blackdiamond

Yes, the Jordan thing is just hypothetical. I understand your point, except "being good at a general art" would not necessarily be the only aspect of such a novelty. It can be just as novel as the Fosbury, and the discoverer need not even be "good at a general art." I guess the best practical example I can think of now is the game of chess. There are always new lines of effective openings that are even given names after their discoverers (the Fischer attack, the Morphy Defence, etc). Sportsmanship is one issue, but can some amateur guy who doesn't care about sportsmanship discover a new opening, patent it and thus prevent all professional chess players from using that "unobvious" but effective line? He is not necessarily "good at a general art" - he has just intellectually discovered an effective and new method (like the Fosbury flop) - in fact, these new ideas in chess opening are called "novelties." I guess your answer is that it is patentable because it fits the theory. But should it be? Before I focus too deeply on it, it just intuitively looks absurd right now.

This doesn't sound right, David. Jordan discovers that if you spin the ball sideways from the tips of your fingers, your accuracy is almost guaranteed (because of some physics principle perhaps), and he can patent this method so that no one else can throw the ball in that way? Or a runner discovers that holding your breath while running 100 meters makes you go faster (not obvious) - is this his property? [Can he sue everyone who looks like they're holding their breath henceforth? ]

So, if Michael Jordan discovers a way of applying this theory to his game - so that he can score baskets by "floating" in the air with the ball - is this his intellectual property?

Whereas a mathematical equation like e=mc(squared) does not need to be "created" (worked)?

Is gold property?

Firstly, I must say I feel sorry for you for being white at the wrong time! But then again. Is it perhaps possible that you whites will develop yourselves even more and thus increase your gap against us if government starts helping us much more than you whites? It might backfire very badly. Just a thought.

I find Miss Coulter's writings very witty and humorous most of the time. Try to read, for example, her latest Wednesday column (at www.anncoulter.com) with a bit of a sense of humour and see if you won't laugh on at least some of the parts!

I thank you, my brothers and sister! I feel welcome already! Mr. C. Forever (C for CO2-emissions, that is!): my visa allows me only one year in the States, but I will fully investigate how to change it. Incidentally, the guy who interviewed me at the American embassy told me, "you have to come back to Zambia because this fellowship is a gift - it's aid - from American government to Zambian government." The strange thing is that Stanford is not an American government institution and neither do I work for the Zambian government, so I didn't understand the logic of how it translates to governmental "aid" - but I didn't want to argue, lest they change their minds! SNerd: Yes, your description of African cities is very accurate. The sad part is that when it's time for elections, politicians depend on the rural (non-city) areas to win their elections. Even our current president lost overwhelmingly in the urban cities (he lost to a guy who was promising to cut all taxes), but he won more overwhelmingly in the rural areas (they receive a lot of government "gifts" there, from urban city taxes!). The rural populations are of course easier for an incumbent to impress because they are so poor; so, a small school and a cheap clinic built just before elections is enough to gain their votes. In fact, even Robert Mugabe, the evil dictator in neighbouring Zimbabwe, does quite well in rural areas. He grabbed farms from whites in his country and split the land among black small (peasant) farmers. Although their produce is so small and can not match what the big white commercial farmers produced, they are happy to vote for Mugabe for "what he's done for us". The fact that the economy has gone down as a result is explained as "the work of American and British imperialists who are upset with what I've done against their white people, in trying to helping you." In short, Thales, I'm not sure to which extent the elected president of a country reflects the (level of) rationality of its people. After all, the great American people have to make a choice this year between Barack Obama and John McCain. It's heads you lose, tails you lose: neither choice will do justice to the general, implicit rationality of American society, I think. Mr. Mitt Romney would have best reflected the American spirit (from the pack of candidates), I think. But that's another story. Thanks.

Hello OO Forum Members, Just wanted you to know that I'll be "coming to America" in August. Since my last "topic" here, I've been trying to get myself into the US of A so that I could prove for myself if this great society has indeed become so irrational that it can not easily support and promote a rational, ambitious achiever (I don't believe it - but I could be wrong). I've been granted a Fellowship by Stanford University in Palo Alto (for my little achievements in Africa), and I'll be there for a year. This will be my very first time to leave the continent of Africa, so it will be an extremely exciting experience for me. Perhaps it is that sense of excitement, that hunger to tangibly experience more of this great relative freedom, that helps a lot of immigrants to achieve more in America compared to some American citizens who might take that freedom for granted? Well, suffice to say that my main purpose for coming to America is not the Stanford program, but to test (and taste) the waters of achievement in the greatest nation on earth. Thank you, Black.

Sophia, you have continued to argue against something that I have not said. If you go back to the point where I introduced this particular example, I basically said it is very unlikely that someone who has a good voice (or talent) will be told "that's a bad voice" or "you better find another career" by MANY people everywhere (especially, including experts in those fields, like the "American Idol" judges, record company executives, family and friends, etc). You said that there are in fact many such successful singers and I disputed that (unless they subsequently improved their voice through voice training, etc etc). But I have conceded that exceptions are possible. You've met a business person who was rejected to Oxford for an MBA, as your counter-example. Firstly, this doesn't show she has been rejected by MANY people; secondly, it is unlikely that Oxford knew this person well enough (i.e. personally) to be able to judge her business abilities (which are much more complex than singing ability). Thirdly, it is unlikely that Oxford accepts people to their MBA program just based on their business acumen (but of course I don't know her full context); fourthly, it is VERY difficult for anyone to judge the business abilities of a person until they SHOW you how successful they have been in business; and 5. to be rejected by Oxford does not necessarily mean they do not believe that you can't succeed in business. I know there are many examples like that of your friend, but that is very different from what I specifically claimed. This is precisely why that talent is less valuable given that context. "Less" is a comparison. So, we are comparing with what? With a context in which there are other people. The point of your Island hypothetical, as I understood it, was to present a situation in which there is NO market, contrasted with one where there is. THAT talent is definitely less valuable outside a market context. So is the talent of boxing, comedy, chess, etc - if you are alone on a deserted island (even skillful novel writing is not as valuable on this island, as it is in the world of people, unless you intend to one day go where there are people). In my very last post, I had said that money is not the ONLY measure, which is why I said that the gift of singing possessed by the person on that Island can still have some value, it's just less than its value would be in a market context where other people can appreciate it. Qua novelist, her goal was certainly to be successful. But that's not the only thing she was, so this has to be integrated with all her other principles. ["SHE/HER" also refers to everything else about her soul that we know]. I did not say that, Sophia. I said "achievement" (is the greatest gift you can give to yourself). [Out of curiosity: what is the "metaphysical value" of someone's work? If by that you mean that a good work follows specific principles (eg particular esthetic principles for an art work), then I obviously agree. But I don't see why this ethically precludes a person from measuring his success/achievement by the response of others (given a particular social context that I specified), since sometimes you may not be as proficient at physically applying these (objective) theoretical principles (to your work) as you might hope; i.e. at integrating body and mind effectively in your work. Two women can read the same cookery book and both can enjoy their own baking, but only one of them might hear people say "ooh, that was a very nice cake!" and they only buy cakes from her (after tasting both). Why can't this be a reasonably valid measure of their achievements? But I have already said all this.] I will allow you to make the last post (below) on this particular discussion (with me, that is). Thanks.

Indeed. I knew very well that it was sarcasm. If they are always or usually told that "they have no talent in their particular sphere (singing, acting, comedy, etc)," especially by experienced people in those fields, they should consider very seriously that they may indeed not be as talented as they think (we can all make mistakes). Of course there are stories of exceptional cases, but those are just that: exceptional cases (which is why they make the cover of a magazine). You asked if that talent in that context (on an island) has LESS value, and i said yes (because of a particular way it would now fail to serve MY LIFE, my survival - and you still think it is not any less valuable? Isn't your life your standard of value?). But I also emphasised that this does not necessarily mean it now has NO value, just less. So how could you possibly derive from that that i (only) measure value by money? Hm. I'm not sure about that. She would be very unique as a novelist if she considered herself successful novelist even if no one bought a single novel of hers [Remember we are talking about America, a society that still appreciates heroes in art, and still by and large appreciates good writing skill and craft]. Well, you are certainly entitled to an opinion about the young lady. Perhaps you are not in the age group of her target market? Or you just don't like that genre of music too much? I certainly don't think she has a terrible voice, I think she's okay. Do you like the voice and songs of her former boyfriend, Mr. Justin Timberlake? (Same type of music). Anyway, I'm sure I've made my point. I have not said you should achieve primarily because you want money or you want recognition, etc (so you'll do well by relenting on your attack on this position which I do not hold). But these rewards are inspiring to yourself because they give you some material feedback on your performance, NOT that they are the reason you do it. And your achievement inspires others because they can concretely see what's possible with themselves with very hard work. It's the greatest gift you can give to them, as it is the greatest gift you can give to yourself; there is no dichotomy. Similarly, I think a person feels good (VERY good) when they meet a romantic partner who strongly admires them for their values. They do not pursue their values for the purpose of being admired by a potential partner. But they will certainly feel very happy - by way of feedback - when they do actually meet someone who expresses strong admiration for their values (besides other aspects), enough to want to spend the rest of their lives with them. I think that (rational) romantic love is a concrete measure of something you may only know spiritually (what you have achieved by way of values), just as money (or awards or promotions, etc) given to you by other people who value your work can be a similar concrete measure. [i am working on the assumption of a sufficiently rational society in both cases, a society in which there is a reasonably good probability of finding many such hero-loving people].

Yes, but some countries are sufficiently developed to have someone like John Galt be admired enough to make his story a bestseller for decades. If John Galt can be that appreciated by the general society [according to some survey, his story was only second in popularity to the Bible], I'd say almost any rational achiever can be quite appreciated in at least that particular society. Right. Like Ms Spears and many other very great singers and even great classical musicians. Not MANY of them were ever told that they had no talent (at least not by most people, and even less likely, by many experts). Yes it has less value (not necessarily no value) because I can not use it to make money for myself (by singing to others who would appreciate it and pay me). I have not denied that. But this fact does not negate my point that you can use the response of other people to know that you are doing it right - practically right; that you are indeed proficient at it. Ms Brittney Spears was/is not a bad singer. Her voice and music was quite good and yes, many people (especially young people) liked it and paid her for it. [This is not to say there are no bad artists who have a following from some irrational people, but I do not believe America is at a point where a rational or objectively good artist will have no following or even a less chance of success; otherwise you will have to explain to me the phenomenal success of Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead and why seven of Spillane's novels were among the top ten bestselling novels of all time IN AMERICA.] However, in a fictional story where a society is presented as being extremely irrational - irrational enough to justify "shrugging" by rational people - one cannot expect to be appreciated for his rational achievement. That society is not America (or any relatively free society) by any stretch. [Oh, and by the way, when I say Ms Spears achieved some "integration of mind and body", this is only with respect to her music (and she was indeed happy for that); it does not imply that she was integrated in every other area of her life (and that consequently affected her general happiness). We can still be inspired by her achievement in music even though she has not achieved as much in other personal areas, just as we can be inspired by the achievement of an athlete, even if he is not so developed in other personal areas, or even (more obviously) the similar achievement of a good artist.]

Indeed, but that's different from saying it's "the reason" why a person should decide to achieve.[and keep in mind at all times how I have described those "others" - as my working context]. From this statement, 1. a person whose goal is to make people laugh by simply exposing his nudity can be said to have "valuable work" as long as he is meeting his goal.("The value of your work is judged by how well you are meeting your goal"). 2. It seems you believe this as confirmed by your next statement: In parentheses, you confirm that you believe Rand's ideas should be judged by their adherence to reality because this was her goal. So the value of Kant's ideas should also be judged by his own goal? See how I put my example. Were these artists told this by every expert they went to in their field or were they told this by just one or two people? I would be surprised to find MANY successful singers, for example, who were told by everyone that they had a bad voice and they still made it (without adjusting that voice). If they are there, they are a very big exception. I think the vast majority of successful singers were highly applauded for their talent even as young children. I don't get it. I thought you said his work is valuable as long as he is achieving his goal. So, what if his goal is to make people enjoy his music [as was the goal of the comedian was to make people laugh] and he is selling many records? The value of one's singing. But it should be of value to whom? If you are just singing for the shower (to yourself) then that's one thing. But if you want to sing for a living, then your singing is not valuable IF other people are not impressed [keeping my stated context in mind]. Now, of course, if it is a good sound they will be impressed. The fact of the matter is that you do not always know the exact details of what makes a really good sound (theoretically) and when other people love it, it confirms to you that it is good indeed (like I said, that's why capitalism inspires individual innovation and productivity and socialism does not). [And even if you DO know exactly what makes a really good sound (theoretically), this does not mean that you are always able to successfully express that physically (practically) - other people's response (your market) can confirm for you that you have indeed managed to integrate mind and body in this venture, and that should make you quite happy.]

I do not believe I said it is the reason for achieving. And I do not believe I claimed it is a primary. I do not agree with this. If you believe you're a great singer and you decide to go on "American Idol" and all the judges say you suck, and every record company you take your work to in the world says "you better choose another career", doesn't that say anything about the value of your work? (or imagine if you believe you're a great stand-up comedian, but always gets only half-sure giggles from the audiences). [Note that I said "as long as you respect them as a sufficiently rational society" so I'm not talking about a context in which a society has become totally or highly irrational, something I do not believe has happened in at least the freest societies of the world.]

Since there have been some responses since I left, I will gladly address some of them. First, the charge that this essay was a straw man (JMegan). A straw man is a misrepresentation of your opponent’s argument (before you attack it); I’m not sure I see how this was done in my essay. If you mean that I have misrepresented Objectivism and then attacked it, that can not be correct because my thesis is precisely that the essence of Objectivism has not been followed by most Objectivists.[Also, note that my essay is not just about "billionaires", that was just in my title because I thought it captured the essence of my essay]. Now, Ayn Rand is the one who said “the sight of an achievement is the greatest gift that a human being can offer to others.” The SIGHT of an achievement is something objective, or else how could they know it’s there. When we see it, we can all agree that THAT is a sight of an achievement. I propose that someone who has merely become very “good” at debating Objectivism (for example) does not demonstrate the sight of an achievement (unless of course it reaches a degree that is indeed indisputably supreme, after facing difficult challenges to reaching such a level, especially when one previously had no such prior abilities; THAT would be inspiring). Someone who has not achieved (and is not realistically working towards achieving) something great that OTHERS can SEE (sight of an achievement) can not claim to have understood at least that particular Randian injunction. Not every “achievement” can therefore qualify in this vein, because not every “achievement” will inspire others. Objectively, that means that that kind of achievement does not really take that much effort or that much heroism – overcoming real challenging hurdles to the top. Now, does this mean that this is a second-handed goal in someone’s life? Not at all. Firstly, if it was second-handed, Ayn Rand would not likely call it “the greatest gift one can give to others”. Secondly, it is not different essentially from what an artist does: his work is also meant “for others” and yet we do not call it second handed. An artist inspires others with his work. An achiever inspires others by providing himself as concrete evidence for their own belief in the practicality of achievement, the integration of mind and body, heroism. It is my personal opinion that an achiever is even more inspiring than a work of art. I am personally more inspired by the achievements of Ayn Rand – a Russian immigrant who learnt English as a second language and managed to write bestsellers in that language besides developing her own integrated philosophy of reason - than I am by the achievements of John Galt. No matter how great this character is, it remains only a fictional character, and as admirable as he is, he did not really exist, he did not really face any hurdles in life that he overcame using the power of his mind. He is certainly inspiring as a work of art. But nothing is more inspiring than the sight of an achievement, a real achievement. It is not second-handed to aim to achieve at the highest level in business (and yes this normally implies great wealth), in fiction writing (this normally implies bestseller, which normally implies wealth in a relatively free economy), in sport, law, law enforcement, or whatever field one chooses to excel in (each has its own way of recognising eminence, or the market itself will do it). And besides that, the response of other people to your work through their money or their awards (as long as you respect them as a sufficiently rational society) is a good measure of the quality and validity of your own work: it is therefore also an inspiration to yourself (which is precisely why capitalism actually inspires individual innovation and socialism does not), and thus a source of your happiness. I therefore still think that there should realistically be a good number of very high and visible achievers among serious Objectivists (in their different respective fields) especially after being in those fields for a sufficiently long time. A mediocre Objectivist (in their chosen field and in life, generally) sounds like an oxymoron to me, unless I have totally misunderstood Rand’s philosophy.

I have decided that this is my last thread on this great, great web site (objectivismonline.net), and I have learnt too much to be able to pay back, from many people, including those who did not exactly like me! But let me just post this link to an old article (that I've just remembered and googled) as a gift for those who want to learn more about the subject of the essay I posted here. It's an open letter to Michael Jordan called "The Soul of a Champion" by an Objectivist philosopher called Andrew Bernstein. Link: http://www.andrewbernstein.net/heroes/6_jordan.htm Some interesting parts: Then something else, which contradicts some people's theory that it is mainly about talent: He DOES attack the culture but ONLY in its "explicit intellectual content": But he still generally holds to Dan Edge's Benevolent People Premise: That doesn't sound to me like the pessimism I have often heard, which condemns people generally as just "irrational," an attitude which can easily short-circuit your ambitiousness (when you literally hate the world and the "irrational" people in it). And finally: Indeed. That's what I believe Ayn Rand's main goal was. In spite of her condemnation of the explicit philosophical culture, she still believed that a rational person had a high potential for achievement in such a great society. He could actually plan and expect to achieve. Like Bernstein says, the people still yearn for, and worship, man at his highest and best; so obviously they will reward heroes (with wealth and honour), by celebrating them and paying them. That premise is sufficient to virtually guarantee success to anyone who puts in great effort in his pursuit for high achievement in any rational society. Thank you.

Same here.

Obviously you value your online debating career - and the self esteem you evidently gain from the feeling of victory over others - very highly. Try to use that same spirit in real business, and there'll be no need for this thread.

And if I do indeed have any such problem (in "most of my posts"), the right people to "ask" me to stop, I believe, are the Admins and/or Moderators (you could have easily reported me to them in all those posts, as the rules require). No one can appreciate being corrected or advised by some aggressive self-appointed regulator (you) who has shown no evidence whatsoever of being any exemplary (at politeness) in his many posts. That, is what's insulting. The rich lists were only ONE of the things I mentioned. I also mentioned the Nobel Prize, i mentioned Oscars, bestsellers, Fortune 500 company owners, and other recognised measures of top achievement, which do not always imply billionaire (but normally do imply wealth and fame). Why take only one sentence from what I wrote? I had only one essential point: high, conspicuous achievement. Again, the Forbes list was not the only thing mentioned in that article (or the next) if you did actually read it. There were other measures of high achievement. Are all those wealthy internet entrepreneurs, movie makers, novelists, etc irrational? People who come up with all those great ideas in technology, science, music, literature, etc are OFTEN "persecuted instead of rewarded" in America (unless they're irrational)? One of us certainly has some serious rationalism issues going on. Thankfully, this discussion has helped me understand the answer to my own question. Point is: Roark was not giving excuses for not making great effort to succed in the economic system of the world. No matter how unfriendly they were, he was still trying to put forth his products in the real world instead of just complaining that the world persecutes rational achievers and all that. The real architect on whom the fictional character of Roark is supposedly based did become a very wealthy millionaire - and it was in THIS same society, not a futuristic one in which everyone will become totally friendly to capitalism. I suppose this goes down to that discussion introduced here by Dan Edge (concerning Benevolent People premise) and I guess I can give you some credit for being quite consistent: you certainly have a Malevolent People Premise. I understand why you don't feel that a rational person has much chance of great success or reward in this "irrational world"; it follows from your premises. Since our differences are obviously more fundamental than the simple thesis of my little essay here, I predict that we are unlikely to have a productive discussion here (without going into issues that totally transcend this thread or even, this forum). Let's call it quits.

Inspector. Hm. You continue to openly and explicitly insult me (at least my insults were "casual", as you put it). Anyway, let's see how far this goes: Look. The very FIRST "adopter" of Objectivism was Ayn Rand. If you are excluding Ayn Rand from those people who are "intellectuals" then you are obviously saying something incomprehensible. Ayn Rand, as you admit, was firstly a novelist. And yet she had "a greater-than-average interest in ideas as such". And so did other people in her "collective," a number of whom were inspired by her novels to achieve great eminence (and fame) in different areas of interest (even though Objectivism was very "new"). There are even some young, very ambitious people on this forum who are primarily novelists or software programmers (like Capitalism Forever, Jenni, et al) - and yet they exhibit an understanding of ideas that is certainly above some of those who consider themselves "intellectuals". I am simply rejecting your insinuation that people who have a higher than average interest in ideas would not likely be ones who become billionaires (or vice-versa) because that is simply not supported by reality. If your career is philosophy, and you are truly influenced by Ayn Rand, then you too should achieve great eminence in that field (that's my only point). Achieving eminence at OO.net is not what we have in mind. Dr. Peikoff is an eminent philosopher, as is Dr. Binswanger, etc, and these have achieved quite a bit of wealth from their own innovativeness, which is not common for professional philosophers, but should be common for a fan of Galt and Roark. However, someone who has been debating for years at online forums, hardly exhibiting a level of knowledge and grasp that is higher than "most people" is NOT an achiever and he should - how do I say this politely this time? - get a life.

And you, Inspector, really know how to offend people (you'll want to start working on that problem). If you were genuinely interested in advising me on that "problem", especially since you believe that I "don't fully mean to do it", you could have easily addressed this with me through Private Mode, no? The one who invented Objectivism was (first and foremost) a novelist - a "doer", and she made quite a good fortune from her creative skills. I don't believe your dichotomy is valid. What about that fact? Perhaps the number would have been bigger if more Objectivists were to join them? [Also, please note that "billionaires" was just in my title; I am discussing much more than just that, as my essay shows - what about great novelists (like Rand), famous inventors, scientists, etc?]

Part 2 Ayn Rand migrated to America because she wanted to become a great novelist (like Dostoyevksy, Hugo, and so on). She started teaching her philosophy mainly because she wanted to help create a society that would make it easier for her to achieve her dreams – of becoming a great, wealthy writer (like Mickey Spillane – and more). She knew she had to fight against the forces in this culture that taught that wealth was evil, that poverty was virtuous, a culture that exalted mediocrity. And she had to counter such a culture by starting from first principles – from Aristotle’s metaphysics and so on. She did also become a successful novelist, even though she felt the environment was still not perfect (it was closer to perfection than the rest of the world, but not quite there). This is why she focused on teaching her philosophy instead of pursuing her original dream more fully. But I do not believe that Rand intended that her philosophy should become the very centre of people’s lives – something to take precedence over their personal achievement – great, ambitious and conspicuous achievement, not just “average Joe” achievement. Do you spend more intellectual energy and time thinking about Objectivism – and debates in Objectivism - than you do thinking about strategies to achieve more effectiveness and eminence in your career? Do you have a greater passion to master every aspect of Objectivism than you do mastering your career to the level of true greatness? I think it is this problem that largely accounts for the fact that most people value being called an Objectivist than they value being (called) a great achiever in their field. They are apparently more proud of that label than of an identity that emphasises their personal achievement in this world. Do you dream of true heroism? I have observed that many Objectivists have practically diluted the concept of “heroism” from one of great achievement (in the productive and material world) to the common boring one of just living a “happy,” content life, just exercising the “virtues” to a good degree “no matter what you are doing in life”. I believe this explains why some ambitious people who have just been “influenced” by Rand’s novels have managed to become great achievers [i know that Bill Gates has read Atlas Shrugged, Larry Ellison has read The Fountainhead (and AS, most likely), etc] while most of those who have gone much “deeper” – my target here - have not demonstrated such great ambition for high level achievement – and yes, this will normally imply fame and wealth, even at the current level of freedom in the semi-capitalist world. Wouldn't it be easier to convince your family about your rational philosophy if they can see you become an eminent achiever as a result of your "conversion"? [which is why I said that this is at the root of the failure of the Objectivist movement to achieve AS MUCH impact on society as it should have; not just higher sales of Rand's novels]. It’s just food for thought. No excuses. Thanks.

Objectivist Billionaires: Where are they? As the growing influence of Atlas Shrugged in the world is being celebrated, I wish to take this opportunity to ask a question that has bothered me more than any other question concerning Objectivists. Since Rand’s greatest heroes were always great wealth creators, and since Objectivism is a philosophy that uniquely holds wealth creation as a virtue and fully celebrates and exalts the entrepreneur, the master creator of wealth, WHY is it that (50 years after Atlas Shrugged) one does not frequently meet wealthy Objectivists from the freest societies in the world (America, etc)? This has never made sense to me. I would have expected that such a philosophy of achievement would produce world class achievers in all kinds of fields that Objectivists are involved in – science, business, literature, etc. I would have expected a number of noticeable full-fledged Objectivists among the annual rich lists of Forbes magazine, among the owners of big Fortune (Magazine) 500 companies, among the profiles on achievement.org, and so on; instead, full or serious Objectivists are conspicuously missing on such lists of achievers and innovators. None of the many professing Objectivists one meets on the various online forums (and there are many), apparently exhibiting great understanding of the philosophy, ever confess to being billionaires (or even just millionaires - in a country where an impressive percentage of the population has achieved this), Nobel prize laureates, breakthrough inventors, bestselling authors, Oscar-winning movie directors and actors, or even world class architects. To me, they generally seem to be struggling in the same pool of mediocrity typical of the very average person in any country. They seem to be just as lost for purpose as the guy next door. This, more than anything else, is responsible for the failure of the “Objectivist movement” to create as much impact on the world as it should (I believe). It does not produce as much EVIDENCE of the power of a rational philosophy (on the world) as one would expect. Where is the evidence? Is the philosophy itself its own evidence? Is it the number of “radical converts” who have left religion and felt “freer than ever”? Has the philosophy produced any innovations besides innovations to the philosophy itself? In short, does it have any evidence in the real world? Any gifted and ambitious Galt-like capitalist producers, whose absence in the world would be sharply felt by the economic system if they merely “shrugged”? Unfortunately, I for one have met no such people in my years of online interaction with Objectivists from the freest world. Scientology – an irrational philosophy - has apparently "produced" more such achievers of that level, from among its closest adherents. And secretly I wonder to myself: is this what the Founder of the philosophy envisioned when she presented it to the world so dramatically? Did she envision a world of discussion groups engaged in endless combative debates over every minute detail of her writings, while clearly remaining stuck in the dark abyss of the Average? Always discussing the meaning and methods of life - but never actually LIVING? And the most troubling of my secret questions: is it possible that no one really understands Ayn Rand? Is it possible that indeed everyone “has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man's actual life--which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world”? Thank you. - Blackdiamond, Founder and President - Zambia Online (www.zambia.co.zm).

Read my last post: Your entire (previous) post was a mis-characterisation of my argument and an attack on several straw men. I did not accuse you of doing this deliberately as I am aware that mistakes are possible. But in your very next post you feel “very annoyed” that your argument has been mischaracterised and you “demand” that this be corrected before you proceed. I will not do that because I do not see the mischaracterization (which is why you could have just corrected me yourself and merely proceeded – like I did). If you do not wish to proceed beyond your ultimatum, then by all means don’t. Sorry, I will not submit to such an unjust "demand".

Unbelievable. You have stolen the words from my mouth, Mr. Forever. As a matter of fact, I think sex should not even be a value (I'm still thinking about this), which means it should not even feature in one's hierachy of values as such. Sex is properly a RESPONSE to values (in another particular person). That person should be valued primarily because of the values he/she possesses - the choices he/she has made to make and keep his soul (virtues). Thus, sex is really the highest physical expression of one's soul. To treat it as anything other than a supremely (and exclusively) important act is to degrade oneself. It is the celebration of one's total soul (with a specially chosen kindred soul), which is why it is totally sacred and divine. It is only with this attitude that you can come any close to understanding what Miss Rand meant when she said: