~Sophia~

To film this documentary a local Vancouverite spend nearly a month living on Vancouver’s downtown east side - 10 blocks known as Canada's poorest neighborhood, known for drugs, crime, and homelessness. At the start of this journey he took his clothes off except for underwear and swum to downtown ... he started with nothing (except for his camera equipment), almost naked, and wet...in December. It is well done, entertaining, and takes a surprising perspective (considering the position such films usually take). It is 65min long but it was worth watching, for me. I highly recommend it.

Another great article by Mr. Steyn Our own Greek tragedy

I wrote about Obama in November of 2008: I draw no pleasure from validation in this case (and sadly this is not the first instance of it). This is a great article (HT: Objectivists on Facebook): Loosing In Fall OK with Democrats if it means they win Healthcare from the article:

What do you mean?

These girls are probably the minority but there you have it... A testament to where "predominantly Catholic" philosophical influence in the culture can lead to. These girls are ideologically lost because their parents are equally without answers. Most moral guidance they received from their parents and society was contradictory and useless. It has been for years even before the fall of Communism. Man would sell out his brother to the authorities in exchange for a washing machine. Stealing from the place of employment was almost metaphysically given and everyone had "their price" - it was just a matter of how high. I don't see much difference between that and these girls. Problems in Poland are few generations in scope. No pride, no sense of honor, no integrity... and the list goes on. I agree. Just one of the symptoms. Post - Communist society lacking reality based ideological guidance. See what they have to offer as a solution? ..... more of the same Nothing. Well yes there were no malls in existence and only vinegar on a shelf in a grocery store. Yes that... does sound great!

Oh.. Thank you . I had a great day (great week actually). Thanks again.

A graphic designer friend of mine from NJ, as a part of his portfolio, redesigned US currency. I think he did a good job. Do you like it?

I am glad to see it as well. Is it because the work is directly physically experienced for athletes - that it is harder to ignore the individual aspect? Physical pain is not shared and that makes it more clear who is doing the work. Also, the otherwise collectivism driven society seems to be more accepting of crediting one's individual effort for success in sports thus you hear that from athletes more often. We don't get the same type of acknowledgment from actors or singers, for example (it is God, or family, or lucky stars). Very true. Someone but also many do this to themselves.

It seems almost unfair to single someone out of the the winning Olympians but I found Lindsey Vonn's gold medal performance yesterday especially inspirering. She handled the pressure of grand expectations well and won despite her recent serous injury (if you watch it closely she was protecting her sore shin throughout the run and reached the finish line on a one ski). What a fighter! (And she has done something similar before on more than one occasion). Then to see her elation afterwards... awesome moment. :)

Wow!

Hannah Kearney was absolutely amazing yesterday. Skiing last, under tremendous pressure - she delivered 30 (or so) sec of pure perfection.

I have been a great fan of winter sports and Olympics since early childhood. It originated with the influence of my maternal grandfather. He was a great winter sports athlete in his youth and later in life used political influence to build a sports complex facility in his city. This was not his primary job (he was a banker) but every free minute he had was spend coaching young raising athletes. After he died people named that building with his name. My mother grew up under his influence and then passed the same passion to me and my sister. My mother taught me every winter sport I know. We would travel for two hours one way by public transit just to go skating. My mother to this day can ski better than I do (I have never been particularly great at sports - where are those grandfather's genes? haha ). So, as you can imagine winter Olympics has been quite an event in my family. I have seen every games since I can remember. I think looking back the spirit of the games - the strive for greatness, the effort of fairness, significantly influenced my positive sense of life. The idealism did not end for me after the 16 days were over very four years - I carried it to my every day life. I also credit figure skating for shaping my sense of esthetics. And now the city I live in is hosting winter Olympics. I work two minutes from the Olympic village my father helped to build. I am quite emotional in a good way. :)

misjudgment

Hmmm... What is the difference between parents receiving public subsidies and then paying for child care (you may not even know that they do) and those subsides going to the child care provider openly with the parents covering the difference? She does not have to accept those kids I guess but other than that is she the one seeking subsidies?

You enjoy those who agree and praise you but you are dismissive and almost hostile to those who disagree. The fact that you can come up with a psychological explanation that fits your point of view it does not mean that that is the only possible scenario. You only see it as the only scenario due to your narrow definition of the concept - but that is exactly what is being disputed. As I mentioned, there was not much to refute in what you said. I already made my objections and explained why. My point is that you have to dig dipper into how one arrives at being a second hander. The contradiction here is yours. You did agree that a second hander is not an egoist yet in light of the fact that that there are only two alternatives - you fail to resolve this issue. It is not my motivation to change your mind at this moment - going back and forth for few more pages would not have done so (especially that you have indicated at the very beginning that you are already convinced that you are right). You have to arrive at the right conclusion on your own and I pointed you to the sources that can help.

I took a note of it and I responded. You are not wrong - just incomplete in your understanding of altruism and second handishness. I encourage anyone who is following our exchange here to go and read the sources I provided. This is an uncalled for - cheap shot. You continuously have this tendency of including disrespectful comments that add nothing to the discussion but make one regret getting involved in a conversation with you in a first place. That is why people leave the discussion and not because they are "bad debater".

Yes, sometimes it is not easy and mistakes are made but as long as your standard of judgment is the correct one - you have a chance. Life requires continuous re-evaluation. If a mistake was made: you did what you thought was right at the time or you took a chance and it is not working out as expected - you take steps to correct it. Guided by the right standard, self honesty, and courage, you will be moving in your life toward happiness despite the mistakes. But if you start from the position that your goal should not to be to satisfy the self or you have no courage to do what is right for you and you are dishonest with yourself - you got no chance. Not all values - integrity, for example. But yes often that is how it plays out - that is where value judgment comes in. There are two separate concepts here: the value of money (which, as an object of trade, is an objective value) and the particular to you mode or rate of obtaining money. The fact that this particular choice in regard to money ended up being not the right one does not change the objective value of money and thus the fact that you should engage in some type of productive activity to prosper. It does not have to be in this city doing this job. It does not mean that you should pursue maximum monetary gain at the expense of your other values. Again, repeated personal re-evaluation is needed. One can be honestly mistaken about what a value for them is. Going back to Keating - that was not the case with him. His desires were peaking through and he had Roark around him. In his case, he continuously betrayed himself.

Your definition of altruism and what you think is its manifestation is too narrow. “The Nature of the Second-Hander,” For the New Intellectual, page 70

There is no circularity. The right thing is what is life promoting - an objective standard. Some of the values are more universal, others more personal but in every case a value is what is making your life rationally better. In an essay "Isn't Everyone Selfish?" in VOS it is explained that a chosen action is not necessarily selfish (a value) merely because it is chosen. What matters is the motivation behind the choice. I would call the first one a goal of an action but in order to conclude that it is a value you have to judge it against a rational standard.

You also have to look at the motivation behind the actions. To the bone altruist may choose to do something for the sole reason that they don't value it.

What you said shows lack of connection between many concepts. As a response, I provided you with sources that would help you and others to bridge them all into a whole but I won't do the work for you. I am not interested in addressing all of the misunderstandings. -------- What kind of morality, what standard of judgment one would have to be guided by in order to come to the point of lacking self? --------

I admire your courage to show your work here knowing that it will receive mixed reviews at best. I like your style. If you want to appeal to Objectivists your message has to be positive, inspirational, integrated. A great artist is a great thinker. You don't have to draw figures full of anatomical details. If you can say something worth saying with simplicity - it would be impressive. I would buy it. The more profound the message - the more precisely translated into visual form - the better the art. That is hard to find. So be clear about what is that you are trying to say and analytical about how all of the elements support that message. It does not have to be obvious (I like that it was not with few of your pieces). Think of your audience as smart enough to get it but it has to be intelligible in the end.

Some people go to medical school and often finish with top marks not because that is what they have passion for and truly want to do but because that is what is going to make their parents proud - that is what the society deems as great success. Their self esteem is strongly dependent on other's evaluation of them and so they choose and pursue goals, often with great determination, that would allow them to achieve high level of acceptance. They choose goals not based on what they love but based on what other people consider success. Other's evaluation is more important than their own self. They do this because they have no strength to accept perhaps a more modest life for themselves doing something they would truly love but with less social prestige. These people are not selfish or independent but selfless and dependent - even though appearing very successful. This is altruism. Dependency is always at the expense of self. There is no other way. Then to protect the self that still exist they have to engage in self deception. -------------- Again, there are only two alternatives. Independence or dependence. There is no such thing as a second hander-individualist.

I have already provided a source of information about the connection between altruism and second handishness. This is one of those integrations that does not happen at the first glance. For the New Intellectual is a good source. If you wish to understand it - please read it. I have no interest in repetition.

I have already answered that question. Search for Cliffsnotes on Keating for a better understanding of this character. I would read them all because it looks to me that you have missed major points about a few of Rand's characters.