Hazmatac

In OPAR page 402, Peikoff quotes Rand. The quote is: "If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose---because it contains all the others---the fact that they ere the people ho created the phrase "to make money." No other language or nation had ever used these ords before; men had alays thought of ealth as a static quantity---to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted, or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that ealth has to be created. The words "to make money" hold the essnce of human morality" (bold mine) I was wondering why Rand thought that making money was the essence of morailty. Is it the idea that you do good and get rewarded compaired to the good you do? That's what it seems like to me.

What is the point in reading through those things that many times?

Objectivism doesn't mention anything in particular about traders as far as I know. No, they are not on a lower moral plane than businessmen. Both are valid means of making a living.

Hey, thanks Thomas M. Movias Jr., your post makes a lot of sense. I didn't know that about the word profit.

From Galts Speech in Atlas Shrugged: "Do not help a holdup man to claim that he acts as your friend and benefactor. Do not help your jailers to pretend that their jail is your natural state of existence. Do not help them to fake reality. That fake is the only dam holding off their secret terror, the terror of knowing they're unfit to exist; remove it and let them drown; your sanction is their only life belt." Wow. So, what happens if you DON'T fake, in this case? Specifically because she uses the word dam, no man would survive how terrified they feel, or would they, because it is only a feeling? That is my question. Thank you. Edit: Spelling

"The key is understanding that the primary concern is the net creation of value, irrespective of whether or not a transformation of material is involved." Now I understand. Thank you

"If it costs $10000 to execute business plan X, and plan X gives you back $10000, nothing is produced and there is no profit." But, wasn't there something that was produced? (whatever the product or service was..) Even if you took a loss in the business, you still produced something.

So, production is just the production of money? I thought production meant goods and services. Therefore, you might take a loss but you still produced something, such as shoes or backpacks.

I was reading a section in OPAR that said production is profit. I was wondering what was meant by this, and more specifically by the excerpt (page 391 paragraph 2): "Production is profit; and profit is production. They are not merely related; they are the same thing. When a man plants potatoes, if he does not get back more than he put in, he has produced nothing. Basically, I do not understand the link between somebody producing something and having to make a profit in order for it to be called production (If production is indeed profit) Thank you ~Edited for clarification purposes~

I am reopening this thread for my own clarity. There were various answers on what the word "principle" means. It is an important part of the ethics (at least it seems) and Peikoff uses it a lot, so I would like to be clear on the exact meaning. So.... According to the Ayn Rand Lexicon, a principle "is “a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend.” Thus a principle is an abstraction which subsumes a great number of concretes. It is only by means of principles that one can set one’s long-range goals and evaluate the concrete alternatives of any given moment. It is only principles that enable a man to plan his future and to achieve it." a principle is "a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend" What does that mean? Can you give an example on a "fundamental, primary, or general truth" on which others depend? Or can you give an example of its corollary statement, Thus a principle is an abstraction which subsumes a great number of concretes. That might be all I need, so we'll go from there. Thanks. Edit: I realize in my last post I said I understood it, but I actually don't. Sorry. Thanks for your help.

Atonement, sorry

Like the title says, is redeeming yourself from evil you have done necessary before you can be happy? Is the option deal with it or forever avoid it? Is there a time limit where things you have done just don't matter that much anymore? Or do they still and you won't be happy until you deal with them. Concrete: I was going through a tough time "hearing voices" and thought that a lot of people were trying to communicate with me and make my life hard, so I did grafitti on the adjacent apartments fence, essentially saying something bad. So, will I have to deal with this before I can be *metaphysically happy* or is it not that important? Robert

Most of the time, yes. I can imagine a chair, and I know what it is without words, but when I think of the word chair it is just a sound. Self-Aware... when I think of the word "I" it doesn't make me aware of myself. Is that how it should be?

And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this one word: 'I.'--Ayn Rand I just saw this quote on the Forum Homepage on here. I realize that I want joy and peace and pride, but I don't understand how it relates to the word I. Does its functioning have something to do with what you say in your mind? Personally, when think of the word "I" in my head it is just a sound, not really related to me. I never understood the concept of ego. What is its function within your being? Robert

*** Merged topics. - sN *** "A central purpose serves to integrate all the other concerns of a man’s life. It establishes the hierarchy, the relative importance, of his values, it saves him from pointless inner conflicts, it permits him to enjoy life on a wide scale and to carry that enjoyment into any area open to his mind; whereas a man without a purpose is lost in chaos. He does not know what his values are. He does not know how to judge. He cannot tell what is or is not important to him, and, therefore, he drifts helplessly at the mercy of any chance stimulus or any whim of the moment. He can enjoy nothing. He spends his life searching for some value which he will never find . . . . The man without a purpose is a man who drifts at the mercy of random feelings or unidentified urges and is capable of any evil, because he is totally out of control of his own life. In order to be in control of your life, you have to have a purpose—a productive purpose . . . . The man who has no purpose, but has to act, acts to destroy others. That is not the same thing as a productive or creative purpose." “Playboy’s Interview with Ayn Rand,” March 1964 I was wondering why if you act without a purpose it is to destroy others.

If the population increases, then what will be done if there is not enough gold to go around, or is that a possibility?

(bold emphasis mine) Thomas, will you specify what you mean by the part in bold? My question is essentially, how does reality "run against you" when you lie, and why is this harmful to you? Is the main reason a lack of self esteem because you're not focusing on reality? Also, I never saw honesty as important or something life sustaining, although I never liked lying

What a central bank is is a bank that has control over the money supply of a nation, printing money as it wishes. When the government wants money, they get a loan from the central bank. The central bank prints new money, and loans it to the government at interest. Now the government is in debt, and can only repay it by printing more money. Basically, our monetary system is designed to create debt, and therefore, inflation.

Jenny, can you elaborate on exactly how reality will "smoosh" you if you are dishonest?

*** Mod's note: Merged with earlier thread. - sN *** This is a quote by Ayn Rand on how to choose a carreer: "You asked me if I have any suggestions to give you about the choice of a career. That, as you probably know, is something that no other person can suggest to you. I can only tell you this: don't expect any outside circumstance or observation to give you a desire for a particular career. That desire comes from your own convictions about life, its purpose, what you want to do with it, and in what form you want to express it. When you say, "I want something that can mean to me what your writing means to you"—it seems to imply that you hope to find it just by looking around and waiting to have your interest aroused. You will never find it that way. What you should do is ask yourself what do you consider the most important thing in life, and why? When you have thought that out carefully, the work that you want to do will suggest itself, and also the desire to do it. But you certainly don't have to hurry. When you say, "Why is it taking me so long to find it?" you are really a little too impatient. I think I understand your impatience, and it is natural that you should feel it, but at the age of 16 your choice of a career for life does not really have to be set. There are no rules about this—some men make a choice earlier, some much later, and any age is proper for any particular person. If you have not made your choice, it merely means that you are not quite clear enough about your basic convictions. Since you seem to have an unusual mind, it might take you longer than it would another, simpler person. So I suggest that you think about it, but do not worry too much." My problem is, I don't know what is important in life. Is there a good way to find that out?

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/jokes/read/80594237/ Socialism - Good on Paper, Not in Reality... An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had failed very few students but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "Ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism." "All grades will be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade meaning, obviously, no one will receive an A." They all agreed to this. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a C. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too, so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great dismay the professor failed them all. Then he sent all of them this note: "A socialistic government will also ultimately fail - because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed."

No, it's not a running gag. I'll admit I shouldn't have been so quick to jump to the conclusion that the Reagan picture was random even though I have never seen him before, but in this case the I didn't know the person and nobody was responding anymore, so I asked for clarification.

It seems to me that ideas are made up of your mind, knowledge, and truth, but are not those things.

David, You might find the Quent Cordair Fine Art website helpful. www.cordair.com. Rob