jedymastyr

if you would like to post your answers, too, anyone, it might be helpful for those of us (or just me) that didn't get 100% Rand. Edit: I don't mean to imply that there is one set of undebatable, exactly correct Objectivist answers--I just think it would be helpful to discuss the questions and why you picked the ones you picked.

Tres años de español y yo no conozco como leer este en menos que diez minutos, o escribo bueno. I don't know how to write Spanish well, despite taking three years of it in high school. I understood most of what you wrote, though, so I guess that means something. Welcome, and hopefully you will find the friends you're looking for here.

Yes, I agree about the definitive thing, and please take my comment as a joke

1. Aristotle (100%) Click here for info 2. Ayn Rand (87%) Click here for info 3. Aquinas (86%) Click here for info I'll just say that I found some of the questions ambiguous at best Here's 2 examples: 5. VIRTUOUS LIFE To be virtuous/live morally, we should primarily make moral distinctions according to: b - our reasoning that is used to achieve our will. d - our empirical knowledge (what we know with experimentation). Isn't it reasoning from emperical evidence where Objectivism comes from? 10. LIBERTY Would it be ideal to maximize pleasure for all people even at the cost of liberty for some? b - No, we need liberty c - No, maximization of pleasure for all people has nothing to do with morality. Uh...I vote for both Perhaps I'm just not as well versed in Objectivism, but I found myself wondering, while taking it, how I could choose between a couple of conflicting answers. nimble: You're closer to Rand than me, but I'm farther from Kant 16. Kant (52%) Edit-- smilie problem from "b" followed by ")" (I think). Hope this fixes it.

I was just starting to read the Objectivist literature about four years and a few months ago, so I didn't see any of the Objectivist debates over the last 4-year election. I was wondering about the response to Steve Forbes in the primaries? I wasn't old enough to vote (barely old enough to drive ), so I didn't do as much research as I would today--but I know I thought the (low) flat tax was an improvement, and I liked the impression that he was a businessman who wanted to streamline the government. I don't know if that's a correct depiction of his campaign essentials, but it's all I really learned (or got the impression of, if incorrect) about him. I'm sure opinions were probably mixed, but did he receive a good reception from many?

Tell me about it..since moving to a suburb of Phoenix, Arizona (the suburb I live in, I've heard from several different sources, is approximately half Mormon) I've lost more than one friend to it. I think you left out what I've considered to be the most annoying aspect of the church. This is from second hand accounts, but I believe it to be accurate. After reading their Book of Mormon, you are supposed to pray and ask if the book is true or not. Then, if you read it and asked honestly, searching for the truth, you are supposed to get a sign. If you don't, of course, you weren't honest. It is a test of your character to receive a personal revelation. On a side note, I asked one of my friends who was converting if he felt this. He claimed he felt a burning in his chest when he prayed about it. When I questioned, he refused to comment on why God would come to him in the form of pain.

First, if you haven't already, look around this site: http://www.aynrand.org/campus/ It's the ARI Club homepage. If you go to the officers section (http://www.aynrand.org/campus/officers.html), there is a sample constitution. I'm sorta in the same boat -- I'm becoming president of my club next year. But, I've been involved with it for a year now, so I have a good familiarity with how things work. On our club website, there is a link on the left to our constitution, if you'd like another example: http://clubs.asua.arizona.edu/~uasos/ (note I'm redoing this website, it's a blend of the old gaudy and a quick touch-up, so don't assume that's a good site ) I don't know about a club advisor, specifically, but I think the previous president got a professor with which he had some connection to sign the form. I don't know exactly how it went, but I think you'd be better off asking a professor that knows you to sign the paperwork and stuff. I know the club advisor I talked to (for the college republicans, not our club) saw it as a meaningless duty where he signed off any paperwork as requested, and didn't take the club seriously. If you can't find someone sympathetic to Objectivism, that might be a good bet to look for someone like that. For recruitment-- I think, at least for us, a solid foundation of a small group of dedicated students is essential. We have a few regulars (5ish?), and meetings are generally not large events. We have had larger groups come, but the discussions tended to be small and personal. We also put up table out on the "mall area" (the big open area on our campus) and sat people at it for a couple days, getting new people to sign up. We had two groups--members and "people on the listserv." That way people could receive information on meetings even if they were hesitant to "join the group." There is a nominal fee of $5/semester (or you could do per year) to distinguish between the two groups. Also, we have a club library of books, mostly cheap from used bookstores, that we loan out to club members (dues-paying members). Our club has the Harvard Series lectures sponsored by ARI & the Harvard Objectivist club. I don't know where they came from, but they make a nice addition to the club library, and are great to provide content for meetings. Meetings generally included general discussion of local and national news items that were relevant to Objectivism, along with anything else going on people wanted to talk about--including questions people wanted to ask. Then, if there was time, a portion of a lecture tape was shown, which gave club members a chance to see professional Objectivists in action. In addition, they got to see applications of Objectivist principles, and especially the Q&A sessions at the end, where there are a lot of antagonistic questions answered persuasively. ARI recommends possibly studying some Objectivist literature over the year, like OPAR--slowly going through it and holding discussion sections. It doesn't seem like all the people attending even have time to read the required material for the classes they are in, let alone "extra" Objectivist literature, so I think would be a little much. Definitely having nice, themed meetings and discussing specific topics, such as Ayn Rand and Frank Lloyd Wright's relationship, was helpful. In that particular meeting, we discussed the letters they sent back and forth, whether Roark was modeled after Wright, etc. Alex Epstein's site has an article that relates to attracting members, specifically: http://www.alexepstein.com/articles/howtoattract.htm One more thing. If you discuss current news, suggest writing letters to the editor of the school newspaper--it gets publicity, it gets Objectivist ideas to the forefront on campus, and it can get your club new members as well. Don't consider this complete. I need to think about it more, and I can probably come up with some more ideas. I'm still working on what to do with my club next semester, so I need to think about it soon anyway. Good luck with the club and good job on the activism Edit: fixed grammar

that's awesome

Nice distinction. Thanks.

People have said that people disagreeing on "minor issues" can still both be Objectivists, so long as these "minor issues" don't include Objectivist principles. I would recommend reading OPAR (and anything it references...I believe there is a reference to IOE), and seeing whether you agree or not. Objectivism is a philosophy, not a system of edicts. It consists of principles, not a comprehensive system of commands for every topic invented. I think your problem is the difference between what is "minor" and what is "fundamental." You will need to do some reading of the philosophy in general (OPAR?) to see what is fundamental to the philosophy and what is not. Ayn Rand's favorite color was blue-green. That doesn't mean yours has to be, as well. Objectivism says there is an objective reality. If you don't agree, then you don't agree with Objectivism.

Look around this forum. I don't see everyone agreeing on everything.

I enjoyed the museum of natural history, but then again I didn't get to see a whole lot besides the major tourist attractions, so I don't have a whole lot of interesting things to compare it to...

It is open to expanding and applying--but not to changing any of the fundamental principles. You can call your expansions just that--your applications of Objectivist principles. You don't have to divorce the name Objectivism entirely--in fact you should give credit to Objectivism for the Objectivist principles you use--but make sure to call it an application. That doesn't mean that no new applications can be added, but merely that they should be labeled as such.

Ayn Rand did not expect us to accept her conclusions on faith--of course we are to question them and, ideally, reach the same conclusions for the same reasons. Objectivism, though, is a proper noun. It refers to her philosophy, including her applications of the basic principles. It is all hers, and I believe this is done to prevent so-called Objectivists from misrepresenting her ideas. Keep in mind, the ultimate philosophic question is not "is it Objectivist?," but instead "is it true?" If you happen to disagree with one of her philosophical conclusions (I haven't), you are free to do so--you just aren't allowed to call it an Objectivist conclusion.

Welcome! Objectivism is a proper noun, and refers directly to the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and thus includes (and is limited to) everything she published during her lifetime. Applying Objectivist principles to new areas, however, allows room for rational disagreement. I believe I heard, in one of the lectures in the Harvard Lecture Series, that there is disagreement among many professional Objectivists, even, in the area of gun control--is a person carrying an oozie down the road threatening force or simply exercising his rights to dispose of his property as he wishes, so long as he isn't harming anyone? If you notice, it's not the general principles they disagree about, but only how to apply them.

haha

While I would love to have more reasons to dislike F-9/11, I must disagree with this. First of all, it is [supposed to be] a documentary, and the purpose of a documentary is to provide information--the primary purpose isn't to be a work of art. In addition, _The_Fountainhead_ and _Atlas_Shrugged_ had definite messages, though admittedly presented through dramatization more than explication. While these weren't only political, _We_the_Living_ certainly was moreso. I think it would be reasonable for a novelist to write a good story while still conveying an important political message.

Do you mean a higher quantity of problems, or that the problems that we have here are more significant? I got the impression that you meant the US has worse problems than most other countries, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. If you do think the problems in the US are worse, what do you consider the major problems (that other countries don't have)?

here's that passage: The Stanton Institute of Technology stood on a hill, its crenelated walls raised as a crown over the city stretched below. It looked like a medieval fortress, with a Gothic cathedral grafted to its belly. The fortress was eminently suited to its purpose, with stout, brick walls, a few slits wide enough for sentries, ramparts behind which defending archers could hide, and corner turrets from which boiling oil could be poured upon the attacker—should such an emergency arise in an institute of learning. The cathedral rose over it in lace splendor, a fragile defense against two great enemies: light and air.

I messed up on the topic title... it was supposed to be "Humor in AR's Fiction" but the AR turned into Ar (typo). I tried but I don't see a way to change it, so if any moderators have that ability, feel free Also, those are good examples so far, thanks!

I took a class a year or so ago that included reading The Fountainhead. My teacher (a Kelleyite) pointed out a passage which displayed what he called "Ayn Rand's dark sense of humor." Here's the particular passage: Gus Webb designed a cubistic ornament to frame the original windows, and the modern neon sign on the roof, which read: "The Hopton Stoddard Home for Subnormal Children." "Comes the revolution," said Gus Webb, looking at the completed structure, "and every kid in the country will have a home like that!" When I read it the first time I had just seen it as a "revolution" in architecture and him saying that everyone would want a house along the same lines of style. But when my professor pointed it out, I saw the humor that I had missed originally. While it's not entirely subtle, it can be missed accidentally. What other examples of (semi)subtle humor have you found in her fiction, if any? I'm sure there's more, and I would be interested in seeing any that other people have noticed.

Here's just another point of view on how you might get through school taking programming classes you don't enjoy much of: I have been having a similar experience in that some of my programming classes are boring and I don't feel a great deal of motivation to actually start on the projects. In addition, going into college I had been learning a lot about programming, doing plenty in my spare time, and all around being thoroughly absorbed in it. When I got to my CS classes, though, they often were very boring. While I completely agree with others that programming a ton in your spare time can be a wonderful thing, that doesn't really work well for me--the more I program for fun, the less I want to program for class. What I do instead is simply not program much in my spare time. When I have a CS project I still don't feel much desire to start working on it. But when I actually force myself to start, I often find myself getting excited again, lost in the problem, and emerging a few hours later, if not completed (a short project), with a strong desire to continue the next day or after a lunch break or whatever. This is how it has worked for me, and I have truly learned a lot. Like I said before, I agree with the others about programming in your spare time being important and beneficial. I just wanted to provide another example of how you can get through college and get a degree in CS.

I really want to go see it, because it would be very amusing--but more importantly I don't want my money going to support him. So of course I won't. But as for the people that fall "victim" to this...all I can say is that they deserve it. It is very obvious when he "bends" the truth.

Hmm...well there's several different reasons I like it. They can be grouped into two main categories, with all the reasons in each category being tied closely together: 1) it's prime. Prime numbers seem to be "unique." In addition, it's a very common number for people to pick "at random." If you pick a random number, 47 just sounds so much more random than 45, 48, 50, etc. This goes very well with the prime thing--17 and 23 seem to come up a lot as well. But when people pick "random" numbers, they tend to pick "weird" numbers rather than more common/non-weird ones. If you see the number 64 or 50 was randomly picked, it seems to have a different impact than seeing that the number 47 was randomly picked (even though the chance of picking any of them would be equally likely--in other words, it's psychological). I actually saw a site/yahoo group about this recently, and was excited to join. People subscribing seemed to think it was the "quintessential random number" and shared "47 sightings" with one another. It was amusing, but unfortunately they almost all appeared to be mystical/fate based; I dropped the group recently. I just think it's cool, unique and interesting--not mystical. 2) it comes up a lot in my life. It just so happens that I've seen it a lot, and usually associated with positive things in my life. When I was a kid, growing up, I often went to a dirt track to watch races on Saturday nights. My favorite driver drove the car #47 (he was my favorite because he was good, his car was blue/white (I liked that combination...), and he was very nice at signing autographs after the races). My birthday is 4/7, and my first name has 4 letters and my middle name has 7. After the race car thing, I just sorta put it all together. So I'm not quite sure exactly why erandor likes it, but for me it's a mix of personal and "interesting" things. It's come up a lot, and I stuck with it... Plus it just sounds so much more interesting than 7 or 13

Wow, I'm honestly surprised another Objectivist fan of hers. I generally just get a blank stare when I mention her. Also, I like most of her new CD (esp. So Called Chaos, KOMB) so long as I ignore the anarchistic comments she's made about it and interpret the "good part" of the lyrics myself.