TheCerebro

It seems many here are missing the issue, and simply responding to the concept of stealing with property rights. The issue isn't "is stealing wrong?". We all agree that it is. The issue is "is copying stealing?" When music is downloaded, no one suffers a direct loss to their current assests, but a potential loss to what might have benefited their future assests. No property is lost, but digital property is created in the form of a new file. Is this reproduction or robbery? Can it be robbery is their is no loss? Doesn't a violation of someone's rights involve taking something from them, not independently creating a duplicate of what they have?

I'm halfway through "The Fountainhead" and wondering if the movie was any good (no, I won't watch it untill I've finished the book)? I know Ayn Rand did the screenplay, but acting and directing can make a big difference? Also, was the movie based on "We the Living" good? Thanks for letting me know!

I don't understand. How is the belief that the "the greatest concievable thing" is omnipotent, omniscient, and exists a rejection of the law of identity? Wouldn't "the greatest concievable thing" have to be omnipotent, omniscient, and exists in order to be the greatest, since a being that is not all powerful, does not know all, and does not exist be a denial of the law of identity? Doesn't deifying humanity as an end in themselves deny the law of identity? Please explain.

Correction, God is the applications of A is A! God is God! God is defined as "the greatest conceivable thing". The greatest conceivable thing must exist, since a thing which exists is greater then a thing that does not. Therefore, by definition, God exists.

However, IF God, or anything greater then man existed, the post using Aristotle's comments would be only an observation on the use of the universe, not the purpose of man. You assume God does not exist, and that it would be impossible for a logical proof of him to exist. I was merely using the opposite of that as a working premise in order to show that what you considered a proof of Objectivism, was already based off Objectivist assumptions. This sounds much like Descartes "I think therefore I am" proof. I asked the question, because I wanted to know the answer, and I wanted to know the answer so that I could understand, and I wanted to understand so that I might live life correctly. Thus, my own life was the reason for asking. Hmm... I'm gonna have to think on that a bit... Perhaps I'll post a followup to this later.

If I understand Aristotle right, he is stating that all human endevours (science, politics, philosophy) are done by man, for man. However, that doesn't explain being an end in oneself. While all of man's endevours exist for man, one could still say man exists for another purpose, such as God. But what is the goal of your own life? Prolonging that life? Happiness? Life is a thing, but how you live it shows what you think it's purpose is.

Hmm... No one has responsed. Either I've just said something really stupid or inquisitive, but I'm not sure which.

What does it mean to be an end in oneself? I find that my logic on the issue is circular, because I do not understand it. "What does it mean to be an end in oneself?" "To have your own happiniess as your primary moral goal." "What makes you happy?" "Accomplishing your goals." "What are your goals." "Uh... being happy?" I've got to be missing something here, so please fill me in. Thanks!

I was wondering if any of you had heard of Francis Schaefer, the Christian thinker who emphasized that there was absolute truth and reason was the basis for Christianity. If you have read his works, I'm curious to know what you thought.

Can you give me a summery, or explaination? I'm frugal and not yet ready to blow 50$ on the tapes.

I have been studying the lives and beliefs of the early industrialists i.e. Andrew Carnegie. Ford, JP Morgan, Rockafellar etc. and found many were actually socialists. Andrew Carnegie in particular, who wrote the "Gospel of Wealth" in which he said the rich should live simply and be philanthropists, while throwing around terms like "workingman". I am wondering if anyone knew how it is these men could hold such contradictory views. It was their money that built our modern schooling (yes, Rockefellar provided two dollars for every one dollar of federal funding to schools). Why did such wealthy men, listen to social planners? Also is anyone familiar with the philosopher Herbert Spencer (man who coined the term "surivial of the fittest" and applied to capitalism) or how Andrew Carnegie synthesized him and Marx?

When you first meet a person, how do you rationally access their value? Under what circumstances would you help a person who was poor or ill and unable to help themselves?

There are some great visuals in Atlas Shrugged that will do great in film (Wyatt's Torch is the best of them, plus the mountain, NYC going out, The John Galt Line, etc.). The question is how they are going to handle the speeches. The best way I could think of is to abbreviate them, and cross cut to other plot points which illustrate what the speaker is saying. Oh yeah, and Ragnar Danneskjold should be awesome and the 5th Concerto should be beautiful. 'Nuff Said.

Instead of arguing why minimum wage is morally wrong, try forcing your professor to his own logical conclusions. Suggest that minimum wage be raised to 200$ per hour. Then all the workers will be rich! When he replies, "then how could anyone hire a worker?" say "Exactly!" If your teacher really cared about people, he'd be a capitalist.

I meant when considering it in the long run, how it affects you. Don't you ever plan ahead? Ever think about how you're going to wind up? Oh well. I think you got what I meant the first time, but I'm not sure if you are joking with me, serious, or just haven't thought it through.