Elton

I agree with what Devil's Ad said. If you are dealing with a situation where it is your life or your wife's (signification other), there is no value to be gained, there is only a negative to be avoided. You can avoid the pain of living the rest of your life without her by dying to save her, thus giving up all value, or you can go on living enduring the pain of loosing your wife. I understand the reasons for wanting to give your life for a loved one, but since there is nothing after death, I do not see how to avoid calling it a sacrifice.

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I have a question regarding the line of thinking above. If I sacrifice my life for a value, I cease to exist and so does that value. The object I sacrificed my life for exists, but it is no longer a value to me as I can not have a value. So how can you sacrifice your life to secure a value? How can I achieve any value if I loss my life?

Should we subscribe to the services offered by wireless companies that call for the government to keep competitors out? As Verizon's CEO recently stated: A point of shared belief between market leaders Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam and AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson is that excessive competition just does not make sense. McAdam and Stephenson both believe that competition in telecommunications represents wasted investment, inefficiency, and value destruction. http://stopthecap.com/2012/07/17/verizon-ceo-ponders-killing-off-rural-phonebroadband-service-rake-in-wireless-profits/

Steve Jobs - how appropriate considering his passing. Thank you all for the comments and links. I'll check them out. I want to go into a little more detail. I discovered Atlas Shrugged in 2008 and have been devouring as much of objectivism as I can. It has been very liberating. I love my life, I am very happy and I have a strong sense of meaning and purpose. But... I still have this lingering thought in the back of my mind that its all going to end, so what is the point. I have searched through much of what objectivism has to say, and I can not find a satisfactory answer. Perhaps there is none. And I should specify that when I say meaning, I am talking about meaning to me, not to some future generation. I am not talking about my legacy or something. Once I no longer exist, I don't think I'll care much about my legacy, or anything else for that matter.

I have been struggling with the idea that since everything dies and ceases to exist, how can there be meaning or purpose to life or any action for that matter. I have actually been struggling with this issue most of my life, which is one reason I became a fundamental christian at an early age. I have since left that way of thinking and gravitated toward objectivism. Is there any objectivist thinking that addresses this issue? I have been searching the forums and could not find any posts addressing my question, but if there are some, please let me know.

I own a business that uses the Radio Frequency, so it is heavily controlled by the FCC. I think their control is way to pervasive and that I could offer a much better product to my customer's if I was allowed more freedom. My company operates in the Unlicensed bands, which are frequencies the FCC has set aside and can not be bought, but anyone can use at specified power levels. But my question is, should there be someone who controls or regulates Frequencies? Should Frequencies be bought and sold like Real Estate? Should the government be the one to sell the frequencies? Should Air Traffic control or weather satellites have protected frequencies? Should the military have protected frequencies? I am curious if there are any objectivist thoughts on this matter.

Yes, pretty vague. I was following a train of thought that anything I do out of Rational Self-Interest I also do because I love my self, my work or those I value. But the more I think about it, love is just an emotion that can be useful, but sometimes I may not love the most rational action, and I should default to my reason and try to figure out why my emotions are not in line with reasoning. So the more I think about it, the more I agree with Marc. Love is a narrower category.

Was that question for me? No I would not agree, I don't believe in unconditional love.

That link is for Romantic or Emotional Love. Perhaps saying "Rational Love" is a wrong application of the word love? So I might just be wrong in the fact that there is no "Rational Love," just Emotional Love that is based on Reason.

I have been a long time reader here, but just now wanted to start posting some questions. I have been thinking a lot about the definitions of words that Objectivism uses. I am having trouble coming up with a difference between saying "Rational Self-Interest" and Rational Love, or just the Objectivist definition of love. Would anyone care to comment on this?

Is this in regards to smoking in a restaurant or smoking in public places?

I am not sure I understand your point here. Are you saying there are things in existence that did not require a cause? If not, wouldn't the idea of existence presuppose a cause? Also, how can you have a thing without the interaction of things? Or, in other words, how can a thing not be both a cause and effect? I am not saying you are wrong, just looking for clarification.

Plasmatic and Mindy, I think Jacob answered your questions already with his 4th point. I am not sure why you are asking him to repeat it. His points 1,2 and 3 state the same thing you are saying, that if there is an uncaused cause it could be the universe. He goes on to argue why he thinks it is god in his 4th point.

The paleo diet isn't a "No Carb" diet, like the beginning of Atkins, its a lower-carb diet. If you were going from a high carb diet to a paleo type diet, I would recommend doing it slowly. But most people worried about their weight are not interested in doing it slowly. I follow a paleo type diet for other reasons besides weight.

Sweet. Thanks!