Toolboxnj

Certainly, and that person would earn my love and we'd be happily married together. Please do not think for a second that I do not have an ideal, because I do. But, I'm also trying to be realistic to the effect that there aren't any available female Objectivists between the ages of 18-25 in my area. If I were looking for that ideal right now I believe I'd be quite lonely and frustrated that I don't have a partner. But, I disagree to the effect that as a student of Objectivism (I'm not quite there yet) that I cannot fall in love with someone who believes in God. My mother, for instance, believes in God yet she loves me with all her heart and would certainly lay down her life for my sister and I if need be (but, lets not talk of emergencies). I confide in her that I am an atheist and share Objectivism with her (she's read Atlas Shrugged at my request) and she doesn't love me any more or any less - honestly, she's seen the power of Objectivism because before I learned of it I was in a horrific mental state dealing with depression and chronic drinking problems. Last week she cryed tears of joy saying that I've been so happy, that I've been beaming for the first time in my life since I've met my girlfriend - and my practice of Objectivism has partally been the reason for this. I believe I can find the same thing in a life-partner, in a wife. My girlfriend and I actually had our first disagreement today to do with philosophy. A friend asked her to drive him to a job interview, but she had to work on a presentation that was due in 5 hours. She wrangled over the choice: whether to drive her friend to the interview or work an extra hour on the presentation. Of course, I told her to be selfish and do what she believed was in her self-interest. This seemed to puzzle her.. "put myself ahead of others?" she asked, and I firmly said "yes". Even though she felt guilty at first for not driving her friend, she eventually became more comfortable with her decision. She said something to the effect of, "I've always put others ahead of myself. I've never been able to say 'no' to anyone before. This is the first time I've ever done it". I then held her hand and her that I would be the first person she could try it with. I told her to always put herself ahead of me. I went on to say, "How does it feel that I have complete joy when I'm around you and that every second we are together I'm selfishly happy? That nothing I do for you is out of duty or obligation, but rather out of total selfishness. That I never have to sacrifice my values because you're worth it in my eyes and I cherish every second of our time together." She seems pretty moved by this. Eventually, her friend called her and said that he got to the interview and got the job. She got a B+ on the presentation and everyone appeared to benefit from her selfish action. I told her that I would have been disappointed if she didn't commit the selfish act, if she didn't place herself and her self-interest over and above the interest of others. It was an interesting test early in the relationship to see to what effect my philosophical views can have on others. I've always thought that ethics is probably the best way to introduce someone to Objectivism. Politics is too controversial, especially if they aren't of the L-F mindset. Metaphysics? A world without God may seen unbearable and barren. Epistemology? Seems too difficult to understand, since even I have a difficult time with it. Ethics, though, you can easily integrate into your life. You have definite control over your actions and ethics can be applied and their effects can actually be observed. It was the understanding of the Objectivist ethics that changed my life the most, and then everything else followed. My girlfriend (albeit for a short time), has accepted the fact that I am an atheist, and I've given her an introduction to Objectivist ethics and metaphysics already. She appears to be interested and has accepted that this is the person I am and that she will not change me. The common perception is that atheism is evil, nothingness and desolate.. that only the worst of the immoral beings on Earth cannot believe in God. From the first date we had and onward, I've focused on minimizing the atheistic element of Objectivism, but rather have expanded on it's good qualities. I have even created a kind of metaphor (which I haven't used yet) that our "brand" of atheism is "white atheism", that in essence we believe in Nature, truth and the goodness in man. "Black atheism" is the nihilistic kind, where nothing exists and men are evil beings. Philosophically, I'm not quite sure about the metaphor (perhaps someone can critique it for me) but I think it's helpful in discerning Objectivism from other atheistic philosophies. To sum things up, I am not getting married tomorrow and there is the possibility that the relationship in the end will not work out. But, I remind myself that only a year ago I discovered Objectivism for the first time. I was myself an altruist, a person who prayed to God every night asking Him to give forgiveness to those who have sinned and who violated me. I prayed for friends and family members that did evil things, hoping that God would hear my pleas in their favor. I was taught through Catholic school and CCD that selfishness is wrong and that we must sacrifice to God and others. Only after did I discover Ayn Rand did I realize what I've been taught and the horrific psychological impact it had on me. It's no coincidence that my recovery from severe depression and alcoholism began with my discovery of philosophy and rejection of Christianity and God. Like I said, I'm not out to convert my girlfriend. I will introduce her to the Objectivist ethics and see how she reacts to them. I know Catholicism, so I can illustrate how our ethics contrast and why rational egoism is superior to self-sacrifice. She is truly a wonderful person; she has ambition, intellect, and she's a beautiful human being. I already respect these values, as she sees the same in me. Perhaps she doesn't understand, but she values my intellect, my drive and my attractiveness (not to be boastful). Of the relationships I've been in this is the first since discovering Objectivism and I can already feel the beauty of honest, selfish desire for another woman.

Well, we can get philosophical about WoW I played for about 3 months and really got bored of it. It was too easy to level up and character specialization was truely lacking. Although I liked the mechanics and the features that made it easier to play (as opposed to other MMOs I've played), it seemed that it was on "easy mode" and I really wasn't challenged all that much with any of the characters I played. One thing about MMOs in general is the real selfless mentality that some players have. Everywhere you hear "need before greed", which in essence is giving away loot to others that may have less than you. Then there sometimes is the "Attila" charactor that bullies players into giving up loot that she/he didn't really earn. Either way, it's a fantasy-land which can really be detrimental to your life if you dedicate too time time to the game. Because MMOs are perpetual and "always on" there's always an urge to play and improve your standing, so to speak. I've logged months of playing time on other MMOs and then I've asked myself "what have I accomplished?" and wondered what I could have done in my time to improve my life other than entertaining myself with a silly video game. I've found that if you try and break the MMO habit a girlfriend is an excellent option (preferably one that doesn't play video games ) to spend free time with since it's true interaction with a RL person. Perhaps joining a club, or reading up on philosophy is another option. Really, it was after discovering Objectivism about a year ago that I stopped my MMO craze (I even flew to Europe to party with my Guild) kind of faded out, although I'd be interested in a true online RPG without the need to level and gain phat l3wt.

Exactly. Nor would I seek to 'convert' my partner to Objectivism (if that is possible), although I'd shed light to certain aspects of the philosophy. Interestingly, I always thought Jewish women would be the best matches for me in terms of philosophy and values. After dating (and having relationships with) several Jewish women, I just couldn't find a match. Now my new partner and I have dated about 2 weeks and it feels like we've been together much longer. Perhaps it's may be because I was raised Catholic and still respect some of the Catholic values? I don't know. But, like in all matters, I look at the individual. It's difficult and perhaps wrong to lump all Jews or Catholics into a collective, although they share some factual traits that are hard to ignore (the nature of their religions, for instance). I've been thinking about whether or not it would be a betrayal of my values to be married in a church or to raise my children Jewish/Catholic/etc. I believe it would be quite difficult to find an O'ist mate, so finding someone that values you for the person you are (and not if you believe in God or not) is of prime importance. In all actually, at least someone who is grounded in some type of religious morality is better than a nihilist who doesn't believe in God.

I just started dating a Catholic college student and this thread was very helpful. Even before the first date she knew I was an atheist and we haven't talked about it much since (about 2 weeks). Only thing that came up was that her parents shouldn't know (yet), and what business is it of their's anyways? I found that's it's nice to talk about things other than politics and philosophy for a change, although she's into these subjects as well. We've already discussed our different point of view in abstaining from sexual activity and she liked my answer that it was in my self-interest to do so until I fall in love with someone (and then explained "love").

I'm a bookseller for Barnes and Noble, so perhaps we have something in common. I've been working there for 5 years (since I was 16) and I found it to be quite rewarding for a retail job even though retail doesn't pay all that much (I work full-time for another company during the summer, so I save up my money to budget out $150-200/wk for myself).. I will finish college in Spring 2006 and will apply to the NJ State Police and the NYPD. I honor those who serve, most certainly. What troubles me is the political games that are played in Washington DC with our soldiers. I'd be more willing to join the military if it weren't for the altruist-sacrifical creed that plauges Washington today. I'd volunteer in a second to defend America if there was a need, but it seems that our soldiers are more police-officers than soldiers when we have brave men like Marine Lt. Pantano brought up on premeditated murder charges for killing 2 terrorist-insurgents in Iraq.

Along with trade deficits, interest rates also factor in. The higher American interest rates go (the Fed Funds Rate) the more the dollar is worth relative to other currencies. But, I agree that market players will know more about trading for dollars than anyone else. Currency trading seems very complicated, or whatever I remember from Macroecon 101

Democracy is nothing. What difference does it make if the people select their own throatcutters? Call me cynical about the whole thing, but I don't value the spreading of democracy, but rather the realization that individual rights must be protected. If the newly elected governments in Iraq and elsewhere move to that ideal, perhaps there will be cause for optimism. At this point, though, I see nothing but suicide bombs, American/Coalition troops dying and a nice tax bill.

Surely then the suffering of the family. The courts have determined time and time again that it's the husband who is the party with control, not the parents. My comment was more directed at the legistlature and Governor Jeb Bush who are using this tragedy for political gain. I think it's inexcusable.

Glad you enjoyed it. I've only had the pleasure of attending one of Dr. Brook's lectures at NYU in November.

And also his motive. He has nothing to gain from her death; the insurance money is long out, there is no estate and he's already had children in another relationship. It's really a political football with the conservatives trying to score political points with the voters over a woman's suffering.

PD can also be applied to theories of international relations. Right now, the hottest theories for the post-Cold War era are Rational Choice and Game Theory, which employs models like Prisoners Dilemma (for worse, more than better).

I had two classes like that last semester. That's pure evil Since this semester all my classes are in a row (6 classes on Monday, 4 on Wednesday) I really won't be missing too many. I found that if I only scheduled 2-3 classes on a day I'd be more apt to skip everynow and then. But, since I only have to drive up twice a week (and I'd be missing 6 or 4 classes if I didn't) it's difficult to find an excuse to skip. So far it's worked: I haven't missed a class this semester even though none of them take attendance. Only problem will come during midterms when I may have 2-3 exams in one day.

Well, what about the 1 bill that you burn. Aren't you burning infinate bills, even if you burn one. So, wouldn't it be 8 infinity - 1 infinity? I'll know on Monday.

Diagnosed with severe depression and OCD in January of 2003 (had both for much longer). Was in therapy, on anti-depressants/psychotics until March 2004 when I discovered Ayn Rand. On June 23, 2004 I threw my pills out and learned how to live life. I saved my own life, with a little help from a woman to was an intellectual giant.

That's correct in some sense. Remember, you have to "burn" the lowest value dollar every time with option #1. "T' merely defines time as a variable. The serial numbers identify the bill so the lowest number can be burnt.

For classics, 12 Angry Men was awesome - I believe it's a Broadway play right now, but I'm afraid I won't have a chance to see it. Spotless Mind was the best movie I've seen in the last year, although I admit I do not watch too many movies. Of course, there's the LOTR series and Star Wars (of which I enjoyed the 2nd movie the most for some reason, Two Towers and Empire Strikes Back). American History X is intense drama and I generally like anything with Ed Norton (I haven't seen Fight Club, on purpose.. 24 hours was good as well).

Thanks Burgess for that awesome post. I know most of us in our college years have difficulties finding a career that would fit our passions. Personally, I have two career goals, one for my post-college years to vested retirement and another after (law enforcement/police officer, then teaching at the university level). Both will pay enough to sustain my standard of living and I have a passion for both. Through my parents' friends I can tell who dislikes their jobs and who enjoys them. Generally, those that enjoy their jobs are more fulfilled, relaxed individuals. Some, like my uncle, only work their jobs (in his case a high-level accountant) to live in what is percieved to be luxury while he's missing out on his children.

Was in my Philosophy of Science class (good class on Logical Positism and Hume) and my prof had a good riddle to open class tonight. I'll try and post as accuratly as possible (didn't write it down). There's a dollar making machine that can make unlimited amount of dollars at an ever faster rate. At t=0, the man comes up to you and gives you two options: a/ I'll give you 10 dollar bills with serial numbers 1-9, but you must burn #1 b/ I'll give you only 1 dollar bill At t=1/2 he gives you the same option Again at 3/4, 7/8, 15/16, 31/32, 63/64.. and so on. The machine only works faster and faster to churn out the bills at a higher rate of speed. He didn't give an answer to the riddle, but gave a couple arguments. I was wondering how Objectivists would answer the question. I'll put my feet in and say that since there is no infinity, you'd choose A. Peikoff writes in OPAR that infinity means "larger than any specific quantity" and since A=A, everything is finite (page 31). Is it an unanswerable riddle to an Objectivist then? BTW, he has said that although he doesn't personally consider himself a logical positivist/empiricist he does lean that way (if that helps). It's not a quiz or anything, just something to chew over in our heads over the weekend.

Yes, that's exactly what I was shooting for. Today we have the neo-conservatives in power, or as Charles Krauthammer calls "democratic realism" - a merging of the realist and idealist theories on foreign policy. It gravates to the Kantian "principle" of sorts that democracies don't go to war with democracies, which was revised in the 1950s. Although we have empirical evidence that this isn't true, it's accepted by the neo-conservatives and why they are so focused on "spreading democracy", even with force if needed. Democracy doesn't being peace, capitalism does. When wealth is privatly owned, the initiation of force is banned and the nation protects/respects individual rights, that nation has no incentive to go to war except in self-defense. What Bush should have done, if the "sacrifice" of our soldiers was not in vain, was to mandate a system of government in Iraq that protects individual rights. But, what kind of examples can a neo-conservative give that he is in favor of protecting individual rights at home in America?

For anyone interested in North Korea, they should read Kang Chol-Hwan's memoir The Aquariums of Pyongyang: Ten Years in the North Korean Gulag. It's the tale of a North Korean of Japanese decent whos family was imprisoned in a NK Work-Camp. He eventually escapes to China (which was freedom for him) to gets to South Korea.

This may be a little off-topic, but I didn't want to start a brand new one for just a simple matter. I've always viewed The Roots of War to be a critique of Kant's Democratic Peace Theory. She is, in essense, claiming quite correctly that a system banning the initiation of force would be the only anti-war system. Kant is the genesis of the idea that democratic states (never defined until the 20th century) don't go to war with other democratic states (Thomas Friedman had something similar that a country with a McDonalds has never bombed another with a McDs, but this was voided when NATO attacked Serbia in the late 90s). I don't know if Ayn Rand knowingly critiques Kant in TROW, and I think it's an interesting question to bring up. I think it's important to critique DPT today because the neo-conservatives and President Bush certainly hold on to this idealism of "spreading freedom". For anyone doubting Kant's influence, one only has to point to the Bush Administration.

Actually, I'm taking a class on the philosophy of science right now and I'm diving into Kant, Hume, Descartes, etc. I think it's imperative that one should learn whatever they can about even dissenting ideas. I refer to Andrew Bernstein who illustrates that although Kant has very little truth value in his philosophy, it is great because of its influence on today and his system building that qualifies him as a giant of philosophy (The Four Giants of Philosophy, tape 1).

Happy 100th to America's Greatest Moral Philosopher by Toolboxnj America was the only nation born from the Enlightenment of men that believed in the sanctity of freedom, liberty and individual rights. The Founders’ great experiment called the United States of America flourished into the greatest civilization since the Ancient Greeks because its limitations on government and an uncompromising vision that society must be subordinated to a moral law. Since the greats like Jefferson and Madison did not identify with a particular moral philosophy, America was left vulnerable to the nihilistic ideas from the ideological sewers of Europe. Luckily, the destructive ideologies of Kant and his contemporaries never laid root in America but instead fostered the gas chambers and gulags of Europe and Russia; this is in part due to America’s distrust and ambiguity toward so-called “intellectuals” that exists to this day. Nearly two centuries after the Boston Tea Party and the signing of the Declaration of Independence America adopted her first great moral philosopher, a Russian émigré by the name of Ayn Rand. A woman who witnessed the bloody horrors of Communism in Soviet Russia, she fled to the United States with her Aristotelian knowledge settling down as a screenwriter in California. She wrote We The Living chronicling her early life and escape from Soviet Russia in 1936. The Fountainhead was her first major release, in which she authored the tale of architect Howard Roark; her last novel was the great Atlas Shrugged, the mystery of a man named John Galt and the strike by the men of the mind. After Atlas, she worked on non-fiction including a full-length book on Objective epistemology. Her novels continue to sell nearly half a million copies a year and interest in Rand’s works of fiction is enjoyed by readers young and old. Since the dawn of history man has been a sacrificial being to the altars of God or the collective. The Aztec and Inca civilizations practiced human sacrifice in order to please their gods; the Inquisitions and witch hunts of the Catholic Church killed countless in the name of their God. In the 20th century we stood witness the gas chambers of the Nazis, the gulags of Soviet Russia, forced famines in China and the killing fields of Cambodia. In all cases, individual was sacrificed for the sake of the collective, whether it was the class, race or nation. On September 11th, 2001 the resurgence of religious sacrifice was accented by the murder of nearly three thousand Americans by nihilists who used airplanes as missiles. The United States has mostly been spared from the horrors of collectivism due to the respect for the rights of the individual – the most vulnerable minority. Ayn Rand rejected the mysticism that allowed for the sacrifice of the individual to the “public good” or “common interest”. Her philosophy, Objectivism, “is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute (Atlas Shrugged).” Ethically, man’s life is its own standard, reason is man’s method of gaining knowledge and the supernatural is rejected in favor of objective reality; the result is the politics of laissez faire where the initiation of force is banned, all property is privately owned and the rights of the individual are respected and protected. Today, one can refer to John Galt’s speech at the climax of Atlas Shrugged: “Yes, this is an age of moral crisis… Your moral code has reached its climax, the blind alley at the end of its course. And if you wish to go on living, what you now need is not to return to morality… but to discover it.” Students have a choice; it is more than “liberal verses conservative” or “Democrat versus Republican”, but rather freedom, individualism and egoism against statism, collectivism and sacrifice. George Bush’s sacrifice of American troops in Iraq is no worse than Hillary Clinton’s call for the wealthy to sacrifice for the “common good”. Libertarianism is not the answer, as the whimsical anarchists who preach nihilism and gang warfare nothing but plagiarize Rand’s message. It is up to the students, the new intellectuals of America to read Ayn Rand for themselves, despite of the calls that rain from the “intellectual” community and religious leaders. In order to defend liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness we must ascertain its root. Ayn Rand lays down the foundation; it is up to you to discover it.

Their website is at http://www.rattigan.net/ for those who are interested.

If he really valued you it wouldn't make a difference. Your family should love you because of your virtues, if they are as positive as one that is a student of O'ism. I was reading a messageboard last night where supposedly "loving" Christians valued God over their family. I think it's part of the sacrifical creed that religion has; that God is more important than family. This may have been what happened here, but I'm not quite sure. My mother knows that I am not of faith, and she still loves me all the same. She also, like me, was critical of the notion that God is more important than your own flesh and blood. She isn't a practicing Catholic, so that may be the difference in my situation. I don't know how religious your family is. Generally, I won't be inclined to tell people that I am an atheist; it has a negative connotation in today's culture that you are a "secularist" or a "liberal' and that atheists cannot possibly have morals. If the subject comes up I'll say I was "raised Catholic" because it's ambigious. It's probably not the correct way to go about things, but I don't think I want my grandmother to know that I do not believe in God. Edit: Spelling Also to BurgessLau: I assume O'ism is an acceptable substitute for Objectivism?