Definition of Man

[tjohnson]

By doing that, you really expose the fact that you don't know what definition means in Objectivism.

Are you telling me the word 'definition' means something different in Objectivism than anywhere else?

[Brant Gaede]

By doing that, you really expose the fact that you don't know what definition means in Objectivism.

Are you telling me the word 'definition' means something different in Objectivism than anywhere else?

He told you something. Now please tell us what it means "anywhere else"?

--Brant

[tjohnson]

By doing that, you really expose the fact that you don't know what definition means in Objectivism.

Are you telling me the word 'definition' means something different in Objectivism than anywhere else?

He told you something. Now please tell us what it means "anywhere else"?

--Brant

definition: a concise explanation of the meaning of a word or phrase or symbol

This is the normal meaning of the term, how is it different in Objectivism?

[Brant Gaede]

By doing that, you really expose the fact that you don't know what definition means in Objectivism.

Are you telling me the word 'definition' means something different in Objectivism than anywhere else?

He told you something. Now please tell us what it means "anywhere else"?

--Brant

definition: a concise explanation of the meaning of a word or phrase or symbol

This is the normal meaning of the term, how is it different in Objectivism?

That's lexicography. It says nothing how you get "concise" so as far as that goes it is Objectivism except it doesn't engage Objectivism for there is no philosophy there. I am not going to explain to you the difference between lexicography and philosophy for I have no interest in exchanging 100 rhetorical posts with you. I will point out that that difference has to be understood and that context--the philosophical context--before actually getting into Objectivist definitions. I have not read one post from you that indicates any interest in philosophy whatsoever, which makes you only an intelligent, tolerated troll on this list.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

[

That's lexicography. It says nothing how you get "concise" so as far as that goes it is Objectivism except it doesn't engage Objectivism for there is no philosophy there. I am not going to explain to you the difference between lexicography and philosophy for I have no interest in exchanging 100 rhetorical posts with you. I will point out that that difference has to be understood and that context--the philosophical context--before actually getting into Objectivist definitions. I have not read one post from you that indicates any interest in philosophy whatsoever, which makes you only an intelligent, tolerated troll on this list.

--Brant

It's no secret that I think 'philosophy' mostly represents episodes of semantic illness, which is why a refuse to spend my valuable time reading it. I do enjoy reading the comments here and adding a different point of view now and then and sometimes people even answer me and say I'm intelligent.

[Brant Gaede]

[

That's lexicography. It says nothing how you get "concise" so as far as that goes it is Objectivism except it doesn't engage Objectivism for there is no philosophy there. I am not going to explain to you the difference between lexicography and philosophy for I have no interest in exchanging 100 rhetorical posts with you. I will point out that that difference has to be understood and that context--the philosophical context--before actually getting into Objectivist definitions. I have not read one post from you that indicates any interest in philosophy whatsoever, which makes you only an intelligent, tolerated troll on this list.

--Brant

It's no secret that I think 'philosophy' mostly represents episodes of semantic illness, which is why a refuse to spend my valuable time reading it. I do enjoy reading the comments here and adding a different point of view now and then and sometimes people even answer me and say I'm intelligent.

I strongly suspect that on semanticist lists they haven't much to talk about.

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

Fine, well "man is a featherless biped" is verifiable by observation so why is the other definition the "one and only valid" one?

GS,

If you leave out survival as a standard (and the whole Objectivist conceptual chain), you can do what you just did.

I think that it's pretty darn clear that survival as a standard is not valid.

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

definition: a concise explanation of the meaning of a word or phrase or symbol

This is the normal meaning of the term, how is it different in Objectivism?

GS,

Definition of a concept, not just definition of "word or phrase or symbol."

You really should read the material.

Try it. You'll like it...

(Remember that commercial? )

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think that it's pretty darn clear that survival as a standard is not valid.

Bob,

Not valid for what?

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

I think that it's pretty darn clear that survival as a standard is not valid.

Bob,

Not valid for what?

Michael

I don't want to hijack this thread because it's the same argument I'm making elsewhere.

"Valid means verifiable by observation, or built on concepts that boil down to observation (without contradiction)"

Observation tells us (if evolution is correct) that survival is not a valid starting point of anything to do with essential humanity.

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

If something does not survive, it is dead. I don't want to be master of the obvious, but that is a pretty good starting point.

Michael

[tjohnson]

I strongly suspect that on semanticist lists they haven't much to talk about.

--Brant

LOL! You got that right, it's down right boring compared to this list. Everyone is so polite and it's all like 'to me' and IMO etc., all that subjective shit that objectivists don't like.

[Mike11]

A relevant

.

I agree with what he says here.

[BaalChatzaf]

I think that it's pretty darn clear that survival as a standard is not valid.

Bob

Survival is necessary but not sufficient. Man does not live by bread alone and there is more to us than inhaling and exhaling serially.

Staying alive is the first step. Achieving potential and using talent are later steps.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

I strongly suspect that on semanticist lists they haven't much to talk about.

--Brant

LOL! You got that right, it's down right boring compared to this list. Everyone is so polite and it's all like 'to me' and IMO etc., all that subjective shit that objectivists don't like.

Sounds like a Universalist-Unitarian prayer meeting. All prayers are address to "whom it may concern" and there is rarely a halleluja. Attending a U-U church service is like watching paint dry.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Alfonso Jones]

I strongly suspect that on semanticist lists they haven't much to talk about.

--Brant

LOL! You got that right, it's down right boring compared to this list. Everyone is so polite and it's all like 'to me' and IMO etc., all that subjective shit that objectivists don't like.

Sounds like a Universalist-Unitarian prayer meeting. All prayers are address to "whom it may concern" and there is rarely a halleluja. Attending a U-U church service is like watching paint dry.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Perhaps rather "a person not confident of the existence of moisture or the process of evaporation watching paint dry."

Bill P (Alfonso)

[BaalChatzaf]

Perhaps rather "a person not confident of the existence of moisture or the process of evaporation watching paint dry."

Bill P (Alfonso)

Tres bon!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[bmacwilliam]

I think that it's pretty darn clear that survival as a standard is not valid.

Bob

Survival is necessary but not sufficient. Man does not live by bread alone and there is more to us than inhaling and exhaling serially.

Staying alive is the first step. Achieving potential and using talent are later steps.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The point I'm making is that the reality is a little more complex than that - evolutionarily speaking. Yes, survival is important, but NOT always at the top of the hierachy. What we are, and how we got here, is through gene survival/replication, which is not as simple as individual survival. Gene replication sheds a subtle, but substantially different light on survival of the individual and how that fits in with what we are.

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

I think that it's pretty darn clear that survival as a standard is not valid.

Bob

Survival is necessary but not sufficient. Man does not live by bread alone and there is more to us than inhaling and exhaling serially.

Staying alive is the first step. Achieving potential and using talent are later steps.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The point I'm making is that the reality is a little more complex than that - evolutionarily speaking. Yes, survival is important, but NOT always at the top of the hierachy. What we are, and how we got here, is through gene survival/replication, which is not as simple as individual survival. Gene replication sheds a subtle, but substantially different light on survival of the individual and how that fits in with what we are.

But here we are. We are not a species. We are of a species. A philosophy supposedly for the species is statist/collectivist. It results in the subordination of the individual through law to the state. In law properly speaking the individual is only subordinate to the NIOF principle. In society generally he conforms to his understanding of righteous behavior to be able to be in and function in that society--to be accepted and tolerated by his neighbors. Seeking a broader, less restrictive canvas for his life he may move from a farm or a town to a city.

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

I think that it's pretty darn clear that survival as a standard is not valid.

Bob

Survival is necessary but not sufficient. Man does not live by bread alone and there is more to us than inhaling and exhaling serially.

Staying alive is the first step. Achieving potential and using talent are later steps.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The point I'm making is that the reality is a little more complex than that - evolutionarily speaking. Yes, survival is important, but NOT always at the top of the hierachy. What we are, and how we got here, is through gene survival/replication, which is not as simple as individual survival. Gene replication sheds a subtle, but substantially different light on survival of the individual and how that fits in with what we are.

But here we are. We are not a species. We are of a species. A philosophy supposedly for the species is statist/collectivist. It results in the subordination of the individual through law to the state. In law properly speaking the individual is only subordinate to the NIOF principle. In society generally he conforms to his understanding of righteous behavior to be able to be in and function in that society--to be accepted and tolerated by his neighbors. Seeking a broader, less restrictive canvas for his life he may move from a farm or a town to a city.

--Brant

"A philosophy supposedly for the species is statist/collectivist."

Not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that a philosophy based on REALITY must reflect what we ARE - for REAL. Not what we might think we ought to be or whatever, but the TRUTH of what we ARE.

Survival of the individual (in any form, biological or other) is too simplistic of a value base. It is not what we ARE.

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

"A philosophy supposedly for the species is statist/collectivist."

Not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that a philosophy based on REALITY must reflect what we ARE - for REAL. Not what we might think we ought to be or whatever, but the TRUTH of what we ARE.

Survival of the individual (in any form, biological or other) is too simplistic of a value base. It is not what we ARE.

This is not necessarily incompatible with the NIOF principle--individualism and the protection of individual rights. But speaking of hierarchical values you need NIOF as the legal-philosophical basis of society and rational self interest as the basis of ethics, for that is what we are if, psychologically, we are adults. Obliquely that is what you are really referring to when you state that the parents are not the paramount authority in their children's lives, that their rights are, and if those are violated the state is justified and obligated to intervene. That leaves open for you the question of rights viz. Objectivism. When an Objectivist refers to "rights" he presents the concept as one integrated with the rest of his philosophy. You just throw the word out there as if it had some power alone and to itself. You don't have to make consistent didactic sense as long as you have this changeable, by you at your will, referent. Libertarians make a variation of this mistake by concentrating on political philosophy (and economics). That's less bad than the conservatives who just refer to religious and societal norms. Or the liberals who only seem to see rights when applied to the earth and non-human animals except for the right to free speech as long as you say what they want to hear.

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

This is not necessarily incompatible with the NIOF principle--individualism and the protection of individual rights. But speaking of hierarchical values you need NIOF as the legal-philosophical basis of society and rational self interest as the basis of ethics, for that is what we are if, psychologically, we are adults.

I do not believe this is objectively justifiable wrt to reality.

You just throw the word out there as if it had some power alone and to itself. You don't have to make consistent didactic sense as long as you have this changeable, by you at your will, referent.

No, the opposite. I said quite clearly and numerous times that we need to define this.

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

This is not necessarily incompatible with the NIOF principle--individualism and the protection of individual rights. But speaking of hierarchical values you need NIOF as the legal-philosophical basis of society and rational self interest as the basis of ethics, for that is what we are if, psychologically, we are adults.

I do not believe this is objectively justifiable wrt to reality.

You just throw the word out there as if it had some power alone and to itself. You don't have to make consistent didactic sense as long as you have this changeable, by you at your will, referent.

No, the opposite. I said quite clearly and numerous times that we need to define this.

As far as I can remember you've asked for a definition for "force" and "man" (not sure if it was you re the latter), not "rights." (I only had time to go back over your posts for the last month.)

--Brant