LOGIC & WORDS
Edward E. Rochon
Edward E. Rochon on Shakespir
Logic & Words
Copyright © 2017 by Edward E. Rochon
Thank you for downloading this eBook. This book may not be reproduced, copied and distributed for non-commercial purposes, unless prior permission is given by the author.
Your support and respect for the property of this author is appreciated.
Some Other Works by the Author
[Axioms & Theorems: An Essay
Cubics: A Numbers Essay
EMF Banding Model
Ethereal Mea Culpa
Global Warming: An Essay
God & Square Roots
God & Square Roots II
Holographic TV: An Essay
The JU Engine
Pest Control: An Essay
Pollution Solution: An Essay
Pollution Soup Cook: An Essay
Super Intelligence: An Essay]
Table of Contents
I have over the past several years commented upon such things as logic, universals, metaphysics, the interweave (as it were) between metaphysics and physics. What is the relationship between metaphysics and physics and how mathematics bridges the gap! We have shown in various ways that all cause and effect actions must have a supernatural origin, that the proof of empirical cause/effect relationships is irrelevant to this. While both cause and effect can be coincidental to each other, neither causing or effecting the other (Occasionalism), we nevertheless know that a cause by its very nature is caused by something, whether that cause be thought of as internal to the thing caused or external to the thing caused. And moreover, an internal cause must be distinct to the thing itself, differing in its causing nature from the thing as a whole. We say distinct parts are dissimilar to the whole, though the sum of the parts and the whole are one. We categorically and axiomatically deny any Eleatic School nonsense (Parmenides and Zeno of Elea) that simply because the parts are unlike the other parts and the whole, that the whole cannot be composed of parts. By definition, the sum of the parts is simply the synonym of the whole, and pointless to make any distinction. By definition, parts are distinct from each other. Any fool can see this. The smartass sophistic arguments of Parmenides, notwithstanding. Smartasses will be smartasses. They will show that God exists and does not exist, archetypes do and do not exist to show off their rhetoric skills, possibly to hone the skills of fools that listen to this nonsense. Are they metaphysical DI’s drilling idiots to pay no heed to reputation or appearances? It may be so. Their reputation is through the eyes of others that are fools by our great store of books from those sources.
We have made a sharp distinction between objects and relationships. All objects have relationships between inner parts and outer objects, but relationships are not objects themselves, except for the universal definition of these relationships that are objects of the immaterial world of the mind. This is a slippery area that tricky conundrums spring from. To wit, the side of a thing is a relationship, not an object. The side would not exist without the object and the external geometric object of space and its other objects within it. Yet, it is just a relationship between that object and the external world. It is like a point in geometry, must exist as a relationship but cannot be an extension or any type of geometric object. (The extension is the object’s characteristic. The relationship merely points this out.) Nevertheless, the definition of point is an object of the mind, an element of the set of ideas.
We have shown that ideas must and do exist by common attribution and by logic as existent in their own right. You cannot have a relationship between things or concepts and nothing. The idea of the thing does exist. To say it only exists within the objects is nonsense. The very nature of the idea of the elephant spans the picture, the stuffed specimen, the living beast, the Chinese word, German word on the book page and computer. Each idea is different from the other ideas of the set of ideas. To be sure, they relate to things in the concrete when applicable. They are real in the immaterial world. We do not see or hear necessarily (words are heard but not germane to the underlying idea), and how the brain interacts with the mind is of interest from a medical point of view, but cannot prove the non-existence of ideas as distinct things in the existence of the all.
We have shown that indefinable ideas exist by experience (ethics, integrity, honor, love, etc.), by absence of any contradicting evidence. The experience is immediate, not dependent upon memory or time, and so axiomatically true by definition. We are correct in saying that our knowing them is proof of knowing them, as existence proves existence. But what is their definition? They have none, being indefinable. Yet, we experience indefinable feelings, concepts, act upon, show by mathematics that the indefinable infinite does exist coincident with the definite world of space, time and matter. It is settled, and man is both material in his body and in his experience through space, time and the external material world, and immaterial by definition in the realm of mind, emotions and consciousness in general.
We can establish that reason that is not outside of nature in a disinterested manner is no reason at all. Such ‘thinking’ would be no more than a carbonaceous nano-technology computer, only as good as its input and programming, unable to perceive or fix errors beyond the scope of its architecture and programming. Artificial intelligence does not and cannot exist. So the subject or scope of reason is definite, or indefinite only by exclusion from definite premises, but the reasoning faculty, its understanding of immaterial ideas, its power, is supernatural, or the concept of reason is bunk.
We note that logic and word are effectively the same thing from the Greek linguistic source. This is the logos, and even Logos of the Word of the Gospel of John. Now words are or can be as slippery as eels. That is why all sages are forced to split hairs, as deceivers will try and sneak one interpretation and related concept behind another, one relationship and axiomatic expression behind a different notion than what is commonly understood by the expression.
The essay will briefly go over some problems starting with Ayn Rand as a cursory refutation, and going over some matters from the opinions of Socrates and others that may crop up to fill out the contribution to ideas that support the truth of biblical instructions and commonsense and the rational support of those commonsense notions. We admit that common experience can be misleading, but not in the fundamentals of human nature.
Chapter 1: Ayn Rand
I recently critiqued Ayn Rand in another essay. I repeat some elements from that but go more directly to the matter of logic and words.
The Rand swindle spiel is founded upon the pillars of individualism, libertarianism and anti-collectivism as a gloss over and annotating all of her basic precepts. The foundation of her philosophical system was Positivism as outlined below:
Positivism s a philosophical theory stating that certain (“positive”) knowledge is based on natural phenomena and their properties and relations. Thus, information derived from sensory experience, interpreted through reason and logic, forms the exclusive source of all certain knowledge. Positivism holds that valid knowledge (certitude or truth) is found only in this a posteriori knowledge.
Verified data (positive facts) received from the senses are known as empirical evidence; thus positivism is based on empiricism.
Positivism also holds that society, like the physical world, operates according to general laws. Introspective and intuitive knowledge is rejected, as are metaphysics and theology. Although the positivist approach has been a recurrent theme in the history of western thought, the modern sense of the approach was formulated by the philosopher Auguste Comte in the early 19th century. Comte argued that, much as the physical world operates according to gravity and other absolute laws, so does society, and further developed positivism into a Religion of Humanity.
Rand modified this underlying theme with her own philosophy called Objectivism. Some points taken from Wikipedia: Objectivism:
Objectivism’s central tenets are that reality exists independently of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one’s life is the pursuit of one’s own happiness (rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans’ metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.
The name “Objectivism” derives from the idea that human knowledge and values are objective: they exist and are determined by the nature of reality, to be discovered by one’s mind, and are not created by the thoughts one has. Rand stated that she chose the name because her preferred term for a philosophy based on the primacy of existence—“existentialism”—had already been taken.
Human values are not objective and cannot be so. Objectivism refers only to that which can be objectified. Geometric theorems are objective in form. Minerals have objective form, even if many mysteries remain about their inmost parts and relationship to the cosmos. Values are ethics, esthetics, justice, aspirations, love, and even emotions, though we see physiological manifestations of them. Emotions feel (and are felt) within and of the psyche. To separate them from the psyche is logically impossible. They are alive, not mere objects of the mind. The psyche has no discernible limits. It is indefinite. Do you mean by indefinite, infinite? I mean the mind cannot place limits on itself by any means other than omniscience. For all practical purposes, and in fact, has no limits without dealing with infinity. This is the fact of the matter. The wishful thinking of Rand to objectify man changes nothing. Having idiot sycophantic admirers adds nothing to her creed, though something to her late purse and egotism.
According to Rand, consciousness possesses a specific and finite identity, just like everything else that exists; therefore, it must operate by a specific method of validation. An item of knowledge cannot be “disqualified” by being arrived at by a specific process in a particular form. Thus, for Rand, the fact that consciousness must itself possess identity implies the rejection of both universal skepticism based on the “limits” of consciousness, as well as any claim to revelation, emotion or faith based belief.
Consciousness has no specific identity. Like a bladder, it expands and contracts by what is perceived through and within it. Unlike a bladder, the bladder is never known with respect to its limits (an invisible bag), not even to the mind that it relates to. Beyond the horizon is the beyond and the beyond, and so on.
Of course Rand rejects God. Anne C. Heller in her biography of Rand: Ayn Rand and the World She Made has Rand opine that if God is omniscient, that would mean that man is stupid, and that is unacceptable to the hero worshiping young Ayn. Now that is objective thinking! Like hell it is. Man is stupid and that is the matter of it. God existing or not changes nothing there. Like all atheists, Rand’s religion is founded upon belief (superstition as they claim faith does not exist other than delusion), wishful thinking, stubborn refusal to accept any contrary evidence as this would limit her freedom. In fact atheism is simply idol worship, with the material world as one big idol, that mystically possesses animate powers just as the pagan idols of statues of old did.
Because of its view of concepts as “open-ended” classifications that go well beyond the characteristics included in their past or current definitions, Objectivist epistemology rejects the analytic-synthetic distinction as a false dichotomy and denies the possibility of a priori knowledge.
Rand rejected “feeling” as sources of knowledge. Rand acknowledged the importance of emotion for human beings, but she maintained that emotions are a consequence of the conscious or subconscious ideas that a person already accepts, not a means of achieving awareness of reality. “Emotions are not tools of cognition.“Rand also rejected all forms of faith or mysticism, terms that she used synonymously. She defined faith as “the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one’s senses and reason.
Rand rejected the traditional rationalist/empiricist dichotomy, arguing that it embodies a false alternative: conceptually-based knowledge independent of perception (rationalism) versus perceptually-based knowledge independent of concepts (empiricism). Rand argued that neither is possible because the senses provide the material of knowledge while conceptual processing is also needed to establish knowable propositions.
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Some more Ayn Rand comments from Wikipedia articles [Atlas Shrugged, Objectivism (Ayn Rand), Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology]
Thus, Objectivism holds that the mind does not create reality, but rather, it is a means of discovering reality.
Mind does create reality, if creation means anything, through imagination. We imagine things. Ayn Rand imagined some novels and wrote them [with some help she denied receiving.]
But then you might wonder whether imagination is really ours. The idiot, Nikola Tesla, claimed he was a mere automaton. What, this scribbler condemns that great genius, Tesla, with his many inventions? Inventions that by his own admission are not his. He is an automaton and this is in his own autobiography. We can conceive of the man under preternatural or even divine influence. We can see no convincing evidence that God does not allow man some freedom of action, creation, determination. His foreknowledge of this would change nothing other than in the minds of irrational fools who suppose foreknowledge is somehow mandatory, forgetting that God can grant liberty and know by any reasonable conception of omniscience and omnipotence. Now man does create, and this creation is based on many subjective elements.
Rand argues that consciousness is “the faculty of perceiving that which exists.” As she puts it, “to be conscious is to be conscious of something”, that is consciousness itself cannot be distinguished or grasped except in relation to an independent reality.
Consciousness is and must be conscious of itself without respect to anything else. That our consciousness is nevertheless not the all in all is forever manifest to us moment by moment. We do have the solipsist who denies this with devious and specious arguments. We suppose they find it comforting. What power, if only we did not delude ourselves. So we are God then? And our neighbors do not exist? Oh, we are all God, like the Trinity. Does not the Father exist to the Spirit and Son then? If not, what are you talking about, the Trinity? You know perfectly well you are not God, nor your neighbor. How odd that you, the all-knowing divinity somehow manage to fool and deceive yourself, and your neighbors (who evidently do not exist other than in your mind) fool you and themselves as well. But you through philosophy and thought have uncovered your divinity and omniscience and omnipotence. Other than that you are neither omniscient, omnipotent nor in any reasonable sense divine. A few minor details more follow:
The gemstone sparkles through its whole nature. Its crystalline structure is through its whole nature. Its substance is through its nature, even the doping elements are distributed through the nature. A pure diamond would be all carbon at any rate. Yet sparkle, structure and substance are distinct, yet absolutely unified, necessary to each other and indivisible from the thing called gem. This is a rough analogy, as the infinite soul is distinct in nature from finite natures. This is a much better paradigm, the gemstone, than the shamrock of St. Patrick. First person, second person, third person resonate through all grammar in all languages. This is in the nature of things. Also in the nature of things is that the mind thinks (1st person), listens or monitors thoughts (2nd person) and stands back aware of the ping-pong as an audience, and more pressingly, aware of the audience of other sentient beings whether men, angels or God, or even the animals animated by God. They are all distinct yet all one. Any man can conduct a dialectic with himself. He proposes as his listener critiques. They switch positions. He is also capable of joining the audience to the debate. The sage argues within himself, and is aware of the auditorium of mankind. Perhaps he will impart something to make the commonwealth better. Perhaps he will stay silent for caution, prudence or some reason, yet is aware of the auditorium that incites his reticence.
This triune nature of the sentient being is so pressing and true, that the Christian of the pure doctrine of God can only sneer at the rabbi, the imam, the loathsome Quaker, Jehovah’s Witness with their apple pie drivel and claim that the Trinity is irrational. And Divine Wisdom is alive and in scripture, and the wisdom, love, integrity of her is also alive, though the comb, rock perceived by her all scanning sentience may be no more than the concrete comb and inanimate rock. The wisdom of God must be eternal. Male and female made he the image and likeness of God. She was there when God (Jesus Christ) made creation and a co-creator. So the Godhead is actually fourfold and the masculine manifestations are threefold. Why is this? Because She is the multifoliate rose? Because the triune nature is like the three dimensions of space. There is no place for a fourth dimension, but surely the volume is real and distinct from the dimensions though eternally and absolutely, necessarily one with them. They all stand together or are nothing. Well this is all infinite stuff. I am working on keeping my digestion healthy, solving my insomnia problems. Give me a break. Two and two is four though that abstruse formula in the reference book does not jump into the understanding with much difficulty. I did not prove the calculus theorem listed there, do not remember the very symbols and techniques with any perspicacity. If the print setters made a mistake, it might take me a hell of a time figuring it out, assuming I hit beginning calculus and sweated through the necessary essentials to demonstrate the theorem to myself, or is it merely an algorithm?
Objectivist epistemology maintains that all knowledge is ultimately based on perception.
All knowledge is not ultimately based upon perception. Without what is perceived, there is no perception. Moreover. perception is part of existence and not independent of it. Perception perceives itself perceiving the cosmos, the imagination, the emotive turbulence or calm. If there were no objects of perception, no access to the material world, emotions could fill the consciousness of the mind. A wordless awareness of an empty consciousness would still be awareness, for awareness is not thoughts but purely awareness, even of absence, of darkness, of nothing in particular. As for emotions, they are subjective and so innately joined to the subject.
As for the eternal principles of mathematics, logic: they are eternal and always present somewhere, everywhere. We use the positional notation metaphysically, for we do not speak of the infinite, and indefinable realm but by metaphysical reference (metaphysical not metaphorical) to some objective thing(s) such as space, matter, time. Yet, we know by exclusion that these metaphysical realities are neither space, matter nor time.
Another thing, as in the case of the material world, we have animate and inanimate beings and objects. If the comb is inanimate, why should the idea in the mind be animate? We think of ideas as inanimate universals. When we come to indefinable attributes we see that they are inextricably linked to living souls. Love is alive in the mind. Wisdom as distinct from the elements of knowledge that wisdom dwells on is alive. This must be so. The only true knowledge of life that man has is his consciousness. His flesh is merely carbonaceous nano-technology machinery, and that of animals as well. The life of animals is with the puppet master (God) that animates them. We think of ourselves as puppets only circumstantially in that we are not complete masters of our own will and desires. We can be overwhelmed by men, by God, angels and our own ignorance and limitations.
We also know, those who think properly, that determinism as a mechanical philosophy is nonsense, logically inconsistent. God is not subject to fate and so neither is man. And even if God forces us, it is not fate, but God that does it. God is determined by nothing. Man is determined by nothing though often forced to many things. To determine is to will. Determine means nothing without will, and will is nothing without freedom. No freedom, no will, no determination of anything. Eternity by definition is determined by nothing. It cannot be. Determinism requires cause and effect force, requires transition, which transition has no place in eternity. Transition is change and change is not eternity or eternal.
Rand also rejected all forms of faith or mysticism, terms that she used synonymously. She defined faith as “the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one’s senses and reason… Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as ‘instinct,’ ‘intuition,’ ‘revelation,’ or any form of ‘just knowing.
Faith need not be entirely without evidence. Witnesses were at all miracles in the past. The current reader and the reader of history that purports to be mundane are in the same perspective of belief or disbelief in the absolute. Extraordinary is not disproof of any event. Five hundred witnesses testified to the ascension of Jesus Christ by biblical testimony. And if a miracle comes about, it is demonstrably proven by that fact, yet still miraculous. In fact, Rand rejects without any concrete evidence the occurrence of things that are entirely possible to any truly reasonable mind. Rand not believing is not proof of anything. Between the believer and non-believer, who is the hypocrite, who the irrational one? It is Rand and her ilk. The irrational hero worshiping idiot insults the truth and any pretense that she is a truth teller, truth seeker at every turn. She rejects faith because she thinks it makes her superior, a superman. In fact, it demonstrates her subhuman willfulness, self-destructive lust. A couple of novels sold to morons and she is the salvation of the world.
According to Rand, consciousness possesses a specific and finite identity, just like everything else that exists; therefore, it must operate by a specific method of validation
Rand’s philosophy begins with three axioms: existence, consciousness, and identity.
With respect to the structure of her main opus: Atlas Shrugged
The three parts, for example, are named in honor of Aristotle’s laws of logic … Part One is titled ‘Non-Contradiction’ … Part Two, titled ‘Either-Or’ … [and] Part Three is titled ‘A Is A’, a reference to ‘the Law of Identity’.”
Rand rejects subjectivism as somehow delusory and relies only on objectivism for action and values. Values are not objective. She has absolutely no evidence that subjective life is illusory, and all empirical and immediate evidence argues against her position. So her claim for objectivism is founded upon wishful thinking that is subjective in motivation. It is impossible to remove subjectivity from human life. By claiming that values are objectivism, she is maintaining that subjectivity is objectivity. That is to say, that A is B, violating the identity principle of Aristotelian logic and of logic of any sort. If A is B then B is A. This violates non-contradiction, for A is not B and cannot be since they are not set to some common value such as C. As for either/or, if A is B and B is A, then either/or is meaningless nonsense. There is no either/or. Her wishful thinking has violated all three principles of the referenced logic.
Moreover, this John Galt (hero of Atlas Shrugged), is a creation of filth from Rand’s mind. Men like Galt leach off of the genius of other men. What they invent (sic) they steal one way or another. It is quite common to steal other people’s work. Professors, inventors do it all the time. And Rand’s imagination is not invention other than that fancy. We are not surprised to find that she is a union man, showing Rand as a hypocrite. She hates unions but not when it suits her. She blabs about free trade and supports trusts and was against any attempt to break them up. So we have Lenin and Trotsky coalescing all production into the hands of a very few, and Rand doing the same thing under the clarion call of individualism and anti-collectivism. So the thief points a gun in your face, takes your assets, not much worrying about excuses, other than perhaps the Robin Hood motif of robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Then we have Rand as the judge who proclaims justice, yet takes bribes, subverts justice and is a thief robbing those parties robbed in unfair decision in league with the bribers. The result is the same. We have collectivism in the name of collectivism, and collectivism in the name of individualism. The analogy is: robbery in the name of robbery, and robbery in the name of justice and suppressing injustice.
As for the problem of subjectivism and finding truth after the fashion of David Hume, we must deal with problems with means other than Hume’s idiot suggestions. There certainly is objective truth in the physical and metaphysical world. The thing is that our human computer the brain and even real computers can screw up, be programmed improperly, malfunction. The brain adds 9 to 7 and comes up with 7 carrying the one. It knows this is not true, but some synaptic misfiring, some interjection of attention altering business comes into play. We may catch the error, or likely the bank statement will show it. We go back and correct. What about the errors that are not corrected in time to save lives, save fortunes and the rest? Because we cannot be sure of even things certain, do we give up and dwell in the world of delusion? Does our uncertainty prove absolute uncertainty, the non-existence of an infallible God? What nonsense! We drill, drill, drill, recon, recon, recon after the manner of the soldier in the face of the enemy. Recon as in reconnaissance, recon as in reconsider. If we eat, get by, survive, we go on eating, getting by, surviving. For what? For paradise on earth or drop dead in the process. Drunkenness, sybaritic corruption, moral turpitude, scepticism only increases the pain. Fools think otherwise. Look, our vices will kill us before our time. Yes, and your corruption in youth will be greater than the aches of the aged in old age. You have no integrity, honor and decency, and use fallibility to justify this.
Death is not a part of life. Death is a part of death. Kill the beast, pluck the apple and you die of your corruption anyway. By the way, it is easy to imagine meat without cattle, food without even plants, assuming plants mind the plucked apple. Anyone who watched Captain Kirk and Scottie on Star Trek can imagine that. So screw your death is a part of life crap. You will never be strong unless you heal your infirmities. No sadomasochistic, filthy greedy woman, her irrational drivel of so called philosophy, her mind numbing bug headed moron disciples, none of this will bring about this paradise. Do what you are told. Subdue nature and grow in wealth, wisdom and health, morons. Do not destroy nature by greed into a worse wilderness than it was. Do not shun wisdom for nature worshiping shaman filth, or return to vile paganism, fatalism, idolatry. Do not listen to the peace mongers who would rob man of the sword of truth. Listen to the soldier of honor, glory and integrity, sword of truth in his hand. Lies will not bring about the surcease of war. Abortion, euthanasia will not save the planet. Abhor these evil lying filth. Ayn Rand is one with these, an idolater hiding behind atheist nonsense.
Her work indicates that she is addicted to sadomasochistic sexual ideation. Somehow bondage and the infliction of bondage and cruelty are the apex of individualism. While she mealymouths around it, she is a materialist. It is impossible for materialism to produce anything that could be called individualism. She and her characters such as Howard Roark are people utterly controlled by lust, the ultimate defeat of the individual to self-destructive abnegation of health, truth, ethics or anything decent. All nobility of character comes from the immaterial world. Filth worship produces filth. The outrage of nobility of blood has always contributed to human degradation, slavery and evil of every sort. In her book: Atlas Shrugged we see that Ayn is a union girl when it suits her, her elitist scumbag parasite elitism. She believes the sole function of the state is to protect individuals but deems taxation should be voluntary. What do you call someone who receives a benefit yet recognizes no obligation to support that benefit? You call her a parasite. Miss Rand is a parasite. Her work contributes to the dysfunction of society. Her fat cats controlling the world through eye nods at associations and clubs are not one wit different from commissars in committee.
When I read The Fountainhead years ago, I thought it was readable. Later, I found out that a great deal of it was due to her husband and brother-in-law. It took years for Rand to master English, and she never really did. For years, so blinded by her own conceit, she had to listen to a radio show to recognize the thickness of her Russian accent. Heller clearly shows her as an ingrate that claimed she never had any help in life, something Heller shows to be false in many instances, financially, career, family support, literarily, and so on. Can we trust Heller? Can we trust Rand? I have read Rand and seen her on YouTube. I am confident Heller is largely correct. She denied being an adulteress and was. She was highly subjective, willful, obstinate. She loved smoking and refused to recognize any evidence of its unhealthful attributes. Why? She liked to smoke and was objective. So no evidence exists. This Gold Bug (gold standard groupie) was motivated by nothing but lust and was incapable of any objectivity as that is always the case.
She invents villains with false motives. If lust can prevail by superior intelligence, it makes a stink about meritocracy. If not, it sabotages anyone that impairs its lust. Free enterprise courtesy of arson, doctored test scores, sabotage, bribery. Hey, it is all part of the game of life. These people love bug colony society in the Ayn Rand or Trotsky form because bugs are mindless and easy to control, removing them from interference with their lust for money, vainglory, sexual lechery, political status or any other lust and criminal act perpetrated by them. They have no ideology. These are ruses to remove impediments to lust. They could care less about bringing down the elite. They seek elitism themselves to advance their lusts. They use altruism for selfishness, just as Rand preaches selfishness, has her idiots give out free books, extols some Nietzschean moron, Zarathustra, tormenting himself to preach selfishness. Up the revolution, down the revolution. The more things change the more they stay the same, as Talleyrand notes. But that is illogical, do we hear opined? No it isn’t when you realize the revolution, the reaction, the counterrevolution, the traditionalists are all motivated by the same motive, sating their lusts by any convenient fraud.
The desperate Weimar German licks his wetted finger into the air to see which way the wind is blowing. Commie, Nazi, wait and see? Can I emigrate someplace? Today’s Nazi is tomorrow’s Commie Stasi or MI6 freelancer. CIA or bust!
Getting back to Rand, she is a literary whore for fat cats. Again, Anne C. Heller claims that Ayn Rand had many people help her succeed in her youth. But Miss Egoist denied getting any help, not conducive to her rugged individualism mystique. Heller is likely telling the truth. She was a pretentious fraud who paid her bills by and through fraud. Her attacks on the supernatural and divinity are inane, irrational, contemptible and motivated by greed, vanity and lust. She ended up accepting Social Security and Medicare when her butt fiend addiction led to lung cancer and the age limit popped in. What a coincidence. This in spite of the fact that she deemed these bug colony helps as against her dignity and refused to take them until finances indicated otherwise.
Hey, why not. Can we not read Ayn’s thinking? Hey, I am against them in principle but was forced to pay into them. I need the money now, so why not accept them? I (Ayn) am not a hypocrite. Perhaps not, but she just looks like one. Her feet of clay are showing, but how many of us complain if Social Security works to our benefit? Of course the apostate Jew, Rand, will not concede that income redistribution is ordained by God to redress the tendency of the rich to get rich unfairly at the expense of the poor. If this was true in rural ancient Israel of subsistence farming, how much more true of money economy industrial life today. This money aids investment to advance industry. It also eases divestment to produce panic, and makes it ever so much easier for wily people to steal. The Mercantilist at Versailles loved to get gold into France at the price of high quality French goods leaving the country, because all that gold made it easier for courtiers to steal from the public till. The Dutch and Brits were content to resell French and their own products elsewhere. French goods were generally superior to Dutch and British, and their ships received the middleman markup. Also, the Chinese wanted silver more than gold. The silver ran out, but praise the Lord when opium sold to China became all the rage. The Emperor forbade its sale to save his country from debauchery. The British declared war in the name of freedom. The Chinese gangsters and Brits made their money, until the Chinese grew their own opium. At that time the fraud ran thin, but British pastors became ashamed (in timely fashion) and the outlawed opium could now be marked up and sold elsewhere. You can make lots of money laundering and selling illegal drugs as well.
When the Brits created a comparative advantage in economies of scale for manufactured goods, the free market became the rage to prevent competitor nations from building their own industries. Rothschild money paid for industry elsewhere under free trade such as it existed, and reaped profits on production in America, Europe and elsewhere. Free, schmee, fair, snare, money, money makes the world go round. Let us not forget vanity and lust in general. Money makes the world go down to the pit of hell in the end. Get wisdom above all else. That is the chief thing.
Let’s hop over to Latino Money Bags from Rand’s last novel:
“So you think that money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Anconia. “Have you ever asked what is the root of money?
A few points here. The true assertion is “Love of money” not “money”. We have ‘all evil’ and ‘every kind of evil’ in translations from the Greek to express what love of money leads to. You see the subtlety in English? All implies absolutely all evil. Every kind, though meaning all as well, implies every sort of evil imaginable. It does not exclude vanity as a source of every kind of evil, nor sexual lust as a motive for murder, slander, rape, adultery and so on. You must see that the latter ‘every kind’ is the logically correct translation no matter what St. Paul had in mind. Peter tells us Paul is confusing and often misinterpreted. Logic indicates every kind is the correct manner here.
Of course, money is not evil in its own attributes. It is a means of exchange. It does make economic panics and theft easier. The theft is the fault of the thieves, the panic of fearful men. And, no, lack of money is not the root of all evil either. Filthy rich people commit filthy evil deeds. We get that smartass remark from Atheist Mark Twain.
Let us talk about the hated altruism. The Bible does not and never did teach altruism. The Old Testament clearly states that the Israelites will be rewarded for good behavior. They are promised prosperity of all but supernatural proportions in comparison to the nations of the time. Jesus did not teach altruism. He told men to focus on pleasing God. That way God will guarantee them a great reward, a very great reward. Even his apostles were promised a reasonably good life on the road. The hireman is worth his wages, as Paul wrote. Ask and you shall receive. This was all conditional on faith of course. Take up your cross was predicated on the promise that the burden of Christ was light. Take up the cross in no way indicated the need for martyrdom. Christ begged to be absolved if possible from crucifixion. One man died for all men. Take up your cross merely means help Jesus in his mission by preaching and good deeds and so on. Recall the Apostles sleeping during Jesus’ agony when asking God to remove his agony if possible. He was no eager martyr. Recall how another Simon (of Cyrene) had to carry the cross for Jesus, as Simon Peter flew the coop, he who would die for Christ. This same Peter, this martyr, who slept during the passion of Christ, this lousy fisherman. So much for altruism. Ayn Rand does not know what she is talking about, nor the people she supposedly references.*
*By the way, Christ and God are one. No one made Christ die though he naturally would refrain. What is this? Christ shows us that God knows best. Christ shows us his resurection. Christ shows that the sacrifices of men are nothing, cannot save man, and God is kinder than men. The price of vice is and always has been bloodshed, pain and violence and degradation. God merely points this out, and shows men as ingrates, sinners and faithless, though Christ was faithful, preached gratitude and without sin, only becoming sin by conceding to sinful persecution to prove to mankind that it is evil, that its salvation and glory depend upon God’s grace, that grace that gives it life.
And God is not answerable to Ayn Rand. She does not tell him what is good for Him, for humanity, what is in his self-interest. Oh, but of course, you must do what Ayn tells you is in your interest or you are not acting in your self-interest! If God deems it necessary to suffer a bit for a happier outcome, we suppose he is able to know this. Do not we all know this, and will suffer a bit in hopes of less suffering, even though as with Christ at Gethsemane, we would rather not? Doubtless, Christ opined this as an example to fallible men.
No one wants to suffer, least of all Christ. But foolish people may require chastisement. A little pain at the dentist may put an end to weeks of pain previously, and months or years of pain afterwards. But God can fix it, we bemoan. Your righteousness is yours. Your faith is yours. It is up to you. And those who have shame, are pained by Christ’s passion. Do you know the sheperds of Bethlehem knew nothing of the passion? Look how many times Christ told the Apostles and still they would not understand. We understand and should be more somber and shamed at Christmas, while gratefully accepting our reprieve. The deed is done, foolish to leave it a vain gift. So the righteousness of Christ is suffering to the reprieved as well, out of shame and of empathetic compassion. The Heavenly Father must also have suffered, you see. God took some trouble upon himself to prove a point and to show his love. You are not fit to tell God his ways are vain.
Does the allegorical City of God, the New Jerusalem at the end of Revelation, the end of the New Testament sound like Shantytown? Shut up about abnegation, nihilism, suffering. We suffer when necessary. Duty saves us when required, or the barbarians break down the gate, Satan winnows our soul. Just a stupid apostate Jew whore, whoring for materialism and greed is the quintessential Ayn Rand. She is as false as her pseudonym. Oh, but how noble and how she suffers for not suffering, the big hero. And the Bible does not teach men to live in poverty and misery in the here and now to win gain in heaven. God teaches it is better to suffer than lose your immortal soul for transitory worldly gain. Clearly, a prudent man makes his life comfortable now while deeming the future as worthy of greater joy.
And if Howard Roark rapes his women and soon to be wives, do not suppose the fraud will refrain from the raping men of their wealth, dignity and liberty. What a disgusting pervert the sadomasochistic Ayn Rand is. Now, this dumbass woman deems me a parasite and collectivist along with her bug brained admirers. I see things otherwise. I have more individuality in my little pinky that Rand, her coterie of ass kissing lowlifes have in the entire mass of their collectivist carbonaceous slime carcasses. And that is what they have made of themselves by their great conceit.
Chapter 2: Socrates
We have Socrates in Euthyphro of Plato wondering what piety is. It is before his trial for corrupting the youth of Athens by his impiety. He wants to know what it is. This is a chase after wind as the concept is indefinable. You either know what it is or not. The word is merely a pointer to the attribute that we use between us. We pick up the sense from example. The individual case as to what is piety can vary according to circumstances. However, in those days, prayers, sacrifices to the gods were deemed pleasing to the gods. Now this should have been enough. The gods are pleased with what they are pleased by. To say they get nothing from what pleases them is ridiculous, as it pertains to them. Since Socrates claims to be an ignoramus, he is presumptuous to call the gods foolish. If he thinks them foolish, he should question them by prayer. If he gets no answer, why suppose Euthyphro will be any help? But let us continue.
We are talking about logic and words. Socrates makes a distinction between a doer and a deed done. A thing carried is carried because a carrier carries it. It is only a carried thing due to the action of the carrier. The thing has no intrinsic nature that makes it a carried thing. Then we go to indefinable terms such as piety, love, and so on. Note the distinction. A basket is a definite thing, an inanimate thing. Even if it were a cat, the body of the cat is made of inanimate matter, and it is still definite in shape and size.
Take love, for example. We have the lover and beloved. We could have the pious and the pious deed. Does the relationship between the carried and the beloved bear the same relationship back to carrier and lover? No. Why not? A lover is a lover by the indefinable attribute of love. What is the lover’s relationship to the beloved, like the basket? No. Why not? We know that lovers love beloved for specific reasons that fill their love object projected on to whatever may be. The lover loves the woman for any number of reasons: her beauty (esthetics indefinable), her virtue (ethics indefinable), her gentleness of soul (indefinable attribute not readily defined), and so on. We can see that there is an indissoluble relationship between the lover and the beloved. She is not merely the beloved because she is beloved. She has attributes that make her the beloved and these are indivisible from the act of loving. A man may have indefinable reasons for carrying a basket (fruit and flower for his beloved), but the carrying is only incident to the reason, definable or not. The beloved is not incidental to anything. The man loves her before he meets her, could love her in a woman that shared the same indefinable attributes. The attributes of the woman are transferable by universal nature of the immaterial world and so on.
Yet, Socrates would have us believe otherwise. And he is wrong. There is a relationship between man and his god (if god he be, or demon) that is between them, shared between them. Socrates claims he does not know what it is. Well, then, it must be whatever he says it is according to the case. Then he will know what it is. If the god is unhappy, he must make this known to Socrates. They will work it out or not. Now, Socrates is playing the gadfly. He has that impish nature to disturb others as the fool is inclined to have. A wise man yells when his foot is stepped upon and the culprit will not get off. Otherwise, he plays the sheep. If possible, he avidly avoids the culprit. If he cannot, he rears his head and shows his fangs as the serpent. But the serpent viper is not the natural enemy of man. That is the python, the constrictor. Don’t tread on me is the motto of the wise, and let me keep as much distance between me and troublemakers as possible.
What have we learned? A relationship between doer and a definite object and deed is not comparable to that between a generally animate indefinable action such as piety, love, admiration of beauty, ethics, nobility of soul. The actor and acted upon are indefinable and indivisibly linked as lovers are by general consensus of the notion among men.
Socrates wants to pin immaterial traits to the wall like butterflies but this is not to be done.
Let us go to Apology of Socrates by Plato. Plato attacks his accuser, Meletus. At one point Socrates uses the ignorance of evil defense. Meletus says that Socrates corrupts the youth of Athens. Meletus admits that good people are good to be around, and corrupt people are not good to be around because they will corrupt and/or hurt you. Socrates notes that if he corrupts people around him, then he is creating people who will hurt him and working against his own interests. He would only do this through ignorance. We have the evil is ignorance concept.
We look at this by noting that good and bad only have meaning in the circumstances of choice. If freedom of conscience is lacking freedom, it is no conscience at all, whether freedom is antecedent to it or not. Without the adjective expressed or implied, the concept is nonsense. Now people are free to be evil or not willfully. They might also be evil by ignorance too, in which case they are not really evil in the absolute sense but merely circumstantially. We have the notion of lust as roughly defined as desire without regard to the golden rule and even to regard of love of self. We mean to say that the drunk will not only impoverish his wife and family by his vice, but destroy his own body and life through his lust for drink. We have the disease theory of course. And if it is a serial killer child molester? Well, why not another disease. Well, why not what it is, evil. The disease theory is great for the rehab folks, because how do you rehab evil nature, it being individual turpitude? We can punish, inflict pain, in hopes of leading the fool to his redemption. Lock up the drunk and keep the booze away. Pain and sobriety may lead to his redemption.
Socrates will not admit the existence of evil by sheer willfulness against plenty of evidence that this is very often the case. The root of evil is lust, destructive, self-destructive lust. What about ignorance?
There are crimes that are blatant and obvious such as murder, assault without reason, theft. There are teleological vices that need explaining. Jacob was married to two full blood sisters at the same time. Leviticus later condemned this. What about incest between parents and siblings and so on? If it were customary for some reason, the immediate reasons may not be obvious. Indeed, they are not. You might speak to the person about evidence of inbreeding leading to sickly children. Most people will agree from their readings and talks that there is truth in this. That is a teleological reason. You hurt your children. You might say that this close inbreeding leads to social maladies, closed mindedness, potential violence between parents and children in rivalry for the intense pleasure and jealousy that sex produces. You weaken the bonds in the wider community. The small family is generally not large enough to sustain a community. You need to open up economic opportunity by merging with other families to increase community coherency and open economic opportunity for the family as a whole.
You might note that Jacob had trouble with his two sister wives. But we might suppose two different sisters would work out just fine. The whole social malady is not as coherent due to its lack of objectifiable references as with the biological argument. You see the problem in teleological morality. Of course, this is generally not so great a problem. Why? The law outlaws incest and punishes it based upon tradition, religious conviction, or persuasion by the wise. These taboos can break down, and incest is still fairly common covertly. In this case, ignorance might produce a result that a man would later deem evil in his own mind after reflection. But this ignorance is tenuous as to moral culpability. But the matter is not germane in one major respect. What is that?
We not only suffer for our vices, we suffer for our folly, whether we like it or not, unless God, or some interceder cover for us, redeem the consequences financially, or in other ways. These are the two pillars to the gate of paradise. And if we willfully remain ignorant, we sin against ourselves and society. Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, though you suppose this might be reasonable. Neither the Bible nor any reasonable society will accept this for obvious reasons. (Do not read the laws, and do not remember the laws diligently and you get off. And how to prove forgetfulness?) In the case of God, who has the power to know culpability, he may be setting an example, or simply prompting all men to become wise through pain of misfortune. They will suffer for folly at any rate. So the Lord goes easy on the punishments, and the astute judge considers the matter, and shows mercy in warnings or light punishment, when the ignorance seems practically unavoidable or at least understandable.
Let us go to another place in the Apology of Socrates. Meletus accuses Socrates of atheism and of enticing Athens to worship other gods. Socrates points out that other gods are nonetheless gods and so atheism is an invalid charge. In fact, the Ancients viewed rejecting their gods as atheism. The Jews were atheists by that measure, as they rejected the gods, though not their own God. Moreover, if Socrates were muddying the waters by bringing in other gods to confuse the issue and weaken belief, he would still be an atheist, Meletus also claiming he was a fraud. So Socrates did not effectively refute Meletus, leaving fraud as an option of indictment. Well, did Meletus prove fraud? No.
Why did I bring this up? I want to show that Socrates was a very devious misuser of language and a malefactor. Of course, I detest the paganism of Meletus and Socrates in either case. Going back, we say that by trying to find some archetype to such things as piety, love, righteousness, honor, he attempts to nail down what is not subject to nailing down. He makes what is living and animate, dead by definition, a definition that is a lie. An archetype of a comb is no problem. An archetype of compassion is nonsense.
Now this old destructive man had a chance to escape Athens and his death. He hid behind some: the law is the law nonsense. Well, justice is the law, and self-defense against injustice is not civil disobedience but civic duty. The old crud played the martyr being a death worshiper hiding behind principle. Nietzsche was right in saying martyrdom proves nothing other than you are willing to die for whatever reason. It does not prove you are right, or even sincere. Aristotle was faced with the same death sentence and slipped out of town. He claimed he would not allow Athens to sin against philosophy again. Well, Aristotle probably went on to poison Alexander the Great by proxy and then conveniently die (or not), death a nice ruse to hide from the reach of the avenger of blood. Ayn Rand loved the idiot crud Aristotle, the most overrated thinker from antiquity. His theory of esthetics is bunk, his poetry and art theories bunk, his physics largely bunk, his ethics ill-founded nonsense, his collections of this and that hardly takes genius, merely some effort, likely aided by slaves. In effect, he did very little but scribble on endlessly in what Cicero regarded as golden prose. If so, we inherited the dross from student notes. Not speaking Greek, I have this from others that do. His prose stinks, if his. The confusion is almost impossible to hide from the English translation. Plato always comes off better, though much more mystical and tenuous, harder to comprehend by that though clearer in prose. We likely have the actual writings of Plato in most cases, the teacher of Aristotle.
We should not be surprised that a lying fraud such as Ayn Rand admired Aristotle.
Chapter 3: Summary
The points made:
Objectivity and subjectivity coexist.
Subjectivity cannot be excluded from the objective world.
Error does not exclude objectivity nor justify despair or delusion.
Calling the subjective objective violates the identity principle of logic, the non-contradiction principle and the either/or principle
There is absolutely no evidence that subjectivity is delusion, illusion or such nonsense. Logic and experience support the subjective nature of all indefinable traits.
The subject acting upon a definite object leaves the action distinct from the subject and object. That is that the relationship is one of the action uniting the two by that, and only that fact.
The subject acting upon an indefinable object (being with indefinable traits) is linked to that object by the traits that engender the action. The aspect of the beloved are intimately and subjectively linked to the lover who is motivated to act out his love by those traits.*
*We might note that a gemstone appeals to esthetics in men. By that reason, the traits of the inanimate object are linked to the subject admirer, even though the object is inanimate, knows nothing of its esthetic traits, and makes no effort to instill them. The flower may indeed work to attract the bee and men. We hardly think that the flower does this as men would consciously do. The designer of the flower puts the matter in motion. We do have those interactors with plants and animals. We all do with animals and have definite esthetic and protective or destructive feelings toward plants. We also have these for inanimate objects often. Likely, our hatred is directed at manufacturers, third parties or God for that matter. It is open to opinion. We also have people who speak of mountain spirits, rocks with souls and so on.
There are no archetypes for indefinable attributes such as love, ethics, etc. We know these as we know emotions. They are there and others must know what we mean by their own experience. We can give examples to others to point to what is intended. Experience indicates facial expressions show such things, deeds under certain circumstances and the like. Love, hate, are tag words we use that actually define nothing, if by define, we speak of the definition of a triangle, a carbon atom, and such things.
There is absolutely no evidence that faith is illogical, invalid.
Altruism is not taught by the Bible nor viable in any way.*
*If an altruist helps another, he insults that man by causing him to behave in a way other than altruistically, imposing on another. If the recipient accepts the gift of help out of altruism, he insults the giver. If both insult each other they are both villains. If the altruist receives satisfaction by doing what he deems right and honorable, his righteousness and honor are his rewards that allow him to feel good about himself. This is his reward and his behavior is not altruistic but hypocritical. If God does what he wants to do for any reason, his doing it is his reward. It is a pretentious outrage to try to remove rewards from good behavior. What is good should be encouraged. What is bad should be discouraged, conversely.
Altruism is one of those odd words that cannot be reconciled to its own definition. It always slips away from us. We may talk of square-circles. What is that? Circles are not squares and squares not circles. Octagons are sort of roundish. Yes, still not squares nor circles.
We mean to show subtleties in language and how these change parallelisms in meaning when not looked at carefully. In the case of altruism, the inconsistency is inherent in the word, but must be flushed out by showing parallelisms of appositions: reward versus no reward, self-interest versus disinterest.
Other Works by the Author
Elements of Physics: Matter
Elements of Physics: Space
Elements of Physics: Time
Space as Infinity: An Essay
Space as Infinity II: An Essay
Unified Field Theory: An Essay
Collected Poems I
Collected Poems II
Golden Age Essays
Golden Age Essays II
Golden Age Essays III
Golden Age Essays IV
Golden Age Essays V
My current biography and contact links are posted at . My writings include essays, poetry and dramatic work. Though I write poetry, my main interest is essays about the panoply of human experience and knowledge. This includes philosophy, science and the liberal arts. Comments, reviews and critiques of my work are welcome. Thank you for reading my book.
A preface previews some points made in prior essays on philosophical matters. Chapter 1 opines on Ayn Rand. Objectivism is subjective and violates identity principle of logic, thereby violating the non-contradiction principle of logic and making the either/or principle nonsense. We take broadsides at her character, her novels, her fallacies. Chapter 2 briefly discusses Plato's Euthyphro and Apology. We note that carrier and carried do not correspond to lover and beloved. The beloved has indefinable traits inherent to the reason for the lover's love that cannot be separated by the mechanical way that carrier and carried are separated. The reason why a carrier carries the carried are separate from what the carrier carries. The beloved is not so separated. We discuss some sophistries of Socrates, impugn his character and reputation for integrity, show him to be destructive of truth and of his own life. Chapter 3 summarizes some points and notes that altruism is a logically inconsistent notion, and not supported by biblical injunctions.