Stephen Speicher

It is a sigma field that is related to but different from the fields of abstract algebra, used in measure theory and here applied to sets. It can be applied to general topology, for instance, as in a decomposition that is required to introduce measures and define integration on a non-metric topological space. This is a special form of sigma algebra used to form a compatibility between topology and integration, known a Borel sigma algebra. There are others, and other applications. But this is all mathematical complexities that very few other than mathematicians have any use for or interest in. It is far more than is needed to answer your original question. Don't let yourself get snowed by anyone just throwing out a bunch of mathematical jargon.

The notion of "finite" as used in set theory is based on bijective functions, functions which, simply put, establish a certain correspondence between between elements in a set. So yes, indeed, the word "finite" has a different meaning in set theory than as it is more commonly used. As to measurement, measurement theory in mathematics also is a different animal than the common sense use of measurement.

HaloNoble6, I have not argued that the open display of pornography is an initiation of force. I have argued that certain controls on such a public display would be based on societal propriety, not the initiation of force. As Ayn Rand indicated in the section I quoted, this is not an issue of morality but rather one of procedure and etiquette. Perhaps it would be helpful if you go back and read my posts from earlier in this thread.

Note that controlling this latter, desecrating the flag, I do not hold with the same surety as I hold the other non-initiation of force acts that I mentioned. Right now I do not have a good argument as to why I should not include flag desecration, but I do not favor it as strongly as the others to be controlled.

Prohibiting wearing red t-shirts on Mondays is clearly an arbitrary rule with no significant meaning. However, fornicating in the streets, walking around naked, or the open display of pornography would be three examples of acts that are not initiations of force but still may be controlled as a matter of societal propriety. But all this was argued earlier in thread, wasn't it?

I'm having trouble understanding this. Could you explain this in different words?

It is no accident that Part Two, Chapter IV, of Atlas Shrugged is titled "The Sanction Of The Victim." Rearden eventually learned, with the especial help of Francisco, in what way he was morally sanctioning evil. Note that when Rearden understood the nature of his error, he not only stepped away from his family leeches, but also from those outside of his family, those of the same nature. Rearden grasped a profound principle which had eluded him before, and once the principle was grasped he acted accordingly. Rearden always acted, before and now, with an unbreached morality. It might be helpful for you to re-read the Chapter mentioned above.

Perhaps the difficulty you are having in applying moral principles stems from a misunderstanding of the difference between evasion and honest error. A commitment to reason does not guarantee proper identification and knowledge in each and every case; even a completely rational mind takes time to identify and integrate material, and a commitment to logic does not preclude the possibility of error. We cannot per se fault people for their ignorance, but we can fault them for their refusal to know. To willfully refuse to see or grasp reality is an act of evasion, but an error in knowledge, or, even the absence of knowledge, is not necessarily an evasive act. Evasion is a moral failing, but honest error or ignorance is not. I would suggest that you carefully re-read the sections in Atlas Shrugged where you think that Hank Rearden performs "continual evasion," and do so in light of the distinction between evasion and honest error (or ignorance) that I draw above.

Before answering, I'd like to understand the purpose for and context of your questions. Do you yourself have a sense of what "morally perfect" means? Are these examples presented because, as you say, others have sometimes referred to them as "acts of immorality," or do you yourself view them as such? Or, are you unclear as to how morality applies to these examples? If you are unclear, are you equally unclear about all of these examples? p.s. "Readon" in Atlas Shrugged is correctly spelled with an "e," as in "Rearden."

Yes, for the same reason that I highlighted in my prior post. Here is the sequence. 1. Does man need values? 2. She answers that question affirmatively. 3. Later, granted 2, what are the right goals and values to pursue? 4. THAT is the question to be answered by ethics, and THIS is why man needs a particular code of ethics.

So what you quoted was not the answer to what she originally asked, but rather the "this" was a response to a further question she posed after establishing the answer to the first.

Thanks for the nice words, HaloNoble6. A Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you.

Boy, you guys have eagle eyes and focus them on the background rather than the foreground subject. I'm going to have to be careful of the pics I post here! But, yes, I have studied an awful lot of technical subjects in some depth, the general area of mechanics being one. Everything there from structural mechanics to continuum mechanics; plates, shells, vibration, fluids, both applied and theoretical. Not only is it fascinating in its own right, but useful in everything I have been involved with, from earthquakes to nuclear physics.

The fallacy of the stolen concept depends primarily upon the hierarchal structure of concepts, which is just one aspect of Ayn Rand's theory of concepts. Her theory of concepts has several fundamental elements, measurement omission for one. Therefore, I would rather say that the fallacy of the stolen concept depends upon an aspect of Miss Rand's theory of concepts.

I'm not sure I understand the thrust of this question. The validity of Objectivism stems from its correspondence with reality, based on facts and proper reasoning, not fallacious reasoning such as the stolen concept. Identifying an instance of a stolen concept will reveal a certain kind of error in reasoning, but a positive, not a negative is required to advance philosophical knowledge.

Thanks for finding this. This was classic Salsman; totally outspoken, and right on the money!

Must have been intimidation!

Hmm. Do you see the two skins in the pull-down menu in Firefox? If so, what happens when you switch to "New aesthetic fluid?" No change? I use Firefox on a PC and I switch between the two with no problem. Anyone else have a problem?

This is a marvelous find, but a bit overstated by the Guardian. The actual paper details just one of a number of neccesary steps from water and land, but hardly "showing how creatures first walked ...." That such a long-sought creature bridging the gap has been found will earn it a place in the history books, but it is only one portion of the yet-to-be filled complete transition from water to land. But, for sure, there is now one less anomaly for the anti-evolution irrationalists to obsess over.

Thanks for explaining. I doubt there is anyone here (or, at least, very few) who needs to be convinced of the value of open borders in general, or who is not aware historically of the important role played by immigrants in building this country. But extricating ourselves from the oppression of the non-objective laws that now govern our immigration policy should not be done in a vacuum waving the banner of rights, without due consideration for the moral and realistic implications of the manner in which those changes are made. (Not that I mean to imply that HaloNoble6 thinks differently.)

That's a fair question, and I think the answer depends, in part, on how long between respective repeals, and who is the "we" to focus on. I've given some arguments from my personal perspective; convince me I am wrong and I will change my mind. Incidentally, what do you think of the intermediate idea of opening up our borders but requiring all immigrants to be completely self-sufficient? No public education, etc.

Oh, I see. But, as confused as our leaders are, and as bad as they planned, they did go into Afghanistan and Iraq with enough force to make a difference. Hopefully they will have learned from the mistakes made there, and when they go to Iran (where they should have started) they will just destroy all that needs destroying without troops occupying the country, and leave it to the decent Iranians to reclaim their country. But, in either case, this "audacity of our enemies" is mostly the blabbering of lunatic mystics, and they and what they created can be destroyed fairly easily. Even by Bush, possessing half the brain and morals that a completely just and selfish act would require.

Over what, in particular?

That is what "academic freedom" currently means.

It is now mostly a buzzword used to cover a variety of sins, a nice sounding term that gives enough of an impression to justify whatever position academia wants to foist. In the past the term actually had some significance, where intellectuals could pursue learning without force. Historically, academia had to break from both the Church and the State, each of which could dictate pursuits. Ironically, due to academia's current confused level of thought, their own actions are helping to return academia to serve the yoke of these masters again.