Oxygen

I tried to read the book a year ago. But I had a huge problem to read it and I stopped after 30 pages or so. I thought of what might have caused me to feel so strong that I shouldn´t read it. I came to the hypothesis that it´s a loosing project to read the book because it´s about a looser and it´s attractive. I don´t want to be entertained by reading 1400 or so pages about an extreme looser. I heard that a lot of people who read it are trying to understand it or someting and debate it. What they don´t seems to realize is that they are big time suckers who carved the vibes of that looser into their brains. The best these people can do is to take the loss as early as possible by acknowledging right away that they was seduced by a huge looser (Don Quichote) and ask themselves: what draw me into it´s net? I haven´t discarded that hypothesis yet. Have a great day!

I enjoy Rush very much. Which of their albums contains most and best objectivistic lyrics? They are on tour as somebody wrote, and performes in Stockholm / Sweden where I live in September. How are their concerts? Have a great day!

Which translations (rather than editions) of Que Vadis and Les Miserables are the best? Which dictionary is the best? Websters? Have a great day!

I mainly read self-help besides Ayn Rand. I regard Atlas Shrugged partly as a self-help book. My favourite self-help books except Ayn Rand´s books: "The 48 laws of power" by Robert Greene. To use in defense or offense or both, you choose. ("The Art of Seduction" describes power too) "Optimal Thinking". How to think. Don´t think positive. Don´t be optimistic. Embrace reality and do the optimal. "The four agreements" by Don Miguel Ruiz. A lot of similarities to objectivism and marvellous. It´s "companion book" has great excercises in the "Domestication" section: you identifiy ALL of your ideas you hold as thuths and challenge them. Dr Phil has sometimes speak very altruistic and in the book "Self Matters" he also writes things like "in order to take care of others you have to take care of and stand up for yourself first". I focus on the "take care of and stand up for yourself first". I have read a first part of the book and there he tempts me to to go my own way and he skillfully provokes exhiliration for my SELF - I haven´t read more than that but probably will. He truly excites me about myself and evokes passion for myself. Gary Zukav wrote "Seat of the Soul". Objectivism is replacing that as the source of my primary values. Anybody has an opinion of Zukavs ideas? Do you read self-help? What do you think about it? Have a great day!

As I see it, when a person get "ok" on the three factors I wrote (but didn´t came up with alone) earlier in this discussion and with emotional certainty can "sign" "I agree" under the quote above in this post (Felicitys´ text) I think it´s morally ok to choose to create/make a child. Perhaps I will some day think some about how the relationship between the parents (if there´s two of them) should be and incorporate that. This discussion and its results have been profoundly rewarding for me, and I would probably be a lesser of a man if I would forget about this discussion. I value at least higly the ideas that I got from others and myself in this discussion (and logically therefore the persons behind the ideas (?)). Was this discussion rewarding for you guys-gals?

That´s a thing I need to do. I´ll probably have to start to work on me (I hope that was not improper wrighting) to wanting that (?).

That´s a thing I need to do. I´ll probably have to start to work on me (I hope that was not improper wrighting) to wanting that (?).

Is this to not get angry without side-effects, or is it to get angry but repressing it and problably having side-effects like increased risk of problem with the heart, or is it to get angry but postponing it and doing 20 push-ups the first moment you get a couple of minutes of privacy or something? If it is the first alternative, I don´t see how I can do that. If possible, explain further!

Hello Felicity, I remember the expression "Live for yourself" but don’t exactly know its meaning. But I guess it means "Don’t use force upon others, do everything by agreement. Be a businessman". If not, I’m interested to know its meaning - tell me if it is something else! If that is what it means though, you understand me right. I am looking forward to your answer. I’m not sure that’s inadequate. Perhaps that idea or concept might turn out to be the answer to it all. I have a good feeling about it. I whish the same for you. ------------------ I liked this answer very much. This was valuable for me, too.

This advice worked for me today. I first came in contact with the technique in a Adam Sandler movie, he was a football player, but today was the first time I tried it. It was genuinely fun and healthy to interact with the two persons today instead of annoying and stressing. I think I was the one having fun today, the two persons I interacted was probably not having fun about my new behaviour.

This advice worked for me today. It was great! I first came in contact with the technique in a Adam Sandler movie, he was playing football, but today was the first time I used it. Instead of getting annoyed I had a fun time. I did laugh inside and smiled.

You don´t ask the child of its approval to be created because you can´t ask somebody that has not been created. In objectivism, non-violence or non-force is a vital principle. So how can you be an 100 % objectivist and choose to have a child? Is the answer that if the child will be a happy person, it won´t be at the loosing end of the "project", and thus it´s a win-win situation? Or is it none of the childs business why it was choosen to be created by its parents? If so, why is that so? A child might ask its parents: "Why did you create me?" The truthfull but maybe harmfull answer would be: "Because we expected you to enhance the lives of us, your father and mother" Personally, I find that harsh and instrumental. Is that reason really objectivistic? I mean, haven´t the child the right to live not for the sake of others but for its own sake? Is the answer that when the child is born, it does live for its own sake and not for its parents?

Redfarmer, perhaps, if possible, it is good for you to regard the interactions with these customers not primarily as a part of your work but as a source of self-growth. Grow by experimenting with the suggestions you´ve got here that you find worth trying. When you are going to work, you might ask yourself "In what way will I grow as a person today because of these customer interactions?" and when you leave work you might ask yourself "In what way have I grown today?" and try to give a concrete answer to that question. Taking notes before the event and after helps me in such matters - I get more of a sense of producing concrete results when wrighting it down. You might also make it a goal to grow in some aspect every week by doing this. The weeks you can´t name in what aspect you have grown, use the frustration or whatever feeling it evokes the next week to intensify your effort to grow as a person. I like a book by Viktor Frankl (Victor?), about creating a meening for your life. He started wrighting on that book, I think, when he was in a Holocaust camp during World War II (I´m not saying "Shut up and work!"). He found out that the survivors had in common that each of them had managed to find a meaning with their life when being prisoners in those horrible camps. Although some survived by working for the nazis and tormenting the other prisoners. Finding a meaning should be the better or the only option. Yes, what did Howard Roark do when he was in the cold professionally? He worked his guts out in a quarry. I wonder how you could be inspired by that, if you´re for the moment is doing the best of the worst alternatives. Good luck!

Betsy, I think you’re right. Thank you. I found your post very interesting too and also much fun, Felicity. <span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>The three factors of an objectivists´ rational choice to have a baby or not</span> <span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>Factor One - Bringing good or evil to the world?</span> This is what you think, right? I think so too. As long as the odds are 50%+ on this one you got a green light on this "good or bad" factor. It shouldn´t. I was trying to give an pro argument to your question but I couldn’t find a good one. Now I will discard this rule of decision and keep only to the one above this - the other is the proper one to the objectivistic person. That’s a relieve. <span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>Factor Two - Is it worthwhile for me?</span> I´m not sure I agree this is "the real calculation". The factor I wrote above is very important too, as is the one below. The considerations you wrote are all important to bring into the calculation, comparing the two alternatives´ pluses and minuses. You’re high voltage, maam/miss! Well written, too. Another consideration to include, which I think you brought up in this quote, is what your reaction will be if your offspring turns out a Toohey or a James Taggart. If you made all the the calculations of the factors I state here right you shouldn’t be crushed or at all react negatively if that happens - you did make a rational choice to have the child (assuming you did a great job raising the child). It's when you didn’t make the calculations or did them wrong your knees should feel weak for the rest of your life. You probably shouldn’t kill your Toohey offspring on your death-bed (although the timing is optimal) - or should you (where´s the right forum to discus a matter like this? I am responsible for my own actions but a reader might get irrationally triggered?)? Hmm. About coldness, you should of course bring in your emotional responses of the scenarios into the decision-making. If you don’t find any emotions in you at all perhaps you won’t be a good parent, at all. Hit me one more time! That must be the way to go about it. What do you mean? <span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>Factor Three - Will the child be happy?</span> You don’t want to bring a person into this world that is likely to suffer all it’s life - that’s just not who you are. How about this factor? If you’re unhappy your child might get unhappy two. You should be able to transfer the vision to your child that it can be great to live and having experienced that yourself is a prerequisite. If your parenting is good the odds is that the child will be happy. Is this all that there is to it? <span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>Comment</span> The three are inter-related. If you rationally decide to have a child the probability that the child will be happy increases because of the confidence your rational choice will bring you. Make an irrational choice and you’ll probably become a worrier or angry about things, which is bad for the child. If the child probably will be happy, it probably won’t turn to evil to get its kicks. <span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>Rule of decision</span> "It´s time to get out of here!" You should have a child if you get a "ok" on all three factors and you shouldn´t if you get only two or less "ok": s. Right?

Continue!

<span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>Chronological age and the child’s rights</span> Some entries in this discussion have referred to hat the parents responsibility for the child is until the child is 18 years old. This is the age when existing law defines a person as a grown-up, but existing laws aren’t always objective. So, why 18? The objectivistic view should be that the responsibilities of the parents for the child should be active whenever their child cannot take responsibility for himself, regardless of the child’s chronological age. <span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>Having children as a risk of compromising one’s goodness </span> A person have more power over oneself than over any other grown-up human being including his child. When a person chooses to have a child, he chooses to introduce a person to the world, which he has less power over than of himself. His child may live a life that is evil or good. Thus, the parent chooses to take the risk of contributing either goodness or evil to the world by having a child. The risk-free choice is of course to never have a child - then you are guaranteed not to bring evil into the world. But could it nevertheless be rational to take the chance to have a child (assuming, for the sake of clarity, that you with a 100 % probably would be the most perfect parent ever lived)? I will try to answer that question now. The first step is to choose one of these two standards: The child should during its lifespan be better than the parent Under these circumstances, the child will under its lifespan not compromise its creators (the parent) goodness but enhance it. When the child during its lifespan is more good than the average person but less good than the parent Under these circumstances the child WILL compromise the parents intrinsic (that is, "in itself") goodness. However, the child will be more good during his lifespan than the average person, and in that sense the parent will have chosen to bring more good to the world when he decided to have the child. Which one of these two standards is proper to the objectivist person? Since a decision to have a child is this risk-taking one has to calculate the probability of having a child that will live its life proper to the parents chosen standard compared to the probability of having a child that will not live up to the chosen standard. As a objectivist person you must choose the proper objectivistic standard, make that calculation and make the calculation right before deciding on having a child, otherwise you have become a lesser objectivist. One cannot just give in to ones screaming genes or the assumed pleasures of being a parent of a child - you have to think coldly and rationally about this.