Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About WorthyLoverOfExistence

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 02/29/1956

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Chat Nick
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Real Name
    Tom Hall
  • Copyright
  • Occupation

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  1. Thanks for the tip, Cogito. I've been using this for about a year now and it's a fine search engine. It's gone down a couple times so I just use another one when that happens. It gives me a cookie, so the browser remembers that my selected "charity" (I prefer to think of it as a small investment) is "Ayn Rand Institute the Center for the Advancement of Objectivism - ARI (Irvine, CA) ID: 43242". So far GoodSearch.com users have raised: 2006: $67.67 2007: $264.95 2008: $15.04 Total: (Since Inception 27514 searches) $348.04 for ARI.
  2. I just read/skimmed this entire thread and I must say it's the most useful thing I've read for assessing Ron Paul. Thanks everyone. I estimate about 40% of the posters support him and about 60% oppose him; if I weigh this by my (purely subjective) sense of the posters' "philosophic expertise" however, I think the support goes down to around 10-20% (no offense to anyone). It's too soon to decide who to vote for, but I must say I enjoy having Ron Paul in the race. It makes the debates, polls and stuff a lot more interesting, and I agree with Clawq's point that his campaign has "'healed' s
  3. OK. I'll bite. How is suggesting that Objectivists with the stomach for it consider infiltrating religions and advocate reason directly to religion's victims an attempt to hijack Objectivism ?
  4. Her Ford Hall Forum talk, "Of Living Death", is printed in three parts of "The Objectivist" - September, October, and November of 1968, starting on p. 513 of the bound edition. This explores the implication of a Catholic publication ("encyclical") regarding sexuality, including basic ideas on abortion. The encyclical she analyzes, "HUMANAE VITAE", is now available on-line at the vatican website. Comparing her analysis to the encyclical seems like an excellent opportunity to see how she extracts the essence if the matter. Also, having the encyclical in an electronic form allows you to sear
  5. Well, I'm sure her brother, and all the parasites at TT would agree with you. They'd have considered her having Galt's child to be an incredibly selfish thing to do. With the business falling apart, she'd "owe" it to them to get an abortion. They would consider it to be her "duty". I don't think she would. I don't think she'd destroy the most obvious, natural, and real expression of her love for Galt. It would have been her perfect "out"; but it wouldn't have fit Rand's theme. My point is that the morality and responsibility of having sex is obviously related to the morality and responsi
  6. Isn't there also some degree of this responsibility incurred by consenting adults engaging in sexual relations ? If it wasn't intentional; if the parties involved use contraceptive devices to prevent the pregnancy, but these failed, this doesn't change the morality of the act nor the responsibilities it incurs. If Galt had impregnated Dagny in their encounter on the broken sandbags in the granite vault of the Taggart terminal, do people think Dagny would have had an abortion ?
  7. It might be interesting to argue whether the John Galt I know is the same as the one you know, but if you truly think he exists, then I see not point in arguing about it...but could you ask him how the heck he got that motor to work ?
  8. I think I got it. Aristotle named the principle when he talked about literature being in some sense more important than history. The values we derive from reading about Galt are not from Galt, they are the potentialities of actual reality. Galt, being unreal, can have no value, but because he was created by Rand as man "can be and ought to be", he represents and brings to mind real possibilities, which do have value. Krishna, on the other hand, or trolls or most fantasy creations, represent more of a "mystical invention", as opposed to things as they "could be and ought to be". What t
  9. That's my question. If I understand what dougclayton is saying, I'm not equivocating, I'm refusing to equivocate when I really "ought to".
  10. I'm trying to focus on the nature of the mental action involved when we engage in fantasy or fiction, and how it is that the subjects of it can be sources of (dis)value, when they don't even exist. Is this not a form of dishonesty; of denying that the unreal is unreal ?
  11. I wouldn't consider the specific speechs or actions of the two to be a fundamental distiction in the context of this discussion of their (un)reality, and the appropriateness of using them as sources of value.
  12. Right. So how is a rational Objectivist's admiration for John Galt fundamentally different from a rational Hindu's admiration for Krishna ?
  13. I agree that fictional characters offer plenty of value, but I don't agree that they are real; hence the adjective "fictional". Why do you classify "fantasy" as unreal, but "fiction" as real ? Isn't engaging in the enjoyment of either a form of self-deception ?
  14. Could you please tell me which word or concept I'm equivocating on ? Another way of stating the issue I'm interested in might be "when is self-deception not dishonesty" ?
  15. I consider his unreality to be pretty obvious. There is no such person, there is no evidence of his having actually existed. I think asserting that he is real is the positive assertion, so the onus would be on you to prove it.
  • Create New...