Akin

Not totally, but try Jupiter by Holst.

I disagree. RM is priceless. It will assist from an artistic perspective, and the essay psycho-epistemology on Art is crazy good for helping you to understand what your readers need mentally. AoF is divided. The first part of the book is fantastic writing advice. The second part is several examples of the principles Rand's talking about presented in certain fiction including her own. These illustrations provide the writing and artistic principles in action. Get reading

I speak for myself obviously, I think A of F is a fantastic book and I definitely think it applies to children's literature. I totally agree that there is a massive need for Romantic literature for children. Back in the day kids grew up with inspiring stories everywhere. Today there's practically nothing aside from maybe Harry Potter. Think about the fact that Ayn Rand grew up reading things like The Mysterious Valley and Hugo. Imagine what would be different if she didn't develop the sense of life that she did.

I've read some of Heinlein and I like his style. Card's Ender's Game is AMAZING. I think I read it in three hours because I just couldn't put it down. I agree that Philip K Dick is a really paranoid author, but I've read a lot of his stuff and I liked some. Interestingly I was introduced to AYN RAND through a reference in Dick's A Scanner Darkly oh, and SG-1 is awesome.

I absolutely agree. It has been my experience that it will cause both parties grief and misery. If there is a pre-existing relationship, that is one thing (and I mean a serious one: as in years under your belt), otherwise: You're right about it not working DON'T DO IT

I'm just putting in my two cents. I see censorship which I believe is the immoral action of intellectual cowards. However, I don't see, legally, anything wrong with the admins wanting you guys to stop posting on their forum. It is a private forum, and they have the express right to preach whatever bullshit they want and even to censor their forums if they want. In my mind I compare it to privatized education. A school may teach whatever values, ideas, and "knowledge" it so pleases and has the right to do so. I don't think this dogmatic cowardly behavior is right, but I, for one, think that the forum owners/administrators are within their right to ask you to stop posting on their forums. I don't see anything wrong with trying to contact this person on Facebook,...unless she asks you to stop, which to my knowledge she has not yet done. I don't agree with the charge of stalking leveled against some of this forum's members, if the person feels threatened SHE should be the one complaining and I've not yet heard of a complaint, if anything the parson should be threatening legal action (if any) against the members for not respecting his (if it is his) right to property ( that is to own and run his forum the way he pleases without being harassed). I understand that the members of this board might experience a feeling of desperation to help this girl, that is a reflection of their own great sense of life. However, I question whether this type of "activism" is succeeding at all as opposed to further tarnishing the name of Objectivism. Although I MORALLY and wholeheartedly side with my fellow students of Objectivism on the matter, I sense a great deal of hostility being thrown back and fourth here. I consider myself intellectually hostile to Christianity, however, if you are trying to rationally appeal to the admins to stop this censorship, you are not going to convince them with hostility, most likely you'll not convince them anyway. It has been my own experience in activism that you only close people to reason and open them to the further acceptance from emotion/authority by using hostility.

Hello, Recently I have been discussing the topic of the Objectivist Metaphysics, and have found something that I need clarification with. I hope somebody can assist me. on page 31 of OPAR, Mr. Peikoff states, " Is God infinite "infinite" does note mean large' it means larger than any specific quantity, i.e., of no specific quantity. An infinite quantity would be a quantity without identity. But A is A. Every entity, accordingly, is finite; it is limited in the number of its qualities and in their extent; this applies to the universe as well" However, both Peikoff and Rand acknowledge that existence must have always existed. They have stated that the axiom of existence exists, encompasses the concept: Existence always has been, is, and will be. I don't remember where this information is cited, but I am aware that the Objectivist definition of time is a measurement between two things. This solves the problem of time being infinite as there can be no infinity. Time is always a finite and specific quantity, regardless of how large the measurement of time is. My problem then, is my ability to make sense of how the existence always has been and always will be, yet can not be infinite. I have a some ideas, but I am curious as to whether I am missing something. Thank you for your help!

Hi everybody! I attended. Unfortunately I had to leave half way through the Q & A. I am sorry I didn't get to meet some of you personally. Perhaps I'll be able to introduce myself next time there is a local event. I think Dr. Bernstein is a fantastic public speaker, don't you agree?