Concerto of Atlantis

http://johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/

I think The Atlasphere market themselves more as being for 'fans' of Ayn Rand, rather than strictly a meeting place for Objectivists.

Touche

Eran, I don't necessarily think that lists of turn-offs and turn-ons are inaccurate. I believe that they can reveal a lot about a person's sense of life.

I think we should let Betsy - the Guru of Matchmaking and Love tackle this one.

The icing on the cake was when he referred to Objectivists as 'being selfish' as an INSULT.

Yes, I figured as much. Hence why I asked him to not call himself an 'ex Objectivist'.

Considering I'm fairly new to Objectivism, I've never really encountered any ex-'Objectivists' in my time - that is, until a couple of days ago. I was discussing Australian politics on a forum, and this self-proclaimed ex-Objectivist starts to debate with me. It really was an eye-opening experience that confirmed what sort of complete mis-understandings exist regarding this philosophy. If anyone is interested, the URL is: http://forums.capitolrecords.com/cgi-bin/u...=3;t=019407;p=1 (He comes in at page 2). So has anyone else had bad experiences with these types?

Yes, my mistake. I should have expressed myself more clearly.

Hello Natasha, Objectivists tend to be very generous people. I know that I certainly am, and from experience, so many of the people on this forum are too. About two weeks ago, I made a fairly brief post about generosity on my blog. The address is: phoenixatlantis.blogspot.com. It might answer some of your questions. "Another thing I recently read was a belief that we are not responsible to take other philosophical ideas into consideration or to respect them. Am I getting that wrong? That is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard." There's nothing wrong with getting something out of other philosophies as long as they do not contradict your principles. E.g. Ayn Rand was influenced by Aristotle and held a certain degree of respect for Nietzsche's ideas.

In the state of Victoria, Australia, the speeding laws are ridiculous. You can be given a fine of around $150 for travelling 103-105km/h in a 100km/h zone. This is despite the fact that according to Australian Design Rules, a car's speedometer is allowed to have a 10% inaccuracy 'alllowance'. Speed cameras are set not in actual accident blackspots, but where motorists may accidently go a few km/h over the limit - for example, at the bottom of hills or on 4-lane freeways. On some busy rural highways, the speed limit fluctuates so much that it's impossible to keep track of what the speed limit is on a given section, and consequently, a lot of people get caught out. If you look at the Victorian state budget, you can see that they EXPECT speed camera revenue to increase - which basically means that they expect their 'road safety' campaign to fail. Now, all this is obviously revenue raising and nothing else at the expense of individual rights. But quite clearly, speeding CAN be dangerous and hazardous to other motorists if done in an extreme fashion. For example, driving through thick traffic at twice the speed limit when everyone else is driving at the speed limit. So where is the line drawn under the current system? How can we determine at what point speeding becomes dangerous to others? (Please keep in mind that I am asking where to draw the line under the current system. I am aware that if we lived in a Laissez Faire society, roads would be privately run and therefore the private companies will set whatever speed limits they think suit the roads).

An important thing to understand is that even rational men can come to disagree with each other - especially when it comes to contracts that relate to business transactions. In such a case, reality is the judge, and a court system is needed to apply this reality to a given case in the form of objective law.

Welcome to the forum! May you ask lots of questions and learn immeasurably!

I like that quote, Dagny. And Betsy, well put - once again. Another small anecdote from me: I have a friend called James, who is quite intelligent and articulate. He also takes politics seriously but considers himself to be left-wing. Anyway, over the last couple of years, we've had a lot of debates, etc. but it got frustrating for me, because his views were so incredibly distorted by marxist ideas. For example, he'd say that he was anti-free market capitalism, and when I asked him to explain what free-market capitalism was, he couldn't do it. And when he did do it, the definition was completely wrong. So I basically just told him that debating in this way was pointless, and recommended that he read Atlas Shrugged and THEN debate with me, because that would put us on some sort of common platform. That was four months ago. For three months or so, he refused to read the copy of AS that I gave him. When I asked him why he hadn't started to read it, he eventually conceded that he was afraid to read it because he "did not want to end up becoming a capitalist". That statement disgusted me in an indescribable way. However, last week, he started to read it. I am optimistic that he will be able to see the logic behind it all and begin to intergrate the ideas of Objectivism into his life. However, I am also aware that it is possible that he will, after seeing the truth, simply decide to ignore it. If that happens, it will basically be the end of our friendship.

Welcome to the forum, Megan. I wish you all the best with your idea. I'm sick of hearing over and over again how "there are no facts - just differing opinions" when it comes to history.

I'm not sure anymore. But seriously, it's like they go on this voyages of 'discovery' to find some new angle to attack the existence of objective reality with. Their newest approach seems to be to attack memory. What you said about how memory makes a lot of sense. From personal experience, the more logic-oriented, rational individuals I have known have tended to have the best memories. Whereas just about everyone I've encountered in the Creative Arts faculty have had terrible memories. This is probably why they've concluded that because their memories are terrible, every memory - even one that is working at its potential must be terrible. Come to think of it... The naturalist approach to art is also very prevelent in the faculty...

I've always had a very good memory. For example, if I owe someone even a dollar, I tend to remember it until I have paid it off. But most people I know tend to have terrible memories. Which got me thinking... why exactly do some people have 'bad' memories when others tend to have very good memories? Is it something that is conscious or does it work on a more subconscious level? (As a sidenote: In my Creative Arts faculty (Predictably), they really push the idea that memory is unreliable and because of this, it's virtually impossible to know what is fact and what is not fact. )

Thank you.

I'll give you a brief illustration that should answer your question. A few years ago, my dad said: "If there is one piece of advice I can give you, it's this: be humble. Don't think you always know what's good for you. Don't be arrogant - there are plenty of people that are smarter than you in this world". When I asked him why he was telling me this, he said: "I'm telling you this, because it's what my father told ME, a long time ago." Welcome to the forum. And enjoy the rest of Atlas Shrugged. I envy you, because I wish I was reading that book for the first time!

This is an excellent idea. In regards to your question, this mistake is in relation to everybody. I am happy with my life and where I am going. I'm extremely happy with the most important person in my life - my girlfriend. And I have a lot of friends from whom I can derive value from in certain contexts. For example, I have a friend called Elle who is assertive, and for the most part, self-confident. But she can fall into bouts of insecurity from time to time and she's not particularly interested in intellectual ideas. I have a friend called Gerard who is bright and intelligent, but is staunchly socialist. Because of previous experiences, I don't want to push these people too hard and lose them altogether. So I suppose sometimes I feel a little lonely because I do not meet new people that I can admire on all levels. You know, people who are totally committed to integrity, consistency and non-contradictory premises.

Post of the week! That made my monday morning, seriously!

Something has been bothering me for a while and it's this: When I meet people for the first time, I often end up liking them for not who they are, but what I think they could be and should be. In other words, I romanticise them. I get excited at the potential, rather than the actual. One person (my girlfriend of 2.5 years) has reached this potential and gone beyond my expectations, but most of the time, these people never seem to reach their potential and as a consequence, I am left feeling bitterly disappointed. Has anyone experienced anything along these lines? If so, how do you deal with it?

... which is why if I ever owned such a car, I would probably only drive it on a track, since sticking to the speed limit would be virtually impossible. Believe me Stephen, if I had to choose between buying a new 'Vette and modifying my RX-7, I'd take the Vette. But a Corvette would cost around $140,000 (in Australian dollars) whereas I could do everything I intend on doing to the RX-7 for around $30,000, and still have a car capable of doing 0-100km/h (and other things too, of course!) in around the 5 second mark.

Oh, it's not too far from architecture, because you see, putting in a triple rotor twin turbo engine that produces around 300HP into a Series III RX-7 with no other modifications would be like... trying to build a 100-storey skyscraper out of bricks. So yes, when I do eventually put in the engine, I will need to do quite a bit of chassis reinforcement, upgrading of brakes, suspension, tyres, etc. But old RX-7s have been raced quite extensively and done well, so the potential to turn it into a high-performance sportscar is there. I don't regard the Skyline as being a beautiful car. But I admire it because of the principle behind it. Everything on that car is there for a single purpose - to make it go very quickly around a race-course (For proof, look at the times that it has achieved around the famous Nurburghring track in Germany - regarded as one of the most gruelling tests to put a performance car through). The GT-R is also a beautifully balanced car to drive. Its AWD system is brilliant because most of the time it drives with a RWD feel, but has the grip advantage of AWD. Its 2.6l Twin Turbo Straight Six is amazing - and has loads of tuning potential. But despite all this, yes, it's not a particularly beautiful design. It is indeed a pity. If you found the idea behind the Lotus Elise interesting, you should check out of the Caterham Superlight R500 - http://www.seriouswheels.com/top-2004-Cate...0-Evolution.htm Think Elise on steroids and you get the idea. And I share your sentiments about the Dodge Viper. Unanshamedly American styling. I congratulate the designers on having the courgage to pull that off.

Very nice. The way that rotary engines rev really appeals to me. I drive a Series III RX-7, which I have big plans for over the coming couple of years. Hint: Triple Rotor Twin Turbo from the Mazda Cosmo. I share your sentiments about the C6 Corvette. Sometimes I wish that the makers of the well-established sports cars (e.g. Corvette, 911, Skyline GT-R, etc.) would undertake more revolutionary design changes. Nonetherless, I do think the C6 is a gorgeous car. They should have kept the pop-up headlights though.