Chops

You can be pretty assured that most of us here appreciate the Virtue of Selfishness. I can honestly say Atlas Shrugged is the single most motivational book I've read. The heroes in the book are inspiring, accomplishing feats with real enough parallels in the world, who love what they do, and who love what they've accomplished. Whenever I'd set the book down, I was ready and rarin' to work. This, of course, is a beast of a book at over 1000 pages (small type), but is unquestionable the best book I've ever read. In terms of non-fiction, one of my most inspirational books was Founders at WorK, which is a collection of interviews with Dot-Com startups. Many of them, working like fiends to accomplish their goals, and doing so. Seeing someone succeed and knowing how they did it is one of the most motivational things to me. That said, I'm a programmer/business owner, so most of those stories were very relevant to my field. I'm not sure how accessible those stories would be to a non-techy. These are all short independent chapters (each chapter is an interview with a different founder of a different company). Finally, Rich Dad, Poor Dad I found to be a very easy read and also a rather inspirational informative true story, with lots of useful advice. Admittedly, there is a bit of "giving" and "god" in that book, but it's easily overlooked, as the overall message is "set goals, and work hard to achieve those goals. Becoming a millionaire is a reasonable goal and this is how I did it." That entire book is framed from the perspective of the son of a poor man (a government worker) who used the advice from his friend's rich dad (a self-made millionaire) to become a self-made man himself. For a quick pick-me-up, this book works because it's a VERY easy read. One unifying feature of all those books is that they all adhere to reality. The answer to "how do I succeed" is not "somehow" the answer is "work at it, you are in control of your life."

I don't think he is a troll either, or no doubt his post would have been moved to the trash. Myself, I'm curious what lead the poster to ask these questions on an Objectivism forum. One would assume that in posting in "The Critics of Objectivism" that one would have knowledge about what one is criticizing, which is why I'm curious to what extent Shyboy understands Objectivism. As a discussion this just seems out-of-place here.

Not really, but it happens. We've got active moderators here, and a pretty straightforward set of rules.

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/troller.htm

What does affirmative action have to do with "violence to get change"? What experience or knowledge do you have about Objectivism. One thing to note is that Objectivist views are not like those of Libertarians - that is, our view stem from observation and integration of reality, rather than some random abstraction that we want. Have you read any Ayn Rand? Do you have any interest in Ayn Rand? Simply asking our opinions is asking for conclusions without the justification, and that simply accomplishes nothing. One must first understand Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology before one can make a logical conclusion on a derivative political concept like Affirmative Action. Here's a quick one-liner for you: Affirmative Action is racism.

The protection of individual rights is what we want. Peace is a side-effect. Violence is obviously not the only way to get change. It requires a gradual process that requires ingraining a philosophy in the population, such that they act on that philosophy. If you want significant change in the next year, then yes, you'll have to overthrow the government. An Objectivist government, implemented right now in America, would not last, simply because the majority of the population believes the government's job is to "help people" rather than strictly limiting itself to the protection of rights violations.

Happy Christmas! Hope everyone had a great day!

I'm going to present another perspective, from that of a programmer. First, I will establish the necessary functions to process this (in very simply terms) function grammatically_correct(sentence) { return true if "sentence" is grammatically correct. return false if "sentence" is not ungrammatically correct. } function evaluate_truthiness(proposition) { extract the subject and predicate from "proposition". call the predicate's associated function passing the subject as the parameter } [/codebox] I will show that sentences presented "This sentence is false" and "This sentence is true" are both infinitely recursive (self-referencing). But before that, let's consider the sentence "This sentence is a properly formed sentence," which is also recursive (self-referencing), but not infinitely so, as I will show. So, we'll make the call evaluate_truthiness("This sentence is a properly formed sentence"); When we do this, inside evaluate_truthiness will perform the following tasks: [codebox]extract the subject and predicate as "This sentence" and "is a properly formed sentence." The subject "This sentence" is a reference to the whole sentence "This sentence is a properly formed sentence". "is a properly formed sentence" is long-hand for the function "grammatically_correct", so we make the call: grammatically_correct("This sentence is grammatically correct"), which returns true, because the sentence is grammatically correct. evaluate_truthiness returns true. When we try to process the original sentence: "This sentence is false" this is what happens: evaluate_truthiness("This sentence is false"); which invokes the following inside evalute_truthiness: extract subject and predicate as "This sentence" and "is false." The subject "This sentence" is a reference to the whole sentence "This sentence is false". "is false" is the negation of the reference to the function evaluate_truthiness, so we make the call: evaluate_truthiness("This sentence is false"), which brings us exactly back to the first step, where we loop forever[/codebox] Ultimately, this proposition can be neither true nor false. "This sentence is false" will forever try to evaluate itself. It's unanswerable, except in saying that by that standard, it is not a proper proposition, as it has neither a true nor false evaluation. (I'm no linguist, I'm a programmer, and these are the terms that make the most sense to me)

Perhaps I'm reading too far into it, but I automatically exclude the first option. In popular language, a person with those attributes (option one) is known as a "Poser" and is therefore "not cool". It's a little different in high school, where worrying about being cool usually does make you popular. But in the real world, someone actually needs to accomplish something and be confident to be "cool." There's a difference between "Acting Cool" and "Being Cool." Someone who is something doesn't need to act like they are that something, because they already are that something. Just as someone who is smart doesn't need to act smart - the intelligence comes out in their actions.

A well-toned body does not come naturally. Knowledge of astrophysics does not come naturally. Being a professional-caliber athlete does not come naturally. Bridge-building does not come naturally. Happiness to a depressed person does not come naturally. Non-fear of spiders does not come naturally to an arachnophobic. Saying "only do what comes naturally" is whim-worship. The desire to be comfortable around others is perfectly rational. To do so requires one first be comfortable with oneself, and this could potentially take work (ie, "not natural")

There are a number of mistakes in this rant. While experimenting on the captured vampire, it's established that they are sensitive to ultra-violet light. He explicitly states this while waving a UV lamp over the skin that was burning while being exposed. Not sure if you got up to pee when this happened, but this definitely happened in the movie. The missiles, the bridges collapsing, all of that was covered in one of the flashbacks. The book supposedly goes into much more detail about what happened, and the movie leaves many things unanswered. But I enjoyed the movie enough to pique my interest in the book and hope that it provides more detail and explanations about what happened. Obviously you've identified the major problems with the movie as a standalone entity.

I imagine if you're strugging to have a decent broadband operator in the area that you wouldn't be in range of the Wireless internet offered by Verizon, Sprint, etc? http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/Coverag...//coverage+maps Check the box for "broadband and vcast" for relevant coverage. I get decent bandwidth on my phone with Verizon (getting close to 700-800 kbit/sec), which for non-gaming purposes is pretty nice. However, in the boonies, I get dial-up or less speeds. Some networking experience and a T1 will get you started pretty quickly. You could set up a pretty decent dial-up operation, with a T1. In my area a T1 costs something like $300-400/month (I believe), plus you have to pay for the line to be run.

Eeek. Satellite internet is one of those "if you have no other choice" options. It's extremely costly, and only marginally faster than dial-up. I read a rather interesting idea a while back on another forum (probably Slashdot) about a guy who had poor internet out in the boonies, but really wanted it. So he payed several grand to get a T1 line brought into his home, and from there he constructed a Wifi tower to broadcast the wireless connection to the surrounding area, and was able to sell it to his neighbors to help cover the cost, and eventually, with something like 25 customers, he was making a profit. I'm sure I'm botching the details, but you get the general idea. However, given the fact that you have a high-speed provider in the area, this option probably isn't very viable, as undoubtedly, another ISP will jump into the area. What kind of bandwidth do you get there?

Welcome to the boards. What of Rand's have you read so far?

I've never heard of this movie. There are several listings of movies called "The Secret" on IMDB, none of which I recognize. Could you link to the appropriate one? Maybe it's just me, but it seems rather pointless to make a post in the debate forums about an obscure movie, and then request others to present both sides of the debate. Why don't you present your arguments in support of the movie?

When I says "as long as these thoughts adhere to reality," I mean that no conclusion can be reached when reality is not the foundation. The moment that a thought breaks from the chain of thoughts connecting it to reality, is the moment that any following conclusion is falsified. One is free to think about things like unicorns, flying goats, and other such fantastical non-existents, but the moment one BELIEVES in them is the moment that thought breaks from reality. Since OPAR has been mentioned in this thread several times, I'll use the skyscraper analogy from it. Every concept, in order to be valid (as a valid expression of a part of reality), must be tied to reality. Just as the top floors of a skyscraper only stand on the floors beneath it, until the ground floor which is rooted to the Earth, so a concept can only stand if each reliant concept (and each of their reliant concepts, and so on) connect to reality (the ground). So when I say that A=A is one of the foundations (along with Existence exists and consiousness), concepts start with those, and in order to be valid, must be able to be logically connected to those three concepts. As JMegan said, "There is only one reality." Perception of reality does not alter reality, but perception of reality obviously can differ from one to another, so that introduces context (applying your knowledge to your conclusions). No one expects anyone to know everything, and be capable of integrating everything in the universe into every conclusion. But one must ensure that every thought fits consistently with their previously validated conclusions. To use a simple example from ITOE, consider a baby, first observing the world, a baby might see a man, and conclude that man is "something that moves and makes noises." This is a valid definition, within the context of the baby's knowledge. That baby might then see a dog, and noticing that the dog and the man are different, but both make noises, will conclude that a man is something that moves on two legs and makes noises. This is another valid definition (within the context of the baby's knowledge). These thoughts all connect to the baby's perception of reality. If the baby were to somehow think that man could fly as well, without viewing it happen, it would be an invalid conclusion, as it breaks from reality as perceived and integrated with the baby. Useful reads for this are Chapter one of OPAR (Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand), and the entirety of ITOE (Introduction of Objectivist Epistemology). The OPAR read is certainly faster, since it's basically a summary of ITOE, if you're looking to read more about what all this means. These both address these ideas in MUCH more detail.

The threat of getting addicted to WoW is HARDLY the $15/month. With any addiction, the threat is non-productiveness. $15/month is trivial for the amount of entertainment MMO games can give you - who else can say that they pay $15 for every 120 hours of entertainment (4 hours a day for 30 days). But if it's enjoyable, and you're capable of using your willpower to limit your playtime to acceptable levels, MMO games can be a fantastic entertainment investment. In terms of MMO games without a monthly fee, there's always Guild Wars, though I didn't particularly enjoy that one much. Otherwise, for Multiplayer games, Team Fortress 2 is quite popular right now, though it costs, I believe $30 (if you buy it without the Orange Box). Portal, however, makes the Orange Box worth it on it's own.

In breaking the window, from a societal aggregate standpoint, things are only being destroyed. An object is destroyed, money is exchanged, and time is spent to return to our previous state of "having a window." The end result is that money has exchanged hands (but not increased in any way), and we have a window that was previously there. From a resource perspective, there are now less resources for making future windows, since resources had to go into making that window. We now have less resources, and yet progress-wise, we are where we were before. In terms of time, time had to be spent (and will never be gotten back) to return us to where we were. Unfortunately, all of this conjecturing is pandering to pragmatism (what "works") and to altruism (the benefit to others). The key principle at work is property rights. Breaking someone else's window is a violation of the owner's rights and the potential benefit to others is irrelevant. Edit: typo.

*** Mod's note: Split into new topic - sN *** Welcome to the boards. You've got it backwards. A=A isn't the objective or goal of Objectivism. A=A is one of the foundations of Objectivism. Individual thought (the only kind of thought that's possible) is certainly encouraged, as long as those thoughts adhere to reality. Rationalizations and "floating abstractions" detached from perceivable reality are wrong. Fantasy can be perfectly acceptable as long as its nature is understood and kept in mind: that it is fake. What do you mean by "inconclusive thought"? Note: your question probably belongs in another thread.

Those who are shallow, superficial, and unintelligent will be so whether or not they've had cosmetic surgery, and getting cosmetic surgery doesn't make someone shallow. Cosmetic surgery can be an action by a shallow individual, just as going to the gym can be an action by a shallow individual. Is every attractive person who goes to the gym to look even better a shallow person? Then, by your standard, how good looking is "enough" such that getting cosmetic surgery implies shallowness? I don't think getting plastic surgery in itself says anything about a person's character beyond "they wished to improve their looks." It's everything else about their life that determines their character.

When an industry is monopolized by the government, then working for the government in that industry would be OK. The obvious ones are police, military and courts, which or legitimate government professions. However, considering there are no private fire fighting organizations beyond government ones (I don't know of the laws outlaw private fire fighting companies or not), and if you really wanted to be a fire fighter, I'd see no problem working for a government run fire house. Though this gets me thinking about how reasonable (read: profitable) a privately run fire house would be. We have UPS and Fedex to "compete" with the USPS...I wonder if a fire house could do the same with government-run organizations.

Objectivism doesn't advocate anarchism. The government's sole role is as protector of individual rights, and in order to do that, the three parts that you mentioned (police, courts, military) are the only legitimate provinces of government. The government must be the *only* organization with a legal monopoly on force. If that's what you mean by "nationalize" then, yes, that is what Objectivism advocates.

There's nothing wrong with it. You're not faking reality, you're changing reality. Nature isn't always perfect, so we try to improve it.

That is an interesting question, but you've answered it (innaccurately) without acknowledging the full context of the situation. Your answer forgets that unlike a tree or an animal, a person has the volitional capability to stop producing for you, when you come to loot (or any random looter). This is actually the primary plot of Rand's other opus "Atlas Shrugged". You say And this not exactly right. We give something in return because we recognize that NOT doing so, eventually the producer will 1) fight back, or 2) not produce anymore, both of which effectively shut you off from the looting. Proper morality is in place, not as a convenient convention, but as an extension of the nature of man. That is not to say that man is incapable of violating his nature. Just as an animal who chooses to try to live as a plant will die, so will a man who tries to live as an animal will die. Self-preservation means acting in that man's nature. I'm gonna give you the Objectivist definition of rights, according to Ayn Rand, from the Virtue of Selfishness (also available in the Ayn Rand Lexicon freely on the web), since she pretty much always says it better I'm sorry for not putting it into my own words, but I find my words inferior to hers. I apologize if I misidentified you. My conclusion was based on your claim that every action by any creature or human is moral. In that case, morality is useless, and therefore nonexistent; thus, moral nihilism. Edit: Typo

Yes, we rely on harvesting and utilizing our environment for our own productivity. We also rely on gravity. Is it parasitic to rely on gravity? Animals have no rational faculty. They are incapable of understanding and respecting rights, property, etc. Animals act in regards to a single thing: their instinct. Humans, on the other hand, have a rational faculty. We are capable of understanding and more importantly, conceptualizing them into abstract concepts. Animals have no such capability. An animal will eat you if he needs, or attack you for no reason without regard for law or morality. This is the primary reason that man have rights and animals don't. Thus, it is not "looting" when we chop down a tree, or take a stick off a beaver's dam. They are not necessarily opposed, but they CAN be in opposition to each other. The short term obviously comes into consideration, but the long term is what's important. The achievement of goals comes from a struggle. It's not an achievement to walk to the bathroom. It IS an achievement to scale Mt Everest. There is a proper morality, and to prevent turning this into a thesis I suggest reading "Objectivist Ethics", the first essay in "The Virtual of Selfishness." This will do a much more concise job of describing the nature of morality, and why we need one. The crux of your statement is the premise that every creature, including humans, act for their own happiness. Animals don't seek happiness, they seek pleasure, and they act in the moment, without concern for the long-term. Humans, on the other hand, CAN consciously act for their own destruction. Correct. You honestly believe that if he knew his buildings were unsafe that he would continue building them without regard to safety? The difference is that a thief is violating rights...taking from another without compensation and with force. Roark initiates no such force. At this point, I have to step out. I gave you the courtesy of someone interested in understanding Objectvism, but frankly, I'm not going to spend a lot of time debating with a nihilist.