tommyedison

It is not to be interpreted. I gave the reasons in my last post. Let's define love. I'll take a quote from Midas Mulligan in AS Note the words superlative values. I believe this quote applies to all kinds of love, whether it be romantic love or love for one's work, etc. The point is, saying that you love a person, by definition implies that you regard that person as superlative in context of your values i.e. that person is the embodiment of your values, the person reflects you. Now let's say there is a fully integrated objectivist. He marries a non-Objectivist. If he is an objectivist, he cannot love the non Objectivist because that person is not the embodiment of his values. Consequently no matter how much he tries to, he will not be perfectly happy with his partner. If you can refute a single statement of Objectivism, I would be very interested. If they can prove that certain aspects of O'ism are irrational and that their position is rational, they are rational. If they discredit O'ism without doing either of the above two, to that extent, they are irrational. I mean to say that although religious persons may be very happy, they can never live life to the fullest reaping all its rewards. Their contradictions (e.g. believing in an omnipotent God) cannot let them live life to the fullest.

Being an Objectivist doesn't mean constantly analyzing your life. She did not. She only considered a Catholic priest as a member of Galt's Gulch, not as the protagonist. The protagonist was always John Galt. On the contrary, I think it shows that religious people though they might be very rational in many spheres of life, can never have a completely fulfilling life.

I agree with Inspector. If a person compromises even the littlest bit in any sphere, he cannnot reach his full potential. E.g. if a person is studying engineering and compromises on the amount of work he puts into it, he will not reach his full potential. He may become a good engineer but he won't become what he could have become. Likewise and especially in the case of romantic relationships, if one is not a fully integrated Objectivist and/or marries someone who is not a fully integrated Objectivist, he will never be as happy as he could have been. Happiness comes through an achievement of your values. If you engage in a romantic relationship with an Objectivist, you will gain more value that if you are in a relationship with a non-)bjectivist. (Fixed capitalization of 'Objectivist' - sNerd)

I don't think so. His face is too boyish for Galt. The actor playing Galt will need to have a very manly, calm and thinking face something like that of a soldier.

Here's the IMDB Listing for "The Edge" As for the film, it's lovely. Felix, I think you should put a spoiler warning in your last post. ****SPOILERS:PLOT OR ENDING DETAILS FOLLOW**** It's about three men, a very rich businessman named Charles played by Anthony Hopkins, a photographer named Robert played by Alec Baldwin and Robert's assitant. Charles has a supermodel wife who is having an affair with Robert. Robert, Charles and Robert's assistant take a trip to Alaska. Robert is planning to kill Charles to get his wife. Charles has suspicions. Their helicopter crashes in the wilderness. Charles takes the lead of the group and does everything he can to survive. Robert basically turns into a baby and a burden on Charles. In the end, only Charles survives. It has very intense emotional drama. The reason why I liked the film is because of the selfish, thinking and heroic attitude of Charles and the way he fights for his survival and the way Robert lives of Charles' mind to survive still plotting to kill him quite like the looters of Atlas Shrugged. Of course the fact the hero is a businessman just adds to the fun. A quote: Charles: You know, I once read an interesting book which said that most people lost in the wilds die of shame. Stephen: What? Charles: Yeah, see, they die of shame. "What did I do wrong? How could I have gotten myself into this?" And so they sit there and they... die. Because they didn't do the one thing that would save their lives. Robert: And what is that, Charles? Charles: Thinking. BTW, this movie was also discussed on forums.4aynrandfans.com. Patrick posted a very good review.

Many nefarious intelligent people can get in, it is very true but many cannot. But if borders are left completely unprotected, the situation would become much more dangerous. Imagine al-Qaeda smuggling in nukes into the United States! That is why I support an unlimited no. of H1B visas along with a strict patrolling of borders.

Many of them could be spies. For e.g. to enter corporations and smuggle their technology to Cuba, become a part of the Cuban-American Society and try and harm their interests etc. One can't compromise national security even if it means restricting immigration or asylum.

No it isn't. If you donate to an organization (say a Cancer society) because you want see a cure for Cancer, then it would be a good act since you are working for your selfish interest. If on the other hand, you donate to say Africa even if it doesn't concern you in anyway, it would be bad. I don't think so. To paraphrase Miss Rand, if you see a man drowning and you can help him without sacrificing yourself, it would be good to help - it would involve respect for human life. Of course, you would not be immoral if you did not help him. The same principle applies to the hurricane victims.

You don't need to. If people want to fool or lie to themselves, let them. If 74 years of manslaughter and failure can't convince them, I doubt you have a chance. Communism is a violation of man's rights. If they still say its good in theory, either they are horribly misguided or they are liars. You don't need to go to each and every such person trying to convince them that Communism is evil. It's better that in that time you work towards your own life. Edit: That should be 88 years since persecution in China, NK, Cuba, and many other countries still continues.

Forbes article on Roberts. An excerpt If this article and others are accurate, then from my POV, Roberts seems to stand for small government and is not taken in by environmentalist and feminist crap.

I think Bush mentioned somewhere that Anthony Scalia and Clarence Thomas were his favorite justices (can't find the link). I am rooting for Thomas.

Ayn Rand mention Rehnquist in Philosophy: Who needs it, chapter Censorship: Local and Express. She criticised him and his counterparts for their ruling against pornography.

I doubt that Louisiana is capable of handling natural disasters. Given the fact that New Orleans was evacuated only after Bush told them to (Link), I doubt they had any plan ready. If they had they would have been working after the hurricane instead of whining for federal aid.

Funny, I read them in the same order. My mother told me I wouldn't understand AS and I should take Fountainhead. I took AS.

Here are a physicist's views on the Uncertainty principle. Basically he is arguing that He goes on to say that although this is true, it isn't really a manifestation of the Uncertainty Principle (UP). He says that the UP is actually about how well we can predict what will happen given a particular set of identical circumstances. Also note your comment about the position and momentum of an electron. It is not possible to simultaneously measure with infinite accuracy the position and momentum of electron or any object due to the reasons given in the quote. However I don't think this applies to past positions and momentums of an electron. But then I am not a physicist.

Hi I'm 15. What books of Ayn Rand have you read? I take it you have read or started reading Atlas Shrugged and The Fountaihhead?

Jefferson was I think much more uncompromising than Adams or Washington. As an example, it was Washington who imposed excise taxes in 1795. Jefferson opposed him. Jefferson opposed the institution of the Bank of America while Washington favored it. It was John Adams who imposed the Alien and Sedition Act and new taxes.

After reading the little bit about Sun Tzu I have got of the net, I can come to one conclusion about his ideas about war. Sun Tzu's idea of victory in war is very different to the western idea of victory. Sun Tzu's idea of victory is conquest because he mantains that the best victory is the one without a fight. For him victory in war sounds like the subjugation or physical defeat of the people who waged the war. West's idea of victory in war is the destruction of the ideology which made the war possible - something for which fight and total annihilation is necessary. If WW2 had followed Sun Tzu, Hitler would have been dethroned but Nazism would have never ended - something for which we would have paid a much greater price later on.

Charles, If you think, the Muslims and the people of the Middle East are innocent, think again. Support for terrorism is widespread in the Middle East especially Palestine and among the Muslims. How many times has a Muslim organization strongly condemned each and every terrorist attack? They will make demonstrations against the "US imperialism" but where are they when such things happen? That said, killing millions won't solve the problem because more will pop up in their place, although if it was the best solution, we shouldn't hesitate to use it.

Fighting a war is not filling the needs of a government. Governments are instituted among men to protect their rights. When at war, the rights of each and every individual are in danger. If the government(as representative of the nation) does not have money, it cannot fight the war. The invading country will take over and would proclaim dictatorial rule (assuming our example country is a moral one). There is no guarantee there won't be natural disasters during a world war. It is more than likely, there would be nuclear and EMP strikes during the war. Such scenarios may sound bizarre but they are possible even in today's world.

Wasn't it the Communists anyway who started the whole show? I can bet a 1000$, China is supporting the terrorists even now. The same way that Israel is today in a worse position than it was when Arafat died, killing Bin Laden or destroying al Qaeda simply won't do because a few months later another one will take its place. If we want to defeat them, the only way is to destroy their masters i.e. the governments which support them.

I would suggest first considering the worst case scenario. Let's say a world war has started with quite a few major powers like China and Russia against the USA. All the assets of Americans and American companies in the hostile countries have been nationalized and the stock market has crashed. On top of it, the USA has been hit by a VERY bad season of hurricanes, tornadoes, forest fires and earthquakes. Prospects for investement don't look good. In addition, the government is facing internal problems from Muslims, Communists and the like. Because of the alliance of many oil producing nations like Venezuela, Iran and Nigeria with the hostile countries, oil supply has drastically dwindled and oil prices are soaring to rates of more than 200$. In this scenario, can a voluntary government funding method work considering that it has to pay for the gigantic costs of war, for oil, mantain the existing infrastructure if private companies are unable to mantain for defense reasons, build nuclear shelters, reestablish infrastructure in devastated areas, mantain law and order, pay for the cost of espionage, produce nuclear bombs, etc.

I take it then that generally Half-cadence suggests a question and full-cadence an answer. Do you know any exceptions to this? Since each half cadence represents a change in frequency by 2 raised to root 12, this would mean that human ear regards a frequency change by 2 raised to 12 times a question and a frequency change of 2 raised to 6 times an answer as a rule. link So, Does the human ear automatically regard a certain frequency as a black note or is it because we are so used to hearing C at 435~440 Hz that we automatically assign a white note to it? I think this is a crucial question because the answer would establish whether only the change in frequency is regarded as meaningful or the frequencies which we hear themselves have a meaning to them. I am inclined towards the former view. If the former view is correct it means that the black notes and the minor scale give a grave picture only because it is a 12root2 change from the white notes. And this would lead to the conclusion that a 12root2 change represents uncertainty/graveness and a 6root2 change represents a finality. Wouldn't this mean that if the conclusion of the piece is at a black/grave note, then the piece has a malevolent/uncertain sense of life? And if this is correct, then would it lead to the conclusion that minor scales having an excess of grave notes allow much less scope for making a happy piece?

So, according to you, generally, minor scales are more "dim" while major ones are more "bright". I would like to post my analysis of the Beethoven's 9th Symphony 2nd Movement First Part. IMO, Beethoven starts with a declaration of some sort either as a declaration of rebellion or an expression of a turbulent state of affairs. He then continues on a dim but rising note to denote the torture and that it is increasing; not going too fast to emphasize the torture phase nor too slow to not make the piece lose its "energy", its strength. Then he switches to a strong high pitch perhaps as a declaration of rebellion. Am I going in the right direction?

4???? I would have died at your school. In 8th grade I took a cumulative leave of 30 days. My school is happily amazingly lax in attendance.