Release

Done and done.

This is very reminiscent of that, but then again, this is the President of the United States not the idiots in his administration. Does he not know the difference between the form of government that his country has or a theocracy? Well, he is an Evangelical with a "Faith Based" government initiative. Perhaps he doesn't see a difference... Just another reason why I'm voting for Kerry. ~Michael

The reason why I said that I'm sure it won't sway my view of Objectivism is because I know it to be correct. If he presents a good argument and not a frivolous one based on lots of hypotheticals and mystics then I may pursue the knowledge necessary to understand his views...but all in all, it'll be a great learning experience. I sometimes wish I had the time and resources available to get to fulltime college. ~Michael

No need to be confused. I still am reading them and rebutting them, but I want to speak to the man who wrote them, he's less than 20 minutes away. It's the only logical step in the situation IMO...if I have a chance to speak to someone on the subject that I was looking to read about, it would just be that much better for me. Don't worry about anything though, if there is a concern that this person may sway my views I can assure you that that isn't the case. I'm going to use his arguments to reinforce my views if anything. Consider it a self satisfaction mission..... ~Michael

Robert Bass Department of Philosophy University of North Florida http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/index.html Click that and look at the articles on Ethics, he has several others on other topics as well. This is the straight Objectivism stuff he's written http://personal.bgsu.edu/~roberth/oism.html He doesn't have a very nice webpage though...it's rather lame, but he's a Philosophy Professor and has much more college under his belt than most laypeople I meet. ~Michael

When I worked for a bank I had asked the same question and they explained that it's just standard manufacturing for the ATM's...it's not that the manufacturers of the parts and the brail pads and the units differentiate between drive ups and walk ups...they just manufacture the parts without any idea where they are going. Perhaps the laws did have something to do with that, but I was told that the main reason is because the manufacturers don't really discriminate between the 2. ~Michael

I appreciate your honesty on the subject, it may come off as a similiar argument religion uses, and thats not what I want to do. I'm sure I'll be able to speak to him and convey my intentions properly and still hold an intellectual conversation with him. And like I said in the post above this, I don't think there will be any arguing with someone who is so accomplished and has pretty extensive knowledge under his belt...i'm not stupid.

Yeah, I'm not planning on arguing really...I know that this man is very educated and I'm looking to just keep it one sided to a degree. If anything I'd like to create a good relationship with this person for he is someone who has a lot of knowledge on subjects that interest me. As someone who isn't in college it is VERY few and far between I find someone who is willing to discuss subjects of this caliber, let alone find someone willing and able too. So I'm approaching this with honest intentions to learn more about the philosophy that has changed my life for the good. I'm hoping that he won't dismiss me on the grounds of my 'stubborness' but I'm sure he wont just by the tone of the email I recieved. I actually feel pretty fortunate to have stumbled accross such an opponent of Objectivism so near me. It's going to a fun next couple of weeks, thats for sure. ~Michael

I looked at several articles that were presented by both Mr. Speicher and y_feldblum and I found that the articles y_feldblum had given me were actually written by a professor of philosophy at UNF, here in Jacksonville. I sent him a brief email explaining that I'd love to hear in person why he has written so much against Objectivism. It suprised me to see someone go to great lengths to denounce the philosophy. I recieved an email promptly and we have arranged a time to sit and meet. I plan on sitting down with him and discussing the errors (in his eyes) of Objectivism, but instead of going into long winded discussions about why this philosophy is bad and discuss the deep issues of it, I'm going to cut it to a couple very simple questions after I present him with my particular situation. I'm going to take a pretty superficial approach to the philosophy and to my changes. First, I'm going to tell him that I have completely turned a 180 in my life...I'll explain that I now know and understand ethics, morallity, work ethics and I now know what it takes to succeed and be happy in the world. I hate to go a superficial direction with this 'esteemed' professor of philosophy but I feel that that is all I need to hear from such a opponent of the philosophy. I then will ask him why he thinks it's such a bad thing that this philosophy exists and ask him how it could be a bad thing if it's made such positive changes in my life. Hopefully he'll be able to make a good case because I'm up for a good conversation with someone who's well educated and who opposes Objectivism. Most people I've run into who oppose the philosophy just say "She's selfish and stupid" or something ridiculous like that...I don't tolerate such ignorance. Any opinions? ~Michael

I appreciate the comments Stephen...I'm not trying to say that I've FULLY integrated the philosophy into life, but I've seen major changes in major ways because of it and I've digested much in a short period of time. It really clicked for me and things just started making sense everywhere I looked... The point of the thread though is honest and I believe it would help my integrating of the philosophy if I could understand an opposition of it. At this point I can't and I believe that is one of my problems, I understand the opposition enough to know that it's wrong or misguided but I don't understand it enough to combat it with words and I think that may be what you're talking about. I have a lifetime ahead of me of intellectual persuit and I believe that this is my next step for right now. I've found a couple of books on the subject of opposing Objectivism but like I said, they are ridiculous garbage directed at debunking Ayn Rand's character and not her ideas, which I see as absurd and ridiculous. From the other philosophies I've read I've been able to see right through some of their ridiculous notions, and I feel confident disputing all of them, but I feel like I need to do something (as in intellectual persuit) in order to get to the next stage... Well, I'll take your advice for now. ~Michael

Kant is WRETCHED...Rand was completely right about him. I'm just so taken back by how correct Ayn Rand is...it's the first philosophy and theory of life that is just amazingly logical...I may be preaching to the choir here but it's still pretty amazing to me how much sense she makes. I don't know, perhaps I'm just in the "too good to be true" stage because I've fully digested what is necessary to understand the philosophy and in application I understand everything (mostly) and it's an amazing feeling. ~Michael

My intention is exactly that..."Devils' Advocate". The problem I have with other philosophy is that it doesn't make logical sense, most of them don't...they don't because I've become well armed with Objectivism and I see through their lies and I see their intentions. I think having a point by point breakdown of Objectivism for me to dispute myself would be a good exercise for myself and would get me thinking some more. I mean none of this in a disrespectful or doubtful sense, it's for my own gain in Objectivism to understand it at that angle. The science angle is something I wouldn't be able to approach though, for I am not too fluent in the sciences (especially the higher sciences like physics). ~Michael

I'm not really looking for this information to add doubt to my mind Bowzer, I'm looking to see if anyone can actually dispute the philosophy, not so that I can dispute it myself, but to add an "objective" approach to a very objective philosophy...I'd like to see both sides. But really, I don't think anyone has been able to dispute it...thats what I'm really getting at. This philosophy makes so much sense, it's so rational, and so clear I'm kicking myself that I havn't discovered this structure earlier...so I'm curious to see if anyone in the 60 or so years this has been around has been able to make a good argument against it. It's quite harmless, really. ~Michael

I still havn't found a good argument against Objectivism... Has anyone at least seen any good publications objecting to Objectivism? I've seen maybe 2-3 books trying to dispute the philosophy and it does nothing but get on a personal level and try to debunk the people rather than the ideas. ~Michael

What the hell will that accomplish? And why does this comment even come into the topic? The topic and discussion is about the errors of our administration? ~Michael

I'm sure someone knows someone in Florida thats an objectivist...but from the way Jacksonville works I wouldn't say there's many...lol. Anyone? ~Michael

Thank you once again Mr. Speicher. Any other suggestions of authors on the subject? ~Michael

I'm an amateur musician as well and I'm starting to "grow up" in my musical tastes and abilities and I'm trying to find some serious topics to take on. Thanks for the suggestion, I'm gonna put that on my list as well. ~Michael

Thanks Bowzer! I think this is on my list for next purchase...payday can't come quick enough. Any other suggestions (books?)

I just got done with the Romantic Manifesto and I must say that Ayn Rand has really just raised my opinion of her and her philosophy with that work. So eloquently and logically done....pure genious. But my concern is this...she only spoke of music for a total of 8 or so pages. It's a concern because I'm more interested in music than any of the arts. She made great points about how the process works, visual art goes: perception, conceptual understanding, appraisal, then emotion...music goes: perception, emotion, appraisal, conceptual understanding. This clears up a lot for me (although you would think that this is self evident and doesn't require someone to point out). She then highlights Helmholtz and states his view on the physiological portion of music. I really would like more information on these theories because on this portion of subject Ayn Rand's explanation turns into hypothosis. Not that a hypothosis is a bad thing, but I need some more facts to determine if her hypothosis is valid (not that I think it's not, I just want to learn more about the physiological aspects of music). So where do I begin? Who are trusted authors on the subject? I found a copy of Helmholtz "On the Sensations of Tone As a Physiological Basis for the Theory of Music" but it's like 45 dollars used and I don't have the money right now, nor do I know if he's actually correct. Anyone have some suggestions on some more research of the subject? ~Michael

Thank you guys for the answers, I just wanted a more articulated answer on the subject and you guys have really cleared things up. I just don't understand why someone would want to undercut individualism.... ~Michael

On page 145 of "Philosophy: Who Needs It?", Ayn Rand is pointing out the flaw in Skinner's behaviorism theory and attacking his book: "Beyond Freedom and Dignity". Well, she does an excellent job and I agree with EVERYTHING she says, but what got me thinking (a bit more) was what was said about Skinners view on individuality, and I quote: She goes in a direction that she thought was proper for that essay and it was, but it left me questioning this ridiculous concept...and here is my thought on it. I'm reading a book on Objectivism, it was written by someone who read other philosophies extensively and learned what she needed to learn, and then used her ability to make extensive abstractions and grand concepts to present these ideas. We all know that information is passed down and no one can discover everything by themselves, knowledge compounds on top of more knowledge and thats how it works. So how is one considered an individual in the respect of taking on a philosophy that someone has written so perfectly? I've spoken to many people who go: "Psh, I don't need philosophy, I create my own, why live by others standards when life is all about discovering your own." They actually look down upon me for looking into other philosophies, because I'm not being an "Individual". Now, I have no problem with them saying such things, it's rather unimportant, but it adds the the question I'm asking. In what respect can we be individuals when we are trying to learn philosophies that have been created by someone else, and then basing ones ethics and morals on what was good for them? I believe that it is possible to have a code of ethics that works for everyone and I believe 100% the ideas that I've learned through Objectivism. I may be answering my question here, but I'd like to hear some of your views on the subject guys. ~Michael

I had lunch with my mother, father, and grandmother today and my new philosophy came up (because my father is interested in it) and they inquired on my views on god. I told them that I'm an Atheist and I believe that there is no one I obey except myself. She said, "Once you give birth to a child then you'll come to me and ask me about god." Of course she meant it in the respect of 'when I have a child with a wife' rather than me actually giving birth. So I said: "You're right mother...as soon as I give birth to a child I'll come speak with you about god." lol ~Michael

Thank you Betsy. Life is getting so much sweeter now that I'm understanding a lot more about it.

Yes we did have a very nice online chat! Very nice talking with you. After I posted this I stopped being lazy and looked it up on Google and prompty found Cordair. Thanks LInda! ~Michael