Jason Fowler

If it weren't for men like Washington and Jefferson, there might not have been such a thing as "American". Even if there were, the meaning of it and what it embodied would be diminished. Their deism hardly diminishes this and, in fact, I think it is very far from representing a significant flaw. As a side-note to this: If this was the greatest American of the 20th century then I'd definately say Ayn Rand, it would be difficult for me to even find a comparison to make. It seems now the nominations have been made and in less than 1 day they will be revealed. Then there will be a vote on these nominees for greatest American. There will be information presented on each nominee and, assuming Ayn Rand makes it, it will be interesting to see what "features" they have of her.

I already nominated her quite some time ago and I think I put Ayn Rand at the top, but now that I think about it Jefferson and Washington should be above her. These men directly laid the foundation for the greatest nation that ever existed.. the most free, individualistic, selfish, proud, and productive. I'd say that puts them at the top as far as greatest Americans are concerned.

I believe it was Tom Delay who claimed "she is still alive... she is still one of us.". That is precisely why it has become a big deal, because there those who actually think Terri is, in fact, alive. According to that conclusion, human life is defined as electrical impulses, random(undetermined) physical motions, response to physical and sensory stimulous, blinking eyes, and a beating heart. It is particularly gruesome to think "living one's life" means having one's body sustained by feeding tube while being oblivious to the fact. All you have to do is tune into Fox, or any other station covering the protestors outside the hospice, to see this. These protestors are even calling the judges involved in the case killers and murderers.

What you are doing seems odd as a starting point... this is like a first project or something correct? I'd be confused too. If you want I can send you source code of some very simple console programs that I made during an Intro to C course. The most difficult one is an arithmetic calculator that accepts integers and a character as an operator.(now that is a good project, fairly straightfoward) I can add comments to the code to help explain some things too.

The "base of knowledge" and knowledge(or epistemology) are not equivalent terms.

Nobody mentioned the Office alternative I use... PC Suite by Software602. Its a mere 29meg download and supports certain office extensions: .doc/.xls In most cases the support is right on, worst case scenario is a slight formating error. The OS I am currently using is a pre-release version of Windows XP x64 Edition and it is flawless. Driver support is low, but it is picking up. I must say it works QUITE well given that it is not even fully supported, and is an unfinished product. I'll take beta Windows over linux any day.

I had a lot of fun playing BG2, my class of choice was a sorceror. Only downside is some aspects of the game were not as dynamic as they appeared. Random encounters during movement from one location to the next only occured early on in the game and after that, were non-existent. The only way to fix this is to download a mod(Tactics) but the ecounters were very frequent and annoying. I can't stand Fallout 1 simply because it is way too easy, but Fallout 2 is great.

In Objectivism the major axioms of logic are existence, conciousness, and identity. Hardly irrational, considering that not only are they the BASIS for logic and rationality but also that Objectivism has much more essential requirements for axoims. Specifically, using "irrational" to describe and reject logic(and its base) is a fallacy known as concept stealing. Logic is not just deduction but induction as well.

Read Philosophy: Who Needs It? A short quote of the title essay: In response to your claim that philosophy is merely a sort of game to impress oneself or others: There are certainly those that treat it as such and should be dismissed as fools, but they have no right to the title "philosopher" to begin with.

I picked up the Ayn Rand Letter, I might get The Objectivist too.

Ayn Rand was a strong atheist at quite an early age. I do not recall her, from then onto her later years, granting any importance to atheism. An assosiate of Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, discusses a bit of what Oakes is saying in regards to the value of atheism in an essay called "Religion vs. America."

The first sentence is true, the second is not. You use the word "acceptable" and I take this to mean accepted by SOMEONE and, in a specific political context, sanctioned by the government. If the government finds it "acceptable" to RETURN a part of the rights delegated to it, then it still has a monopoly on that right.(based on the very fact that it is returning those rights in a certain context, if it had no monopoly it could not make a claim to begin with) This represents an alternative deduction and one that is consistent with Objectivism's definition of government.(i.e. "true monopoly", and namely, proper government) I do not think this is the case. Granted, there is a lengthy disagreement in this thread that is different from this point, but I do not recall anyone making such a claim. Certainly this is not an argument made by Peikoff or Rand. Based on your previous comments this is suprising. You were just speaking of legitimate uses of anti-tank missiles and "weapons that could potentially be used to initiate force on a mass scale." Why exactly would you not be happy with a neighbor owning a WMD?

[i just noticed that Soulsurfer came to the same conclusion ] There is one other option, that is,energy could be used as a medium of exchange. Perhaps I am missing something obvious at the moment but it appears to be a good option. Energy, roughly defined, is the ability to do work and even in a hypothetical futuristic situation work still and always will be needed to be done. (at the subatomic, atomic, and our physical level regardless of what machine is applying the energy)

The trilogies of Lord of the Rings and The Matrix. Gladiator X-Men Spiderman Braveheart Enemy at the Gates The Truman Show

Just recieved my Ayn Rand Bookstore(ARI) catalog as well, and there is quite a bit in there... almost a book in it's own right. The two works by Peikoff that had my attention were 'Principles of Grammar' and 'Philosophy of Education'.

It is not over yet, provisional votes will push the final count back 10 or 11 days. In Ohio the number of those votes mirror, and on a final tally may be greater than, the difference in votes between the 2 candidates in the state.

Put simply: If you are looking for a reason for irrationality, don't, there isn't.

John Galt *is* the concretization of the Objectivist ethics projected through a specific scope: the ideal man within the setting of AS. If you have a problem with how he is expressed then say so, otherwise don't cower behind "he is not a real person". As I see it, you are clearly denying induction in philosophy(ie. sweeping aside concretes and their nature/importance) the validity/role of deduction in art(projecting concepts) and as FC said, hero worship.

My thoughts on the debate: One of the biggest differences this year in the Democratic candidate is in courtesy and personality. Last elections debates had Al Gore killing his chances of winning by being extremely rude and snide.(his physical and facial appearences and "ugh!" sounds every other time Bush made a statement.) Kerry had a rock solid appearence and style to him, except for his gross use of "but" at the start of every few sentences. Content-wise, Kerry was clearly not very strong on foreign policy, particularly with his comments on the US needing to pass a "global test".(specifically, he means that the US must justify its foriegn actions to others outsite its borders) One must wonder how such a test can be passed when "the world" treats us as guilty until proven innocent.

I see your post here is related to another thread on maths. You claimed that all of math is deductive, not true. Put simply, an equation like ohm's law(current = voltage / resistance) is formulated inductively and applied deductively. Ohm's law, or any mathematical proofs for that matter, do not simply exist somewhere written in stone waiting to be found.... that must be discovered by someone. You assume induction is "unsound", how then are these proofs and equations to be formulated? I suggest you study a bit of Objectivist epistemology(OPAR) and look up Rand's/Peikoff's definitions of induction/deduction

Perhaps that is a rhetorical question, but I will point you to an appropriate answer just in case....

Principles of Economics by Carl Menger. Its been awhile since I read it but it is definately a book of principles. Menger goes on, at length and perhaps a bit too much, discussing economic value. He presents an interesting way of classifying economic goods(of higher and lower order), which ultimately reduce to the lowest order(consumption/direct satisfaction). Unlike today's economics, Menger wrote from the economic perspective of MAN rather than men. It may not be an "advanced" text, but it sets the stage for such. As I understand it, the Austrians were influenced by this book. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846

Part 1 Chapter 9, "He" is Hank Rearden and "she" is Dagny: "Desperately", what a great line.

I was trying to get some sense into your usage of the word, perhaps you can let us in on your definition of dogmatism.(the same goes with 'arrogance' as well) Do you think that you might possibly be wrong that Objectivism is dogmatic?

From m-w.com Now who here is making unwarranted assertions? Objectivism has objectivity and reason as its fundamental aspects, if THIS is dogmatic, what then is NOT dogmatic? I see there has been plenty of time for Hannibal to make claims that Objectivism is dogmatic and that he has time to claim that the responses to his posts represent proof of Objectivism's dogmatic nature, but apparently he has no time to provide evidence for the former and further validate the latter. So far it is Hannibal that is making unwarranted assertions and a lack of time changes nothing. Hopefully in due time there can there clear answer as to what exactly is he arguing as well, is Objectivism itself dogmatic or is it just many self-proclaimed objectivists. I have noticed him arguing both ways. As it stands now he has left things quite ambiguous.(does this ambiguity constitute "One element of dogmatism" as well?)