Objectivism Is The Everyman's Philosophy
In the universe, what you see is what you get,
figuring it out for yourself is the way to happiness,
and each person's independence is respected by all
Rand's Philosophy in Her Own Words
- "Metaphysics: Objective Reality" "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed/Wishing won’t make it so." "The universe exists independent of consciousness"
- "Epistemology: Reason" "You can’t eat your cake and have it, too." "Thinking is man’s only basic virtue"
- "Ethics: Self-interest" "Man is an end in himself." "Man must act for his own rational self-interest" "The purpose of morality is to teach you[...] to enjoy yourself and live"
- "Politics: Capitalism" "Give me liberty or give me death." "If life on earth is [a man's] purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being"
Objectivism Online Chat
- 23 replies
- 3734 views
- Add Reply
- 25 replies
- 3132 views
- Add Reply
- 1 reply
- 449 views
- Add Reply
- 7 replies
- 1139 views
- Add Reply
By Som Guy,
I am a Sophmore in High School, who has been battling with a question for a long time. See in the school system we are given grades that are supposed to represent our knowledge in a certain subject. A good idea for a way to prove knowledge. However how it is implemented creates a deep lie and contradiction. This is because your grade consists of a large amount of assignments and tests. Instead of one final test to assure knowledge they insist on averaging previous measurements of knowledge along with the final to achive THE FINAL MEASURE OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE. How that could more accuratly display how much you know at the end of the semester than a est at the end of the semester I cannot comprehend. The use of work and other assgnments as part of a grade is nonsense. How do you propose copying down definitions or other types of work as adequate proof of knowledge? How can you pull yourself to do this work if you 1. Feel you already know the subject and would not benefit from doing it 2. Think about the fact that this is not necessary to prove you know this as you take tests to prove that 3. Realize that by doing this in order to keep your grade up you are conceding to them that they are right and your work is required to prove that you know something. The only way, rationalizing. You think you need to get the grade so you can go to college and go into a career. You tell yourself there is nothing you can do and that it wouldn't be so bad for you to just do this little bit and this little bit, trying not to actually think about what you are doing. You justify upholding thier lie by thier power over you. I have attempted to do this for as long as I can remember. I never actually succeeded in convincing myself in it and have only just made it by so far even though I get A and B grades on my exams only. Doing just this little bit had dropped my self esteem to a very low point. I however discovered the works of Ayn Rand recently through my brother who read The Fountainhead for the essay contest and told me I was "Just like Howard." Well now that I have read a large portian of her other works as well I am at a tough point. I cannot go on like I have, I now know better. I no longer can do any assignment unless it is to furthur my learning. This has caused me to get failing grades in several of my classes. If I continue this way I will not graduate. Yet oddly I feel better and happier than I ever have my entire life. These decisions will lead me to nto be able to pursue the career I want to.... but still make me so happy. I fear the main question I'm asking here is, should I continue like I am now and fail, or is there some other way for me to pass that does not require rationalization?
I am in the middle of reading The Romantic Manifestp, specifically the article on "Art and Cognition." Rand states that the musical experience lies on the sensory and perceptual levels of cognition, rather than the conceptual, as do other art forms. The higher animals do have percepts, and they do have emotions. If no conceptual faculty is needed, why do the higher animals not experience music the way humans do?
I just found a first edition copy of Philosophy: Who Needs It? (hardcover) I found an auction on ebay with a picture of the back of the title page: auction: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...ssPageName=WDVW up close picture of back of title page: http://imagehost.vendio.com/bin/viewimage....&pt=bidpay&sp=0 Now this is my question... The copy I bought had a slightly different back of the title page. As said in the auction, mine also has a $15.95 price on the dust jacket, but the copyright lines are significantly different. In the ebay auction image, the copyright information is on the line directly above "All rights reserved," and then there is another blank line above it, and then the Leonard Peikoff, Executor line above that. On my copy, though, the title page is exactly the same but the two copyright lines are different. The first line is identical in text and formatting, and the second copyright line has a capital INTRODUCTION COPYRIGHT instead of just a capital COPYRIGHT. In addition, instead of being in dark text printed on the page, it appears lighter than the rest, almost as if it was stamped on. Additionally, the two lines are one right after the other (no blank in between), and there is about 3 blank lines under it (but above the All rights reserved line). Also, the copyright symbols © are smaller and appear superscripted. I don't currently have a scanner as I'm in a temporary location over summer in college, and I have my stuff distributed between this temp location and my parent's house in a city a couple miles away. I can provide a scan if it would be helpful in about a week and a day or so, I think, but I've tried to be as descriptive as possible. All the text is the same, but it appears to be some sort of a stamp, and is definitely lighter and different. I was just wondering if anyone knew anything about this. It really isn't that important, I just bought the book because I wanted it, and I was wondering if anyone had a clue what was up with it.
I'm looking for some recommendations regarding a good book on Philosophical Logic. Suggestions anyone? Thanks in advance, VES