Selfish

I saw a this qoute on a old friend of mine's profile. We used to talk (argue/discuss) philosophy, and i'm pretty sure I inspiried it with my exposing her to Objectivism. I sense that it has a negative connotation, but I found it to be really quite funny (for the wrong reasons I assume though). Have what you will, enjoy! "The nice thing about egotists is that they don't talk about other people." - Lucille S. Harper

-from the article Actually, it's not about sexuality in this case, but the way straight men carry themselves. Apparantly, it's becoming desirable for executives to be 'kinder, gentler, consensus builders with good emotional intelligence' Oh, and let me guess, a better 'social responsibility' too right? Blah! Edit- Also, it makes me sad to think i'll be judged not by how well I do my job, but how nice my hair looks.

Well, I just got out of my philosophy class, and wow- When I first began to read AR, I was under the common impression that most of the opposing viewpoints she put forth where extremes, not really excepted at large. I guess today was the real eye opener, as my professor and half my philosophy class proceeded to attack my stance that existence exists. We're currently in the "What Do I Know?" chapter, which involves readings from Descarte, Bertrand Russell, and Locke, among others. After reading Russell's viewpoint that 'material objects exist only in our perceptions', I assumed the class (and the professor) would all point out how fallible this is. Wrong. The best argument I could attempt to give (in the face of a professor who simply takes the floor from you whenever you start to sound right) was: "If I am on a desert island, and I am unconcious, do I exist?" His answer was something along the lines of "If someone percieves you, then you do" Can someone outline the proof of existence for me, so I can better argue this next time? I feel like I understand the concepts, but just didn't have the words to argue back. To me, it's just that self-evident that perceptions are just that- perceptions. Also; In a discussion with a classmate, I was trying to 'prove' that we are not all in some form of a dream. The best I could do was "Just because this is the only world that you exist in, does not imply that there are others, and that you are in those dreaming of this one. It is illogical to assume this world is not 'real'. What's a better proof from some of the more seasoned Objectivist philosophers on this board?

http://msn.careerbuilder.com/Custom/MSN/Ca...-152182897-te-1 Sigh.

Well, the only thing I have to say about surreal and 'abstract' art, is that some of it seems to find a true artistic beauty. Like, some paintings are just beautiful in themselves, without requiring a higher 'meaning' then the interactions of the lines, colours, and shapes. I'v looked at art that held no realistic shapes whatsoever, but still managed to make me think very specific thoughts, and feel a very specific emotion. That impresses me. Not to say alot of it isn't pure crud, a random collection of lines and colours without vision or direction. Like that guy who vomits paint onto a canvas and sells it as art. I will say I love Dali's "Geopoliticus". It seems to use realistic figures in a non-realisitc world, and just looking at it sends me on a philosophical hike. Not saying I like it more then my photos of NYC skyline, just saying it's a darn good painting

I just graduated from highschool. Hang in there, it gets (a little) better. I introduced one of my best friends to Atlas Shrugged, and thankfully she took to it quickly. Since I found Objectivism, i'd definatly say that the state of "Being more alone and yet more alive then every before" applies, and it really helps to have at least one friend who can laugh with you. Micah

I like that! ::Goes to thought crunch over it for a while::

That's what i'm asking about. I have no doubts about the broad concept of the global economy being developed as a 'free capitalist economy', what I'm asking is, are the powers that be using methods and ideals that are far from free. If anyone can point me to some good sources, that would be really great.

I'm a student of UCF, and an Objectivist. The club here died, but i'm thinking about trying to restart it. In the meantime, I know at least two other Objectivists my age, both good friends. Maybe we can have a chat sometime?

Childofgod, I think you are basically running into the old philosophical question of the 'prime mover'. Based on the law of causality, everything had to begin somewhere, but where did the first 'cause' come from. Theists answer 'God'. As an Objective Atheist, it makes more sense to me to simply think of it as a realm we can't explain yet, but will someday. Assuming we don't throw out progress for good old mysticism.

Jobs, money, security. What i'm asking here is, is globalization really an altrusitic front to support communist/totalitarian regimes. Maybe it's being handled the wrong way? I'm asking for information and the Objectivist viewpoint.

Because I only had a surface knowledge of economics and 'globalization', i'v always just assumed Objectivists would be 100% for it (free trade and what not). Well, as of right now, i'm in the research phase of writing a 'political commentary' essay on globalization, and I stumbled across this article: http://globalization.about.com/gi/dynamic/...g%2F121103.html Although the tone of the article is a tad preachy, I found some of the points and ideas expressed to be really intresting. If corporations are running to set up shop in foreign economies that arn't really free at all (instead being completly manipulated by communist governments), then perhaps it's not a selfish, capitalistic movement after all. Are we bleeding our country dry for the false ideal of 'helping third world countries'? Sorry for the ignorance of this post, i'm looking for any opinions and facts on this issue.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/disco...ate-cover_x.htm This makes me pretty happy, as it strikes me as quite the scientific breakthrough. The practical applications seem nearly boundless. I'm going to look into investing in this company... But why is there so little media coverage of this? USATODAY seems to be just about the only major news/media outlet i'v found... drudge, cnn, googlenews- none of them turned up anything on it. Good thing I picked up a USAT. Anyways, cheers for progress!

Blaaaah.... On my late-night car drive home, I used to listen to the religious radio stations, especially the 'youth' ones. I guess I just wanted to really lean into the things I hate in this world. It was always a cycle, first i'd be amused, then I'd feel sick, then i'd get angry and turn it off. These people would ruin the world, enslave man, and destroy all his works with a blank, vacant smile.

Well, i'm into my 4th week of college here at UCF (university of central florida), and I have to say i'm incredibly bummed that the Objectivist club seems to have died. I emailed the 'founder', a guy named 'Luther Setzer', and he told me that it had basically 'evolved' into the Secular Student Alliance. This sucks! I'm going to join the philosphy club, but i'm gritting my teeth in anticipation of the mindsets i'm going to meet there. I'v been meeting people left and right here, throwing my own parties, dating, and attending various clubs, all in hopes of meeting some like-minded people, and so far, all i'v found is maybe one or two people that have read Anthem and liked it. Maybe it's just my school in general, but to me, it seems like the American mindset is becoming (or has become) incredibly socialist (or just amoral?). I'v tried numerous times to explain Objectivism and Individualism too my friends, peers, and all the random people I meet, but no one really gets it. In fact, most of the time people will go as far as to vehemently disagree. Sorry if this post is a little ranty, I'm just dieing for some intellectual contact with a like-minded person. So many aspects of egoism i'd love to debate and discuss..but with someone who actually takes a rational approach. Not to mention this damn school is like University of Catholic Florida... BLAH!

Warning: this link leads to a forum on a comedy site. The site is highly popular, and for the most part, the forum crowd is of average-decent intellect. This thread will make you sick. It's a kid asking if he should bother to finish reading AS, and a whole lot of replies saying no. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthrea...40&pagenumber=1 This seems to be a very, very popular public sentiment. Why? Are these people just so stupid that they can't comprehend, or are they afraid? Also, a common opinion seems to be that Atlas Shrugged is a bad book, with flat characters. What?? For a week and a half, AS owned my life, I never put it down. I'm just bewildered

I agree there, I was reffering more to the idea of scientific and philosophical progress. Incredibly intresting feedback, gotta love this place. On a side note, I picked up 'Selfishness as a virtue'. 'Philospohy: who needs it' and 'The new left- the anti industrial revolution' Looking foward to reading them all!

What do you mean "socialist/communist" rant? Are you denying that such things HAVE happened in the past, and are extremely likely to occur if allowed too? Don't we have to realistically look at the idea of a sadistic ethicless commercial leader? Slavery has many forms, and i'm not to arrogant to admit that it could exist under a system labeled "free market". The question is, in a free economy, how do we prevent from things like this happening? Should we prevent things like this from happening? Do you dissagree that power corrupts?

What?? Progress is the act of always seeking to improve upon what came before you, but you can never achieve perfection. It's an ideal, not something tangible. You strive for it or stagnate. And, please don't do the mechanics-police thing. I'll admit, I chose a bad use of words, all I meant by 'duty' was- If i'm going to be truthfull to myself and my ethics, which are based on reason, i'm going to always strive to better what came before me, and create things that wheren't there at all.

My .02 cents- If Roark's temple had really existed, i'd go there as often as life allowed. What a wonderful idea, a place to worship the glory of man.

I was envying you at this point, heh.

I agree in the extent that, speaking for myself, I cannot help but see the parts of something when I look at the whole. That doesn't mean I can't appreciate the sum of the parts (assuming it's apprecation worthy).

I haven't changed, I think I already knew the answers to my questions, I just needed some walls to bounce them off of. Well, I suppose my state of mind has changed. I'v become more assured in the fact that I don't need to worry about my lust. I am comfortable with the fact that I can take great pleasure in the admiration of something beautiful. As for having sex with it- I already knew that having sex with an ideal combination would be more fufilling then anything that was just a pretty face.

Didn't he die out in the desert?

Heh, that compliment wasn't meant to be exculisive. As Objectivists, don't we all refuse to accept anything other then reason?