whYNOT

Yes, superior writing, if not the heights of heroism we are used to. The series is great historical Naval fiction which I've always been drawn to. I have at least dozens of favorites, but one that I recommend is "A Soldier of the Great War" by Mark Helprin. He wrote this fat novel at about 20 years old, and I could not believe his talent. His, and his protagonist's, 'sense of life' is very Romanticist, I thought.

Ok, don't get excited, I thought it was obvious I was being facetious. On a sliding scale, athletes have their place in the scheme of things with composers and authors - and 'athlete' to my purist sensibility, does signify a decathlon athlete, or a gymnast, say. But that's my own personal take, and I'm not going to fight about it. Fedor is without doubt effective. That was my worst nemesis when I boxed a bit (at school). The kind of fighter who was built like 'a brick sh##-house', shorter and bulkier - who could take punishment from your left jabs, but keep coming in close, and start swinging at you with haymakers. Skinny as I was, there was no defense against that style, and I'd end up on my pants. Agreed, he is blindingly fast, with incredible power, shrugs off punches - and he fights to his strengths, so that is tactical. Mostly, he hasn't forgotten when he went hungry. I wonder how he'd do as a pro boxer.

Freestyle's 6 year-old son got me smiling, and thinking when better to learn true selfishness than at that age. That was when I was being told to share my toys with other kids and 'not be so selfish'. But, damn, I * knew * I was right, and my parents were wrong, (no one else had the right to what I valued), so ended up conflicted and angry. Teaching the concept to young minds is actually not that hard, I believe, as that is the stage they appreciate reality, and much more than the average adult does. Back to the dilemma of semantics, and I for my own self -explanation, named the one, "self-indulgence", and the other "rational self-interest" - then applied, and identified them both in daily practice, to fully grasp the 2 opposing concepts. Rationalizing a little? Maybe, but whether it is your young son, or even to yourself early on, the gentle approach can be the most effective. Never to lose sight of and compromise the fact that proud SELFISHNESS is the goal.

Yeah, his opponents can't wait to do the 'dying swan', can they? But, man, no finesse, no tactics: he rushes in flailing, as you say, with round-house punches that sooner than later put his guy down. Presumably he has ability to take some heavy punches while he's in close, but no one's going to take his fire power for long. Effective and brutal, but martial art? - not to me. I just cannot admire his style, nor the discipline, and I've enjoyed some top boxers; Fedor is just an element of nature for me, like a landslide.

Just being great at what you do, doesn't quite cut it - what is it you do, is relevant. "Mastered their art and body" ? I've seen a charging Cape buffalo with more grace than him. There is one great person to come out of Russia, and it's not Fedor.

Wouldn't private and competing agencies serve as replacement to a body like the FDA? These 'watchdogs' over quality, safety and efficacy of drugs, etc, would have independent labs which issued a seal of approval on products, which the pharma companies would pay for. Ultimately, the buyer would still have to beware.

A.G. : Sounds like the growing pains of a potentially fine individual, to me. It doesn't happen in one year, and at times your reach may exceed your grasp, but stay true to your values. And resist comparing yourself to others, hard as that might be. That you have higher awareness than many of them, is a virtue you cannot compromise. The state of the world? No, it's basically as it's always been, and you must design it around you. (I hope that wasn't any more paternalistic than it needed to be, by the way.)

Focus and consciousness attain a general level, I've found, that remains pretty much constant . With the capability to 'turbo-boost', when you need it to. Thankfully, in life, it is not essential to be on high alert - sink or swim, fight or flight, focus or blank-out - all the time. In fact, that's downright exhausting. The main point is that I believe every individual knows their own limits of using relaxing substances, if he or she is fully honest. Those limits very much include how you feel about yourself, during and after their use. For me, drinking has become only for social situations, to be more gregarious and out-going; I found I didn't really enjoy alcohol's extreme effects, and it's been a natural process over time to reduce it to this stage. Pot, which was as far as I got in youth, I didn't much care about at all then - but just a few years ago discovered that it has genuine benefits for my creative thought and occasional insomnia, with no after effects, and zero addiction. Now I use only the smallest amount, irregularly, and when alone at home. So it's all personal and individual in the end, ruled by one's own introspection and values. (But definitely, I don't think Objectivism is Puritanical, Nanite

Amaroq, I too utterly oppose the imposition of Sharia law, anywhere. I'd like all religious law banned, as well. But, this is Oklahoma, not the Yemen. Whatever the number or influence of Muslims in that state, and with 0.8 % of them in the entire USA population, there can't be many - do you mean to tell me that they can ever, in their wildest dreams, impose Sharia law there? I don't know about this, but do the Mormons enjoy any special priviliges, or any targeted restrictions, in the state of Utah? There can only be one message to all immigrants to any nation:- assimilate. By your individual liberties, you may practise your own culture freely, but as soon as it contravenes the laws of your new country, you will be charged and arrested. (As an example, Israel has 1.1 million Muslim citizens - who enjoy full rights as Israelis - out of a population of under 6 million. You never hear about them, because they are happily assimilated Israelis, represented in Parliament, by their own politicians. No Sharia law.)

Yes, and it all smells of the same 'fascist-communist dichotomy' that Rand got to the heart of, and refuted. From the 1920's til now, Europeans cannot break out of this either/or mindset of religion contra socialism. Only Objectivism holds the key.

The correlation between Atheism and intelligence/knowledge isn't surprising. What is , is the high percentile he gives for European countries - more than I'd have guessed. (Another factor could be the general disgust with recent fundamentalist religious activities.) But with all these new atheists, which is a welcome trend, also comes the bad news: it's all about security. Statism, social welfare, and the collective have replaced the psychological need for religious safety, and belonging. Sweden scores highest at 64% atheist, and that figures. So, the result is an immense number of rationalist, amoral, altruist atheists, who could predominate in Europe, soon.

Dante, I do understand, I think; but - doesn't this smell like a 'lifeboat scenario' law to you? A highly unlikely situation that must be guarded against, by taking out an insurance policy, now? When the Constitution, and existing laws - and failing that, principles and common sense, would be more than sufficient IF the situation arose. This amendment seems to me much, much, too specific. My general ignorance of the fine details of US law does not prevent me from feeling that this is not sound, or just. Capitalist Swine, Yes, I am probably jumping the gun here concerning reduced statism. Put it down to over-optimism. But with the electorate putting some brakes on runaway spending and Obama's authoritarianism, wouldn't more US citizens be thinking about a limited government, now?

The OP calls this amendment a "harmless redundancy" - in the case it's never needed. Which I take to mean 'let's play it safe'. Speaking as a foreigner, my deep concern is that America is becoming a nation that is (more and more) standing AGAINST things, rather than FOR, principles. Just when statism is showing signs of declining there, you support more laws, rather than less. May I quote one of your best thinkers, Benjamin Franklin, to you - "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security, will deserve neither, and lose both ." There are some of us who have looked up to the USA for a long time, and this fearful mindset is extremely disturbing. If this amendment is not unconstitutional, it surely is irrational.

Yes, but initially a baby's distance measurement is perceptual - the short distances. I think I'm right in saying that only with increased intelligence and language does the concept of long distance develop. I have a pet theory that an infant is learning short distances by using a standard reference. Have you observed that a baby constantly has his arms or legs in the air? How about this one - that he is 'judging' distance and scale against his hand, or his foot? i.e., when his father holds his hand, he is estimating the relative size of the two hands. Or, when his mother walks towards him from across the room, he is absorbing the fact that she started out, let's say, twice as big as his hand (in front of his face), and grows in proportion to his hand, as she nears him. Developing binocular vision of his eyes also adds to this perceptual sense of distance. Sounds crazy? I like it!

Ben, Never underestimate your ADD/ADHD. I'd recommend a great book 'Driven to Distraction', by a Dr Holliwell - I think that's the spelling. Depression is a side effect of many with ADD, he says; which makes sense, as one is living in a world of limited focus, dreaminess, and wandering attention, most of the time. Which leads to mistakes, and then feelings of inadequacy and inefficacy, at study, work, and relationships - and of course to a sense of uselessness, depression, and low self-esteem. The meds today are very effective, and unintrusive, but they need months or years to show their full potential; also, maybe you should ask a psychiatrist to try you out on different ones. I was diagnosed (finally giving in to my wife's insistence!) late (in my 50's), and it finally made sense of everything I'd done, and not done at school, and ever since - explaining my ongoing general feeling of apathy and depression. This understanding alone was absolutely brilliant, and I've learned not to be so hard on myself, for past failures. Of course, ADD was not known back in my youth.. What I went through never has to happen again, because of increasing knowledge about this crippling disease, and the improving medications. Holliwell knows it well as he has it himself, and his insights are rational and empowering. Despite it being a disease for life, it's not all gloomy, since it is usually accompanied by what he calls 'hyperfocus' - short periods of intense concentration, that most 'normal' people cannot experience. That's when one can produce one's best work and best thinking. As an afterthought, I found that a daily dose of the mineral magnesium is incredible effective for light depression. If you can get off anti-depressants, it might be good idea, but I don't know enough to say for sure. But stay on those ADD drugs! Good luck, and keep us posted.

Now that is some huge territory you covered, and I won't propose to address it fully, or do it justice. Rather, one minor thought it prompted:- at a certain level, Man has done quite well with reduced Reason, and with limited focus on reality, hasn't he? I mean he's survived, wrong, or mixed premises, notwithstanding. I put this down to the fact that he is born into a readymade identity - his family, his tribe, society, and his choice of god, are all prescribed for him. With this 'destiny' awaiting him, he does not need to fully apply his mind, beyond the normal and expected, and anyway, he has the comfort of 'knowing' there is a plan for his life. That is what is truly astonishing - that such a person can actually do well, and be content, while living semi-consciously. In the short term, even irrational self-certainty can be effective. How could you persuade this person to take the first step to self-made identity? Why should he take the responsibility, when other people, and God, are being responsible for him - as he believes. What would you tell him his reward would be, for becoming more totally aware? Could you guarantee him more wealth, fame, love and happiness? (I have some answers, as I know other Objectivists do, so this is mainly rhetorical.) Just some observations, and thanks for a thoughtful essay.

Well that proves it. Get yourself a Lamborghini, and never get a ticket. (Or a Maserati, Ferrari,Alfa,Lancia - don't you have any Italian cars there?) Think of the money you'll save.

If it were only Objectivists who decided which were those unjust laws, I'd sleep soundly at night. But as it stands, I'd be very nervous. Welcome to O.Online, btw.

Sure. No matter how much the majority of people believe they explicitly hold a philosophy, usually it is a grab-bag of things they picked up, that appeals to them. When it becomes disturbing - actually, terrifically disappointing - is that some are highly intelligent, and have a great sense of life. Warning: do not assume they will eventually be persuaded to come round to your philosophy. I'm afraid there is no getting away from the fact that down the line, even the small differences crack open wider. Amazing, isn't it, that the more closely you observe people, the more you realize how many inhabit a totally different 'reality' to you?

"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?" TS Eliot 1934 (Someone mentioned the hierarchy ...)

Dante, Don't knock 'passion'. No, I know you aren't , but you know how motivating it can be. I'm starting to view passion as the yet unformed rational values of a young and questing mind. When the values find form and outlet, that's a powerful force. No ordinary emotion this; rather an effect of all that inductive thinking that began in childhood.

This is a minor addition to the above, but I think it's often overlooked in debates on determinism. That decision you have made is not made in vacuo. It is a starting point to another, and another, each having alternatives. Kind of a decision-continuum, that at the end of a year, say, has involved thousands of factors - and taken one to a specific 'place,' and no end in sight. Like a chess game, with near-endless combinations of moves, from a given position.

Yes I agree with Eiuol and his "ignoring facts of reality". Rational self interest is certainly long-term, rather than quick-fix. I am however surprised that no one has taken up my proposal that thieving is ultimately altruist. Altruism covers more 'sins' than is generally accepted. Just because it seems counter-intuitive ie., TAKING from another person, not giving, does not preclude fundamental altruism. The thief desperately needs other people - their values, honest effort, and wealth, to survive. He is without doubt, a second-hander, which is a subset of over-concern with others, whch is in turn, altruist.

Absorbing stuff. As a side-bar to the GW scientists chasing the huge bucks he has seen, what is also interesting to Objectivists is his one statement: "Since I am no philosopher, I'm not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption..." A trillion- dollar 'industry'? And physicists selling their souls to get a piece of it? It's now past time for a fully formulated Oist philosophy/ethics of science.

hey Hairnet, I think you said that very well, regarding dogmatism, and specifically accusations of Rand's so-called dogmatism. Yes, that is Branden. OP, a good idea, but just a suggestion: perhaps framing the topic a little more widely would draw more interest. I've always been fascinated by Rand's warm, human side - her apparently girlish innocence - with snippets of personal information (like her 'tiddley-wink' music.) And I read somewhere way back, how pleased she was about the huge public response to The Fountainhead; even flattered that a professional poker player loved her writing.