xOraclex Posted February 19, 2005 Report Share Posted February 19, 2005 I went into my school library about a week and a half ago in search of something new to read and asked my librarian if she had any recommendations. She handed me a copy of The Fountainhead. I must say that I find this book quite amazing. I read some and then am forced to stop for awhile in order to contemplate the world around me. Any book that forces me into hours of reflection earns my reverence. I am pleased that I was provided with this book to read and wish to read more by Ayn Rand. I found a link to this forum earlier today and felt the need to partake in discussion as I have found truths in Rand's objectivist philosophy. Hello all, my name is Sara. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted February 19, 2005 Report Share Posted February 19, 2005 Welcome Sara! I’m curious - where did you find a link to this website? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xOraclex Posted February 19, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2005 an advertisement banner that appeared on my deadjournal thank you for your welcome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realitycheck44 Posted February 19, 2005 Report Share Posted February 19, 2005 Welcome to the forum. Not to nitpick, but Miss Rand's philosophy is Objectivism, with a capital O. Just a friendly piece of advice that you get this right, because you will recieve a comment for almost every miss-spelling. With that said, read Atlas Shrugged. It is the best novel I have ever read, and will probably ever read. I also noticed you are into philosophy in your bio. Who do you admire and why? Also, what did you think of The Fountainhead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted February 19, 2005 Report Share Posted February 19, 2005 Just a friendly piece of advice that you get this right, because you will recieve a comment for almost every miss-spelling. Exactly, just like realitycheck44 is receiving a comment for his misspelling of misspelling! (And I haven't even gotten to the other misspelling in that sentence!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dominique Posted February 19, 2005 Report Share Posted February 19, 2005 Exactly, just like realitycheck44 is receiving a comment for his misspelling of misspelling! (And I haven't even gotten to the other misspelling in that sentence!) ;) Here we go again Yes we have an abundance of human dictionaries and spell checkers here see the thread here: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realitycheck44 Posted February 19, 2005 Report Share Posted February 19, 2005 I'm sorry. It was late. I did proofread the post, but I couldn't remember whether or not misspelled need a hyphen or not. (I just checked and MS Word does not comment on miss-spelling being misspelled.) I am a horrible speller in general, so I usually transfer my posts into Word. As for receive, well I figured it was such a short post, I didn't merit being transferred into Word. How wrong I was. One more thing: I have seen people get corrected for misspellings, but "objectivism" (yes, that was on purpose) usually generates the most attention. So, to xOraclex: I wasn't trying to correct you, merely to inform you. Sorry about the errors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted February 20, 2005 Report Share Posted February 20, 2005 I went into my school library about a week and a half ago in search of something new to read and asked my librarian if she had any recommendations. She handed me a copy of The Fountainhead. That's an unusual librarian! Kudos to her! Welcome, Sara! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted February 20, 2005 Report Share Posted February 20, 2005 My suggestion would be: read most of Ayn Rand's writings before you start on books by other Objectivist intellectuals. The Lexicon is a useful investment, but only down the road. For now, I'd suggest reading Ayn Rand's essays and fiction -- more than once -- and thinking about it, and discussing questions on a forum like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xOraclex Posted March 6, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 (edited) Thank you all for your welcomes. I apologize for the delay in my responding to this. I've been indulging in some emotional recovery after attending the best concert I have ever been too... but anyway... What I'm really interested in regarding objectivism is the virtue of selfishness aspect, a focus on the individual, etc.. I am not particularly sure about some of the other aspects of this philosophy- I am a bit of a socialist- however, I am not rejecting any of these points yet because I have not gained enough understanding on them for me to do so. I am hoping to pick up Atlas Shrugged within the next week. Yes, I am very interested in philosophy. I am very self-analytical and I feel philosophy helps me gain insight into myself by discovering just how I feel about the world around me. I claim no religion or particular philosophy as my belief structure. I have definate believes, parts of which are included in various philosophies. Different aspects of my believes I can find in different aspects of various religions and philosophies. I shall try to be mindful of my spelling from now on. Surely, I will make mistakes. Please, correct me when I do, I will take no offense. Edited March 6, 2005 by xOraclex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realitycheck44 Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 Thank you all for your welcomes. I apologize for the delay in my responding to this. I've been indulging in some emotional recovery after attending the best concert I have ever been too... but anyway... What I'm really interested in regarding objectivism is the virtue of selfishness aspect, a focus on the individual, etc.. I am not particularly sure about some of the other aspects of this philosophy- I am a bit of a socialist- however, I am not rejecting any of these points yet because I have not gained enough understanding on them for me to do so. Objectivism. Why are you a socialist? Not to attack you; I'm merely wondering. Its good that you are not rejecting capitalism before fully understanding it, but I still would like to know why you believe socialism is better right now. What concert, by the way? Zak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xOraclex Posted March 6, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 I'm not fully socialist. I feel a balance is needed. Some government intervention to help protect workers. Various legal boundaries and things of that nature. Basically, I just mean I'm not fully capitalist. I went to see a band called Otep. It was like a ritual catharsis. It felt like my physical being wasn't even present. I closed my eyes in the mosh pit and just moved as I felt the aggression of the music. I yelled the words and felt everything they implied just flowing through me. I knew I was getting slammed into the bar across the front of the stage but I didn't feel it. I have never before experienced anything like I experienced that night. It was difficult to leave it. When I try to recall I time when I felt better, I can not. I had a sense of belonging, it was almost spiritual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non-contradictor Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 (edited) ... I am hoping to pick up Atlas Shrugged within the next week. ... That's a very good idea, because no matter what the people here can explain to you about Objectivism, it's best to start at the source. Welcome to the forum. edited to fix a spelling error Edited March 6, 2005 by non-contradictor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 I'm not fully socialist. I feel a balance is needed. Some government intervention to help protect workers. Various legal boundaries and things of that nature. Protect the workers from what? Why don't the people who own the businesses deserve to be protected from having their rights violated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non-contradictor Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 Protect the workers from what? Why don't the people who own the businesses deserve to be protected from having their rights violated? IMO, it would probably be more interesting to start a debate on this after xOraclex has read Atlas Shrugged, or at least some more Objectivist material. Otherwise, she'd just be taking our word for it. Primary sources are better. Therefore, do you have any reccommendations of essays which outline the reasons why socailism is wrong? I can't think of the names of any off the top of my head, but will post when I look some up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xOraclex Posted March 6, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 I shall look further into the topic. Yet, I will say that the wokrers do need to be protected. Laws are made for a reason and since the industrial revolution, various laws have been placed on business to help protect workers. Minimum wage laws, regulations of hours, child-labor laws, laws regarding fraud and other such things. I believe and a wide range of freedoms within business but of course there has to be limits. I agree with stating limits clearly in law and punishing offenders. In that sense, I am a bit socialist. As far as socialism goes in regard to the distribution of wealth, I simply believe that people have every right to be rich and do what they want with their wealth but I also so not see why one person would need like 20 cars and all of this excessive material possessions when someone just down the street could have just as much ambition and intellect but could be starving because of other circumstances. This is a bit digressive I know, but it paints the picture of how I view such matters regarding wealth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realitycheck44 Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 (edited) I shall look further into the topic. Yet, I will say that the wokrers do need to be protected. Laws are made for a reason and since the industrial revolution, various laws have been placed on business to help protect workers. Minimum wage laws, regulations of hours, child-labor laws, laws regarding fraud and other such things. From whom do the workers need to be protected? Each person has free will. Under capitalism, nobody is forced to work a certain job. If they don't like the pay, quit (minimum wage laws); if they are children and don't want to work, they don't have to (child-labor laws); they can work as much or little as they like, within reason (regulations of hours). The only one I agree with you on is fraud. Fraud is dishonest and a lie. The government exists to protect its people's rights; and in fraud, their rights are being broken. I believe and a wide range of freedoms within business but of course there has to be limits. I agree with stating limits clearly in law and punishing offenders. In that sense, I am a bit socialist.Why does there have to be limits? Rights are, according to the Declaration of Independence, inalienable (sp?), meaning they cannot be taken away. What limits do you propose and why? Will they violate anybody's rights? As far as socialism goes in regard to the distribution of wealth, I simply believe that people have every right to be rich and do what they want with their wealth but I also so not see why one person would need like 20 cars and all of this excessive material possessions when someone just down the street could have just as much ambition and intellect but could be starving because of other circumstances. This is a bit digressive I know, but it paints the picture of how I view such matters regarding wealth. Here you have just contradicted yourself. I know you are new, and I'm not lamblasting you or anything, but rights do not contradict. A is A. When you have a contradiction, check you premises, one of them has to be wrong. This is a good discussion, please do not think I am attacking you. Zak [Edit to get quotes right.] Edited March 6, 2005 by realitycheck44 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xOraclex Posted March 6, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 (edited) I will consider your points. However, I am aware of the contradiction in the last part. Money has the ability to corrupt individuals. They can easily get swept up in overwhelming greed that leds them to indulgences that do not really benefit them. They have a right to these things, no doubt, but that doesn't mean that their choices are always the greatest ones. They have a right to spend their money on an overwhelming amount of useless possessions, but why should they when that wealth could be very much needed but others. I disagree with the choices these individuals make but not the principal behind their right to make these choices. Yes, the way I presented it was paradoxical. Limits should be in place when those limits prevent things from occuring within a business that infringes upon the rights of the workers. That is what I was referring to in my mention of limits. Edited March 6, 2005 by xOraclex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 (edited) Realitycheck pretty much covered what I whould have said. Atlas Shrugged would be a good start. You may also want to read The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal to understand why Capitalism is the only moral system of politics. Edited March 6, 2005 by Rational_One Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xOraclex Posted March 6, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 i'll look into those. thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 Sorry welcome to the forum to Sara. I forgot my manners I just couldn't help responding to the socialism stuff though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realitycheck44 Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 (edited) However, I am aware of the contradiction in the last part. Money has the ability to corrupt individuals. They can easily get swept up in overwhelming greed that leds them to indulgences that do not really benefit them. They have a right to these things, no doubt, but that doesn't mean that their choices are always the greatest ones. They have a right to spend their money on an overwhelming amount of useless possessions, but why should they when that wealth could be very much needed but others. I disagree with the choices these individuals make but not the principal behind their right to make these choices. Yes, the way I presented it was paradoxical. You can agree with Capitalism and not want to infringe on their rights, while still disagreeing with their morals. Limits should be in place when those limits prevent things from occuring within a business that infringes upon the rights of the workers. That is what I was referring to in my mention of limits. This is essentially what the government should do. Now, man's rights are a complex subject, of which most people (I don't know if you are included) have no clue. Capitalism is the only system which protects people's rights. I think you will understand, you're just a little confused. Zak [edit for punctuation] Edited March 6, 2005 by realitycheck44 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xOraclex Posted March 6, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 I'm not confused so much as I just disagree. Though, I'm open to persuasion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realitycheck44 Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 I'm not confused so much as I just disagree. With what? What you said was true, government does exist to protect the rights of the people. Are you disagreeing with yourself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xOraclex Posted March 6, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 no, no, no... i meant i disagree with full capitalism. my apologies for the not being clear with that last post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.