JRoberts

I agree with everything that Betsy said . And I would like to add on to her as well. The first question you should ask yourself is, "What am I in the mood for? What sounds enjoyable to me? Fiction or non-fiction?" Once you figure that out, then you can start investigating the different areas-and looking at the advice that you have received so far. It seems that a few people I have met tend to think that the only way to understand the philosophy is to read the non-fiction, and yet they'd rather read fiction than non-fiction. But this is certainly (and thankfully!) not the case! All of Mrs. Rand's fiction is full of philosophy, as well as many other enjoyable things. Just be honest with yourself . Either way is a good way.

That is supposed to be "funny"-it is a "satire". I don't find it funny at all. If you click "home" and read the introduction to the website, everything (if it hadn't already) becomes clear.

Or- Punk-have you read any Plato at all? And if so, what?

Punk, I don't intend to sound harsh-but I've noticed in a few of you posts that you make these assertions without backing up any of them-even without offering an examples. You lay out a claim and seemingly beg for it to be refuted. Would you please explain why you don't think Aristotle and Plato are opposites? (To Mod: This should be in a new topic-both punk's and my posts)

May I ask where you got this idea from? I would love for you to back this up.

Japan is a great ally of ours, both economically and militarily. I see no logical reason why we couldn't trust Japan. Japan isn't stupid enough to do anything against us-their entire economy would collapse. I would love to see Japan increase its military power in eastern Asia-for both North Korea and China.

Ahh wine-an amazing drink. Though I prefer white wine-red wine goes very well with some foods. What you have to determine is: 1.) Do you (or the person you are buying it for) prefer dry wine or a less dry, more sweet wine? 2.) What is the purpose of the wine? Dinner? Dessert? Just casual discussion wine? Each of these will change which wine you want. Merlot is a pretty popular wine that, in some varities, runs at a great price. It is more of a soft wine than other types of wine, like Cabernet Sauvignon. A lot of people who drink wine in general, and are not 'high connoisseurs', enjoy Merlot. Search around where you live for the Vineyard and ask somebody at the store what has a good taste. The town that I live in has a vineyard called "Llano Estacado" that is pretty good (the Whitehouse drinks it). Anyway-hope that gets you started .

I would be cautious in your thoughts. Though I love the bigger cities, I also would love to have a house in a very small village (ie. Silverton, Colorado or Grandlake, Colorado). All have their advantages, and really it is a preference. My dream would be a penthouse in Tokyo and a cabin in Grand Lake .

Martin Luther wrote this in 1543: He wasn't a nice guy. His movement did nothing but cause massive wars, rampant killing, and a destruction of knowledge (he hated the advances in the world and desired a return to an agrarian, 'biblical' society). I would disagree for one reason: there is not a single core philosophy uniting Protestantism (other than they aren't Catholic). Some Protestant religions are greater strides towards reason, and others are greater strides away from reason. Once again, I advise you to be careful. Calvinism captured the city of Geneva and set up a Theocracy-eventually such a totalitarian one that they were kicked out by rebellion. Protestantism is a very, very broad word. The 'work-ethic' actually comes from Calvin and those Protestant denominations that adhere to his beliefs. Calvin developed the idea of Predestination, which states that God has already chosen who is going to Heaven and who is not. However, nobody truly knows. The only way to discover is to work-and the wealthier you are, the greater you are in God's glory. Thus many Calvinist began to work hard in order to see if they were blessed by God (and thereby going to Heaven). Besides the traces of the Roman Empire (except for Britain, it didn't go to any of the other Northern Countries), the only other major difference was Catholicism vs. non-Catholicism. These were not religions like we think of them today-people practiced these religions fanatically, and instituted them into all aspects of their life. The core differences of the religions explains the differences in the countries (though of course there are many smaller factors-these are the major two). Hope that helps.

The truth is that Objectivism belongs to neither Peikoff or Kelly, but to Ayn Rand. Kelly's 'philosophy' is not associated with Objectivism.

Modern people seem to think so-but actually, philosophy has many functions. It guides you in your 'religious', or metaphysical beliefs (is there a god-is there not a god? What is the nature of god, or of the universe?). It guides you in how you learn, or look at the world, or learn from the world-it guides you in the choices you make ethically (remember that little voice that tells you what to do and not to do?), who you vote for-or what you think of the government, what kind of books you like to read-etc., etc. You need philosophy to help you make the fundamental choices in your daily life-and even some of the simple choices .

Heh-the word is "virtus". It means "manliness, courage, excellence" and is where we get the word "virtue" from. That would be an interesting discussion eh? From manliness to virtue .

Actually 'vir' just simply means man, or hero. You will find it a lot in common Latin usage for "man".

You know-I think I am the only person who owns an Xbox and does not own Halo or Halo 2. I was not, and am not, impressed by either of them. Sure Halo is fun to play a bit at some LAN parties...but for the most part, especially with Halo 2, I felt like I was playing something that has already been done (Half-Life...). Rome: Total War on the other hand...

FlashFour, I think there exists a point that needs to be further examined. Material gain, as an end, should never be the focus of a healthy person. Taking money as the example-if your focus is on only the end of having the most, then it does not matter by what means you achieve it. The great thing about money is the acquisition of money-or the ability to work, to produce, etc. While material wealth may not be relative, spiritual wealth can only be achieved by the person who knows how to make money. It is only after one makes money in the truest sense, that one can better appreciate the product. The focus of the healthy man is the acquisition of money. It is only after one engages in the act of productive achievement that one can truly enjoy and appreciate the product.

Whoa... I would advise you to read what you wrote again (Thomas) and then read this: "James, you ought to discover some day that words have an exact meaning." (Atlas Shrugged, 94).

Reminds me of what Ayn Rand said: "My work is not a piece of writing designed to meet the taste of an immediate public, but was done to last for ever." -Thucydides

Do you value your memories? Those don't exist anymore-they are things that existed. And yet I would assume that you still value them.

I too don't understand why this was placed under Science. It would make more sense to me, if it can't be independent, to be a subforum of either Ethics or Politics.

Greatest by what standards? Greatest IN what? AT what?

Well I can't find the edit button-BUT-I'd like to make a spelling correction. Equalibrium should be equilibrium.

Adding on to David Odden, Basically we all humans are caught in a giant web-the web of life. Thus we are each connected to one another. This is used to bash capitalism even more. It is also used to push environmentalism-and then you get into such wacky things as Deep Ecology and Ecofeminism. Also, because we are all connected, there is no 'truth'. Everything is relative to the position you are in and the social fabrics you associate with. Power is the goal of everybody, and is fluid (Focoult-but I don't think I spelt that correctly). Thus power is finite and must be fought over to be controlled-harmony is an equilibrium in the fluidity of power. The society is dominated by male patriarchy. Thus we should spell women like womyn,-human like humyn-say congressperson-etc. to denote the Gender equality of all human beings. etc., etc., etc. It is craziness to the extreme-and that is just the BASIC stuff! Anyway, Modern is considered the "enlightenment" view of Reason, order, Science, etc. Thus post-modern is the view that 'corrects' the 'faults' in the 'Modern' view. If you want to see a sum of it-watch "Fight Club".

Very rarely have I ever felt such a sinking feeling of despair. I can only wait and see the final outcome-but quite honestly, I have more examination of my actions now than the small tidbits of tiny battles.

If you don't mind me asking-where did you read this?

I would also like to add that I particularly enjoy "Holiday Inn". It is an old movie with Fred Astaire that is considered a 'holiday classic'. It is a pretty simple and silly movie-but that is why I enjoy it so much. The movie is very jovial and light-lifting me away (especially with Fred Astaire!) If anybody is looking for a light, fun movie with great music-I would very much suggest this one .