RationalEgoistSG

I agree with this. I believe that a relationship is a very serious thing and should only be entered after a "trial period" in which the two people get to know each other's values, interests, personality, etc. This "trial period" or "screening period" allows an individual to see if this person seems relatively compatible with their own values, interests, and personality. I believe that the first few engagements (dates) with a person can serve as such a "trial period." In such a time, an individual is deciding whether or not it would be worthwhile to pursue a further relationship or rather end it. Such a "trial period" can be extremely beneficial in the long run. From personal experience, I entered my first relationship without knowing the girl well. When we first met, there was an immediate attraction and mutual interest. However, down the line, once we had entered a relationship, I realized that there were certain fundamental differences between us which made us incompatible. What resulted was a very painful (and lengthy) break-up. I believe that such fundamental differences could have been discovered if I devoted more time to a "trial period." However, whether or not a "trial period" is beneficial depends on the kind of relationship that one is looking for. If one is looking for a very serious (perhaps long-term) relationship, then I believe such a period would be quite beneficial. However, if one is casually dating and not necessarily looking for a long-term relationship (such as during high school), then perhaps such a period would not really serve one's interests in that situation.

Sleepyop: I'm curious, who might that be?

Agreed.

I recently submitted a bunch of op-eds, mostly from my own blog. You can now find them by clicking on the Essays and Op-Eds link under Propaganda on the main site. I also submitted a review, also from my blog, of the Star Trek Universe.

Existence exists. This axiom does not specify the exact nature of the entities of existence, but rather, just that they exist. The concept future represents the entities (and actions, relationships, qualities, etc.) which WILL exist but omits their particular measurements (which includes what these entities, actions, etc. are causally based on). This is the simple definition of the concept "future." Making a prediction about what will occur IN THE FUTURE, is a completely different matter than simply using the word, "future," which merely denotes anything that WILL exist (including entities, actions of entities, relationships, etc.) but omits their particular measurements.

I recently received the schedule for the first year OAC classes and I have a scheduling conflict with the Introduction to Philosophy class. For those of you who have taken classes before, is it harmful to the education to listen to the classes on tape?

While I'm not currently planning on entering psychology as a profession, I would still be interested in discussing ideas with you. Right now, I have switched my double major to philosophy and political science (as opposed to philosophy and psychology). Glad to see that you are enthusiastic about using your mind. That is quite rare in my experience. My AIM screenname is RationalEgoistSG, and you can also talk to me on this forum.

Welcome to the board.

Hi carrie, welcome to the board. I know exactly how you feel with that energy after discovering Objectivism. I was the same way when I discovered Objectivism in my senior year of high school. I was assigned The Fountainhead for senior AP literature, and since I have read nearly everything Rand has written as well as Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Paralles by Leonard Peikoff, and other Objectivist works. I have good and bad experiences that I can share with you. First, the bad. When I discovered Objectivism, I was extremely excited about learning about the philosophy. I loved to talk about it with all my friends as much as possible. The problem was, my friends did not enjoy such discussion. In fact, as I gained more and more knowledge of Objectivism and talked about it more with them, they continued (along with my girlfriend at the time) to dislike such discussion, but pretended that nothing was wrong. They chose to evade reality. They engaged in such a practice for about 6 months, until I found out that they were secretly despising me (while taking advantage of my house: I invited them over all the time, and taking advantage of the other things I had). Now, I am no longer friends with any of those people, and in fact, I only speak to two of the people that I was friends with in high school. This negative experience however turned out to be positive for me. I was miserable prior to learning about Objectivism (precisely because of the contradictory philosophy which I had prior to Objectivism). But the removal of almost all of the contradictory elements in my life (including irrational friendships) was of GREAT benefit to me. Since first discovering Objectivism, my life has radically changed. I was also thinking about integrating Objectivist philosophy with psychology, but have since decided to pursue philosophy as my primary career. I want to become a philosophy professor/writer. I currently attend Drew University in NJ as a sophomore, a double major in philosophy and political science. Might I suggest that this thread be moved to the Introductions section?

Thanks for the info, I would love to if I had the money!

Thanks for the update Daniel. Where did you find that information about his book? I'd like to check it out if possible.

http://www.peikoff.com/fordhall.htm Look for the audio file about The One in the Many: How to Create It and Why

Yes that makes sense.

Unfortunately I agree for the most part with that. However, I believe he composed the music for the Harry Potter films, and I do like the Harry Potter theme. Prior to my discovery of Objectivism, I was a much, much different person than I am today. My musical tastes at the period reflected my personality and completely unknown philosophy. When I became more and more rational, everything about me changed, including my tastes in music as well. That's not to say that there is no value in rock music though. It just means that all of the rock music that I listened to in the past, before discovering Objectivism, has no value in my opinion. I wouldn't be against listening to different rock music, however, I feel as though the majority of music out there today is characterized by emotionalism, irrationality, nihilism, pseudo-individualism, etc. Perhaps.

Philosophy should be taught as a history course in high school. When discussing a specific philosophical issue, the students should be given the dominant perspectives on the issue and decide for themselves which is correct. College would be the more appropriate place, in my opinion, to discuss the merits of certain philosophies as opposed to others. Such evaluation of the dominant philosophies would be much more objective when based on a solid 2 years of history of the dominant schools of philosophy.

In my personal experience, there were some teachers that could have taught the course properly if given the correct amount of time. However, in my experience, the majority of teachers failed to do their job because of their inability to teach. Plus, I still believe that 40 or so minutes of non-academic courses a day is not a detriment to the ability for teachers to teach the academic courses.

I believe that what you stated in #2, Daniel, should be the policy in elementary and middle school. However, I believe that it would be quite beneficial for philosophy to be introduced as a regular part of the curriculum in junior and senior years as long as students were properly prepared for it as indicated in #2.

I also enjoy Rachmaninoff and Tchaikovsky, with a mix of a lot of others in classical music. My favorite film composer by far is John Williams, composer of the scores for such movies as the Star Wars Trilogy, E.T., Back to the Future Trilogy, Indiana Jones Trilogy, and just about every single other movie that George Lucas and Steven Spielberg have made, plus the Olympic Themes for the Olympics for the past 15 years or so, and a lot more. I also enjoy Danny Elfman and Jerry Goldsmith (some of the Star Trek themes, Air Force One, etc.) Prior to discovering Objectivism, I listened to primarily rock music. Now however, I do not listen to any. Ash, what station performs that radio program you spoke of? It sounds interesting. Being a trumpet player myself, I also greatly enjoy some trumpet concertos and ballads from the likes of Haydn, Strauss, etc. Also, I enjoy the works of numerous brass groups including Canadian Brass and Empire Brass. In fact, I have met, received a clinic from, and performed with, one of the founding trumpet players of Canadian Brass, Fred Mills. I also recommend any Sousa march. If any of you receive The Intellectual Activist, there was a great article about him in the July 2003 issue. Music is truly a wonderful thing. It is a shame that there is not much out there which comes close to representing Halley's Concerto of Deliverance in Atlas Shrugged. Here are some of my favorite pieces of music that I suggest: 1. Also sprach Zarathustra, Op. 30: Introduction - Strauss 2. William Tell Overture - Rossini 3. Pictures at an Exhibition: The Great Gate at Kiev - Mussorgsky 4. Fanfare for the Common Man - Aaron Copland 5. 1812 Overture - Tchaikovsky (my favorite) 6. Procession of the Nobles - Rimsky-Korsakov 7. Summon the Heroes - John Williams 8. Bugler's Dream - Leo Arnaud 9. Olympic Fanfare and Theme - John Williams 10. Parade of Charioteers - Miklos Rozsa 11. Chariots of Fire - Vangelis 12. all of the music from the Star Wars Trilogy - John Williams 13. all of the music from E.T. - John Williams 14. Saving Private Ryan: Hymn to the Fallen - John Williams 15. all of the music from Hook - John Williams

Semm, Your entire post was rambling nonsense. YOU posted in this forum. YOU made the claim that abortion is illegal/immoral. And therefore it is YOU that must demonstrate YOUR position on this issue. Here is an analogy of the argument you have made. God exists. I have no proof for this claim, but you must disprove the claim. Since you cannot, God must exist. This is a logical fallacy, the appeal to ignorance I believe. When one claims a POSITIVE the burden of proof for such a claim is on the person who made it, NOT on other people to disprove your arbitrary claim. A is A, Objectivism is Objectivism. Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. If you disagree with Ayn Rand on any philosophical point, you are not an Objectivist. You may still have a lot of agreement with Objectivism, but if you disagree with the philosophy you cease to be identified properly as an Objectivist. This says nothing about the philosophical accuracy of her philosophy. This merely says that Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Either one agrees with the philosophy of Ayn Rand or one does not. It is really that simple. According to Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, every woman has the right to an abortion. You claim that no woman has the right to an abortion. Therefore, you are not an Objectivist. This has nothing to do with whether or not a woman ACTUALLY has the right to an abortion. This simply means that Objectivism says they do, you say they don't, therefore, you are in contradiction with Objectivism. It is really that simple. The rest of your post is utter nonsense, which I see no need to respond to again. Semm, please check your ridiculous premises, gain a knowledge of what Objectivism actually is, learn what logic is, and then you will have a chance at rational discussion. I would suggest that you do not post on this topic any longer, or on any topic on this board, until you can demonstrate that you have ANY idea of what logic or Objectivism is, thank you.

Semm, I'm sorry but you argument is utterly absurd. An ameoba is a human being. A human being has rights. Therfore, an ameoba has rights. In order to claim that a fetus has rights, you must do two things: 1. provide an objective definition of the concept human 2. demonstrate how such a definition subsumes the concept fetus Since you have not done this, your argument is as utterly absurd as the amoeba analogy I have provided. According to the law of identity, A is A, Objectivism is Objectivism. Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. An Objectivist is a person who follows the philosophy of Ayn Rand. You however, attempt to claim that A is non-A. Objectivism is non-Objectivism. You claim that your wishes to call yourself an Objectivist can wipe out the facts of reality, the law of identity. In order to call oneself an Objectivist and not violate the law of identity, one must be in full agreement with the entire philosophy of Ayn Rand. Does this mean that you should stop judgment and follow the philosophy dogmatically? Absolutely not. It means that you can only call yourself an Objectivist if you actually ARE an Objectivist (a follower of the philosophy of Ayn Rand). You are free to disagree with whatever parts of the philosophy that you want to, but such disagreement means that YOU ARE NOT an Objectivist. You may agree with the vast majority of Objectivism, but any disagreement IN LOGIC means that you are not an Objectivist. The rest of your post falls apart after these two flaws in your argument are exposed.

I believe that our positions are close to agreement. I agree that there are teachers who could teach well if given the proper amount of time, but I also think there are a large amount of teachers out there who do not know how to teach properly. I think the primary cause of failure in the education system IS NOT time allocation but rather teaching method. I believe that giving 40 minutes a day to non-academic courses would allow students to enjoy the benefits of such courses without detracting from the academic courses. I'll agree to the idea that these elective courses should be optional. It does not seem right to force the children into doing these non-academic activities. However, I do believe that most children would have a genuine interest in music, art, and/or foreign language and would take up some of these activities after school, which is another reason why having such activities in the educational system would be beneficial. I am extremely interested about whether or not philosophy should be taught in high school. I believe that it would be extremely beneficial for students to be learning philosophy in high school not only because philosophy is the most important thing to a human being's life but also it would greatly help to integrate a large amount of material that they are learning in history, literature, science, math, etc. Perhaps such a topic could be brought up in another thread?

We agree that non-academic classes such as art, music, and foreign language are of some value to the development of the conceptual faculty. However, you have not sufficiently demonstrated, in my opinion, that one class period devoted to three of these non-academic courses (12 weeks for each course at say 40 minutes or so a day) would detract from the ability to teach the academic courses. I do partially agree with your conclusions, but I need more evidence of your position to conclude sufficiently that ANY non-academic courses being taught would detract from the ability to teach the academic courses properly. I do not see how 30 or 40 minutes of a non-academic course per day for 12 years would detract from 6 hours of academic courses per day for 12 years. My teachers in middle school (6-8th grade) all taught ONE subject, and they still had no clue what they were doing. The cause of their inability, in my experience, was their lack of proper teaching methods, not a lack of time. Also, from my personal experience, the vast majority of teachers that I had were unable to teach their subjects properly NOT because they didn't have enough time, but because they had NO CLUE how to teach anything properly. In fact, in the majority of my classes, there was A LOT of wasted time in which nothing was even taught.

So basically, you want to eliminate such subjects as music, art, computers, and foreign language from the elementary and middle school curriculum. While I agree that reading, writing, math, science, literature, and history are EXTREMELY important, I also believe that music, art, and foreign language provide much value. These non-academic classes, as they are taught now, are a complete waste of time (for the most part). In the classes that I took in these "non-academic" areas, I learned very little (with the exception of music). However, such does not have to be the case in a rational education system. I do not understand why you claim that the inclusion of these subjects would seriously detract from the academic subjects. In fact, I believe that art, music, and foreign language in particular would definitely help to enhance the development of the conceptual facutly (among other things). The teaching of art, when done properly, would be a very valuable tool to the learning process. Not only would teaching art provide knowledge of fundamental geometry (such as depth perception, basic shapes, etc.) but it would also provide an activity to integrate much of what is being learned in other classes (math, science, and history especially). For similar reasons, the teaching of music, when done properly, would also be a very valuable tool to the learning process. Foreign language would also help to develop the conceptual faculty quite well, because it would provide an excellent integration of basic grammar, writing skills, speaking skills, and much much more. You said that class activities in the academic subjects would help to integrate what was being learned in those subject. I strongly believe that the non-academic subjects, if taught well, could serve quite nicely as integrations of EVERYTHING (or at least a large number) that one is learning in the core academic subjects. Daniel, I believe that your opposition to these subjects is not based on the fact that they actually do not develop the conceptual faculty properly but rather, in your experience, they did not do so; and such subjects were justified on pragmatic grounds. I believe that such subjects would make an excellent supplement to the core academic subjects, and would serve as an excellent tool to integrate what is being taught from a number of the academic subjects. I firmly believe that the academic subjects are the most important and best develop the child's conceptual faculty. However, I see no reason to eliminate these "non-academic" subjects which also help to develop the conceptual faculty. If taught properly, I believe that each of the three "non-academic" subjects which I identified (art, music, and foreign language) could be added to the elementary and middle school curriculum with little detraction from the core academic subjects. In my middle school, we had something called, "cycle" where you cycled through 4 different non-academic subjects, one period a day, throughout the year. I propose a similar system for the three important non-academic subjects that I identified. Let's say that a typical school year is about 42 weeks. Divide that by 3 and you get 14 weeks to each non-academic subject, for one "class period" a day. I do not believe that such a supplement to the curriculum would detract from the academic subjects, and I believe that they would in fact help to supplement them. As to the exact time when these subjects should be studied (foreign language especially), I leave that up to further discussion. P.S. I believe that philosophy should most definitely be studied in high school (but only if based on a well taught and rational curriculum behind it).

No problem Anthony. Welcome to the board. Keep me updated about how Georgia State University is.

To alleviate a bit of confusion on my part, can you clarify exactly what the "academic" subjects are vs. the "non-academic" subjects. And, can you clarify your position on when such subjects should take place?