She opposed the "Women's Lib" movement demanding "free abortions and free day-nurseries" just like she opposed all such subsidies. It had nothing to do with the right of abortion.

Subsidies for abortions are a side issue in the current hysteria over Planned Parenthood being spread by those who want to ban abortions no matter who pays for them.

Ayn Rand did not say cells are not alive, or that animals are not conscious, or a fetus does not develop a consciousness. None of it is the basis of morality and rights.

There is far too much knowledge available to day for anyone to master all of it. You should not "endeavor to do so nonetheless"; it is futile. Neither could anyone ever have infinite knowledge of 'everything', which would be impossible ominscience, an 'infinite' consciousness without identity.

you got it -- and they take you for granted. -- j
.

Morality and rights do not come from "sentience" and "consciousness" and Ayn Rand did not say that only human beings are conscious.

There is no issue of philosophy "trumping" the physical and biological sciences. They are different fields of subject matter.

There can be no science of "direct observables" of "raw data" without conceptualization and principles, which require an epistemology.

Aside from the long title essay it consists of the more philosophical excerpts from the four novels.

From the Preface:

[This book] "contains the main philosophical passages from my novels and presents the outline of a new philosophical system. The full system is implicit in these excerpts (particularly in Galt's speech), but its fundamentals are indicated only in the widest terms and require a detailed, systematic presentation in a philosophical treatise. I am working on such a treatise at present; it will deal predominantly with the issue which is barely touched upon in Galt's speech: epistemology, and will present a new theory of the nature, source and validation of concepts. This work will require several years; until then, I offer the present book as a lead or a summary for those who wish to acquire an integrated view of existence. They may regard it as a basic outline; it will give them the guidance they need, but only if they think through and understand the exact meaning and the full implications of these excerpts"
...

"For those who may be interested in the chronological development of my thinking, I have included excerpts from all four of my novels. They may observe the progression from a political theme in "We the Living to a metaphysical theme in Atlas Shrugged.

"These excerpts are necessarily condensed summaries, because the full statement of the subjects involved is presented, in each novel, by means of the events of the story. The events are the concretes and the particulars, of which the speeches are the abstract summations. When I say that these excerpts are merely an outline, I do not mean to imply that my full system is still to be defined or discovered; I had to define it before I could start writing Atlas Shrugged. Galt's speech is its briefest summary."

"Until I complete the presentation of my philosophy in a fully detailed form, this present book may serve as an outline or a program or a manifesto."

"For reasons which are made clear in the following pages, the name I have chosen for my philosophy is Objectivism.

AYN RAND
October, 1960

She never wrote the "presentation in a fully detailed form" for her philosophy in detailed, "systematic presentation in a philosophical treatise." But she did publish one part of the planned "detailed, systematic presentation in a philosophical treatise" she described above including "dealing with ... epistemology [to] present a new theory of the nature, source and validation of concepts" in her Introduction to Objectivism Epistemology. IOE was almost exclusively on the nature of concepts. (including the nature of the axiomatic concepts). The 2nd edition includes two appendices, one with Leonard Peikoff's essay on propositions, "The Analytic Synthetic Dichotomy", and the other with about a third of the workshops on epistemology she conducted to answer serious, detailed questions from a small group.

Leonard Peikoff's recorded lecture course on Objectivism from the 1970s systematically covers the whole scope of her philosophy in far more detail than had previously been presented, and Ayn Rand was present for some of the question periods. Leonard Peikoff's own detailed treatise Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand is based on that lecture series. It begins with the metaphysical basis and the reasons for it, and the epistemology, but only summarizes the nature of concepts covered in detail in IOE.

For those interested in Ayn Rand's philosophy, this tells you the most serious, systematic accounts to read and listen to -- along with many other essays not as technical, but very important, like "Philosophy: Who Needs It?", "Causality Versus Duty", "Metaphysical Versus the Man Made", and many more. Also crucial is Leonard Peikoff's lecture series on the History of Western Philosophy, which explains the historical development of the major philosophical positions, how they were connected and influenced one another, and how they differ from Objectivism.

Re-reading Galt's speech after going through this shows how much of the significance you missed in Galt's speech without it, and more fully what Ayn Rand meant when she wrote, "The full system is implicit in these excerpts (particularly in Galt's speech), but its fundamentals are indicated only in the widest terms".

You could interpret that in the limited sense regarding harvesting and marketing of human baby parts. I don't think that Abaco's point was that limited in this case, however, and it certainly wasn't in my echoing of his point. I was referring to the border between letting something that one finds objectionable slide because it really is none of one's business vs. taking action to ensure that society does not devolve into something so barbaric that it is not worth living in. For example, while you may be willing to tolerate abortion now, you probably won't like it in 30 years when looter statists start dictating that you and I be euthanized once we reach a certain age or lack of physical or mental ability "in order to make Medicare work for everyone". I am not arguing this point from a religionist perspective. I am arguing it from self-interest, and given how much time and money has been spent recently on my parents' lives, it is a particularly timely issue for me. When I get to their age, I would put the odds at > 50:50 that I would be euthanized were I in my parents' condition this year, were I not to leave America first. So the bottom line point is "At what point does defending the moral foundation of a culture become something in my best self interest?" If I do a little bit now, it might forever change an outcome that I do not want to see later, at which time the problem might no longer be correctable.

Regarding peacekeeping around the globe, what I have realized over the past several years is that, not only should we go unless invited, we shouldn't go, period. I have always agreed with Washington (the President) in his rejection of foreign entanglements, but now I see just how little is in a country's national interest.

Draw what line? He wasn't clear about that.

Agreed completely.

I know who our common enemy is and his plan for the future. What I do not know is whether I can summon enough likeminded individuals to make a meaningful difference. I think not. However, I can summon some worthy likeminded individuals to a place worthy of their talents.

I know their premises. Their biggest premise requires my sanction as their victim.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

In my professional life, I have identified more with Rearden, partly because of my materials science background, but moreso because the tumblers are still clicking into place for me. Like Rearden there have been a few things that needed some refining in my life.

+1. I agree completely.

I have not yet read "The Age of Envy". We are certainly still in it.

Very correctly stated. This was one of the examples I was thinking of when I suggested that perhaps the military were mere pawns of their political masters.

As you say, I am not "there", and I probably never will be. Perhaps you are correct regarding whether it is "the wrong way to think of it", but I think not as I will demonstrate at the end of my response.

The definition of life is a foundational principle for any philosophy. I agree with Ayn Rand's definitions for existence and for consciousness, and with the rights that follow from such definitions. I understand Ayn Rand's definition for life, and I can agree that it creates a philosophical contradiction when one assigns rights to beings without sentience, particularly when those rights would be in contradiction with the life and rights of someone without whom this whole argument would be moot.

Fetuses or tissue-engineered specimens can reasonably be said to not have rights. We are not in disagreement about that either, at least until they reach the point of consciousness.

You and I are at a fundamental disagreement, albeit politely, because you have chosen the definition of life based upon Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology rather than the completely objective definition based on direct observables that all biologists and most people who have studied biology accept. I am not saying that Rand's definition is wrong. It is perfectly fine for the assignment of rights, but just because a being is unconscious or not sentient does not mean that being is not alive. It exists. It simply is not conscious or not sentient.

We will continue to disagree because my philosophy is based upon direct observables whenever possible. I know I have had disagreements with you and others as to whether philosophy trumps science. When someone publishes a scientific paper, he/she makes observations. Those observations form the basis for interpretations and applications. When science can establish a directly observable fact, that can serve as a pillar upon which philosophy can be based. As for me, I will base everything on raw data as much as possible. If the philosophy (or the theory in the case of science) is consistent with the raw data, I will choose to accept the philosophy. You have argued that I should understand the philosophy first. If Ayn Rand is correct, then if I logically connect my direct observables together, then I should come to the same conclusion, and with what are, in my mind, minor exceptions, I have. This actually strengthens Rand's conclusions, rather than weakens them. If someone can come to the same conclusions with a somewhat different set of premises, that validates the conclusions even more because they can be achieved from the mathematicians would consider two different initial guesses. The answer would then be considered rigorous in the mathematical sense.

Rand herself said that we must all come to these conclusions for ourselves. The conclusions cannot come first. The raw data must come first.

Excellent points that I have always agreed with.

Thanks for the education on barbarian. I was already corrected on that by Mike Marotta.

Freeing individuals from tyrants was a goal of several presidents in the recent past. That should not be an objective for the military, but unfortunately it has been. If I were in charge of the military, wars would be rare, but swift and extremely destructive to the opposition with no nation building in the aftermath. I know that creates a vacuum, and that is the biggest reason why (even moreso than Objectivist philosophy) that I think wars should be exceedingly rare. There definitely has not been a war since WW2 for which the "compelling national interest" has been sufficiently compelling.

I couldn't agree more with your last two paragraphs.

Thanks, O.A. One of my hopes in this thread was to show that I am capable of being convinced of the errors in some of my premises, and hopefully get everyone else to examine his/her own premises as well.

It is dealing with the issue of when a fetus, or one of my tissue engineering specimens, can be considered alive that has sparked much of this examination of premises. When my colleagues and I see both cellular proliferation and differentiation in our tissue engineered specimens, we declare success. As Gene Wilder in Young Frankenstein would have said, "It's aLIIIIIIVE!", and yet in the Objectivist sense, I could say that it exists (although some in this forum would likely debate that), but that it does not have consciousness. I can agree with that. However, I have been in a debate with several Gulchers recently that would challenge even existence for such a tissue engineered specimen. I am trying to resolve a contradiction between what I know is biologically alive and what people who probably are more steeped in Objectivist philosophy than I am think. I do not think I am in disagreement with Ayn Rand on this subject, but I am most definitely in disagreement with some Gulchers. I will disagree with them politely.

Thank you for that education. I have read some, but not all, of AR's non-fiction. That is one I have yet to read.

One of my reasons for reading Objectivist fiction and non-fiction, primarily by Ayn Rand (but not exclusively), is to have a rational basis for knowing where to draw such lines.

They were not ramblings, but excellent points.