Xray

In fact, some aspects of Kant's epistemological/metaphysical views are remarkably similar to Rand's.

Could you provide some examples and elaborate? TIA.

Xray

As to use of the term metaphysical , would existential be less squishy, or does it connote different schools of philosophy?

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.

I avoid soy.

Why?

In the context of this thread I was arguing that attributes are epistemologic , not metaphysic. And that is why I do not think the phrase 'ideas related to reality' adds any clarity in this context.

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

So in the context of this thread on attributes, would you say they are epistemologic or of ideas related to reality? (For clarity's sake in this context)

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.

tmj, I guess I call attributes what you call properties or characterisitcs.

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

I think clarity of word usage is highly contextual. Why throw a perfectly valid term out, just cause you don't like the color of liquid in the basin?

Here's a dictionary definition of the "perfectly valid" term metaphysical :

met·a·phys·i·cal (mt-fz-kl)adj.

1. Of or relating to metaphysics.

2. Based on speculative or abstract reasoning.

3. Highly abstract or theoretical; abstruse.

4.

a. Immaterial; incorporeal. See Synonyms at immaterial.

b. Supernatural.

Get a load of fake obesity experts vs vegsource doctors. Warning: vegan propaganda. I'm sure there are lean non-vegans.

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.

As long as the terms relate to ideas which relate to reality, how can they be

weeded out? Can you think of any which are superfluous now?

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').

.

Heretical question: is the squishy term "metaphysical" needed anymore in present-day philosophical discussions?

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?

I found 4 paragraphs of his with the word 'anorexia' and he says that means don't eat.

Do you know what "anorexia nervosa" means?

Would it help to say that attributes are epistemologic and not metaphysic

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?

Under every stone there's a liberal Boogeyman. And a Jew.

Arbitrary assertions, by your own definition.

... and the only proper way to handle such statements is to reject them out-of-hand.

People think I'm crazy because I eat real food (tomatoes, lettuce, bok choy, suey choy, broccoli, beets, gai lan, nuts, salmon, berries, potatoes, bananas, etc etc; within reasonable food combining rules). <...>

Dr. Alan Goldhamer (who supervised 7,000+ fasts) said in a video that during a fast your mouth is supposed to taste like something crawled in it and died. Why doesn't this happen to me?

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?

But isn't the purpose of appetizers to whet the appetite for the main dish?

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.

A proposition is a declarative, meaningful sentence which is either true or false.

"Vienna is the capital of Australia" is a proposition. It happens to be false.

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.

I just finished this new release and found Henderson’s unique perspective on Christianity and Objectivism very similar to mine. Henderson’s life story is quite different though. He was raised both by his father, a Christian and a step-father, a die-hard Objectivist. Both fathers shared their worldviews which to a young Henderson seemed contrary, but as he grew older he came to appreciate the positive values of both systems. A teen survivor of cancer (twice) Henderson completed undergraduate studies at Brown and a MBA from Columbia. He effectively intertwines his life story with his religious and philosophical struggles and comes to the understanding that the two system may never reconcile, but that they share much more in common than either Christians or Objectivists would admit.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Soul-Atlas-Christianity-Common/dp/0988329506/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365627523&sr=8-1&keywords=the+soul+of+atlas

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.

I just finished this new release and found Henderson’s unique perspective on Christianity and Objectivism very similar to mine. Henderson’s life story is quite different though. He was raised both by his father, a Christian and a step-father, a die-hard Objectivist. Both fathers shared their worldviews which to a young Henderson seemed contrary, but as he grew older he came to appreciate the positive values of both systems. A teen survivor of cancer (twice) Henderson completed undergraduate studies at Brown and a MBA from Columbia. He effectively intertwines his life story with his religious and philosophical struggles and comes to the understanding that the two system may never reconcile, but that they share much more in common than either Christians or Objectivists would admit.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Soul-Atlas-Christianity-Common/dp/0988329506/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365627523&sr=8-1&keywords=the+soul+of+atlas

What they share is rectitude.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Rectitude about what?

Crony Capitalism at work. One is known by the Cronies he deals with.

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

What is the difference between 'nature of reality' and 'metaphysical nature of reality'?

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"?

"It's hot in here"

"That's far away"

"This is hard work"

"This crossword puzzle is difficult"

"The test question was easy"

"Trigonometry is incomprehensible"

"Piekoff is an idiot"

All statements of opinion. All of them provide information on the individual making the statement rather than the object being discussed.

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.

Avoiding pro-tumor things:

Hedonism does not imply insanity.

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'?

My theory about food:

I believe something is seriously wrong with any food that makes me more hungry after I finish eating it than I was when I began eating it. I believe such foods are not fit to eat.

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.

Appetizers are foods or dishes or meals that make you hungrier after you finish eating them than you were when you started eating them. I don't see the logic of appetizers from my point of view. (The restaurant has a different point of view.) .

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.

There doesn't seem to be any clue about the difference between hedonism and Objectivism from Ayn Rand's life. Her food choices look to me like hedonism.

http://www.facetsofaynrand.com/book/chap7.html

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.

I gotta question to ask you. Why the h... would I make a program like that if I was interested in nutrition?

You have answered this question in your own post:

What I care about is avoiding pro-tumor things.

And you obviously believe that eating the 'right food' avoids "pro-tumor things".

How do you know those things (lettuce, beet, tomatoes) have nutritional value? Did you run them thru a nutrition program? They are mostly water.

Am I correct in assuming that you eat lettuce, beet, tomatoes because they also contain essential nutrients?

I once read an interesting speculation (can't remember from where) concerning the decline of classical music in our culture. The idea was that in the past, going back to Bach, the most intelligent of the population who were not born into wealth and aristocracy would naturally gravitate to music, since music was the sole avenue through which to express their perceptive intelligence.

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 ...