Roger Bissell

Drumpf isn't going to repeal anything. He can undo Executive Orders, and he can sign legislation (including repeal legislation) passed by Congress. but when Drumpf, Cruzifix, etc. say "I'm going to repeal X," they are being grandiose. They ought to be showing their respect for the Congress they are Constitutionally bound to work with by saying "WE will repeal and replace Obamacare." For that matter, what confidence do you have that the Congress will remain Republican-controlled - and that there will be enough pro-repeal Republicans still there to actually get a repeal bill passed and to <shudder> President Drumpf for his signature? Is POTUS Drumpf going to go over the heads of Congress, and try to dismantle Obamacare himself if he can't get a repeal bill out of Congress? Saying you're going to "take care of everybody" - both in 2000 and 2016 - and then being held accountable for such socialist redistribution ideas is not being a victim "gotcha." However much Drumpf and his supporters might wish to squeal and play the victim card. Seriously??? How many historical examples of gross manipulative liars do we need to cite here in order to convince you of the preposterous notion you have just uttered?? Was the guy in the Congress who blurted out "liar" during Obama's State of the Union address several years ago "dishonest"? Boy, the pudding is going to be full of proof if Drumpf is elected. Maybe there will even be some blackbird feathers in it. REB

Robert, Since Trump decided to fix it, I imagine. At least since the beginning of his campaign. Trump has been bitching about state monopolies of health insurance for his companies for a long time. And about the morons who run things on the government side. But he's also friends with owners of insurance companies. Does it matter when he first started using the word Obamacare instead of insurance? There's a mentality thing you seem to constantly miss with Trump. He doesn't live according to gotchas, neither do his supporters. He lives and thinks according to projects. If he is not engaged in a project, he might comment about the pros and cons of this or that aspect of it or not. There is nothing deeper involved other than an opinion like you or I might have about the bait to use for carp fishing. Once he engages, he uses his best thinking to get it done right. "Long time"?? Kinda relative, isn't it?? Is 16 years ago a "long time"? In his 2000 book, The America We Deserve (ouch!) - meant to prepare the way for a Trump run for President - he said he supported universal healthcare because "we should not hear so many stories of families ruined by healthcare expenses." He said, "I'm a conservative on most [MOST???] issues, but a liberal on this one." He said, "we need, as a nation, to reexamine the single-payer plan." This, of course, is a major plank in Bernie Sanders's campaign. Was THIS "his best thinking"? Or his current, vague, arm-waving, semi-coherent rant that hardly sounds different, except for letting companies compete across state lines and for people to have medical accounts - while the taxpayers pick up the tab on everyone who can't or won't pay for their own health insurance or healthcare? We "constantly miss" "a mentality thing...with Trump"?? Oh, no, I think we are well aware of his mentality. It's to say any vague, enthusiastic, big-talking thing you think will get you attention and votes - even if you have to reverse it 15 years or 15 minutes later. His 2000 book's position on healthcare was not the equivalent of carp fishing bait, and neither is his current not-so-different position. Except that's really about all either of them is worth. REB

This is a mystery? Good lord, look at Trump's negatives. Compared to Cruz, compared to anyone else running except Hillary, Trump is afloat only because of a loud vociferous minority who likes insults and vague promises to fight the Establishment. The more candidates that drop out, the more obvious it becomes that he does not have a majority of the party behind him. Now he's clamoring for Kasich to get out of the race - coincidentally (?) as the next states after Wisconsin will be back East where Kasich could seriously threaten Trump's racking up more delegates. Trump is no dummy, but he must think we are. REB

Robert, Listen to almost any campaign speech going back to July. One of Trump's core campaign promises is to repeal Obamacare. He's said it a gazillion times. Do you really need help in something this obvious? Recently, DT has been very vague and sounds more like a welfare-statist, bleeding heart liberal. Tonight on a town hall with Greta Van Susteren, he talked vaguely about "9 different options" and repealing Obamacare and replacing it with "something so much better" than Obamacare - "great health care for much less money." Yeah, right. Sounds just like Obamacare was touted to us. DT sez: "Whoever wants it is gonna have it." (Whatever "it" is.) "Nobody's gonna be dying on the street if I'm President." (Paid for by whom, and where are the savings going to come from??) "If it has to come from Medicare or whatever, we're going to help them out. We've got to." (This, he says, gets standing ovations from Republicans. Republicans???) http://video.foxnews.com/v/4829699406001/trump-on-what-trumpcare-will-look-like/?#sp=show-clips REB

He has consistently (I'm not sure of any lapses) VOTED against subsidies in Congress - is that SAYING or DOING? To me, it's both. It's not just SAYING you're against them, it's DOING something against them, namely, voting against them. Similarly, in the Iowa caucus campaign, he remained consistent with what he DID in Congress, by continuing to oppose subsidies - when he could have gotten more votes by changing his position, as some others did. So, maintaining consistency in SPEECH and ACTION about subsidies is NOT doing. But "having your staff" SAY something is DOING? Sounds to me like you're mangling and reversing the distinction between Cruz's DOING and SAYING when it exists in a rather unclear situation, and ignoring his overall DOING ~AND~ SAYING consistently about subsidies, when the evidence is very clear-cut and first-person. That's really funny, coming from a supporter of the candidate who has a different position on issues each day of the week - and sometimes more than one position on a given day, or even in a single hour. REB

Cruz campaigned in Iowa taking a stand against ethanol subsidies, which are supported by the Establishment GOP and crony capitalists there. Yet, he came out the winner. Was taking that politically risky stand SAYING or DOING? (Fans of the fallacy of the false alternative will recognize that it was both SAYING -AND~ DOING.) REB

Hmmm...more like: whatever Trump picks up in Wisconsin will be small potatoes, with or without gravy. REB

At some point, his projected vote totals will exceed that of the number of even potential registered voters in America, so they will have to start counting the dead in Chicago cemeteries and illegal aliens! REB

I use Windows 7, but it might have been during the brief, disastrous Windows 8 experiment that the CD didn't work. I'll try it again... REB

George, thanks again for another terrific essay. Your experiences and pathway regarding all of this are uncomfortably similar to mine. I had occasion to research Kant closely while doing a review (several years ago in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies ) of Peikoff's trashing of him in The DIM Hypothesis, and I found startling affinities between their moral outlooks that the barking dogs of Orthodox Objectivism would have you believe could not possibly exist. A few years ago, Fred Seddon similarly did an exegesis of Kant's views on "belief" vs. "faith." I don't know if he was another closet atheist like Locke (OK, deist), but he sure pulled the rug out from under the Rationalist theist philosophers. (Which is why Moses Mendelssohn called Kant "the All-Destroyer," not because, as Peikoff alludes, he was some sort of Nihilist, the honor of which more properly is attributed to Hume, who woke Kant from his "dogmatic slumbers.") REB

Well, that would require either my walking 30 feet to my copy of Atlas Shrugged and thumbing through it, hoping to spot the words "Eddie" or "Destroyer" - or, alternatively, my doing a Google search. I think you are equally qualified for these tasks. And since I'm not the one who made the point... However, if memory serves, I think it was Dagny who said to Eddie that there was "a destroyer" loose in the world, and Eddie in turn mentioned her concern in those words to Clark Kent in the cafeteria. I seem to recall that she also at another point referred to Galt as "the" destroyer. You might start by checking out chapter 3 of the book... REB P.S. - Back in the good old days, when my Objectivism Research CD still worked, I could have easily looked this up for you. Sadly, it refuses to cooperate any longer...

There's an irony - perhaps intentional! And thanks for reminding me about Galt aka "The Destroyer." Peikoff mentioned Moses Mendellsohn, a contemporary of Immanuel Kant, who referred to Kant as "the All-Destroyer." Of course, what Kant was destroying was the religious Rationalist basis for arguing logically for the existence of God. He said that any attempt to reason about that which is beyond sensory experience - like God, immortality, or freedom of the will - ends in contradictory results, and therefore you shouldn't try it. So much for rational theology! But Peikoff took this to indicate that Kant was into destruction for the sake of destruction and thus was the epitome of the category of Nihilist, in his DIM Hypothesis book. I don't know whether he got this "destroyer" notion about Kant from his discussions with Rand, or whether he just picked it up uncritically from his readings about history of philosophy in re Kant. REB

So we're viewing the two major parties as the "real" or "legitimate" parties, and any other party is a "destroyer"? 1. How much destruction by the Big Two must we overlook in order to view challengers or upstarts as "destroyers"? Now, I think that Ross Perot was definitely a destroyer, i.e., a spoiler, in the sense that he kept Bush Sr. from being re-elected - but Bush Sr. deserved to be denied re-election. 2. The Big Two are destroying themselves, because they are out of touch with the American people and seeking to aggrandize themselves with wealth and power by pandering to special interests and demonizing others. I won't even comment on the two leading candidates in each party. 3. The Big Two both deserve to crash and burn, but unfortunately what is most likely to burn are the cities in which the nominating conventions are held this summer - especially if Bernie and/or Trump do not win the nomination. And I still think that there are stranger, less likely scenarios than a 4th party "Unity" ticket of Trump and Bernie. REB

Looks like one of the compositions of John Cage! REB

Let me know when you set up the guessing thread for how many casualties (specifically guessing deaths is too gruesome) there are going to be at each of the major party conventions this summer. Also, how many of the same protestors will be at both conventions. Also, how much George Soros will spend financing the disruption of those conventions, and whether he will spend more in Philadelphia or Cleveland. Also, whether there will be a third-party ticket headed by Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, and what day they will announce. These would be fun things to guess on and might distract us from some of the ugliness, of which I expect there will be no shortage, as you also suggest. REB

Among other things, I'm concerned about #5. I believe that there should be absolute separation of church and guns. Plus, I'm worried about #12, since it doesn't say that political offices must be available to citizens who are above and below average. Therefore, I am resigning my membership with the Tea Party immediately! (I learned this kind of discerning purity from my Objectivist and libertarian friends.) REB

Is it possible that Trump exhibits Holier-Than-Thou Syndrome, projecting onto others his own mega-lying ways, accusing them of what he personally is guilty of in spades? Same for Trump's serial infidelities. Why, Trump could be an Evangelical Christian, after all, just like he claims! REB

I'm thinking: third-party, with Trump and Sanders. They have a lot in common, and it might be just the spoiler team needed in a four-way race to put Gary Johnson into the White House. REB

Yeah, if I were Trump, I'd be keeping my hand close to her chest, too! That's some pretty good goodness there! REB

Roger, Well now you've got me. Gotta fess up. I want to be schlonged by Trump. It's my deepest dream. My apex of sexuality is imagining Trump nude. Confession is good for the soul. But why so passive? Get in there and do some schlongin', boy! REB

Robert, It's a quip. Read into it whatever you want, but it's a quip. Banter. Playful exaggeration of my support of Trump. How it is you didn't get this? Does the prospect of having your man lose hurt that much? Exaggeration? You mean, sort of like when the old NBI softball teams playfully, tongue-in-cheekily referred to themselves as the Attilas and the Witch Doctors - or when Rand's circle referred to themselves as "The Collective"? Mmmmmmaybeeee. Robert can certainly speak for himself, but I suspect this notion didn't occur to him for the same reason that it didn't occur to me: the only contexts I've heard someone apply the term "groupie" to themselves were either a celebrity's giddy follower's confession of (usually) her deficit of rational individuality, independence, self-esteem, etc. - and/or that giddy follower's desire to get in the celebrity's pants. But it is also barely possible that Robert's fear that "his man" is going to lose has impaired his ability to discern that you, MSK, were engaging in playful exaggeration of your support for said celebrity. (Robert, can I help?) But I personally have full confidence that when DT goes down in flames, preferably sooner than later, you will have no trouble finding a new celebrity figure to support in playfully exaggerated manner. REB

Thanks for posting this, Merlin. I have put off reading Engelbretsen for too long. He has moved onto my short list, thanks to this. REB

Yup. Induction regarding part-whole relations is a little trickier than induction in general, but it works. What I borrowed from Henry B. Veatch and adapted immediately following is: These inductive premises (paraphrasing my most recent comment): REB

Of course, they are. "Considered as" is just another way of saying "viewed from the perspective of." All identity ("is") statements - except instances of A is A - are assertions that a given thing viewed from two different perspectives is the same thing, i.e., is itself. That's why propositions work, and that's why syllogistic works. This is affirmed by various realist schools of thought, from Thomists like Aquinas and, more recently, Henry Veatch, to Ontological Atomists like Butchvarov (whose Being Qua Being has an extremely valuable and clarifying discussion of formal "a is a" identity and material identity, which is involved in non-tautological propositions). When I put things in parenthesis, they are just for clarification, so that no shyster can come along and run with ambiguity and claim the argument is invalid. In other words, I'm making sure the reader knows what I am and am not trying to argue. For instance, expanding the copula "is" to read "is (the same thing as)" is not a violation of logic but a clarification of it. It is highlighting the fact that the function of a categorical proposition is not to attribute the predicate to the subject, nor to assign the subject membership in the predicate class, but to assert that what is referred to by the subject is the same thing as what is referred to by the predicate. And that is also why I, and all standard logic texts, and Aquinas, insist that propositions be put in "standard form," where you are literally saying that a thing (viewed from one perspective) is the same thing as that thing (viewed from another perspective). Again, that is how propositions and syllogisms work. Without the Law of Identity (and its corollaries) standing at least in the background, as the court of last resort, none of our utterances are intelligible. Here is an example: Venus considered as the morning star is (the same thing, viewed from a different perspective, as) Venus considered as the evening star. Two syllogisms, identity throughout: Syllogism 1. Phosphorus is (the same thing as) Venus considered as the morning star. Venus considered as the morning star is (the same thing, viewed from a different perspective, as) Venus considered as the evening star. Therefore, Phosphorus is (the same thing, viewed from a different perspective, as) Venus considered as the evening star. Syllogism 2. (from conclusion of 1.) Phosphorus is (the same thing, viewed from a different perspective, as) Venus considered as the evening star. Venus considered as the evening star is (the same thing as) Hesperus. Therefore, Phosphorus is (the same thing, viewed from a different perspective, as) Hesperus. Really? Hmmmm... A tail of a lion, considered as a species (lion), is also a tail of the same lion, considered as a genus (animal). A tail of a lion, considered as an individual, is a tail of the same lion, considered as a species (lion). Therefore, a tail of a lion, considered as an individual, is a tail of the same lion, considered as a genus (animal). Seems like all you're complaining about is that I didn't use X and Y in my argument. X, a tail of a lion, Y, considered as a species (lion), is also X, a tail of the same lion, Y, considered as a genus (animal). X, a tail of a lion, Y, considered as an individual, is X, a tail of the same lion, Y, considered as a species (lion). Therefore, X, a tail of a lion, Y, considered as an individual, is X, a tail of the same lion, Y, considered as a genus (animal). To me, that's just needless alphabet-soup, when the original version makes the case clearly and in depth. The original lays out the relations between parts and wholes and between individuals, species, and genera - and incorporates them into a categorical syllogism composed of three categorical propositions. By spelling out the relational complexities in ordinary language, it avoids paradox and fallacy that often results from excessive symbolization (e.g., the Goedel Slingshot argument). It doesn't get more Aristotelian than that. Supposedly such "gotcha" cases as this reveal the weak underbelly of Aristotelian logic, but it seems to me that they instead reveal its power and adaptability. Ironically, your rehashing of the modernist sophistries is making me more confident in the power of perspicuously applied Aristotelian logic than before. We've already been through this twice in the past. I met your challenge both times, and you refused to accept it both times. That's enough for the book I'm doing. (I won't quote you unless you want me to.) If they are NOT the primary argument forms in mathematics and the physical sciences, why are YOU championing them? REB

Sure, but not with the premise you have given me! You know as well as I do that syllogistic can't even get off the ground, until you have three terms, no more and no less. So, to do a syllogism on this mess you've given me (how dare you!), we need to somehow reduce it down to three terms from the five you've used (lion, animal, tail, tail of a lion, tail of an animal). And I'm here to tell you what you already know: it can't be done. The reason is that there is a huge relational structure baked into the challenge, one that the premise is worthless for dealing with. However, there are premises that will syllogistically generate the conclusion you want. Here's the pattern: A tail of a lion, considered as a species (lion), is also a tail of the same lion, considered as a genus (animal). A tail of a lion, considered as an individual, is a tail of the same lion, considered as a species (lion). Therefore, a tail of a lion, considered as an individual, is a tail of the same lion, considered as a genus (animal). This avoids the whole cumbersome, rickety apparatus of modern logic and depends on only one very useful general premise: a thing that stands as a term of a certain relation, when that thing is considered under one aspect, will also stand as a term of the same relation, when it is considered under another aspect. Or, more specifically, this corollary: a part of a whole, considered as a species, is also a part of the same whole, considered as a genus - and this corollary: a part of a whole, considered as an individual, is also a part of the same whole, considered as a species. I credit this Aristotelian approach to Henry B. Veatch, Intentional Logic: A Logic Based on Philosophical Realism, Yale University Press, 1952. His subsequent book, Two Logics, is a very helpful, systematic comparison of Aristotelian and modern logic. You will have to take out a second mortgage to buy these books second hand - or check them out from a university library and photocopy them. But they're worth every penny of it. REB