Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

source

Regulars
  • Content Count

    632
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About source

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 08/03/1983

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Croatia
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Chat Nick
    Nikola
  • Relationship status
    Single
  • Sexual orientation
    Bisexual
  • Real Name
    Nikola Novak
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • School or University
    FER
  • Occupation
    Student

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.nikolanovak.com/
  • ICQ
    58884901
  • Yahoo
    s0urce_code

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Croatia
  • Interests
    Programming, Objectivism, writing, mountain climbing, photography, Artificial Intelligence

Recent Profile Visitors

2088 profile views
  1. I can't help but wonder what on Earth they mean. Things are not *how* simple exactly? Things are not what they are? Consciousness is not conscious? A is not A? It's no wonder they blank-out at the mere mention of morality. From Wikipedia: Good for whom? No answer. Bad for whom? No answer.
  2. I hope you understand that in Objectivist philosophy, every "must" is conditional, i.e. it is true that "If I want X, I must do Y." There is no "I must, period." The wording of your sentence is a bit unfortunate, however. What one would normally regard as evil is that which destroys his life or his values and not that which hinders his self-interest. (Does the fact that the shopkeeper won't give you the bread you need for free hinder your self-interest? After all, you would prefer to have the bread and keep the money, no?) Also keep in mind that a mistake isn't necessarily evil, even if it
  3. Accessing the member map causes the following error: Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 67108864 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 346595 bytes) in /home/objectj0/public_html/objectivismonline/forum/admin/sources/classes/output/formats/html/htmlOutput.php on line 639 I'm using Google Chrome.
  4. Hey, I haven't been active here for quite a while and thought I'd say hi. I've graduated in the meantime and got a job, so now that I don't have to study all day I suppose I'll find some time to stop by a couple of times a week. Cheers! Nikola
  5. One thing I haven't seen addressed in this thread is the fact about how overblown this thing is in the media. I don't know how it is in the US, but over here in Croatia the media, as well as the government, are spreading panic for some reason. As far as I can see, H1N1 is no more dangerous than seasonal flu, so why all the fuss? If I understand it correctly, the H1N1 strain isn't even new. The mortality rate of H1N1 is the same as that of a seasonal flu. Any comments on their reaction? Thanks.
  6. I'm now reading book 5 and surprisingly enough, book 4 didn't have any quotes that stand out as being too irrational, like some I quoted from Blood of the Fold. There were a couple of instances but they weren't strong enough to make me put them here. However, I wouldn't say that book 4 satisfied me much. I'm looking forward to the next book, and then the next. I'm expecting Soul of the Fire to be better than the previous couple of books In any case, I'm not going to stop reading until I'm through with the series. These books are by far the most captivating I've ever read. I mu
  7. I get there by waiting? Agreed, but that does not disaffirm the blank-out suggested by my conclusion made from the quotes I've given. Quote: This is an interesting line that pops up on various locations throughout the series until now (I'm currently reading Temple of the Winds, Chapter 24). The last time it was mentioned in this book,
  8. Anyway, here come the quotes: The above two combined seem to say: The first quote by itself is a horror as it is. I said before and I'm saying it again - Goodkind gives way too much importance to instincts. Maybe he just got lazy after doing a great job in WFR? I don't know, but The Stone of Tears and Blood of the Fold are the only two books I've ever read that get more and more boring as the story reaches its climax (well, with the exception of those that are also annoying).
  9. Yes, that's what I wanted to quote just now but I'll skip it since you mentioned it. However, there's one other thing that's bugging me and it has to do with the prophecies. Yes, I find that confusing too. Just as I find confusing those instances where he claims selflessness, yet Goodkind doesn't neglect to mention every single selfish reason for whatever it was that Richard did. That's great, but I still think Goodkind gives Richard's instincts too important a role. As far as I can tell, to humans instincts can only say "run" and "hide". Everything else is sheer
  10. I find it deeply disturbing that the protagonist of a book which is supposedly based on Objectivism can get away with "I don't know how I did it", when referring to the way he resolves all problems in the plot during the climax. I'm now reading book three which - it seems - will be like book two when it comes to climax, and judging by a number of reviews I've read on the Internet, book one is an exception to the rule. Richard resolves problems by means of instinct and gut feeling. Can someone explain to me how any of this can be called Objectivism, or at least based on Objectivism? I'm goin
  11. source

    Conflict

    As SD26 said, you may have a good start of an idea there. That's your basic conflict. Now, if you've read Ayn Rand's Art of Fiction and/or any of her journals, you may recall that she liked to ask how to make things even more difficult for the protagonists - how to make matters even more complicated for them. The trick is not to deviate too much from your basic conflict, for example by inventing another conflict. Think, rather, in terms of "expanding" what you have. Use the characters you've already created to deepen the tensions between them to make your story interesting and to "demand" imme
  12. I'll give you two examples. First, Harry Potter. The books are great! The movies are great. They don't take away anything from the characters, and they don't change them in ANY significant way whatsoever. Their depth shows on-screen as much as it does off it (in the books). Second, The Lord of the Rings. I'd say that characterization in the movies is even better than that in the books which is something I've never seen before, or after. In both cases, the philosophy behind the novels has remained intact when transferring it to screen. You will note that the popularity of both movies is enormou
  13. I absolutely love the character. But I suppose his premise reveals most in one instance when he's treating a woman who he thinks is going to die, and she has a daughter with whom she's completely honest. There is an instance when the conversation goes thus (paraphrased, I don't remember the exact words): House later comments this to his friend with the words (also paraphrased):
  14. source

    Passive Voice

    Then you made a mistake. You said "I suggest that your feeling that you like [the first sentence] better than [the second sentence] comes from the fact that the latter conveys more information...", where you should have said "...comes from the fact that the former conveys more information..." That was the source of my confusion.
×
×
  • Create New...