JRoberts

Where does she say this? In fact, I have an even greater question. What proof exists that there actually is a "sexual orientation"?

I think you are demanding omniscience between these two men. Just because they are rational does not mean that they know everything. As Godless Capitalist pointed out, they do not know the future-and thus can only make an educated assertion via reason. You must learn however that reason is not omniscience.

I like to think of it this way, Tommy: Fransisco treated each person in accordance with their nature. Jim and his friends were crooks. Thus he dealt with them as if they were crooks and didn't warn them-causing them to lose money (that wasn't really theirs). Then, as Betsy said, those who were rational-Fransisco treated as if they were rational and warned-allowing them to save the money (that was theirs). Each got what he deserved. That is called justice.

I couldn't recommend more Perseus. You can find all KINDS of works here that are amazing-some of my favorites: 1.) Epictetus-Enchiridion 2.)Euripides-Andromache 3.)Euripides-Medea 4.)Homer-Iliad 5.)Homer-Odyssey 6.)Sophocles-Antigone And if you don't mind more philosophical works- 1.)Plato-Phaedo 2.)Plato-Apology. 3.)Plato-Symposium. All of those are basically stories about Socrates. Most of those (except the Iliad and the Odyssey of course ) Are pretty short, and very good reads. I enjoy them

I found this quote from a man in Cuba. "[The government's political power] infiltrates and controls with fear and lies all the dimensions of life except the spirit. That cannot be submitted to [political power]; it is a source of liberation from that power."-Osvaldo Paya Straight from the source in the middle of a communist nation. Kudos to him. ----edit---- I forgot to add why I think this is important. I found this in an article on the front page of MSN. I would consider that national (in some cases international) news.

Release please IM me on AIM at Energitia or email me at [email protected] Thank you

I'd actually like to see this...the battle between "equal-rights" ADA'ers and Environmentalist

This is a popular topic on some other areas-so I thought I'd just redirect you to them. One is Should We Vote In Today's Society? Another is Half-battle Vs. No Battle There is also A Voter's Method? And then to get a bit more specific, Open Reply To Prof John Lewis, Platonic Conservatism is not the Issue And After Kerry Wins . . . I hope those help you out in answering what questions you had

I certainly am not being ironic. That is why I brought up this point, "Indeed, I endeavor to see an end in a replacement of ones positions with other’s works, and instead see other’s works as verification for ones views." I assume then that I was not clear enough in my intention. I understand that there are times that referring one to a certain work is needed. However, I saw this as a different situation. FreeCapitalist is obviously well read enough in Objectivism to ask the questions he did and make the statements that he did. Thus, by referring him back to works, one is not making a point and raising education, but merely covering what points they could be making and in fact lowering education-both for FreeCapitalist, and for the poster. FreeCapitalist pulled quotes out of Objectivist material to aid the points that he made. I was thus asking those in disagreement to do the same. Please also take note that I supposed that everyone’s intention was good natured, and my own intention is good natured as well. My entire goal is to raise education in a discussion, not turn discussions into a “Refer back to X” discussion.

This leads me to wonder if the cliff itself was used as a symbol of the life of Fransisco itself-that in every action he did, he "took steps down new roads armed with nothing but his own vision" and overcame any obstacle brought before him. Upon reaching the top of the cliff, he jumped off to the water below-the ultimate action of him 'descending' to a 'better' place (shrugging?). Or am I possibly stretching this?

I see so much "advice" (conceding that it is good natured) on how FreeCapitalist should go back and "read" to "understand". And yet I see nobody standing on their own foot and addressing the issues brought up. Thus (singling you out) Greich, when you make this statement, , would you please back it up with why you think this is not the case? This reminds me of Seneca, when he states, "...the people who are forever acting as interpreters and never as creators, always lurking in someone else's shadow. They never venture to do for themselves the things they have spent such a long time learning. They exercise their memories on things that are not their own. It is one thing, however, to remember, another to know. To remember is to safeguard something entrusted to your memory, whereas to know, by contrast, is actually to make each item your own, and not to be dependent on some original and be constantly looking to see what the master said....Let's have some difference between you and the books! How much longer are you going to be a pupil," (Seneca, Letter 33)? Indeed, I endeavor to see an end in a replacement of ones positions with other’s works, and instead see other’s works as verification for ones views.

I've seen people with amazing potential turn into garbage reading Sartre. His views may seem very interesting, but if you aren't careful, he'll grab ahold of what spirit you have and tear it to shreds. Try this link http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=ignorance_and_peace

From the previews I saw, the Huckabees seemed like one long giant exploration into Existentialism. You wouldn't say that this is the case?

To sacrifice is to trade something of a greater value for that of a lesser value. Thus, if you give away your child in exchange for some ice cream, you have traded a greater value for a lesser value. Now of course, this all depends upon what type of value system you have-a system that can only be determined by you.

This is what I mean. You have a choice-to either look at the bundles of philosophies out there and try use them to determine what reality is, -or- You can look at reality (the world, nature). What does it tell you? What can you do...not do? Then from what you learn-which philosophy most closely matches that? For surely if you agree that there is no god, and that you desire to live in this world-then you should begin WITH this world as opposed to philosophies-Neo-Tech, Epicurianism, Objectivism, etc.

Surely you aren't proposing that you know everything there is to know about reality. Why not move on to that?

I could only suggest the greatest caution in reading him. I myself enjoy both of the Homeric Epics, though I prefer the Odyssey above the Iliad. I also enjoy reading Sophocles (Oedipus Trilogy), as well as somebody less familiar to many people in today's world-Euripides. If anybody has the chance, I highly suggest Euripides plays, especially Medea and Andromache, for their sheer psychological power and insight.

I felt question number one was a broad question relating to the rest of the novel, and I decided to focus on specifics. Taken literally, you are correct. However, I used the term fiefdom to support my view of the transition of aristocracy from the nobility by force/birth to the nobility by creation/trading. Thus the land of before, and the serfs under it, moved to a company for people like Dagny and Fransisco, with the serfs transforming into workers-all based upon the trader principle, not the principle of coercion. For clarification, would you please expand upon this? I think there is great possibility in what you have stated, but I'd rather you expand upon your ideas . I think you have hit on an excellent point here. Miss Rand went into great detail explaining his (Fransisco's) character-and after finishing the section of his childhood, you are led to think "But what an amazing person!"...however, his childhood seems to contradict who he had become now. Thus it appeared as if Fransisco was a walking contradiction-a part of the mystery. However, I remind you of the name of Part One, where this chapter takes place-"Non-Contradiction". Hmmm

What are you looking for in life that Neo-Tech aids you in achieving?

Are you not an individual when you eat the food you buy from McDonald's...which was prepared by someone else? Are you not an individual when you sleep on a bed made by somebody else? Are you not an individual when you use a computer to do your work- a computer not created by yourself?

Hmm. I think it might help if we choose one question to discuss at first, and then when we finish that question, move on to another question. This way we can keep focus on one issue per post and not jump around all the time. This being stated, I will begin with question 2-"How are Dagny and Francisco aristocrats?" ------------------------------------ I think the most proper way to answer the question is first to define what exactly an aristocrat is. Webster defines an aristocrat as, "a member of an aristocracy; especially: NOBLE" with aristocracy being defined as, "the aggregate of those believed to be superior; a government by the best individuals or by a small privileged class ". While I do not believe Ayn Rand was referring to an actual government, I do believe she was referring to the 'superior or privileged class'. One of the most commonly known and one of the most abundant periods in terms of aristocracy was the, what I will define as, "Monarchial" period in Europe from about 1400-1800. These monarchs and their noble/aristocratic entourage led the nation because they were born into "noble blood". This aristocracy used force to take the products of the people and use them for their own personal, often lavish and indulgent, luxury. Thus, this was an aristocracy of unearned 'wealth' by coercion-an aristocracy of the 'noble blood' because you were born into it-an aristocracy of the 'jungle'. For clarity and convenience, I will separate these into the aristocracy of old and the aristocracy of new-old referring to the European Monarchs that I was describing above, and new referring to people like Dagny and Fransisco. The aristocracy of old was an aristocracy because they used force to take their wealth. When tax time came, the king or noble's tax collector and a group of soldiers went around gathering taxes while the nobles indulged in their own stolen gluttony. However, because of the advancement of society in terms of events like the Industrial Revolution, which were possible because of the amount of freedom that had blossomed in society (especially in the United States), a new nobility or aristocracy based upon freedom was needed to replace the aristocracy of coercion (needed in the context that, not every human will produce-and not every human has the mental capacity or the self-determination to produce as much as others-thus there will be a difference in wealth based upon effort and intelligence and demand). This aristocracy was the aristocracy of those who created. This difference is highlighted in the story of Sebastian d’Anconia, who was a Noble or member of the aristocracy of old, who gave it up to become an aristocrat of the new by creating. He left his castles of old and created his own new castle-this time a castle created not because he stole, but because he created. Dagny and Fransisco are a part of this aristocracy. Both of them are creators-owners (essentially) of the companies that bear their name-of companies that are their fiefdoms. Dagny and Fransisco are aristocrats in another sense. In the aristocracy of old, the name became sacred, and thus you had dynasties, or royal/noble lines. Valois, Hapsburg, Stuart, Tudor, etc. If you were born into the name, you were Noble-regardless of your actions. Thus a liar and an honest man both shared the same name and were aristocrats. In the new aristocracy, the name was still important. Both Taggart and d’Anconia were the crowning names of the fiefdom and the names of a royal line. However, in the new aristocracy, the name was synonymous with the virtues and values of the founder. Thus the name was something to live up to, or as Fransisco said, “...none of us has ever been permitted to think he is born a d'Anconia. We are expected to become one."-Fransisco, pg. 89. Thus this time, Dagny and Fransisco are nobles because they carry a name that is noble (because it is a name of creators-a synonym of one who creates) and because they have lived up to it. Thus, Dagny and Fransisco were essentially aristocrats because they were elite-the elites of society. This time however, they were elite not because they coerced others to get their (altruism), but because they themselves, of their own volition and struggle, achieved the honorable title.

She enjoyed at times the style of his writing, not his ideas. Ayn Rand stated, "Philosophically, Friedrich Nietzsche is a mystic and an irrationalist. His metaphysics consists of a somewhat "Byronic" and mystically "malevolent" universe; his epistemology subordinates reason to 'will', or feeling or instinct or blood or innate virtues of character. But, as a poet, he projects at times (not consistently) a magnificent feeling for man's greatness, expressed in emotional, not intellectual terms."(The Fountainhead, Introduction to the 25th Anniversary Edition, pg. x)

I would just like to reply that I think these are excellent questions. I have been re-reading the section and thinking over the questions. Expect a post today!

I actually have just recently signed up for the Army and plan on going Active Duty. I did learn a few very important things however that may be of great aid to you. First, I think that it is very important that you thoroughly identify precisely why you want to join the military. This is a very deep and heavy time of soul-searching within yourself, meaning that you and only you can come up with the answer. Within your soul searching, the most fundamental trait you must practice (as well as in everything else you do) is honesty. Honesty to yourself and honesty to the facts of reality. I would suggest doing a lot of research online, speaking with recruiters, speaking to veterans and others like you are now, etc. The point of this is to gain information about what it is actually LIKE-meaning, not opinions, but facts. Evaluate these against the goal that you hope to achieve by going into the army. The question is this-is it worth it? Another thing I would like to add is this warning. I myself am guilty of this-this being Romanticism. Or, romanticizing situations. This comes into play with honesty, as I was speaking about earlier. You must make it clear to yourself the difference between what the facts actually are, and the romantic notions in your head filled up by movies, the media (sometimes..), the recruiters, and others. Romanticism can blind you from the truth, and you would hate to join the military and regret it because you were blinded. It is only after the deep soul-searching that you yourself can come up with a sufficient answer. Remember-always be honest. And best of luck to you.

For the most part, you don't deal with these people. You certainly are not obligated to. So why bother yourself? My best advice to you is to ignore it, ignore them...walk away. To those who are religious and, becomes you may be on speaking terms with them, you feel it rude to walk away-I would ask them kindly not to bring up the subject, ie. to agree to disagree.