I have a degree in philosophy and have taken many courses on logic. So I'm familiar with the view of logicians which you've quoted from your logic text. It is true that they favor "No S is P" as a way to remove any ambiguity from a proposition intended to express a universal negative. And I agree that the best way to express such a proposition is "No S is P" rather than "All S is not-P."
You had no hyphen in the original post and now you add a hyphen, as if it were just some minor afterthought, or as if no one would notice.
In a literal reading of "Every S is not P", the negative adverb "not" is understood as part of the copula, not as part of the predicate term. It means "Every S isn't P" or "Every S is-not P".
When you deny the copula, you deny the proposition, which is the reason "Every S is-not P" = "Not every S is P".
The idiosyncratic meaning that you had in mind (which you humorously refer to as “the literal meaning”) –i.e., "Every S is not-P" -- requires that you be explicit and insert the hyphen.
I wrote, "The context in which she grew up is not the most important thing. If it were, then Rand would have held the same views as her parents."
Non sequitur. Context doesn’t imply, let alone, require, determinism.
But I thought you were saying that the context in which one grows up is the most important thing for determining one's values. Is that not what you were saying?
I never used the word "determining." You used it and then tried to attribute it to me.
We also have no evidence as to what, precisely, her parents thought about issues such as "capitalism", "communism",
"egoism", "altrusim", etc. So how do you know that Rand did NOT hold similar views as her parents?
I thought we were discussing religion and its relationship to art.
That's covered by the word "etc."
Her parents were not atheists -- the Russian culture at that time was awash in mysticism and collectivism -- and, even though her parents opposed the Bolshevik revolution, they would not have understood or endorsed anything so radical as laissez-faire capitalism.
Nothing like second-guessing the long-dead parents of a long-dead author.
I wrote, "The most important thing is a thoughtful, independent mind -- a mind that is willing to transcend its own
upbringing."
Minds don’t “transcend” their upbringing. They build on top of old thought structures.
I transcended mine.
Of course. And I levitate nightly, as well as astral-travel to venus on weekends.
Both Judaism and Christianity value individualism and independent thinking. Rand took advantage of those values from her parents and her society.
Not true. Both Judaism and Christianity demand unquestioning obedience to God
Both Judaism and Christianity stress free will and voluntarism; i.e., you OUGHT to observe the tenets of the religion in the same way that you OUGHT to observe the laws of a nation, but it ultimately has to be freely chosen on your part--just as you ultimately have to choose to observe the laws of a nation. The key word is "observe" rather than “submit” or “obey.”
"Reason" and "free will," as participating in the "divine mind", are central parts of Jewish and Christian theology. The "unquestioned submission" nonsense you're prattling about is secular, anti-religious propaganda (similar to the propaganda I criticized some time ago on the apparent historical conflict between science and religion).
and endorse the doctrine of original sin and inherited guilt. And both threaten eternal punishment in hell for disobeying God's commandments.
Both subscribe to the notion of repentance and forgiveness on the part of God and man. Additionally, there is no "hell" in Judaism, and adherents atone to God once a year (Yom Kippur), not only asking forgiveness for transgressions the previous year, but also, in essence “voiding” the contract they made last year with God and rewriting it for the coming year!
Whatever you might make of this tradition, it has nothing to do with the "unquesitoned obedience" you were fantasizing about.
The "original sin" you speak of was the original act of the exercise of free will. As Milton wrote in Paradise Lost:
Of Mans First Disobedience, and the Fruit
Of that Forbidden Tree, whose mortal taste
Brought Death into the World, and all our woe,
With loss of Eden, till one greater Man
Restore us, and regain the blissful Seat,
Original sin was an original act of disobedience - free will - not sexuality. The "inherited guilt" you speak of is bodily death: the cost of having exercised free will.
Additionally, though the cost of this disobedience was the inheritance of bodily death this act of free will was also responsible for creating physical nature: the "loss of Eden" Milton speaks of above was the cleaving apart of "outer physical nature" from "inner subjective experience"; two things that were, apparently, one thing in "Eden." Again, Milton:
So saying, her rash hand in evil hour
Forth reaching to the Fruit, she pluck'd, she eat:
Earth felt the wound, and Nature from her seat
Sighing through all her Works gave signs of woe,
That all was lost.
Eve eats the apple from the Tree of Knowledge, yet Milton says "Earth felt the wound..."So in the story of the fall, physical nature fell from Paradise as much as Man did, because the two – man/nature -- were originally one. (And by the way, there are facts of linguistic history confirming that mankind in antiquity did not, in fact, distinguish "outer nature" from "inner experience" to the extent that we do today.)
So all of man's productive work -- cathedrals, symphonies, science, even theology -- are the result of an initial act of free will -- an initial act of disobedience -- that cleaved both man and physical nature from a paradisal state of unity. Science then becomes the "study of Fallen Nature by Fallen Man"; the attempt to repair or reassemble the original unity.
Furthermore, Christianity claims that salvation -- moral purification and victory over bodily death -- can be achieved only through "accepting" (i.e., voluntarily observing) Christ. Whatever one makes of that, "acceptance” is clearly different from "submission.”
To set an example, God tells Moses to have a man stoned to death for working on the Sabbath, and Moses does as he is told. So much for the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." Thou shalt not kill, except when God tells you to!
I know of no such story in the Old Testament. Perhaps you could find the exact reference? There is a story from Leviticus regarding Moses and a blasphemer whom God instructed Moses to stone to death.
Anyway, to pick this or that story from the Bible that offends your hyper-refined sensibilities about anything religious is pointless, as (i) the Bible itself is a palimpsest, having had many authors over a long period of time until it was canonized and "completed", as it were, meaning that everyone is aware that it contains contradictory statements; and (2) there are plenty of stories, parables, sayings, etc., that are high, noble, inspirational, etc., which is why so many people read it daily. You’re probably confusing scripture with a textbook on philosophy, written by one author, in which internal consistency is a goal. Anyway, the 3rd book of the Torah, "Leviticus", was essentially a rule-book for the priesthood (which is why it was incorporated, and also why it appears smack in the middle of the Torah). For most modern readers, its importance is merely historical; e.g., it also has references to the necessity of making animal sacrifices in the temple, which no one is about to do today.
| 
