Yes. Religion is very important in controlling the masses.

Mike, I think Ayn Rand probably meant man-worship as opposed to animal worship. Man in Ayn Rand's sense of the term had a positive connotation because she believed in the heroic man.

Not at all, I find definitions a critical part of communication in that they are verbal descriptions of an identity or concept within a context of the discussion and the language mutually chosen by the participants, as are mathematical equations with defined axioms, rules, and procedures with agreed upon representations of variables and absolutes, other descriptions of an identity.

As it turns out Mach was wrong in his challenge, though he might have been correct to the limit of his understanding at that point in time, though I believe that by that time, there existed sufficient knowledge generated and/or developed by others that by rights, should have informed Mach had he been able or so inclined to maintain his level of comprehension.

This entire statement, I consider to be pedantic and unproductive, particularly related to this post and this thread.

And I think that is crucial to Objectivist thought.

But Salty, our Universe isn't binary, it's analog. Binary, decimal, and any other number systems are at their best, only approximations, even to the nth degree. There is no on/off switch for the Universe.

Excellent off the cuff description.

Welcome.

it all depends on what the meaning of is is, per Slick Willie. -- j
.

there were a lot of us who thought that religion was required
when we got to organic chemistry and tried to pray our way through it. -- j
.

Mike, the atom "construct" of conventional thought worked
pretty well in 1945 when millions were split at Alamogordo. -- j
.

Scott, I vote that your entry here is a Rand-quality moment,
that she would applaud your accuracy and direct, honest
reply. . Thank You!!! -- john
.

Salty:"A=A only when all agree what A is."
sdesapio: " 'A' actually doesn't require anyone's approval."
I completely accept the idea that reality exists independent from perception. My interpretation of Salty's comment was that objectivists bringing up "A=A" when discussing other issues is pointless. (This is my view and I'm probably wrongly reading it into Salty's words.) When discussing something, we have to dig into the logic and facts. Stating A=A without explaining what I'm saying would just be an epithet. If I'm going to abandon logic in favor of epithets, I might as well pick a colorful one like "your mama!"

I didn't invalidate it..you did.

We're simply going to have to agree to disagree.

Pleasant dreams Mama!

I disagree. You have not invalidated my premise in anyone's mind but your own.
Going to bed now. Night all!

With all due respect, I cannot accept something as a cold, hard fact simply because you say it is. That invalidates your premise pretty handily.

Sorry about that Salty. I was responding to your statement that "A=A only when all agree what A is." I should have said, "A doesn't require anyone to agree on it's nature in order for it to be what it is. It just is what it is."

I never said that A needs any approval; your description of what it is might.

RE: "A=A only when all agree what A is."
"A" actually doesn't require anyone's approval. "A" is "A" regardless of one's ability to perceive it or what one thinks of it. To illustrate more clearly, an apple is an apple not because everyone agrees it's an apple. It just is an apple.

David Kelley delivers a great lecture titled the Primacy of Existence ( http://atlassociety.org/objectivism/a... ). He'll be the first guest on Radio Interrupted tomorrow here in the Gulch. You should call in and bring up the topic. Could be fun.

Hear, hear, k. Sometimes db's expression is just right.

I don't prove anything. What is, is.

As Scott pointed out, things are what they are. They exist and have a specific nature. If you are interested in learning more, I recommend Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

Your belief that we cannot be sure if something is real cuts off your ability to learn anything, and it leaves you in a 'world of opinion'.

And how will you prove to another just what A is?

So is absolutism when you can't prove your reality is in fact. A=A only when all agree what A is.

Perception doesn't affect reality. There are two and only two possible answers to any question in our binary universe...yes and no. Everything else comes under the category of "don't know".

RE: "But where do you get the notion that your perception of reality is actually correct?"
I'm not suggesting my perception is correct. I'm suggesting exactly the opposite. I'm saying that perception and reality are unrelated. Hence the need for the scientific method ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti... ).

RE: "three blind men touching a different part of an elephant"
Whether it's 3, 30, 300, or 3000, perception of the elephant will in no way impact the nature of the elephant. It doesn't matter who observes the elephant or how the elephant is observed. The elephant will be exactly as it was prior to observation. Our inability to perceive or understand reality for what it is remains without influence on the nature of reality.