Styles2112

So, I finished "The Objectivist Ethics" in VoS and was quite impressed. In fact, the only thing I would argue with is the definition/application of happiness. I felt like it was an arbitrary definition created to suite the needs of the philosphy. (Which has been my long-standing argument so far.) Of course, I'm hoping that I might find further information in the book, or in other books, but as it stands, I'm not happy with that definition/application. Beyond that, I thought that it was a great learning piece. It brought new ideas to my mind, and news to think about old things. I'm looking forward in moving on to the next essay.

You're right, that didn't come across, entirely, as I had intended it. I didn't mean that one should not be happy in their beliefs. I more just meant that I know many people who can't just take things for what they are, and sometimes, you just have to laugh. The world is a funny place filled with funny people. I guess the real point is, that if you're offended by an intended joke, going all up in arms about it, doesn't really solve anything. Simply PM them, address why you were offended, and they should either apologize, explain a possible misunderstanding or both. I think there's no real need to take humor this seriously.

Yes, but if you look at it in terms of Natural and supernatural being direct opposites, the same same measures are still taken to reach enlightenment/happiness. In the Buddhist idea, it is a total separation from reality into the spiritual world. In Objectivism it is a total grounding in reality (i.e. total separation from the spiritual) It's the exact same idea, just ground in opposite views. To reach a state of "Total" happiness, all thoughts must be ground in rationality (i.e. reason) and, via the idea of reason, cannot contradict itself. Which is kind of funny, because the same rules apply on the supernatural side, just oppositely.

I think, in terms of Objectivism, that a movie like this is a great way to get the foot in the door. It's the kids who watch movies like that, and want to be like that, who will later read and accept Rand. That's really a big step for movies, I think.

I'm guessing there probably aren't many smurf fans on here. Shows I loved growing up: G.I. Joe (the REAL American Hero) Knight Rider (One man CAN make a difference, Michael. Talk about a great show showing the use of technology, the ability to win without guns, and how to get women with a cool car and a big belt buckle.) He-Man (What more can be said?) Looney Tunes (There's nothing better than stupid slap-stick humor) A-Team ("I love it when a plan comes together") Another show that I really liked, but didn't last long was Freaks and Geeks. I'm not really sure why it didn't last, cause everyone I knew loved that show.

I think "Lighthearted attitude" might be the key here. Like stated before, knowing your audience, and having a clue of how people are going to react to something is key. Personally, I would not be a happy person, if I took everything seriously (including my own beliefs).

I, very much, saw Syndrome as a James Taggart. Syndrome - creates technology to make everyone Super, thus taking away from the Incredibles (and other heroes), natural abilities. James Taggart - Helps create a government agenda to take away Rearden metal (and other productive workers work) away from him (them). Thus, everyone profits by being as good as the creators themselves. The real point is, that it would be awfully hard to propogate all the Objectivist ethics and points into a Disney movie meant for kids. Considering how much there actually was, I was quite impressed with The Incredibles.

That's not true. Neither of my jobs in the military have been ME killing the enemy. My job was to know the enemy (I was intel) I studied the enemy, and it was my job, AS A SOLDIER, to give an educated guess as to what the enemy would do next. My current job, AS A SOLDIER, is to provide music that enhances unit cohesion and morale, enhances American public support of the U.S. Army, supports military operations. Doesn't say anything there about killing. If this were true, we would have a soviet style military, where only the leaders knew what was going on. Privates and other low ranking indivduals were only given orders, and followed those orders to the "t" because they knew nothing else. The American army allows every soldier to know the mission and mission functions, so that if leadership is taken out, we, as lower, junior enlisted, can take charge and fulfill the mission. This does not require "Brainwashing," as much as simple knowledge. However, in the real military, there is no brainwashing, at least not at the basic level. Your comment on collectivists ideas, i.e. the haircuts, mantras, uniform, etc has an applicable place. The military is not a place for racism, stereotypes, and segregation. When the mission is presented, we all have the same goals and the same way to get there. That is all the uniforms and haircuts represent.

I agree. Do you really think Dagny would've slept with Hank if he was butt ugly?

So, they idea being a "Rational" state of "nirvana."

What do you play?

So you can't be happy until your older? Isn't happiness one of those things where the means is the Goal? While I understand different levels of happiness (as we are not happy all the time), it seems to me that there is no real measure for this idea. I like the poem, though. I'm working on some Objectivist works myself.

Still the question I always ask is, who is the judge?

My dad (an Army Reserve LTC who introduced me to Ayn Rand) was telling me about a paper he wrote while at OCS (Officer Candidate School), basically saying that the Army Virtue of Selfless service is inappropriate. How, if we have no ambition for ourselves, can we have ambition for our subordinate soldiers? He mentioned that he based it on Rand's writings. He said that if he can find it, he'll send it to me. If I get a chance, I might post it. Apparently, he got an A on the paper, so it must have been decent.

On the other hand, that's not how they see it.

I didn't get it from either. Just conversations with friends. Why are you banging your head on a wall? I didn't say that I believed them, I just said that it was an interesting concept.

I prefer to save my teeth for true enemies.

I've often thought that about Calvin. Hobbes, actually, is the more interesting character, though. Have you ever read this comic?

All from Calvin and Hobbes "Reality continues to ruin my life." -Calvin "I hate to think that all my current experiences will someday become stories with no point." -Calvin "I don't need to compromise my principles, because they don't have the slightest bearing on what happens to me anyway." -Calvin "In my opinion, we don't devote nearly enough scientific research to finding a cure for jerks." -Calvin "When I grow up, I'm not going to read the newspaper and I'm not going to follow complex issues and I'm not going to vote. That way I can complain when the government doesn't represent me. Then, when everything goes down the tubes, I can say the system doesn't work and justify my further lack of participation." -Calvin "The secret to happiness is short-term, stupid self-interest!" -Calvin "I used to hate writing assignments, but now I enjoy them. I realized that the purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!" -Calvin "You know how people are. They only recognize greatness when some authority confirms it." -Calvin "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin edited because I wasn't actually done when I accidentally hit submit.

Brilliantly put.

Okay, so after doing some reading (via, VoS, and this forum) this particular phrase has popped up a bit. What does it mean, and how did we come to use it as our definition of happiness? Thanks for the responses.

I know many people that define "God" as energy. Both Kinetic and Potential. For the people that define it like that, it would seem to work better in the grand scheme of things.

Ahh...sorry about that. I was not suggesting that you had. I was suggesting that others had. But, doesn't that fall under the introspect of happiness? If it were to TRULY make him happy to sacrifice himself, isn't that his prerogative? The theory (more idea that popped into my head) is that, rarely are things given to us without reason. Thus, there has to be some reason that we HAVE the ability to destroy ourselves, that which animals (other than ourselves) don't have.

After graduating from Franklin Pierce College (Rindge, NH) with a BA in Music, I switched military units (Army Reserve which I joined in 2001 as an Intel Analyst) to become a Unit Administrator for an Army Band. On the reserve side, I'm now the percussion section leader. I also play in a couple civilian bands, but I haven't really "Gone anywhere" with them.

I did...go back and read. Now, that's what I'm looking for. HOWEVER, if one makes a free choice to place another's value over his own, isn't that still his choice? He obviously saw a higher value. I know Ayn Rand said that humans are the only species that can act for their own destruction, but maybe there's a reason for that? Maybe that's all still in line with values? I like what you said, but I still think you can't judge that one is truly happier than the next by that. Like TomL said, it's an introspective thing, making outside judgements means nothing at that point.