AmbivalentEye

I guess the president could fight for a purpose of his own that would better the country regardless of it's effects on "society" as long as he achieves it for himself. But how would laws be established. Could this ever work? Wouldn't half the population rise in anarchy? Not to say that it could happen, because the "people" would never permit an objectivist to rise to power. Wait....would an objectivist ever accpet a role like that? Einstein was offered presidency of Jerusalem and he declined. This is an extremely hypothetical idea, but if this is the way life should be lived, well, let's just say that in this hypothetical idea of mine, every person alive is an objectivist and someone needs to keep order to it all. Who makes the rules. How would you decide things such as help to the homeless or poor. maybe I'm way out of my head. I guess there's no point in fighting about "what if's" , but if you have a comment, I'd really like to see it. -J

For an english report, I was asked to write a paper on Martin Luther King as the most influential person of the 20th century. I ahve always thought of MLK as a great man. He's amazing to me because of his efforts and his struggles. Until I read Ayn Rand, I had always concidered him a hero, but my views on heros changed. Now I have the conflict of admiring this man who sacrificed his entire life to the sake of mankind, or specifically the black race. Is this supposed to be wrong? I know in many ways it is, but still, I would be graetly disturbed if the Civil Rights Movement had never happened. How does objectivism see that. That was all people working together for a single purpose and succeded, despite the losses. It wasn't violent. It wasn't brought upon by guns or by betrayal of someone's values. It actually created values and moralty. so how is it wrong? I keep struggling with the idea that it can't be. It only resulted in more good. How could that be bad? Are you supposed to pity the racist whites that gave up their form of living, everything they beleived in? No. I don't know... It's worse because whenever I look up anything on Reverend King, I always find quotes and speeches as those that you would hear Elsworth Toohey, preaching to some vast crowd, and it makes me cringe. Is it wrong for me to idolize him in a way? I've always told myself that if I had lived in those times, I would be fighting with him too. Actually, at least 2 or 3 times a week I feel like sneaking my way into China and raising a riot or some sort of protest to alert the government of their wrong doing. I know this would be foolish of me because I would not be prepared and don't know the methods of carrying out those ideas. Id probably get shot just from daring to say "NO!" but wouldn't it be worth it? I know in a week or maybe less, everyone will forget I was even there, and it will have never made a difference. So is there ever a time when you should sacrifice yourself for a right ideal? If not...then how are things ever supposed to get any better? Things like "moses with the wrath of God behind him" don't happen anymore, if they happened at all. so how is the world supposed to carry on? I'm constantly unsure of what type of bias to take on in my reasearch paper. I'd appreciate it if someone could express some guidance.

Because I don't know the true basis of the topics in the forum, and haven't been intellectually exposed to them, I never know where to post something here. The "Right and wrong", "arts", "poltical issues" or "current events" is simple and obvious. I can't really say I know what metaphysics or epistemology...etc. mean. I know I greatly enjoy physics, but by the way the term is used, I doubt it has anything to do with physics. (once again, I'm 14). If you could give me a brief explanation of these others, I'd greatly appreciate it, I'm also trying to see what type of things I would like to study. I'm taking a course on philosophy and another on Psychology next year, but there's so much I'd like to learn. I can't just jump into something like "history of judaism", because I know I won't enjoy it or have any direct use in it. Thanks for your help. Also, if you know any other categories of philosophy that aren't mentioned here and would like to reccomend, I'd like to hear about those too. Do any of you think any brach of religious studies is worth it? I'm highly interested in buddhism simply because of the "eternal peace" concept and the ideas of "enlightenment" which I don't concider to be true but would like to investigate. I see there is a class called "logic" in college. If any of you took it, is it good? it sounds good. Also, "non-eucledian geometry", I seem to love the idea of it without having ever seen any part of it. All i know is that it's principles go against the regular math foundations and I love the concept of that. Mainly I'd like to try something different the would benefit me. Thank you!

To answer the question of the title, I guess I'm starting to realie that that person is not me. I have loved and devoted myself to the philosophy of objectivism ever since i found it and accidentally stumbled upon it's pages to find Eddie Willers looking at the black emptiness of the broken tree and feelintg vetrayal. That was me in that moments, and now i'm only left with a sense of doubt. I see that i cannot answer to the post that I started, titled, "Who is John Galt?" It's the same thing I have faced my entire life in the precense of my father. He wishes to rule all and manipulate all, he is nearly every evil thing that is mentioned in the Ayn Rand novels, and some other despicable things that i can't stand, but must accept. W hy can not be an objectivist? Because I am a child of God, and within my being, I cannot turn against that and do not wish to try. I don't want to fight about this. I hav found that my life is based on principles that contradict each other because I am an objectivist in every aspect, except for the fact that I am christian. I have lived my life following the rules of, "honor thy father and mother, at any cost", it has cost me much pain and instability, but I have to accept iot. I can dimly sense the flaws in that system. I can feel that it is wrong to confine myself to the slavery, but that's how it is. I could live my life by objectivist standards as I wish to, but I would only end up on the street, disowned by my family, and rejected by society. I can't answer to your arguments because I fear you may be right and i don't want to have to make the choice between my faith, and my purpose in living. This may be wrong. I'm hoping I won't have to leave this site, but I know it just won't feel the same anymore. This is the ambivalence in sitting down to read Ayn Rand. The message is wondrous, but I can't accept it. I feel myself fighting my own destroyer who is trying to lead me to Galt's Gulch, but I can't. I can't be an objectivist by what i have seen here, and that really saddens me. You guys have been great. Actually, one of the most intelligent group of people I've ever been able to communicate with. All my life...I searched for reason, and objectivism offered it to me. Why must I have to deny it? I have to go... I'll try to post again in June.

ok, yes. I am christian. But I hate how people seem to imply that objectivism is a philosophy of atheists. I don't see it that way at all. Though i know, the only thing exalted is yourself and only yourself, I don't think that is a necessity to cut out all other faiths. I know that I can't do that, do nit wish to, and would be very greatrful if we don't start debating on that. I already made my choice on faith, and to change is woild appear as a betrayal upon myself (now I know you will say that in beleiving there is a God or higher power, I am betraying some part of me in some way. The problem is... i can't accept that there isn't one either.) I know that I don't and can't control everything, much less create it all. So the only way to rationalize is it by thinking that somebody, somewhere, somehow does. I don't beleive he "controls" everything, or else, what would be the point of free will? Yet somebody had to create it, somebody has to support and watch over it. I don't "worship" him, but I do respect him(I use the term "him" because it's the only way to identify that source") I respect what he has done, and that he exists. I don't beleive that he makes things just happen out of nowhere, science has disproved that and now every part of nature is linked into the reactions or effects of everything else. I have always beleived that I am in control of my own life and am free to do with it, whatever I please, according to what I value and what my morals and ideals are. You may wonder how is see God. I have no problem with thinking that he may be some sort of father. A father offers guidance and support, and he offers a kind that I don't think you could ever find anywhere. Faith itself is perception and therefore he will never betray me, or leave me, unless my mind wishes to accept that notion. It's sort of "a last hope", when you have nothing else to turn to, and you are powerless to save yourself from a situation, because even you don't understand it, I just like to beleive that there is something out there, greater than anything any of us could ever concieve. I knew, in coming here that i wouldn't be "in the crowd of the faithful" as you say, but the truth is I'm not accepted in those that are either, because of the things I have already said. I create my own ideal to live by. I refuse to worship or bow down to anyone. The issue with God does not mean I see him as an equal, but that he will never require me to acknowledge his superiority. He has no slaves, he has "children". That's just my view of it. About the whole, "trying to answer something without proof to support the conclusion", is also true, and i have no problem living that way. This too is my problem with the fields of science. They greatly interest me and I do very well in them, but yet, like I have said in another post, "I don't want all the answers". I want to be able to understand and conceive everything in a form that I'll be able to accept it. I can't accept that all of live originated from a huge explosion of energy and matter(Bg Bang), I mean, even those theories have their flaws. I'm not saying the bible doesn't. In fact, it has too many flaws and therefore, nearly half of it, I don't know if I agree with it. Because it was written by man, I stil think that no matter how powerfuly you may be dedicated to your faith, you are still a selfish being and will act accordingly. Sometimes all of religion is some selfish act of saying "the human, was God's greatest creation and therefore I am the most superior creature of the universe", this just seems foolish to say, even though your mind will always perceive it as such. I have always thought that if you could receive a rational understandable response from a specie like a cat, they would also say they are the greatest. i've got to go, i'll continue this later.

I can't really accept that some decisions are forced upon you by your bilogical nature. Yes, ther may be millions of proofs out there that because of genes, or chemicals, or compositions of cells, you will almost automatically end up doing some specific thing. I won't say "beleive", because I have already seen how that word causes such conflict when not uses precisely, so i'll simply say that i can't accept that. because i can't accept the idea that we don't have control over all of our decisions. I think you always have control, whether you wish to use it or not. I understand that the condition or consequences of every choice vary and very often you are pressured into a decision you wouldn't ordinarily do, because of it's effect on someone else or whatever. But in situations such as this one, when it is only your own personal decision about the way of life you wish to lead, i think you have the choice. I'm not debating against science because I don't know all the facts but it is in my beleif to thing that all living things are born as a part of nature. And nature has it's strict rules that can't be bent or broken. I beleive all humans(to not make this so drastic in saying "life"), are born with their nature to be attracted to the opposite gender. Whether there is a mutation, or extreme mess up in the hormonal levels, is a completely different thing, but in talking about the average human being, i think it is so. Now those circumstances change, because we are always affected by our environment and those around you. So usually if something changes to make that individual go aside from it's nature, it's as a cause of some sort of manipulation or corruption to the innocent taht cannot conceive it or understand it. All of the homosexuals I know went through some sort of instance i their past, small scenarios or acts, not exatly abuse or anything like that, but just moments and innocent actions that began to alter their perception little by little till one day they made they choice. I mean, once it becomes a part of who you are, you can't refute it. This is just about being born into it, which I don't beleive. Then, if it has already become a part of them: the thoughts, the feelings, the drive, then it becomes a matter like one of the members here said, that it then becomes about whether or not you wish to give into or deny that desire. I think the choice lies here, but I'm not sure how it should be viewed. what I'm writting about is when you choose to deny that temptation. I have seen two responses to the effect of this. One is is The Fountainhead between Roark and Dominique. They deny each other what they most desire until it becomes unbearable and the seperation makes everything else even more powerful, while having the denial still be meaningful and important as well. The other comes from Oscar Wilde's "Picture of Dorian Gray" it said, "But their own souls starve and are naked. Nothing remains then but the recollection of a pleasure, or the luxury of a regret. The only way to rid a temptation is to yield to it. Resist it, and your soul grows sick with longing for the things it has forbidden itself" Could there perhaps be a second meaning to the latter that I didn't see? Which is more true? Someone please explain this to me cause I've had some difficulty with such topics.

GEEZ! This is one of the most hostile posting sites I have ever seen. i too have had my minor arguments, but this really seems like useless nonsense. ah, whatever. I don't want to get involved. I'm just saying, that posting here should not be about refuting the views of everybody else, it's simply a matter of opinion, while respecting others, or at least for me it is.

yes, I completely undertand and agree with everything you just said. I don't debate against that. That would become obnoxious and immature. I know, i have been seen as a hypocrite by many and maybe I am, but that is another issue regarding my thoughts and emotions always contradicting themselves, which doesn't make any sense according to the objectivist viewpoint, so i won't even discuss it. I'm still trying to figure myself out. Sorry if this sounds wrong or weak, but like I've said before. I'm only 14, most may say i have seen nothing and have much ahead of me. that is true, so I'm simply setting my opinions. I know they have faults, but for now, I beleive I'm still free to expiriment and refine my methods of being.

"So why do people have this strange idea that we are all "individuals"? Well, getting back to the first point we made, which is that conditions determine consciousness " -From: Youtrh of International socialism quote AHHHH, THAT THING WAS EVIL! (the quote) It's like having to sit and read one of the speaches by Elsworth Toohey, or evn worse, one of those people from the "councils" of The Anthem. that is disturbing...that they actually beleive themselves. I can't really comment or answer to your post though, sorry. But the post itself did set an impact. I'm suddenly bothered.... people actually listen to stuff like that and think it's greatness?!? uhhh

I have wondered many times about this too. Many parts of the books of Ayn Rand, though they sound amazing...in some ways, don't appear possible. For example: Howard Roark. Could there ever, or has there ver been a person like Howard Roark? I know i have never met, heard or seen one, and to think that someone like him could exist seems rather surreal. What I mean by Howrd Roark, I mean a person who's highest value is their work and therefore they are able to disregard the rest of human existance. Because that's just how he is. Somehow, everything and everyone else becomes "irrelevant", unless they offer him reason or purpose. I find that I am this way in many aspects, but it seems impossible to have a person of all the characteristics of Howard Roark. I too, when intent upon a task, forget that anybody else around me exists. If i have a group assignment, ordinarily if not automatically I take charge and do it all. Yes it does become a burden, and I suppose also manipulation because I give the rest of the group a grade they never deserved, yet...the way my conscience works is like one I imagine Roark might've had. I know what I have to do, I know I can do it and how to do it, so I do. Even if I lack knowledge in a specific thing, I force myself to figure it out, learn it, or still do my best without giving up my effort. Yes, this is very selfish i know, when it is supposed to be a "group assignment", but the books only convinced me that I don't have to compromise my mind or idea to satisfy their purpose, I must fulfill my own. I don't care about having to carry the weight of the rest of the team, in order to accomplish what is "my" task. I don't beleive in "our" task, so i'm called ignorant and unreasonable. I mean, if they wish to express an idea or their own effort, then they would do the same, and try to take charge. This has happened before and from those moments is that I have formulated my close friendships. I've come to see it as: "If you want your ideas known, make them known, but I will not allow you from impeding mine". These friendships, like those of the book, consist of mutual agreement. I respect the values, ideas, and decisions of all people. Whether I agree with them or not becomes irrelevant, unless it affects me and my convictions. So, about the complete life: When regarding relationships, what makes it complete? I don't know. I wonder if it is possible to really be like Roark who seems to have gotten through all of his education without acknowledging a single person except maybe Keating, even though he didn't have to. Is it possible? Is it healthy? Is it reasonable? I don't know. Because I myself am frustrated by that part of me that "needs" people. Needs the conversations, interactions and contact. That "needs" and thirsts to find rational minds and other thinkers or analysts such as I. I can't say for a certainty that it is, but I know it has always felt, or perhaps it was imposed upon me that, we "need" other people to live...to survive. We need someone to love, and love us. Need someone to understand and be understood by. Need someone to serve as a mutual companion who will never ask you to sacrifice any part of yourself for their sake, though you know that if the moment came, you probably would(save their life, risk yourself). So i know i haven't offered you any answer. I too wish to know desperately because it affects me in my everyday life now. In personal relationships for example, i have sort of forbidden myself to like anyone who does not live by the same basic principles as I do. Someone with morals and powerful convictions. Someone, not to sound dull but, Like Dagny or Dominique. I get annoyed by my attraction to that which may appear "attractive". A movie star or a model completely contradicts what i trully want. At times I wonder if I really don't like anyone at all, out of the 4000 at my high school, or if I simply have not allowed myself to see them. The latter seems unreasonable because I honestly beleive I will encounter the person I wish to attain, in a way like was described in the books. It is a silent and secret acknowledgement on both parts, that is known...but not admitted. Yet there is also the issue in my mind of human nature that :If there was only 2 people in the world, or opposite sexes, at one point or another they would come together. Why is that? Is that even right? How would that fall into this whole scheme of equal values and all that. I really wish someone would say something to this. Anything I've said. p.s.: I know it may appear in many of my posts, that I sort of plea a response. If this is so, it is only because I don't think my views have ever been heard in my entire life. The mind of the child has always been disregarded, or at least in the setting of my past and current time.

It's strange, but I sort of got a similar feeling. I too didn't like how he ended, I felt horrible about what happened to him, it seemed like some form of torture that he didn't deserve. The only reason i got the feeling of "maybe I wouldn't make it" either, is because I can't measure myself up to those characters and don't think i should ever have to. I am what I am and try my best, maybe one day i'll create something and maybe someday I could make a huge difference, like they did, still, i guess it has to do with my being so young. I feel like I have so much to learn, and only have those images of "heroes" as guides. Because after all, Eddie Willers was simply learning. Throughout the entire novel, he too was struggling, and learning, and hoping to do the what was possible. Isn't taht how the most of us start out? I know I try and struggle, but yet, even I don't know what i want to do with my life yet. I still have time, and once I find it, I know I'd be just like those characters and allow myself to even die working to achieve what I want. I have the determination, just not the source yet. I put everything I can into everything I do. Like in the book...just making dinner one night requires every part of me and my possible effort. It is simply how I am and what I choose to live by. Thus I am here, where I know that is understood.

woah! I didn't this I'd get this type of a response, but alright. Betsy, I'm sorry if my grammar has bothered you and if it really does, I could fix it. I usually don't pay attention to how it is written as long as it does. i rearely get sufficient time to say all the things I want to, and I'm not the fastest typer either. Also, I may have said that I didn't beleive the emotion existed only because I had no need for it in my way of being. I never thought that suddenly "hate would become a necessity for living". No, it sort of bothers me to hear that. I mean, I'm not some pacifist or anything like that, the word HATE just seems too extreme. Yes, I get "frustrated by many things", sometimes i may even feel rather "irrate", but just in your basic, "seething insides, I can't satand this" type of way, but it doesn't matter. Every situation I encounter, however hurtful or maddening I guess i just see it as a part of life and i have to accept it. I've worn myself out from trying to battle every situation I can't control. So therefoe I accomodate or learn to deal with whatever burdens I may have to carry. Besides, to hate someone, I sort of give them what they wished to accomplish, sometimes I feel like the whole world is feeding off of the anger they can cause in one another...or pain. I have been told that I've become cold. This is because I don't let any of it bother me. I grew up in an extremely unstable environment where I knew that i could come home to news such as "We're going to France next week", or "Your mother died", and I was forced as a form of survival to accept those things. Nothing shocks me anymore and nothing wounds me without some pert of me giving consent to such pain. I know what I live by and my convictions and also know that the actions or influences of whatever person or moment doesn't have to affect that about me. It is set, and i may be shot in the leg tomorrow by my father and still continue on with those ideals and goals. To not dispute any longer, I'll say that yes, there is such a thing as hatred. I know people out there have felt it and deal with it each day. I don't. It doesn't mean that i don't value my life. I really do. It's just that type of thing you constantly see in the Ayn Rand characters, they simply do not respond. Like the look of Howard Roark like you are either not existing in that moment, or entirely too real. I won't disregard the idea that if someone entered my house and shot my sister who I love immensely, i would probably want to kill them too, and even HATE them. But like i said, i haven't been faced with a situation like that. Anything that has affected me, in any manner, i have made myself grow to understand and live with it, because that's all you can do. I don't see point in wasting time with thoughts on hatred. It's unproductive. While hating a person i could be doing something else, like putting together a novel, making myself a nice meal, or craeting something from my imagination. I know at times I seem to erase all of humanity from my conscience, even if I am in a crowd. I've accepted that this is because of my selfish conscience that wishes to poneder other things, and other ideas.....not the existence of another person. I've fugured that if they wish to be known, then they will make themselves known, and thus I will find them. The only I have met all of you is because you chose to post here, if you don't wish to, there is nothing I can do about that and I'm not about to try to control the functions of another's reality. I see reality as perception. What i choose to accept and acknowledge as a part of my way of living. I don't require hatred to live, and am not looking forward to the day that I may accidentally find it.

Also, for those of you that are debating with me about the meaning of the question...i know i took it completely different than intended. Source, you are completely correct, and in fact, i too enjoyed how it was used and how people seemed to dread it. It created suspense and i loved seeing the gradual effeects of everything in the plot. i just took the book and used it to find something i "needed", that i had to find. it's like a person debating over the meaning of a tree. while one says that it is a plant that evolved from smaller organisims. Another will say that it is a symbol of the greatness achieved by a specific Phylum. Who is John Galt? -Something or someone i must find... or become, for the sake of my survival. i don't really have any more to discuss about this question. i enjoyed the discussion though. thanks.

What i'm saying is that you have to beleive in "something"....it doesn't have to be religious, simply something you beleive to be true and no one can deny you. for example: if a person doesn't "beleive" that something dropped from a height will fall, and yet it always does...then how is that person supposed to formulate their reality without having anything substantial to support it. you must beleive something, if anything, just beleive the fact that you are real, an individual, and a participant of life, if not... how can you accept that you exist? the mind just wouldn't function against it's own reason unless that person is being ignorant. You try to tell me one scenario where a person can "exist" and yet, not beleive in anything. -Jason

RadCap, to answer you: Not necessarily. Most would think that such acts would involuntarily create such emotions, but having been in a similar situation, i would have to disagree that you always hate the offender. in fact, i don't really think i beleive in hate. i don't know how rational this is, because i guess that must mean that i don't beleive in love, but what i'm saying is that, i have never encountered a person or situation that caused me so much anger that i could really state "I HATE THIS". I can't really conceie myself saying that about anyone. i mean, it's only about being able to understand and later accepting, isn't it always? yet love doesn't work that way. that one is involuntary, and the same process would not change the effects...you will still love. so i think the idea of hate isn't very clear in it's nature. i've got to go.

i also wanted to say that all of you parents that posted here, sound like amazing parents and i support you. i can't really say i would ever have children, i'm sorry. i think i'd feel better caring for an adopted child, or some other kid already out there that would desperatley need my assistance.

I loved this litte piece, i just had to say that. I don't know if i'm the correct person to comment on this. but if you want a variety of perspectives, i guess mine won't cause any harm. in my opinion, the act of making children is way too abused. i don't agree with your idea of "we have to carry on the population", i mean, this is obvious, but with the billion people out there reproducing each week, i highly doubt we have a problem, so having that sort of mentality just becomes an excuse to have more kids as a "necessity for the good of mankind" and i'm sure you understand why i would be against this. If you want children and are ready for them, then that's all that matters i guess. i can't speak for the objectivistic viewpoint because i think in such matters, it's not really relevant except for the fact that you are in control of whatever you wish to do, and if that is your goal, then, nothing should keep you from trying to attain it. how many? in my opinion...one is enough, and more than the future can really handle, i mean you know the effects that one mind can have, i guess i'm saying, isn't that enough. if you think otherwise, i'm sorry, because i'm not here to contradict the views of anyone. this is just how i feel about the topic. yet, in some way, it doesn't seem right to be so selfish about having a child. before i get attacked, i will say what i mean. i guess it sort of sounded to me like people want children just so they can have someone to look up to them, to influence, to instruct and tell what to do, to mold into whatever basic form you wish them to take. it becomes a type of manipulation that i disagree with. perhaps i misunderstood. i suggest you listen more to the comments of others...this was simply my opinion.

Thanks Gabriel. That was actually perfect, though i guess i didn't really mean the same thing. i wanted your thoughts and i like what you said,i mean, i understood that too after i read the books, yet there was something about that question that impacted me. maybe it's one of those things you mentioned. i guess in the time that i read Atlas Shrugged, my mind was confliction over the concept of...i suppose, "purpose". This was fueledby the fact that myentire life i've held some sort of deep and powerful question. A type of question i've noticed in nearly every human or rational creature, and it's this need to search for something. As humans, we are always searching for something. Is it knowledge? Love? Truth? or simply an answer... It seemed obvious that it must've been an answered. at somepoint, i ran into the problem that when looking for an answer, you're only faced with even more questions that lead on farther than you'll ever be able to reach, so thus there is the desperation i always speak off, and which seems to come up in all the things i have tried to post at this site. So, i began modifying my methods of perceiving reality. In a greater sense now, i'm not exactly looking for an answer anymore. I mean this about the most powerful things that arise in life. For example... If there is a God or not? I don't want to know.I know for a fact that all people need some sort of faith to live off of. It may not be christian or satanic, but just something. People have to beleive in something or else....i guess they wouldn't be able to exist. I don't want an answer. I merely want to be able to understand the concepts and use them to the advantage of my purpose. Also scientific questions such as: How big is the universe? or What is time? It doesn't matter. I think we have enough to worry about with our immediate reality, and the people that constructed such questions in search of an answer, really only wanted more power. I'm sure you understand, that if you know it all you are the most powerful. Thus has been the image og God for all of history. He knows it all and sees it all, and therefore, he rules it. I don't mean to use the worl "rule" as in "commands", but i really don't want to get into the topic of religion right now. There is also time. What is it? My idea of it end at :"It is". It is not ignorance, for i know how it must be viewed scientifically, i have heard all the theories and hypothesis, about it being a measurement, or sometimes a space, or a limit...etc. but those are topics i have no intrest in chasing after. My beleif is that, "There are things we are not meant to know." speciafically i say "know", but that doesn't mean "accept" or "understand". You may not be able to grasp every aspect of time, the celestial, or space, but yet you can accept that it is. You can understand that it is there for a purpose just as you are. I guess this also says that i beleive everything has a reason. I think it must. If something didn't have reason...it wouldn't exist. (I'll make another post just about these points in the science blogs.) I'm being pulled away from my point. My point is that, in reading Atlas Shrugged, i sort of realized that what i needed wasn't an answer...but rather a better question. I think it was "the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy", that had all of humanity searching for an answer, and when they finally found it on the "supercomputer", they saw that the answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything....was 42! This created anarchy and chaos everywhere because it seemed inconcievable. Later, somewhere else...they discovered that they had received an answer, when not one person could clearly state the meaning of their question. That is what i saw, not that i needed an answer, because i'm more than satisfied with it being something as simple as "42", or even "Red", but it's now become a quest to better formulate my question. The question had hung at the pit of my mind throughout my life as i'm sure it is in every other, whether they have accepted it or disregarded their own conscience. But i had no name for it. No way of identifying it within me. It was just there. Lingering and constant. For me...it became, "Who is john Galt?" Do you understand what i'm saying?" The book gave me a way to identify that question and now, i can analyze, mold and perfect into the foundations of what will someday create me into an adult. For those of you out there that didn't know, i am only 14, so therefore all these millions of concepts and convictions are all new to me and i wish to engage upon every single one. I hope that i shall not be judged by my age, and thus is the reason that i came here. Because this is the only place i feel that i will trully be seen "by the content of my character". The objectivist philosophy has come to me as some sort of revelation and i am extremely proud to take part in it. I don't know if i have settled all i wished to say, but nonetheless i appreciate your response.

I want to know what this o e question meant to yoou when you first encountered it. what it signified in your minds. what it meant to you...specifically, as you read from page to page in search of an answer. I read atlas shrugged at the age of 12. i finished it in 2 weeks, and when i finished it, i simply started it over. i will discuss my answer to this topic, but i don't have the time right now. i'll come again.

I have tried so many times to post here. Everything has gone wrong, ad i can only help but think that perhaps some unseen force has tried to keep me from the other mids of this world. who am i? you may say. My name is Jason... or so you shall know me because names are irrelevant in my form of reality. i do not seek yoour names, i wish to know your minds and be able to share my thoughts with all of you. I find this may be the only place where i could trully speak as i am, amongst others that live by the same convictions that i have. people who have seen something more i the books of ayn rand than the basic story line. i can't imagine what it meant to the rest of you. all i know is that, i hold to those books as others would to bokks of Dante, or shakespeare. i have never found perfection in books. i know ayn rand's books too have their flaws and in fact i've spotted a few typos and stuff like that, which makes the book only more perfect. I fear that if it had been any better i would have indeed done as dominique had with the sacred statue of helios. i would buy out every copy of atlas shrugged and the fountainhead, read and absorb them, then later burn them. i wonder if you guys understand this. i hope you do, but i still get the feelig that someone out there may see me as some hateful maniac. I know that point will come, when i'll have to make the detruction of those copies that i have....but for now, i need them too desperately. i can't explain what thos books did to me. it isn't only about the philosophy, even though that is the o ly thing i live by. For me.... it started out with a single question. one i'm sure you have been faced with and pondered about as well. "who is john galt?" I reacall from page 64 of the 50th anniversary edition with the introduction by leonard peikoff, from that scene where dagy speaks to the old man that cells cigarets. he spoke of that question. of how it entered my life as this desperate plea within me. it wasn't about the ma who stopped the motor of the world. i rather wish that here, we could set up a post about the various meanigs of that question. what it signified as people uttered it. they feared it.... they dreaded the soundof such a name..... me, i was in search of something. Of this site. Of the eyes that are reading this and are able to understand my desperation.... i must find the minds out there that can understand it, that can make it possible. i oce found a man of this sorty and he wrote me a letter saying "I now the loneliness, i know the isolation" and that meant everything to me. it is hank readen in need of Fracisco D'aconia, it is Dominique in need of Howard Roark. There is so much i wish to say to those out there that lead the same battle as i do. i hope you are able to see this. though the last 4 things i attempted to post, simply disappeared. my mind is an anallytical one. i live within the words of my conscience and those marked down by my pen. i was here to introduce myself and i hope i some way, i have. all i want is one response...from anyone...and that'll make the burdens of this week worth bearing. i sometimes become a charfacter of atlas shrugged. My problem is... i cannot allow myself to shrugg...not yet....i am not yet ready for my destroyer and so i live through each day cliging to the only things that offer me meaniong and reason. my mind is like a scavenger searching for the tiniest phrase to keep me going. I can do this. sometimes i convince myself it isn't necessary to breathe....i just have to fullfill my tasks, because i can bear them....because i will not allow them to break me...or even the people that are imposing the slavery. it does notmatter. i'll post again when i get a chance....if this doesn't make it to the site....if it is never seen. then i'll desist right now, and seek my answer elsewhere.