horvay

I agree, rush has some good stuff. But speed racer tried to make it something intrinsic about big business. The plot-theme one chooses in their fiction is very important and central to the events of the movie. The central conflict wasn't Speed verses the owner of Royalton, it was speed verses corporate corruption. And "corporate corruption" was represented as something innate in having lots of money. But apart from that, I didn't even find speed that great of a character. He was good at racing and didn't even know why. He was crappy at anything else except racing which hardly makes sense without LOTS of practice. But he was shown to be nature at it, like it "runs in the family". His brother was much more virtuous since his brother understood things to a deeper degree and wasn't a one trick pony.

I know with taste in food, one's choice should be objectively based on their taste buds. Different people like different foods but one's taste remains objective if they base it on the pleasure from their taste sensors. Perhaps noise in the ear would be the same?

I don't think so. He was out to get rid of corporate involvement. The business man in it was just a representation of big business. It didn't focus solely on the bad guy as much as big business in general. The fact is, the major theme was to make racing less "staged" and the plot-theme chosen to do this was the "innocent little guy" verse the "corruptness of big business". Hell, they tried to even put efficiency and technology in a bad light when giving a tour at Royalton Industries. "damn big businesses destroying small businesses and taking away the fun of the game" The same thing is actually happening in modern sports. "They are doing it for the money, not the game." Its a contradiction since the money is a representation of the value people invest in the sport. I don't even see why the whole "staged" thing was bad in and of itself since people obviously had invested money (their value) into the race still. Royalton industries did some bad things, but they made them look intrinsically bad; not just one guy, but big business and "corporate sponsorships" in general. I can see how someone could PICK OUT some virtue from the characters, but I don't see how someone who loves capitalism would not be completely bothered by the anti-business plot.

The movie was horrible. Iron man had an evil business man, but it was different. It was an evil business MAN. Speed racer tried to show that BUSINESS is evil. It said it all near the beginning when the father said something like, "When someone gets that much money, it corrupts a man." Complete bull. Feeling the car... are you serious??? I wish I could figure out whats wrong with my car by feeling. This is just one of the inconsistencies in characterizations in the movie. A good driver wouldn't depend on something like that. Just as a good mechanic wouldn't create a good engine from family values. Why Speed was a good driver and why the father was a good engineer didn't make sense at all based on their other views. They don't want to build cars and race them with skill and efficiency, they want to do it with family values, which seems to be the theme of the movie. That would be like Roark saying, "I'm sorry Keating, you don't think for yourself, but I think we can still be friends". That would completely against an individualist Roark. Sure, you could say Speed valued his family and he raced for that, but that would be rationalizing it as it was obviously trying to show the importance of families verses big business as INTRINSIC things. I joke about the movie to my friends by imitating the father: "This engine was built from good ol' family values." Well, I suppose the movie was better than watching a NAS car race.

Yes, it is a bit generous. But nonetheless, a child banging randomly on a piano aesthetically sucks. While I might not have a very defined criteria for the aesthetics of music, I do believe they exists, and that they can be judged somewhat implicitly. My point, in its simplest form, is: Aesthetics in music exists, and so music isn't completely subjective in that realm of judgment. Thanks for the quote but I don't think I have the entire context of this statement so I'm not going to comment much more on the subject at this time. I do have the book, I just haven't read it yet, so I might come back to this.

That would be wrapped up in a contract however, and if its a single person's property, then just having enough space is enough. I was talking about in a city or suburban area here.

PART TWO I think this comes from having outlining a goal for any extensive thought about a subject. When one declares a goal that they wish to achieve--"I want to develop a list of things I admire most in people"--they then need to stick to the essentials of achieving that goal. If one were to start thinking about: "Well, I like people who like cats. Cats are fun as they seem to mimic individuality. I'm sad my cat died." then that is not keeping to the essentials of achieving the goal about finding things one admires. While something like: "Well, I like people who like cats. Cats mimic individuality and others who find this as a value will also value individuality." This shows a complete cycle of abstract to concrete to abstract but all the while staying on the topic of finding things one admires in others. This also gets to something else Ayn Rand gets into in The Art of Fiction: Early in the book she mentioned: This leads to the more important message: This was dead on with one of my problems. I used to always have to struggle to do this. Someone would ask for an example of what I was talking about and I'd have to jump to the example in whatever book I read about the abstraction. If I was talking about concept formation, I'd jump to using furniture and tables (or humans and animals) as they were the examples most used. Fortunately, Ayn Rand gives some good tips here: So I went for a jog and started to do this. Its amazing how much of a web of abstractions appear. One that I faced were "freedom", "individuality", "analytical", "building", and sense all these led to defining what I was speaking about, they led to more abstractions to analyze and concretize. Some more on abstractions:

Haha! I wasn't expect that to be the end of that sentence.

If you told her God wants her to reason, yeah. I also don't think this is a good thing. All it does is make her connection to God stronger since it better works in reality. I think it would of been better to of done something like, "beside the God issue, one has to use reason when it comes to figuring a problem out..." Do you think it will be easier to explain how reason is the opposite of faith, or harder now?

Let me ask you this: why not explain the real logical conclusion about God? That she should take the blame for their sins etc. That she should give all her efforts and happiness for someone else. Obviously you did not. In fact, you just used her false premise, in a way that more conformed to reality. YOU yourself DID use induction there. Why else would you work towards rationality rather than blind faith? So rationalizations on a false premise is never the way. What you did was not this, you faked that you accepted her premise (which you did not) and proceeded to modify it to fit what reality really is... So I don't think it was really a rationalization in the first place.

Oh, I see what you mean now. By "dislike", I don't mean anger. Talking to a rationalist is like eating something that taste nasty

I feel you are wrong... I feel it was a good idea.. I don't feel good... hahahaha There is a guy at my work who talks like this, I generally ignore any thing he says after "I feel". If you like something that isn't rational, then I'd say you have a mind body problem. When someone gives up reason, I generally stop liking them. And when someone says that they take reason as an absolute, they could still be a rationalist, and think induction is "just probability". Many people who follow Popper think this. Something really annoying about rationalizing is that people can rationalize anything if they pick their premises. These are the worse type of people, the ones who change their premises to make their argument work. I suppose they use conclusions to validate their premises!! Weird, but people do it.

There is two types of logic: deduction and induction. Those who believe in the super natural might still use deduction properly, but they have premises that were based on either a lack of or bad induction. A person can not help but to be rational as far as they choose to think. Its the only way the human mind works. Free will is the choice to think or not to think. A rationalization is using deduction on bad or no induction--which usually comes from a lack a lack of willing one's self to think about the facts. I, probably much like JMeganSnow, do not like to deal with people who do not use induction properly, and tend to only use deduction right. In fact, I can't stand these type of people, especially in my profession: software development. I have seem applications that are completely unintuitive to work with, and this is usually because the programmer only has a grasp on deduction, and not induction. So when someone claims that they only deal with the rationality in someone else, what they are really referring to are their correct/incorrect premises.

Yes, this is what I meant.

No, I said to prevent a future threat or something that helps one's own nation as a whole.