Ian

Oops. I didn't disregard Baal's reply before voting. I am not familiar with the notation used in set theory, but I understood, and agree, that if the set "gdfs" is empty, the statement is false. Since you stated: I concluded set "gdfs" is empty, i.e. has no referent in reality, therefore the statement is false. Besides, nobody else voted false. Somebody had to. B)P.S. GS, I just found a syllogism useful. How about that? ;) Ian.

Good one. Ian

So you did understand, and you are only pretending not to. See my sig. Ian Have you read my comment? From your post #208: From your reply to Bill P, post #250: Here you've let slip that you understand the English: That x is the goal of y, or that the goal of y is x, does not necessarily mean that y is a volitional, goal seeking entity. That construction depends on whether y is in fact a volitional, goal seeking entity. If not, that phrasing means the goal is that of those playing the game, in the one case, and those existing in the other. Yet you still pretend, in your reply to me, that you don't understand: post #305: If you wish to argue that values are necessarily subjective, that is another issue, which I addressed in my post #237: Some more examples: If values are necessarily subjective, then any difference between the morality of Sophie Scholl, and the morality of Joseph Mengele, is merely a matter of opinion, purely subjective. So is the difference between the Third Reich, and the Bundesrepublik. Some may prefer one, some the other, like preferring chocolate ice-cream to vanilla, or vice versa.Have at it. Ian.

So you did understand, and you are only pretending not to. See my sig. Ian

Then what exactly does it mean in your opinion? TIA for elaborating. As I wrote to you in the first place: "I think you are encountering an idiom of the English language. The sense of the first sentence is more like "Joy is the goal of a living being's existence (and should be the goal of a human existence)." Your reply did not include either disagreement with that being the meaning of Ayn's phrasing, or any indication that you did not understand what I wrote. I regretted before I posted, that I did not have enough German to use that language for my explanation, but I expected that if you did not understand me, you would ask for clarification. Bill P gave a better answer, using an example of the same phrasing in another context: "If you read "the goal of a game of football is to score more points than the other team" do you conclude that the writer is saying that the football game is sentient, and has intentions and goals? Or do you realize that the writer is speaking of the goal of the players in the game?" Did you not understand him either? Or are you just playing games? Ian.

I like your clarity.

Hi, Ginny. I afraid I must disappoint you. I am not German, except in some of my ancestry. I have been in many places in the world, and was last in Germany in 1980. I am American, born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, which used to be a German city in America but before my time. I speak German only about well enough to order a beer. I can get the sense of written German somewhat better. If I understand your last question, I am 59 years old. I responded to a post by another German (Xray) who had said she was not a native speaker of English. She had taken an idiommatic statement by Ayn Rand's character, Hank Rearden, that "Joy is the goal of existence," to mean that existence was a sentient being that had goals. That is not what that phrase means in English. I believed hers was an honest misunderstanding and responded accordingly. She blew off my explanation without question or dispute, and, in later posts, insisted on her interpretation. Idioms, phrases which mean something other than what they literally mean, are common in English. They can make it hard for foreigners to understand. But I would expect someone to accept an explanation by a native speaker. Since she ignored my explanation, I decided to show her that her own native language also contains things which are not meant as literal truth: gender, in the German language treats items that have no sex as either male or female, and treats people, who do, as if they did not. I thought it best to show this in German itself, and used a translated quote from the American humorist, Mark Twain. And so that's how I came to post partially in German. Ian.

How is "nothing," or "nonexistence" distinguished from "does not exist?" Ian.

Ole! Ian.

If you wish to trash my native language, in order to deliberately misunderstand Rand, I can trash yours. Turnabout is fair play.Ian.

The mother you describe already knows that joy is the goal of her existence. She went for it. She achieved it, in having her husband and children. And, is suffering now because she lost them. Telling her "Joy is the goal of existence," at that point would be rubbing in her loss. It would be like telling her that her husband and children are dead, and they're not coming back, ha, ha. I suppose you would prefer to tell her: "Joy is not for the likes of you. Look what happened when you tried for it. Give up. Live a grey life, without joy, if you can stand it. Or, jump off that bridge over there, if that's your subjective choice, since there is, after all, no objective difference between wanting to live and wanting to die." I think any words, at that point would ring hollow. The best one could do is show her that joy is still possible, by means of any acts of kindness one could think of. Ian.

I thought I clarified that for you. Or perhaps, the whole country of Germany thinks young women are sexless: Gretchen: „Wilhelm, wo ist die Rübe?“ Wilhelm: „Sie ist in der Küche.“ Gretchen: „Wo ist das vielseitig gebildete, schöne englische Mädchen?“ Wilhelm: „Es ist in der Oper.“ http://german.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite...%2Dsprache.html Ian.

And for the "cool, rational way she carries her hmmm..." Thanks B) Ian

I think you are encountering an idiom of the English language. The sense of the first sentence is more like "Joy is the goal of a living being's existence (and should be the goal of a human existence)." It certainly is mine. I am now in constant pain (peripheral neuropathy) which I certainly would not attempt to deny, but the the joy of living is so overwhelming that the pain seems insignificant. I read Rand's heroes as having a similar attitude. It is possible for joy not to be merely a temporary state, but a permanent attitude toward life. It is also possible to take pain and suffering as a permanent attitude toward life, "this vale of tears, etc." I think this is the contrast Ayn was getting at. Ian.

Thank you. I had read Ayn Rand's fiction years ago, and had somewhat forgotten how much I loved it and why. I am currently re-reading Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, but Ayn's fiction grabs the emotions big time. After a childhood spent fighting irrational brutality and militant anti-intellectualism, reading Rand made me feel like cheering: Go get 'em, Ayn, sic 'em! I felt avenged. But, here I am, talking about feelings. Some people seem to have confused Ayn Rand with Star Trek's Mr. Spock; as if logic and emotions were mutually exclusive. Ian.

I just finished this one: Couldn't resist that cover. ;)

'Concept' is used quite ambiguously usually. It's used either as a term or a mental image and this causes a great deal of confusion. When you describe an object, say an apple, what are actually describing? Is it not an image in your cortex? What other data do you have? Is the apple green or do you merely see green (if it's a granny smith)? An ambiguous word is one susceptible of more than one meaning. Since we (you and I) mean different things by "object," that word is subject to the same objection (ambiguity) you are making for "concept." I must confess to not understanding what import your dichotomy between "term" and "mental image," would have. In Objectivist epistemology, as I understand it, a "percept" is a first order abstraction. A "concept" is a second (and higher) order abstraction, a grouping of percepts in order to handle the lot as if it were a single percept, by giving it (the concept) a lable, a word. Percepts and concepts are the map. Objects are reserved for the territory, this in order to keep map and territory separate in one's thinking, as they are in reality. To say a given apple is green identifies the same fact of reality as to say I see green when I look at that apple. The second formulation expands on the first. I have no objection, in writing to you, to using the word "object" to refer to the mental construct which I'd call a "percept" in writing to an Objectivist. What I'm wondering is whether you have a word to refer to what in reality, in the territory, gives rise to percepts/objects, and to which we refer by using concepts/words. If you've answered, I haven't understood. Ian.

I have liked the map-territory metaphor for reality and what we understand of it ever since I first read the quote "The map is not the territory," in the work of Robert Anson Heinlein. He attributed the saying to Alfred Korzybski, and a system called "general semantics." In writing to "General Semanticist," I thought it best to start with a point of agreement. Ian.

A concept, in Objectivist epistemology (as I understand it) is part of one's map. The object is that part of the territory to which one refers when using the concept. What word do you use to refer to part of the territory?

People are construing that because I say knowledge and existence are inter-related that something doesn't exist independent of us. This is not the case.I admit that something exists independent of us BUT the objects we sense are actually abstractions from that something. My point in starting this thread was that the premise "existence exists" makes no sense as an axiom. I can accept "something exists" but I don't see much value in it as an axiom. Is anyone saying nothing exists? I was construing exactly that. And wondering whether general semanticists were people who could simultaneously assert: the map is not the territory, and the map is the territory; which would make their system non-Aristotelian for sure. Your clarification, "the objects we sense are actually abstractions from that something" is something I agree with. And, in reference to your reply to me, I wasn't restricting my use of the word "knowledge" to refer only to verbal knowledge. I think perception, even in other animals, is an active process in the brain (or nervous system) of that animal. They make maps, too; just not with words. ;) And our maps include more than words, or at least mine does. Existence exists. Existence is a concept that is implicit in anything you, I, or anyone, does or says. To say "existence exists" is to make that implication explicit. That's my take on it, anyway.

This is where we disagree. It is not clear to me that something exists when nobody has any knowledge of it. We can only assume it existed before. I guess my position is that existence and knowledge are inseparable. You can't have one without the other. I've a small question: "Existence and knowledge are inseparable?" But isn't the map (knowledge or belief, something you've constructed in your head) a different thing than the territory (that reality which your map is presumably intended to describe/locate)? How does the absence of an item on your map prevent the existence of anything in the territory?