Arnold

I'm no expert here, but that looks like a definition to me because of what it excludes. It can only be read one way. For example, "Faith" cannot integrate the material of the senses, and is thus excluded from substitution. At the same time "identifies" and "integrates" are isolated differentia that form the definition of reason. That is my understanding anyway.

How about 'new ideas sailing into the meeting'?

Plotting (sailing) a new course?

I have his Aristotle Book. He certainly had an intellect and seemed to enjoy using his analytical skills and passing on his knowledge. We can't afford to lose people like him.

Tried to order it, bit they wanted $400 for postage to Australia!!??

By purchasing the book itself, one owns the book and has all rights to that property. If you were to copy the book, then you would be extending your use beyond the book itself. The same could apply to the apple, if the seeds were patented, allowing you to use the apple itself, but not profit from genetic engineering done by others. Otherwise one wants not just the particular book or apple, but all the work that went into producing them. Clearly one cannot claim one ever paid or had a right to that, so in that sense one's rights are NOT restricted in the ownership of the book since that is all one purchased.

AJ company only has the right to pollute his own property, not his neighbours cows. Once the pollution moves off AJ's property, he should be held accountable for damages done by it. Unless one grants the government the right to allow some to do harm to others.

I feel the same way about social media sites. They use you.

An inspiring interview. I think Yaron Brook is an excellent advocate for Objectivism. He comes across in a very natural and non academic way, which opens these views to the everyday person and not just the intellectuals.

It seems to me that he is overlooking the foundations of freedom, namely individual rights. How else could he entertain a conflict between freedom and family life? (" We anticipate that Capitalism has had a negative effect on the family structure in the West, but we will see.") The implication that family structure suffers more from Capitalism than the welfare state is troubling.

I don't think the USA would elect an atheist (like our recent ex Prime Minister for example), so the best you can hope for is a religious person who sees some value in Rand, as above. One is then faced with trying to keep Rand's philosophy from being contaminated by misunderstanding (unprincipled ideas which place faith on a par with reason).

If airliners are vulnerable to simple mobile phones being turned on, this doesn't look good.

Bugatti, McLaren, Koenigsegg, who will be the fastest??

Thanks for posting this. Most interesting example of intelligence in animals. On a perceptual level they can be very clever. I suspect it was trained in reverse so that memory, not planning is involved. Once it had success with the long stick, it was trained to overcome the obstacles to get to it.

Thanks for posting this. Trying to defend against the Creationist, using science, was rather futile when the Creationist was not challenging observable science per se. He was challenging assumptions made by science - which leads to endless and rather futile debate. Clearly the attack should have been against the foundations of the Creationist argument. There was simply no way for the Bible to be verified, and that alone should have sunk the whole case for that world view. The conflating of the word "faith" used in 'trusting a logical conclusion' about the past, with "faith" meaning 'trust with no evidence' should have been exposed. It is futile to point out absurdities in the Bible to a mind that worships the absurd.