RationalBeing

http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rands-Normative-...7147&sr=8-2 THe pricing is a bit steep for this book.. but I was wondering if anyone has read this and their thoughts?

Hello Daniel, I am a 'newbie'. I read your essay and I have some comments: "A sense organ has no choice about what to do when acted upon, while thinking must take an active role and create the intelligible thing." is this your interpretation? can you define sense organ? depending on your stipulative definition, i can think of some exceptions, if you are interested. important to stick to aristotle's exact vocab choice. avoid extremes such as right and wrong. this is a compliment to you. it would be like generalizing if you were to do otherwise. a lot of people do this when they are talking about aristotle. example: non-voluntary-voluntary-involuntary-ignorance-in ignorance- out of ignorance. hospers and rawls are fine-tuned as well, cause confusion/generalizations. example, while they embellish an 'extreme' veiw, they are not necessarily putting down the opposite view (particularily in their pieces on justice as utilitarianism). i could go on here but i have other things to say: i have a 'knack' for math and theology-- physics is another story. why do you suppose that is? what makes physics diff. for me? a few things that are especially important to keep in mind in reading aristotle (more so than some other philosophers' work): historical point of reference: one example--in talking about intellect and passive action. people born with systematic mal-functions not included in thinking. back then, people would have been killed for being born as such. very abstract- read his other works on different topics to make complicated formulas more concrete. distinctions blurry- this actually helps when looking at only one philosopher's thoughts across the board. makes it easier to answer question. "well what do you suppose aristotle would say about this. . . ?" stemming from abstraction note: literal interpretations (or the most literal interpretations given that we are talking philosophically) are usually lacking in one respect or another. a lot of his work, at least i think, has an ethnocentric element to it. disses women, other races, non-intellectuals etc., in other words, like other philosophers, in writing his views, they are more or less written in stone. for a lot of his work, it is only fair to use the principle of charity- more so for our own sake in understanding the complexities of his arguments than his. one thing is for sure about a lot of aristotle's work: he assumed that people reading it would have half the brain capacity he did. any thoughts/criticism welcome, maggie

Hello Daniel, I am a 'newbie'. I read your essay and I have some comments: "A sense organ has no choice about what to do when acted upon, while thinking must take an active role and create the intelligible thing." is this your interpretation? can you define sense organ? depending on your stipulative definition, i can think of some exceptions, if you are interested. important to stick to aristotle's exact vocab choice. avoid extremes such as right and wrong. this is a compliment to you. it would be like generalizing if you were to do otherwise. a lot of people do this when they are talking about aristotle. example: non-voluntary-voluntary-involuntary-ignorance-in ignorance- out of ignorance. hospers and rawls are fine-tuned as well, cause confusion/generalizations. example, while they embellish an 'extreme' veiw, they are not necessarily putting down the opposite view (particularily in their pieces on justice as utilitarianism). i could go on here but i have other things to say: i have a 'knack' for math and theology-- physics is another story. why do you suppose that is? what makes physics diff. for me? a few things that are especially important to keep in mind in reading aristotle (more so than some other philosophers' work): historical point of reference: one example--in talking about intellect and passive action. people born with systematic mal-functions not included in thinking. back then, people would have been killed for being born as such. very abstract- read his other works on different topics to make complicated formulas more concrete. distinctions blurry- this actually helps when looking at only one philosopher's thoughts across the board. makes it easier to answer question. "well what do you suppose aristotle would say about this. . . ?" stemming from abstraction note: literal interpretations (or the most literal interpretations given that we are talking philosophically) are usually lacking in one respect or another. a lot of his work, at least i think, has an ethnocentric element to it. disses women, other races, non-intellectuals etc., in other words, like other philosophers, in writing his views, they are more or less written in stone. for a lot of his work, it is only fair to use the principle of charity- more so for our own sake in understanding the complexities of his arguments than his. one thing is for sure about a lot of aristotle's work: he assumed that people reading it would have half the brain capacity he did. any thoughts/criticism welcome, maggie

[NOTE: I would really appreciate feedback on this. Time is money, a word or two would be a blessing] ------------------------------------ Hey. I am new to this forum-- i am an ayn rand fanatic, usually post on 'atlas society' as of a week ago. you are not allowed to talk about philosophical views of A.R. in that forum, so i thought i would check this one out. i need to borrow someone's brain. i am doing an essay for a scholarship application and i really want to win. the all-too-common question- 'Why should we choose you? 'is one that i have answered a million times for scholarship apps. this time, i want to take a different approach: i am going to write about the kind of person who does not deserve to be winner, and use the reasons why i should be chosen to prove that i am not this person. here is my stalemate: i need a compelling argument to characterize the 'don't choose' person. traits of the person that are not-so-obvious, or all-too-obvious that the average person would overlook them. this is your chance to 'strut your stuff' for all you people out there who complain about an 'intellectual famine'. for the record: i am a philosophy student-19-surrounded by liberals-'experiencing' gender stratification-inlove with ayn rand's works and perspective-very interested in modern & post-modern literature discussion-very eager to hear comments from anyone on any of the topics mentioned, emphasis on the scholarship dilemma. proud to be a member, -m.

As a businessman I pay both corporate taxes and personal income tax. Mostly to the federal US government. My take on this issue is fundamental. In order to live in the united states of america, you are paying taxes. This comes in MANY forms. a) The land you live on. Someone somewhere is paying property taxes on your dwelling and land. Whether it is you or the land owner you rent from. b ) Sales tax and excise taxes. Like it or not, buying automobiles, gasoline etc are things you MUST buy locally and MUST pay sales tax on it. True for most states. For everything else, but stuff online c) Purchasing goods from US corporate suppliers means corporate profit for those companies which pay taxes to the federal goernment on all those profits. d) Personal Income Tax - Federal e) Social Security Tax - Federal f) Personal Income Tax - Local & State NOW.... The fact is, if you're alive you're paying taxes. The latter 3 (d,e,f) may be avoided if you work hard enough. However in MY experience, its the greater good to pay them so you can work toward achievements which are greater than what you could earn working "under the table". Do I want to pay taxes? No. Do I have to in order to live in this country? Yes. Do I not want to pay taxes so badly that I am willing to leave it? Not yet.

I've recently been seriously contemplating the following passage stated by Albert Einstein: "Man tries to make for himself in the fasion that suits him best a simplified and intelligible picture of the world. He then tries to some extnt to substitute this cosmos of his for the world of experience, and thus to overcome it. . .He makes this cosmos and its construction the pivot of his emotional life in order to find in this way the peace and serenity which he cannont find in the narrow whirlpool of personal experience. . . The supreme task . . . is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resing on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them. . ." I think it is interesting to contemplate how this relates to modern day science. Einstein stated here obviously that intuition and sympathy are the only path to universal laws. Consider this concept: Some scientific truths have lasted centuries , while others last not a year, especially modern day quantum mechanic theory, et al. Consider that scientific truth is not dogmatic, good for eternity, but a temporal quantitative entity that can be studied and changed over time. Of course, how this relates to the concept of objectivity and an objective universe (one independent of man's mind) is rather interesting. If man's ability to conceive of an objective universe (as interpreted by math and physics) that is forever changing over time (temporal dynamics), is Kant's position on reason the only RATIONAL position to have? What do you think? PS: I'm aware of a movement in objectivism of a return to Newtonian Physics but please don't rebut with that... Thanks

Hello all. I'm an fairly objectivist type business man living in Austin Texas. I run my own corporation which does a variety of things, namely webdesign and programming. I am also writing my first novel involving politics, economics, statism and individualism. I am not a true Objectivist (big O) however I find Rand's work uplifting and it brings me joy. Unfortunately I find the tone of most of most of her work negative, but then again, its difficult to criticize her for this - based on the time period of then (and now). I'm eager to enjoy some active philosophical discussions on this board, hopefully mostly positive ones My AIM name is also RationalBeing so if anyone would like to chat privately, please feel free to do so. I should also mention that as well as Ayn Rand, I'm also a big big fan of the late Murray Rothbard, so if any of you know his work, you know where I stand both economically and politically. Lets see, in closing, I also enjoy mountain biking and I am also learning to play the piano. I'll now get right into it. Hope to see you guys on the boards!