JRoberts

Surprised nobody else has said it. You might want to look into "Heart of a Pagan" by Andrew Bernstein. Good read .

Godless Capitalist was correct. That website is very skewed in what it views as 'evolution'. What's more, that website is designed not in trying to find out the truth (ie. is there a god, or not? What does our world tell us?). Instead, it skews information that may seem difficult to the common man and then puts forth its agenda based upon such information. This is called deceit, and is one of the first signs of something that needs to be avoided. If you desire the truth, I welcome discussion with you. If you desire to evade the truth, then I'd rather you be banned.

Cordair also has some. http://cordair.com/gaetano/index.aspx

Yes I have heard of his music. My band in highschool (symphonic band) played October. I should still have a recording somewhere of it. It is a really beautiful work. Why does it puzzle you?

You could begin by identifying why you like the music-and what you are looking for in music.

This is really going off on a tangent, so maybe we should start a new thread if you would like to continue it further. Anyway, to place value means the act denoting value to a certain thing. It is basically the statement, "I value this...". Sounds more like you haven't identified your values to me. And the question would be, "What is wrong with hedonism?"-period. Read my previous post to identify what is wrong with hedonism-it is a futile attempt at happiness that ends up in the gutter.

Nope. I never once mentioned money. Pleasure accompanies the activity of you striving to reach your values. So, if you place value in a certain song, or a certain composer, because of the value that this music fulfills-then by listening to it, you reach your values and thus gain some pleasure. Pleasure is always based upon this activity however-it is not seperate. People try and seperate pleasure from activity for many reasons, and place pleasure as the goal that they are trying to reach, instead of the value. Because this type of pleasure is not rooted in anything, you will only get short bursts of pseudo-pleasure from what value system you have left decaying inside of you, but that you have either shunned or haven't identified. Because you have not identified it, or shunned it, the pleasure doesn't last forever. Thus you don't know "what it was..I just liked it". Then you tire of it because you can't identify it, and move on. This is what I was talking about-and something that you see a lot today. "Oh I like this! I don't know why...I just do....it makes me feel good." I hope that makes more sense.

You might also ask Betsy or Steven about a guy named David Hayes. I get the Cybernet, and he gives a brief synopsis of some really good, older movies.

If I understand what you are saying, then yes. By severing pleasure from the value (ie. what value you place on the music to give you the pleasure), you have created pleasure based upon whim. Pleasure based upon whim thus is the pleasure that "sucks dry and moves on", ie "This is my favorite song!" and two weeks later, "No-This is my favorite song!", and so on. Because there is no base value, the quest will be a never-fulfilling and never-ending one.

Two reasons, I believe. 1.) Abstract art requires not knowing. Meaning that-you are supposed to look at the picture and say "It is great-because I don't understand it." 2.) Abstract art is an emotional response. Because you are not supposed to understand it, you are supposed to look at it and judge it based upon how it makes you feel. I am sure there are other minor things, but I think these two are the key issues to why it is so popular. They correspond with the dominant philosophy of today.

Yes-but these situations are not, in essence, a part of life. As Stephen said,

The only way to live and prosper is to act in accordance with ones nature. To act against ones nature is to act as a destructor. Thus the selfish man acts in accordance to his nature. Murder is not a part of human nature. If a lion were to murder another lion, there would be no problem. A human murdering another human is choosing to act against your nature, and thus choosing to act as your own destructor, and thus choosing to be selfless.

I have often admired the house from what few pictures I have found available. You wouldn't happen to have any pictures of it would you? You made the house sound all-the-more tempting .

Why do you pit them against one another?

I was actually about to post about this as well. I'm a bit in the dark as to what happened...

As to this part, I believe that though the United States Federal government has become too large and too intrusive, I think that at the core the United States is still an individual-rights loving nation, and that as long as the United States upholds individual rights, especially the Bill of Rights, then it is within our parameters to fix through our political system (though of course, this all relies upon the dominance of an Aristotilean philosophy again into the culture). Secession would only do damage, especially when we are involved in a global war on terrorism that needs all the support we can get. My entire purpose for speaking about the Federalist Papers was to reduce this to the argument of which should have more power, the State or the Nation. That is why I made a reference to the Federalist Papers. Also, you put words in my mouth. I never said that the Union could hold states captive.

I speak for myself (as I hope is always understood). I do not think that states should have any ability to secede. There is strength in unity, and giving the states the ability to secede gives states the ability to tear apart and weaken the national government. This actually has its roots on something called the Federalist vs. the Anti-Federalist at the foundation of the United States. You should look at your local bookstore for The Federalist Papers to help you understand more the great battle between-that which has more power: states or union.

Point of Clarification please: I heard that it was possible that Alexandra York was associated with TOC. Is this true?

Not by killing people or destroying things.

Al Kufr, I think it'd be best if you defined what you meant by "Competition"

I would do it. I really like Betsy's idea, and think that THAT would be the best place to start-with Ayn Rand's novels.

What is more important right now is that we try and establish a philosophical basis within the United States. An Objectivist Political Party would not do very well because the basic philosophy behind it has not become something that the culture accepts, or that the culture is tolerant of enough to have instigated. Also, ANY political party that ran currently with its own constitution and spoke of replacing the new with the old would most easily never get voted in.

Remember that you do not have to be controversial. I think the first thing you should be doing is thinking about your teacher. If you think your teacher would fail you, or treat you like crap for the rest of the year (teachers do this) because you do something like bring the Bible and speak of it as a codebook of death, then it wouldn't be wise to do so. So think about your grade first. If this IS the case, I would suggest something like Machiavelli's "The Prince", that you can share with the class your disagreement. But of course, if this is not the case, then I would suggest "The Fountainhead". I'm sure that you can give a speech abot Cortland and the controversy surrounding it.

I just thought I would post this link as evidence of some things that Christians are doing: http://www.kernow.com/bcurnow/blog/archive.asp?id=168 I live in a town of 200,000 in Texas. Of course it is in the Bible Belt, and thus this action can make SOME sort of sense. The point however is that this is a DEBATE. This is not the first time something like this has happened in my city alone as well.

Has anybody read this novel? If so, what are your thoughts on it? Also, I could have sworn that Ayn Rand mentioned this novel somewhere. Does anyone happen to know where?