Eiuol

I don't see what your deception was. Are you saying that the script provided was full of lies and deception and you read it off? Maybe it was the most rational choice. That's why if we lived in a truly free society, with a free market, you wouldn't feel trapped to make certain choices. Again, can you be more clear what it is you are discussing? First you ask if Ayn Rand is an altruist, but you seem to have said that you don't think she is. Then you seem to be talking about rational selfishness and irrational selfishness both as the same selfishness Rand talks about.

That is true. But you're just making an observation, you didn't really explain what those observations mean. People who are too unselfish usually come across as an idiot, but why is that? People who are thought of as too selfish do come across as conceited to many people, but why is that? Notice you didn't say such people -are- idiots or -are- conceited. I'm not really sure what type of information you're looking for. It's not like Rand said the only bad philosophy to have is an altruistic one. You should emphasize to yourself that the selfishness she talks about is rational self-interest. I'm not even sure if you disagree with Rand or just wish she spoke about compulsion more. To me, compulsion is a type of force, and the one of the biggest reasons that force is bad is because it prevents a person from living selfishly and living -their- life.

It would of course have to depend on your current situation in life. The first choice could easily become an altruistic choice if you're not careful. There might be better and more selfish choices, even if there are some pretty nice benefits for yourself.

I'm confused as to why "choice" must mean that a choice is made by rational means. An animal makes "choice" to live or die, but that choice is not made because they thought about. "Selection" would do a better word to use in that context. An animal will only "select" to live, but it's only because their biology told them to make that selection. It was certainly not made through reason. It would be like a biological robot, like you said.

To clarify, I do think people have free will. I just was suggesting that the argument given was not a particularly great one. In particular, I had issue/confusion with how free will could be self-evident. I suppose I should have said "the fact that a selection is made does not mean that free will was involved". I was trying to make a distinction between a computer making "choices", a computer choosing between true and false based on a specific rule set, and a person making choices, choosing between true, false and even contradictory regardless of a "biological rule set".

I don't understand how free will is self-evident. Introspection might not always be accurate, since you're always able to lie to yourself. The fact that there is a choice isn't enough to prove that it was a free choice.

(which, not witch) In general, I don't think I quite follow what you're saying or what your purpose is. People are definitely motivated to do things -by- things, whether or not they acknowledge it. I was motivated to make a post by the post that you created. Also, potential of humans is definitely limited by the amount of knowledge your brain can hold. That's the limit. Even if the brain were able to store every piece of knowledge in the universe, human potential would still be limited by what exists in reality. I'm not 100% sure if my concept of infinity is accurate, but I think it's safe something can't -be- infinite. Crizon, I do think free-will needs to be proven. It's not enough to just say "you chose whether or not to make a post". What you do perceive is certainly true, but that doesn't mean what you think about that perception is true. Everyone -should- recognize that the axioms are self-evident, but that doesn't mean they will. But that's sort of off topic. Having a possible choice doesn't always mean there was a choice. I can program a computer to make -specific- decisions, but it was certainly not based on the computer's "free will". I think to really prove free will, you need to show that a choice can be made despite a specific set of rules. I think this is sufficiently dealt with in what Rand wrote about tabula rasa. If you don't quite follow, please ask me to clarify. (edited out "Rand doesn't say volition is an axiom either", I misunderstood/misread a quote I read)

Now I understand what art is, but when at what point does "bad art" turn into "not art"? Sometimes I find myself thinking that something is "not art" when it might actually be "bad art". Similarly, I probably would consider paintings by impressionist artists (like Monet) to be art, although not very good art because I don't think they effectively show a selective or abstract re-creation of reality. I just have a hard time being able to judge whether art is just bad, or not art at all.

"Form follows function" is just one method to design anything in a rational way. I think ultimately what matters most is that you -think- about how something can be designed. This can apply to architecture, designing a user interface for software or even how to design a chair. Don't include a ornaments just because you can. Don't design something based on popular opinion. Base design on what you want to achieve. If you're explaining a design to another person, you should be able to say -why- each element is included. Also, I would not say "form follows function" is a rule. While I would say it is very common feature of good design, it is not a requirement for good design.

At the 6 minute mark, she explains why she likes Charlie's Angels. I'm not sure if that's the video you saw, but she was definitely serious.

"Emily Levine: A trickster's theory of everything" Enough said. I really had no what her point was. TED does have some videos that I've liked: and http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/tim_fer...n_anything.html are a few. So really I don't think the issue is with TED. It's just that "ideas" from people like Emily Levine are very common.

I'm not sure which thread you mean. In general I'm most interested in the writing aspects too.

I might be, but I'm not sure what you'd mean by screenplay. Do you mean like describing how the story will be shown, or more like your entire idea for a story-based game (including gameplay)?

I've been reading these forums since about September of last year. I really don't know why I didn't register an account before, so that's why I'm making one now. I first heard of Ayn Rand ~2 years ago in high school (I'm in college now) when I overheard someone who read a book for class mentioned to their friend that "it wasn't that bad" and their friend responded "I didn't really like it". I glance over and see the book is "The Fountainhead". I never heard of the book before and the title sounded really dumb. But the author's name seemed interesting; "Anne Rand, that kinda rhymes, that name can't be her given name". So I decide to wikipedia her name. I saw how her name is actually pronounced and read some general info on Objectivism. I can't say I disagreed with anything I saw, the most "disagreement" I had was thinking "hmm since when was selfishness ever a good thing? This is pretty interesting." I didn't read any of Ayn Rand's books until a year later when I read Atlas Shrugged. Now I know that my previous conception of "selfishness" was just distorted. All my other beliefs I've had have become more consistent and with fewer contradictions. Fortunately for me, I've always been good at seeing contradictions in my thinking and in others. I've also always been good at identifying evasiveness in others or myself. I guess that's why I've come to understand Objectivism so easily after only knowing about it for 2 years at most. I'm now reading The Fountainhead (~100 pages left). The only other thing you need to know about me is that my passion is video games. More specifically my passion will be designing video games. Right now I'm in school to acquire enough knowledge to get a job at some video game company. As an aside, I do not think video games -are- art, but they can -contain- art (i.e. certain stories, certain graphics, certain environments). (PS I'm not Japanese, I've just studied it for about ~4 semesters in school.)