Concerto of Atlantis

Quite simple. The moral is that which is in your rational self-interest. Torturing an animal for the sake of torture can never be in one's rational self-interest. In fact, it's usually a sign of psychological illness. I don't have any solid figures on hand, but many psychopaths, murderers, rapists, etc have had histories of animal cruelty.

A person that I went to high school and university with is pure Peter Keating. And he will openly admit that he studied what he studied (Finance and Engineering) because others (namely, his family) wanted him to study it. He was never particularly passionate about any of his work, but got good marks to not disappoint his family and others. To top it all off, he KNOWS that living like this is wrong, because he told me that he knew. But according to him, it's too difficult to live any other way so he keeps doing it. A couple of examples of his behaviour: - He went out on a few dates with this

It has made me immeasureably happier. Before I discovered Ayn Rand, I lived by many of the principles of Objectivism, but held many contradictory premises as well. The result was a person who was suffering from a lot of internal confusion. Objectivism gave me the tools to understand what was happening inside of me, and therefore start on a path to a much more rational and yes, happier life.

I had a friend once who was a Kirby salesman. Great product - you should be very proud.

One image in particular that I really like is when in Atlas Shrugged, at a party, The Halley Concerto is played, but it is modified with 'modern' elements. Ayn Rand makes the comment that despite it being horrendously disfigured, the essentials of Halley's melody 'carried' the musical piece. It is a great symbol of what was happening in the world at the time, when despite all the mouchers were doing to corrupt the good in the world, somehow the Prime Movers carried the world forward.

Oh, I understand that real evidence like this could not exist, hence why I wrote evidence in inverted commas. I was just interested in finding some info on this case, to see exactly how he reached this conclusion.

In the days when I used to get dragged off to church by my parents for Easter mass, the priest always told us this story about a scientist who set out to prove that the resurrection of Christ did not occur. Apparently, the 'evidence' proved to be quite contrary to this idea, and as a result he ended up converting to Christianity. Does anybody know any info on this case? I'd be interested in reading about it.

Anything that is built or created or designed has a set of objective criteria that has to be fulfilled. For instance, a performance car should have good acceleration, good brakes and handle well, because that is by objective definition what a performance car ought to be. So in a great performance car - let's say an F1 car - everything is there to make the car go faster, brake better and handle better. Similarly, a low-cost housing project has its criteria also. And when Howard Roark designed Cortlandt, his primary motivation was to make a great building that served the purpose it ought to

There is a scene in the book when Keating and Roark talk about this issue. Roark basically says that Keating can have everything that other men can give him as far as Cortlandt is concerned - i.e. money, fame, admiration, etc (things that Roark does NOT hold as values), and he will get the one thing that only he can give himself - the knowledge that HE built Cortlandt (according to the criteria that such a building ought to have). And that is how Roark derives value from his profession.

Can't believe that no-one's mentioned The Amazing Race yet.

Hi Amber - I also loved a lot of the content on your website. Especially the article "Nurturing positive, value based relationships". However, I was also reading "Gender Healing, seeing bees, not the swarm", and something confused me: "This is where Christianity would help to combat communism. Communism commands hatred; Christianity commands love. Christians are commanded to love their neighbor, and therefore to love women or love men. Misogyny and misandry are considered innately wrong and to be fixed. Gender warfare does not exist in a Christian world. This is why feminists hate Chris

Thank you.

Is the Brook vs. O'Reilly interview available on the net at all?

I am originally from Sri Lanka - which is very mystic, like the Philippines. I'm always happy when I hear stories about people who have managed to maintain rationality whilst being surrounded by irrationality. Flowers growing out of rocks, if you like. Welcome to the forum.