Bryan

Saying "human intellectual whims" puts some fog on the issue. Morality is indeed a construct of the human intellect. Because human beings are volitional, they have a choice of values that they can pursue, morality acts as a guide. But morality should not be based on "whims", implying that it pops in and out of existance and changes in the range of the moment.

Nobody is asking you to take anything on faith. Faith, by definition, is a belief with no evidence of its validity ("knowledge" with no foundation). Any belief in god, is taken on faith because there has never been any evidence to suggest god's existance. Objectivist metaphysics does have a basis, observable reality. You don't have to have faith that reality exists, you know its there, you are living in it.

godless - a metaphysical system that excludes the existence of god(s). The measurements omitted are the specific universe that the metaphysics pertain to, and I suppose the specific gods that are excluded. Obviously, there is only one universe, but hypothetically it could be any universe.

This is where the water gets a little murky. My argument against software patents is that you can't patent a method or idea. Amazon can copyright their website in that nobody could copy their HTML and use their exact same design for their own website. But how can you patent the idea of "one click ordering"? Anybody could implement a website to automatically charge a customer in a single click. Doing so wouldn't violate Amazon's supposed "invention". No, the first widely used spreadsheet program that I have recollection of is Lotus 123, it came long before Excel and I doubt if it was even the first. Excel is (debatably) just a much better program and Lotus 123 couldn't compete. If you look at what a spreadsheet program actually is, its simply a program that analyses and manipulates rows and columns of data. That in itself is not something that can be patentable. Put in the context of a word processor, or simply a text editor. If someone could patent the concept of a text editor, this message board would be stealing someone's "invention". The underlying principle behind the argument against software patents is to prevent people from patenting software concepts (types of programs) and algorithms (methods of programming). If software concepts could be patented there would be one operating system, one word processor, one spreadsheet, one web browser, etc.

By the standard of their own judgment. A standard that they hold in higher regard than any other. No. Its not that intellectually challenging to do inferior work. What self-esteem do you really derive from doing a half-assed job? Whenever I do something half-assed, even if I get praise for the job I do, it doesn't give me any pride at all because I know that I am capable of more. I don't have any desire to make the world a better place simply for the sake of making the world a better place. If I attempt to live the way Roark and Rearden do in their respective worlds, the world would be a better place for everyone else (even if it's only a miniscule amount) and the world would be much better for me, which is my primary concern.

Exactly, there is no such thing as true altruism. It would be impossible to be 100% moral under an alturistic code of morality. Yet this is the code that people attempt to follow. And then they think they are being immoral if they do something SELFISH

Fair enough. That makes a lot more sense. If this is the case, hansenalana, disregard my statements.

I disagree with this advice. I still hold that The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are the best introduction to Objectivism. They provide a perspective of the philosophy in action. Anyone exposed to Objectivism after being exposed to (and possibly agreeing with) some of the other god-awful ideas that masquerade as a valid philosophy needs a sort of "delousing" to clean their slate. This is exactly what TFH and AS provides. When first learning about Objectivism, if I had started with OPAR before reading the fictional works, I doubt I would have gotten through it.

In your initial post you said, which led me to believe that our senses were an "improper" way to observe reality. I find your personification (if that's all it is) of reality puzzling.

I observe reality with my eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and nervous system. It works extraordinarily well for me. This is a beautiful metaphor for god, although I think it was inadvertent on your part. What exists at an asymptote? Nothing. It is a portion of a function where a value cannot exist. If you graph a function with an asymptote on a graphing calculator, it will draw a nearly vertical line that connects two points on either side of the asymptote because a graphing calculator can't graph non-linear functions. But your mind can process non-linear functions; by using reason, you can understand that the vertical line at the asymptote (god) isn't really there.

In your first post you said "note that I have manifold familiarity with Ayn Rand literature and am prepared for 'intellectaual shooting matches' ". This would lead to believe that your intention for joining this forum was to debate about Objectivism coming from some other viewpoint. If this is not your intention, disregard my statement. I haven't read much of the recent Atheism threads, that topic is not of much interest to me and it has been beat to death on this forum. Why make a blanket statement in a intro thread about an exchange between two members in a forum that has over 1200? You were making a disclaimer to Jennifer in an intro thread where nobody knew you were specifically addressing her? What level of Objectivist competence does "manifold familirity confess"? I'm still in the dark here. A side note, between your two posts that I have responded to, I've had to look up 5 words using google's dictionary. I appreciate the vocabulary building exercises .

This is a wonderful story. I would have loved to see the looks on the faces of everyone in that classroom . The only good thing I can say (or even know) about the Unitarians is that I like the achitecture of their churches. I myself have always been an atheist. I just never bothered to realize it until my mid-teens. There are times when I was younger that I wished there was a god so he could do favors for me, but I'm much more comfortable knowing there isn't one.

Here is an Objectivist homeschooling and self-education site with a lot of book recommendations: http://strongbrains.com/

The difference between computer software and a computer program is ambiguous. I would consider them to be the same thing, simply a set of instructions that tell the computer what to do. Programs aren't required to have a user interface. A computer algorithm is a computer procedure which takes in some values(s) as inputs and produces some value(s) as an output. This is not the case. Software copyrights still hold if software patents are illegal. Source code can be copyrighted and compiled programs can be copyrighted. The argument against software patents is essentially making illegal to patent an algorithm or type of program that performs a certain task. For example, Microsoft patenting "spreadsheets", so that no other spreadsheet program besides Excel could exist. Patenting an algorithm would be exactly like patenting a mathematical formula. I think this is just a case of confused definitions. Here is a small explanation about patents from a link I followed from the original site you linked: Why all this fury about software patents?

Obviously your uncle has a better sense of humor than St. Loius Blues player Tony Twist had when Todd McFarlane used him in a comic book. Tony Twist Beats McFarlane

The purpose of Congress is to educate children of the dangers of drug use and to educate the American people about the facts of the MLB steriod scandal? Makes sense to me!

Forgive my ignorance, but business degrees have always puzzled me. After you get a business degree you go into "business". What kind of business? I dunno, just business. It seems that you could learn a lot more about business by working in a business. I could see a business degree as a supplement to something else, but not a primary. Maybe I'm way off base though. Given your particular situation, what type of career do you desire? This is the job you are presumably going to be doing for a large portion of your life. What kind of job would you get out of bed looking forward to spending your day doing? Answering this question will lead you to what type of degree do you need to pursue to acquire that career. Given your three alternatives, I personally would get an economics degree; it’s a lot more marketable than you may think. Do a Google search on "careers in economics" and see what it yields.

Helping the sick, feeding the poor, etc. are major elements of altruistic moral systems. In an egoistic moral system, they are secondary concerns. A moral system is simply a set of principles of what is right and what is wrong. An altruistic moral system claims that is it always right to help the sick, feed the poor, etc. and that it is always wrong to put your own concerns above the concerns of others. Altruism claims as a rule that others come first and your own interest come second. Objectivist ethics inverts this idea. I empathize with your misunderstanding, because, in our culture, altruism is shoved down our throats as the ONLY morality.

The purpose of this forum is not to debate Objectivism, read the forum rules. What do you mean by "manifold familiarity"? What particular person's inquiries have not been given enough consideration to the point that it troubles you?

Miss Rand has an idea of what man should aspire to be, this image is not imaginary. Obviously, the heroes in her novels are greater than the "average" person", how else could they be heroes? It is difficult to discuss this until you have read AS and FH, it would be much more clear to you then. You illustrated the issue with an imaginary emergency, it's much more simple than that. The idea behind acting in your rational self-interest vs. acting selflessly, it to never, ever sacrifice. Always act in accordance to your values, never give up a value for something you value less.

Indeed Altruism is a moral code of selflessness, placing others above one's self. It is the idea that man's purpose for existence is service to others. This is not the case. The basis for Objectivist ethics is Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology. Ethics is corollary branch of philosophy. If I had money to spare, I would be more than happy to donate some to a decent charity to aid the victims of the tsunami. My reasons for this are that I generally value human life, and the people that are affected by the tsunami are suffering through no fault of their own. The only way that it would be immoral to donate to the tsunami victims is if it involved a sacrifice (If you gave money you could not afford to give or if you gave money to a charity you did not support). That being said, if the exact same tsunami hit the United States, the devastation would not be as catastrophic. Because we are generally a capitalist country, we have enough wealth to overcome natural disasters with minimal harm. You can't take what people say on this forum to be the "official" Objectivist stance, for there can't really be such a thing in regard to current events. The people that post here have differing levels of knowledge of Objectivism and varying levels of integration of the philosophy into their everyday lives. People with the same general philosophical views can arrive at very different opinions regarding concrete issues. For evidence of this, look at the threads on the 2004 elections. You are going to have to define eurocentrism and Black Death. I'm not sure what you mean. This is a blanket statement, I consider myself to have an excellent sense of humor. A sense of humor is not defined by one's philosophy. What one finds amusing may be, but not one's capacity for humor. This is another blanket statement. Through this forum I discovered the music of Rachmaninoff. I don't like Rachmaninoff because Ayn Rand liked him or because others here like him, I like him because his music is superlative and a joy to listen to. It would be wrong to like a movie or piece of music just because somebody else likes it, but if you find people who share your same values, you’ll find that their tastes in movies and music are very similar. Are you implying that having ideals is wrong? Perhaps you should define what you mean by "idealist". The Objectivist definition of capitalism is simply a social/political system based of the recognition/protection of individual rights. Anyone who tries to add anything else into the equation that is not directly derived from individual rights is wrong. You have an improper (yet very common) view of morality. Based on the definition of altruism given above, it seems that you code of morality is very altruistic. 11. this board talks alot about metaphysical knowledge, but I've seen little backing up on that. Ayn Rand's defintion of metaphysical: The Virtue of Selfishness- "The Objectivist Ethics", page 14 "I use the word "metaphysical" to mean: that which pertains to reality, to the nature of things, to existence." Since all knowledge must come from reality, metaphysical knowledge is rather redundant. You stated that you just started Atlas Shrugged. It is a truly amazing book and I guarantee you will have a much better understanding of Objectivism after reading it. There is no better introduction to the philosophy than reading that book. (But make sure you read The Fountainhead too, its my personal favorite . )

Sounds like a plan!

This issue is definitely something that needs to be dealt with by a good professional. I second Felipe's advice in checking out Dr. Kenner's site, also you may want to check out http://www.drhurd.com/.

The practical use that Roark had was his own happiness. He mentioned that a low-income apartment was a project that he had been working on his own for several years. Designing Cortlandt Homes gave Roark the opportunity to see his ideas put into reality. Seeing the apartments built would have made him happy knowing that they were his ideas from his mind. The fact that other people would enjoy living in the apartments was just a secondary benefit to Roark. Other people's happiness was not one of his primary concerns.

I guess I'll respond: Shows that are still on: Simpsons Family Guy (new episodes soon!) Curb Your Enthusiasm Law and Order (any and all) Numb3rs (have only actually seen one episode, but so far so good) South Park Reno 911 Chappelle Show Not on anymore: Seinfeld Star Trek: TNG Austin Stories (anybody else watch this besides me?) Shows that are on that I'm embarassed to admit I love(d): The O.C. Party of Five Golden Girls