Areactor

And I thought that Samuel L. Jackson was just incredible in that role. I think that Jackson is one of the finest movie actors around. I absolutely agree. Though many would disagree with my opinion that his best roles are in QT films.

Objectivism has been gaining a considerable large audience lately. I myself have been spreading Rand's ideas. I wish ARI was able to give students an abundance of Anthem and Fountainhead copies to hand out.

Maslow eh? In psyc I remember though I liked his chart the teacher's examples of the "self actualized" were Mother Teresa and Gandhi. Ugh...

Well I first when I met them I was drawn to them because of their Objectivist position mostly because I used to be the person who didn't try to find Objectivist but have them find me, but instead I bumped into these guys. I've witnessed Dogmatism in many areas, not just Objectivism so my ears always perked up when they made certain uncalled for accusations. They were both light hearted and cold hearted. More like they used Objectivism in order to some how state how much better and enlightened they were. They made certain accusations about certain people when in truth they shouldn't even be concerned about these certain people in the first place. For example, just because a person was well liked and popular, they'd give me a nudge and call them a second hander. That is completely uncalled for! So just listening and paying a attention let me see right through them.

I've met two "Objectivist Dogmatist" in my life and they both exhibit what your talking about Brian. They weren't trying to live their lives but were trying to apply Rand's characters to themselves in order to emotionally benefit from other peoples opinions whether it be from Objectivists or the general population. More like... "Carl is so silent and has so much integrity! He reminds me of this character from a book I read in High School. Howard Roark I think!" What this person didn't know was that Carl has literally spent years building this facade like Peter Keating and Carl merely absorbs some small amount of pleasure from hearing things like this, even if Rand isn't even mentioned.

This is the exact reason why I'm an aspiring writer/director, I would love to spend my life seeing my thoughts on paper and imitated on the screen.

I believe your mistake may lie in the fact that your trying to be something you think Ayn Rand says you should be. I also think you are mistaken in what Rand is saying the ideal is. Like I said before Brian, you are not John Galt or Howard Roark just as much your not Carl Rays acrossed the street! What made Rand's characters idealistic and heroic is the fact that they went about their lives rationally, productively, happily, and used the full extent of their ability. They didn't question this, that didn't take heed to anyone who told them to be otherwise. They trusted in their own minds. You shouldn't be asking what should I do but are the conclusions I'm drawing correct. And your asking what should I do. No one can tell you these things but it is your life that you hold in your hand. The ideal men in Rand's novels aren't to be imitated but reflected upon. You are not to become an engineer because John Galt was an engineer but behold his virtues that includes honest, integrity, and pride. These are reasons why he was ideal. He lived his life and no one elses. Hank Rearden never tried to become John Galt now did he? Rearden was his own person and so are you! (BTW: I'm using these fictional characters because I don't know any better way for examples.) Drawing the best buildings weren't what made Howard heroic. It wasn't building an advanced engine that made Galt heroic, it was what was in them that had them doing what they did.

Betsy said it in better words than I did, and quite shorter too.

To Brian I don't know if it's a bad thing that people take on Objectivism in order to gain self-esteem when they didn't have much self-esteem to begin with but all I remember was my experience with approaching the writings of Rand myself. I remember it vividly, it's actually sorta funny. I read Atlas Shrugged between the second semester of my spohomore high school year and the summer. I had always seen the cover of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountionhead and looking at the cover you could obviously tell "IMPORTANT" was written all over it. Guys like me avoided things like that, yet I was still attracted to it, only because the cover said much more than just important. The class was required to read individually find a book, read it, and write an essay. I chose AS. I didn't read it at first though because I realized the book was just to large. I got through the first three chapters and bought the Cliffnotes because time was running. I thought I had the time and suddenly time was against me. Boy was I sorry for reading the cliffnotes. Just by reading the headlines I realized what I missed by knowing the story before I read it. And yeah, I did read it!

True true. But of course I personally would rather reach the ideal with Objectivism guiding me through the obsticles though.

Your right about it being in fun, the list was in no way an 11 step program! Though I see nothing of error on the list... ? Of course the ideal man doesn't have to have knowledge of Objectivism. Did JG and HR refer to Miss Rand during their speeches?

And here's the most relevant part for this thread, it wasn't even possible for Frank to be an Objectivist at the time!

Well this is how I see it, Objectivism isn't immune to the "Lost Sheep syndrome". To bad too when it encourages Individuality, the use of your own mind, and freedom to your own body. Objectivism encourages all this yet there are some people who believe that if their not John Galt or Howard Roark, their some how immoral. I don't remember reading that Ayn Rand believed every man should strive to be JG or HR. Remember Mike and the truck driver at Galt's Glutch? These men weren't trying to be any one but themselves, using their own minds and allowing other people to do the same. Howard Roark and John Galt were ideal men not just because they were good at what they did but because they put every effort into being good at what they did. They were just better at doing what they did than a lot of people. But here is another reason why they were ideal men, because they didn't delve on the thought of being better than other people. I'm not even sure THEY KNEW IT! They did what they did because it was rational, productive, challenging and made them happy. You want to become the ideal men? Here is an outline directly from OPAR 1. First acknowledge that Reality is absolute 2. Reason is the best and only method of cognition for human beings. 3. Every individual is an end unto himself 4. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness and more importantly their own mind. 5. Become a person of integrity. 6. Become a person of honesty. 7. Become a productive person 8. Become a person of pride. 9. Become a person of virtue. 10. Pursue rational happiness. 11. Nothings wrong with good sex.

I could of swore he was the boss because I remembered his distinctive voice.

I'm still wondering why he wants to read about economics when apparently economics doesn't really exist but is merely a projection of the human consciousness.

I've always thought if 1984 was the future, Anthem was the future after 1984 because theres no way an era like that can continue for hundreds of years.

I'm almost glad about this election year. It opens your mind up to a lot of issues.

Anyone seen The Village yet? I honestly believe it sends out great philosophic values. Major "The Village" spoilers. 0. First of all, this is M Nights' first movie that isn't just secular but anti-mysticism. (This is what I got from it.) 1. One of my favorite themes is that your unable to fake reality and that the consequences to trying to make your own world is enormous and unavoidable. Also, creating your own world doesn't solve your lives problems. 2. The two main lovers of the film admit to each other that they care for one another more than anyone else in The Village. Even though this doesn't seem so large in the movie, it's quite funny that in this Socialistic Utopian Village, these two who are more likely to venture outside of the Village and face a (Fake) beast to get into the real world, value their lovers above the rest in the village. 3. We can't be stuck in the past forever, eventually the need for advanced technology must be recognized. 4. Though one of the lead characters said that money can turn men's heart dark, he also admitted that his father, a billionare, an honest, loving, productive human being who if given a dollar, could turn it into five. He was shot because of his ability. This character decides to ignore advanced and modern civilization because of his fathers death at the hands of thieves, this backfires though.

Anyone read Atheism: The Case Against God? The arguments in the book seem consistent with Objectivism.

I've been many of Rand's characters but only in different situations and circumstances. The characters I know who I could compare with in order from greatest to least is 1. Dominique (Before the conversion) 2. Gail Wynand 3. Midas Mulligan (I'm great with money. No one will tell you otherwise. 4. Ellsworth Toohey (In terms of ability. I make the highest grades in Social Sciences and English but dispise Science and Math.)

Quick question. Isn't a choice a decision followed by an action while an action is something the entity does?

Ever since the 90s, most movies aimed at teenagers and under have romances where beautiful women as humongus bitches while all the normal, unseen. girls next door types beat the beautiful ones for the heroic male. I bet Strek was just going with the modern interpretation of what relationships should be and who should be with who.

In ways. Some more than others. Though I don't seek submission, I so seek a dominate male. But from an Objectivist perspective, what the hell is he going to dominate. I'm a dominating male my damn self! Having the same educational traits as many homosexuals, I find myself left with anything that has to do with history, social sciences, and art so no can do for the suggestion!

Here's my problem, these statements hardly apply to me because of my sexual orientation, well, if you as objectivists believe in an "orientation". There's no better way to put it. But l have lived my life believing that females were interested in the jerks and it was sickening. What was hard for me was that I was never the stereotypical gay man which I believe why many women have been attracted to me. I'm not saying I have to beat women off with a stick, but that I have a lot of disappointing encounters. I do wonder what they think though. Maybe, "What a waste?"

Thanks for clearing that up Stephen. This question was ignorance on my part. I decided to skip Chapter 2 because of my boredom with the subject in Psychology. I'll be sure to read both chapters twice.