Cogito

I said it as kind of an aside. And if he really wanted to learn a lot about it, that's one way he could have done it. It wouldn't have been functional right away, but by the time it was he would've understood it.

I'm not going to address the question of whether or not you should believe in it, but if you don't believe in the organization then how is staying in it a selfish action? You could say "to get me into college", but at what cost? Is college worth abandoning your values, your ideals? Don't let the fact that colleges view a certain action as a good or bad action influence how you view that action. Get into college on your own standards and values; if the college won't accept you on your standards, why do you want to go at all? Keep in mind that no true value can be gained by the abdication of virtue. Would you sleep with an admissions officer in order to get into college? If you answer no, ask yourself why you answer no there but don't know how to answer in this case. P.S.: Welcome to the forum! It's always nice to see another high-schooler around here. P.P.S.: I think this thread fits more in the "Introductions and Personal notes" forum but I don't have the power to move it :-\

I've only read the last 1.5 pages of this thread, so if this has been answered elsewhere just point the way... But for those of you against tipping, are you against it being a custom or mandatory, or are you against it completely? Also, how is tipping a bribe?

Does this have any relevance to the topic?

I know this isn't what he meant, but if you really want to learn something new, I'd go with Linux From Scratch... If you make it through the installation, you will have learned a lot of new somethings. But, I've always liked knowing how things worked and controlling them to the utmost of my ability, which is why I like LFS so much. If you don't want to go to that extent, I second the Gentoo reccomendation. If even that's too much for you, then try one of the out-of-the-box distros, I've had experience with SuSE and it worked for me. As an aside, this mirrors my transition to linux... I started out on Windows, then bought a new computer and decided to try linux, I started with SuSE but by the end of the first day had discovered Gentoo, I started a stage one(most configurable but also longest/most complicated) install of Gentoo that night and was finished by the end of the week, but after around three months I was tired of having to wait for an ebuild to update my software to the utmost of the bleeding edge, and then found LFS, where I stayed until my parents demanded that they be able to navigate the computer I use for school work, so back to Windows it was.

The words you are thinking of are "introspection" and "extrospection". Introversion and extroversion are personalities, meaning withdrawn within the self with little or no interaction with others and very social/sociable and loud and "a presence", respectively.

Yeah, what he said.

Ok DragonMaci... Imagine that today you are a proud new parent. A cute baby boy is wriggling around in the blankets in front of you. What will you name him, and why? Try the same exercise for a girl

Why are only deductions (in this case rationalistic ones, i.e. those which are disconnected from reality) "logically certain"? Why is math any better than science? If math is based on principles induced from reality(and it is), then how is it any more certain than science which is also based on principles induced from reality? If math is not based on principles induced from reality, then what does it mean for it to be true (true meaning "in accordance with the facts of reality)? Why do people afford math and "pure" logic(which seems to always mean "logic divorced from reality", a blatant contradiction) a higher, more certain status?

Yes, but this doesn't mean that you can claim Objectivists are concerned with only means and not consequences, which is what you were claiming with your previous statement.

What are SAVAK and VEVAK?

Patently false. Where do you get the idea that Objectivism is concerned with "means apart from ends" or "choices irrespective of consequences"? [Edit below] To be completely clear, I'm asking that you substantiate your idea, ideally with direct quotes from Rand (by whom Objectivism is defined).

To be fair (or probably overly generous) to our prudent predator, he isn't here saying that looting is good, he's saying Objectivism can't prove it's bad.

That's almost exactly what I said when by teacher gave us his example... He said something to the effect of "I find rhythym and rhyme in poetry childish". So, I wrote what he wanted.

Hm... How about "And makes it a simple background"

Hey guys, I'm in the middle of an English project which will require me to write a few poems. I'm not the strongest poet, but I figured I would post my work up here as I go along and see what you guys think. The first poem is a short one based off of a picture. Here's what I chose: Here's my poem: Man's Natural Habitat In this place, unlike any other Nature has no significance And Man holds sway His buildings dominate the landscape While Her trees and forests are not to be seen And only in the distance can Her water be found Her sky, Her heaven, looms above Previously untouched by Man, He now easily scrapes its bottom And removes it from importance Nature is disordered and spread out While here Man is ordered and efficient And here, Man produces what Nature never could Here Man can be as he should Productive, powerful, organized, and busy And above all, eminently free

Hm... The download doesn't seem to be working for me... Anyone else having this problem?

How do you reconcile that statement with this one:

I think I'm safe saying that, with a few very lucky exceptions, everyone here was subjected to a similar barrage of indoctrination in almost every area of his life at the age of 14 (and throughout his education). The fact is, that is the state of our education system. Nevertheless, the majority of us has broken free of the indoctrination. I think your "intellectually mature" argument needs some revision.

It's not that we all have the same ideas (far from it), it's that we agree on (or at least agree to agree on for the sake of discussion) the same fundamental principles. The purpose of this forum is to discuss and apply Objectivism from the viewpoint of those who accept Objectivism, or at least its primary ideas. I refer you to any of the members marked "Moderator" or to the forum rules for a full description of what I mean.

Explanation, coming right up This is against the idea that each person is born tabula rasa, that is with no innate ideas. No, killing is not "hardwired" into our brains, just as nothing is "hardwired" in the sense you mean. Emotions are automatic responses based on chosen value systems. While the range of emotions possible (fear, happiness, compassion, empathy, etc.) may be limited and defined by biological roots, the causes of these reactions (killing a squirrel) are not. There is no such thing as an "innate" feeling or "natural" empathy or even a pre-conceptual knowledge of genetic proximity. This here is a mixed bag of proper ideas and an odd form of environmentalism, which is fundamentally anti-mind and anti-life. I strongly reccomend reading Altas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, both by Ayn Rand, if you haven't already, and if you have, I reccomend Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Dr. Leonard Peikoff. He explains all these principles and more in a way that I am not currently equipped to do.

It would most certainly be moral to pick the traits best suitable for survival and long-term happiness for your child. And this isn't just limited by the "baby you could potentially conceive [naturally]" rule. If you say that it is immoral to choose such things for your child, then it should be immoral to, say, educate or feed or really do anything "unnatural" for your child and he should just develop on his own. Also, I really disliked Gattaca personally. Genetic determinism is a ridiculous notion that would never be accepted on such a wide scale by such an inherently rational company as one dedicated to space exploration.

Are you sure you belong on an Objectivist board? A lot of the ideas you put forth here run directly against Objectivism.

I got introduced to Rand's ideas second-hand through the Sword of Truth series in fifth grade (though I had no idea Goodkind had gotten much of his inspiration from Rand until late last year). Later, in a class discussion I mentioned something about people not having the "right" to other people's money for health care, and after class one of my classmates came up to me and asked me if I had read Rand. When I said no, he gave me AS. After devouring it, I started talking to the classmate more, thinking he was someone I could relate to, but it turns out he is of the "truth is a matter of arbitrary axiom" persuasion. I no longer talk to him, but I've still got Rand. Hear, hear, GB.

A small comment on this... My girlfriend and I decided that for our one month anniversary we were going to find a book in our selection that we thought the other should read... So now she's about to switch from ignorant of O'ism to rejecting, considering, or accepting O'ism. I think this has potential to make or break this relationship but I also think her sense of life fits really well with Objectivism.