softwareNerd

I found some previous threads that might be of some interest here, here, and here.

It is not shocker . And please don't think I'm criticising you in this regard. I am not. Do they all really think that reason is contradictory to religion? I've found that the best of religious people are the ones who try very hard to be rational in most spheres of life. They "compartmentalize" their religious beliefs (in a "lock box") and try to be rational in other things. Anyone who believes in God is being irrational. That is true. Yet, many who believe in God (not all, not most, but many) are pretty rational. You've spoken of two issues on which you clash with others: one was "the individual versus society", the second was "God". I'd like to ask: what ideas do you find yourself clashing over the most? with whom do you find yourself clashing most -- friends, family, teachers? why are you clashing -- I know your ideas are radically different, but are they asking your opinion, are you in a situation where your honest opinion is called for, are you volunteering an unsolicited opinion? I'm trying to paint as detailed a picture as I can, so that any advice you get will be more focussed and practical. BTW: What instrument do you play?

My own high-school experience was many decades and cultures from yours. So, I'm not going to give you very specific advice. [i can say from my own high-school that complaining about a teacher would probably not have worked. I think it may have been harmful to my interests.] I'll keep my comments more general. I'd like to explore your thoughts about Objectivism's practicality. For starters, let me ask you about the area of logic. You have not mentioned reading "Introduction to Objectovist Epistemology". Still, even without that background, you probably understand that one thing Objectivism advocates is reason/rationality. So, considering this one aspect (for starters) do you think that reason/rationality is practical?

Welcome to the forum, Tim. High school is a great time to learn about Ayn Rand. (The earlier. the better.) How did you learn about her books? What books have you read?

Burgess commented on the pope in an earlier thread.

Objectivists do not support Democracy, when advocated as a primary basis of a political system. If all Iranians vote for a law saying that every Iranian must pray 5 times a day, the law is still evil. If all but the richest Russians vote to make all property state-owned, that is similarly evil. So, if "Democracy" means a government where the majority can impose its rule upon the minority, Objectivism does not support that. However, if one has a Capitalist political system -- with respect for individual rights -- one could use voting as a means of deciding who takes a particular office. In the context of a Capitalist society, a Presidential candidate could not offer anything populist to anyone. All the goodies a politicians offer us are taken from others. Think, for a moment, about the mayor of a small town in the U.S. Even this mayor can do more favors for certain citizens of the city (and deny the rights of others) than could a President under a Capitalist system. If you are not thinking of a Capitalist society, but some type of mixed-economy, I'd guess (but am not sure) that experience has shown true democracies to be slightly slower in moving a country toward tyranny. Yet, here too, democracy is not a primary factor. For instance, compare European, American and Asian democracies.

Welcome here Mike. Could you be more specific about how looking for the review lead you to this site? I'm curious, because we're discussing publicity for this site in another thread.

Are you trying to discover this? Or, have you already decided? If you seek the truth (rather than a debating brownie point from an audience), my advice would be this: instead of approaching the issue in a roundabout way that implies, "let's trap them into an admission", state it as an open challenge. A formulation like the following would work: "I understand that Objectivism holds XYZ as a principle. Yet, I understand that Objectivists do not apply that principle to the case of ABC. Is this not a contradiction?" What possible replies can you get? 1) Objectivism does not hold XYZ 2) Objectivism does apply it to ABC 3) Oops, we're hypocrites! The responses you have received are of type #1. By clarifying context, the responders are giving you details of XYZ, thereby constraining the number of concretes to which it is applicable. Is the German example the real concrete you are thinking of, or are you planning to pull a "surprize concrete" out of your debating hat?

I had a thought about Google key-word ads. I suppose OO.net is associated with "Objectivism" and "Ayn Rand". Anything else? For example: "Philosophy" or even "Libertarianism". With terms like those, the eyeball-to-good-response ratio might be way lower, but it might hit a broader audience. Difficult to say if it would bring more bad than good. Also, there is the question of cost. Nevertheless, something to think about.

I don't know much about "Germany of 1930", but I'd add more context onto the context (a.k.a. qualifications) noted by AisA. An important part of the context is that the Wiess's should have respected property rights in the first place. If I were to change the example and say that Iranians are asking Greece for reparations for damaged caused by Alexander, then the passage of time would be one factor. However, another would be that when Alexander took their property, they (the Iranians) never lived under a system that respected property rights anyway. Given half a chance their kings would have taken Greece land instead. Similarly, if one were to change the example to Europeans taking land from American aboriginees, then again the claim would be invalid not because of the passage of time, but ab initio.

I wish I could give you a reference, but I never bothered to remember where I read it. You see, it is not really necessary. If you put your mind to it, you will see that it can be done without machines. Take the pyramids as an example: is it your contention that if you were to be given the tools (and the hordes of workers) of ancient Egypt, you would not know how to construct them? If so, fine. But, how about "a Howard Roark" of that time; would he be stumped too? [Aside: Maybe we should start a "building a pyramid" thread in "Miscellaneous".] There is a T.V. show (probably BBC) where teams get together an try to make various ancient devices, using tools of those times. As for crop circles, what is amazing about them? As for lines in the landscape... ask a geologist for theories... things like glaciers. As for symmetry in such things... would it be more convincing if a glacier wiggled along? My point is that these things are far less amazing than (say) the symmetry of a snowflake or the complexity of the human body. If these latter are held up as evidence of God (as many do) or of space-invaders (as some do) that is understandable. The ancients could be excused for believing in "intelligent design"; but, even they knew that pyramids were man-made. If you'd like to research, I'd suggest books by James Randi and others who call themselves "skeptics". Also, the recent "Penn and Teller: Bullshit" show on the Showtime channel could be interesting. Maybe John Stossel has done a show or two about such things; I don't know for sure. I notice you did not address my theory about green gremlins. I wonder why you consider it less worthy of comment.

By whom, and by what standard, is such "merit" measured?

These books are hardly extraordinary in the pantheon of world literature. Many (perhaps all) cultures have curious myths and legends. I'm not sure if you are saying that these books are possibly true because they include things that are miraculous. Literature is full of more realistic and less realistic stories. What makes the biblical ones any more real? I think it was this book -- many, many years ago where the author presented (among other things) the large Easter island rock formations as (one piece of) evidence that machines had been used (presumably by space creatures). Years later, I read about a researcher who promised to pay some fairly primitive villagers if they would erect something similar. And they did...with no modern machines. The onus of proof is not on you. People who make claims about other dimensions and offer no proof, are being induced to do so by little green gremlins that sit on their shoulders and cannot be sensed by any human means.

Let's see: A train is heading toward Peter Keating and Toohey, who are tied to the tracks. You have the capability to change the direction of the train, but then it would kill Howard Roark who is tied to that track. Your professor's counter to this would be: assume that you did not know any of the people. If you say that the example is unrealistic, your professor will probably say it is simply an illustration of a more general question. Well, what is the more general question? Here is my formulation: suppose you are in a situation where you have to decide on action or inaction. Action will cause the death of some people; not acting will cause the death of more people. As far as you know, none of these people has any value to you. In such a situation, what is in your best interest?

Since you seem to understand the question, let me ask this: at any particular point that is less than 1 second, which option is better? Also, at any point after one second, which option is better?

Have you discussed this with her and asked why she gets drunk?

Ariana: You raise an interesting issue about how we should judge people. An issue far broader than Mr. Carter. Let me try to phrase the issue as a set of questions. How would one describe the character of Andrei Taganov (of "We The Living")? Is "virtuous" an appropriate description? How is Andrei different from Toohey (of "Fountainhead" ) or Lillian Rearden (of "Atlas Shrugged")? What makes Andrei a "better human being" than the other two? To put such judgement in perspective, one needs to ask why we are judging them? Is there a purpose? If I had to vote for one of them, would I prefer the compromising Left-winger or the committed one? Are you saying that the difference is whether the person is making an honest attempt to do what is right, but is simply mistaken, as opposed to someone who really has no intention to do what is right? "Belief system" rankles.

If they have any equity in their house, they have the choice of selling it and renting and apartment. Instead, the example assumes that the person will be homeless. The example actually assumes that this person is already bankrupt, with no other choices. The house might be theirs "on paper" but the equity in it belongs to their creditors. Sounds like you need to move now rather than be sitting at a window 10 years from now, rifle in hand.

I reckon you're right. If "newbies" are going to get answers, you need folk here who can provide those answers. So, you need both those types. [Needless to say, that's a bit of an oversimplification. There are more than just two 'types'. However, its easier to think about specific 'prototypical' users. I suppose -- as you have identified -- there may be a third type: 'intellectuals'. Let's brainstorm about Newbies: These folk found out about recently about Ayn Rand and are eager to learn more. Today, they are most likely to search for more information by going on the web. I just tired Google searches for "Ayn Rand" and for "Objectivism" and this site came up on the RHS. What about the other sites that come up? Would any of those sites be willing to link back to this site (assuming that they're sites that are worth being associated with)? Where else would a newbie go for more information? ARI? Well, ARI would probably not link here. However, ARI would often refer the newbie to a Campus Club. Are all the ARI-related Campus Clubs aware of this site? Do they all link to this site from their own sites? Do they promote this site at speaking events? Is there some specific value a Campus Club could gain from this site? Even if ARI does not approve or disapprove forums like this, would they be willing to send mailers (at a charge). Not sure if they do this -- where an group like your sends ARI a flyer and if they approve its content, they mail it out on your behalf. So, it comes from you -- without any ARI approval -- and yet they do not reveal their address list. Every year many newbies write in to ARI asking for information. Its them I am thinking about. I cannot think of any other cost-effective ways of reaching newbies. Next, how about the "oldies": These people are "into Objectivism". They are often already involved in some mailing list, forum, newsgroup, objectivist clubs, dating/socializing sites, etc.. Some of these other forums would allow links or advertisments. Does HBL allow this? These people also go to conferences once a year. Has every Objectivist who attends the annual conference been motivated enough to visit this site at least once to check it out? If not, how to acheive that? What about the groups that we do not like? The Kellyites etc. Might they be attracting a certain number of people who happen to find them first or find them appealing. Perhaps some of these folk really belong with us. How do we act as catalysts, without support ing something we disagree with? PS: I hope you don't mind these posts that are more in the "thinking aloud" category. I think they might help someone come up with some ideas.

I agree that this is a really important case. Ofcourse DrewFactor was right that similar cases happen every day -- without comment -- in hospitals around the world. If -- like sometimes happens -- the conflict was simply between the husband and the parents, without recourse to law, it would be of passing interest. An ICU nurse would tell you that such disagreements do take place among family trying to make a decision. However, because it went to court, and further, with the governor and Congress becoming involved, that made it more serious. It became a case that can affect us all.

The vice of "never judging"?

Not how I would formulate it; but, let me grant you this for now. Just because one has to make a decision, based on "works best for you individually" does not make the decision subjective. One can make whimsical and irrational decisions. Or, one can make rational and objective ones. This ofcourse takes the subject "one layer deeper". We now move from Ethics to Epistemology. We begin to ask: is objectivity possible? is rationality possible? Dr. Peikoff's book, mentioned in the previous post is an excellent exposition. If you want to focus on the epistemoligical issue of objectivity, "is-versus-ought", Analyctic-Synthetic dichotomy, then read Ayn Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology".

In Britain, the Archbishop of Canterbury is asking for an urgent review of the laws on abortion. Is the "Christian right" stirring across the pond too? Will the Tories, seeking power, play the "religion card"? Any views from forum members from Britain?

A recently revived thread about Burgess's book, "The Aristotle Adventure" gave me this idea: threads where an Objectivist author takes the readers through his book. An author-driven book discussion-group. Maybe everyone starts by buying the book! That gives you access to the discussion-group. And... 6 months later the discussions are made public. A very rough idea... more in the nature of brain-storming.

Split from this other thread (link). David, Good to have people brainstorm here about ideas. While we do this on the one hand, I suggest a parallel business-analysis type approach. For instance, you've summarized the purpose of OO.net thus: Could you share more details of your vision for OO? When you visualize your objective, do you see OO and a place where seasoned Objectivists come to enrich their lives in some way, where budding Objectivists and the not-yet-Objectivists come to explore the philosophy further? What analogies might you use: magazine? newspaper? library? study-group? church? social-club? what else? If one takes the life-cycle of an Objectivist, from awareness, through interest ,through action and then maturity, at what stage to you see OO playing the most important role?