Acadi

I believe you ought to know your partner, so you should ask sooner or later. But if your partner's sexual history makes no difference to your happiness, you shouldn't bother. Suit yourself. It's not about the past, but about knowing your partner's identity.

Metaphysics, the law of identity. If the tree did not make a sound when it fell, where did its kinetic energy falling down go? The energy obviously did not all transfer into friction or heat, but also to sound energy.

They read with wrong motives, therefore they could not feel desire for Rand's heros. Rand wanted to appeal to those looking for truth. As she said herself, "The truth is not for everybody, only for those who seek it." This eagerness for truth does not describe everyone obviously. Objectivism, you must remember, projects man at his highest, but this is not easily understood by the common people. Being the highest is not being the most visible, and a lot of people do not spend the time to look up that high. To act on Objectvist principles is hard work, as some people pointed out earlier; you cannot learn it in a day, it takes lots of time to consistently hold the principles. If you fail the first time, you must go back to it later, again, to try to learn something new, try to learn the principles again, look for new examples and proofs, apply them to your own life's assignments and tests, and finally gain a confidence for Objectivism. Right, to take Objectivism impersonally is quit worthless. This philosophy requires dedication to work to its full meaning, just like a lot of other philosophies.

You should've demonstrated to him how your thoughts directly determined your actions, that you think, therefore you know good and evil, and only some of your defensive reflexes in the face of danger are mindless spinal cord actions/reactions. I'm not surprised you were speechless, given the type of character people like us are. We like to think about the opposition carefully, even if it isn't all-new what we come up against, and not just automatically respond as if we're superior or all-knowing. We realize the opposition might have an important point, and we don't want to alienate that point if it possibly exists, even in the face of pressure. Correct me if I'm wrong.

XD Are you looking down at a man who's married so many beautiful women? Exactly as I thought, but I didn't read all of it. It was too wordy and irrelevent, and he didn't really have anything to say. This seems to be a common pattern amongst the criticisms I've read online: missing important knowledge of Objectivism and emotional/irrelevent details. =/