Concerto of Atlantis

And a well-designed car can express a view on how man should drive, right? Are you saying that architecture expresses how man should live, and therefore is a more abstract idea, whereas expressing how a man should drive is a more concrete idea? (on a sidenote, you drive a C5 Corvette, right? If so, beautiful car. Are you impressed with the design of the C6? I'm a rotary fan myself, but I've always respected the Corvette, although I doubt I'd ever buy one.)

Yes, this is what I was referring to, Stephen. I was reading 'Art and Cognition' last night. What ultimately distinguishes architecture from an automobile?

In the Romantic Manifesto, Ayn Rand states that utalitarian objects such as Cars cannot be defined as art. But isn't the purpose of a building primarily utalitarian - that is, to provide shelter? If this is the case, then why is architecture regarded as art when a car is not?

When Richard Kelly originally made the film, the distributors told him that it was too long, and asked him to get it under an x amount of minutes. So he cut out quite a few scenes from the original and released it. Then of course, it became a bit of a cult classic. So now he has released the original, director's cut of the movie.

Depends on how much you liked the first release. If you liked it, then by all means, yes. It is a much more cohesive piece of work second time around. If you were fairly indifferent to it or didn't like it too much, you probably won't get much out of it.

Yes, I know - this is why I was so surprised at him asking such explicit questions. Most other interviewers ask such trite rubbish that it makes made sick. And getting the job is certainly not guaranteed. I still need to be interviewed by 2 more individuals and then a panel. Also thrown in are IQ and psychological tests. So all I'm certain about at the moment is that I will progress to the next round.

What your mum engages in is voluntary private charity, and there is absoluitely nothing wrong with that. We can't call this altruism, because altruism has a very specific definition - to sacrifice your needs/wants for others. It doesn't sound like your mum is doing that.

I think that there was a big difference between Dagny and Gail in that Dagny was honestly mistaken while Gail would have known that what he was doing was wrong.

Today I had a job interview for a marketing role. Anyway, the employer was looking through my resume while interviewing me and was probing me on certain points. He gets to the section of my resume that lists my interests and sees reading. He asks me what I like to read. Me: I mainly read fiction. My favourite is Ayn Rand. Him (in a very toneless voice): So you're selfish? Me: In the way that Ayn Rand defined it, yes. Him: You believe in Laissez Faire Capitalism and no welfare for anyone? Me: That's right. Him: You always try to be rational? Me: Absolutely. Him (smiling): I just put a big tick next to your name.

It is important to note that although Howard Roark made friends with Wynand, he never ever endorsed the deplorable parts of Wynand's character. They had some shared values, and this was the foundation for the friendship. I think this sort of friendship - whether it be in fiction or in day-to-day life is perfectly moral.

Yes, you have a point with the determinism argument. Perhaps the movie advocates the sort of half-determinism, half-free will idea that some people seem to harbour, where they believe that we have free will, but after you make a certain decision, this sort of domino effect occurs? Because as I see it, Donnie was shown what was going to happen if he didn't die, but nothing really stopped him from walking out of the house just before the aeroplane engine fell through the roof, even with this knowledge. I think essentially he had to choose life or death, where 'life' would lead him down own predetermined path. Also, a point of clarification: I don't think dieing to save a loved one is an act of sacrifice. But in popular culture, such an act IS viewed as a sacrifice. This is what I was getting at. I also thought that the movie was self-contained enough for people to get it after watching it. Sure there are some things that need clarification and is up to debate - but that that was even evident in Atlas Shrugged. For proof, refer to the Eddie Willers thread on this forum. One character that I really do want to understand is Cherita. Why was she given so much exposure? What is she meant to represent?

The government has no right to dictate anything at all. Its sole purpose is the protection of individual rights. Working out what is moral is the responsiblity of each individual citizen of a country.

It is not right for a government to restrict consenting adults engaging with other consenting adults, in any manner that they choose. This means that drugs, prostitution, polygomy, etc should all be legal. Whether or not those things are MORAL is a completely different matter altogether.

You got most of the story right. Frank the rabbit shows Donny Darko what will happen if he CHOOSES to live. Having seen this, Donny willingly dies to protect those that he loves. (This is why that story written by Greene is given so much exposure - because it's about how 'destruction can be creation' - which I think is quite ridiculous.) So the philosophy behind the movie I think is not determinism, but self-sacrifice and utalitarianism. Still, I also did enjoy the movie for its brilliant cinematography, originality, great soundtrack and drama. But I still have not seen the director's cut - I saw the original when it came out.

I couldn't agree more. Watching this documentary was the first time I've seen Ayn Rand speak, and wow, what a presence. What incredible clarity, confidence and charisma.

My girlfriend and I were watching 'A sense of Life' last night after it arrived in the mail yesterday. And she suggested that perhaps Ayn Rand had not received wide-spread acceptance partly because she was female. Especially since she was advocating concepts that were traditionally thought to be quite masculine - i.e. rationality, capitalism, egoism, etc. Now we're not sure if her gender played any part at all - but I was interested in hearing from people who are more familiar with the climate she and her ideas operated/operate in - especially those who were around when she was alive.

I agree. I very much enjoyed Memento. Not a film I'd want to watch again though. Once you 'figure it out', there's not much else to gain from it. I love a movie that I think most objectivists would hate - Mulholland Drive. Yes, the sense of life is terrible - it is a David Lynch movie after all! But I just had so much fun putting this seemingly incomprehensible movie together like a jigsaw puzzle that I consistently include it in my top 10 movies of all time.

Oh, I know what the phrase "blood is thicker than water" refers to. I just thought that perhaps you may be using the phrase in a different way to what it originally refers to in order to justify your feelings towards your family. The fact that he wrote "actually" thicker than water made me think that perhaps you even meant in a literal / semi-literal way. But anyway, yes, it is a very tribe-like irrational mentality. The picking up objectionable characteristics idea sounds very much like some sort of unearned guilt issue that you may have. In any case, I can't see how one can feel guilt if a free adult (such as a father or mother) 'picks up' some undesirable trait from their child.

What do you mean by: 1. Blood is thicker than water (apart from literally of course). AND 2. They might have picked up some of their objectionable characteristics from me?

Yes, I don't like the one with the green face as much. The one you're bidding on also has a rubber band whereas the black one has a steel one. On the Fossil website, they no longer seem to have the black one for some reason. Perhaps they have discontinued it. But perhaps if you go to one of their stores, you may be able to find one.

No problem, Stephen. As for the accuracy issue, it's a bit difficult to tell since I've only had it for about a week or so. However, I have owned Fossil watches in the past and have never had problems with them as far as accuracy is concerned. Anyway, enjoy it when you get it - it's a beautifully designed watch. Masculine, without being overpowering, simple but has all the major functions and it feels great on the wrist.

You can buy it from Fossil - either at their stores or online at www.fossil.com. It is manufactured by Fossil but designed by Philippe Starck. And best of all, it's only US$125. In Australia however it is around US$250, but I still considered that to be very good value. That particular watch is a male one, but Fossil also sell female versions such as: and and

I bought this watch last week. I think it is one of the best pieces of design I've ever seen.

If you like Ben Folds, you might really like Ed Harcourt. Check him out.

I think this was discussed a few weeks ago. You can take a look at it here: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...92&hl=greenspan