Matthew J

I have purchased the book The Truth About Addiction and Recovery for some personal inconsistencies and I rather enjoy it. It spends an awful and rather annoying portion of the book simply defending its premise that addictions are diseases. "Okay! I believe you! Get on with it!!" But after that it was rather useful. Much better than most in that respect. So, thanks for the referral. It was pretty cheap too.

Because once I've fully integrated it, I'd be the completely moral man. I think its going to take me a long time to be perfect to the extent that I'm that consistent.

I've also made the mistake of claiming the title of Objectivist falsely, but it was in ignorance. However, I believe that the thinking displayed by the friend in the origional post is much more damaging than the guy threatening to ban people off of O'ism.net I believe its much more common, in any case. I would also like to completely agree that although it is relatively simple to understand some aspects of Objectivism, it would take a lifetime to fully and accurately integrate it. Fortunately, I'm very fond of integrating.

You're absolutely correct that for being a heroic being of happiness (or of the actualization of rational values) that John Galt would probably top the list rather than Frisco. However, I meant that Frisco was the exemplary hero of "this idea" meaning the idea of the pancapable (I'm pretty sure I just made that word up) man. Incidentally, I've just visited my library's website and put a hold on every single one of the books mentioned in the thread. I'm extremely fond of the library as I go there so often and am close personal friends with 5 of the librarians. ... That has nothing to do with this thread, but I enjoy saying it. Nerdular Nerdence. *cough* Pardon me.

Wow, I got here a bit late didnt I... Everything I wanted to say has been said so, Hear Hear! Except, I think the real examplary of this idea would not be Howard Roark, but Francisco D'anconia. He was good at everything he did, and he did most things. There's a man with specialisation, and at the same time, could do every single one of the things on that list I'd wager. Not only do them, but do them superlatively. After all, he's Francisco D'anconia. I'm actually a bit interested in reading some of Heinlein's fiction. Would you recommend him as an author?

As a part of the christian minority, though not speaking for all of it, I must heartily protest the idea that there is no purpose for God or the christian standard of morality. God's purpose is stated as thus "This is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" and the fulfillment of this purpose brings him a very selfish joy. The purpose of morality in my life is to bring me joy. Ethics is the science of defining rules of behavior for myself which will make me a better person (or bring me values) and when I am a "good person" (or have Values) I will nescesarily have Joy (If I am rational and they are rational values). This, I believe, is the view held by many objectivists, though attained through radically different means. i.e. a non-belief in God vs. a belief in God. Therefore my standard of morality does have a purpose, though I must admit it is not the same as other christian standards of morality.

Ah yes, another reason I love Idaho. a Luxury apartment in Boise is 600-800 a month. Moscow would be cheaper I imagine. Oh, and yes, I am very seriously considering UI. My best friend attends there. I would very much enjoy being around him more.

hmm, well okay. Firstly, I am an intelligent able bodied caucasian male. Yeah... no scholarships there. Second, I have 2,000 dollars and maybe another 2 in assets that I can liquidate. I can have maybe 7 or 8 grand more by august. not much more than that certainly. My parents will give me 2 grand for my first semester then I'm on my own. So thats my financial situation. Just thought I should clear that up.

Its about dang time too.

Very helpful.. I was stressing alot about the undergrads and I can see now that alot of it was unecesary. UofI ISU and BSU are definately more conveniently located, and if they can "not suck" at the same time, I'll welcome it. Good advice so far, thanks guys. I'll keep checking back in case theres a local gem of O'ist professors I'm unaware of.

This past November, I applied via early action to MIT. I was hopeful, though not in any way certain of being able to attend this fall and fulfill my dream. I knew it was unlikely, because despite my 32 ACT and 148 IQ (and Mensa membership) my GPA of 3.2 finally did me in and I was of course rejected. Looking back, I'm not very surprised at all. In any case, the time is drawing very close that I must choose a second and I'm not very excited about any place in particular. Please suggest some schools in the northwest US (pref. in Idaho or one or two states away) that has a good business and tech school. Being a student of Objectivism, I'd very much like if it were an atmosphere that rewarded such an attitude. Thank you in advance for the advice, I wish I had asked a month sooner and gotten this out of the way.

Because people got dumber and quit buying them. I saw a documentary on G4 gaming channel. however, if you liked DOTT (and who wouldnt??) you should get psychonauts. made by the same guys under a different name: Double Fine Games. Its hilarious. check it out.

I love introduction threads

I have recently stopped attempting to defend the entirety of my religion on objectivist forum, however I will attempt to defend myself to some degree on this point, especially as it is a thread about me. All I have to say to this is that I am much too personally happy to believe it of myself. Upon examining the Joy that I have felt nearly every day for the past few months, I do not feel it is guilted or in any way diluted, but genuine happiness which, as you know, comes only from "the attainment of rational values" -Ayn Rand. This is not proof in any sense and recognize that my happiness is fallible, but I certainly find it to be good enough. If I ever feel a guilt of evasion, I will certainly change something about my life until I am this happy again. Dark Unicorn, Thank you for your kind post. I enjoy being here exactly because the majority of the members are intelligent and well read. I have no intention of leaving, only of being a bit less beligerant and more mindful of myself.

Absolutely. Of course, I will comply. Thank you.

I have recently received notice that my defenses have been overly audacious in addition to being against forum rules. In interest of maintaining excellent relations with a group of people that I still have a great deal in common with, I would like to respectfully end my participation in this thread, as I do not feel I would be able to continue and maintain a decorum. Also, I have concluded that my attempt to defend the LDS church in this thread, though dealing specifically with said church, was misguided, and perhaps even improper. I will however continue to post in areas of the forum that are less... perhaps confrontational for me. I still love this community and am very excited about sharing information with all of you. Please do not construe this as a failure to further explain my position, as you must suppose that such a defense would be impossible to carry out entirely. I merely wish to obey the wishes of the community's moderators (and thus the community) and stop picking fights in your own house. This also was unintentional, though it should have been obvious to me. It was not. Edit: I would still very much enjoy a discussion of LDS epistemology, ethics and to a lesser degree, metaphysics and politics via PM's and E-mails should any wish to pursue one.

I can conceive of a great many truths without seeing them. A man who believes something without reason is worse than a fool. And a man who believes nothing without direct perception is bound in concretes and will never learn to count. Thats why my tool of Reason allows me to integrate what I perceive into concepts which allow me to understand a corrolary truth without perception. Also, a belief in things which are not seen Or true, is not merely "false faith" but is not faith at all and cannot be applied to any sentence in any scripture, much less any argument I may put forth in the future using the word. Merely believing something isn't going to earn anybody any happiness in this life, much less any kind of reward in a here-after. I have no interest in having a belief in anything but a truth. It will do me no good for I have denied reason by substituting belief. My faith is a belief in things which are celebrated by my reason and will always do if my faculty of reason is being correctly used. I accept no Faith-Truth dichotomy. which is to say I cannot accept a Faith-Reason dichotomy. I understand this may be outrageous to some, but I firmly believe that it could only be if my definition and application of faith are misunderstood. If this is the case, please send all personal insults, smears, or improper questions to my PM folder or email address. And again, thank you mrocktor for your respectful discussion of ideas. I am coming to appreciate it more and more.

Firstly, you are correct in regards to my status as an Objectivist, and I apologize for my Naivete. It has recently come to my attention that I cannot rightly call myself an Objectivist simply because I value reason, self-esteem, motivation, life and intelligence. Indeed, a 100% agreement seems to be required. So, thank you for correcting me, however improperly implying slander on my part. If any slander was done, it was in ignorance. As for the rest, I would like you to read the posts above and ask yourself why there is not a single proper question, fact or coherent argument in the whole lot of drivel, which I could only classify as a smear. I did not suspect it of people who emulate Ayn Rand. Tnunamak, thank you for your question, and I shall respond to it. It is true that sight is our primary tool of perception, but reason allows us to integrate them into conceptions that will give us knowledge outside that of our perceptions. For instance, I have never perceived the police protecting freedoms of individuals from criminals, but I Have studied the laws that govern my people and the codes of behavior the police follow and have faith that they do it and probably on a regular basis. This is very different context than a faith in God you might argue, but it is still a valid use of the word Faith as define above. I have faith that God has a perfected body of flesh and blood, though I have never perceived it, I have studied scripture and the perceptions of the nature of consciousness and existence and have concluded that it is true. that, in both instances, is faith. For those I may offend, please send all personal insults to my PM box or my E-mail address. I did not believe I had reason to expect any until now. All proper questions and arguments directed at myself may be posted here, on a different thread, or sent to myself as you please.

Thank you for your concern for offense, I assure you none was taken. You are absolutely correct to assert that A has to be A despite any rationalization. However, my reconciliations in definition are being falsely described as thus. What it means is that words litterally have different definitions in the two factions. When a Mormon says that God loves all mankind equally and is Just, they are telling the truth, even though an Objectivist would say that no one could love all mankind equally and be just and be correct as well. this is because of the definitions. For a Latter Day Saint, Love is "a care and devotion for the eternal well being of the person". A God could have equal care and devotion for everyone's eternal salvation and be just. however, no man could have equal love for all men and be just if you use the Objectivist's definition of love which is (paraphrasing for lack of my lexicon) an admiration and respect for a person in payment for the values which they possess. Indeed, a rational and well studied Mormon will agree that God could never love all men equally in that way, becuase it would not be just and God is perfectly just. That is a reconciliation in definition. I did not rationalize. I did, however, point out a case in which an Objectivist would rightly condemn a Mormon doctrine for the sole fact that the words meant something different to them. An Objectivist who did not study the book of mormon would be rightly outraged when confrotonted with any number of statements about faith, unless he knew what faith meant in the book of mormon. They are outrageous, when taken out of context, wich I know that nobody would desire to do. But I digress. this is not the place for this. Again, please PM me with your concerns or start another thread where I will be happy to address them, if they are proper questions or concerns like the one you have posed. Edit: A full discussion of Pos-humous baptism belongs on a seperate thread, not on my introduction, and I will be happy to oblige if there is a sincere interest in my defense of it as a genuine and rational practice. however, I will be unable to do so tonight. If such desires exist, please pm me about them.

Yes. I too know a great deal of irrational, and alot of (to be honest) really dumb mormons. If I didnt, I'd be on a mormon forum instead of an Objectivist forum. However I am not one of them. I square quite easily actually. When reading all of Rand's works, the only tenet that I discounted was that God doesn't exist. Everything else is exactly similar with some reconciliation in definition. As I state in all posts regarding religion, please PM me with particulars or start a new thread and i will address all supposed inconsistencies there. Again, I do not desire to pick fights or convert. I'm simply confident in my assessment of reality. Edit: Caps

i certainly hope its not common among objectivists. this is one of the few points ive brazenly disagreed with Rand on. Cigarettes are number 2 on my list of stupid things not to do to my body. what causes this kind of thinking is, i think, hero worship. Ayn Rand is my Hero. but i wont smoke just because theres a dollar sign on my cigarette.

So many rational human beings in one place excites me. Salutations Peers!! I mean really. I'm surrounded by alot of people who just dont get it. I keep expecting them to snap out of it, but in vain. willfully ignorant, subjectivist, determinist, irrational gits, most of them. its Great to find so many people who love reason as much as i do. Already, you are much more so my peers than they could be. as is probably unavoidalbe, youve likely noticed my name is Matthew. the J doesnt stand for anything. thats why i cart it around so much. its just one letter long. I am 19 years old, and something of a junior Objectivist Scholar. ive read every work published by Ayn Rand herself, and almost all of her post-humous publications as well. I've always been pretty darn rational, having been raised to glory in reason and competence in the LDS church of which I am still a member. O'ism eliminated some inconsistenices in my personal life and gave me intellectual ammunition to articulately define my views. i didnt have to change much. after about 6 months of constant reading, i began to teach, and have gotten several people interested in Objectivism, because naturally, they want to be happy. I'm looking forward to talking with all of you, and welcome Eagerly any personal message, email or IM conversation that comes my way. i can always use more friends, and theyre in short supply sometimes. My favorite book of Rand's is the Virtue of Selfishness, and my favorite concept is the benevolent universe premise, which i heartily exercise in my life. I love to work, and I love to date. but most of all, i Love to learn. thanks for reading this. in fact, thanks for being here. thank you for your metaphysical life view. really.

I've a few things to establish. firstly, I am an Objectivist, And LDS (Mormon). If you would like to point out the obvious problems that you see, please pm them to me. I rather enjoy them and would love to put your mind at ease about me. however, on this thread i am only interested in in rebuttals of facts i lay out here. This is inaccurate, for both then and now. for the sake of my grammar, i will speak in the present tense. It is true that the "saints" are able to receive revelation from God. or that "god can talk to any "saint" directly". however, he is Not able to receive revelation concerning anyone but himself, his family if he has one, his ward if he is a bishop, and for the church only if they are the sustained prophet, seer, and revelator of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. If a man claim to have been told by God something about anyone outside of his authority, he is lying. the article's link was dead when i found it. do you have another? otherwise I am unable to answer any problems put forth. however, it was also said: therefore, I am led to believe that the article addressed the book of Abraham that Joseph Smith purportedly translated. I am inferring that it might discuss such problems as when the scrolls were later recovered and translated by actual linguists and found to say something completely dissimilar, for instance death rites and portions of the book of the dead. if this is indeed the case, i would ask you to consider some facts. firstly, there were scrolls that were exactly that. second, Joseph Smith translated those as well and considered them unimportant. the Book of Abraham was seperate, and the scroll(s) it was taken from are unavailable. you may see this as too convenient or not, as you wish. finally, this is also innacurate of the LDS church. Faith is defined by a prophet in the book of mormon (ask me for a reference in a pm if you genuinely care, which i dont suppose) as "Belief in things which are not seen but which are true" which does not automatically or even usually include any irrationalities. You've been fed inaccuracies. if you disagree with me on any particular point, i am confident i will be able to answer it to your satisfaction. i do not however wish to convert anyone, defend the entirety of LDS doctrine or scripture, or any one person who belongs to the church. this just happens to be a story i have researched and had my doubts answered to satisfaction by facts, not by what someone else told me. i do not generally hold a high opinion of south park. i have not seen it, do not plan to, and would not consider it an accurate depiction of so much as a hot dog, much less a complex system of belief such as "Mormonism" or "Objectivism" if they ever chose to do so. Post Script: I do not wish to pick fights. i look forward to amiable relationships with all. I assure you I am a lover of reason and self esteem, as well as Ayn Rand's works. I just happen to find the LDS church to be compatible with reason, selfesteem, and Objectivism so far as the premise "God Does Not Exist" is removed. a full support of this would require a book, which i am writing. please offer all rational refutations of my beliefs in PM or on a seperate thread. again, i would very much like to be friendly with all rational individuals, which i know to be true of almost all of the people who post on this forum. i do not anticipate too many problems.

i did not mean that some people have rational faith and others have irrational faith. i mean that one christians defintion of faith is different from many others and is definately different than an objecivists definition. when a person says he has faith, you cannot immediately label him as irrational until you identify his conception of faith. for instance, it would be irrational to have faith if it were defined as "belief without reason". but for my specific church, faith is defined as "a belief in things which are not seen but which are true" and i am perfectly rational when i say i have faith. id give scripture reference to the specific place where that is stated, but i do not believe you care, so please PM me if i am wrong and i will point it out to you. like i said. reconciliations in definition are key. faith doesnt just mean different things to different people, but literally has a different meaning. and also, i expect to take flak over being a theist objectivist who also claims to be consistent. thank you for your concern about confrontation however, and no offense was taken.

I'd like to get this discussion back onto the topic. after dealing with whether the origional poster is avoiding being honest about his grammar or what people are allowed to say, id like to sum up a few sentiments ive noticed that i believe to be most rational. It is critical to understand that taking a drink/bite of anything isnt in and of itself immoral. the origional poster didnt attempt to imply this. It is instead in the intent or desire of the partaker that there must be guilt or innocence. i would refer readers to page 1155 of Atlas Shrugged (plume edition 1999) where John Galt drinks Brandy after his recent torture, having it offered to him by Hank Reardon and Ragnar Daneskjold. But i assure you that his intent was not to get drunk. a desire to get drunk as an evasion is inherantly immoral because it does not add to a person's ability to live effectively on this planet. reason is his tool of survival and only means to happiness, and an evasion of the use of this tool is anti-life. drinking with your friends out of a desire of enjoying their company more fully hardly qualifies. i personally do not drink and plan not to. any lessening of my consciousness is something i do not desire, though i do not go so far as to claim the immorality of anything but its abuse. but then, the etymology would demand that. "It is not any crime you have ever committed that infects your soul with permanent guilt, it is none of your failures, errors or flaws, but the blank-out by which you attempt to evade them. ... fear and guilt are your chronic emotions, they are real and you do deserve them, but they dont come from the superficila reasons you invent to disguise their cause, not from your "selfishness," weakness or ignorance, but form a real and basic threat to your existence: fear, because you have abandoned your weapon of survival, guilt, because you know you have done it volitionally." [Galts Speech, FNI, 221; pb 176]