Summer

I am assuming you had a fundamental understanding of it, and that "get[ting] more interested" implies perhaps studying the aesthetic portions - artwork, music, etc. Who are your favorite authors and why?

Apparently so.

The worst type, in my opinion, are the ones who will say things to the degree of, “stop trying to sound smart” periodically throughout an argument, because I speak with proper English, or the incessant use of “pretentious” as an accusation. If I had to make a list of the most aggravating words I hear thrown at me on a regular basis, they would be 1) Pretentious, 2) Lucky and 3) Entitlement. Last weekend, I was called “pretentious and arrogant” for holding myself above a party full of intoxicated teenagers, by a man who had had only one drink, but who was acting like a complete child – deliberately closing off his mind to stagger about blindly without reprimand. He told me my view on life was too mathematical, and that I needed to just chill. “I am chill,” “have some fun”. I left – sometimes, you need to know when to stop, and this applies to conversations as well. A few months ago, I was trying to talk to a girl, and every other sentence she uttered consisted of some variant of “here you go again, Summer, always making yourself sound smarter than everyone else…” because I was defending my position – while she was, of course, also defending her position. When I called her attention to this, it was disregarded. And don't you love the constant “you’re inhuman!” and “you’re cruel!”s? My advice is not to respond in the way that you did, however. Never resort to, “I’m not the one who…”, “at least I’m not…!” If a person hides behind ad hominem or just generally unintelligent remarks, tell them that you aren’t interested. Sticking around intentionally is trying to be a victim, unless the situation demands their understanding. I had to do the same thing last night with a man whom I have engaged in discussion with prior, and who is accustom to utilizing straw-men fallacies. I told him I would not dispute again, then sourced him to and quoted from our last debate. He continued bothering me, so I deleted him from my friends list and ignored his private messages. Your time is precious – why waste it?

I do not have the ability to skim through this post right now, so I apologize if the information I am about to share has already been expressed. The Atlas Shrugged movie will be coming out this April, if everything goes according to plan. The rough copy is already completed, the first preview was released only in New York and as a one-time event - For those of you who are familiar with "This is John Galt Speaking", a YouTube series, the creator of those videos was in New York to witness said release, and wrote a very positive article about it, which I linked on my Facebook page upon its publication. For those of you who are not familiar with Galt Speaking, I'd advise looking into it. Roughly two weeks ago at dinner with Yaron Brook, the movie came up in discussion. He informed us that he has already seen a pre-cut, prior to the addition of music and whatnot, and that it "most certainly does not butcher everything". I have yet to catch whiff of a theatrical trailer. The movie itself will not be played in all theaters (there's still time for this setup to change, but I am speaking thus far). Atlas Shrugged has been divided into two separate parts, in the same fashion as the concluding Harry Potter.

You have my opinion.

I listened to the thunder and I saw the lighting flash, I look on with wonder as the world and clouds clash. The battle of your Heavens and our very own Earth, In a fleeting moment – they connect, the sky and the turf. The bolts of luminosity struck down, like fingers reaching for the world, Next to that beauty, I am projected; captured in a whirl. Despite the danger of this raging storm, I am not afraid - Nothing else matters, and so it comes to fade. I am alone with my principles – the roaring of the sky, Exalted, freed, elevated – grounded, pensive, lithe.

A million stones against his skin. A million times he chose to win. The battles, hardships self-imposed. Reactions to his moral code. Drowning in a sea of gray, convictions broken – romance fades. Pragmacy and practical, replace the ideological. What’s easy now is not what’s right. If it’s good, it’s worth a fight. The struggle as you risk it all. Solid as the others fall. Pleading, screaming – “just accept”. Apathy helps them forget. But not the one who walks a path. He chose it then, will make it last. Uncompromised, aware, alive. He asks no pardon in their eyes.

The gift is figurative for the time she had to wait. It's a form of sarcasm, because it was not a gift at all. The chains are imprisoning, and the watch signifies each second which slips by as he remains "apathetic to her genuine skin but feet away". The immediate idea presented is that of a model and her sculptor - beneath that, an unnamed conflict. The artist fell for the woman, and she gave him a chance - but he was not in a position to act. He asked her to wait. She continues to respect him, but understands that enough is enough.

Note: I am not posting this for tips on my writing style. Thank you. The following is supposed to be a one way dialogue with the personification of sleep, whereas the conscious world is a love affair. The Personification By: Summer Hamori Like a rabid animal clawing its way through, you’ve come for me – my lover, the repressed; sleep – I am not avoiding you, I swear. There is much on my mind to pull us apart. I know that you will wait on me again; patiently, beckoning – sleep – you are so familiar when you take me in your arms. You ask not where I have been, although a foreign taste delights my neck. Your embrace is one of recognition and of warmth. Against my cold skin – Sleep, I apologize for my absence. I am stricken. I know you want me, lifeless and still. Take it now, because I will resist again with the dawn’s eyes upon us. In assurance, you step aside – motivated by the knowledge that eventually, I must return to you. Cannot live without you. My gown of black silk, weary upon a form fierce in stature, lies cold as granite in the pale moonlight. His pondering stare is upon me with a sense of soul-searching, and I know it sees more than this flesh. Prying into my face with an unprecedented intensity, searching for something that is evident in each movement. The wind teases my hair, and our eyes are engaged. Mine convey a message: I am not ashamed to expose myself before you. I have nothing to hide. He tempts me, darling – for again, we share a night of restless tossing, and again, I am with someone else as you lie alone, a vicious smile – self-induced torture – unbothered by the revelation of my incessant destruction, but perhaps taken by the limits to which we push ourselves. You have always recognized what I am – maybe you are excited when contemplating the frustration by which skin is meeting, or by the prospect of my body, unmoved in his most desperate pursuit – It was not as he had expected, when I rose to life. It was not a matter of controlling me, but of destroying the presence of fear – of personal dominance. Of something dark – broken and cast aside, so that the resulting grandeur was far more glorious than ever before. I am still unconquered, will always be unconquered. I curl up beside you at the end of hours; my head against your hard chest, held in arms that know me – too tired to protest further. I sleep in comfort with the steady rise and fall – to the sound of your heart’s victory drum. A battle fought for years - one finds it hard to surrender. It is important to remember that I am not losing, and that this adaption is a triumph unto itself. A triumph over myself.

Note: I am not posting this for tips in terms of my writing style. Thank you. The Artist By Summer Hamori His jaw line was sharp and hardened with maturity over the years of his intellectual growth. It was miraculous to witness the visible evolution in aesthetics subsequent to a change in philosophy. His corrected posture, posed and confident, made an infinite difference. His eyes, a blend of hazel that looked green from a distance, were saturated with sentiment. And yet, if she were to say this aloud, it could not be understood. Laughter would ensue – “what’s the punch-line?” because his face knew no sadness. No drama and no depression. The guilt-inducing emotions were non-existent. However, he could be moved by aggression and passion. He could be brought to his knees by his temple of reverence, of awe, of ownership – of the deserved and won. His hair was like fire: thick and violently red. Of all his features, he loved his hands the most. Today, those hands had been put to work – shaping and breaking the clay against his palms. He concentrated on the feel upon creased skin to distract himself from the moments ahead. His angular shoulders shifted with precision and expertise, and the vision was more glorious than any angelic depiction. The woman would never bow her head in church, would never kneel before an altar, but with him, she felt a profound sense of religious adulation – of salvation, almost. He was no angel – darkened by the earth’s sun and strengthened through tribulations; here was a creature who was not reluctant to be, as was his birth, man. At any given instance, something had to rupture, but she enabled the impulse to escalate in confinement. Her expression was a lake with the immobility of glass, an unbroken surface – the deathly hush before some overwhelming storm, prepared to burst into explosion. Her equanimity remained unchallenged. Although the sharp silence screamed of profanity, he operated with cutting composure in utmost silence. She wore his gift upon a slender wrist – a watch of chains, binding time and pushing forth the waiting game. A naked collarbone was exposed beneath the thin, orange sheet, which she excused under the pretenses of a robe. The royal colors were endless, not dissimilar to her legs as they stretched over the bed. The sheet was thin and barely acceptable. It lay against her skin like another man, flowing over and cascading against the covers. Her hard eyes were shut; her lips, partially opened; her face – closed. Concealed by the hair that enveloped her merciless features and swallowed them alive. Bound by the ticking of his clock as he sculpted the clay, apathetic to her genuine skin but feet away.

The polysyndeton with 'and', 'and', 'and' adds to the youthful love, and promotes a sense of innocence. Thank you for sharing.

"Portraying this as Anarchism is as far fetched as missunderstanding your phrase " There should be one, limited government" as you being a One-Worlder". Having to continually argue word choice with you when I am confident that you understand what I am intending to say is irritating. I do not mean one government over the span of the world, but one government in a given area.

“In a Capitalist Society, there would be so manyu different governments competing … I never suggested competing police forces”. I apologize. I associate the government as a police force, so to speak, in that its purpose is to ensure that the rights of its populace are not violated, and to respond to the initiation of force. When I think of competing governments, I imagine the typical anarchist perspective. Yes, you mentioned that in anarchy there is “no government”, by definition – however, in argument with every single anarchist I have ever met, they pose the idea of a world composed of various small communities, and cordially, miniature governments. For some reason, they fail to understand how this contradicts the core of their ideology. Real anarchy is not possible. Someone will always rise in authority. On a more relevant note, there should not be competing governments. That would spawn chaos just as much as anarchy. There should be one, limited government, serving to protect at the consent of the governed.

“I'd like to see prisons designed in a way that lets prisoners pay for their keep by doing some productive work.” I actually thought of this prospect after getting off of the computer on the night of my posting. The prisoners could be expected to work in some manner – otherwise, their food and supplies are being provided free of charge when those of us who refrain from slaughtering cities are struggling to earn these necessities by our own productive effort. “Probably a good percentage of inmates are not there for violating contract or other's rights”. You are correct on this count. I do not believe that drug users, for instance, should be arrested. However, in the event that they initiate force against other individuals, even while under the influence, they are to be held accountable for their actions. Even so, I am discussing prisons in a rational, (Objectivist)/ Capitalist society - not prisons in the present. As of right now, taxation is mandatory and the matter is not up for debate. “The Solution to Crime is to have enough countries so that criminals can be expelled, not concentrated, and deal among themselves.” This is an interesting idea, but many of your views about multiple and competing police forces seem to stem from the anarchist philosophy, which I strongly disagree with.

Prison. Our taxes pay to feed prisoners and supply them with the basic necessities of survival. We cannot have those prisoners on the streets, but they most certainly have not earned the food and treatment they receive while in jail for violating the rights of other individuals. It is ridiculous to even consider giving someone the death penalty for stealing bubble gum - in fact, capital punishment is a very shaky decision, because you cannot take it back in the event that new information arises. There are many "minor crimes" which lead citizens behind bars. They can't work to earn their own money while in captivity... and who the hell wants to voluntarily pay for these people? I know it may be in our interest because we would rather have them secured and away, but I also know that I for one would be more than a little irritated at donating to support the continuation of their lives. Not everyone has a family which is willing to fund their expenses. Some culprits will spend their entire existence after being convicted in jail and will not have the opportunity to "pay back" what they have used up. How would prisons work in a Capitalist society? Would you be willing to pay for them?

In addition, I realize that the goal must be consistent with the reasoning for it to be rational. If you want to gain weight to be taken seriously for a job application in a society where being overweight does not result in respect, your goal is irrational because there is nothing leading into it. But if you want to gain weight to be taken seriously for the job in a society where being overweight shows that you are productive enough to feed yourself, is the goal irrational because being overweight is unhealthy?

Try not to bite my head off for this. I am posting it because I am willing to listen to any counterargument you are willing to provide, which means I am not set on the following passage. It is simply something that has been running through my head for the last hour or so. To paraphrase the issue: Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, is formatted under the condition that man’s goal is to live – it is subjective upon this idea. Rand states in defense of this that “[t]he concept of ‘value’ is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent of ‘life’. To speak of ‘value’ as apart from ‘life’ is worse than a contradiction in terms”. David Hume says that a goal can be neither rational, nor irrational, but only non-rational. Actions can be described as either rational or irrational according to whether or not they are consistent with a goal. It is true by Hume that if an individual wishes to survive, he must partake in the actions required to do so. If he aspires to something, he ought to undergo the decisions leading into that result, or he is being irrational. But it is also true by Hume that if an individual does not want to live, to take his life or to act against it is equally rational. Therefore, in the absence of life, no values can be possible (Rand; I think both Objectivists and non-Objectivists can accept this as true). To pursue a value which is opposed to life – death, for example, or a desire to be obese, or to contract AIDS – is irrational to the concept of life (Rand), but the actions taken to achieve the goal may still be consistent and rational to that particular goal (Hume). But I digress; do you hold certain things above life, because you have principles? Is there anything you would die for? Anything you would not want to live without, because life would not have value in its absence? If yes, I think it is safe to say that your standard is not just life, but life, conditionally. Life with the use or presence of certain aspects – be it freedom, self-control, coordination, mental competence, etc. If you would choose to die rather than refute these values, your values are higher than just life and apart from it in certain emergency situations (to accept a dictator or be shot for insubordination). They are possible only in an ideal version of the life that you seek. Is it irrational to pursue these things when they may lead to your destruction? I know Rand touched on the matter, saying it is not immoral for a man to die to save his wife if life would be meaningless without her. I understand the value hierarchy. But, “[t]he concept of ‘value’ is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent of ‘life’. To speak of ‘value’ as apart from ‘life’ is worse than a contradiction in terms”. 1) How does that come into place with the above statement? 2) How do you respond to Hume's theory? 3) When can a goal be 'irrational'? It is an objective necessity that you must act one way if you wish to live. If X, you ought to Y. In order to live, you ought to eat. But isn't this subjective to whether or not you want to live? It presupposes that life is of higher value to you than the cause which led you to stop eating in the first place.

I am not sure what you are doing in an Objectivism forum under that username, unless you are specifically referring to casual determinism. To address your explicit question, it depends tremendously upon the curriculum your professor implements. I am currently taking a sociology course as well, and the textbook is atrocious. Some of the things it says are simply appalling. However, the class in and of itself is one of my favorites, because I am frequently starting discussions over the subject material, something my advanced history teacher says we do not have time to dispute, but my sociology teacher encourages. The class is largely enjoyable because she stands by and lets us have our piece (granted, that may change soon. Apparently my opinions are "offensive"). The subject is not a waste of time, but the general philosophies of most sociologists are, from what I've read thus far. Even so, one could say the same of studying epistemology. That does not mean philosophy is a bad subject, just that many philosophers had the wrong ideas. Sociology is basically the study of human relations and how various cultures interact. As long as you know where you stand and can read over the theories of others from an objective position, you should be fine. In regards to Rand's beliefs on this matter - I know she never took an interest in psychology (and sociology is very similar in criteria).

My truck has a "My Next Ride is the John Galt Line" sticker on the back window. I get reactions every time I take a Rand book with me outside. At my work, I've had people pick my copy of the Fountainhead up and open conversation with me spontaneously if I leave it in sight. I once had an old man come up to me on my lunch break while I was rereading it (for the ARI contest). He started talking about how his son was a big Ayn Rand fan. I get comments in line at Walmart and from teachers at my school. As pathetic as it sounds, every time they give me a second look and their eyes wander to the cover of the book, or to the sticker on my truck, there's a part of me that wants to tell them not to walk away. Most will make a passing reference and then leave. It's nice to know there are intellectuals around me, but it would be so much nicer if they stuck around.

Yahoo IM: [email protected]

While I would not consider it "witty", if you are looking for a creative response to "Who is John Galt?" I usually go with "the Prometheus who changed his mind".

This thread's comments made me happy.

His name is Sean. It may do you well to remember that and actually read what he said before attempting to insult him; especially considering you have yet to address any of his points in the process of doing so.

I think this is a very powerful statement.

This exact occurence has happened to me. When I started talking to the individual, they were amazing in terms of aesthetics. A few minutes into the conversation, even his physical appearance lost its charm. Beauty can be an incentive to approach a person, but - as has been said above me periodically - there is more to it than an exterior. I focus more on how a person treats and holds their body as opposed to other corporeal attributes. To explain, someone who is "in shape" would be more attractive to me than someone who is not. Eye color is not nearly as important as maintaining eye contact, which I perceive as a sign of confidence. Being tall doesn't impress me like good posture and composure do. However, there are biological attractions that I've been forming theories on. For example, why certain people prefer blue eyes or blond hair; curves, etc. There are usually decent explanations below the surface. It's interesting how different our preferences can be.