While parsing random thoughts in the shower this morning, the notorious phrase of evasion, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”, popped into my head. For the first time that I can recall, I actually paused in an attempt to accurately articulate a response to the question. Here’s the best I could do without consulting a dictionary. I must also note that I’m winging this without a complete understanding of Objectivist epistemology. I hesitated to publish my thought process at first, but then decided it would be a valuable experience to learn from any flaws that are exposed. I’m certainly not afraid of being corrected, since a breach of the solidity in my low-level thinking will only cause intellectual strife above. Doing something my own way, only to be corrected and shown the right way, has always proven to be a very valuable way for me to acquire knowledge. Not only do you learn from the correction, but a close examination of how you came to the conclusion you did, and an abstraction of the error can save you from similar mistakes in future endeavors. I will most likely look back at this and laugh at some point in the future.

is -auxiliary verb: an expression of affirmation regarding one, many, or all attributes of an entity’s identity.

Considering this definition of it’s meaning and usage, how does it relate to communication, and more specifically, for communication that should be considered as a reliable means of acquiring knowledge? For the assertion to be accepted, a complete inventory of it’s associated evidence must be considered. Once the evidence is considered, we categorize the assertion as true, probable, possible, improbably, or false. The amount of evidence needed in order to 1) find the assertion worthy of even considering, and if so, 2) consider the assertion reliably, is based on the amount and nature of any contextual insight needed.

The need for contextual insight will vary according to the nature and complexity of the attribute(s) being affirmed. The amount of context required is inversely proportional to the degree of self-evidence. Thus, an absolutely self-evident claim, “A is A”, would require no contextual insight. Conversely, an absolutely contradictory claim, “A is not A”, would require infinite contextual insight because it could never be rationally justified. Within polar opposites there would be assertions which would need infinitely varying degrees of contextual insight. In more concrete forms, the phrase “Brad is alive” would require no contextual insight on my part as it is absolutely self-evident. The phrase “The dog is barking” would require very little insight considering this is a normal behavior for dogs. “The dog is flying” would lead me to gather more insight (is the dog on a plane?), and “The dog is speaking Portuguese” would require a substantial amount of contextual insight. Finally, “The dog is a cat” (a contradiction) is inexplicable, and could not be accepted on any amount of contextual insight.

The distinction between metaphysical facts, ones that exist in truth outside of any volitional consciousness (“The rock is gray.”), and man-made facts, ones that exist only in the context of a volitional consciousness (“Betty is Wilma’s best friend.”), is the metric by which an assertion’s degree of self-evidence can be judged.

Contextual insight can exist as information that was previously obtained by concept integrations (knowledge), or as first-hand perceptual evidence (concepts integrated real-time to form contextual certainty). One familiar with frogs may be able to accept the assertion that “Dendrobates Azureus is blue with black spots” because their knowledge provides the contextual insight, whereas an individual who’s unfamiliar with South American Amphibians may require first hand visualization.

The last key element serving as contextual insight is the reliability of the individual making the assertion, which is the sum of a tremendous number of possible variables. The first to mind are:

• Who are they?
• Why would they make the assertion?
• Are they usually correct?
• Is this a subject that they are knowledgeable in?

Each of these fairly broad criteria obviously are built on numerous other factors, all which must be considered and calculated at light speed when we encounter an assertion using the word ‘is’. This is beginning to wander a bit in to areas that are well beyond the scope of this post and my knowledge, so I’ll wrap it up.

It’s easy to poke fun and make light of the original question until you think about what a blatant evasion it is - a sassy attempt to play semantics with the law of identity. ‘Is’ implies identity.

The latest ARI op-ed (also unfortunately featured here) is an interesting congruency of interests for me. I appreciate the intent of the piece, which is supportive of an individuals right to own firearms for legal self-defense. However, I think the author’s strict sense of stipulation is debatable.

The victim must summon police, if possible. An emergency ends when the threat ends, or as soon as police arrive and take charge. During that narrow emergency interval, a victim may defend himself, but only with the least degree of force necessary under the circumstances to repel his attacker. A victim who explodes in vengeance, using excessive force, exposes himself to criminal liability along with his assailant. [bold added]

I would argue that the victim not only may defend himself, one who values life should defend himself, and to a further extent than simply “repelling” his attacker – he should defend himself to the extent that the author prescribes above - until the threat ends. Calculating anything under the typical stress of a violent crime is difficult. If an individual has chosen to forego reason and deal with you in terms of force, force is what he should be granted, and to the extent that he chooses to encroach your right to life. In the same manner by which a free country should defend itself from foreign aggressors, an individual should respond to another who initiates force. As Gus Van Horn articulates:

Fighting a war entails a whole host of otherwise barbaric acts performed with one objective in mind: The most rapid incapacitation of one’s enemy as possible. Again, whatever acts had to be done on the account of an aggressor are entirely that aggressor’s fault. Period. [bold added]

Unless Government, the entity to which a free people delegate the responsible for protection of its individuals right to life, is able to effectively do so, and with reasonable timeliness; any response to an attacker, an initiator of force, should be admitted under objective law.

Many objects commonly owned for peaceful purposes can be pressed into service for emergency self-defense. But unlike kitchen knives or baseball bats, handguns have no peaceful purpose –they are designed to kill people. [bold added]

Firearms are designed and engineered to effectively deliver a projectile. How they are used is to the discretion of their owner. Yes, maiming and killing not only people, but living objects in general is one of the primary uses of firearms. The market, however, also functions in other completely benevolent manners. Competition shooting is a very popular sport that takes years of finely honed mental and physical training. Also, collecting firearms is a completely peaceful function that also serves as a celebration of man’s mind by way of an appreciation of engineering and aesthetics.

The same lethal power that makes handguns the most practical means of self-defense against robbers, rapists, and murderers, also makes handguns an essential tool of government force. Handguns are deadly force and nothing but–a fact that gives rise to legitimate concerns over their private ownership in a civilized society.

As I mentioned above, they are more than simply a ‘deadly force’ in the same manner as a chainsaw is more than a ‘deadly force’. Yes, you can kill someone with a handgun, but the motivity of murder (or any initiated force) is the volition of the perpetrator, not the instrument by which he commits his crime.

These concerns can be resolved only by laws carefully drawn to confine private use of handguns to emergency self-defense, as defined by objective law. Such laws must also prohibit all conduct by which handguns might present an objective threat to others, whether by intent or negligence.

As an individual, I have to right to peacefully engage in any practice so long as it doesn’t encroach the rights of others. Using a handgun for any purpose other than initiating force against another should be completely legal, and without stipulations in a free nation. Prescribing law based on the potential negligence of any object is a very slippery and subjective slope.

-3/16/08 Edited to include link to Gus, parallel to national defense…

C. Bradley Thompson echos the sentiments of myself and countless others about the mental revolution initiated by reading Rand’s epic novel. I’ve mentioned this book and its impact to many people who’s existence I value. But, I don’t recall ever documenting its impact for my own record.

I first read Atlas in 2003 after being introduced almost simultaneously to Rand by an Objectivist co-worker, and radio host Neal Boortz. At age 26, finally absorbing what seemed like the elusive articulation of my gut feelings about life left me in a low priority trance. Whether I chose to acknowledge it or not, the entire foundation of my intellect had been utterly dismembered. The gray areas - road signs highlighting the lack of explicit philosophical principals - slowly started vanishing. I was slowly recompiling my kernel with an entirely new set of configuration options. I was raised with what I still consider to be virtuous ideals - work hard, play hard, respect the property of others, help out those you love and “don’t expect something for nothing”. Most of these were justified simply by their loosely coupled allegiance with ‘doing the right thing’. My parents are humble, honest and hard-working individuals, and the older I get the more I appreciate my upbringing. There was, for better or worse, very little discourse pertaining to explicit philosophies. There were brief Church stints, which were painfully awkward for all parties. As a teenager I got involved with a few religious groups mostly for the social benefits, although I did have an intuitive fondness for what struck me then as principled guidelines. When you have no explicit premises, seemingly benevolent tenets make the brain feel good. Throughout high school and college, I remained a lukewarm Christian who was comfortable with the morals I’d obtained, but I began to honestly question, and even disagree with some of the more ambiguous doctrine. I remained in this idle state for several years while my brain was obsessed with musical endeavors.

At age 20 I’d been fairly insulated from politics. Like religion, this was a subject that wasn’t pervasive to my upbringing. My only vague memories of anything political were names of either local or presidential candidates during election years. I remember being scared of Russia during the cold war, and thought it was odd that Government could tell my employer how much they had to pay me. I also remember feeling an unidentifiable disdain for a few ‘political people’, Bill Clinton for one. Even thought MTV implied he was cool, I didn’t understand anything he talked about, nor did I care. Underlying the indifference, I maintained consistent awareness that I did not like his aura. Even as a youngin, I felt confident in my ability to read people, and he seemed to ooze insincerity.

I’d often struggled with opinions and insinuations presented by teachers in school - but never maintained the intellectual drive or clarity to sort out the implicit contradictions. In college, I expected to find answers and a sea of intellect, but found nothing but more advanced versions of the same distorted viewpoints. With the exception of a few classes, I was utterly frustrated with the pursuit of knowledge.

I also started to question ‘blue laws’, and their semblance to Government imposition of religious doctrine. “I can’t buy beer until after noon on Sunday???” Why? I thought opposition to theocracy was the motivity of our nation’s founding, yet conservatives seemed to unanimously support laws that pointed us exactly in that direction. I started to wonder if any politicians really had this country’s best interest in mind.

Rand’s work granted me the intellectual clarity to see that the answer is ‘no’.

Reading AS again in 2005 solidified its significance and instigated me to read most of her other works. Especially noteworthy, due to its succinct coverage of many topics, is The Virtue Of Selfishness – which I refer to as an Objectivism Pocket Reference. I’m currently reading OPAR and the wonderfully insightful Objectivist Newsletters.

Finally, again in 2007 I enjoyed this life-changing adventure in the form of an audiobook during my daily commute. It took ~ 50 discs and about 3 weeks to finish. Although I felt I adequately knew the story, I picked up more details this time around than the others. Note, I’m not contending that reading AS x number of times qualifies me any more or less as an Objectivist, but with each iteration, I develop a new appreciation of Rand’s genius. Every person you encounter in life will likely correspond accurately to a character in this book.

Galt’s speech, a condensed summary of her entire message, is profound. I’ve listened to it in whole many, many times, and like the story as a whole, I pick up new corollaries and integrations every time I hear it.

There aren’t many days that go by where I don’t encounter a thought, comment or situation where my re-analysis with new standards doesn’t grab my attention. It’s as if I now see the world through a new lens, one that eliminates any element of a gray, subjective orientation. I now have ideals of the purpose of man, love, freedom and government – all of which differ vastly from the consensus. The most important life change is the introduction of a rational morality - one based on reason, and not ambiguous, unquestionable commandments riddled with loopholes, and open to interpretation.