tito

This might be a tiny part of the universe, but as far as I am aware, it is worth more than the rest of it put together.

I can confirm the term is widely used in the UK, but so is earned and get. People who claim benefits steal the term 'making money' to describe their actions too.

A topic was started on this video here http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=13685

if you noticed, most of the good businesses in Atlas Shrugged used the name of the industrialist. Taggart transcontinental, Rearden Steel, etc.

I think vividly with tea Not because of the tea itself, just sipping something has the same effect on me as movement does to you. That is, until I get really stuck into writing something, then I need no stimulus.

Try telling them that in the UK - you choose your school subjects at 15. At 16 you choose your college subjects. By 17 your application to university needs to have been submitted.

Ah yes, sorry - I'm not sure why but I switched to the extreme hypothetical, and forgot there was an actual incident at hand. re-reading the essay now

Yes - that is true I suppose, they are not rational beings. At least, not entirely rational.

How can you force someone to take drugs without them first existing? If as a condition of parole they must supply and use their own drugs, then I see nothing wrong with that, but they aren't being forced. They must first have been arrested, and therefore initiated force.

No - especially since it is not my responsibility to pay a tax in order to fund drugs for lunatics. If they have some way of staying on drugs, throuhgh family or friends or whatever, then so be it. But if they can't do it, and that means they kill someone, then tough luck - punishment applies - it is not an excuse.

More repulsive than scary.

Ah, I see, I thought you were suggesting that an understanding of esthetics, either recognised or by virtue of holding a learned philosophy, is enough to create art. I can't see that, if you wouldn't mind explaining, how?

I don't think thats a logical end. What if you are someone like me? I'm moderately well-informed about art, especially from the Objectivist corner, but that doesn't mean I have the technical ability to churn out moderately good Romantic works - just that I can appreciate them. Similarly, a man may be paralysed and unable to construct a sentence, but still be able to think of complex abstractions. This man might think to himself an entire system of philosophy, starting from the axioms and concluding that Romantic Realism is the most appropriate form of art, but he cannot create anything beautiful.

Emotion Many people assume that because Objectivism says emotions are not ways to make a rational decision, that Objectivism necessarily discards emotion. The idea of a robotic-Objectivist unable to experience happiness, love, etc. is prevalent. However, Objectivism holds that emotions are proper - contextually. "Your subconscious is like a computer—more complex a computer than men can build—and its main function is the integration of your ideas. Who programs it? Your conscious mind. If you default, if you don’t reach any firm convictions, your subconscious is programmed by chance—and you deliver yourself into the power of ideas you do not know you have accepted. But one way or the other, your computer gives you print-outs, daily and hourly, in the form of emotions—which are lightning-like estimates of the things around you, calculated according to your values" -Ayn rand, “Philosophy: Who Needs It,” 5.

So it knows of something that will benefit it, and it has learned that you might give it the item if it brings in a bone.

I'm "Toms Mum 247" ...Don't ask!

Of course not. That would be subjectivism in one form. Nobody rational competes in order to do better than others, they compete because they want to pursue their own values to their best ability, this is the primary motive of a rational competitor.

Why? Its not your network, they can monitor whatever they like - providing its under the terms you signed up under.

While BSD has a better philosophy, philosophy tends to mean little in software development (At least, in the sense that most developers use it) For example, the Ubuntu project holds nonsensical philosophy ("I am what I am because of who we all are"/"Humanity to others") yet the end product is superb. The reason is because their 'philosophy' is just marketing.

Points are deducted for not having a socialist system in the WHO report, I'll dig for where I read it now.

The "programmed" man still has volition. He can change his mind if he would only choose to - if he chooses not to, then he's pointing a gun at his own head.

One could summarise Objectivism just with axioms - it would just take a great mind (like Ayn Rand) to expand these axiomatic concepts. No philosophy is without an esthetic theory, even if the original philosopher didn't bother writing it down.

In the mutually agreed uses of property, whereby the contract to the land imposes certain requirements on the new buyer, does this create an everlasting contract? Man A buys 30 acres of land, Man A sells these acres on the condition that they will only build 2 story buildings (To increase the value overall, as there is no risk that the buyers view/sunlight will be blocked). Man B buys one of these acres. But now, when man B wants to sell to man C, has no choice but to offer the property under the same conditions he bought it on. Does this mean that the properties can never have 3 story buildings, for as long as the land exists? Simlarly, if I sell a plot of land on the condition that whoever buys it does not ever stand on it, and doesn't let anyone else on it, does this mean the land is out of bounds for humans for eternity?

Dr. Peikoff once gave a lecture where he asserted that philosophy has this structure. metaphysics + Epistemology These are the "base" components of philosophy, the combination of these is ethics. Ethics then branches out into politics and esthetics.

...Dunno, I just assumed it was to increase the coverage of their service - but now I think about it, its obviously a sinister plot.