Weston

Sorry to post my own question, but it's been my (admittedly limited) understanding that Ayn Rand's philosophy stands out among the other philosophies in the fact that it is fully integrated in many various areas of human thought, whereas the philosophical contributions of other notable philosophers have been comparatively limited, i.e. dealing only with metaphysics, or ethics, or epistemology. An example of this would be Hobbes' materialist philosophy, which as far as I have read is only significantly applicable to metaphysics or possibly also epistemology. I would argue that Objectivism is the philosophy that deals with all of the aspects of philosophy most concisely and that this is what most "high-brow" philosophers hate about it -- that they consider it an attempt to answer too many things too easily. Am I wrong?

Or maybe a handshake could be the symbol. It's the universal symbol for willing trade, the value-for-value idea, all that good stuff. Just like trading the gold coin itself, a handshake is what two productive adults do when they trust each other's ability to provide the value agreed upon by the two of them. Francisco D'Anconia said that the money in your wallet is "your statement of hope that there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money". I think a handshake is a statement of exactly the same thing: that your trading partner will not default. So I think it's fitting that it goes on the coin. To clarify, I mean a close-up picture like this:

An owl's just fine with me (it's your coin anyway), I just wanted to know why you chose it. If it had been my coin, I'd have put a man on there, either a profile or someone striking a heroic pose or something like that. But I'm human-centric

Looks pretty neat, what's the owl for, if you don't mind me asking? Also, did you consider making "self esteem" right side up? I think it would serve better purpose if you could read all three of the words from the same angle, without turning the coin around. A kick-A design in my book, all around.

It's just corny enough to coax up a smile! This is the most enjoyable thing I've experienced all day, congratulations. You earned my vote, by the way.

I assume you meant to say "of its members". I disagree. I think that supporting a high school or college team as a representation of your connection to that institution is entirely reasonable. I love my school, therefore I want its sports teams to do well. I also think this could be applied to professional teams; if you're a fan of the sport, say for instance football, and you happen to think that your team has a coaching staff that knows a lot about the game and players who are devoted, honorable and exceedingly talented (Jason Witten, the Cowboys tight end comes to mind), there's nothing morally wrong with wanting that team to succeed. Legacy's also an issue for me: my team (the Cowboys), are, as of the past few decades, a team founded on the sports philosophy of the great Tom Landry, and since they still operate largely on his teachings and basic expertise, every successful season of theirs is a testament to his greatness. For that reason too, I want the Cowboys to succeed year after year. I can also suggest (though this is not necessarily the case for me) that if one feels that his city is head and shoulders better than others, such as Denver, for its relatively large Objectivist population and smoothly functioning government, they want their city represented well in the sports arena (there's a direct correlation, too: a successful city makes money, spends some of it on watching football, the football team makes more money, and the team acquires better coaches, players, and equipment).

You might try Cedar Park, Texas. Booming economy, low taxes, low crime rate (our cops literally have nothing to do but shark around school zones), and it's a progressing city, so there's always cool architecture being put up that you can watch. Drawback: lots of religion (it's Texas, after all).

Lots of naysaying here, do you have any examples in mind of what you would consider outstandingly beautiful architecture? Or, at least, better than this?

Atlas Shrugged: Dagny Taggart - Gwyneth Paltrow Francisco D'Anconia - Antonio Banderas Hank Rearden - Daniel Craig John Galt - Christopher Reeve James Taggart - Edward Norton (I love him but he just seems perfect for the role) Eddie Willers - Will Patton Kay Ludlow - Julie Andrews from when she did The Sound of Music Orren Boyle - J.K. Simmons (the newspaper editor from Spiderman) Wesley Mouch - Mouch would never appear onscreen; much like Mrs. Grundy from Speed the Plow, his character would represent an archetype that I don't want to attach to a face Ragnar Daneskjold - John Malkovic Richard Halley - Tom Hulce

Sophie's World is a great read; it's a fun history of Western philosophy within a mystery novel. It's not the most comprehensive philosophy book out there, and it develops a slightly anti-capitalist lean, but it's easily the most entertaining book I've ever read. You should read it for fun and see what you can get out of it philosophically, just for shits n' grins.

This is great! Too often is Objectivism dismissed as "cold" and "calculating" (steeped in reason and selfishness as it is) by those who don't understand it. Your statement shows the lighter and more loving side of Objectivism that we Objectivists have no trouble realizing.

I don't agree with you that casual sex hurts self esteem. Performing an act you enjoy is hardly ever a blow to your self esteem. However, I do believe that casual sex is a reflection of low self esteem. One must first have already lowered oneself to the level of just "some blonde", then the sex can be defined as casual.

How about a Starbuck's competitor called "Galt's Gulp"? I just thought it up.

I read Alice in Wonderland about four years ago, in seventh grade. It was one of my favorite books at the time, because the characters were all eccentric and quirky, but each in their own way. I thought the story was pretty lame, though, especially the ending (I won't spoil it, but it really made me angry). I never got around to Through the Looking Glass.

I would argue that to some degree a stranger's opinion of you could serve as a truly third-party assessment of your personality. It can indeed be a useful thing to know what strangers think of you because their opinions of you are completely untainted by emotion, familiarity, or knowledge of determinist influences such as birthplace,childhood upbringing, etc. Of course, a stranger's evaluation of you must be taken with a grain of salt, and recognized as simply an assessment of your first impressions, but with the right amount of sound judgment on your own part, a stranger's first-minute opinion can be a useful tool for gauging the way you see yourself versus the way you might really be.

I liked it, too, but I was admittedly too rapt in marveling over the Jabberwocky and other entertaining characters to notice any philosophical issues that might have been addressed. If you would care to explain your position, how and why you think the movie rejects solipsism and subjectivism, and favors rationality, I would be very grateful to hear it because the story interests me a great deal.

That's the worst kind, too. I'd take Mother Teresa over Hitler any day.

That wasn't even the worst of him, either. Have you seen Religulous? I came out of that movie a Christian sympathizer, that's how much of an ass Bill Maher made of himself.

I find that I agree with him where I agree with him (religion, 9/11), but the more I watch him the more his pompous nonsense eats away at my nerves. He's a very odious character.

I understand that most sub sandwiches are penis-shaped. But to actually relate eating a particular one to performing oral sex? Bad advertisement, in my opinion.

As a young male, I can honestly say that no sandwich with a semblance to a penis is an attractive lunch option to me.

This newest one is immoral because it won't make anyone want to eat that sandwich, so it will fail, and bring BK's popularity down considerably. It's a very disappointing example of self-destruction, if you ask me, because that ad is just stupid.

I'm considering getting my children's hand prints and names tattooed somewhere on my shoulder (I don't have any kids yet). I think we're on the same page about having the tattoo be a chronicle of a real significant part of your life, instead of expecting a tattoo of something significant to somehow reshape your life. Am I understanding you correctly?

I go to high school in the Austin area. It's pretty polar down here -- you're either a Jesus freak or a liberal idiot. Not to say there aren't a good number of principled individuals; there are, but they're kept pretty quiet. And Jack, if your teacher ever tells you there aren't any truths again, say, "that's not true".

Yes, a leader is always necessary to make such decisions as when and how to go to war, and other such important things. However, the democratic capacity of a moral government would be restricted to only those such decisions as who should be President. Democracy is conformity without unanimity, in other words not everyone agreed on who should win the 08 election, but everyone got the same result. Democratic decision-making should be applied only where conformity is necessary and unanimity is impossible.