musenji

An education. It's not about me, but a friend, who has 70k in loan debt after getting a bachelor's and a master's.

So then, say the payment is $100 a month, and the person makes $2,000 a month. The other $1,900 is their money. That was the main question/issue. And yeah, seems like the answer is "yeah. THAT money is theirs."

Simple question. A person owes thousands of dollars in loans. They are paying back the loans monthly, on time. Is the money they earn at their job considered "theirs"? Or is it considered the money of the person that the loan is owed to? The answer does seem obvious upon second thought: it is their money, less the amount per month they are to be paying. Is this right? I just want to clear up my thinking on the subject. [edit] Also, feel free to move this if it's in the wrong place--I didn't think it quite fit under political philosophy either...

I don't know about popular use during the time when she wrote that,* but from my experience, this is off the mark. In popular usage, the word "selfish" indicates not thinking of others, even being willing to slight others, in order to get what you want. Like most adjectives, it has degrees, which this passage ignores. From my experience, being "selfish" is used in "smaller" cases like cheating on one's partner, taking credit for work that is not one's own, or using another person as a "stepstool" to move up in an organization. Nothing about murder, corpses, or not caring at all for other people. She was still, of course, quite correct in making the distinction between that, and "concern with one's own interests", because "selfish" is also used popularly to refer to not being altruistic, when someone wants you to be. *-I do have a Webster's dictionary from 1967, and the definitions were as follows: -"concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself" -"seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others" -"arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others" I'd be interested to know which dictionary she used. [edit] She gave the speech in 1964...it's hard to imagine the Webster's definition changing like that in just 3 years.

Answering this question DOES depend upon what answer one assumes to the question: "What does it mean to be an American?" It used to be that being "an American" meant, in fact, adherance and loyalty to the country and to the values of the founding fathers. Because you had to swear an oath along those lines to live here. But then there was a clash with Roman Catholics living here, because they were also "loyal to the Pope", and you couldn't have two sets of ideals you were loyal to, so there began a process of redefining what it meant "to be an American". For a while it was literally about race. There were quotas of the number of immigrants allowed in. And it kept changing. Now, of course, "being American" just means "living here" to most people, so it's nothing to be proud of, unless it was a choice consciously made in the face of an alternative. A note specifically to the OP: it's not that they saw "what you were up to" and decided to foil your plan. They simply answer more intelligently than you expected them to.

Mr. Stickels, did you read the forum rules? This isn't a forum for just spreading views contrary to Objectivism, which seems to be what you are doing. In order to, as you say, "address the issue at hand", someone would have to agree with you that determinism is factual. Further, you're getting indignant when people oppose you on that point! What you're doing is considered rude at best.

I was sharing a serious idea in the midst of jokes. I guess that wasn't smart.

2046, it's not clear from the phrasing which of the following two statements was meant: Ayn Rand derived her ethics from Aristotle in general. Ayn Rand derived her ethics from Aristotle's religious views.

I would be writing it in latin. What program?

I've actually daydreamed about writing Galt's oath as a motet along the lines of Josquin Des Pres or Bach.

I don't know about Slovenia, but lots of people here are from the internet and can point you toward Amazon.com for when it comes out on DVD (pretty sure Amazon will ship anywhere). ..Ah, boydstun beat me to noting that it will eventually be available on DVD. ah well. Point being, you will get to see it! Just not in the theater perhaps.

Steve that sounds not at all like a sneaking suspicion--much more like conviction.

Ha, that's an interesting case of coming to a correct conclusion for entirely the wrong reason! Just because someone was previously a TV actor doesn't mean they can't do movies. However, in previous talks of making a screen project from the book (mind you YEARS ago, before these actors were even being considered), many, I believe including Rand herself, thought that a mini-series would be the best way to go about it (simply because it would allow for more material).

Well. http://xkcd.com/202/ If someone's taking the advice of YouTube comments over their own judgment, they may already be a lost cause.

Actually, I assume all three films will be made--I just hope the initial showings are successful enough that lots more theaters decide to show the movie. Apparently it's only being showed at roughly 100 theaters in select cities, at first. Here's the facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/AtlasShruggedMovie If you go to the photos section, the "wall photos" album has some stills, which I think look fantastic. There was actually a special 8 minute preview in New York a while back. There are three reviews based on that showing: http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/101208-gleaves-atlas-preview.php http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/101213-cookinham-atlas-preview.php http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/101220-albanesi-spirit-atlas-shrugged.php Based on those reviews I am MUCH more optimistic about the movie; throw in the stills, and I'm actually excited.

I thought it would be appropriate to start a new thread regarding the coming movie, since the current sticky thread is mostly about the rumors and failed productions over the years. imdb page with billed cast Despite what reservations I have, I certainly hope it does well enough to expand beyond its original release.

Don't you mean three parts? From the official site: "For the millions around the world who have read Rand's books, for those curious about her controversial philosophy, and for the uninitiated, and skeptical - the film, which only covers the first third of the book, is an opportunity to a faithful adaptation." (emphasis mine)

Wow. I watched it and then clicked on a link from that window, to the video "Is this normal? Ask the Profile Police" where he and a female partner go through a person's profile and help with a question regarding online dating. After seeing him rant like that for so long, it almost completely weirded me out to see him discussing something else in a calm manner, with a female cohost to boot. The contrast was startling. It reminded me of an old Will Ferrell sketch, heh. Actually it made me wonder if that's an Australian thing--guys are hella angry by temperment, but "in the presence of a lady" they hold it in? I dunno. Though to OP, he did note in the video that she wrote some essays and political tract, which qualifies as acknowledging her non-fiction. Still though, unbelievable rant. I don't know if I'd categorize him as a "common" type of Rand critic. ;-) Love the second poster, Bond.

...Am I the only one who thinks OP was trolling? I mean, basically he's posting a smear article, thinly veiled as a question. Even the question is loaded and a smear in itself. [edit] Maybe I'm totally wrong. I don't know.

Let's start with the fact that Objectivism holds that it is right, and if you disagree with it in any essentials, you are incorrect. Objectivism also holds that an error of knowledge is not immoral, but an error of intent/rationality IS immoral. Objectivism assumes, then, that anyone who disagrees with it is either: 1. ignorant of some salient fact about reality or Objectivism, OR 2. immoral. It therefore further holds that if an ignorant person is presented with the salient fact and refuses to change his mind, he is evading, and therefore immoral. (Unless some OTHER fact that he's unaware of prevents him from agreeing.) Basically, if you're in an ongoing discussion with an Objectivist who presents Objectivism accurately and answers all your questions correctly, then you are immoral if you fail to eventually agree with Objectivism. Forumfolk, is this an accurate presentation?

Ah, I should clarify. It wasn't a musical as in "on stage school musical". It was a performance of songs that I and my friend had written ourselves. We both sang and played guitar among other things and had set up a two-man show together. The lyric in one of the songs that he'd written was "I'd never known true love's hand--something God alone can send." I was singing the line in harmony with him. I knew about the lyric the whole time, as we had practiced the song many times. What changed was that I read the Fountainhead a few weeks before the show came. Which was when I decided that 1. I was definitely an atheist and not just agnostic and 2. I couldn't "sanction" the idea that only God can send love. It's been nine years since then, and I don't remember if that was the only thing in the show I had a problem with. Obviously I still could've handled it in a much better fashion, but handling it better would've required not being "Toohey-paranoid". *** Clearly there's a difference between trying to be Howard Roark and wanting to live like Howard Roark (or any of Rand's heroes). Failure to abstract ideas properly is a key problem, as is failure to hold values in a hierarchy, as opposed to intrinsicism. I think there's a parallel between this, and Francisco's money speech: "If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him." I think the same could be true of powerfully affecting ideas. If they're bigger than one's capacity to analyze and hold in context, they take over. [edit] This is a totally moot point but he wrote the song about a girl. Just to be clear.

***Mod Note: Split from this thread.*** Sapere, I agree that is an important distinction to make. Academia: One huge point is that she never submitted her works for peer review. That other Objectivists have since, doesn't change the fact that she didn't. Another point is that Objectivism is defined in the "proper" circles as HER philosophy and hers alone, where other philosophies are considered to have many contributors/proponents. Many people who come to call themselves Objectivists read the novels first, and quite often agree through emotional identification or catharsis rather than logical, reasoned judgment of the philosophical material. No other philosopher as far as I know uses fiction to delineate "official" philosophy. However, I do remember Plato's Allegory of the Cave. ...I suppose some do use stories, then. Mainstream society: Her writing is very polemic and easily comes off as harsh. Most people are turned off by "harsh", especially if they feel they're being targeted. This has a doubly negative effect, as word of mouth matters. People tell their friends how bad it is, their friends read just enough to pick up on the polemic writing, and denounce it based on the rest of what they've heard. Rand is an extremely mischaracterized writer, probably because people who don't like her after 2 or 3 chapters feel so turned off that they don't want to read any more. Those who have just read her writing and agree with it tend to also come off as unnecessarily "harsh". This, I think, is partially due to mimicking of character traits without understanding the values or alternate situations. Thus the "I AM HOWARD ROARK" syndrome you talked about. Rand does focus the light on morality in an age when people "just want to have fun". It is genuinely harder to live a life with focused values. ****** A few anecdotes about "I am Howard Roark" syndrome... ****** When "I was Howard Roark" (senior year of highschool), I refused to eat some food a friend's mom offered to me unless she let me pay her. One time someone said, in regard to a comment of mine, "Hey, give him a break." I said, "I don't give breaks." I dropped out of a musical duet show I loved, and on which I'd been working on very hard with my friend, because there was a religious reference in one of the songs he'd written. We were only a couple weeks from the concert--I said something about not owing him my life. I apparently called one of my friends a vampire. I don't remember the incident, but I certainly don't doubt it. In college, I spurned most people because I went to a religious college. I basically became anti-social, constantly suspecting people of being "evil" and trying to subvert me. Whether I was "sanctioning their immorality" was of paramount importance in my mind. I know a girl who, having read The Fountainhead while in Europe, came back and told her boyfriend, "I didn't miss you, and I don't think you should've missed me either."

Xall, it seems like for the second quote, whatever came right before it would be relevant. It's written in a way that implies they were just talking about her view on referents, and some definition she gave...and possibly even offered an alternative view. All this is speculation without having read it myself, though. I'll look it up. ...yep, they were. Okay, so wait. Basically here she's saying that while a concept contains the entire meaning of its referents, a definition doesn't contain the entire meaning of a concept. Part of the definition of X is to distinguish it from Y. Let's say a thing comes along, and qualifies under the current definition of X, but is clearly not X, due to an attribute previously thought "unessential". So now you alter the definition of X to exclude the new thing. Another part of the definition of X is to group it with other X. Let's say a thing comes along and doesn't qualify under the current definition of X (due, again, to an attribute previously thought unessential), but clearly belongs as X. Then you alter the definition to include the new thing. I know it's a tangent, but I'd LOVE to see a couple concrete examples of this happening. Or even examples of how it could happen, with concepts we already know. *** Anyway, Jay, I think that's exactly their point--if we DO talk about unicorns, or anything that doesn't have referents, that represents an "analytic" statement, and we therefore can't claim to reject the analytic/synthetic dichotomy, as Rand does. If you don't care, why are you reading and posting in this thread in the first place? ;-) [edited to add info cause no one else said anything yet.]

Actually, the fact that there is a society attempting to get her to be considered acceptable, shows that she isn't already accepted. You would have to define what you think "taken seriously" means. I don't think there would have to be courses designed to study just her, but I do think being taken seriously would at least mean being studied in appropriate philosophy courses across the nation, such as 20th century philosophy, theories of ethics, etc. As such, as far as I know, she is not taken seriously, and the question is valid. (Or was, as it was stated in 2007. The OP doesn't appear to be around anymore.)

I've heard about my local government holding auctions for houses where the owners failed to pay their property taxes. If a person is prudent, they can scoop a house up for, say, $1000, plus the sum of the unpaid taxes. What does Objectivism have to say about purchasing a house that was repossessed, due to the owners not being able to pay taxes? Is it immoral to purchase such a house, taking advantage of the force that the government initiated on the owner?