AwakeAndFree

This trend should have started long ago. I actually use my real name as my nick most of the time. Privacy online is mostly an illusion, and since I have nothing to hide, I don't bother inventing cool nicks. As a teenager I used to be TheGrin, though. Inspired by Stephen King's It. I think a real name and a cool quote is the standard practice, as far as signatures are concerned.

Ayn Rand did intend to look into the philosophy of mathematics, and she did study advanced mathematics in her final years. Unfortunately she died before she could leave any valuable writing on the subject. I don't know about other philosophers taking this challenge up, but I'd be very interested in seeing it done in my lifetime.

Ayn Rand was not opposed to WW2, but she did oppose the cooperation with Soviet Russia against Germany. She seems to have thought that the United States should, to the degree possible, let the two thugs Hitler and Stalin fight each other. You can find a mention of this in her HUAC testimony.

Hmmm. I never heard someone with my kind of story. From a very young age in Israel I had a tremendous respect for reason and logic. From age 10 I was hooked on the Sherlock Holmes stories, and I loved detective stories because of their inherent respect for logic. I was never religious, nor was my family. But I didn't consider them rational, either. I recognized their inconsistencies. Almost Everyone around me seemed to believe nonsense. It was either religion, extreme nationalism, or socialism verging on communism. While being drawn more to the political left than to the right, I wasn't a very political teenager, and I totally disagreed with the ideals of socialism. I went on a search for rational ideas. I tried to read modern philosophers, and decided they made no sense, I tried ancient religions (like Zen, Buddhism and Taoism) but they were too incoherent and boring, I leaned a bit towards biological determinism, things like The Naked Ape, which at least made sense. They didn't give complete answers, however. Then one day, I found a book of philosophy called: The Rational Existence. It was an introduction to Objectivism, more or less, written by an arguably insane Israeli philosopher called Moshe Kroy. The style was a bit crazy, but the basic ideas were mostly Objectivism. I loved it. I agreed with most of what it said immediately, sensing that I had already thought these things about reason, selfishness, capitalism. The next day I went to the library, and brought home Anthem, We the Living, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged. I read them in that order, fell in love with them, and that was it.

I accidentally watched parts of this movie on a very long flight. You forgot to mention the sleazy bathroom humor, and the extreme idiocy of the characters, including the "positive" ones.

And therefore, there is no way to determine Ayn Rand's intelligence simply by looking at what she wrote. The fact that most of her articles took a very short time for her to write, and that a book like Atlas Shrugged could actually be written in her lifetime, tell you it's way above average. :-D

This article is what I call "selectively well-researched". I mean, the author seems to know a lot about Ayn Rand, her novels, and her life - but he keeps deliberately ignorant of very well documented facts... Like this quote: Perhaps? You couldn't ring the Ayn Rand Institute and ask for an overview of all that Ayn Rand wrote about democracy? She couldn't be more clear about her views, and the alternative she offered. And, of course, the insinuation about her friends and collegues somehow being a cult, we couldn't pass that one out. Jerk.

I don't have a subscription either... so just Google it.

Check this review of Atlas Shrugged, from the Chicago Tribune - http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/art...ack=2&cset=true The writer is not an Objectivist. In fact, she seems to be afraid of Objectivism. But what a review! As a teenager, this review would have made me read Atlas Shrugged IMMEDIATELY. The official Objectivist reviews I've read might not have. Wouldn't you agree?

Everything posted on these forums is a matter of public record, since it may provoke a discussion - and therefore must remain available for all to see. You can't eat your cake and have it, too. You can't post an article for free online, and then sell exclusive rights to it. That would be a contradiction, now wouldn't it? I suppose, if someone posted something by mistake, and very shortly afterwards asks to remove it, it can be considered. But by and large the responsibility for posting should be the poster's.

Welcome, Professor.

I'm satisfied. I hope Mr. Speicer will read this and will give us his reaction now. Remember that without moderator powers this forum would be overrun by trolls and abusers, bad spelling, and would lose its value. Also, considering that the user can ALWAYS know when his own posts have been edited, by who, and when - I'd say the whole danger of a moderator abusing his privilege is minor.

Dude, where's my gultch?

If your brother is worth any consideration at all, he'll come around and accept it eventually. No man on earth is worth pretending for. And people who are offended by the truth deserve to be constantly offended. If he doesn't come around, then he truly values his own prejudice above his relationship with you. In which case, I hope you'll be able to rise up to your values and say: Good riddance!

Hey, I don't understand why people are struggling so much with the definition of pornography. It's not that important, nor that complicated, but pornography is definitely not art nor entertainment. Here goes: "Pornography is the depiction of sexual situations for the purpose of sexual arousal". BTW, the origin of the word comes from the ancient Greek pornographos "(one) writing of prostitutes," which comes from porne, "prostitute".

As an emotion, love is not always rational. But when it is irrational, in essence, against your better judgement - it is an evil, and not a value. Loving someone against your better judgement must be the worst torture possible to man. Love is only good when it is in harmony with reason. So once again, rationality is the basis of all virtues.

The health risks of coffee are small minimal when taken in reasonable amounts (say, 2 cups a day), and the benefits are objectively great for someone leading a stressful and demanding lifestyle that requires focus and energy. Steroids, as far as I know, are considered more dangerous by far, even in minimal use - if taken for long periods of time. Also - caffeine's influence is not long-lasting. It does not change the configuration of your mind, as steroids do to your body. Anyway, the issue of immorality is simple - you are only immoral if you are trading something of value and importance for something of lesser value and importance. In the case of coffee, that is clearly not the case.

As I see it, a citizen is any resident of the country who pays taxes, and swore an oath to respect the rights of his fellow men. I think criminals, objectively defined, should not be allowed to be citizens. Now, both citizens and residents are entitled to protection of the law, but only a citizen can work in any official position, vote, or be entitled to the protection of his rights overseas (for example, international businessmen).

Death is a fact. Get over it. It's not even one of the scariest facts of life. So life is going to end one day... fine. That means you have to try to finish what you want to do in this world before it happens. Plan ahead. But to fear death? Why? You're not even there to suffer. In fact, being dead is less painful than anything else you've done in your life.

Yeah, I like your website too. Welcome to here.

Go Matt! I was about to say the same thing here. The right order to start with is: whatever interests you the most, read first! I find that most people are drawn to the fiction first, then the non-fiction. But I personally actually started with a complete overview of Rand's philosophy - and only after already understanding many aspects of the philosophy did I decide to read the fiction works. After reading all of her fiction, I tapped my interests as I went along: ethics, politics, art... It never occured to me to ask anyone about the "right order" of things. Every article, every story, is self-sufficient and valuable in its own right. The integration can occur once all the parts are in place.

I agree with Oakes. If it's a positive step you should endorse it - as a step.

For the record, I loved Goodbye Lenin. I think it's a genuinely funny movie, with a brilliant idea and superb execution. If you go to a movie like that looking for inspiration... well then that's sad. Comedies by their very nature are rarely inspirational. That being said, I happened to see The Life Aquatic, and that's one bad comedy.

I used to play D&D and AD&D for years. Actually, from age 10 to 18 I've played quite a bit. I particularly enjoyed being a Dungeon Master, but having a really cool character is also great fun. However, you really need the right people to enjoy this game. They need to be intelligent, non-cynical, imaginative, and willing to suspend disbelief. I find that this requirement makes it practically impossible for me to play. People are more interested in their own lives, or feel dorkish when playing, and so they continuously break out of character, or lose focus. I can relate, but really - why play at all with this set of mind? When everything is ticking, however, the result can be magical. Great stories are born, and you learn a whole lot about yourself and your friends in the process. (TRANSLATION: If someone decent around NYC wants to play, let me know! )

It's Quo Vadis, not Vadas, and it's one of the greatest novels ever written, although it obviously glamorizes Christianity to the point of discomfort.