LaszloWalrus

He might sound "better and better" but the man is a Libertarian in the worst way: against US self-defense, strangley anti-immigration and anti-abortion, and an apologist for Islamic terrorists.

In my understanding (which is limited in this regard), a lot of pure science IS directly applicable right after is is discovered (Newton's work and Einstein's work, for instance). The joy of discovering new scientific principles and of struggling with hard questions in the sciences is probably an en in itself for many scientists. As far as people who fund science that is not directly applicable, doing so could slake the thirst of those who are interested in the sciences but do not have the aptitude (or the time) to pursue them themselves.

I think it is not only fine, but morally obligatory for doctors to lie to patients in emergencies if doing so increases the patients' chance of survival. Lying is normally wrong because it does damage to one's ability to deal with reality, but in a life-or-death emergency situation, lying is a medical measure that recognizes the fact that the stress of knowing the truth could kill someone (the patient should be told the truth once the crisis is over). Incidentally, doesn't Ayn Rand say something on this subject in Ayn Rand Answers?

Leonard Peikoff has comments on a similar situation: http://peikoff.com/ (scroll down to the question posted on December 1, 2006)

I realize this question was not posed to me, but Objectivism is a "closed" philosophy. That is, no one can add to the philosophy and legitimately call it "Objectivism." However, Objectivism does not exhaust the field of rational identifications in philosophy. So there could still be new rational philosophical principles to be discovered, but these are not part of Objectivism.

Aren't the Marines technically part of the Navy?

Philosophy, Objectivist or otherwise, is best studied under the tutelage of experts.

Let me come to the defense of studying philosophy at university. First of all, there are some fields which any rational person would run screaming from: gender theory, postmodernism, and the like. That such fields exist does not mean that all philosophy other than Objectivism is horrible. For example, Aristotle offers insight after insight into how to think, and in certain cases one can see a sort of proto-Objectivism in his work. Likewise, studying the history of philosophy can give one powerful evidence for the primacy of ideas in shaping history. A few times, when reading the works of a certain philosopher, I came across an idea that sounded objectionable but to which I could not reply. Encountering such ideas and then figuring out what is wrong with them and why helps confirm one's own ideas and shores up one's understanding of Objectivism.

Isn't there a difference also between logical fallacies and argumentative fallacies? Affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent are logical fallacies, whereas ad hominem and poisoning the well are argumentative fallacies.

Welcome.

He only used the veto twice, and supported Sarbanes-Oxley.

I remember looking for Ayn Rand in many cities throughout China (like Beijing, Xian, Chengdu, Chonquing and elsewhere) and only finding her books in Hong Kong.

There have been Buddhist theocracies as brutal as the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic ones. Pre-invasion Tibet was a brutal place that ripped out tongues and gouged out eyes.

I had similar experiences, but not as extreme as yours. (I discovered Objectivism at 16). I think there's a tendency for those new to Objectivism to treat it as an intrincisit list of commandments, rather than a reason and principle based philosophy. It can take years to uproot and dispose of bad premises, and even more years to gain a thorough understanding of Objectivism.

From the Ayn Rand Institute's website: French La Vertu D'Egoisme (collection of essays) Editions Belles Lettres Available on French Amazon.com Nous Les Vivants (We the Living) Rive Droite 58 Avenue De Wagram 75017 Paris France Available on French Amazon.com La Source Vive (The Fountainhead) Librarie Plon Available on French Amazon.com

There are other options as well (like the vest or the pocket square, if one likes these things). Also, assuming one has such shirts, one can choose the buttons to go them and the cuff links to wear. One can also choose to wear a tie stay (and one can choose the type of tie stay to wear). My favorite thing to wear (even more than white tie) is a morning suit.

"Optional value" is a legitimate concept in Objectivism.

If you're talking about studying philosophy at the undergraduate level, then I wouldn't choose a school based on its philosophy department. I also wonder what you mean by "good philosophy departments." If you mean respected philosophy departments, there are quite a few. If you mean rational philosophy departments, I don't think there are that many. Founders College will probably have a great department, since Gary Hull is spearheading it. http://www.founderscollege.com/ I believe the departments of Duke, UT — Austin, and Seton Hall all have Objectivists.

Why The Kinsey Report? A lot of these books are too specific to the twentieth century. I would include Descartes' Discourse on the Method. I would also include The Republic.

I'm hoping to get a free copy. (ARI gives out free copies to those who recommend successful applicants to the OAC). If the price were less, I would have bought this book long ago.

Which "atrocities" are you talking about?

I thought that the part of Exodus where Moses' snake eats the Egyptians' snakes implies that there are many other gods, but that God is dominant over all of them.

I have a problem with you calling it "Objectivist thinking on mathematics." Objectivism is a closed system. At most, you could perhaps call it "An Objectivist's thinking on mathematics." Also, you should not sell it as an "appendix to IOE," without Ayn Rand's permission (which would now be impossible to get).

Children have rights because they have a (developing) rational faculty. Parents have moral obligations to their children because their unilateral actions brought the children into existence. The children were obviously not consulted about whether or not they wanted to be born.

Or perhaps any of Michael Moore's own DVDs. He looks like he'll eat anything.