imurray

In response to the article: As a realist, I will believe it when I see it. Until then, I'm not going to get hung up in speculation. I've been burned too many times by so called "experts" on either side of the aisle and in the media who have touted the next best thing or the thing that's going to ruin America and send us into an apocalypse. The truth is, the deed is done - we can either sit around and speculate how good or bad the fallout is going to be and rage against reality or we can find ways to deal with whatever comes around the corner be it good or bad.

But the fundamental problem with this is the false dichotomy between altruism and egoism. It's simply not either/or. "When one is conditioned, by ones parents, clerics, teachers and government, to unfailingly put others first, free-will is abnegated." What about instead of "unfailingly", we substitute "every once in a while"? Is free will abnegated? Is it such a problem to recognize that we all have altruistic and egoistic tendencies? Science says our nature is a mix. Rand says no, our own life is the standard of value. Science says she's wrong, evolution says she's wrong. What is the logic that demands we must exist at either extreme? What if being altruistic "sometimes" and egoistic "most of the time" is really what "qua man" is? I'll tell you what happens - Many of Rand's ideas collapse including her ethics and politics. Also, we no longer need ethics of emergency situations or anything other of Rand's square pegs pounded in a round holes. Bob Hmm, and if we are cognizant of our altruistic tendencies and freely choose to act altruistically on occasion...immoral? Is that what it comes down to?

Even the insults are refried Rand. Do they serve anything else here? Did Rand have a character who couldn't think for themselves? Ah, what the heck - I apparently have already asked David to do all the research and to fill in all my hideous thoughts so why not ask for one more favor? Dave can you find me a Rand character who can't think for herself and kindly apply that name to yourself. Thank you.

Leonid, That clears things up for me. Thank you. Ian

Yup, I know, there are others besides Mayans and (somebody correct me) I'm just using straw-men because they're the easiest to attack. Woah, let's not forget the old Egyptians where would they have been existing up to now, let's see where your "diplomacy" towards slave culture end up. Which end of the whip would you rather feel if you were born in their territory? You claim they were great then? Try bringing the chieftains and warlords to this era would you and add them to the already existing ones... right... thought so. OR we're you just actually talking about individuals? If so, then don't talk about "civilizations" as if they consist of one entity. Now you say it's just history? Who's turning the blind eye now? I thought you were just contemplating on bringing them back? Well, physically, you cannot. However, try to practice their ideologies, see if its comparable to the state that man is now. You said, "I think that it's flawed to think that human civilization only advances positively." (emphasis mine) We're you speaking of "advancing sideways"? "advancing backwards"? or as I said before "advancing negatively"? or "retreating positively"? Neither of these contribute to that "flawed" thinking and more so perversely, these take away from it the spirit of which it is intended. Look, the one whose got it wrong is you. If you really want to say something then identify the things which you speak of. Do not speak of haze as if it were some object you could grasp. It appears that you rely on me to bring out such hideous alternatives because you are terrified to name them yourself. I should say, "Show some spine!" but that may be too much to ask of you. Define your "common sense" and see if it totally departs from Rand's. You talk about me visiting the library? Read some more you foolish brat! Yep, am not very good with dealing with blobs or abstract conglomerates which you hastily labeled "in any sense of the word (of an object)". "Panoptic" you dub yourself? Yes, suiting, you have the same name as your forefather "Plato". Disarmed my "extrimist" stand? Au contraire, you never even touched it. I merely slept to recuperate from bodily exhaustion since no one in this fora is paying me to stay awake at present. Hey, at least I have a stand, where's yours? Ah, no, you're preserving it for some exotic plant that may or may not cure cancer right? You are hilarious! Do you do birthdays or retirement parties? You can now add ad hominem to you list of logical fallacies. You leave me two options: 1. Filling the obvious lacuna in knowledge between us - you're getting caught up and asking for information on things that I would normally assume from a reasonably educated audience. or, 2. Walk away. I choose number 2. Goodnight David

Advance in the sense of time positively in the sense of knowledge/technology. No contradiction. I already told you I wasn't using Rand's definition of common sense - others exist. Not to mention common sense in any sense of the word was all that was needed to disarm your extremist stance. Don't plan on meeting any Myans - it's just history. Ignore it if you must. By the way, there were other civilizations besides the Myans. Goodnight.

Your last post was much more palatable, but I still disagree. I'd say that there's value to preserving for the sake of future generations, but I understand how that can become a problem too. I think that it's flawed to think that human civilization only advances positively. I know it's purely speculative, but I tend to wonder how far along we could be if some of the great civilizations would have balanced their insatiable drive for progress with an equally insatiable drive for understanding what may eventually impede this desire from sustaining. I can't help but assume that we'd be more advanced if they had persisted because in many cases their way of life, technologies, etc. died with them leaving them to be rediscovered or reinvented - which would generally be considered a set back.

Again with the extreme examples. Is there no such thing as common sense here? If you own a massive tract of land like a rain forest and destroy it then you're going to have a real and measurable negative impact on the surrounding land that you don't own and the planet as a whole unless you first come up with a way to duplicate everything that the rain forest did and had the potential to do. I say potential because you just potentially destroyed the cure to cancer or HIV when you cut it down. I'm all for 'conquering' nature - as long as you're sure you know what the hell you're doing first. I think it makes a heck of a lot more sense to act a bit conservatively, especially when we don't yet have all the answers. Sure, once you know that the septic system in your back yard that you refuse to fix won't hurt anyone but you, by all means do what thou wilt. I just don't want a bunch of ignoramuses running around thinking they're infallible and that their happiness is dependent on doing what comes impulsively without a basic understanding of the consequences. Your line of thinking is how you breed stupidity and kill off a civilization. Read the book - each of the civilizations in it thought they'd be just fine because they were too "advanced" to fail. I'm not saying you have to go hug trees or stop eating meat, I'm saying one should be conscious of their actions and that entails being knowledgeable. My good man, you will only get so far using common sense *read 3rd entry. Okay, you want some good stuff from everything being privatized too? Don't get all hot-headed. I was just playing with your examples. LOL. Let's say, I own a rain forest and a group of scientist suspects that the cure for cancer lies in a certain plant that grows in a certain part of it, if they get to me first, I could sell/loan them the "rights" to explore my land and keep anything that they find from it say provided I get 30% of "final products" derived from their finds plus credit to whatever material they publish or whatever I fancy as the owner. Then I can! In this example, I was using my reasoning to the best that I could. If I only see that far ahead, making a certain amount from short-term profits than seeing it through for aeons to come, then it's my fault and nobody else. If this is the case, would you suggest that as the rightful owner, I'd be imprisoned, coerced or muscled out by the government who has the monopoly to initiate the use of force? Or would you rather have me assassinated for the "common good"? (which is actually derived from individual rights i.e. Me and you but currently being used without acknowledging the source). One suggestion as interested parties, (assuming that you are moral) you could tempt me to sell it to you entirely or in trade terms: Buy me out. Sure, civilizations come and go because of their individual stupidity but you cannot lay claim for a fact that even if the Mayans have gone "extinct", you will find no trace of their genes in the natives in South America and thus, the potential for another rise still exists. (and if you can, I'll gladly remove this paragraph) You see, even when you "destroy", you actually cannot as demonstrated by the law of conservation of mass or energy. Each man, must understand that due to his nature (at least one of his remarkable qualities), that being he is a highly complex organism, that he is the most fragile as well and therefore, if he is to actualize his potentials, he has nowhere to go but up. This example is clearly evident in babies since they are the weakest animals on this planet and one who needs more care from its parent if it is to survive and survive properly at that. Tell you what, since you're so enthusiastic about me reading that book, send me a copy. I'll be happy to read it and critique it too i.e. give credit where it deserves and refute it to the best of my reasoning where it needs to be. We cool? I'm afraid it would be unethical for me to send you a copy as that would result in a net loss in my bank account. However, if you're not against visiting communal institutions like your local library, it will surely be available there. You would not be killed for effectively destroying the cure for cancer because nobody will know that you set humanity back x number of years because you were unaware that the rain forest has historically been an indispensable source for novel organic compounds. I still don't agree with you, haha. I'm not angry, I just see this as a clear cut example of cutting off the nose to spite the face. Also, I wasn't using Rand's definition of common sense which fails to acknowledge that what we consider common sense isn't static and changes over time to include a broader set of knowledge. Some day, if she's lucky, a part of her theory will become "common sense" - I guess we'd have to consider it to be childish reasoning at that point. I wonder how she would have felt about that?

Again with the extreme examples. Is there no such thing as common sense here? If you own a massive tract of land like a rain forest and destroy it then you're going to have a real and measurable negative impact on the surrounding land that you don't own and the planet as a whole unless you first come up with a way to duplicate everything that the rain forest did and had the potential to do. I say potential because you just potentially destroyed the cure to cancer or HIV when you cut it down. I'm all for 'conquering' nature - as long as you're sure you know what the hell you're doing first. I think it makes a heck of a lot more sense to act a bit conservatively, especially when we don't yet have all the answers. Sure, once you know that the septic system in your back yard that you refuse to fix won't hurt anyone but you, by all means do what thou wilt. I just don't want a bunch of ignoramuses running around thinking they're infallible and that their happiness is dependent on doing what comes impulsively without a basic understanding of the consequences. Your line of thinking is how you breed stupidity and kill off a civilization. Read the book - each of the civilizations in it thought they'd be just fine because they were too "advanced" to fail. I'm not saying you have to go hug trees or stop eating meat, I'm saying one should be conscious of their actions and that entails being knowledgeable. It makes no sense to eschew every article or idea that merely advises considerate action when it comes to the environment. One additional point: so what's your ultimate goal here? Is the aim to conquer nature or is it the pursuit human happiness? It appears that you're dangerously close to advocating hedonism on an objectivism website. Oh the horror!

We know his intention - it was to be seen as a "good guy" in the community which in turn would make him more money. His reason for giving money was to make more money. In my example his bank account is smaller because he didn't reap the benefits that he anticipated, but he didn't lose business despite the introduction of a competitor, so that is a perceived gain. I'm not clear on the intention part - so if his intention was to be egoistic, but his plan 'failed' because his bank account remained smaller (the only real measurable variable) would we still call that egoism because his original intent was egoistic? Also, say you feed your children because you might go to jail for neglect and you don't want to go to prison. Is that an egoistic act, even if there is only a possibility that you will go to jail, that is, you can never be sure if not feeding the child would actually have resulted in imprisonment so the benefit couldn't necessarily measurable or observable unless you stopped feeding and actually went to prison?

Personally, I think this muddies the waters again. I think it's pretty clear, self-evident almost, that when given a CHOICE, the selection/action taken is ALWAYS in the self-interest of the actor - by definition. The ACTION shines a clear light on the value heirarchy - full stop. The question of "WHY" is important perhaps, but we cannot ever say the person's choice is "wrong" or "illogical" without substituting some other value system - I digress. However, if the person gets no tangible value in return, the act is altruistic because it can be measured objectively, just like the person's preferences and values are revealed by ACTION. The action confers a measureable benefit to the recipient at a measureable cost to the donor, therefore altruistic. Anything else is just pointless argumentation IMHO. Not pointless I guess, but it's just psychological speculation about something that cannot be measured. Perhaps the person's intention is not altruistic, and perhaps his induction is faulty, that's fine too. We can discuss intention too, but the ACT and the outcome as far as it is measureable, stands on it's own. Buying my children food or giving them money is plain and simple altruism. Rand would disagree I think and say that I value my life with my child in it so therefore I value their life, so I won't let them starve. This is a self-serving and I believe disengenuious. It's altruistic because your work (money) buys food and gives a survival benefit to someone else. Your "value" of your children is a given (because of your choice) but to say this isn't altruism, is, in my opinion a deception - and one needed by Rand for political and not philophical purposes. Bob Good points. I think that it definitely clears things up if you cut out the the speculative and immeasurable and focus on the directly observable and measurable. It makes things far less complex, but I wonder if it's really as cut and dry as that? I'm sure some people will come up with scenarios where the line is blurred. For instance, if you don't feed your children you could go to jail for neglect. What about instances where the benefit is only perceived and not directly observed? For example - a business owner chooses to donate money to a charity (and for arguments sake, doesn't claim it on their taxes) for the perceived benefit that being known as a "good guy" in the community will get him more business. Six months later business hasn't changed much - no significant gain or loss; however the fact that there was no loss is a perceived gain because another store opened over that period of time. What kind of act would you call his donation? I can't help but chuckle here - I really want to just say you're right and I agree with your points. I don't want to risk ruining the thread with petty example, but I personally think that these scenarios are proof that one has to be willing to think pragmatically sometimes at the risk of not having a "perfect" system. Ian

I found the original article to be quite moderate, the form of "environmentalism" you described to be extreme, and your reaction to it to be equally extreme. I don't understand why being careful with the planet is "submission to nature" - don't humans reap some real and measurable benefits from acting as caretakers of the planet? Why take it to the extreme of becoming cavemen? If you want to say things like that then I'll say that you want to poison the water supply because you think it would be 'wicked awesome' if the water in your reservoir was bright yellow. Or that you want to cut down all of the rain forest because it would 'rock' to use the land to build a swamp-themed casino. It makes more sense to use common sense. Read Jared Diamond's "The Rise and Fall of Civilizations" if you think human ingenuity can always compensate for being inconsiderate with nature. Ian

I'm no expert, but it seems easy enough: kindness is a consequence of acting 'selfishly'. In other words you don't choose to act kindly - you choose to act 'selfishly' and kindness may be a byproduct of that. It's really the only option as I understand her theory (as others have outlined here); choosing to act kindly would be altruistic and therefore it couldn't result in kindness. Yes, I think that's well put. Xray, who would you prefer to accept an act of essential kindness from - an altruist who's professed 'business' is predominantly about duty and obligation to others; or a rational individualist, who reserves the right to be benevolent when he chooses so? (A clue: the latter is acting out of volition, the first by force.) Ultimately, only an egoist can be benevolent. Or put another way: There is none so kind as he who isn't forced to be. Tony Tony, I think you actually cleared something up that I missed. An act performed "altruistically" may be perceived as kindness by the benefactor of that action, however, it would not be regarded as an act of "essential kindness" (as you put it). Does that make sense? I guess I'd like to know more about this: If two actions, one said to be egoistic and one said to be altruistic, achieve the same end from the perspective of the benefactor how would that be treated? Would it be said that both were actually egoistic acts, but one was wrongfully said to be altruistic? Would it be said that the egoistic act was the only act of essential kindness because the motives behind the altruistic act preclude it from being an act of essential kindness? Or...something else? I'm truly curious. I think it has been touched on earlier, but I'm trying to understand and I hope this way of positing it gets me a more direct answer..

I guess you mean post 432. I have used "coercion" (or a cognate) because it has a much narrower meaning than "force". In this discussion my concern has been choices made by person X when coerced by person Y. Person X being "forced by nature" is not my concern. Thanks Merlin. I understand what you're saying, but I still think it leaves room to argue that almost every choice is constrained by some force outside of oneself be it natural, social, interpersonal, etc. I'm not sure saying that one force comes from a person, called coercion, and another from something else is enough to exclude the latter from this discussion. For example: I am coerced to build a home that is earthquake resistant because the insurance companies will not offer coverage and it will not meet the requirements of local codes for new structures if I do not. I am forced to build a home that is earthquake resistant because if I don't there's a good chance it will collapse and someone will be hurt. Keep in mind, I personally think that your argument is the stronger argument as I don't like to carry things out to what I consider ridiculous extremes as I have done in my previous post and here. Being more of a pragmatist, I'm okay with "ignoring" natural forces because it muddles things up and doesn't help resolve the issue (as virtually anything in philosophy can be carried out in this manner to no end) - I just get the feeling that many people here don't share my pragmatic outlook. That being said - I'm not trying to put you on the spot or argue for the sake of argument. In the spirit of this particular debate, I'm merely throwing another wrench! Respectfully, Ian

Merlin, See my comment above regarding "force". I'd like to read your opinion if you're inclined to respond.

I'm no expert, but it seems easy enough: kindness is a consequence of acting 'selfishly'. In other words you don't choose to act kindly - you choose to act 'selfishly' and kindness may be a byproduct of that. It's really the only option as I understand her theory (as others have outlined here); choosing to act kindly would be altruistic and therefore it couldn't result in kindness.

Things do appear to get murky when you introduce the idea of force. One could follow the rules of society based on their perception that it is a sacrifice for the "greater good" or sacrifice their values for the perceived benefit of not incurring fines or being detained. Alternately one may choose not follow the rules and sacrifice freedom or money for the the perceived benefit of staying true to one's values or in the hope that the act will lead to change for the "greater good". While I can see how one could make an argument that these are all examples of trading a lower value for a higher value one could also argue from the point of view of GS and Merlin and say that because situations like these force people to choose, what they might regard as, the "lesser of two evils" there really is no freedom to choose for oneself. Another argument could be made that all choices are conditionally or contextually constrained by forces out of our control. In that case it would be valid to ask what constitutes force or coercion as implied by GS and Merlin and how do they differ from conditional or contextual forces? Are we ever free to choose from all imaginable possibilities (perhaps the very idea that we can't know every possibility precludes the following question) or are we always "forced" to choose from a finite and constrained set of available options? Put another way, what's the difference between explicit and implicit forces?

Thanks GS. I've read some of your responses especially those to George H. Smith's article critiquing the contextual theory of knowledge. Actually, the condescending and patronizing tone he took up with you is the reason my response to him was written so harshly and I was getting rather perturbed by that - although the reason I responded was because his arguments are weak not because I thought you needed me to come to your defense haha. Ian

It can and it's been briefly discussed in a couple of intro seminars I've taken, but I haven't drilled down much further into it. I am familiar with the works of Austin and Searle, but my knowledge of them is not extensive.

Greetings, A little about myself. I'm a graduate student interested in rhetorical theory. I have a working familiarity with the works of Nietzsche, Foucault, Aristotle, Plato, Deleuze, Heidegger, Dewey, Kierkegaard, Bateson, deCerteau and to a lesser degree Wittgenstein, Arendt, Marx, Locke, Hegel, Cooley, James, Baudrillard, Kant, Descartes and Bergson. I've worked with each one of these thinkers in an eclectic mix of projects ranging from looking at Darwin's use of metaphor, metis, techne, and kairos in relation to teaching and learning assessment in higher education, novel ways of teaching in 5th grade reading programs, the rhetoric of Al-anon, conflict resolution, etc. Among my favorite authors are Dostoevsky, Kafka, Philip K. Dick, and Gogol. I don't consider myself a follower of any one philosophy, but I find myself fascinated with the thinking of so-called Existentialist. I'm not a libertarian, a liberal, a conservative, or a socialist - I find each of these too extreme. I'm especially weary whenever a philosopher backs a political movement (See Foucault and Iranian theocracy, Heidegger and Nazism, Marx and socialism, etc.) I find the 'Common Sense' approach to be a far more effective - observe the situation and do what works rather than try to force a square peg into a round hole based on some abstract idealized political belief system. I'm agnostic leaning towards atheist, but I can't help but feel that atheism is in itself a religion. I guess I could be accused of being on the fence, but I consider myself to open-minded. If I see something that works, I'm not afraid of the label associated with it. I'm here because I like to learn new things. Thanks and I look forward to interacting with anyone who chooses to interact with me.

It's not just an "imbalance". Rand's theory is relativist. This is easily demonstrated. To wit, when everyone thought the sun orbited the earth this was the full extent of their knowledge at the time. This, according to Randian theory, this made it absolutely true. Now, according to the full extent of our knowledge at the time, we know the sun does not go round the earth. This, according to Randian theory, makes it also absolutely true. This is therefore clearly a relativist theory of truth ie truth is relative to the knower. I don't see how this can be avoided other than by mere word-games - which is in fact the method Rand attempted. It's Rand that bandies about the "absolutes" on this topic. She's the source of the confusion. BTW what you're saying boils down to claiming something is, in effect, "mutably immutable". Obviously a problem. "Contextual absolute" is a similar oxymoron. There's no real problem with this. Let's say I throw a bunch of matches down in front of you and ask you guess at the number. You take a wild guess at 27 - and sure enough, it turns out there are in fact 27 matches there. You have arrived at the truth, undeniably; but you have no justification for it. Thus there is no necessary connection between 1) having the truth, and 2) having a justification for it. Once again, this is not the problem you think it is. I will give my standard example of the theoretical physical state of "absolute zero." Now, if quantum mechanics is true, it may be that we can never attain a state of "absolute zero". But that doesn't mean such a proposed standard is useless or as Randians like to hyperventilate, Platonic and evil. In fact such a standard is of the greatest usefulness, as we may discover amazing things (eg superconductors) in attempting to attain such allegedly "evil" standards. Now consider that as an analogy for "absolute truth" - how the proposal of that as a standard to be sought leads to amazing unexpected discoveries, even if we never find the truth itself. There's no error there. There is another wrinkle, however, in that you may in fact have the truth in your possession - it is possible, even if highly unlikely. But you can never finally know that you have it - not even after a thousand years. This is the upshot of Hume's problem. This is what makes those thinkers so Randian! Daniel, Thank you for your thoughtful response. After reading my responses over again it's obvious that I've been outclassed - I was trying to be cute and came across as pompous. I apologize to anyone I may have put off. Merlin did a better job than I did elucidating the contextual theory of knowledge. My point is, I don't know how you can escape relativism and I don't agree that setting up an arbitrary ideal truth that is absolute across all past, present and future contexts is helpful in a philosophical system. I agree that in a mathematical system it is extremely practical, if not necessary, to use values like absolute zero. I just don't think it's necessary in a philosophical system, that is, I don't agree that without it we'd somehow stall out and stop searching for knowledge or that it would lead to extremes like nihilism or solipsism. As far as your examples go, I can see where you are coming from and they are interesting points. However, it seems to me like you're doing a lot of unnecessary work to defend something that is only serving as a make believe counter balance relativism (which I'm yet to be convinced is really a problem). My only arguments would be: as far as the cards go - it would remain a guess unless someone counted them and confirmed it, then it would be justified. What purpose does it serve to speculate that you possess absolute truths that you don't know you possess and can never know you possess? I'd like to ask another question that I touched on before: isn't the concept of this kind of "absolute truth" an unjustified relative "truth" itself? Also, I'm not sure if you were joking about those thinkers being Randian or not! Haha. I would say that they shared some of the same influences, but I wouldn't call them Randian. Again, I'm not a Randian. I just think the argument set forth in this particular article is weak.

Robert, That would depend on what you want to know - do you want to know about the properties or behaviors of 650,231,522 instances of mixtures of human blood or do you want to know about the properties or behavior of all human blood types of A/B/AB/O and all human blood types of Rh-positive and Rh-negative? I guess it would depend on your research parameter, i.e., the context of the study. How tightly bound is the context of knowledge? I guess that also dependent on the context itself. For instance I'm sitting in a chair now and typing this response that's true in this context, but I will no longer be sitting down and typing in a chair when I go to bed in a little while. So if you wanted to know what I did tonight you could say that it's true that I sat in my chair and typed and slept in my bed, if you wanted to know what I was doing when I typed this it would only be true that I was sitting down and typing. George is conflating everything into a meta-context which makes the need to discuss contexts pointless. I'm not sure why this would suggest that you couldn't generalize beyond the data collected to date? Of course you can, but it doesn't mean what you've generalized will always be true in every future context. Do you expect absolute certainty before you consent to generalizations? Here's what George has done: -He's identified an imbalance towards relativism in Rand's contextual theory of knowledge as problematic. -He's misrepresented the problem by confusing the theory. Just because something is "immutably true" in one context does not exclude that it may be found false in another context. Something can be true in one context and not in another. Unless we're talking about absolute or universal truth, which I assumed we weren't because we were discussing it as posited in the contextual theory of knowledge - right? If not, it's even more confused that I thought. -He's decided to differentiate between the terms justifiable and truth. -To insure balance between relativism and absolutism he's decided to retain the "truth", but only as absolute truth, which he himself states we cannot know. So let me get this straight. By his own admission we have "no royal roads to knowledge", yet we're going to go ahead and make believe that absolute truth exists because it somehow fixes his problem. Can anybody else see the error in this? Why is this better than simply stating truth is relative and contextual or "justifiable"? Isn't pretending that absolute truth exist a truth that is relative to this particular theory of knowledge, i.e. in the context of this theory? It's relative truth right down to the foundation of his philosophy, but he'd rather pretend it's based on absolute truth because he thinks that we'll simply stop our quest for knowledge without it. The only things impeding our quest for knowledge are meta-theories that posit absolute truth as their foundation. Unless of course he did it for utilitarian or pragmatic reasons, but then why not just become a pragmatist and drop the whole absolute truth thing altogether because you won't need it there. Anyway, people have already come up with much better theories that account for the problem he's identified. See: Heidegger, Foucault (regimes of truth, conditions of possibility), Kuhn (paradigms), Deleuze (rhizomes), etc. Each tries to account for the reasons things are considered "true" within a certain context and how what's "true" changes as conditions/contexts/etc. change. Ian

I agree with what you say here Brant, but I think she's posited self-interest as an amoral absolute not as a value. Actually, if she's correct this whole debate on altruism is moot as altruism would be relegated to no more than an untenable abstract ideal. As far as I'm concerned - if I give my food to somebody and go hungry for an evening it can be both a selfless act (I spend the night feeling hungry) and a selfish act (e.g. if it makes me feel "good" or if I expect a favor in return). Positing that either altruism or egoism can exist in pure states seems pointless to me.

George, I am not defender of Rand's contextual theory of knowledge, but this doesn't seem right to me. It would seem that you're conflating three possible contexts into one. Here's how I would interpret this: Context 1: Researcher's, using the accepted scientific methods of the time, concluded that "A bloods are and always will be compatible". Context 2: Something happens that proves their conclusions wrong, e.g., new techniques or instruments are discovered, complications from blood transfusions lead them to question the results, etc. Context 3: Researchers, using the accepted scientific methods of the time, concluded that the RH factor exists. Now if you look back: in Context 1 the conclusions are true, in Context 2 the conclusions were brought into question, in Context 3 new conclusions are true. This is an oversimplification as I'm certain one could identify a multitude of contexts, but since finding more context would only reinforce my point, I'm comfortable with it. You seem to imply that there is no shift in context between the initial findings and the eventual discovery of the RH factor. Do you think that because something is thought to be true at one particular moment in time, it will never questioned? That's obviously not what happened in reality. The researches who originally concluded that "A bloods are and always will be compatible" (and the majority of the scientific community) did indeed think that their discovery was true, yet the RH factor was still discovered. You aren't just conflating contexts, you're ignoring them altogether in your analysis. Here's what the contextual theory is telling us: that things are true when looked at within certain context. If we look at the statement "A bloods are and always will be compatible" within the context of the time it was believed to be true it is true. If you remove it from that context and place it into a context that came into existence after it was proven false it is false. I think you understand this and I think I understand your argument, but you've written it in such a way that you seem to be confused on this basic principle. What you're offering as an alternative seems like a slippery slope. According to your theory everything should always be considered tentatively true for at least two reasons: 1. if something is considered to be true then nobody would ever take the time to try to prove it otherwise and 2. because history dictates that things we think are true tend to become false, so why would we ever even consider anything as true in the first place? Unless, of course, you believe that we have reached the limits of our knowledge and can now feel comfortable calling things true because there is no longer the possibility of an unforeseen method, technique, problem, etc. that may disprove a current truth. Your idea of using "justified" instead of true is okay with me (in terms of being coherent with your general argument), but you don't seem to want to do that universally and, in my opinion,you can't have it both ways. So, this is how you solve the problem? Do you honestly believe setting up something which you all but state does not exist, at least in the minds of a mere mortal human, as an abstract ideal is philosophically useful (perhaps I'd agree if you argued that it was somehow psychologically useful - since that's the only realm in which it seems to exist)? And to remind us of our fallibility? Our fallibility compared to...God? Nature? Our spouse?

Very well said David.