polyphonic

I was wondering why companies like Microsoft always get defended by Objectivists. I mean I was reading how Bill Gates bought the code for his first operating system, modified it slightly and sold it to IBM. This reminds me of Peter Keating and not of Howard Roark. I mean it was Apple who invented the idea of having windows on the screen and again Bill Gates copied it. I think Bill Gates and Microsoft are motivated primarily by money. They love the stuff as it allows them to do what they want with their lives. I completely agree with them. I would never do what Roark did and sacrifice a commission because what the client wanted wasn't what I wanted to provide. These are the kinds of things you can do once you are rich. I suppose it comes down to what you are passionate about. If I was really that passionate about something then I might not change it in order to market it to a customer. But what if you are not passionate about anything? This is something which I have been struggling with. I enjoy doing certain things. And I can get really excited about doing them. But sooner or later I will get bored and move on to something else. One example is paintball. I love it. I would love to own a paintball site. I would design it, play on it, compete and basically have a great time. Now if I was really obscessed I would make a career out of it and life would be great. But I am not obscessed - eventualy I would get bored. There are other things I want to do in my life. For example, another thing I would love is to own a plane and fly it. So to do all of these things I need primarily to make money. Which means I need to satisfy customers. I need to be practical. In other words I need to be a Keating or a Bill Gates. Balls to any ideals, money is the goal in order to satisfy all of my desires. I know that this probably disgusts a lot of people on this board. But, this is what I am talking about. To make it in business your love must be money. This is how it is for most successful businessmen I think. What do you guys think? PS Please no references to TFH in your replies! I am half way through it and would hate it to be spoiled. Its such a good book! At the moment, Keating is getting all of the business and the money and is proving my point. I hope that Roark triumphs in the end though!

DONT READ THIS POST IF YOU PLAN TO READ THE NOVEL AND HAVEN'T YET! The main idea of the novel is that when it doesn't matter (and you cannot prove) either way what the truth is, then you should go with the best version possible. For most of the novel, the main character, Pi, spends months on a lifeboat in the pacific ocean. On board with him on the tiny lifeboat is a tiger, a zebra and a hyena (and a monkey I think as well). His journey is long and he suffers greatly, but he survives. At the end of the novel, when he is recounting his story to the authorities, he tells them the story we have been reading in the novel with the tiger, but the authorities do not believe him. He cannot prove his story as the tiger ran off into the Mexican jungle when the boat pulled into the beach. So instead he tells a horrific story of how he survived involving cannibalism and his mum dieing, etc. We are left wondering whether the story we have been reading is true or whether the new story at the end is what happened. Pi says at the end which is the better story since it matters not to the authorities which story is true. The authorities agree that the story with the zebra and tiger is the better one. Anyway you can tell I liked the novel from this long post, but I'll now get straight to the point. The reason the story is meant to make you believe in God is that it doesn't matter to you whether God exists or not. Which ever you believe you will still lead your life, just like which ever version of Pi's life you believe matters not to you. The question is, which is the better story. A universe in which there is a loving God whom you will meet one day and spend eternity with, or a universe in which you die and the whole concept of "you" ceases to exist. What do you guys think of this?

Has anyone read it? Are there any issues in the novel that are contrary to objectivism that irritated you? Did the story make you believe in God as the foreword suggests?

I remember reading an article somewhere that said our genes have a fuse built in to them. After the fuse runs out the gene does not replicate properly and so new cells are imperfect. This is why ageing happens. Without these "fuses" we would live much longer than we currently do as all cells would replicate near perfectly. The article went on to say that the reason that we are in effect programmed to die is because of collective survival value. Eg. if we lived forever things would not change quickly which would have a negaitve effect on the species - imagine if a corrupt ruler lived forever. This disturbs me. If this were true, then collectivism would be in a sense a part of each and every one of us. It would be something that we could never escape from. Our bodies have the ability to live as long as we keep them alive, yet they purposefully replicate cells badly and die. All for the good of the species. Is anyone with more knowledge of science than me able to discredit the above? I hope so. Looking forward to your replies.