Arnold

Members
  • Content count

    1,978
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Arnold

  1. If one doesn't have a specific word, one can use other words to describe it. One describes, and then later places a word for that description.
  2. The Origin of Rights

    Ayn Rand said " A right is that which can be exercised without anyone’s permission." That is the definition that also gives the foundation of rights. To deny a right to action, means someone claims the authority to hand out permissions. So, the real question is: Where does the "right" to deny rights, come from? After all, it is only men who can violate rights.
  3. The Origin of Rights

    They lie in the nature of man itself. Nature requires he eat in order to survive, therefor he has the natural right to find food. Nature requires he not be exposed to extreme weather, therefor he has a natural right to seek shelter. Apply this to all the requirements of his nature, and you see one is born with these natural rights. They are not handed out. To say otherwise would demand an explanation of a higher order. Since no one had anything to do with his arrival on earth, where would the challenge to natural rights come from? Religion has it's own answer, that rights are handed down by deity, but if we are to be grounded by reason, that won't do.
  4. The thread is about the happiness of achieving your goals. In the end, all goals have a material reference. I can't make out what your question is.
  5. Language Use in Western Philosophy

    The evil may not be intentional as in a conspiracy, but look at my signature which recognizes the evil done in the name of good. I think her point was that if men like Kant couldn't see that what they proposed was evil (elite minds have no excuse), it was evasion and rationalization, not error. Ask yourself why they made no attempt to clearly explain their ideas if they thought they could stand scrutiny. I myself consider that evasion as the evil behind the poisonous ideas they put forward.
  6. Language Use in Western Philosophy

    But that is the point. If they made their points clear you would understand them, and that would expose them - for the wool they were trying to pull over your eyes. I agree with you. If they can't make themselves clear, the fault lies with them. Ayn Rand saw through the BS Kant tried to slip by behind obscure language.
  7. Emergence

    Things don't follow disembodied laws of nature. The laws are the nature of existants themselves. An existent is it's properties, and acts accordingly.
  8. 4 Rules to Make Star Wars Great Again

    Star Wars Science Fiction was just too silly for me, using very bad science, and not much better fiction,
  9. Historic Perspective on Philosophy

    In what way was your question not answered?
  10. Historic Perspective on Philosophy

    The answer I was trying to make, was that science doesn't determine philosophy, it determines facts. However, philosophy can determine whether to explore the world with science is productive. Facts need context within the whole framework of knowledge in order to draw conclusions from them. For example a scientist notes a frog jumps every time he claps his hands (Fact). He is curious about the effects of amputation on hearing, and removes the frogs legs. Observing the FACT that the frog no longer jumps at a clap, concludes the amputation has madre the frog deaf. So facts are not much good without knowing how to use them. They are not knowledge. To underline my response, science can verify conclusions, but conclusions are guided by philosophy. A scientist who is a mystic will not do as well as one guided by reason, and reason is the product of a certain philosophy, not science.
  11. Historic Perspective on Philosophy

    Metaphysics is not physics. It is about the nature of reality itself. Aristotle had a better grasp of it than many later philosophers with greater scientific knowledge. The metaphysics of St Augustin said there was no point in looking at the world, because it was only a symbol of God; that truth would only be found in the Bible. Aristotle looked to nature for his answers within the limits available to him. His greatest asset was his conceptual thinking. His logic was what set him apart. Logic based on non contradiction puts one in harmony with reality. Science deals with the more specific attributes of reality, and a specialist in one area can be ignorant in another. Sure they have a lot of data, but data is not information, and information is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom. Too many philosophers today are happy with contradictions in their thinking. They feel it frees them from a narrow minded "dogmatic" view of nature. Just because we don't know everything, doesn't mean we can't be certain of some things More to the point, if you don't know where an electron is, you may need to question the assumptions contained in the question itself. For example the question: "When did the universe begin?" contains the assumptions 1) that it did indeed begin. 2)That in turn has the assumption that time existed before the universe; 3) that time was independent of existence. I believe these faulty assumptions lie behind many of the so called paradoxes of science. Why is it so hard to accept that nature obeys laws, whether we understand them or not.
  12. Happy Birthday to Brad Harrington

    Best wishes. Hope all is well with you.
  13. In Memoriam: Allan Gotthelf

    The good die too young. The thugs live too long. Sorry to hear this as the world is short of this quality human being.
  14. I find this type of movie so preposterous that I can only view it on the level of "give me a break". I cannot get involved no matter how much I try, it's all so stupid.
  15. DoD Manual says Founding Fathers were Extremists

    'Extremist' is an ajective, and says nothing of what one is extreme about. Drives me nuts when the work "extremist" is used as a smear. There is nothing wrong with extremists if the thing they are being extreme about is extremely good. Believe it or not, one person I argued this with, thought "balance" was required. I asked her if she wanted an extremely honest accountant, or one who "balanced" that exteme honesty with a little graft? In order not to concede, you can guess her answer.
  16. Edward Snowden

    Hard work to listen to all that. I can't be so dismissive of motivations not affecting the heroics of an action. After all, the motive may be a bigger threat than the evil mitigated.
  17. Women, beauty and self-image

    I think they are looking for acceptance despite the damage to aesthetics. However, acceptance of the reality of an undesired look, doesn't make it aesthetically pleasing. Damage had been done, and that is what needs to be accepted. That is no reflection on the character of the person suffering this.
  18. Women, beauty and self-image

    Just what are you supposed to "like"? The face or the travesty?
  19. The Theory of Consumer Choice

    Not two concepts; one concept in different degrees. I'm not sure where you are going with all this, unless it is to clarify in your mind Ayn Rand's ideas. The crucial point here is that values are not intrinsic but depend on the valuer.
  20. "A is A", not "A = A"

    'Equals' is usually associated with comparisons of two separate entities, so it is clearer to use 'is' in this case, since we are saying that an entity IS what it IS.
  21. I think the 'secret' is to find out what the other person's needs and wants are. That is why they are in a relationship, to satisfy those needs. This is not easy, because we are all so different that what makes one person happy, can make another miserable. If you are compatible in this way, you have something to work with, Satisfy the other person, and you are on your way.
  22. Zimmerman Verdict

    Why oh why can't people see that race has nothing to do with culture. I wrote this previously because it is the only way to defend oneself from the 'racist' charge when discussing culture. http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=13998&page=1#entry120973
  23. Creation ex nihilo

    This is not answering my question. To say the universe was once the size of a football is meaningless unless you tell me how it was measured, or could in theory be measured..
  24. Creation ex nihilo

    You agree that the universe can only be measured from within itself. You also agree that the common measurement of length is determined by the distance light travels in a year. Since you say that "the velocity of light outside a local Euclidean coordinate frame of reference depends on the gravitational field: it is not a constant, and its speed depends on direction and can be much greater than the constant c=3*10^8 m/sec = 186,000 mi/sec." Can you see why I say that the concept of different size universes can have no meaning without a yard stick. Once again, what yardstick (yardstick = standard of measure) does one use if the speed of light is not constant?
  25. Creation ex nihilo

    I still don't get it. Regardless of the "size" of the universe, doesn't one need to have some yardstick "outside" the universe to speak of size? IOW the idea of "size" makes no sense. Small in comparison to what other aspect of existence I ask? It is true that a light year is a distance. But it is also a measurement of of an event - motion. We know that if light has traveled 186000 miles, what we regard as one second, has elapsed. Since light is supposed to be the only constant, then it must have taken very little time to travel the full distance of this so called 'small' universe. Are we correct in assuming light speed was as we know know it, in the different gravitational conditions billions of years ago?