KantSpell4...

I do not think that the last two before Chainfire were bad as such, Pillar of Creation was one of the worst book in the series. However, I would not say they were bad, they might have stumbled abit, and the plot development might be flawed to some extent, but still were of merit. I have heard it said that seven and eight were almost like press releases, stating yet more of Terrys world views, and answering a few questions, such as those relating to the Old World., and not advancements of the series. I dont think that is quite true, the Naked Empire definetely does a litle for the progress of the series, and I admire Terry for taking an different standpoint for Book Seven, giving us a break from Richard and Kahlan, and a good insight into De Hara. And NE answered a key question - is it possible to recreate weapons of magic? And of course ,it is, a chilling thought. Hopefully, after taking a different stance for a while, im hoping that with Chainfire, he has picked things up and will start a satisfactory end to the Order storyline. Personally, I dont know what enemy he might use if he does indeed resume the series after Book Eleven, the end of the planned series, but Im sure he will think of something.

I used to play alot of 3rd Ediition Dungeons and Dragons, but my group fell apart and until recently I have not had the time, or been able to establish a new group. I have been looking into the game : Mage; The Ascension. I must say that it seems a more intellectualy challenging game. The magic system requires alot of creativity and thought to manage, as it requires the players and game master to really think it through. Magic in the White Wolf universe runs on beleif to a large extent, if you use magic that is very unbeleivable to those whom observe it, you suffer backlash, ie negative efffects imposed by reality, such as magically induced bouts of agony. If you think magic through, and use it in imaginative, yet more beleivable ways, you are more likely to succedd. For instance...say you are a Mage, and someone shoots at you. You could try to save yourselves using a number of different applications of magic. You could say use Matrix type abilities and dive under the bullet. But you could do it more intelligently, and realistically my magically altering its path so it hits a nearby object, which is far more beleivable than you dodging a directly oncoming bullet. That way you would most likely not get backlash, where the first method would... I find this system, which also encourages deepl and intense storytelling ,along as requiiring deep thought on alll the players behalf to run properly, a highly enjoyable expereince, more so than DnD.

I love this series, and indeed it is my favorite fantasy series. The characters, wiith all of their evident flaws and strengths, locked in the fantasy equivelent, in many cases, of those we face as invividuals or as a society, are compelling. Few authors portray real characters that act so human, as Goodkind. And this, despite their fantasy context and often fantasic powers, make them more beleivable than many characters in even non-fantasy novels. That and the themes and messages of the novels, are largely ones I agree with, Ie the Wizards Sixth Rule. He breathes a rare light to the fantasy genre - by bringing often deep , philosphical meaning to his work. Fantasy is merely the vessel for the expression of his world view, a vehicle that sweeps up the reader in its path and takes him or her on a tour or human nature and the value of reason and Terrys beleif that life is of the highest value...both being concepts that I suspect are familiar to you.... Though I will say one thing that is not so praising. he seems to be stumbling with the progress of the novels, seemingly up until Chainfire possibly (I have yet to read i.

Law and Order (yeah, we all seem to like this.... :-) ) The Secrets of World War Two series Star Trek (as fanciful as alot of it is) Third Rock from the Sun Monty Pytons Flying Circus ( I know, it s not on much anymore alot in most countries, however it is still brillant) The Simpsons Malcolm in the Middle And pretty much any interesting and reasonably accurate historically based doco

Yeah, OK, I suppose the term "all the best " is a better term, given that I do not beleive in the concept of luck. However, I do not feel it is incorrect to use term as a figure of speech meaning something similar to "all the best", but I do see your point.

True, I think I did miss that possible point. Mind you, Economics can be very mathematica/scientific, but I will not go into that, that is beside the point. In such areas, I will grant that you need .the to be less cold and mathematical. Thanks for reminding me o what I should not need to be reminded about.

Ok, I admit it is a bad habit of mine to not leave adequate spacing between paragraphs, so point taken and I will take more care to do so in the future, thanks for the tip And for the welcome of course..

I have to say that I find the rules contained in the Sword of Truth series to be pretty good. This is the pivot to them all.... "The only sovereign you can allow to rule you is reason. What is, is, and what exists, exists. And from this irreducible bedrock principle all knowledge is gained." Related to them, and also contained in the same series... ""We all can be only who we are, no more, no less." "When you are out numbered, and the situation is hopeless, you have no option-you must attack!" "I let them suffer the worst possibilit [of their irresponsilbity] , the results of their own actions." "History is rarely made by reasonable men."

Greetings everyone. I have as you will have picked up, joined this commnity rather recently. And almost immedialty upon embarking on a serious study of the subject, I decided to compliment my studies by active particapation in debates on and related to the subject, and this place is the best I have found to date. I have researched extensivly on various websites over the last few weeks and feel I am starting to gain a firm understanding of Objectivism, though I admit until I get to read books such as Atlas Shrugged in their entirety, there is still a fair bit I have yet to learn, but when I have the chance to finish such books, I most surely will. Terry Goodkinds Sword of Truth series, has over last few years I have been reading and intellectually debating alot of the key concepts and messages of them, given me I have noticed a fair basic familarity with Objectivism. On finally reseaching into the field specifically I have come to realise just how true this is. For years I have held the key concepts of Objectiivism as my moral guidelines. Therefore, if any budding students of Objectivism wish to read abit of well written fiction, with brillant, deeply human characters, and to see views very simiilar to those contained within Objectvism applied in theorotical situations not totally distant from those that could occur in reality, I reccomend the series... I hope that I learn more of this subject every day, and that I am constantly challanged. I look forward to you as my peers to challenge me and enable me to actively and constantly review my understanding of Objectivism. Thank you all, and good luck with your journey along this road....

I agree with some of the explanations offered by people here. Reason is very much a process of logical deduction provided from the data provided by our senses. Alot of the reason you seem to find too prevalent is merely logic being applied in a way that seems to smack too much of mathematics. However, mathematics, and such sceinces thrive off logic, and are ideal usages of ones logical thought, reason. At the very root of it, mathematical sceinces boil down to logic and a few rules that describe reality. They are highly powerful and efficent methods of describing reality, and is not that one of Objectivisms highest pivots? So what could be wrong with using reason in a mathematical way? Is it too 'cold'? That is OK though, it therefore isnt corrupted by emotion, which is clearly a good thing. Therefore, as I see it, you should not have a problem with people applying logic in this way, in fact I feel you would be better off realising that such methods are GOOD methods of applying reason.

Ok, I know alot of you people have raised some if not all of the following points by now, but I am fairly new to this, so I feel this would be a good exercise in arguring for Objectivism in the form of countering supposed counters to some of Ayn Rands statements, as made by his David Friedman person. I will therefore say way I think David is wrong on points 1 and 2, time constraints forbid me commenting on his fourth point for now. I will state the relevant statement and then I will raise my objections to his arguments against it, at least as I see it, if i err, please do let me know Note that I have admitted the third point partially because I feel it can be deirved from my intreptration of the second. David would have us beleive that the Mantis clearly does not automatically in a way that ensures its own survivual. However , the Mantis does act in ways that according to the informmation it has, ie that reproduction is part of its lifes purpose, and that it furthers the life of the Mantis. However, it cannot know that it will die as a result of what to an unthinking being, is an act that is constructive. It will automatically take that action, as the Mantis is not as thnking being, and does not make conscious choices, and therefore acts automatically in ways that appear tto act int is beneft. The insect cannot ignore its own good, cannot choose death as it cannot make choices of action, and therefore cannot act as its own destroyer. If its actions, due to incomplete actions result in its destruction, it is not because the Mantis choose destruction, but that destruction nonetheless happened upon it. Ok, this restates Ayns point I guess, but of course highlights Davids errors. He seems to belevie that Ayn is saying that life requires a single course of action, and that only that course will result in contuined life. However, this is not what she means, she means that a specific, definite course of action, a course of action selected in most cases from a selection of other options, is needed for one to stay alive. If people do not act with in ways that include the motive to live, then they will not be able to live on their own means and unless they feed off others motive to live, they will die. To live requires motivated effort. even it ones live depends on the motivated effort of another. [

The way I understant it is as follows.... I have yet to fully read Ayn Rands viewpoints on the subject, so maybe from the point of Objectiivism I am not entirely correct., but anyway... True love is an attachment to someone based on their values and qualities, values and qualities that you share and consider of importance. Many might argue that sometimes people seem to fall in love for no reason, however this is clearly absurd, as the level of emotional attachment required for love is clearly dependent on some damn good reason, and saying that there is none is just avoiding the issue of course. Now, many people you will have observed confuse love and dependence. Love involves a mutually beneficial exchanges that enrich both of the particpants lives. Now would could possibly be so irrational about that? Dependence on the other hand is one person leeching benefit off the other without providing return, and at times love and dependence can be seen in every relationship. Love is not something that is observable at all times, so many people confuse that and such for love and incorrectly use it as an argument that love is irrational. That and the argument that "love is irrational, love is good, and therefore some irrationality must be good" is plainly absurd anyway. Even a good thing is at times irrational, that does not mean that the irrational components of it are good, or that irrationality in any way contributes to something being good, as it is hardly a postiive thing. It does nothing 'goood', so cannot sensibly be defined as good.

I would certaintly argue that the concept of God or any gods by the same argument of course, exist out of the reality. The existence of God cannot be proven or observed to be fact. Reality includes facts, and every religion I have encountered fails to provide what I would consider anything resembling evidence for its existence so cannot be considered to be fact. As reasoned beings we should not hold that Gods are real therefore/ Therefore as I see it, Objectivism holds we should not consider it to be part of reality, and only as a concept defined by the psychologcal workings of many peoples minds. And by the very definition of what the universe is, ie reality, it also exists outside oif the universe. Regardless of their faith in their God, reality cannot support their religious belefs, for as we know, wishes do not define reality. They can argue against the facts, but as I see it, they are foolish to do so. Now, I am still very new to this, so if I have made any errors, do please point them out...

I would have to say that Objectivism, as I understand it, quite clearly states that one must be an atheist in order to conform to some of its most basic elements. As you no doubt know, Reason , based on objective facts is the only way for us to accurately perceive reality. Faith in the divine and mythical forces, based on so called proof in the form of largely contradicting stories and rumours that defy logic and hard fact is totally inconsistent with a reasoned outlook. Such things do not stand up to the light of true reaso. Also, devotion to a deity or such, implies servitude to another, a supposed being that does not exist according to reason, ie something Objectivism requires you to hold as vitally important, does not have any actual reality. Only an supposed existence , an illusion of being created by your hopes, fears and such. And Objectivism states that such emotions have no bearing on reality. Only actual facts have any bearing on reality, and religion contains little actual facts that support its assertions. Therefore, not only does it imply servitude to another, but servitude to anothers ideas and beleifs, which conflicts the pursuit of rational self interest, or it does the way I see it. One should not commit oneself to satisying rules set by those whom created the religion, and should allow the religion to define their actions, religion is not reason, and ideally only reason should affect ones actions. All the above points, I feel give many reasons why religions and following them, contradict almost every concept defined within Objectivism. I might be wrong on some points as I am very new to this in one sense (in that I have only encountereed a simplified form of Obectivism in Terry Goodkinds Sword of Truth series), so please feel free to point out any errors you feel I may have made. This is how I see it though...