SapereAude

Thanks for your well measured response Tony. I also went through some of what you went through.. the withdrawal and anger and all that when I discovered Ayn Rand at 13-14 years old. I was far from well adjusted, and didn't really have great self esteem (in conventional terms) But I responded to it maybe in a different way in that it caused me to keep trying to find the contradictions in my thinking and resolve them. If anything I had very bad self esteem (Catholic-ugg) and at first AR's philosposhy was one I used to try to make myself into something that I thought had a right to exist. To put it simply- I was filled with self loathing (much in the style of Reardon without claiming that I am anywhere near as important or herioc a figure) and yet knew that I had no right to demand anything of anyone else to make me otherwise. I don't know how long you've been a student of Objectivism but I know that if you follow it to its logical conclusion you will find just how wrong Nathaniel is. "People are messed up BY Objectivism" is not the same as "messed up people sometimes find Objectivism". Much like guns don't kill people, people kill people. That is not to say that NB never did anything of value. I simply cannot give support to his current agenda. I think most Objectivists go through terrible times of doubt and loneliness and longing for the simple times amongst the sheeple-especially if they find it young. But a house with poor foundations must have the foundations utterly destroyed lest you build again on a bad foundation. It is a painful process, but worth it. ...edited due to sloppy writing as I was taking in a fish order and writing at the same time... ;P

The simple answer is cognitive dissonance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance for anyone unfamiliar with psychological terms. People see themselves as taking part in the fruits of the actors labour to a greater extent than the things they use everyday like cars, gas, computers, mining, logging, etc. A CEO gets on a private jet to go to a meeting and the villagers get out their pitchforks. Oprah takes one to go to a spa and not a peep. Think of all the "environmental activists" actors... think of how much damage (by their own claims, not mine) they do everytime they make a movie. All the private planes, all the transport, all the set building, all the stuff getting blown up, all the "greenhouse gasses" all the bottled water ..and on and on and on... In a way I see all the pandering to "the left" that Hollywood does as a form of protection money. Throw out some Habitat for Humanity PR here, a $1million donation there and they're seen as being on the side of "the good guys". You can find all this in Atlas Shrugged actually. For the most part the villians were as wealthy and powerful as the heroes they worked to turn the population against. ..but with a few high minded speeches and some donations and some acts that could be taken as working with the progressive agenda the attention turned away from them. A brilliant wealth keeping strategy if one is willing to live a lie. I'm fairly well known of in the town where I own my business.. and when the Obama election was going on I had people threatening to boycott my business over my views on personal property- by people who have far more than I. What people hate (right now) is not having it- but saying I earned this, I deserve it, it MINE. As long as actors keep in line with what the other second handers believe the eye won't turn on them. People will start resenting the having itself after the producers stop producing. Long live Clint Eastwood!

I just saw the movie yesterday and really enjoyed it Regarding disliking Kirk's behavior I saw it as an origin story. Kirk becoming who he will later be so I was able to get past that. Yes, he rubbed me the wrong way, but he seemed to rub everyone in the movie the wrong way. I'm sure there will be greater development and maturity in the character in the next movies.

It is good to remember that what you approve of happening to others could just as easily happen to you. America has been sliding into socialism/Marxism for some time now. Is it so unfathomable that someday Objectivists, business people, capitalists will be considered the enemy and "a danger to the people"? was this not what Ayn Rand herself escaped? Was it not the justification of the torture of Galt? That by withholding his knowledge he was "causing people's deaths" & "damaging the nation"? I don't believe reason can lead to an ends justify the means argument on this- bad means, bad ends, something cannot be bad in practice but good in theory. I believe in the death penalty but cannot accept torture as a reasonable tool of civilized people.

I think you hit it on the head in a lot of ways D'kian. I'm now working from 9am until midnite or later with only Sundays off. Ever since my spouse took over feeding the dogs they have an obvious air of disdain for me and my commands As a consequence I find myself not liking them quite as much.

I'm not sure I get where we don't understand each other? Where did I say I took that to mean anything other than in case of fire? I'm going under the theory that not all situations in which there is a fire are going to be life threatening immmediately. (I've been in a couple apartment buildings where there have been fires some bigger-some smaller). In a case where the fire itself probably wouldn't kill a pet the very act of putting the fire out could feasibly injure or kill a pet not to mention the possibilty of it breaking loose and becoming lost or in the case of a larger/watch dog an unaware fireman could be attacked. To me it is reasonable in case of fire to put out there that pets are inside.. and go with the assumption that a firefighter is smart enough to not kill themselves over a cat.

""In case of fire I have "x" number of Pets please save them." I told my wife that I would not put the sticker up because no matter how much Tinker (the cat) and Muggles (our dog) mean to me I would not ask a human being to place themselves in danger for their sake" I'd never thought of it that way. I'd considered it rational to let firemen know the pets were in there via sign- in case it was a non life threatening situation (one in which you would feel it safe to get the pets out yourself but perhaps the fire occurs when you're not home) but that no fireman would risk his life to save the animal. I'd be interested in other takes on this issue as a side bar to the initial post query.

The debate about animial vs humans in rights, value & communication got me thinking about this matter. Forgive me if this is the wrong forum to put this post in. Obviously animals' lives have a different value than humans' lives. So is it rational to "love" your pets as more than a possession? I "love" my vintage guitars but do not feeling personal one on one affection for them the way I do my dogs. I also value my animals lives more than some human lives- I will spend hundreds of dollars on my pets health and well being but don't give money to beggars. So my question to other Objectivists is this: Can you really claim to see your pets only as another valued piece of chattel? If you can't make that claim then is it not irrational to "love" a thing not capable of reason itself?

I've read a great deal of Nathaniel Brandon's works. I'm also married to a psychologist. I have made my choices in regard to NB based on my readings, my understanding of psychology and my understanding of Objectivism. My problem with him is that he blames Objectivism for his own shortcomings. He is promoting the notion that Objectivism causes these problems when in most cases it would seem more evident that the persons in question came to Objectivism with these problems already in place.

"It's when they stop being abstinent that they get pregnant." I dunno... they are Christian... could always claim immaculate conception...

Yes, McCain made the joke during a live, nationally televised speech. It was all over the news so presumably it got back to her. Because he knew it was live and nationally televised I believe he's responsible for it even though he didn't personally own the equipment or the stations. That said, I was ...I think 23 at the time and found it hilarious albeit in horrible taste and cruel to a minor who didn't choose to be in the public spotlight. Unacceptable contradiction for an Objectivist, I know, but there it is. My main point is the hypocracy of both political parties.. each one insulting each other's children and screaming about how wrong it is to drag the kids in to it. Personally, I dislike children and politicians so am happy to see any & all made fun of

I also enjoy the op-eds on The Atlsasphere but do not participate due to the support of Nathaniel Brandon. To say Objectivism is psychologically damaging is anti-reason and no proper Objectivist site would allow the spread of such a notion on its boards.

I have to point out regarding the statement that Chelsea Clinton was left alone (Jake Ellison's post) that in fact many horrible things were said about her when she was even younger than Palin's daughter. Including this joke, when Chelsea was 12 by Palin's running mate: "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno." -- Sen. John McCain, speaking to a Republican dinner, June 1998. McCain, Limbaugh & others actually made many jokes at Chelsea's expense which make's Palin's anger even less valid. That said, I think any mean spirited jokes about minors that are in the public eye not by their own choice are tasteless but I do believe Letterman meant to be joking about the 18 year old daughter.

Sweet fancy Moses.. can't find the edit button... that was supposed to be gallery, not galley.

I wonder.. in weeding out criminals & potential troublemakers would this society also weed out people with serious chronic contagious illnessess?

Work, money, the right to keep it and to do what you want with it is "liberty". ..or at least the foundation and the first four floors..

"Or a politician openly espousing her philosophy..." Egad! Much as I'd love to see the day you realize the mobs of religious, liberals, unions and welfare moochers would tear them limb from limb!

Generally you will need to find a place to display your art to get someonoe interested enough in what you do to get patronage. Lets go with paintings for example. Find a place to have them displayed. If you can't get them in a galley often local bars, restaurants and coffee shops will be willing to display them. To get them to do this you should have decent business cards made and a professional portfolio. Expect the process to be like a job interview. Its just a starting point but works for many small local artists.

Even Jesus begrudged starting a church knowing his message would be abused and ultimately lost in becoming an organized religion. I think that the nature of objectivism does negate anything church-like in organization even if it is non religious and non worship based. That's just my take, some may disagree. I think informal things like these websites, occassional meet-ups, the occassional getting together to discuss how to stem the rising tide of socialism is as good as it gets given the individualism at the core of objectivism. ..since I have to admit that this is more something I intuit based on imperfect knowledge I would be glad for anyone to give me facts to the contrary.

Jill, I understand that you feel you are coming from a place of compassion & empathy for people who feel they have needs within society that they can't meet for themselves but what about compassion for the people who's property rights are infringed upon? You need to check your premise about what a "right" is. A person works, saves money and buys a business. They run it well and within legal bounds. That the person has a right to their business is an absolute. To say that someone, whether handicapped physically or socially can cause changes to be made to that business infringes upon the absolute right of the owner. If the person in "need" has a right to the business then the business owner doesn't truly own the business at all. The problem with making decisions and policy based on compassion or empathy rather than absolutes is that things snowball. I will give a very tangible example that I am currently facing as a business owner: Sidewalks for better or for worse are public property. However, if you own a business you become responsible for the sidewalk in front of your business- all cleanliness, snow shovelling, cracks in the concrete, upkeep- in fact if the city decides a tree should be added to the sidewalk the business owner has to pay for it to be installed. It can be very expensive and yet you never "own" it. The handicapped of course have the right to access and use of the sidewalk. Where this becomes problematic is that sidewalk cafes are very popular in my town in clement weather. For a $20 permit you are allowed to put out tables and chairs on the sidewalk so long as a reasonable path in still made for foot traffic and wheelchairs. I don't know if you've noticed but many people are now going about in wheelchairs that are basically SUVs. I mean..these things are often 4 feet across. It is ridiculous. Well, these people in their ginormous SUV wheelchairs are upset that cafe/restaurant tables soemtimes make them have to weave their obscene vehicles in & out. So.. now the city have raised the price of a permit to a $150 application fee, a $175 yearly fee PLUS a set fee per square foot of your frontage PLUS there must be a full six feet of clearance on the sidewalk (and many sidewalks aren't even that wide to begin with). Also, many places now aren't allowed to put up outdoor tables and the ones that can have had their capacity greatly diminished. Because of this many places have cut staff or not hired seasonal staff they would have otherwise. While people are losing their private sector jobs several union city worker positions have been created to police the outdoor tables and hand out fines if anyone complains about your tables. All this because a few morbidly obese people in ludicrisly oversized Rascals declared that having to say "excuse me" and manuveur around a couple tables was (this is a direct quote from one of them) "humiliating and deeply embarassing". Businesses saw their permits go from $20 to $400+, they lost income from lost tables, people lost work and had their hours cut. All because of someone's "right" based on their perceived "need". So I understand your compassion for this person Jill. But how many more people will be hurt as this goes farther? Someone who has a penis but thinks they're a woman thinks they have the right to use the ladies' room. The ladies think they have the right to use the toilet in a penis free room. It is not a stretch to think that soon some "progressive" cities will insist that each business install a unisex restroom or be open to litigation. Who's right is greater? the woman w/penis or the woman who wants to pee in a penis free environment? Funny thing is that the transgendered person was in the ladies room because THEY didn't wnat to use the restroom amongst men. Funny, no? So the only reasonable answer possible is- it is the business owner's right to decide who's business they want. If they want to cultivate transgendered customers they will spend the money necessary if they have it to accomodate them. If they want to cultivate a more conventional "family" atmosphere (women who prefer to pee in penis free rooms, I guess) they will not. But if rights of ownership aren't absolute then NO ONE has any rights at all.

My short-take on it has generally been that humans have and id, ego and super ego whereas animals would appear to have only id and ego.

No, I get what you're saying.. . So lets say the seller doesn't know that termites have in fact invaded and in good faith, not realizing they exist tells you no termites. I've lived in many places and the burden of proof in this matter has always been on the buyer to get an inspection- so long as it can not be proven that the owner knowingly lied. Basically the burden of proof is alwys on the person who has the most interest in the matter.. which would presumably be the buyer. The Priest doesn't have to prove to you that "god" exists just because you ask. It is up to you, as the asker to find your own proof though you can certainly ask questions of that person to try to find your own conclusions. In business, in philosophy, in every aspect of life it is always caveat emptor. Expecting anything from anyone else is a fool's game. So when asking on whom the burden of proof lies I would say it lies on the person who wants to know the truth of the matter.. which could be the asker or the questioner. A person who is happy with delusions or lies can't be burdened with proof so why pretend they can be?

I've always seen the root of tyranny in the conservatives & liberals as a matter of greed. Not greed as it's been maligned to be, not objectivist rational self interest. Greed is what? We all have our own definitions but I've always seen it as wanting an end your means can't produce. Someone who by their work and their mind produces extreme wealth is not greedy. Not even if they never give to or help anybody their whole lives. Somebody who does not work or produce yet expects a single dime be given them is greedy. Both liberal and conservative leaders are in the business of brainwashing slaves to take from the productive what they cannot or will not produce for themselves. But this begs a question that a politician would ask (but never publicly)... "my mobs and my masses are my employees, they are employeed at the job of bringing political weight to my claims against your property". I disagree with the notion of altruism as the beginning. It all started with religion which came long before politics. Somewhere long, long ago someone very smart but very lazy decided that going on the hunt was too risky and started inventing superstitions to which only they "knew" the protections for. So you had your shamans & your witch doctors and your mystics creating nothing but supported by the tribe out of fear. As time went on sometimes these mystics would be dislodged if they stepped too far out of line with the strong and productive of the pack. So they started "sharing the wealth" a little to get followers that obeyed the superstition above the good of the individuals in the pack... and so on and so on... So I would say the root was "greed", the contagion that spread it was "fear" and what makes it palatable to today's sheeple is the false cloak of "altruism". I hope this comes off as coherent.. new to objective forums and eager to learn.

Actually when purchasing a house the burden is on you (the purchaser) to hire an inspector to discover if there are termites or not. The seller is bound by decency to be honest but the burden of proof is on the buyer.

I've been practicing objectivist philosphy for 20+ years since first reading The Fountainhead at 14 and have just found your forums. I am glad to have found this site as I am now living in one of the most socialist, anti-reason and restrictive places in the US- >>>gasp<<< Portland Oregon. Hoping to find persons who believe in and practive rational self interest to chat with from time to time... alas, not too often as am very busy trying to run a business which is rather frowned upon in these parts. I'm looking forward to many good conversations.