redfarmer

Without starting yet another debate on the worth (or lack thereof) of homosexuality, I think that my life proves how wrong you are. I could have been ok with it if you said that you didn't like watching gay love scenes. Frankly, graphic loves scenes of any sort I'm not involved in can tend to make me sick. However, to ascribe a set of supposed lack of values to any man or woman simply because of the sex life they choose without any evidence backing up the statement is mind boggling. There are a great deal of gay people who are without moral worth. However, that does not prove that all gay people are without moral worth. After all, there are just as many straight people without any moral worth. If you care to continue the conversation, please be kind enough to elaborate on why you made this statement or point me to a source that will explain why it was made. Otherwise, please don't put generalizations onto all of us when they don't belong.

Thus Spoke Zaruthusa is one of his most famous and complete works. There is also a lecture available through the Ayn Rand Bookstore by Andrew Bernstein which summarizes Nietschze's views and explains how they are similar to and different from Ayn Rand's views.

Wow, I was about to add a review for this novel when I saw that it had already been done. I loved LaGrecca's novel and, although it has its flaws in style, especially in repeating key details every few chapters, it was a very enjoyable read which helped concretize for me the effects of a state run medical system on the individual. Overall, I'd give it an 8 out of 10. I also have to say, I absolutely LOVE the cover art of this book and would love to own it as a print.

*Chainfire Spoiler* One inconsitenscy which has bothered me is the fact that, at the end of Naked Empire, Zedd was at the Keep with Rikka, Chase, Rachel, and Friedrich. Zedd had asked Chase and Friedrich to stay and help him defend the Keep in case Jagang ever sent a Pillar of Creation to it again. However, in Chainfire, Friedrich is gone and is not even mentioned. What happened to the gilder?!?!?! I've heard it suggested, though, that Goodkind may clear this up in Phantom.

Agreed. Also of interest may be Ayn Rand's essay, "Global Balkanization," which is printed in both Return of the Primitive and The Voice of Reason. Daniel, one important question to ask you to determine if your thinking is correct is: what is "the left?"

One I've studied some that she bears a resemblance to is Nietszche. And, before I start a flame war, notice I used the word similar, not exact. There are some important differences. Rand believed it was immoral to sacrifice another human being to achieve your values. Nietszche did not. This is one of the many reasons I'm an Objectivist and not a Nietszchen.

Someone I've always thought was attractive--especially for someone of his age--is Sean Connery. He was attractive as James Bond and he's still attractive now. He's always superb in any role he plays, which is probably what attracts me to him most. I also think Terry Goodkind is very attractive. His face betrays a confidence in himself that you can tell he has from his writing. Edit: Oops, forgot my reasons.

I think you're confusing the philosophy of Objectivism with the ideas it contains. To be sure, Ayn Rand did create Objectivism--it was her personal philosophy by her own definition. Was she the first person to think of the principles behind Objectivism? No, and no one would claim she did. Her epistemology is largely rooted in Aristotle and her ethics is similar to that of the existentialists. I'm sure there were also probably people of the past who lived by the principles of Objectivism but did not know they were doing so as the philosophy hadn't been invented yet. I don't think anyone anywhere is levying the claim that Ayn Rand was the first rational person on Earth. Thomas Paine is one of my personal heroes and he lived two centuries before Ayn Rand was born. Roark and Galt were not Objectivists. Objectivism did not exist in their universe. Agreed. Agreed. However, those of us who call ourselves Objectivists do so because, after studying Ayn Rand's works, we believe them to be essentially correct philisophically. Agreed. However, it appears that here you are confusing your personal philosophy with Objectivism. Everyone has a personal philosophy, implicit or explicit. Not everyone is an Objectivist. For claritys sake, imagine the time period when Ayn Rand first called her philosophy Objectivism. As she had not yet given her philosophy a name, some were referring to it as "Randism." She hated the name and gave it the name Objectivism to avoid the former term being used as much as possible. Now, we call Aristotle's personal philosophy "Aristotlism," Kant's "Kantism," etc. However, those who call themselves Aristotlists or Kantists are those who generally agree with the philosophy of Aristotle or the philosophy of Kant. Do people hold the same premises who have never heard of Aristotle or Kant? Undoubtedly. However, those people would be dishonest to call themselves a Kantian since they are not familiar with Kant's philosophy to comment on it. So with Objectivism. If you get confused, imagine it being interchanged with the term Ayn Rand hated, "Randism." Agreed. Those terms are typically used as derogatory referring to those who supposedly do everything Ayn Rand said to the letter. These are the people who like Rachmainoff and hate Beethoven because Ayn Rand said so. Personally, I also like Rachmanoff and Beethoven both. I also like rock music and am a homosexual. However, none of these points are part of Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism. As such, I'm honest when I call myself an Objectivist. It's all a matter of perception but I can understand where you're coming from on those remarks. However, I'm not ashamed to say that I'm selfish despite the negative connotations that word gives. I guess it's up to an individual what they want to call themselves. Cheers! Welcome to the board!

Agreed. I wonder if the reason Ayn Rand didn't write a book about these herself was because she believed them to be self evident.

You may want to read Nathaniel Branden's essay, "Isn't Everyone Selfish?" in The Virtue of Selfishness. Branden explains thoroughly why it isn't necessarily selfish to give up your life for a higher cause.

First of all, I have to point out that this would be considered an emergency situation, one which is highly unlikely to happen to you or anyone you know. Emergency situations are not and should not be used as the basis of forming a code of ethics. Ethics is primarily concerned with living your own life and since chances are good you will never encounter such a situation, you should not base your ethics on it. That said: Absolutely. The medicine is stolen. No amount of rationalization can make the situation otherwise. To use the medicine would be to fake reality, to use something which is not properly yours. If there is not a honest alternative, then I would rather die. Life is the standard of value but when your life continues at the expense of other people's lives, that is immoral in itself. You have no claim to their lives and they have no claim to yours. As such, using stolen medicine could only help you at the expense of someone else.

I know there are plenty of people in this forum who attend college. I was recently accepted for the fall semester at Indiana University Southeast in New Albany, Indiana, a medium sized branch college of Indiana University. The college currently has no Objectivism club but I would love to use the experience of college to meet other like minded people who love Ayn Rand. My question is when you went to college, how did you find other Objectivists who attended your campus? How can I network and meet other Objectivists and possibly start an Objectivism club? Any help or suggestions would be useful.

The problem I've found with self improvement books in general (and believe me, I've wasted plenty of money on them) is that they treat the symptoms, not the problem. If you're depressed because you have a self-esteem issue, they tell you how to not feel depressed but they don't tell you how to raise your self-esteem. That said, I would like to clarify what exactly it is you seek to accomplish. Do you simply want to expand on existing philisophic literature by tackling specific issues such as fear and anxiety or are you attempting to cross over into helping people with their psychological problems a la Dr. Phil?

Books other than Rand to read... If you like fantasy, Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series is very excellent. Goodkind is himself an Objectivist and is very successful in integrating Objectivism into a fantasy world. In literature, it doesn't get any better than Victor Hugo. Les Miserables was pure genius. If you like mystery novels, I'd highly recommend Mickey Spillane (the Mike Hammer Series), Erle Stanley Gardner (Perry Mason), and Ian Flemming (James Bond).

Frank Lloyd Wright was originally to make the drawings of the buildings in The Fountainhead movie but he wanted too much money and control over the movie. It's a shame. I would have liked to see his depiction of Roark's buildings.