Xray

Could you provide some examples and elaborate? TIA.

The association of 'existential' with the philosophical movement 'existentialism' might indeed cause confusion. Interesting that Rand originally wanted to call her philosophy "exstentialism", but then decided against it since the term existentialism was already 'taken' by Sartre, Camus & Co.

Why?

Do you think epistemology is not connected to ideas related to reality?

I don't see any opposition between epistemologic and 'ideas related to reality'. After all, epistemology deals with issues of knowledge, and knowledge is connected to reality.

Rand too uses "attributes" in the meaning of properties/characteristics.

Here's a dictionary definition of the "perfectly valid" term metaphysical : "Abstruse, immaterial, incorporeal, supernatural" -- isn't that the very opposite of "ideas related ot reality"? If the use of the term is 'highly contexual' though - does this mean each philosopher is free to use the term metaphysical in the meaning he/she prefers?

I don't have the impression that the 'lean' vegsource doctors really look healthier than the obesity experts who happen to be bit 'heavier'. Dr. Neil Barnard for example is quite pale-faced. I have read books by vegsource doctors like Dr. Neil Barnard, and also by less strict types like Dr. Andrew Weil (whose picture can be seen in the above YouTube link). Frankly, although Dr. Weil has some extra pounds (he says he just loves to eat), I find his non-dogmatic way of dealing with the topic 'health' most appealing. I'm an ovo-lacto vegetarian; some months ago, I tried to switch to a vegan diet, but found it to be too rigorous for me. I missed eating eggs, and also the small amount of dairy I'm used to consuming daily. Having soy milk products instead was no adequate sustitute. Athough I like soy sausages and soy pudding, soy milk and soy yoghurt just turn my stomach.

I was speaking of weeding out 'fudgy' terms that cause far more confusion than clarity. Isn't the phrase "ideas that relate to reality" far clearer than "metaphysical" (which sounds about as outdated as 'ontological').

You are way too late. Peikoff writing in 1967, on "neo-Kantianism":"Metaphysics has been all but obliterated: its most influential opponents have declared that metaphysical statements are neither analytic nor synthetic, and therefore are meaningless." Xray, by "present-day" you imply that philosophy and so, mankind, has advanced past the necessity of studying the nature of existence and man...? Now, more than ever is it needed. I'm hearing from you the fatal assumption that the clamped-down societies we all experience to some degree, represent the height of ideology and 'civilisation.' I'm all for studying the nature of man and existence. My question was why the term 'metaphysical' is still needed for doing so? In other words: what speaks against weeding out the 'terminological (phiosophical) closet' a bit? Are such terms here to stay for all time?

Do you know what "anorexia nervosa" means?

That's a surprise 0_o Can you back it up with a quotation?Illustrating it with an example plus elaboration would be even better. Heretical question: is the squishy term "metaphysical" needed anymore in present-day philosophical discussions?

Arbitrary assertions, by your own definition.

Do you fast regularly? But if you already eat such a healthy diet, is there still a need to 'purify' your bodily system through fasting?

If you don't have appetite (or hunger), why eat? Valid question. But having an 'appetizer' doesn't mean that one is not hungry at all. Appetizers are often served in specific settings, e.g. at dinner parties as 'apéritifs´', as part of a social ritual.

See, I would dispute that definition. In order to qualify as a proposition, it must make a statement about something. It offers information on the nature of reality of an object. If the information provided corresponds to reality, the proposition is true. If it does not, it is false. KacyRay, But your above post does not dispute what Ba'al wrote about propositions: that they can be true or false. You actually agree with him on that.

What they share is rectitude. Ba'al Chatzaf Rectitude about what? Doing the right thing and not doing wrong things. The problem is that all ideologies are about doing "the right thing". But given the fact that ideologies differ from each other, their ideas about the "right thing" differ as well.

What they share is rectitude. Ba'al Chatzaf Rectitude about what?

Heretical question: Isn't cronyism an essential part not only of capitalism, but of human nature in general? We're group beings, after all.

This question seems to miss the point. The point is that a proposition is a statement about the metaphysical nature of reality as opposed to a statement about the speaker. (Metaphysical meaning - existence as a whole, to include concepts, consciousness etc... and that which underlies the reality of which we are aware.) But why doesn't the term "reality" suffice for "existence as a whole"?

That's not true. They're statements of fact, minus an explicitly identified standard of value or comparison. The standard is merely implied. They are statements which are presented as fact. But they differ from statements like e. g. "Vienna is the capital of Australia", which can objectively be falsified.

But is the term 'hedonism' needed here at all? Doesn't it cause more confusion than clarity? For no doubt there exist many hedonists whose interest in food and nutrition is near zero. Why not call it something like 'healthy eating that also satisfies the palate'? It is food with a high glycemic index which has that effect. It quickly raises the level of blood sugar, the body reacts by releasing insuline to lower the blood sugar level. But once the blood sugar level is low, this quickly makes you hungry again Among the 'worst' food of that type are jelly beans ('Gummibärchen' in German). Unfortunately, I love them. I once even got into a disagreeable state of hypogclycemia after eating a 100 gram package on an empty stomach. Ever since, I avoid eating too many of them, and also avoid eating them on an empty stomach. But isn't the purpose of appetizers to whet the appetite for the main dish? They are the 'ouverture', so to speak, and are not meant to give you the feeling that you've had enough. Whether one likes to have appetizers or not is a matter of personal preference.

The term hedonism refers to a certain philosophical attitude, but I don't think Ayn Rand was philosophically interested in the topic of food/nutrition. It is in the back of my mind (from BB's book) that Rand loved sweets and was not quite satisfied with her weight, but she just had a figure that was more on the 'stocky' side. Like everyone else, Rand preferred certain dishes and disliked other food, but I bet she thought of food in general as not important enough to deserve philosophical consideration. Rand's mind was philosophically preoccupied with other topics, I think.

You have answered this question in your own post: And you obviously believe that eating the 'right food' avoids "pro-tumor things". Am I correct in assuming that you eat lettuce, beet, tomatoes because they also contain essential nutrients?

I would not limit the love of music to expressing one's perceptive 'intelligence'. It is far deeper ingrained. Even fetuses in the womb react to music. But it is true that in the past, those who were not born into wealth always had music to express themselves (and if it was only through the one 'instrument' we are all born with: the human voice). In his autobiography, German tenor Rudolf Schock (1915- 1986), who had been born into a family of poor miners, mentions the large number of choirs and singing clubs in the mining district. Singing was a hobby 'free of charge', so to speak, which offered the miners a huge stress relief from their arduous daily toil. Schock's father taught his five children polyphonic singing at an early age. But I suppose the 'underprivileged members of society' in our cybertech-age hardly resort to singing anymore ...