger would disagree. I know that because your reaction was my reaction when I first read OPAR, I couldn't reconcile it with Peikoff's preface to OPAR, so asked HB about it and he totally disclaimed your viewpoint. You are correct that philosophy should be a science and it should be about truth. And Objectivism is to a substantial degree, the truth. But it lacks an essential ingredient: if we find a mistake in a science, we fix the mistake. Ayn Rand disclaimed this, saying that fixing any mistakes was tantamount to making her philosophy a "hodgepodge". For all the goodness in her philosophy, she grossly undercut it with this statement, stripping Objectivism at its most fundamental point of individualism. What's more, actions speak louder than words: all the actions her acolytes have taken in her name since that time have done nothing but back up my interpretation. Objectivism is a religion. That's why I no longer call myself that. I'm a Rational Individualist. Shayne OK! Now I see where your coming from. I'm not a supporter of the "establishment" either. But having said that I must add that Objectivism is not a religion even-though the establishment is running "their Objectivist organization" from that standpoint. Unfortunately; I am also constantly defending myself from the nonsense about what Objectivism is seen to be because of the way they personally act.

Where in the human body is the -mind- located, as opposed to the brain? I have a recent MRI three axis scan of my head (in particular what is inside) to a resolution of one millimeter and nowhere in the scan is there a sign of my mind. No where. So where is my mind? Ba'al Chatzaf Are you being serious? You're actually asking me about where your mind function is located!!! You need it to even ask me that question. Mind is not a real something in the way a human brain is. It's a function of the human brain. I'm not sure why I need to explain this.

Sure! No such right exists. We gave part of our rights to them. Go figure. Now we're trying to figure out how to deal with that.

How are you defining that which the word 'arrow' stands in the place of. The word is not what the thing being described is. If the description held by the word 'arrow' does not do justice to the thing being described by it, then the description being offered is wrong. This has nothing at all to do with what we know. It only deals with how well we are able to describe what we know. Since the thing being described exists in-reality; then, the description of what it is must address that. Its impossible to remove the thing being described from reality or to ignore part of reality when describing what it is and end up with a definition which fully explains what it is.

You're mistaken. To be an Objectivist is to substitute Ayn Rand's thinking for your own. It's a religion. That's how she defined it, see what she wrote at the beginning of "The Objectivist Forum". Shayne This is what I found: " "This is to say that I approve of the publication of The Objectivist Forum, that it promises to be a very interesting magazine, and that I recommend it to your attention. "As its name indicates, this magazine is a forum for students of Objectivism to discuss their ideas, each speaking only for himself. . . . "Harry Binswanger is a serious student (and teacher) of philosophy and has a thorough understanding of Objectivism's basic principles. . . . "I am not editing this magazine, and my association with it is only that of philosophic consultant." " I don't see your reference to where Ayn Rand called it a "religion." I know the argument. "You're not an Objectivist until you've been inducted into that religion comprised of certified Objectivists." Thats absurd! It violates the law of identity as applied to man: "man qua man." In other words: It violates the principles of Objectivism at their very root. A properly functioning human-being is, by definition, functioning objectively. He is therefore an Objectivist. It's the same as when one is playing football. One is, by definition, a football player. It doesn't matter if one is a member of some kind of organization whose only function is to play football. One is considered to be a football player by fact of ones actions.

Scholars have long noted that no one has found that dictionary Rand mentioned and her critics have a field day with this point. If you like, I can look up some comments, but a simple Google search will afford you with plenty enough reading. Rand's research sloppiness does not negate the concept of what she was proposing, but it does provide an unnecessary side-issue where she was shortcoming. Her critics have used this to cast doubt on the underlying concepts. She should have known this would happen, too. The sad truth is there was no excuse for her to do that. No excuse at all. I will be more than glad to stand corrected if someday that dictionary should surface. But even if it does, it will still be a strange fact that most all of the dictionaries on the market do not use that exact "dictionary definition" she used. There are many other cases of sloppy scholarship. (Merrill's criticism immediately comes to mind, but there is much more out there.) Rand was a brilliant original thinker, but a very poor scholar. Chris Sciabarra has been doing a wonderful job of overcoming this handicap by publishing a peer-reviewed journal of academic studies on Rand's thought: The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. As you can see on the link, this journal is indexed at enough places to be readily available as an accepted source at most colleges and institutions of higher learning. TAS and ARI have also been making some good academic inroads and there are several college professors of sound standing connected with those organizations. Michael OK. Perhaps she could have documented her sources better. But this brings up an interesting dilemma. What if there are no reliable sources? What then. If you were to go back in time far enough you would find a time when there were no pre-existing sources what so ever. What's a person to do then? This is perhaps where Ayn Rand found herself. Her solution is called thinking.

See the blue highlight above. What evidence do you have that supports your claim this is what she did? You aren't my uncle and I'm not a moron. --Brant That was not my question. Read it again. (edit) Never mind. Michael just did that.

I have read everything written by and about Ayn Rand before about 1980 or so. The writings of Ayn Rand (including ITOE) set me onto the trail of proper discovery. I consider Ayn Rand to be an intellectual without equal. The law of identity is the proposition that what is - is what it is. It is a statement of fact. In order to make a factual statement the fact must exist prior to the uttering of the statement. Since that is the case; then, the law of identity is-not itself a fact. It is a resultant of fact. The human mind perceives facts -but- prior to that mans brain had to sense the physical existence of the absolute which is responsible for the sensual existence of the fact its mind function is now perceiving. Are we on the same page?

There were no Objectivists prior to Ayn Rand. So taken what you wrote literally we would conclude that for somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 years (approximately when our species originated) humans did not know what love is. To which I reply, Bull Cookies! Ba'al Chatzaf This simply cannot be a true representation of what actually exists. Ayn Rand did not invent reality. She simply explained how it operates. An Objectivist is someone who actually lives in accordance with natural law. People have been doing that ever since they have been people to do that. You're not an Objectivist because you accept a specific principle. You're an Objectivist by fact of the way you act. When you're actions address the requirements of your specific kind of existence; then, that means you are acting objectively; i.e., you're an Objectivist.

Of course I do. A person who is reality oriented is, by definition, an Objectivist. And since love is strictly a reality oriented concept then only Objectivists know what love means. To the others love is God or some other undefinable idea.

Thank you for the clarification. I don't think I have said that facts are invented. I'm not sure you implied this but I thought I would clear that up anyhow. I do say facts are resultants of what is sensually known to exist; i.e., facts are naturally occurring mental existents. If this is what you meant when you said facts are discovered, then we are in agreement here. To go further with the idea of discovery. The only thing that can be discovered is that which can be known to exist. This limits discovery to the absolute nature of physical existence. The resultant of discovery; then, is what fact is. This makes fact a sensual existent as opposed to a physical or intellectual existent. Additionally; Man observes the absolute nature of physical existence; this is what causes fact to exist. For fact to exist there must be a reason for the existence of its existence. Evidence of the existence of fact is called a brain-image. Yes I do understand that the way I use fact is somewhat different from the way [most] others use it. You're going to see this with other concepts as well. The reason for this is consistency in meaning. For example: When someone says an 'interpretation' is considered to be fact because it accurately explains another thing. I don't consider that 'interpretation' to be a fact. I call it a definition. Then I say: When a definition is shown to be representative of fact, this means it has been validated to have been rationally constructed. In other words: The definition is shown to be an intellectual representation of that which it claims to exist in-fact. Knowing what the facts are - is the naturally occurring sensual event called observation. Conceptualizing ones relationship with that which is responsible for the existence of fact - is a purposeful intellectual event. Observation is a brain centric idea where conceptualization is a mind centric idea. Perhaps this gets me down the track a little further. I have found that there is a great deal of unnecessary confusion in the use of language simply because we try to extend (or project) the meaning of words beyond necessity.

To decide what next to do man needs a standard to compare the several available alternatives against. That stand is his life. That action which best addresses the needs of his life becomes the chosen action. When man is acting as an individual this procedure of is defined under the concept of ethics. In other words: the ethical man is the properly functioning man. When man is functioning as a member of society the procedure used to determine his proper actions is defined under the concept of morality. In other words: Morality applies mans ethical actions to society. Notice: Morality is not different from ethics except that it includes the equal right of others to act ethically when they encounter ones-self. The consequences resulting from another's actions define the actions one can perform in a social setting. Notice: If the others actions are contrary to ones best interest they are not moral actions. This is because ones life is the standard used to determine whether an action is ethical or not. Notice this very important point. When another is acting immorally; i.e,. when another's actions threaten ones life, then to act in such a way as to protect one from its consequences becomes one ethical responsibility.

Yes. But only if you are talking about self. To act ethically means to act in accordance with what one is. Same as above. No. Fact occurs prior to epistemology. Its a metaphysical concept. Fact a naturally occurring mental resultant of when a brain comes in contact with an absolute aspect of physical reality. No one has said it does. The nature of nature is absolute. You do something in nature and it will return the favor. The consequences resulting from actions taken in reality will exactly represent the rationality of those actions. Ethics explains how properly functioning humans-beings act when they are acting alone. Morality is the application of ethics to society.

Under Objectivism; the principle of rights appends to the individual person. With that in mind, fathers have no more rights than mothers. Their child is equally the right of each to claim parenthood of. However; when nurturing is considered, the mother has obvious advantages. She has breast milk. And when protection is considered, the father has obvious advantages. He is stronger. Proper child raising is a joint effort.

When I look at an apple my nervous system generates an image in my visual cortex. The adjective 'true' does not apply to this image. We could assume it must be fairly similar to yours if our descriptions are similar. For instance, if I said I saw a green apple and you said you saw a red one then we have a problem. One of us could be colour blind, lying, hallucinating, using the wrong word for 'green', etc. If everyone else agrees it's red then that will be called 'a fact', regardless of what I say. that's as close to true as we can get. Under Objectivism. When I look at the same apple you are looking at we each know THAT the exact same thing exists. This is what brains do. They know THAT real things actually do exist. This brain function occurs automatically. You cannot look at something and not see it; i.e., not-know that it does exists. The evidence proving THAT we know something is called an image. Brain images are considered to be the factual existence of that which physically exists. The absolute nature of physical existence; when imaged by a brain, is considered to be its true mental representation.