Howard Roark

You are not making any progress at all. Presenting a thousand-word long apology for writing extensive questions is an absurdity. I can't understand why asking specific questions is taking such a tremendous effort for you. Everyone else seems to do it. You are obviously using the wrong analogy here. There were a great number of points that were made in Atlas Shrugged, not just one. Your claim that Ayn Rand could not make herself understood in less than a thousand pages is ridiculous. What is the point of saying that Atlas Shrugged didn't start with perfectly formed arguments? Are you writing a book? Is anybody here demanding perfection from your arguments' structure? Are you developing a philosophy? You are obviously using this example as a rationalization. Puppy Dog, if you can't say what you are trying to say, then the right place for you is none other than a classroom. Take the time to learn how to formulate questions, and come back when you are ready.

Excuse me, but this statement is a non sequitur. Every system has requirements. Economic models are defined by their conditions, regardless of their viability. You are accepting that a communist society has never existed, while declaring that it is appropriate to call non-existing communist societies "communist," regardless of their coherence with the basic conditions of a communist system. This is obviously a contradiction. If you know that communism can't be put into practice, then referring to these societies as "communist" is even more contradictory.

Don’t you think that the reason why you didn’t receive any responses is because no one has this set for sale?

Yes, certainly. There are more substantial responses here, here, here, here, here and here. Perhaps this will clarify the issue for you.

Ouch!

This reminds me of a meaningless quote by Heidegger: "The nothing itself nothings."

Yuck!

Here (the last sentence of the first paragraph) is the quote you're looking for.

There was a movie called Wild Is the Wind, which she didn’t like. Leonard Peikoff was really attracted to the main actress, Anna Magnani, so he recommended the movie to Ayn Rand, but he didn’t mention why. Finally, she was very upset and indignant when she saw it, because there were some strong and shocking scenes in it, but Dr. Peikoff was focused on the actress, so he discounted all those elements. It's a funny story, at least when Dr. Peikoff tells it.

Uh-oh.

Dr. Peikoff answered a similar question here. You may find it helpful.

Yeah, like this one? Oh boy, I should be promoted.

Really? Then why don’t you use it, instead of making new unnecessary threads? Your questions have been answered many times here, and I have pointed out where you should ask them.

Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Here and here. Here, here, here, here, here, and here. Here and here. Now, I have a question. Have you tried the search button?

You might also like to check this, this and this out, Caesar. *** Mod's note: Thanks for pointing those out. I've merged the topics now. -sN ***

That is going to be a little hard, since “God” has only three characters, and the search won’t return any results. I know I've had a very hard time trying to find those threads.

More free? You must be referring to the Government’s administrative department, and maybe the court system, only. Otherwise, it’s a very unrealistic scenario, unless you’re talking about T-800 models, at least. Such an advanced technology would make very difficult to finance a small number of police stations, let alone an entire army. This is certainly not what Ayn Rand had in mind when she said the Government should be an impersonal robot.

Learn to swear better. Problem solved!

You can’t ascribe attributes to reality, because reality simply is. So, in the strict sense, reality isn’t objective. How can you know what is real and what is not? There is only one way: thinking. Now, since you can’t argue by reference to nothing, the first thing to do is ask for evidence. If he can’t offer any, then you can throw out his proposition without any further argumentation. Suffice it to say that your example contradicts known facts of reality. I won’t go into detail, but you should know that arbitrary assertions are automatically invalidated. Also, to ask which reality is right is a big mistake, since to be right is to identify a fact of reality. For the sake of full clarity, there is only one reality; not two, not four, not ten. This issue has been discussed in other threads, so that would be a better place for you to start.

I haven’t read most of the replies, but I will try to clear up the issue for you. The senses merely respond to external stimuli, and that’s all there is to it. You become aware of physical entities by identifying the evidence that the senses give you. A sensation can only tell you that an object exists, but you can’t know what that object is without the employment of reason. Realize that it’s not a task of the senses to analyze their own reactions, but to give you the first evidence of existence. On this basis, you can organize the perceptual material, and then integrate it into concepts. Since this process necessarily involves an interpretation, it may lead you to a failure of thought, but that is why you must establish a specific method of cognition in the first place. Now then, Ayn Rand is not suggesting that the organs of perception are infallible. What she observed is that the different forms in which some people perceive reality are precisely that: a difference in the form of perceiving the same objects of the same reality.

I'm sorry, but this subject has been discussed at lenght. You can search for the other threads, if you like.

Good Lord... If only Jacques Derrida were still alive… he would be proud!

How is that awesome?

Yes, Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics.

The summary cited above is not intended to convert you, but to simply give you a brief indication of the Objectivist viewpoint. I suggest you use Ayn Rand’s description, as it is the most reliable, and if someone regards it as insufficient, then clarify the specific point they disagree with. A list is not the proper way to present a philosophy. All the answers can be explicitly found in her writings, if they care to discover them. Bear in mind that it is up to them to do their research. Also, why do you focus on capitalism? Most of the concepts you used are likewise misunderstood today. For example, taking the last point you added, someone might ask what “man” is, and you can just go on forever.