Olex

This was the part at the end of the book, where Gail had began to fall apart mentally, losing many of his rational virtues. At this point, Roark did not judge quite the same way as he would usually do others. He did not follow his judgement precisely, but gave Gail benefit of the doubt, allowing him for more layaway then he would give many others. Roark did change his mind after seeing how Gail fall apart, pretty quickly. I do not have the book with me for the moment, but I do recall Ayn Rand stating that Roark gave Gail something that one gives only to those one loves - extra chances (I don't recall the exact phrase here). I will look it up once I get my hands on The Fountainhead again. One cannot in such case. Yes, I agree with that.

In Russian: "Opera Bednyaka"

What are the copyright issues involved here? And if there are any, how do you plan to handle them?

Here is a historical point. Consider that in the most rational society before America, Ancient Greece, nakedness was not a problem at all. It was praised in many forms in art, and in sports (the great Olympic games). Rome carried some parts of this culture and view on naked body. However, with the coming of the Dark Ages and Christianity, this has been taken apart, and replaced with what we have now. Then with the coming of Renaissance, that view was revived again. Here is another interesting point, this time from USA: length of shorts in basketball. It used to be pretty short in 60s, but then it came back to longer shorts as they have now. (Food for thought.)

There is an article in Virtue of Selfishness. It's called "Isn't Everyone Selfish?" It tackles your question. Have you read it? If not, I suggest you find it and read it as it has the answer. The key here is the trade of values. If one gives up a greater value for a lesser one, then it is not selfish, but selfless. Another article I suggest is another one from VoS: "The Ethics of Emergencies." This one covers actions and their evaluation in emergencies, such as the one you just gave (a firefighter goes into a burning building to save a person). Keep in mind that a firefigter gets paid.

Let's say we are looking to describe something. Something we do not know completely yet. Let's say we use name 'f' to describe a property of that something. Let's say we have found through analysis that 'f' must be of the quadratic form. Now, this gives only a portion of the answer. Read on to the next quote for continuation. And the question of validity is now to find the proper coefficients for 'f' that match the properties of something that we are analysing. "f=x^2+Ax+9" means we found some of them, but one is still missing, 'A'. Once we find 'A' we can check if our caclulations were correct, i.e. 'f' does indeed properly describe the property. This entire process makes 'f' either true or false. This depends if it matches reality or not. This is what I meant with Is this difference that one can not ask if a definition is true or not? I don't see the point here. Does it mean that one cannot ask if something is true or false before the judged statement is spoken first? If so, I don't see the point of it. Of course, one cannot analyze something before it is given for the analysis. Did this statement come as a response to something in my post?

I second Sophia on this one. Getting one's hands on Objectivism can produce awesome results, that are clearly visible to introspection. And one might wish to have found it much early. And maybe even thank the person who finally pointed it out of the whole bunch of useless stuff in modern and past philosophy. However, it is still your achievement. Objectivism takes a great deal of mental work, energy, and courage to parse and intergrate. Your work on this matter cannot compare to another person simply pointing in the right direction (of Objectivist philosophy). That said, you, offtotheright (what a weird name), did not specify how much help you got. If the help was of a great deal, such as the quality of articles and books of Ayn Rand, then some degree of gratitude is in order. However, reading through above posts, do not lead me to such conclusion. The tough part here are the details and the correct calculation of how much do his actions (related to Objectivism discovery, its introduction, etc.) worth if at all. ---- This reminds of Roark giving an extra chance to Gail Wynand in the end of the book. (Ask me to clarify if you don't know what I mean) ---- The following has not been answered directly in any of the threads. It sounds like communication is a real problem here. Some points discussed above are done with half-guesses, instead of the replies received from the guy. There must be something here, as I can't imagine a situation where a relationship can go on with such an obstacle. Is there? EDIT: clarifications and spellings

Your question is far too generic for a decent answer. Which acts of them exactly do you consider as selfless? And which things do you consider that they get and give when considering the judgement of their actions?

Now, this is just missing the point of the money. First of all, about working and losing money: there is a big difference between philosophical value and monetary value. One is made by those who understand reality the best, thus capable of better judgement, then the other side, society, which gives its own value. These two are not the same, and must not be mixed together. Second, work does not equal earning money. One earns money through trade. If you have nothing to offer or no one trades with you, you get no money.

These questions are answered in OPAR and Objectivist articles that discuss concept-formation. The short answer is 'It does not contradict, it extends'.

What do you mean by essentially different? Peikoff states that those are different in the way how they are defined. They are still concepts. I don't see how invention breaks anything. Invention is in the field of man-made. Let's say we have an object that helps a man perform a certain action better. This means an inventor already had a given action in mind as a concept, and simply created something that improved man's ability to perform that action. Thus, he understood what he was working on. There is no break between concepts and reality here.

Yes, but your approach misses an important point. Here is a quote from OPAR that should guide you. From OPAR, Chapter 3, pg. 96, openning paragraph of "Definition as the Final Step in Concept-Formation":

That is incorrect. Peikoff stated that a human mind must start from percepts, and then move on to build larger and more complex concepts. This does not mean that all concepts must be perceived in reality first.

I meant that this was given within a context of a problem where more information is given, enough to at least say something about 'A'. And in such context, f would be describing something, and the above question of its validity would become valid.

There is another variation of this: 1 additional horizontal bar above the equal sign. It does have a meaning and an answer: "Function f is like that because it was given as such." Context matters here. Compare this to a form, where "f=x^2+Ax+9", and we wish to discover the value of 'A', then the question becomes valid yet again: is f=x^2+8x+9 or f=x^2+9x+9, etc. ?

That would be both. Criminal intent comes from the errors in principle. Criminal consequences come from either errors in principle or from errors in knowledge. Both are errors that initiate physical force, which in turns deprives another of individual rights. Thus, those rights must be protected against those two kind of errors. This is the key here - it is the initiation of force that must be judged and quantified. Intent can be a source. Consequences [in this context] (even without intent) are initiation of force. This is what binds intent and consequences together, and why they come together. I don't have in mind a direct text on degrees of evilness and goodness. However, I did see number of comparisons of the following nature: holding principle A is bad, but holding principle B is worse. This presupposes a possibility of comparing different evils, and thus degree of evilness. The Age of Envy in Return of the Primitive is an example for the above, where it compares envy versus hate of good for being good.

Can one call something an instinct if its bevahior can be overriden or surpressed?

I don't consider it. This was not a direct comparison. It was a metaphor to express outcomes from going against reality.

Btw, Big Bang theory has number of problems and number of variations with some really crazy and funky approaches, which try to stretch it to match the state of affairs in reality. After all, Big Bang was not invented by a scientist per se, but by a Catholic monk, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître edit: spell check

It is "interesting" to see people complain about emotional pain in this situation. Here is a metaphore to illustrate my point. Let's say you've been very bad to one of your teeth. Whatever you wanted to achieve, your actions were irrational towards the health of that tooth. At some point, tooth structure gave out, and the denstist had to do something about it, something that involved some aftermath pain. Would you complain about such pain? And if so, how? Compare it to your current pain. What would be the difference in complaining? What would be the difference in your view towards it? Would you find both equally deserving? Physical pain is not different from emotional. You can't fix it in an instant, and make it go away. Whatever and however you did it, you caused problems to yourself, now you are paying for it. From this point on, you have a choice again: ignore or learn from the mistake.

It's nice to see a correct action being taken. Thanks, JMeganSnow.

Looks like you are not clear on what self-interest is. I suggest I study over it again. It is rational self-interest, not just whatever you can grab to yourself, as you post indicates.

1. I think the facts should be available, since relevant past data does help with determining the individual character. 2. Rewarding good work is good. How can this have a negative impact? If it comes from whims, then it doesn't change the principle's application. 3. Money and fame is good. It is a reward for one's achivement. 4. Too generic without a context. As miseleigh said, if you are capable and could have done it, then the answer is yes, desire wasn't there. Otherwise, no. This also assumes a reasonable goal. 5. I'd like to see proof of this historical claim. Plenty of artists of the past were under-appreciated. 6. I don't think so. Just take a look at the past. English fans were banned for a while after destroying half of a stadion. It is insanely good for profit, though. For example, german brewers had problems supplying enough bear for incoming fans. Not to mention all the money spent on advertisement.

I would check ARI website, where they outline their goal, approach, and progress.

I suggest reading OPAR next. I've found it to be the right progression after Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead. OPAR contains the entire philosophy, without getting into too much detail, so it is nice to get the raw data on entire Objectivism.