MrBenjamatic

I'm working at a factory for 40 hours a week night shifts. I have, before robbery, a little more than enough to move from the despots house and into my own apartment and support myself. After robbery, I don't have enough and I refuse to be on welfare so I'll have to publish the book upon correcting every philosophical error I made after reading and understanding Rands books. Fashion might be regulated, I haven't checked yet. It didn't seem important. Half of my winter-wear is illegal as a lot of it consists of exotic furs such as Siberian tiger and leopard. I have so many business endeavors, I'm sure at least one is not regulated as much as architecture. I discovered not too long ago that I'm forced to receive a degree and license for interior design and landscape architecture: I'll be wiping those maggots out of my way too. Its baffling to think that I'd have to go to college for about 15 years to do only my architecture. For government permission to pursue all of my endeavors which I've been long planning, I'd have to spend three fifths of my life in colleges for the requisite involuntary servitude. I hope I'll find a field not so regulated, I very much want to have my own factory/foundry. I'd live in my office if my architecture was illegal and watch. My GOD that will be exalting!

Roark knew Dominique wanted his ego. It sexually attracted her which attracted him. His architecture and his virtue sexually attracted Dominique, which sexually attracted Roark. Henry Rearden was attracted by Dagny wearing his bracelet. If Dominique truly hated the fact that Roark had an ego, if she was not attracted by that, Roark would not want her. Roark's ego rested on his great ability to think, his architecture reminded him of it and he wanted to see her in his architecture for the same reason that Rearden wanted to see his Rearden metal bracelet around Dagny's wrist. I know that much. Women, pretend to themselves they want to dominate the man, but really want to be dominated by him. Men pretend they want to be dominated by the woman but then can't resist dominating them. What I just said does not necessarily apply, I don't think, to sadistic women and masochistic men. Dagny was attracted to and bedded Rearden because of his ego (based on his ability to think) and his metal and company (which is evidence of his ability to think). Hank was attracted to Dagny because he knew it. Sexual attraction, I think, is introspective. If you think you consider yourself worthless (in other words: want to die), you will want to bed a rotter. If you know you are valuable and you want to live, you bed the most virtuous person of the opposite sex you can find. You love others for their virtues. This is self-evident to me. I would need her to be virtuous (Roark provoked and needed Dominique to be virtuous throughout the book). That is probably what Rand meant by naked need. Sex is a celebration of life. I think the ownership wanted is of her love. I can't justify why John would love Dagny more than his life but I know it was the right thing for him to say. He loved her and to have a love of yours die, I'm sure would be unbearable, especially for such a perfect couple as Dagny and John. I also thought I would paste a comment left on Piekoff's facebook, by a David Chako, in regards to Dagny's love life, which I think is very relevent. "She was in love with herself, and therefore, with each of Francisco, Hank, and John in turn, as she grew into her self and evolved into the complete person that was potential when she met Francisco, in process when she met Rearden, and complete when she met Galt. At each stage, the man in question was the ideal counterpoise to her own self worth and goals, and don't think she wouldn't fall out of love with Galt if he changed away from her ideal -- or she changed away from his. But those who have found their Galt or Dagny, as full grown adults, know how unlikely such a change is once one has settled with oneself and then, from that adult perspective, consciously chosen a mate. "She was entranced by Galt, and he by her, because their values formed a perfect complement to one another, a whole that was more than the sum of its parts, in such exquisite harmony and understanding that Dagny felt it as a magnetic pull so strong she dared not resist or lose her soul. It is simple, elegant, irresistable. And in that recognition, nothing less can ever be acceded to again"

Still false: On the contrary, it is often totally rational and moral to willingly help others (i.e.strangers). Where do you get this stuff? If you don't understand rational selfishness, don't fake it. Ask. Read. There must be dozens of pertinent threads on OL. In terms of Objectivist ethics, the worst harm is to misrepresent something to yourself, only secondarily to others. And some people are not as honest and as forthright as you, and knowing your ignorance, will cynically use your statements against you (or against Objectivist ethics in general.) Helping others cannot be moral. It is right to sustain your existence. In order to sustain your existence you have to think and you can only think with your mind and no one else's. This is self-evident to me. You cannot think for another. As YOUR mind and no one else's is YOUR means of survival and NO ONE ELSE'S, how can it be moral to sustain anothers existence when they alone can think for themselves? If thinking is mans only means of survival, and he can only think with his brain and no one else's, how can it be moral to help another if you can't think for him and faith is evil. You cannot help another in any important way because you can't think for them. Thinking is the virtue upon which all other virtues must be based on as without thinking, you cannot sustain your existence. This conviction Rand said and I understand and know (knowledge being sensory evidence and reason based on sensory evidence). I do not take Rand on faith, that would be stupid, haha. I laughed after I wrote that. Independency is a virtue because you and no one else can think for you and no one else, because you must act on the judgement of your mind and no one else's and the only alternative is not judging and dying or death by faith (which is usually a slow death). It is right to act on the honest and rational judgement of your own mind. Depending on others to make reality-judgements for you (faith), depending on others to sustain your existence is an evil death wish. How can it be immoral to, in some cases, receive help, and, at the same time how can it be an absolute that helping others be moral. That is a contradiction. That being said, morality (virtue) consists of sustaining your existence. I've helped others but helping those others niether contradicted my life-purpose nor my reason nor that which is required to sustain my existence. I agree with Rand when she said that helping others is neutral and only evil so long as it is an irrational sacrifice (redundant but included because of the existence of altruists who hold death as a greater value than life). I know I'm rationally selfish, and, I think, so do you. Also, if helping others was moral, it would be moral for Dagny Taggart to have refused Galt so to continue helping her own destroyers destroy her.

Who is an architectural "certifier"? Those organizations you want to sue for preventing you from practising. How is the lawsuit going btw? I haven't filed it yet. I'm further studying philosophy so to correct any errors I may have in my case. If the laws of logic are held as valid in a courtroom, if the judge and jury recognize that every thing is itself, I can win right now. I want to be right about everything I say before trial. I'm exercising reason and studying philosophy more before trial.

Who is an architectural "certifier"? *Never mind. I think regulator would be a better word to use. The purpose of my life is My Benjamin. My Benjamin is an end in itself. The purpose of my studying philosophy is to win my court case by justifying it with indubitable logic, which I have, and to gain and keep my architecture and happiness more than I did before I knew of Objectivism. Wiping the architectural gangsters guns out of my way is a profound reason and motivator to study Objectivism.

The specific definition of parasite I relate to an unborn baby is: An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. I have not said that a baby harms the health of the mother or that a baby human, once born, is a parasite. I guess one could call this deduction as all words are concepts, as Rand said, but I hardly understand the difference yet between induction and deduction apart from the Ayn Rand Lexicon description which is very short and which I am endeavoring to further grasp. If induction is held to mean taking facts of reality and forming concepts, I have used induction. The umbilical cord and its purpose is a fact of reality. For the record, I do take facts of reality to form concepts (as opposed to deducing reality from concepts). My justification of rights is grounded with facts of reality. I know, in order to sustain my existence, I have to use my mind and my body. I know my life and no one else's is my life and no one else's. That is self-evident, in other words,I have sensory evidence that it is true. I know, in order to sustain my existence I have to offer to trade that which is mine and no one else's (my architecture, for instance) and if trading (that which is mine and no one else's) was forbidden by force until and unless I received permission from someone else, someone could easily stop and destroy me by refusing to sanction all trades I need to make. I also, as I've noticed your aware, perform deduction, if it is held to mean: the process of subsuming new instances under a known concept (Rand's def). I originally reached the conclusion, by means of reason, that it is proper for man to trade as it sustains his existence and man has a right to trade that which is his and no one else's. I realized I made a mistake: that if I had the right to trade with someone, they would have no right to refuse to trade (so long as I had the right to trade with them); upon thinking of that, I then held that man has the right to offer to trade that which is his and no one else's. I don't know whether this is induction or deduction. I'm not going to claim I understand. Also, I noticed the definition of rationalism held that one is only a rationalist if he "obtains his knowledge of the world exclusively by deducing it from concepts which come from inside his head and are not derived from the perception of physical facts". I know I studied magnetism without reading but by means of reason and of magnets themselves. (Magnetic levitation will take place throughout my architecture). That which I know about magnetism (knowledge being sensory evidence and reason based on sensory evidence) is based on physical evidence I sensed of magnetism and has been furthered by means of reason. I barely knew definitions prescribed to magnets and their nature; I learned some definitions after experiments of magnetism and physics so to define what I did. I don't know it but I may deduce too much in other areas of thinking, but when it comes to the creation of my architecture I must perform induction. Rand said definitions are concepts. Wouldn't integrating definitions and entities (so to define the entities), be a process of deduction? It seems to me that people have held deduction as immoral, or, perhaps they hold rationalism as immoral (which I agree with, and once and if I prove myself guilty of it, I'll change it). Furthermore, to the extent of my knowledge, deduction cannot be immoral: If deduction is meant to mean "The process of subsuming new instances under a known concept", would it not be stupid to ignore that new instance of sensory evidence and refuse to integrate it with your established concepts, or, if you haven't a concept for it yet to create one (though that is, I think, induction. Integration is essential to reason and thereby deduction is key to survive. Anyway, I'm going to read about induction and deduction and concepts and rationalism. I'm going to further study Objectivist epistemology. Till then I can't and won't claim I know more than a sliver (which I might have misconstrued) about induction and deduction. Then I'll judge for myself whether I'm a rationalist or not. If I am, I'll think and solve the problem of rationalism. If I'm not, I'll understand more upon the volumes of thought I always put into philosophy. But don't expect me to take on faith that I'm a rationalist. By the way, if rationalism is held to mean "obtaining knowledge of the world exclusively by deducing it from concepts, which come from inside one's head and are not derived from the perception of physical facts", then a rationalist creator is a contradiction. I am a creator. One can only create a new architecture by means of reason. You have to know the nature of that with which you build, as that which you build hasn't been done before. Rationalism and reason clash with each other. You absolutely cannot act only on reason and be a rationalist at the same time. Either you are a rationalist or you are not just as you are alive or you are not: this, like death, is a matter of either-or. If I'm a tad bit of a rationalist (which is a contradiction as one deduces reality ENTIRELY from concepts or one does not), I'll fix it by means of reason (which must be the antidote of rationalism). Carpe Diem, Carpe Noctum PBH

You consider helping others as immoral then? It is immoral only when it is a self-sacrifice and irrational.

Yup. But keep working it. Michael I always do. And I couldn't bear to stop thinking. I'm now about to endeavor induction vs. deduction and also concepts. I know I have great ability, great talent and great virtue (great as my architecture which needs to be greater along with my philosophy). I can't wait till I understand Objectivism completely! I'll be the ultimate aristocrat. I also thought I'd ask whether you hold that babies are not parasites? Don't you know the purpose and existence of umbilical cords? Without the umbilical cord the baby would die. And I don't hold it as evil as no unborn baby can chose not to be a parasite. I did correct myself, however, and now I do hold all homo sapiens as human beings, even unborn babies. My holding unborn babies as non-humans is what you, I think, held as being a contradiction, and, upon thinking of it more, I agree. But the unborn babies, being human, still do not have the right to their mothers body as it is her body and no one else's. I do know that my justification of individual human rights with the logic of logic is irrefutable as the laws of logic: You have the right to use and dispose of, offer to trade and give away that which is yours and no one elses with no one else's permission. (I'm not certain in my describing rights as: the ability to use & dispose of, offer to trade and give away that which is yours and no one elses; I'm not sure whether ability is the best word, however I do know my basing rights on the laws of logic is right.)

The umbilical cord provides the baby, before birth, with oxygen and nourishment, without which the unborn baby would die. The definition of a parasite is: an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of the host. These are irrefutable facts, and the facts upon which I've based my conviction that an unborn baby is a parasite due to the existence and purpose of the umbilical cord. I don't compare it to original sin as original sin claims that you are born evil and have to redeem yourself. The parasitical nature of unborn babies is not evil as there is no other way (other than cloning, perhaps) by which a human can be born. And I do not hold that the natural and requisite parasitical behavior of an unborn baby has to be, by that baby, redeemed. If its not evil, how and why is redemption necessary? The baby does not have the right to be a parasite because the mothers body and no one else's, which the baby needs to survive, is the mothers body and no one else's. Once the baby is born, I would call it a human. I might have said otherwise earlier, but this is my final conclusion as humans don't chose to be immoral immediately upon being born. I remember from the John Galt speech Rand saying something like in order to be a human you must think, but you cannot choose be anything else. (Does anyone have the quote?). I think I took that the wrong way. I held that those who refuse to think are not humans but mere homo-sapiens, and I've corrected myself. Those who don't think try not to be humans, but they can't not be humans. It was a little error. Before I attributed rights to homo-sapiens and now I'll say individual human rights with full confidence. Does anyone still hold I've reached a contradiction?

Talk about Original Sin! According to this view, man is not only born morally defective (i.e. a looter), he's born not even human. You don't get any more true-believing than that. I see a premise that needs some serious checking. Michael I have not checked yet, as I usually do, my latest premises with Rand. I wouldn't call the baby a looter but a moocher as it has to mooch of its mother in order to survive and be born. I wouldn't compare it to original sin that mooching is not permanent. I wonder if you're pro-life or pro-choice? I'll check soon what Rand has said on the subject. I do remember her being pro-choice and I think she wrote in the John Galt speech something about the prerequisites of being a human, and, furthermore that no one is automatically a human. She said those who refuse to think are not human, I know that.

Needs can be natural, but what what rights are "natural"? isn't the notion of "right" a construction of the human mind? I think you naturally have a right to that which is yours and no one else's naturally. Your ability to use your brain is a right that is yours naturally. I have made these posts so others can check my premises. The premise I wanted checked in particular is my explaining rights as an ability (the ability to use and dispose of, offer to trade and give away that which is yours and no one else's without permission). I wonder if there's a better word than ability to use. I am certain that rights protect your ability to "use and dispose of, offer to trade and give away that which is yours and no one else's with no one else's permission", I merely wonder whether rights themselves ARE that specific ability: the ability to "use and dispose of, offer to trade and give away that which is yours and no one else's with no one else's permission".

MrBen, Have you got ahold of VoS and CUI yet? As Xray advised you somewhere, you have to check those premises (also, definitions). Otherwise all your logic - and some of it seems tautologous, and begs the question - is going to fall down. Great to go about it your own way, but having also spent years re-inventing the wheel, I learned finally that stubborn pride can be the flipside of an independent mindset. The sooner you grasp Rand's ideas at source, the less ingrained the errors you will have to prise out later. THEN, that independent mind will come into its own. Which premises of mine are contradictory? Where have I made mistakes regarding definitions?

You're right, I should have worded that: helping others cannot be moral. I should have been more specific. That sentence I thought about only for a second before posting it and now I realize was wrong.

A baby, as I've discussed in another thread, is, in fact, a parasite. As evidence I offer you the existence and purpose of the umbilical cord. A human can survive independently, but in order to surive he has to think. In order to be a human you must think (Rand). A baby is not yet a human. Once man is able to and does practice (Objectivist) virtue, he is a human.

Receive, conceive etc. You're welcome. Your right!

I hold that the right to that which is yours and no one elses and is yours naturally (see my explanation above) is something you are born with as it is an ability. Rights are the ability to use and dispose of, offer to trade and give away that which is yours and no one else's with no one else's permission. Ability is the best word I could think of for the context of my explanation and justification of rights. Furthermore, it is right to be moral and in order to be moral you have to exersize your ability to use and dispose of, offer to trade that which is yours and no one else's with no one else's permission. Though rights include the ability to give away that which is yours and no one else's without permission, it cannot be moral to give something away.

Which word have I mispelled? Thanks for the hint by the way, I do slip here and there

You apply the "admit truth" definition to grant, I think. I don't agree that it truthfully fits in the context of your posts. Truth is truth whether anyone admits it or not. What exact definition are you using? I can't grasp your definition so I can't grasp your premise.

Not granted by whom or by what. Its that broad of a definition? New Architecture, Couture is a discussion I posted which can be found in the aesthetic section of this website.

The definition of intrinsic I used was "belonging to something as one of the basic and essential features that make it what it is". My justification of rights can be found at the end of my aesthetic post "New Architecture, Couture". I have based rights directly off the laws of logic. I can't think of a simpler way of doing it. My post above is based on my justification (from my aesthetic post) and is not the justification itself merely an application of my justification. By the way, what do you mean when you say negative and positive rights? I've held negative to mean doesn't and/or can't exist (edx. -1 couches cannot exist). Human animal is a contradiction. Animals have instinct and humans do not. I think you were using those words to describe a baby? I've never thought about whether a baby was a human or not as it acts automatically (to the extent of my knowlege). Either way, beings with no will can't have rights (as you have no right to act if you can't chose to act or not to act) and how can a baby sustain its own existence without its umbilical cord? It is precisely the umbilical cord which makes the baby the mothers property (as its naturally attached to her body and no one else's) and she has the right to dispose of her property.

This is not suprising at all. "Despotism is the oldest crime" - Victor Hugo. The abstract, surreal music is very fitting.

But would the federal government not tyrannically enforce laws upon the individuals in that community? Of course they would. The individuals would have to pay federal taxes and obey federal laws. There is no way to be free of the federal government and live in lassiez faire capitalism at present. Even doing so in secret would be impossible, or very very near to it, with all the tracking the government does: cell phones, internet, etc. Espionage and intelligence has furthered a great deal since Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged. I'm sure the Feds would find out, even by noticing a large amount of cell phones in the area, and poison your lassiez faire capitalist society with tyranny.

Some rights are natural, the others are rights by social contract (charity, trading). Rights are the ability to use and dispose of, offer to trade and give away that which is yours and no one else's with no one else's permission. (See, if you wish, my justification of rights located at the end of my aesthetic discussion titled New Architecture, Couture). Your three profound rights, from which all your rights come, are your right to your mind and no one else's, your body and no one else's, your life and no one else's. Your mind, your life and your body and no one else's are yours and no one else's naturally, intrinsically. The rights which come from your right to your mind, body and life are the ideas of your mind (and no one else's), the material products of your mind and/or your body and no one else's (whether it be your creations and no one else’s or the financial profit earned by your creation and no one else's). Not ALL rights are natural; Your two unnatural rights are: the right to that which you earn by voluntarily trading with others and that which you and no one else recieve from others by voluntary charity. Your natural rights are your right to that which you created and that which is the product of your life, body and mind and no one else's, thereby they can't be naturally yours and thereby they can't be intrinsic. That which you recieve from charity is not the product of your life, body and/or mind and no one else's. Furthermore, in order to trade voluntarily you need the right to offer to trade that which is yours and no one else's without permission. In order to recieve charity others have to have the right to give away that which is theirs and no one else's. No rights, natural or unnatural, contradict eachother. Rights are the ability to use and dispose of, offer to trade and give away that which is yours and no one else's with no one else's permission. Also, your natural rights ARE intrinsic (belonging to a thing by its very nature). Your right to your brain is intrinsic, for example. You will always have that right despite how many people forbid you to act on it as your right to your brain is intrinsic as only you and no one else can use it to concieve and that which you (and no one else) concieve is yours and no one else's. That which is concieved by your brain (and no one else's) is intrinsic as your right to your brain is intrinsic. "There is no such thing as a collective brain" -Ayn Rand. A man can claim your ideas and no one else's are his, but you will still have the right to those ideas: they will remain your ideas and no one else's whether others claim them or not. Your unnatural rights are the right to that which you earn by voluntarily trading with others and that which you and no one else recieve from others by voluntary charity. Your unnatural rights are not instrinsic as that which you recieve in a trade or from charity did not come from your mind, life, and/or body and no one else's. Your intrinsic (natural) rights are the product of exersizing your right to your body, life, mind and no one else's. And, yes, rights are only neccessary among a group of two or more people. (I say people, not animals, as, if you live among animals it will do no good to try to claim your rights when they cannot concieve that concept). Animals, when they violate human rights, are punished all the same but they act automatically and they can't concieve of rights and respect them when their instincts lead them to do otherwise. Humans can violate other humans rights (and only humans can have rights). That is why it is within a group a humans where rights must be respected and made constitutional. The fact that rights must be made clear in a social context does not contradict the fact that you have a right to that which is yours and no one else's is yours and no one elses and is so naturally and intrinsically. I also said that rights are the ability to use and dispose of, offer to trade and give away that which is yours and no one else's with no one else's permission. You have to have the liberty to exersize your ability in order to exersize your rights. Have I made sense? As for abortion I hold a woman has the right to have an abortion as its her body and no one else's; without her body and no one else's the baby could not survive. In that stage of the babies life, the baby is a parasite. There can be no right to parasitically feed on that which is not yours and no one elses. That which the parasitical baby uses to survive is the product, not of the baby, but of the mother and no one else. The mother, like every one else who doesn't initiate force, has the right to use and dispose of, offer to trade and give away that which is hers and no one else's without permission. Does this make sense?

I dunno, hard to believe that weren't times when Johann S , wrestling his latest composition from the drooling maws of the rugrats, wistfully thought that only 12 or 13 might have been nice. There is a good story I like about Bach. One of his (many, many) sons was up late practising a new piece over and over on the harpsichord. He kept practising and practising up to the climactic resolution of the counterpoint, but stopping before the end, and going back to practise the whole piece again from the first. The music woke Bach up. Finally the son stopped, before the end of the piece again, and went to bed. Bach couldnb't stand it. He got up and marched downstairs and played the final notes at thunderous volume, and then returned to bed. Hahaha!

Statements like "I love to smoke" express personal preferences and are not objective arguments. The same goes for "The deliciousness of cigarettes is of greater value to me than my health." They're according to my metaphysical value judgements. And doesn't objective mean that which pertains to reality and thereby that which is logical? It could be argued that knowingly damaging ones health is illogical as it is logical to sustain ones existence. What would you define as objective. I held it as being that which is logical and thereby pertains to existence. So it is logical to calculate the probable length of your existence, and decide you would prefer it a bit shorter? As you have already said you would rather die than go on welfare, I presume the answer is yes. Being logical merely consists of accepting the law of causality (a thing is itself) as an absolute; and the law of causality is a corollary of the laws of logic: a thing is itself, contradictions cannot exist, either-or. See my earlier post to see how all contradictions, in order to be contradictions, always require that a thing not be itself (which IS the contradiction). I am logical as I accept the law of causality and the laws of logic as absolutes. I do not evade that a cigarrette is itself, that its contents are harmful to my health and that the consequences of smoking (cancer, heart problems, etc) are what they are. I am logical in chosing death when my only alternative is welfare, not because of my choice, but because I recognize that death is death (and all that it presupposes) and welfare is welfare (and all that it presupposes: violating others rights by robbery with a government gun). Does this make sense? S No. Which particular section of my post confuses you? The point I was trying to make was that I don't evade that every thing is itself. I do not deny the immorality, the small sliver of immorality that is smoking; immoral as it is harmful to my health, but, I do not deny that I know exactly what I'm doing.