Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Aurelia

  1. I don't really know what they do. I figure it has something to do with analyising systems, and high end mathematical theory. I was told that some companies on wall street only hire physicists, and that they make a lot of money. I didn't pay much attention, personally, I'm into energy production so I'll look for positions in the private sector. ~Aurelia
  2. Yeah, I'm a physics major too. Most of the job options that we're exposed to are, as you said, in academics, but there are a few other options which aren't so obvious. An up and coming trend in physics is working in the business world. A lot of companies like to hire physicists as something like a consultant because they think differently about problems then most people. This option is advertised a lot at my university, so if you want to know more I might be able to get you information, but it's not something I know a great deal about. You might also consider positions as a physicist in the government or private sector. In the private sector, however, your job title probably won't be "physicist". There is no really defined field for physicists in the private sector, almost everything is physics. So what you could do here is limited mainly by what you're interested in. ~Aurelia
  3. What I think your excluding here is that the series is infinate. There is no such thing as odd/versus even amount of numbers in infinity. There is no stopping of the series. As far as the original riddle, I have no idea, I've never had a formal education in series and I haven't read about them in a while. Though, you may want to read up on Zeno's paradox to understand how a series works (and how they can be used fallaciously), as I recall, that helped me. ~Amanda
  4. what have you read so far? Tell us what you thought of them, this is, after all, an Objectivist forum. ~Aurelia
  5. Really, Heinlein! Is this the same guy who writes all the sci. fi. novels? If so, I had only given him a cursoury look. Hmph, I should look again. Thanks! ~Amanda
  6. After the disaster the "experts" said that everyone on board was most likely dead from the smoke before the army munitions special hit them. But it's anyone's guess. ~Amanda
  7. I think David's object is a modem he built himself, and that he took the picture in the dark to show of the super-cool lighting. I have the greatest respect for anyone who can build their own computer. I am actually illiterate when it comes to computers, thinking about taking classes on it. bleh BTW Their called russian nesting dolls. ~Amanda
  8. I love books so much! I read more than most people, but not a whole lot. Physical books, however, I adore. I like the idea of owning information, of holding it in my hands, and caefully storing it away. If you were to completely surround yourself with my books you'd be standing in the middle of my brain. I buy books because they connect to a concept/idea I've learned, am exploring, or have thought through on my own. I have over 250 crammed in my little dorm, but I keep loving them, even if I end up using them as furniture. The greatest sense of peace I've ever known is walking into a bookstore, and it is so infused with books that you can even smell them. Mmmm...the smell of happiness. ~Amanda Edit: to add heart icon.
  9. I'm in college, and my family has high expectations of me, so I may find this a lot funnier than most of you. "just in case we forget that weareheretogetagoodfoundationsowecangotocollegeliveuptoourpotentialgetagoodjoblivehappilyeverafteran dgotoDisneyWorld we have Job Day." -(Speak) But this is my personal favourite: "First person: I'm getting a degree from a university. Second person: Oh! and what are you going to do with that? First person: I'm going to teach it tricks and make it jump through little hoops of fire." -anonymous ~Aurelia Edit:I can't get the "& #39;" to delete, I don't know what it is, just ignore it. [Edit by CF: Fixed it.]
  10. That's so wonderful! As for Batman being the "ideal objectivist hero", I agree, I don't know how he could be more spectacular. He even works with the police. I really dislike it when new writers depict batman as being unhealthily obsessed with his night job. It's not that obsession is unhealthy, they just don't get the concept of choosing to be as focused as him. ~Amanda
  11. I loved Beakman, but I was only 6 when it stopped playing, so I don't remember much. But my favourite all-time cartoon has always been Batman. Batman could kick Superman's butt anyday. There's something brilliant about a man who can create a wealthy empire and defend justice for his own selfish (if somewhat obsessive) reasons, and manage them both superlatively. If I ever have children, I would definately push Batman. (note: I think the justification for the teletubby and boo-bah atrocities is that they are colorful and speak on the "level of toddlers". It's sick that parents undermine their own children's intelligence in such a manner.) ~Amanda
  12. I would also add to what others have already confirmed. Federal schools tend to be liberal, be wary. They advocate the welfare system, as they must in order to survive (since they are state funded). So you will run into a lot of bad ideas, which can be confusing. But you can turn it to your advantage by learning how to defeat those ideas. For example, my philosophy class just consented in general that Socrates advocated a life of anti-materialism, which is a good thing. My task in that was to identify why materialism is A.) a non-negative and more importantly B.) a positive, and to point out that in fact Socrates made no such claim. Just be careful, such things aren'y always so easy to see through. If you get confused, don't give it up for loss, talk to someone about it. ~Aurelia
  13. What? I think the point is that she wrote it. ~Amanda
  14. I can't tell you how funny it is listening to guys talk about how to score women. Not just because of the irony Free Cap mentioned, but also in some general way, it's like I'm being appreciated. I know this forum has gone from the roles of masculininty/femininity to a practical dating guide for men, but allow me to add my two cents, despite DPW's claim that women can't communicate what they want. Women, or rational women, want an appreciation of the value they already posses. They take care to become as successful and wonderful as they can, for their own selfish reasons, but they want a man who sees and understands the value they've created for themself, and who values that in turn. Basically, women know how awesome they are, they want a man who knows it/appreciates it too. Not just any man can do that though, women need someone they admire to value them. A weak, alturistic "nice-guy" who values you is almost an insult. That said, I agree with most of DPW's dating advice, the goal is to show her how worthy you are of eachother. You can't do that by self-depricating. This, however, is so obvious it's almost desperate. I think most girls would laugh or be confused rather than turned on. But I can't stress enough how uninteresting indecisive, obsequious, men are. I've had experience with these men and if you act like that all you're likely to get is pity. Anyway, if it helps, as a woman, I think DPW has it pretty well nailed down. You rock! ~Amanda
  15. I'd donate money to that. ~Aurelia
  16. The idea is that you split your faculties. Fifi hit it right on. In order to be successful earning money there are certain principles of business you must follow (of which I'm not particularly familiar, not being a business major). But matters of the spirit, of one's intellectual, supposedly transcend business. You see, they adopt two polar philosophies for two different aspects of living. In America it's a rampant disease. If you want to understand the characteristics and consequences of such a split, I recomend paying special attention to Henry Rearden and his retlations with his family the next time you read Atlas Shrugged. Francisco also has some things to say to Rearden about the whole situation at Rearden's anniversary party. Aurelia
  17. Hello Eric, welcome to Atlantis. I'm a physics major too, but I'm just a freshman. I've only just started introductory courses. Even though I have limited experience I have decided to make my major in the area of plasma and high energy physics (I think that's what it's called). I want to develope new and better ways for man to create and control energy. I think that the success or failure of mankind is contingent on the amount of power we can yield over our environment, which is man's essential tool for survival. So that's my rant in ten seconds . What are you aspiring to do in physics? Aurelia
  18. Welcome to the forum, A.A. It is surprisingly common for Objectivists to have conflicts with their "environment", escpecially family. It is because the tenents of Objectivism are so clearly incompatibly with that of altruism, which permeates modern societies. So whatever you want to talk about, most everyone here will understand what you're saying. ~Aurelia
  19. Thank you for correcting me, I will be more conscious of my typing. I can understand how that might make things confusing, especially when discussing such specific ideas with such precise terminology, but let's try not to make it a big deal. I had intended to minor in classics, but ASU doesn't offer the program It is being set up right now and the last I checked it wouldn't be offered for at least 8 years. So I am going to apply for a classics certificate and then build off that in graduate school. I am doing it for my own pleasure, but I still want credit for my work. If you ever meet someone named David Salas at UA please tell him you're an Objectivist too, and we're multiplying. Aurelia
  20. No...but I think, by what BurgessLau pointed out, is that I am confused about the current theories about expanding the role of objectivism in government. That is why I joined this site. I will be happy to know what you find wrong about my statement. Thank you! I will certainly read into it, I very much appreaciate your clarification. I have that book, but I might have missed something. Well, yes of course literature as well. I said "documents" meaning manuscripts, which is my catch-all word for ancient texts. I just meant texts in general, as in literature, drama, legislation, journals, etc., anything really. I didn't mean to imply that I don't like the greeks, I just find the roman civilization to be more impressive. The Greeks had philosophers, architects, poets, scientists, etc. all of which founded the basis for western ideals through their masterpeices. But then the romans built off of that, adding imperial might. I was explaining why I chose to study latin over greek, though it was a hard decision. I would rather be able to read the treaties of roman emporers and a latin translation of plato, rather than the original greek plato. Aurelia
  21. Burgesslau has answered your question better than I could. Sorry I can't be of more help. Aurelia
  22. ex_banana-eater makes a good point, a lot of scientific tecnical terminology is latin based. Also, variables in physics and higher calculus are greek letters, so even a rudimentary understanding of the greek alphabet helps. I don't think the langauges are *necessary* for an understanding in classics, but translators do take a lot of liberties, some not so obvious. An obvious example: in my introductory honors course I was assigned to read a copy of Lysistrata and in it the characters mentioned pizza, and designer jeans. The translator did this grotesque coldwar parody thing. I'm still amazed it was the version choosen to put in our textbooks! There was no mention from the book that it was a modernized parody, it was obvious. It discussed Aristophanes' vulger style but in no way discussed the translator's. which was unfortunate because I was looking forward to a little study at the end "when translators go bad". Anyway, the vast majority of classics, I don't think, are that bad. Please note that I am a freshman and the most I've translated is part of a chapter in the Aeneid. It did help me understand Dido better. My translation plays down her warrior aspect and I didn't get that until I translated myself. But it's not all that important, especially if you read multiple copies. I define classics as greek/roman art, history, literature, culture, and (but not exclusively) langauge. I do however expand that defintion in my own liabrary to include anything that I read in which I find a connection to greek/roman art, history, etc. soI have shakespeare in there, something by Dryden, The Centaur by Updike, Le Morte D'Arthur, a history of the number zero, as well as mythology, drama, esssays, philosophy, math/science founded by greek, and an archaeological overveiw of manuscripts. So I have a very broad range. I am not sure what you're looking for so tell me if I completly missed the point. Aurelia
  23. Thank you, a compliment coming from you means something. I've always liked heros. [right now I'm looking for a book that is a serious study in american mytholgy, ie comic book heros. If anyone knows of a good one, please tell] I started by reading simple books in greek mythology in grade school. then I discovered that even though courses in classics aren't offered, advanced english classes usually cover greek/roman literature in the first semester. So I took those. Then, with that, I learned to connect modern classical literature to greek/roman ideas. I was trying to decide between latin/greek, i might eventually do both, because I would catch snippets of an idea I liked and wanted to explore. I wondered what the original intent of the author was. I eventually want to be able to read Roman documents. I am more interested in roman ideas and what they thought of the greeks than the greek ideas. also, I'd heard latin was more mathematical/organized and thought that would make it easier to understand. I hope you're not being sarcastic, because I did. Up until the point where he got stabbed. He couldn't have lost in an honourable fight against Commodus.Why does the hero have die in the first place? Reforms? Sounds like a good system, why would they reform it? There goes my plan to educate my prosepective-future-children in Europe. That's interesting, not something I had thought of. I'll have to read up on my judicial branch notes and get back to you. Could you recomend any articles I can look up online or books? When I approached this topic I was thinking about the political parties and how, you're right, it's impossible to run in either party as an objectivist. I thought the problem was the party platforms. The predominant theory in objectivism right now is to "educate the masses" and modify existing party alignments. That could work, but in the meantime how does one educate the masses. Nobody seems clear about that, and any ideas I've heard are too inclusive (directed at existing objectivists). It would be much more effective to create a new party, the capitalist party. I think it could be wonderfully successful if both methods were used. The capitalist party would lead by example and advocate good business practices within the government and the "educate the masses" people would be right there to explain the theory behind. It's an idea I had and wanted to discuss with other objectivists. So...what do you think . Aurelia
  24. Actually, I live in the desert. Arizona State University. It sounds like a lovely place, though. I wanted to move to the east coast, because I prefer more of an urban setting. out west there is so much land that even the city's look like suburbs. It gets tedious. But ASU has one of the greatest physics programs in the U.S., so here I remain for the time being. I never studied classics in high school, it wasn't offered. I once tried a mythology course, but I ended up checking the teacher's notes for her and lending her my books. It was a waste of time. I got into classics just by reading. Now that I am in college I am making Latin, classics, and philosophy a part of my ciriculum. But I still have a deplorable lack of knowledge in the subjects. So much to do! . I came upon Aurelius while reading Echo of Greece by Edith Hamilton. I had just read No Man is an Island by Donne and I didn't like it, so when I read Hamilton describe Aurelius, "he is a man alone, facing that everlasting fact by himself" I wanted to know more about him to see if he knew why Donne was wrong. It was good timing. From my precursory research I understood that Aurelius was the last of the great emporers, as Montesquieu stated so well . At a time when the granduer of Rome was crumbling he fought off the invading barbarians, dealt with a plague that hit all of the empire, and managed a decaying internal government by enacting reforms. As far as I have read he did it all superbly. But he had family issues, his son was incompetant and his wife was plotting behind his back. I always thought that, like Reardan, he couldn't stand the outside world so he put on an indifferent face to make it unimportant. He was withdrawn, even the abstaining from joy is reminiscient of Reardan. The difference I discovered, is that Reardan learned that one doesn't suffer for greatness, you exalt in it. Aurelius ended up cursing his emporship as a long-suffering duty. I like considering the differences between these two men. I like Aurelius because he isn't a fictional character, and because I found him myself. Ayn Rand didn't tell me what kind of man he was. Aurelia
  25. If I would choose a name, it would be this. But no, my name isn't Aurelia. I choose it because it is the fem. form of Marcus Aurelius, who was an incredibly competent man and he reminds me of Hank Rearden. Although I am not familiar with Stoicism, I like how he lived, no matter his philosophy. GoodOrigamiMan, I have no idea what you mean. Is there another meaning I'm not aware of?
  • Create New...