MichaelH

If you will be unable to type, you might look into speech input programs now. There are programs which claim to recognize speech and translate it into computer text. It may not be enough for you to be a doctor, but it could help avoid isolation and might provide a means of income.

Someone once asked Ayn a similar question about taking advantage of a government program. Her response was, essentially: "The program exists. Use it." So long as you are not positioning yourself for government favors, there is nothing immoral about using a program that will exist whether you take advantage of it or not. So long as you do not vote for or advocate the program, you are not violating your ethics.

The other factor that can make a choice "difficult" is that values are not always easy to compare. It's true that an integrated Objectivist has their values ranked, but the value system is not a single line with finely-counted gradations. There are several scales along which one ranks values, and it can be a challenge to choose which values are more relevant to a given choice. For example: say I have $100 at the end of the month. I can save it, rent a motel and get away for a weekend, or buy something fun for my computer. The "single line" approach would be: I value saving at 8.5, above entertainment but below survival. Renting the motel is 6.50 and the computer toy is 6.45. Saving is my highest value, so I should save. If we worked that way, all choices would be easy. However, I would be surprised to hear anyone actually thinks exactly that way. I think the ranking goes more like this. If I save the money, I'll have it available in the future. If I rent the motel, I'll feel rested and refreshed on Monday and be better able to handle the next week. If I buy something for my computer, I'll enjoy it for at least a month. Which value ranks highest depends on the factors of reality right now: do I want to buy something large later? Am I especially fatigued by work recently? Is the computer toy something I've had my eye on for a while? Some or all of these may apply, and they're not easily correlated. (Is "really fatigued" more important than "big purchase later"?) This is another way choices can be "difficult".

How will the path be "inveitably averted" if people don't raise the alarm?

Each individual must choose to live or die. You choose to find/buy/obtain food, or not. You choose to seek shelter from the elements, or not. These are conscious, rational choices that require the use of reason to succeed. However, there is no golden calf. You choose whether the ethics apply or not, by choosing to survive or not. If you do not choose to live, no ethical values are appropriate or necessary. You'll be dead soon. If you do choose to live, Objectivist ethics apply.

Thanks for the help! This clarifies why existence is axiomatic, and why axioms must be accepted whole. For other stated facts, it is appropriate to ask "why". Why is the sky blue? Why do dropped objects fall to earth? etc. For existence, "why" makes no sense. It is a special case, which is why it is an axiom. Other questions can be satisfied with causal answers. The universe has no cause for the reasons already stated.

This is a great place to be not-quite-an-Objectivist. People here are very helpful, as is the search function. If this board's only success was turning interested people into full-fledged Objectivists, the moderators would probably be very happy. Welcome to the forums!

Great! Anyone who accepts Ayn 100% on casual exposure turns her into a religious figure, something she emphatically did not want. When you're ready to post, people here are very good about answering questions or clarifying issues. That's a great mental model to work from. The best thing about Objectivism, though: "what would Ayn say?" is not the penultimate question. Eventually you will ask, "what do I say, bringing to bear the principles of Objectivism and a complete integration with the facts of reality?". If your answer is different then Ayn, check your premises, but it's entirely acceptable to come to different conclusions based on different values. Welcome to the forum! Don't forget to come out of the nutshell from time to time.

If it helps any, my husband and I are tired of left-wing gay people as well. The logic for some gay people seems to be: others adopted a wrong attitude towards gays and I found that offensive, therefore anything that offends anyone must be wrong. It's a short hop from there to whining loudly the moment anyone takes a stand on anything. Actions can only be taken if nobody will be offended. Calling BS what it is - bluntly, when needed - is wrong, wrong, wrong, because someone may be offended. Believe me when I say, not all gays are like that. I suspect you'll find many of them here. Welcome to the board!

I'm actually rather upset about this. As a consumer, I am free to buy products that include whatever components I want. AMD computers have been available continuously for consumers to choose! It may be true that Intel paid suppliers to use their products. I don't have a problem with that. That last laptop I bought cost less than I would have expected for the components it contained. It came with many bundled programs that the producers had probably paid to put on the laptop. This reduced the cost of the laptop to me. I'm agreeing to buy the laptop with the programs installed. I erased the hard drive and installed Linux. The laptop runs at full speed, with full capabilities, for less than a comparable laptop from Linux-specific vendors. Windows users are free to uninstall the bundled programs, in fact many review of the laptop recommend this. I'm free to take advantage of the deal available - or not. No force is involved. I see "Intel bundling" as the same type of deal as "software bundling". What are these people thinking?

I'm trying to solidify my understanding of Objectivism's view of the universe. From OPAR, I recall the set-up going like this: 1. Existence exists. Specifically, entities exist. 2. Actions are performed by entities. Motion, for example, does not exist in a vacuum. Something must move. 3. Actions have causes. The causes may be volitional or non-volitional, but there is a reason for the action. 4. Entities do not have causes. A lot of bad philosophy comes from ascribing causes to entities. What bothers me is how Objectivism handles the question of "why do things exist?". My current understanding sees this as a big blind spot. The question is simply defined away. See #4 and #1. Things exist. End of story. How close am I to properly summarizing the Objectivist view? What am I missing?

I think it might read better if the sentence stops sooner. Unless you listen to people who are gay about their experience, your feelings on the matter are nothing more than emotions (sentence stops here!). At best, you're making naive guesses. A lot of interesting knowledge comes from naive guesses! Once you make a guess, you have to check it against reality. Besides, sex is fun!

Have you talked to your therapist about depression medication? You can reach a point in depression where you no longer feel joy from the activities that help you. That is where medication can give a needed assist. You will still work on the underlying beliefs and attitudes, but medication can bring the uplift needed to address the underlying issues.

I didn't interpret Amadeus as a historical documentary, although I can see how people could think it was. To reiterate what others have said, there's nothing wrong with a "what if..." movie. In fact, those can be some of the most rewarding. What's important for me is that characters behave in consistent ways. Alien and Shaun of the Dead both show characters acting courageously and rationally in the face of disaster, and consistent with their personality before everything went horribly wrong. It drives me nuts when characters in movies just get all emotional for no reason, because the script needs a big fight scene here, or because we suddenly Need A Hero. Occasionally, though, a movie will push things so far I just give up. I couldn't sit through "Wanted" although I know several people who loved the movie. Shooting bullets around corners was just too much for me to swallow for some reason.

Welcome to the board! First of all, congratulations on deriving so many philosophical positions by yourself! One of the frustrations of finding our way in the world is realizing others have already figured out the same things. At least you know you're doing it right. This is the true measure of when you find the right philosophy. When the world starts to make sense in a fundamental way, when you are able to identify your place in it, you've found something crucial to human existence. This forum is full of others who have recognized the same fundamental truths. Welcome!

Democrats: GOP should be more like their party "We are the party of better solutions." WTF is that? "We say the same things, just 'better'."?

I can't imagine the Republican party being any more of itself than under George W Bush and a republican congress: pushing theocracy overtly instead of covertly, rampant cronyism, massive spending, and pandering to the bigot vote. The Republican party DID express itself clearly. That's why they're disappearing. (For the record, Obama continues many of the same policies and pushes us in bad new directions of his own.) I am not the first to say this, but we now have our choice of two parties saying basically the same thing. Edit: The fact that politicans can move from one to the other just by changing their label and not their behavior says a lot. It is time for a new party. A pro-capitalist party based on individual freedoms would be great. The Republicans are not that party.

Actually, it is. If life is the standard of value, and reason is your means to support your life, then anything that damages your ability to reason is immoral. Because of the loss of self-esteem, integrity, and the requirement to track multiple claims simultaneously, lying as an isolated instance is difficult enough to deal with properly. Lying as a habit makes it impossible to be a rational being who exchanges values with others. Please note that "damages your mind" is not the same as "offends your sensibilities"; the above does not permit claiming damage for trivial slights.

I will absolutely follow up there. Thanks to you and Zip both!

Thank you for clarifying my initial error. To restate what you are both saying: my question is flawed because it views things through the prism of government rights/favors to special-interest groups. (Are "gay rights" being protected? What about "atheist rights"?) Others might ask the same question for different groups. The problem is the form of the question. ARI: "Man's Rights" by Ayn Rand So, is this the correct response? A member of the majority has exactly the same rights as a member of a minority, because all rights are individual rights. An individual has no "right" to expect that others will observe their religious holidays, produce goods to meet their needs, or market to them. In the same way, they cannot be forcibly coerced to do the same for others. Being offered money to meet others' needs is not physical coercion. Others are not required to observe your personal religious holidays. You may agree to observe theirs if they pay you to do so - for instance, an employer may have certain days off at the company - but that is a voluntary agreement. This is why it is important to keep government out of business, because once government begins mandating holidays, the obvious question is - whose holidays? Which group are we going to favor? Individual rights are no longer the standard. This is how government interference creates special interest groups.

From my understanding, it seems that families and children are a rough spot for Objectivism. When you have children, you are dedicated to their welfare, occasionally at the expense of your own. That seems to violate the principle of never living for another man's life. And discussion of children for objectivists get oddly complicated instead of being clearly derived from first principles. In Ayn's fiction, families are portrayed as strange parasites that use guilt to keep you in emotional bondage. That's how I used to feel about my family, but that assessment is changing over time. In terms of interaction between fully-functioning adults that are unrelated or of chosen relation, Objectivism is inarguably correct. It's with children and edge cases that I'm not fully settled. I may become more comfortable with this once I have children of my own, and have to integrate them into my value system.

As far as "degrees of evil", I don't know if that's an Objectivist concept. People are a mix of (essentially) good and evil pieces. You must decide if the good in a person is of enough value to outweigh the evil. When you deal with people, you try to avoid (and not condone) the evil parts. As for the stereotypical republican Bob, I see several causes for concern. First, an embrace of Christianity means a fundamental embrace of irrationality. It rejects an Objective world because "God" can come down at any time and rearrange things at whim. It demands a belief in the mind-body dichotomy. Its followers believe they are giving up eternal life if they reject the mind-body split, so they may reject out-of-hand any philosophy that says they don't have a soul. It sounds like JB is trying to establish common ground between Republicans and Objectivists. From an Objectivist perspective there isn't much difference between the two parties; they just choose different flavors of the same big-government philosophy. Unfortunately, since Bob is a stereotype instead of an actual person, we can't say whether he is evading or is ignorant. We can explain the tenets of Objectivism to any individual. Their reaction will tell us which error is occurring. Evaders will say "That's not what I believe, and you have to respect my beliefs," or "Nobody believes that," or "don't make me think too hard." The ignorant will say "Huh? I never heard of that before." People need not be completely convinced by Objectivism on first exposure. Rather, they must be willing to say, "You may have something there, let me think about this." No matter what their political affiliation, THAT is the person we may have something in common with.

I can't believe how late I am with this introduction; I've been posting on the board since 2008! A search of the introductions board doesn't return any posts by me. I guess it's time. I agree with objectivists on many points. I can't yet say "I'm an Objectivist" because I don't agree with everything. (Among other things, the value and relationship to families and children is a sticking point for me.) However, I am attempting to integrate the big chunks of abstractions floating around in my head, and the more I integrate, the more Objectivist I become. My early development was fractured because I was lying about who I was: I pretended to be Christian and straight rather than cause social disruption in my home and the small town where I grew up. It has taken me a long time to realize how deeply that hurt my integrity. If I had it to do again, I think I would be honest from the beginning. (Having said that, anyone in that position must follow their own judgement. You are not required to put your personal safety or livelihood in jeopardy!) A teacher tried to introduce me to Objectivism when I was in junior high by having me read "Anthem". I wasn't ready for the philosophy at that point; I just remembered it being a strange story. After leaving home and religion, I drifted for a while. I couldn't find a view of life that fit what I observed. Buddhism was almost a match in that it asked you to evaluate its edicts and ignore what didn't match your observations. Unfortunately, it also insisted that life IS suffering, you just have to accept it. There wasn't enough positive for me to act on. I was stuck with the milquetoast "I'm not religious, I just try to be a basically good person". That is hardly an inspiration to action or a compelling philosophy. I couldn't figure out how I was supposed to live my life. Without a framework to build on, my mind (and life) was crumbling. I couldn't know when it was OK to spend money, why it was OK to focus time on working out, or how I should choose my vocation. I always felt like I was doing the wrong thing no matter what I did. It got to the point that I wondered when it was moral to run the dishwasher, and I didn't have an answer. I developed clinical depression and felt completely isolated despite being married to a wonderful man. (He was sympathetic towards my feelings, but he couldn't understand the problem. ESFPs don't analyze reality as a rule.) Nobody understood how I felt or what I thought. Cognitive therapy and medication helped with the depression, but only temporarily. I said to my spouse repeatedly, "I need a view of something noble. Something inspirational." Then I read Atlas Shrugged and my world was shaken to the core. It was the first time I'd been so moved. In retrospect, it was as powerful as falling in love. I hugged the book repeatedly as I progressed. I actually called the characters "brave". Finally, someone understood how I saw the world. Ayn showed me what was fundamentally wrong with society and why people behave the way they do. Even more important, I finally had a model for right action. This was how people should behave, how they formed values, how they should interact (as equal traders). Since then I've been hooked. I've read OPAR and word-processed a summary for easy reference. OPAR holds the same place in my esteem that religious texts occupy for many people. But instead of some "holy" text I'm supposed to accept on faith, OPAR is a well-reasoned anaylsis of the world we live in and our place within it. I've read most of the small-format Ayn Rand books and am currently going through "The Voice of Reason" with the North Dallas Objectivism study group. (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar/ ) More Objectivism book purchases are on their way within two years. I value being a member of Objectivism Online. I read the new posts every day, and post when I belive I have something to add to the discussion. Because my analysis is still ongoing, I have been wrong. Board members pointed out my mistake very clearly and without rancor. It's an experience I look forward to repeating because corrections move me closer to an integrated view of reality. I've also won debates, which hopefully means I'm bringing value too. The discussion is generally about the ideas instead of the participants, which is The Way It Should Be. Thank you for many days full of thought and a haven of reason in an unreasoning world!

I live in the USA - California specifically. As a gay athiest, I am part of two of the most hated minorities in the country. The recent battle for gay marriage has made me keenly aware of the precarious position minority rights have legally. I am also an introvert intuitive, which puts me in good company on this board but not in general society. I am an individual first. I am not trying to advocate tribalism. However, it seems to me that it is legitimate for the majority (straight, Christian, sensors) to gain some advantages from being the most numerous group in the country. Advantages appropriate for the majority: 1. Business holidays that recognize their religion? 2. Business holidays that recognize their religion but change the names of the days to something neutral? (For instance, we have a "Spring Holiday" that happens to coincide with Good Friday.) 3. Marketing aimed at their interests. This seems obvious, so I'll put a period after it. Inappropriate advantages: 1. Voting on minority rights. (Proposition 8 in California is an embarassment because it went to a popular vote, note because of how that vote turned out. Whether there is a "right" to marry is a side discussion.) 2. Anything that infringes on anyone's rights as an individual. My Objectivist analysis is not nearly as deep as I would like. What else would you consider important for this list? What can the majority legitimately do that a minority cannot? Perhaps this should be phrased: what advantages should a member of the majority legitimately have over a minority? What powers whould a majority wield in a proper Objectivist society?

Thank you both for the clarification!