Eurynomus

MERDE! No Atlas, eh? But thanks a lot, Laszlo! I have been looking for those titles, too! You found that on ARI? I didn't even think to look there. Thanks again. And if anyone can find Atlas in French, let me know! Oh wait, nobody is going to find it: Atlas Shrugged, au contraire d'autres romans d'Aynd Rand, n'a jamais été traduit en Français. Nobody ever translated it, apparently.

I was wondering if anybody knows where I could possibly buy the French version of Atlas Shrugged? Or even The Fountainhead? All I have been able to find is Virtue of Selfishness. I suspect Atlas exists in French, because the title is listed on the Wikipedia entry. Anyone know where I could buy it?

I am not OVERLY familiar with this man... for what it's worth, my French professor labelled him, "somewhat of a fascist" ... then again, that might not be worth much, considering my French professor is from France. But there you go, a French perspective on the guy.

No, it wasn't quite as exciting as I had hoped it would be. I have only watched O'Reilly a few times, so I don't know everything there is to know about him, but from what I have heard of the guy, his arguments against Dawkins were just as poor as I expected them to be... Although, doesn't O'Reilly have somewhat of a reputation for going nuts with these conversations? He seemed pretty reserved, and he even gave Dawkins a nod at the end, saying that his book was fascinating, or something like that... Obviously that's expected professional courtesy for a talk show host, but from what I have heard about O'Reilly, he usually doesn't give in to things like that.. And I was surprised to see Dawkins so calm, cool, and collected... but then again, the only other clip I have seen of the man is from that interview he did with Ted Haggard, where he was almost yelling at him.

ahhh gotcha -- because I always come across videos that have been deleted on YouTube due to copyright infringements... RIP Chronic(what)cles of Narnia... But you're probably right about the O'Reilly thing-- and it just occured to me that maybe Dawkins will post it on his website.

Right, thanks. ... so FoxNews doesn't have any copyrights that will prevent the clip from being shown on those sites?

Oh, I thought that was just a term DarkWaters coined. MY mistake!

Nevermind. If anyone needs another link: http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/20070416obama.mp3 Well, as far as I could hear, Obama has committed the fallacy of the "stolen concept", as Dark Waters described -- it does not seem as if he has been taken out of context. The only word I can think of to describe this is, "ironic". Last week on my campus, some organization staged a rally to ban abortion. This was done by showing pictures of genocide victims, holocaust survivors, etc. next to pictures of aborted fetuses, in an attempt to equate the two concepts. A giant group of students protested the rally, pointing out the disconnect between holocaust victims and aborted fetuses. It's ironic because I recognized at least a handful of the people who seemed to be leading the protest against the abortion-banning rally as volunteers on Obama's campaign from when he had and will be coming here. I'm aware that being a volunteer on a campaign doesn't necessarily mean you endorse that candidate -- but I wouldn't be surprised.

DarkWaters, Is there any other spot where I can find that audio clip? Or maybe even a transcript of Obama's speech? The link doesn't work for me.

I read The Art of Fiction and found it good for several reasons. First, and obviously, it's a great guide to writing. But second, maybe more importantly -- if you are brand new to Ayn Rand's ideas, interested in learning more about them, and have started your journey by reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, as I had, I would say this book is almost a must-read. A while ago on this forum, somebody had brought up the topic of whether or not their boyfriend was a "Howard Roark"... and there was a reply that a lot of people, after reading books like The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged get this "rockstar" mentality, where they follow the characters' actions without knowing why... in this case, I believe it was that the boyfriend was acting indifferently towards the poster, seemingly like Roark. To an extent, I was guilty of doing that, as well --that is, imitating the characters' actions and attitudes -- after having been introduced to these brand new ideas. But the Art of Fiction gave some insight into why Rand has her characters behave the way they do, and I saw that I was acting the way I was for all the wrong reasons. ... of course, I'm sure all I really had to do was step back and look at what I was doing, why the characters act the way they do, etc., and it would be pretty easy to figure out. But the book is a good slap in the face if that's not happening. I'm sure there are other pieces of literature where Rand discusses her characters, etc... but I definitely recommend this book, especially for anyone with that "Rockstar syndrome".

It's true, I wish they would do the whole show. Does anybody know if these things are available online after they are aired? I don't have a TV in my dorm room...

I haven't paid much attention to Dawkins -- but I've seen his name come up a few times on the forum. So, I thought there MIGHT be some interest in this : http://richarddawkins.net/home He's going on The Factor on April 23. I can only imagine how that will go.

This would be what I suggest, also... and he actually DID do this -- although at the moment I am not in the mood to dig through The Apology and find the exact place (I'll get back to you later with that) -- but he told the court that a just "punishment" for what he had done would be to be given free meals in the hall where all the heroes and athletes dine. Yeah, I'd be interested to see what you think after reading a bit more of Greek history... and I'd like to see what others think, too. I still need to think this out a little... I'll post more when I give it some more time.

Agreed -- but what should he have done to that end? Should he have fled when Crito gave him the chance? Or should he have acted earlier? To me, what Socrates tells Crito in regards to rejecting his offer to escape is reasonable -- if the society in which Socrates had chosen to live were a just society that did not sentence men to death for impiety, etc. If Socrates were to see his life as the standard of value, what should he have done? I think the solution should have come far before the trial even happened. Don't you think that if he saw his life as the standard of value, he should not have opted to live in Athens in the first place? OR, is it more of a case where, since there was no other freer society in which TO live, he should have chosen to live in Athens but not to abide by its laws, since they are not objective laws... and when that law gives him an unjust verdict, he should not follow that verdict either?

Alright, this is me thinking aloud here.....err, typing aloud?... concerning Socrates' acceptance of his death sentence. So, there are probably going to be errors/contradictions in my thinking somewhere, but that's the point of me posting this... Basically, I am trying to figure out whether or not Socrates was right in accepting the verdict given to him by his peers in Athens. I'm thinking this through and right now I see it this way: In Crito, Socrates describes his reasoning for not fleeing when Crito offers him the chance, and part of that reasoning is based around the fact that Socrates had accepted and agreed to obey the laws of Athens for his whole life, through a just agreement or social contract, and for one person to decide whether or not they want to follow the law would be to destroy the power of law itself. More or less, as far as I see, Socrates was saying that if he didn't like the way Athens was run, or didn't accept it, he should have either made a movement to change the law or gone elsewhere. In addition, Socrates lived in Athens during a time where trials for impiety were somewhat commonplace. So, with this in mind, was he right to accept the death sentence after his trial? I would say that originally, Socrates should not have put up with the laws of Athens at all. If he lived in a society that could try people for things such as impiety, he would be making a contract with an unjust agent... which I would consider to be an irrational thing to do. The problem I have encountered with this is -- where else would Socrates have gone? If I remember the story correctly, I am pretty sure it was said that although Socrates had praised some other city-states, Athens was agreed to be the freest, despite those several faults. There was, to the best of my knowledge, no America, nor was there any other similar country where freedom of religion and freedom of speech was openly embraced. What do you all think about any of this, or any other aspect I didn't include? ... again, I apologize for this being pretty messy, but it's kind of coming out my head as I go along.