That's exciting!

Hopefully we will be lifelong friends, Sarah. I am going to talk to our bioethics professor tomorrow about getting straightlinelogic's new novel, Prime Deceit, put into the required reading for his course.

I tune in to GG to "check my premises". Usually I am pleasantly surprised. I occasionally comment.

and Happy Producers' Holiday to you and yours
also, Herb!! -- j
.

I'm here in the hope of finding enough like minded people that we can build something like a real "Galt's Gulch" someday. I'm comfortable enough with my own philosophical basis that I'm not looking for anyone to teach me another.

I did not say that she said that anything should be taken on faith but that, as you have apparently done, check her premises and the logical implications following from them before accepting without question and trying to live a life by the philosophy. Many end with a feeling of alienation as discussed by Sid Greenberg (1977) in "Ayn Rand and Alienation: The Platonic Idealism of the Objectivist Ethics and a Rational Alternative"

The most important statements by Rand, to me, are about metaphysics and epistemology and especially to "check your premises."

She defines mathematics too narrowly, but seems to implicitly recognize that definitions use many types of relationships (as when she spoke of the measurement of love) as a science of measurement when it is much more a conceptual science of relationships, both about objective reality and concepts as the mental existents' relationships within the brain which can just be consistently defined concepts (e.g., concepts in modern algebra or topology or even set theory) with no referents in objective reality, i.e., reality detected by the senses, processed into percepts, and formed into concepts by reason. She uses mathematics as the differentiation for defining concepts of objective reality but most thought deals with more than just measurements with respect to length and time. That would leave out nearly all mathematical concepts which only have referents as mental relationships which need not refer to anything that might exist physically or as actions and relationships in objective reality.

Is it logical to define a human as a type of animal -- a rational animal (note that 'rational' is relational and not measurable linearly) -- but then distinguish humans from the animals by claiming that the animals only have built in behaviors which they have to live by, i.e., have no rational faculty. Should one just slide over such ideas or at least rewrite it as a distinction between animals without a rational faculty and animals with a rational faculty.

I did not say that; you seem to read too much into responses to a simple question.
Just look back to what mminnick said.

When I was younger there were many days when I thought that I'd never get through the day. Was everyone and everything insane? I usually resort to humor when that occurs. I think, "Screw 'em if they can't take a joke" and move on.Here is a thought from the world's foremost authority -- me. "Humor is the oil which keeps the motor of life from seizing up."

Happy Thanksgiving. I wish you health. Especially to your BW.

It would be illuminating if you could point out where in any of the writings of Ayn Rand there is anything to be taken on faith. I contend that there isn't. Other than her fiction, everything she has ever written is backed up by the most brilliant logic I have ever come across. However, she is not infallible. It is possible for her to be wrong and a reader of her polemics might want to argue a point. That is not faith but the exact opposite.

OK
So.. you mean you doubt if you'd find any left leaning posts on this site.

I was merely responding to the implication that having a "like thinking community" is a bad thing.
If that is to mean having all Objectivists, then I am disagreeing.

What is Galt's Gulch? What is it here to Galt's Gulch in Atlas Shrugged?Land setting in one. Colorado. Maybe the freest state. The group of people there are a certain way by one way, and more than one way by more than one way.Here, it's more electronic and words.One can read.The book is with the good people interacting and noting each. They are top of the world.It's a sanctuary. When is questionable.What are the characters of people here next to the ones in Atlas Shrugged?With Atlas Shrugged the people are certain ways to the world.Earth may require their excellences. Villains may pretend it is not.Believing it, they may be worse than mistaken.

I am confident that she would want to hug you, Herb,
and share a celebratory drink with you at the table! -- j
.

You did not understand my post. You seem to believe that when one has a unquestionable belief system that it is not a religion. A closed system as required by some Objectivists is no different than a religion since it must by accepted on faith, the defining criteria of a religion. A philosophy is an open system where errors my be corrected by reasoning from data, previous and new. You seem to be saying that one should just describe objective reality without question as Rand did. The Collective, until most of the members broke free, seemed to be nearly a cult unwilling to contradict Rand or Brandon without being purged from the Collective.
The fact that Rand had an absolute dislike of the idea of a supernatural did not keep her from making her followers into near religious believers of her ideas along with fear of being purged unless they had therapy from Brandon for wrong thinking.
I do not use Objectivism as a filler for my 76 years as an atheist. I value Objectivism because most of it makes sense but I have never accepted it as the last word in philosophy.
I knew that my original reply would get at least one gut reaction like yours. I did not intend to drive anyone away from an excellent philosophy but to give a warning about one branch being closed to any errors. No one is trying to take Objectivism away from its creator or her estate but only to question it an add to it.

Agree. +1 for johnpe and herb7734

Answers like that will make my head so big I'll have to walk sideways through doors.
Thanks John, and excuse the self deprecation. AR would probably kick me under the table.

You see, it's answers like that can keep me feeling up.

There are some people chronicling interesting stuff.One in particular decided to drop out. He made some money, but he sold off everything and lives as a homeless person. He has a sleeping bag and a computer and a large circle of friends. He attained a bit of fame as a cartoonist Since he lives in an area that is a Sanctuary City he is rarely bothered by authorities. He chronicles his adventures and answers question on line. Turns out to be quite fascinating.

If by that, you mean no two people are exactly alike, no one can argue that point. However, it's possible for two people to hold the same clearly delineated tenets. .In my completely unscientific observations I see that the devil is in the details. One can agree with a certain premise but disagree on its implementation, for example. Hence we are confronted with an exchange of ideas that one might prevail over another, fostering debate or argument which is elevated like two physicist arguing. The thing is that most (not all, sadly) either side that wins enhances understanding, so everybody wins.

But understand that a lot can be gained from like-minded people. Not all Obj.ists (or those striving to be) are the same with the same strengths and knowledge.

Exactly!

To find out if there are any out there who do desire to live the moral ethics of liberty.

Your post gave me the impression that you were going about correcting other sites about Objectivism, which I don't think is a good idea unless you are a spokesman for Objectivism. In the past the powers that be of the Objectivist philosophy were very restrictive about anyone representing them without their permission. That came down from Rand and was carried on by those who took over. I'm not worried about you at all and perhaps that's changed, but I'd check it out if I were you. It's been quite a while since I had my wrist slapped Just looking out for you, otherwise I'm fairly harmless unless I get pissed off.

Where is that coming from?
When and if you find my advice wrong, you can correct me.
BTW, I don't "defend" Obj.ism; I simply correct others who make errors or answer questions re the philosophy.