Reidy

The author is apparently unaware of Rand, but much of what she has to say is of Randian interest. https://aeon.co/essays/what-can-aristotle-teach-us-about-the-routes-to-happiness?utm_medium=feed&utm_source=feedburner&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AeonMagazineEssays+(Aeon+Magazine+Essays)

Thank you for the information. Did Laurent do any new research for his biography?

In another, little-trafficked corner of OO I asked a question that got not response but that I'm still curious about: A search turned up two full-length books, in French, that I'd never heard of. Is anybody here familiar with them? Ayn Rand or The Passion of Rational Self-Interest: an Intellectual Biography The Esthetic Philosophy of Ayn Rand The second seems to be a synopsis of The Romantic Manifesto, enabling readers to get familiar with its ideas while no French translation is available. Reminds me of the way ancient authors were preserved and disseminated before the invention of printing.

Whether or not determinism is a consensus among scientists (i.e. empirical scientists as we have understood the term in recent centuries) is beside the point, because the question belongs to philosophy of mind. None of the sciences is tasked with answering this question any more than interior design or Spanish cooking is. What is the evidence that such a consensus holds among scientists anyway? I wonder how many Objectivists are aware that debbil Kant was using the argument about the self-excludingness of determinism long before anybody heard of Nathaniel Branden. It's in part 3 of the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. I've even seen Epicurus cited to that effect (by the late Ted Keer in one of the O-forums, though I never checked it myself).

A search turned up two full-length books, in French, that I'd never heard of. Is anybody here familiar with them? Ayn Rand or The Passion of Rational Self-Interest: an Intellectual Biography The Esthetic Philosophy of Ayn Rand The second seems to be a synopsis of The Romantic Manifesto, enabling readers to get familiar with its ideas while no French translation is available. Reminds me of the way ancient authors were preserved and disseminated before the invention of printing.

If the future is not a permissible answer, then I'm with the others who say it's now. A family of four can live on a single income if it's willing to accept an early-60's middle class standard of living. One voice-only phone. One b&w tv. One bedroom for every two household members. One car. No air conditioning (and none in the car either). Maybe a dishwasher, probably a garbage disposal.

You don't say whether the school is trying to obligate you to buy photos, though some of the posters here have taken your statement that way. A straightforward refusal (put it in writing) would probably get around such a claim. Otherwise a lawyer could tell you more. (Save anything the school gave you in writing. It might come in handy.) If the school or the photographer publishes the photo without your permission you probably have a case. Apart from that you're afraid of hurting your son if you don't buy the pictures. Do you know for a fact that your refusal would hurt him? One solution would be to tell him that he's better-looking than the photos show and that's why you don't like them. If that doesn't work you could buy a few to humor him.

JASKN's advice looks good to me. Hank and Dagny were not co-workers. They worked at different companies in different industries in cities 371 miles apart. Galt was down the chain of command from her, though, when they first rode the tracks together.

Such large claims need fleshing-out. They are so large that the web forum format may not have room for all you'd need to say. The first and so far last I've read about Reid was his Wikipedia writeup, and nothing characteristically Randian leapt out at me. So much effort has been expended over the years making her out as a Taoist, a Hegelian, a postmodernist, a highbrow Tillich / Niehbur Christian, a lowbrow fundamentalist Christian, a secretly-coded Jew, a 60s radical, a Manhattan / LA westside establishment liberal, a flower child and probably plenty more that I haven't heard of, that one of your tasks will be to explain why nobody saw this before. Let us know when you're ready.

I can't tell you much, but An Existentialist Ethics by Hazel Barnes, an eminent academic Existentialst, contains a chapter on Rand.

Two thoughts occur: 1. This is a matter for you and a financial planner, who could tell you, e.g. how much to save in order to have a certain amount in a certain number of years, assuming plausible portfolio growth for, or what your expenses are likely to be assuming a plausible inflation rate. Those aren't the only questions a planner could answer. 2. If you have a good career going and your employers or clients value you, you might cut back to part-time and use the hours gained to work on your other projects. Another possibility is to spin down to a more routine and undemanding job, part-time or full, to have time and energy for your other projects. Let us know how this turns out.

Ed Younkins is another who has written on related topics.

An article in today's National Review Online takes up this point. The author says that treating all offenses alike (Franken's along with much worse acts by Clinton and Moore) risks aiding the feminist line that virtually everybody (everybody male, anyway) a rapist.

Whatever the merits of the wider point here, the participants show a shaky understanding of Heraclitus. He lived and wrote before philosophy had the sophistication to express a notion such as the law of identity. What people nowadays think are his positions are actually the work of soi-disants Heracliteans of later generations. Aristotle distinguishes between the historical Heraclitus and "Heracliteanism" a couple of places in the Metaphysics: - For it's impossible for one and the same both to be and not to be, as some think Heraclitus said (IV 3, 1005b23); - Further, seeing that nature is in motion, they all thought that of what changes nothing can be said truly and that what is always changing in every respect does not admit of the truth. From this supposition grew the most extreme of the foregoing views, namely the view of those who claim to Heraclitize, such as Cratylus, who in the end thought nothing could be said, but only moved his finger and criticized Heraclitus for saying that there's no stepping into the same river twice; he [Cratylus] didn't think we could even do it once. (IV 5, 1010a6) (emphasis added) though not always: 1012a24, 34, 1062a32, 1063b24. When I studied H. I hit on a reading that I was later flattered to hear from Julius Moravcsik, a famous academic. He observed diversity and change in the world and yet wanted to find some way to see it at once and to pronounce stable truths about it. That is to say, ,he was struggling to identify conceptual thought, but nobody could grasp this until Plato came along. The nearest Heraclitus could get was simultaneous perceptual awareness of everything, in the mind of god. Thus he was like the man in Anthem, struggling to identify the first-person singular, but he never quite got there.

This has parallels in the west. Christianity used Latin long after it had otherwise gone out of use. Hebrew occupied a similar place in the Jewish liturgy until Israel made it a living language again.