Dominique

At least they are re-building buildings. I saw a show about this ordeal and a lot of the victims families wanted a park, or large "cemetary" area to "enjoy nature" and not commemerate the "evils of greed which brought us so much pain" (paraphrased, not intended to be exact quotes-taken from memory). The land owners and business men who have had to fight just for this, have had a hard battle.

Well, I just finally got going in OPAR, and I had this moment reading the first chapter on the plane, much like what you describe. It's much like the moment I finally *got* that contradictions *do not exist*. It's a beautiful moment ey? It meant alot to me, though I'm still processing and can't offer you much here, just a shared *eureka* moment. I think it's the same because I think I *was* essentially an existentialist (pun?). Peikoff puts it so clearly, maybe it will enhance for you to re-read it? (or is that how you came to this as I did?) Anyway, it sounds right to me

I completely agree. One major thing I'm working through is even *realizing* what kind of deceptions I've been led to believe. I would never want to do that to anyone I loved, though it will take work before I am in control fully of my *tendencies* I think like CF states also, that this is the one step backwords that can erase thousands of steps forward. I also like your signature quotes

Capitalism as understood by *society* is not a valid definition. Because a majority of people misunderstand a concept or term does not change the concept itself. We haven't *chosen* a different understanding. We define our terms by means of essentials, that means the essential similarities and differences that make a term refer to an actual concept. By using the term in an umbrella sense that you are doing, which includes all uses of the word capitalism, even if they are erroneous, you are the one causing confusion. Making the distinction is not the problem, insisting that your usage of the word is somehow more valid is. You are equating contradictory ideas, you are saying "The Church does not condemn *Capitalism and other types of government which are Not Capitalism*" Essentially that means nothing to most of us, and so you were corrected. I suggest that this argument is a matter of Forum Rules. I am sure Felipe will handle that though, as he seems to have already told you all this here: Also, what is the purpose of continually attacking the size or number of Objectivists? Do you think the validity of an idea rests on the number of adherents? Is that why you say:"If and when the majority of society comes to accept your definition," above? (I added emphasis to make clear where I got this quote) We are not concerned here with what Catholicism teaches. I think again, this is a matter of Forum Rules. [EDIT: I've just seen the break off thread here, so maybe my post is redundant or unneccessary? I realize I haven't posted on the topic of this thread yet, so let me add that here:] As to the issue of this thread, I was raised Catholic, but felt no more for the passing of the Pope then I would for any other complete stranger. I have no reason to respect him, although my family would disagree and I ended up having to watch all the hoopla around his death all weekend long. Having left behind the Church I reject all of it, including it's leaders, as having any moral validity, but I do not choose either to celebrate his death or to side with Americanorman. It just seems unneccessary to me.

Thanks for the link CF. I'm spreading the word myself.

I was referring to moral value. They would be equally moral and deserving of respect and admiration for their moral fortitude and upright-ness although they may actually have achieving different particulars.

What if she wants to keep it? Are you saying she should be forced to have an abortion anyway? Lots of girls concieve under 18 that do want children, some may even be engaged or married (though admittedly less these days). I don't think it is ever appropriate to legislate one's proper use of their own body.

I would say one could achieve more, but they are equally moral and equally *good* and deserving of respect and admiration. The only inequality might be the quantity of achievements, but for each it would be their maximum potential and as such even out in that regard.

Yeah, that is what I was saying The conversation is about the difference between an *Eddie* and a *Dagny* . I don't think Eddie made any more wrong actions or choices than Dagny. The topic came up when I asked why Eddie was excluded from the Gulch. Some people said the Gulch wasn't a place for *all* good people but only for the *best*. Some people said Eddie refused to go and was invited and would have been welcome. I disagreed with the former, hence this thread. Right! Absolutely, And thank you! I was merely disagreeing with some people's opinions that while possibly well-meaning were leading to this idea. It's been a while now so I don't know if I misinterpreted everyone's statements, or if some people do hold that opinion, but I wanted to flush it out if they did and see where the premises were set. Unfortunately it died out on me, but I do feel I learned something from it.

Actually, what I was saying is that I understand it that Eddie refused the Gulch but *could've gone and would've been welcome* if he so chose. What I objected to and thought led to the idea of *elitism* and a lot of anti-Objectivist criticism was the idea that Eddie *was not invited and could not have been invited because the Gulch was only a place for the best of the best* I understand that Dagny and Galt might be more naturally gifted and so might be better suited to say *mayor of the Gulch* while Eddie might have been *janitor of the Gulch* or what have you, but I felt/feel that there was a dividing line between whom was admitted and who was not and I thought/think that the criteria for drawing that line is moral *goodness* and ambition rather than natural talent or supremecy. It matters to me because it seems to symbolize a huge difference in focus and ideology. I think it is I who have obscured it though rather than illuminated but perhaps this will clarify. If not please ask more and I will think on it and see if I can't be even clearer.

You Rang *LoL* I thought I felt my nose itching (or was that my ears)... Thank you Plaintext, I did move this topic to that thread and I think it's pretty much covered thered, but if it doesn't answer your question OPM or you want me to explain more just let me know. Basically I thought that the idea of only the *elites* being *good enough* for Galt's Gulch was a misconception that fuels a lot of the criticism against Objectivism and I think that students of Objectivism tend to perpetuate it by reading the wrong thing into the story. I realized after some discussion that Eddie Willers refused the Gulch, so I understand it's not the story that holds that (no matter how hard you try there are going to be your natural betters who are just more deserving of the good things in life-Atlantis etc) but it is an opinion some people take away from the book. Anyway I don't know where to go with it from where the other thread left off. Any thoughts?

Why? Greater threat to whom? What conotates an average citizen? Are illegal narcotics a greater threat to drug addicts? To drug pushers? To cops who enforce anti-drug laws? To bystanders caught in the middle? Do you think that drug users are being forced to use the drugs and to buy them? Where in the above post is your question? Did you mean to ask: What should be done about it? For my opinion (I actually just finished writing about it) see My Webpage.

Sexual orientation as I understand it by Objectivist standards is-orientation to your highest value. Perhaps homosexuality is based on a premise that could be changed, but I don't think it is conciously chosen, any more than a man falls in love with one particular woman BY CHOICE. What you are attracted to is based on a premise, but unless you conciously question all your premises, you may never find it, and even if you did, you might then consciously choose to keep it. Do you consciously choose who YOU are attracted to?

Hi angsta! (I think your name is kinda cute-a play on words?) I responded to your other question, so just wanted to make the formal intro. Welcome to the club!! I've been hanging around here for a little bit and have learned a ton for my time (time well spent). See you on the board [Edit=Hey guess what?! You're my 200th post in almost exactly 3 months!! Lucky eh? ]

I'll triple that. They use an objective (and Objectivist if you'd like) approach and it isn't the same old-"Let's re-hash your past and tell me all your dirty secrets game" It's better that you refer your friend to a professional. As much as you may love her it is not your job to take care of her psychological problems, and you may end up in a codependant position, or adding stress to your life. Take care of yourself. The best influence you can be for your friend is an example. If she knows you went through something similar, and sees you go on to succeed, and you set the precedent and occasionally prod her (but not forcefully) with what you've learned, that's really all you can do. I understand you fully, I have had several such situations in my life-and I have only just now found Objectivism, imagine how much I want to tell all my friends with/probs READ THIS! But your friend has to come to it on her own also. Most importantly-you can't take responsibility for her either way. Take care of yourself, and continue integrating your knowledge through discussions here and your reading etc. The stronger you are the better you'll be able to handle all the situations like this that arise. Just to reiterate-you have no responsibility to anyone but yourself-that is your HIGHEST responsibility, and taking care of it will enrich every aspect of your life, even that in which you handle your friend.

No problem Tryp, can I call you Tryp? We're cool shhhhh

And to think it just started as an innocent-*whoa there chachi*. Now we're reading the dictionary. Just forget it. I'm not here to argue you over the fine points of the definition of rant. I'll withdraw it if it's that upsetting. I haven't called you a libertarian at least

That's fine, I would based on the definition rant: [n] pompous or pretentious talk or writing [n] a loud bombastic declamation expressed with strong emotion [v] talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner and using the first post I quoted as my evidence. [Emphasis Added] I never labeled you. I labeled your style of writing. I still maintain that the post I quoted is a rant. If you feel I have implied that you are a ranter i.e. someone who rants and raves; speaks in a violent or loud manner, I did not originally mean to apply the term to you the person but to your post itself. I do not see these particular things as an attack on your integrity but on the style of writing that you employ. However, we do not need to debate over whether you are or are not a ranter. It was merely an observation on my part, and an attempt to say *calm down* as your post appeared to me as irate.

Just to clarify, I meant studying e-business as a specific focus to my business administration degree. I also have one year in at community college and am starting back at an online college. My interest in ARI is the OAC, and I know they don't require you to be in an undergraduate program, but they also don't admit everybody, so it is motivation for me to go ahead and get going in my undergraduate degree, but I would continue with my degree regardless of the ARI's decision, it's just a big motivator For the sake of clarity I just posted here, and I don't mind discussing here, but others might not be interested so we should probably discuss furthur in PM I suppose. I'll send a copy of this to you PM also to get us started

Whoa! Rant much? There are a lot of threads on this subject, for instance here and here, and, hell, there's 25 pages if you search Iraq check for yourself here. Have you Really read all of them and still feel that this question warrants a brand new thread? I for one can't answer your question, or am not interested enough to do so, but the longwinded rant caught my attention, so I'll at least point you in the right direction, although CF already did that, even if you were offended by the comment.

I'm starting back to school for e-business in September, I actually have a specific goal now, but I always considered myself "self-taught" What I pursue outside of my curriculum has always been the meat and potatoes-so to speak. It's funny, one major motivator for me going back to college is so that I can get into ARI *lol*. I'm also doing it for the discipline though. How I'll manage to pay for it is anyone's guess. I have held decent jobs and positions, and I seriously considered forgetting college all together because it's going to be such a huge drain financially. However, now I have a purpose, and so it's worth the time and money to accomplish that purpose. I'll guess I'll be joining Generation Debt here soon

I thought of a band last night that I used to listen to. Blue's Traveler. One of my all time favorite quotes if from them; "Life i embrace you I shall honor and disgrace you Please forgive if i replace you You see i'm going through some pain But now i see clearly And the dawn is coming nearly And though i'm human and it's early I swear i'll never forget again" Their music was always happy and upbeat. I'll have to try to find one of their cd's and listen to it again. See if I still like it.

Very true. I suppose it's fitting he based most of his opinion on the Brandens because he seems to share a similar *hidden escape clause* approach.

Thanks, I thought it was relevent too, I certainly didn't mean to pull this off topic. This is exactly what I was saying in the other thread. It also reminds me of Ayn Rand's writings on the ability to write fiction vs non-fiction. On one hand in The Art of Fiction she says she believes writing is a skill one can aquire and is not as such a *innate talent* (I am paraphrasing but it comes in the first few pages of each novel) and then in The Art of Non-fiction she says she thinks however that fiction may be *more* of a gift then is Non-fiction which she says anyone can learn. I might be inclined to agree with her distinction that the two require different passions, but that either genre can be developed in proportion to the passion which drives the writer. Since I don't have quotes at the moment I'll come back later and try to be more specific.

I brought this up previously here and am still not fully satisfied with the responses so far. I haven't cleared it all in my head, and am wondering about the implications. I think what I am looking for is a break down of some sort that explains this seeming heirarchy in a way that I can understand it. It's kind of confusing though so I haven't been able to make myself clear in this regard.