Elle

It seems to be the case that Objectivists are commonly defined (by those who do not understand what Objectivism is) as having a dogmatic belief system taken on faith without the examination of Rand's ideas; without checking the premises of her philosophy. I'm sure Rand would be appalled at any kind of "cult" following of this nature. What these accusers are missing is the contradiction in their allegation, that an Objectivist cannot exist without using the ideas of Objectivism as a premise (i.e. not checking premises at all = contradiction). The idea that philosophy has -ended- with Objectivism is one I simply can't subscribe to, although I believe Miss Rand has touched on issues with more clarity, depth, and truth that Man has had since Aristotle. At the same time, I believe that Objectivism is Miss Rand's philosophy and that any new discoveries and additions, while influenced by her ideas, are not a part of that philosophy but something seperate. (i.e. Peikoffs discoveries on induction) Therefore it would be a fallacy to assume that being an Objectivist means believing that all philosophical questions have been answered, since discoveries are still being made after her death. I believe that being a human being of rational mind means believing that Man is capable of answering all these questions, and I believe in all of Rand's books this idea was stressed as central - that Man is capable of knowing the his own highest virtue and grasping it fully with his hands and mind. Philosophy is Man's attempt to seek, actualize and communicate these ideas with others so not only do I believe that we have not reached the end of philosophy - but I do believe an end of that nature would be the end of rational thought.

It seems like the contradiction is that a human would have to create that first concious computer, and the way it is programmed would control its functions and abilities. So if the computer's "conciousness" is dependent on how it was programmed, would it really be an independent concious being - or simply the tool of whoever created it? Would it's choices be pre-programmed outcomes of logical thought originated by human premises of logic, or would it be created in a way to allow for a kind of evolution of it's own logic? Another question would be, would it have the concept of mortality (because without that concept morality would be altered significantly)? I think this is an interesting idea of a concious computer, but I don't know enough about computer science to undertand the conceptual programming that goes into these machines; so hopefully someone with more knowledge can jump into the conversation and answer some of my questions or explain the logical fallacy within the idea of a concious man-made machine, if there are any.

I will, both weeks.

I've read the first two books because they were reccomended to me by my boyfriend, and I lent him Atlas Shrugged in return for copies of Goodkind's The Wizard's First Rule and Stone of Tears. We started noticing right away the similar themes and went to Goodkind's offical fan-site. They have a very in-depth forum and it is moderated by other readers, to discuss themes and concepts. There are also occaisonal chats with Goodkind himself, and in one interview transcript he is asked about Rand's influence and I believe he places her as his strongest influence and deems her one of the greatest minds of the 20th century or something in that vein. (These aren't direct quotes because it's been some time since I read the article). The site is: www.terrygoodkind.com The forum there is called the Journey Book. I hope I didn't double/echo post... I don't have enough time online to read the other replies.

It really is astonishing. 20K this year for my parents (fortunately I'm paid under the table, except for my short stint at the one and only Mickie D's). Gah!

I agree with you... it wasn't a theme at all, I think that the guy who said that to me was referring to the technology allowing them to have parts of their memory erased. I think this was the strongest message in the movie, it was kind of a "if you do this, you get that..." storyline. A lesson. I think Mary's character probably does the best job of correcting her situation, by completely stepping out of the lives of the people she had been involved with. However, I think the main difference between Mary vs. Joel and Clementine is that she had nothing rational to begin with (her "fantasies" of Howard and her having children, an affair with a married man which in this case is admitted to by both (on the tape in her file) as irrational) versus Joel and Clementines original relationship, which in many ways is rational. Maybe comparing them is apples and oranges, I'm not sure. I'm not movie buff, but I think this movie had a lot of lessons about using the mind's rational faculties to set things right. Just as you said.

I went to see Eternal Sunshine with a good deal of doubt about the message it was sending. Some people had told me it shared ideas based on Love conquering all evil (and by that evil they mean the technology used to erase Clementine, Joel, and Mary's minds). Of course, this film was the first cinematically promising one I've seen advertised for mainstream viewing (my sig. other works at a theater so he becoming a bit of film nerd). Though I'm not sure this was the intended message, I walked away from the film the first time feeling like I had expierienced a fictional rendering of what happens when individuals make irrational choices based on impulsive emotions. The "eraser-guys", for lack of better term, were products of a time when individuals no longer wanted to be held accountable for their decisions. The second I saw the film I was able to talk to people about it and their first question was "Under what circumstances would you want your memory erased?" Some argued they thought individuals had a right to erase their memory, because it was their and others argued that it would only be an ethical choice if one was erasing a memory of something like a rape, murder, or war (in which one had no choice). I kind of disregarded this question, mainly because I can't imagine ever being in the state of mind to even consider erasing parts of my memory (although I've never experienced severe personal atrocities such as rape). The third and fourth times I saw this film (yes i know that's probably a bit odd for a film that's still in the theater) I tried to enjoy the aesthetic qualities but I felt a constant nagging, a denial of reality and a glorification of the idea that man can give his mind the ability to bend reality to his concious whim. The scene that really "got me" was when Clemetine and Joel are sitting on the couch (in his mind) trying to figure out way to save their memory of each other until morning and she suggests he hide them in an old memory. Suddenly we're watching a cute little boy and two adults are singing "Row row row your boat, gently down the stream, merrily merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream" That, combined with Mary's quoting of Nietzche (twice - the same quote) "The forgetful get the better even of their blunders." Anyways, this film brought up a lot of questions and I'm hoping some of you have seen it and would be interested in discussing it with me.

I haven't read the work this quote was excerpted from, but I think the best fictional example of a woman in this position is Dagny in Atlas Shrugged. Obviously she is capable of running Taggart Transcontinental, but the point Rand is making is that in many ways her self-immolation is in the form of taking on the attributes of man. This is obvious when Cheryl comes up to her at a party, and tells her that now that she and James Taggart are married she is the woman in the family. Dagny says something like "That's alright, I'll be the man" (not a direct quote, as my book isn't here). Anyways, I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir... I just thought that was a good illustration of Rand's look at feminity in roles of authority and I just made the connection as I was reading this thread so there you go...

I agree, choosing the actors is so crucial and I think was part of what made The Fountainhead as effective in the film-form. Especially since the story will inevitably have to be shortened to fit into a film... the actors ability to embody the character is going be everything to me. I'm not surprised this film is taking longer to come out than expected, what an undertaking. If the same kind of middle-ground is created between Faith and Reason (as it was in Contact) it will destroy the entire message and I'm sure ________ (the man who is writing the screenplay - I've blanked on the name) has to take that into heavy consideration, among MANY other things. A question, should they actually have Halley's 5th Concerto in the film? As much as I'd like to hear the kind of Concerto Rand envisioned, in a way I don't want to associate any one composer of our time with that ideal.

My business is in Mutual Fund investment consulting and SRI (socially responsible investing) has become en vogue following the recent, so-called, corporate scandals. The fundamentals of this investment strategy irk me at the highest possible level, and I've been working on developing of definite standpoint as to why. I was wondering if anyone here was familiar with this area of business or had an insight into this new fad which I believe to be in-line with collectivism and "the good of society as a whole" to a sickening extent. There were quite a few articles I would like to attach, but instead I reccomned visiting Social Funds .com to read some of the articles and Annual Reports and responses there. This is just one example I would like to share. All emphasis on text is post-editorial (mine). At this point I'm just getting my ammunition together, my company doesn't advocate socially responsible funds and the people I've spoken to lead me to believe that SRI funds are regarded warily by investment advisors. However, this is another of the many mounting concerns for those who value individuals rights in the face of collectivist shareholder advocacy, which would attempt to rule corporations by a majority vote of stockholders. And opinion from the standpoint of Objectivism is what I'm working on developing, but I feel I don't know enough about it yet to fully refute this issue. Any advice would be appreciated. at Social Funds .com there are even Mutual Funds named after Aquinas. Ad-Note: I'm assumed a press release in a non-copyrighted article and that I'm not violating the Terms of Service to this forum, but if I am I hope someone will kindly inform me so I can change it.

It's reassuring to hear people considering a lot of the same paths that have been appealling to me lately. Since I'm a first year student and currently at a community college, the biggest focus has been getting graduation requirements out of the way so that I'll be apply to apply directly to a major (or dual major) when I transfer. The three majors whose requirements I'm planning to fill within the next year, before I transfer to a 4 yr. college, are Philosophy, Economics, and Physics. The community college experience is definitely not my ideal educational experience, but Washington's direct transfer program makes it so much more affordable. This year I'm at Olympic College, in Bremerton, and next year I'll be going to Seattle Central Community College which is right in downtown Seattle.

My parents were both raised in Irish Catholic families that were strict church-goers. Where I grew up we just went to the church that was basically in our backyard and it was Episcopalian. I don't remember much about Religion beyond loving to sing in the choir, and the pretty stained glass windows. I stopped going when I was about 8, I was never Christened or Baptized and never took Communion... I don't think it was very important to anyone in my family beyond the social appearance in our small town. I decided I was definitely an atheist my freshman year of high school after taking a science class with a teacher who, looking back, may have been an Objectivist even though I didn't know what the word meant then. A lot of my friends died, or came close to it, in high school and it always bothered me how their families turned to God, or blamed God... when the reasons things had come to drug overdoses and suicides could be traced to rational causes (and irrational choices).

When I was a little kid I used to try and defend myself on the premise that what was right was situational (I was probably trying to justify stealing my sister's clothes or keeping frogs under my bed). Fortunately, that argument didn't last long with my Dad around. I think I remember a quote that was something like "The most dangerous lie is the one that is 90% true."

If man is born with no property then he will have been born without a mind capable of reason and obtaining knowledge, or without intellectual property. If there is no access to anything that can be turned to property there will be no Earth, or material possessions of any kind... in essence human existence will have ceased to exist and therefore man would not be born at all under those conditions. However, these conditions can not exist because in order for man to be man he must be born with a mind capable of conceptualization of himself, and therefore intellectual property. And in order for man to exist there must be somewhere liveable to exist, and as long as the Earth exists it's "property" will be on the market.

Hello I'm Elle. I'm a first year college student working with my Dad to run a small business in investment consulting and research. I'm geared towards an economics major at the moment, but I'm sure anyone in school knows what it feels like feeling out your major in your first year. I'm looking forward to exchanging thoughts with you. -Elle