redfarmer

Zoso, may assume by this topic and the one on conversing with non-Objectivists that you're going through a crisis in terms of the people you associate with? I, too, have been through such a crisis and it's not an easy thing to resolve. There are several things you must ask yourself several questions: 1. What value is this person to me? Why do I want to be around them? 2. Am I evading any issues regarding this person? 3. Does this person inspire me to be great or bring me down? 4. Is this person evil? (Evil will be defined in just a moment.) I have a boss who is a fundamentalist Christian. However, he has a wonderful sense of life and is often rational to the point I can't believe he's a fundmentalist. Based on his sense of life alone, I would rather have him as a friend than Nathaniel Branden, who claims to be an Objectivist, any day. This is how Ayn Rand defined evil: In other words, you must be able to define your values in order to define what is evil. Evil is anything which opposes your fundamental value, your life.

Well, I tried searching for "WMD" first since I knew there was a topic with that in the topic (I started it about 10 months ago). That turned out to be a more popular term than I bargained for, though, so I simply searched for "Iraq" and pulled out the relevant posts from the rest which simply mentioned Iraq. P.S. It's off topic (but somewhat relative to this topic) but I wanted to thank you for your frequent recommendation of The Ayn Rand Lexicon in various threads. I bought it a couple of weeks ago and it's the reference book I've been using more than any others. It's a great book for those of us fairly new to the philosophy to have!

Here are links to the relevant topics for Bobby I found through a search: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=666 http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=2403 http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=2137 http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=1806 http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=1418

Ayn Rand was very passionate about some types of music, especially the music of Sergei Rachmanioff. From what she and Leonard Peikoff said about her musical tastes, they seemed to focus mainly on classical and some early 20th century popular music. Ayn Rand said nothing that I'm aware of regarding Jazz and Blues. She had great disdain for folk music and, I'm sure by extension, Country. The little she said about Rock was also negative. I disagree with her, however, on Rock as I find value in some bands and muscians who truly excel. If you're interested, two lectures are available on music from the ARI: "The Music of Rachmanioff" by Stephen Siek and "Melody in Music" by Stephen Siek and Alan August.

The money is not the government's to give in the first place. It was taken from the pockets of American citizens without their consent. If a corporation or an individual wants to help with the tsunami relief, that is the corporation's or individual's choice and I would not stand in the way of it. However, a government does not have the right to take its citizens money, much less spend it on other countries. Do you not understand the difference between the tsunami and 9/11? 9/11 was a direct attack on Capitalism and the American way of life by a group of people who wish to revert their citizens back to primitive status. The tsunami was a natural disaster made worse by non-Capitalistic countries who were ill prepared for it. If you don't understand the difference, I highly recommend you read David Holcberg's article "US Government Should Not Help Tsunami Victims" and Yaron Brook's tape series on terrorism, available from the ARI.

It has been several years since I was in school and I'm currently studying for my GED. I'm finding that two areas I'm having trouble in are Chemistry and Physics. The reason why I think I'm having so much trouble is that I was never taught to concretize principles in school. This isn't as much of a problem in Biology and Earth Sciences as they are more concrete subjects whereas Chemistry and Physics are more abstract. I remember being overwhelmed in my Chemistry and Physics classes by teachers throwing mathmatical formulas at us with little or no explanation of the theory behind them. My question is does anyone know of any good books I could pick up which would help me concretize the principles of Physics and Chemistry? Right now, I need as much help as I can get. (On a side note, I wonder if this is the same reason I had trouble with Math in school...)

Now, be careful both of you not to condemn all of psychology. There is good psychology among the bad. Before Ayn Rand dissociated herself from him, Nathaniel Branden, a psychologist, provided many articles on psychological topics, some of which are reprinted in The Virtue of Selfishness. Among the most prominent Objectivist psychologists today are Dr. Ellen Kenner and Dr. Michael J. Hurd. Psychology has its place. If you're interested in a rational psychological treatement, Dr. Kenner has frequently recommended cognitive therapy. Cognitive therapy seeks to get to the root of psychological disorders and uncover the faulty premises. You can find out more information at The Academy of Cognitive Therapy's website. I get what you're saying, though. Most of what people label as being psychological is actually philisophical.

Psychics and ghosts are beyond the realm of philosophy and, if they were to exsist, would be in the realm of the specialized sciences to investigate. However, what philosophy tells us about psychics and ghosts is that, epistemologically, they are arbitrary concepts. That is, there has been no evidence presented either for or against them (you can't present evidence against something which has no evidence for it in the first place). As arbitrary concepts, they are neither true nor false and there is no further need to contemplate them unless you are presented with evidence. What jedymaster was trying to say is that a scientist is no more qualified to make a statement about philosophy than a philosopher about science. There may be exceptions but, for the most part, a specialist must stick to his own field.

This person probably has no idea how close to the truth they are. Now, if only they could abstract just a little further...

(I was going to start a new topic for what I'm going to say but I figured I might as well just put it here since a thread on the tsunami had already been started.) I was driving through town yesterday and started seeing a lot of flags at half mast. I started thinking, "Who died?" It took it a minute to dawn on me: the flags are at half mast for the tsunami victims. It started to make me sick to my stomach. I can't believe that people can't distinguish between this and a national tragedy. Putting this on the same level as Ronald Reagan's death or the 9/11 tragedy is deameaning to both of those events. I can't believe how far the altruists will go to "help" the entire world. A lot of people died. It's a sad demonstration of what happens when a perfectly natural disaster strikes non-Capitalistic countries. It did not happen to us. If it had, I seriously doubt as many people would have been killed.

The sad thing is, the tsunami can't be rationalized away by global warming, pollution, etc. It was caused by an earthquake, which is not on the same level per se as a hurricane or a tornado. Of course, this will not stop them from proclaiming that humans are to blame for this tsunami. Truth and rationality never mattered much to environmentalists.

I couldn't agree with you more, Pete! Not everyone should be a philosophy major. Remember, John Galt was a physicist! *Edited to take out some phrasing which sounded too mystical for my tastes.

I have met an aquaintance who goes to the same bar I sometimes hang out at with my friends. He is a member of a group which "hunts" ghosts. Most notable around here is an old, abandoned TB hospital which is supposed to have hundreds of ghosts in it. The same guy has a reputation for getting drunk every weekend and having promiscuous sex. It's obvious why I'm not too fond of him. The same mentality which accepts the arbitrary exsistence of God accepts the arbitrary exsistence of ghosts. I don't believe for a second that ghosts exsist and no serious student of Objectivism would. As for how to deal with people who do believe in them, it sounds like you did a good job of it yourself. If they persist in their belief, tell them you want solid proof. If they can't produce the proof, they have no case.

Just noticing tonight as I was posting a meta-blog entry tonight that the "Submit a Post," "Atom Feed," and "RDF Feed," links are broken. On clicking any of them, I get a 404 error.

You may be interested in this article from Dr. Kenner's website: http://www.drkenner.com/emotions.htm The article specifically refers to emotions but you could extend it to help in retraining bad premises, especially since they are most often associated with emotions.

I wonder why We The Living didn't get a Centennial cover?

My resolutions: 1. Finish getting my GED. 2. Apply for college in the fall. 3. Cut out much of the bad food in my life and lose weight. My basic method for this is going to be along the same lines as Allen Carr's method to stop smoking (i.e. the desire to overeat is all in my mind. There is nothing forcing me to overeat). 4. Join a gym and start working out at least three times a week. 5. Write at least three short stories before June. 6. Start my novel. 7. Get out of debt.

Zoso, I would suggest you reread The Virtue of Selfishness, especailly "The Ethics of Emergencies" and Nathaniel Branden's "Isn't Everybody Selfish?" To quote from Ayn Rand in "The Ethics of Emergencies:" Of course, one could resort to figures such as Ian Flemming's character, James Bond. Ayn Rand herself highly admired James Bond and her thoughts on the first two Bond films can be found in The Romantic Manifesto. Bond could be said to rescue people who are near or total strangers. However, a proper reading of Bond reveals his true fight: against all threats which could destroy England. His home country was a high value for him. Therefore, he frequently risked his own life to save his country. Also, one could say that Bond's actions in saving England are very selfish in that many of his friends and family are there. In the book Moonraker, Bond risks his own life to keep German agents from detonating an atomic bomb over London. Bond's first thought was not for the thousands of strangers he saved, but for his friends, such as M, and his country which, if destroyed, would destroy one of his highest values. The same could be applied to Spiderman, although I agree with one of the above comments: the movie is not philisophically consistant in that it preaches altruism but shows selfishness.

That would make sense since Waldenbooks is owned by Borders.

Eh, I agree. I liked the old covers better. It's a good idea, though, to include Night of January 16th, Ideal, and Think Twice in one book. Did you notice, too, that the centennial edition of The Early Ayn Rand is going to include a new unpublished short story?

I decided before school tonight I'd walk around the mall and do some window browsing to get some ideas for Christmas presents for my family. I walked into Waldenbooks and saw a display along a wall that had many copies of The Fountainhead and Anthem on it. To my surprise, it had a sign on it which read: To The Best of Mankind Ayn Rand Read one of the 20th century's best intellectuals. I was shocked to see this and it made me wonder: are Ayn Rand's writings finally gaining mainstream acceptance? In 50 years, will our grandchildren be reading Ayn Rand in school for classic 20th century literature? Of course, I certainly hope so.

That's kind of the general idea of what I would like to do, too. I certainly wouldn't want to live in the country all of the time but a country house would be nice.

punk, do you really believe it is inherantly wrong to own designer clothes and nice cars? If Inspector was buying these things out of a desire to aquire a false sense of self-esteem, yes it would be wrong. However, I do not believe this is the case. Inspector has earned these things through hard work and he has a right to purchase whatever he sees fit with the money he earned. My dream is to one day live in a high rise condiminium in Chicago overlooking Lake Michigan. This is one of the most expensive parts of Chicago to live in. Is that inherently wrong of me if I earn this place to live? If you really believe you are being consistant with Objectivism, I seriously suggest you go back and reread the bulk of Ayn Rand's material and check your premises.

Doh! How could I have forgotten about those two! Hillary is already on the list but I would agree with you on Bil. Winner of the Nobel "Peace" Prize. Yep. Laughable. We should probably also add to the list Dr. Laura Shelssinger, who, it should be noted, is not a real doctor.

Granted that in itself isn't a reason to list him as one of the most despicable people, but why are you appealing to authority to try and refute the arguement. Peikoff and Binswanger are hardly the only rational humans on the planet right now and the HBL is hardly "the authority" for determining if a person is despicable or not. If you want to know why Zoso considers him one of the most despicable people in this country, why don't you try asking him instead of trying to refute him with a logical fallacy.