Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/04/11 in all areas

  1. I guess not all of us would wish to possibly alienate a newcomer with terse response to "go look it up" than give a simple answer. If you don't want to participate then don't.
    2 points
  2. What does objectivism hold as the rational way for the opposite sex to pursue romantic interest? In general, is it the most rational for men to pursue women, or is this irrelevant? I find that usually in our culture, men do not think of women as members of the opposite sex, but as buddies with different plumbing. It is very unsatisfying as a woman, I like to be pursued, and be appreciated through my feminine qualities, not as a buddy with benefits. It is very frustrating to have to change my own natural behavior to have a conversation with a timid man who I am interested in. Does mode
    1 point
  3. Why would it be more rational for men to pursue women? I never have found a reason to suppose this is so. The only basis I'd have is what is usually done socially speaking, but norms aren't an indicator of what is rational or not. A traditional "men are pursuers, women are the ones pursued" is an untenable position to have because of same-sex couples, multi-person romantic arrangements, transgender people, and really whatever you can imagine about different self-identities (I'm not going to get into those, at least not yet). The way I see it, pursuit is more of a matter of who has the greatest
    1 point
  4. A movie doesnt need a big budget in order to be good. A movie need a good script, good actors and a good director. It seems like no one of these actors could actually act, and no one on the set read Atlas Shrugged. This movie was lack of talent, creativity and abilities, which makes me very sad. The person that wrote the script obviously doesnt know how to turn thoughts to actions, picture and sound, he probably have nothing to do to cinema language which makes me sad. I'd love to make my own version one day. I think that Javier is sexy enough and it's possible to work on his accent,
    1 point
  5. "Open" and "closed" are redundant in this paragraph. If the meaning of open is that there is no system, then the only real distinction to be made is that there are systems and non-systems. Systems are composed of tightly interrelated parts and non-systems are composed of parts not tightly interrelated or not related at all. Getting back to basics, the reason the word "open" came to be used in relation to Objectivism is by regarding Objectivism as a concept, and concepts are open-ended in referencing to yet unknown particulars as instances of the concept. By implication, "closed" would n
    1 point
  6. As to your first point, certainly Rand thought it was more appropriate for men to pursue women in romance and for them to take the active part. In her own life, however, she did not do this - she pursued Frank O'Connor (in fact she tripped him), she pursued Nathaniel Branden, and she may have pursued several other young men as well although they did not actually begin a relationship. I am hesitant to speak for "Objectivism" but my honest understanding is that, like so many other things, IT DEPENDS ON THE INDIVIDUAL. Clearly, from your post, you prefer to be pursued. If this is the case, yo
    1 point
  7. I was 14 when I read Atlas Shrugged. I doubt many people that age would have gotten much out of it, so I wouldn't reccomend it for a class unless the teacher knows he has the right mix of students. As far as the sexual content is concerned, it's pretty tame. When I was that age my friends and I found ways to get access to R-rated movies and pornography (for years, actually). With the internet as omnipresent as it is today I doubt most thirteen year olds would be negatively effected by the content of Atlas Shrugged. But of course, that's a decision best left to the parents.
    1 point
  8. Trying to avoid getting sued for any Grandfather Paradoxes?
    1 point
  9. I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Yeah, obviously both are also relational concepts, but which interference fails as a result? Right. It seems to come from confusion between time and distance. Distance relates to an area to which travel is relavent. Time is a relationship between events and "travel" through time makes no sense at all....
    1 point
  10. See this thread: Bill Clinton's Impeachment--The legal aspects of abnormal behavior. It's quite a long one and full of pointless bickering, but there is about 10% or so of the posts where you will find some thoughts that may be helpful. If you don't want to go through all that invective, then as a very brief summary, the philosophical basis for legal restraints on public displays was stated by Miss Rand as follows:
    1 point
  11. I disagree with this in part; positive emotions (or any emotions, for that matter) are not the standard of value, but they are values.
    -1 points
  12. "Team John Galt" all the way!! Not only is he ~the man~ (who stopped the motor of the world) but I really don't like red-heads (sorry, Roark!)
    -1 points
  13. It establishes that she is dishonest. Are you telling me that if in court you discover a liar on the stand you are then going to parse what she is lying about and what she isn't? Not a good policy. If, IF, it isn't part of Objectivism, then it isn't part of Objectivism. "Objectivism does not exhaust the field of rational philosophic identifications." -- HBL No thank you. I'll let you summarize in your own words what you meant by your vague and passing insult. Actually, we know; God does not exist. Agnosticism in Objectivist parlance means unwilling to know or take a sta
    -1 points
×
×
  • Create New...