intellectualammo

The aesthetics in his action would be...? I can't find ANY. All I see is that what he did was a crime, him a criminal, and what he did was immoral.

I'm going to start off with this book in the coming weeks, only one I could find on him in my library system: http://www.amazon.com/The-Match-King-Financial-Scandals/dp/B005B1BAAC

Doesn't Ayn Rand make a distinction between emergency situations and normal situations? Yes, she definitely does. While he is doing something that is unlawful and wrong by doing so, he might be willing to bear the consequences, or if not caught, might pay them when he does have money, etc.

You don't think that that would be morally wrong to do?

Nicky, I saw an error and just edited my post when I read your questions.

Living life can be tough in this world with all things and people that stand in our way of the pursuit of our happiness. It's hard to be happy and keep things positive when so much works against it. I do not try to rise in this world. Like professionally, carrer wise. I just hold a job and try to find value and enjoy myself to the extent that I am able to.

Found the quote, from the intro to centennial edition of this book, where she mentioned boredom: Her characters in their lives in the story also chose not to teach lessons either, but sought to teach them all a lesson, instead. Yet, she lectured and spoke and wrote much nonfiction later though, in our world, appealing to minds, not actively trying to collapse it all on their heads. In our age, what we are facing, is the zombie culture - it's crucial to know whether or not we can appeal to their minds, as that is what is standing in our way mainly and what to do when or if we can't.. We of course may choose various creative ways to get them out of the way, like when Galt and crew struck, etc. Right now, mainly we, as Rand did to, is to appeal to minds, those still open to any reason. Spread ideas and thoughts and so forth. But are such things effective on zombies, vampires, sheeple, lemmings, etc? are we not just flattering them when we try to appeal to their minds?

And if you can't answer my questions before (reply #37), then that will also go no where.

Let's try to focus on the context of story itself. This has been going no where.

Again, there are things worth doing time over. Destroying a sculpture that is no longer my property, or breaking and entering to rescue/steal a starving dog, are definitely not worth me doing time over. You gave me two examples involving a decision of whether or not to violate property rights and I choose not to. It is not in my rational self-interest to and its also unlawful to do so. Do you think I in any way misapplied Objectivism in my decision? That my decision is immoral? Correct.

Fuck no! I wouldn't get into a violent rage over it, be angered by it, or mad, or even upset. It became their property. They have the right to do what they want to to it. That all presupposes that I would have even of done the commission though. And in your other example, if I knew about what was happening to the dog, no fucking way would I break and enter and take dog. I'm not going to prison for that. Some things may be worth doing time for, that however to me, is not worth it. This presupposes that I'd even be a dog breeder, which I wouldn't be.

Do you think Rands morality is nonsense? If so, why? What about it do you consider nonsensical? Have you read any of Tara Smith's works on Objectivist ethics? I did a review of both books elsewhere. I find her morality the most compelling one to live by, certainly far from nonsense to me. Isn't Attila a brute, one that uses brute force? Is that how you want to 'live'? The choice of course is yours though, we can try to live or survive or stay alive however we want to. A life of crime, a life of productive achievement, on and on and on, the choice is yours.

She probably would have been bored doing it. There was a quote I had that went into that (which when I find it, I will share it here). Which to me now begs a question... But if it could have saved the world, did she have Galt choose the method that he did, purely for the sake of the story itself to save herself from boredom when writing? I would have written it differently.

The posters here have missed a lot by not sitting back and letting Rand's stories take them where the stories will I did that apparently in my first read as I did not look at it as critically. And he could still of have some contract with Keating that could be legally binding. Keating of course would probably or should have legally binding contracts with the others. Roark could have insisted upon that even, if Keating was not willing to, then no designing it, or letting Keating put his name on it. Etc.

"The factual evidence for and against the accused is (approximately) balanced. The issue rests on the credibility of the witnesses. The jury has to choose which side to believe and this depends on every juror' s sense of life." Again, my decision had NOTHING to do with any of that. Let me explain: I did not have to believe either side, as she claims. And, for me, the issue did not rest on the credibility of the witnesses, as she claims. Or depended upon my "sense of life" (see Stevens and Flint closings for the exact sense), as she claims. I just cannot determine the how, where, when, why, or even IF he is in fact dead. That is a fatal flaw in the play that kills it in its book form for me - but - on stage, I think k it would be fun to go see just for the chance to get on the jury.

Frisco destroying D'Anconia Copper was definitely a calculated maneuver to bring about the collapse, because it was "so rich that it would last for three more generations of looting" Rearden said to him "you chose the easiest, most vicious way" "deliberate destruction" He's not the only one. It was easier and faster to get rid of all those in their way, rather than simply trying to appeal to minds initially. Either way would be moral.

This quote is interesting when Akston speaks to Dagny, and helps support what I said: "I am writing a book on this subject, defining a moral philosophy that I learned from my own pupil... Yes, it could save the world... No, it will not be published outside." So Galts moral philosophy could have saved the world... but Galt used his philosophy not to appeal to minds with initially, but bring about collapse upon their heads, purging them that way, so hiskind can return. And take over. Judge Narragansett was already making changes to a copy of the US Constituition in preparation for it, and had also been working on a treatise on the philosophy of law.

Also see my thread on Education Emancipation for a video and more information: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=24698&hl=%2Beducation+%2Bemancipation

It doesn't make much of a story to me, since he did. I'm very glad I reread it recently. I have only read it once in my early twenties, I'm in my early thirties now. I'm doing a lot more critical thinking about her works, I didn't think anything of the like before, in regards to this particular book.

I would have made a legally binding contract and if the building was not built the way seemed in said contract, I would seek restitution, resolution in court. Not blow it up. If I could not obtain a legally binding contract, I would then rethink doing it altogether. There is no dichotomy between what he did in the novel or if someone did the same thing in our own world,in that it is both legally and morally WRONG. What were the charges brought against him? It doesn't say. That he blew it up? He did. He said so. He should have been convicted, but the jury let him walk (note: I am not criticizing the jury) None of it makes sense inside the story, or if someone were to do the same thing outside of it, like IRL.

Although I think this particular case of requiring Atlas Shrugged is ridiculous, we shouldn't give up trying to influence school curricula simply because schools are currently public. I am an abolitionist, not a reformationist of the public educational system. We shouldn't, on principle, try to influence the curricula, but try to abolish the entire system as well as all of its criteria all together. BOOKS FOR TEACHERS program that the ARI has, at best, nothing forced upon them to read. Regardless of it is AS, or anything else if ARs.

I did not make it either or, accept everything or nothing, in what I said.

The context of the sense of life she is talking about is in the introduction, and my judgment had nothing to do with it, as far as I can tell. The judgment I pronounced was not one I think she was aiming toward, read the intro and especially the closing before the verdict.

I still cannot find what the exact charges were against Roark. He didn't think what he did was a crime, as he pleaded Not Guilty at his indictment, that he didn't recognize what he did was in any way wrong, I gather.

Is he philosophy fiction? Her morality fictional? Wasn't Ayn Rands Objectivism, "a philosophy for living on earth"? We're any of he novels in any way vehicles for he philosophy? Or was it just fictionalized philosophy for only fictional characters in a fictionalized world to "live" by? Does her Objectivism involve the application of it to our own lives, to our own world, to our own character? Should we disregard, dismiss everything her characters say, do , feel, think, desire simply because they are fictional "living" in a fictionalized world? Or do we just try to understand bow they apply he philosophy in their own world, their own "lives", in their own world? How that applies in any way to us, in ours? Should we even study the characters, their fictional world, what they say, think, feel, desire, do, then - if it's all fictional? Or do we look for any relevance at all to us, our world our lives? These are rhetorical, but feel free to answer.