TheCerebro

It seems many here are missing the issue, and simply responding to the concept of stealing with property rights. The issue isn't "is stealing wrong?". We all agree that it is. The issue is "is copying stealing?" When music is downloaded, no one suffers a direct loss to their current assests, but a potential loss to what might have benefited their future assests. No property is lost, but digital property is created in the form of a new file. Is this reproduction or robbery? Can it be robbery is their is no loss? Doesn't a violation of someone's rights involve taking something from them, not independently creating a duplicate of what they have?

I'm halfway through "The Fountainhead" and wondering if the movie was any good (no, I won't watch it untill I've finished the book)? I know Ayn Rand did the screenplay, but acting and directing can make a big difference? Also, was the movie based on "We the Living" good? Thanks for letting me know!

I don't understand. How is the belief that the "the greatest concievable thing" is omnipotent, omniscient, and exists a rejection of the law of identity? Wouldn't "the greatest concievable thing" have to be omnipotent, omniscient, and exists in order to be the greatest, since a being that is not all powerful, does not know all, and does not exist be a denial of the law of identity? Doesn't deifying humanity as an end in themselves deny the law of identity? Please explain.

Correction, God is the applications of A is A! God is God! God is defined as "the greatest conceivable thing". The greatest conceivable thing must exist, since a thing which exists is greater then a thing that does not. Therefore, by definition, God exists.

However, IF God, or anything greater then man existed, the post using Aristotle's comments would be only an observation on the use of the universe, not the purpose of man. You assume God does not exist, and that it would be impossible for a logical proof of him to exist. I was merely using the opposite of that as a working premise in order to show that what you considered a proof of Objectivism, was already based off Objectivist assumptions. This sounds much like Descartes "I think therefore I am" proof. I asked the question, because I wanted to know the answer, and I wanted to know the answer so that I could understand, and I wanted to understand so that I might live life correctly. Thus, my own life was the reason for asking. Hmm... I'm gonna have to think on that a bit... Perhaps I'll post a followup to this later.

If I understand Aristotle right, he is stating that all human endevours (science, politics, philosophy) are done by man, for man. However, that doesn't explain being an end in oneself. While all of man's endevours exist for man, one could still say man exists for another purpose, such as God. But what is the goal of your own life? Prolonging that life? Happiness? Life is a thing, but how you live it shows what you think it's purpose is.

Hmm... No one has responsed. Either I've just said something really stupid or inquisitive, but I'm not sure which.

What does it mean to be an end in oneself? I find that my logic on the issue is circular, because I do not understand it. "What does it mean to be an end in oneself?" "To have your own happiniess as your primary moral goal." "What makes you happy?" "Accomplishing your goals." "What are your goals." "Uh... being happy?" I've got to be missing something here, so please fill me in. Thanks!

I was wondering if any of you had heard of Francis Schaefer, the Christian thinker who emphasized that there was absolute truth and reason was the basis for Christianity. If you have read his works, I'm curious to know what you thought.

Can you give me a summery, or explaination? I'm frugal and not yet ready to blow 50$ on the tapes.

I have been studying the lives and beliefs of the early industrialists i.e. Andrew Carnegie. Ford, JP Morgan, Rockafellar etc. and found many were actually socialists. Andrew Carnegie in particular, who wrote the "Gospel of Wealth" in which he said the rich should live simply and be philanthropists, while throwing around terms like "workingman". I am wondering if anyone knew how it is these men could hold such contradictory views. It was their money that built our modern schooling (yes, Rockefellar provided two dollars for every one dollar of federal funding to schools). Why did such wealthy men, listen to social planners? Also is anyone familiar with the philosopher Herbert Spencer (man who coined the term "surivial of the fittest" and applied to capitalism) or how Andrew Carnegie synthesized him and Marx?

When you first meet a person, how do you rationally access their value? Under what circumstances would you help a person who was poor or ill and unable to help themselves?

There are some great visuals in Atlas Shrugged that will do great in film (Wyatt's Torch is the best of them, plus the mountain, NYC going out, The John Galt Line, etc.). The question is how they are going to handle the speeches. The best way I could think of is to abbreviate them, and cross cut to other plot points which illustrate what the speaker is saying. Oh yeah, and Ragnar Danneskjold should be awesome and the 5th Concerto should be beautiful. 'Nuff Said.

Instead of arguing why minimum wage is morally wrong, try forcing your professor to his own logical conclusions. Suggest that minimum wage be raised to 200$ per hour. Then all the workers will be rich! When he replies, "then how could anyone hire a worker?" say "Exactly!" If your teacher really cared about people, he'd be a capitalist.

I meant when considering it in the long run, how it affects you. Don't you ever plan ahead? Ever think about how you're going to wind up? Oh well. I think you got what I meant the first time, but I'm not sure if you are joking with me, serious, or just haven't thought it through.

I'm sort of new to Objectivism, and have a [big] question about Ayn Rand. Why was Nathienal Brandon removed from the Objectivist movement? Why did he have an affair with Rand, and what was the thinkning on both of their parts? Why didn't their affair last/work? What was Ayn Rand like [as a person] in her later year after that?

How do you, as an objectivist, deal with mortality and death?

If there isn't a moral reason to save the child, why would you be suspicious of the person who doesn't do so? It seems to me you need an ethical principle in order to say that the child is worth saving, or even worth 15 minutes of your time to save. As for rights coming from man's reason, the person I was talking to argued that animals have the capacity for problem solving (rudimentary toolmaking exhibited in primates) and value judgements (the sign language Gorilla was sad when it's cat died). I agree the above argument is wrong, but I'm curious how you'd refute it. I agree Pascal's Wager is flawed, but bring up the question: what is the Objectivist answer for death? Also, someone please tell me why Aquinas's proofs are wrong. Aquinas Proof

And always push an idea to it's logical conclusions to see if it is consistent. BTW, Virtue of Selfishness is in the mail right now.

Greetings! I'm a Christian, who is considering Objectivism, and ran across this forum while researching it. As for my current beliefs, I am what is probably best described as a rationalist. If you have heard of Francis Schaefer or C.S. Lewis, then you know the two Christian writers whom I most respect. Schaefer is best known for his criticism of postmodernity (Escape from Reason) and emphasis on reason as the basis for Christianity (How Should We Then Live), and C.S. Lewis is known for applying that rationality to arguing about the nature and the existence of God (Mere Christianity) and his fiction (The Narnia Chronicles, The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe). After reading Anthem and Atlas Shrugged, however, I began to examine Objectivism. While I find that a belief in objective reality, reason and capitalism are certainly compadible with what I already believe, selfishness is the point at which Objectivism differs. So here I am now looking to resolve the dilemma. Already posted some questions in another forum. The reason I posted the above however, is I'm curious if anyone on this board is familiar with the two thinkers I mention above. I'll probably post some more questions about Objectivism in the near future, and would appreciate your help in my quest for knowledge.

I am a Christian (Prodestant Rationalist) who is considering Objectivism and was hoping the people at this forum could answer some questions for me. The first is a hypothetical: There is a car crash, and in the car is a dad, mom and baby, and both parents die. If I pass the accident, and the baby will die unless I help it, am I required to do so according to the trader principle? The second has to do with rights: Ayn Rand states in "The Anti-Industrial Revolution" that man's rights are come from his nature, i.e. that he is alive, and derives all other rights (property, speech, etc.) from this. How is the nature of man (that he is alive) different then that from animals such that he has rights and they do not? (I'm sure that there is an obvious answer to this that I am missing, but every time I get into a debate with a friend of mine about this he brings up that stupid monkey that can do sign language. ) The last two have to do with proofs of God: According to Pascal's Wager, wouldn't it be in your rational self interest to be religious? On AynRand.org it said that Aquinas's five proofs had been refuted. What are the counter arguments to those proofs? I'd really appreciate your answers to these and look foward to reading them.