Toolboxnj

The grind was miserable, but I kept up with it. The nights where I couldn't sleep were horrible, although sometimes I'd dream of working from my bed which wasn't normal either. The positive of my MMORPG experience was travelling to Norway to meet my guild, which was out of this world! I truly "met" some interesting characters in my MMO days. WoW is great in that the time-sinks are far and few between. You don't have to wait 30-60 minutes just to get a group together to XP; the soloibility is key in WoW since the XP bonus for grouping is miminal and groups are only needed to take on elite mobs. I still play a little more than I should, but it's really my only time-wasting hobby (I don't play any other games and WoW doesn't impede on my life at all).

Since you are home schooling, it appears that you value you son and this is a great start. More parents must be involved with their children’s' education as I hope to be when I have children. On history, in Dr. Thomas Woods' The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History may not be a "textbook" of sorts, but has MANY great suggestions for "serious" history books in its "A Book You're Not Supposed to Read" sections in the margin. Although I haven't investigated all of them, I do know some of the authors and they would express a pro-capitalist point of view. If your son is interested in Objectivism, and reads on a higher level, I would recommend the less abstract Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal or The Voice of Reason collection of essays. It's also imperative that the Lexicon is handy to deal with definitions that come up as the reading progresses. From experience, do not buy the Kenneth Davis "Don't Know Much About History" because I was thoroughly disappointed with that. Certainly, if you are looking for military history Victor Davis Hanson is a excellent historian and well-read in Objectivist spheres.

"If I had the power that the New Testament narrative say that Jesus had, I would not cure one person of blindness, I would make blindness impossible; I would not cure one person of leprosy, I would abolish leprosy." - Joseph Lewis

What I've found in MMORPGs (I know, a different animal) is that for a truely free-market (perhaps anarchic, then in that case not free-market) system, its users tend to be sold on "need before greed" and assorted types of communitarianism and socialism. Those who are "selfish" tend to be shuned in groups, including those who roll for loot they are looking to sell for credits/gold, whatever it may be. Another thing about MMORPGs that I've found is that players genuinely can before disconnected from reality due to the strenuous nature of "leveling up" or gaining "phat l3wt". Before discovering O'ism, I'd play this one MMORPG for 12 hours straight, trying to squeeze every XP I can in the night. Then, while sleeping I'd "dream" the MMO which is quite scary when you think of it. I was not alone, and had guildmates that suffered from that same problem. Now I'm just a casual gamer. I tool with WoW, which is the Fisher Price of MMOs. It's fun, easy and social.. you don't have to dedicate every waking hour to have an enjoyable time (mostly due to the lack of time-sinks and the soloablity of it).

All of these books have been listed on Amazon.com, although I will accept PayPal/money order/cashier check from ObjectivismOnline members. Shipping: If you choose bookrate: $2.50 If you choose priority mail (USPS): $4.50 Sorry, no shipping outside US/Canada unless we discuss beforehand No sales taxes Free shipping (priority, inside US) if you buy three or more items The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings... $35 Documents for the Study of the Gospels [Paperback] by Cartlidge, David R... $8 Essential Works of Lenin : "What is to Be Done?" and Other Writings [Paperback] $9 Applying Ethics : A Text with Readings (with InfoTrac) [Paperback] by Jeffrey $53 Who Rules America? Power and Politics [Paperback] by Domhoff, G. William $21 Personal Nutrition (with CD-ROM and InfoTrac) [Paperback] by Boyle Struble... $67 Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies [Paperback] by Clarke... $24 American Foreign Policy : Theoretical Essays (5th Edition) [Paperback] by... $52 The Marx-Engels Reader [Paperback] by Marx, Karl; New York :; Engels... $16 *SOLD* Bernstein: The Preconditions of Socialism (Cambridge Texts in the History of... $20 The HarperCollins Study Bible : New Revised Standard Version With the... $16 Please email me (preferred method of contact, as I check it 3x a day) if you have any questions: [email protected]

Ayn Rand mentioned the book "Quo Vadas? written by Henryk Sienkiewicz in the essay What Is Romanticism?. It was a brief mention, so I didn't get much info on it. A guy I work with who was a philosophy major said I'd enjoy it if I read Rand and called it one of the least known classics. Has anyone read it? Before I buy it I wanted to get opinions from the board. TB

I got The Postal Service's album and it's been in my CD player non-stop while I sit at my computer. Generally, I don't listen to lyrics anymore but these were very life-affirming, clear and optimistic in a way. It sounds a bit like a band I listened to in high school called "Prozak", except Postal Service is much more mature and grounded. Just some favorites: "I'll be the waterwings that save you if you start drowning; In an open tab when your judgement's on the brink; We'll cut out bodies free from the tethers of this scene, Start a brand new colony" - Why I think of Dangy and Francisco, I don't quite know. "I feel must interject here you're getting carried away feeling sorry for yourself. With these revisions and gaps in history. So let me help you remember. I've made charts and graphs that should finally make it clear." - Sometimes we don't think quite clearly when our judgement is clouded on love issues. We need someone (maybe a third party) to point out things because we rationalize too much. All together, just beautiful

My taxes are automatically deducted. It's nice when they itemize all my taxes so I can see how much is taken from me each week

Yes, when I read that paragraph I cracked up pretty good I assume making them bugger eachother would be less moral than boming them

I have a folded $2 bill in my wallet at all times. It's a symbol of everything I fight for.

I picked up this book The Essential Neoconservative Reader (because it was only $3) and read a frightening essay in it called "Moral Sources of Capitalism" by George Gilder. In it, he confirms what Ayn Rand writes about in Conservatism: An Obituary in reference to the conservative defense of capitalism on the basis of faith. Here are some notable quotes: "Capitalist production entails faith - in one's neighbors, in one's society and in the compensatory logic of the cosmos [i assume God]." "Because the vast majority of investments fail, the moment of decision is pregnant with doubt and promise and suffused to some degree with faith." "Capitalism is based on the idea that we live in a world of unfathomable complexity, ignorance, and peril, and that we cannot possibly prevail over our difficulties without constant efforts of initiative, sympathy, discovery and love" (Emphasis mine) "[Capitalism as opposed to socialism] asserts that we must give long before we can know what the univerise will return" - I mean, what the hell? That sounds like the whole altrustic "sacrifice today, rewarded in Heaven tomorrow". Again, Emphasis mine. "[socialism] is based on empirically calculable power; [capitalism] on optimism and faith. [...] When faith dies, so does enterprise." "Trust in others, the hope for the future, the faith in a providential God that allows freedom [...] prompts the catalytic gifts of capitalism." Here's the kicker! "Adam Smith's self-interest, however, is little more persuasive than Marxist ideas of exploitation and taking as an explanation of capitalist prosperity. The pursuit of self-interest would lead not to the always risky and unpromising ventures of capitalism in an uncertain and perilous world, but to the quest for the safety and security in an ever growing welfare state. The only way to escape the vicious cycles of poverty is through the expanding circles of creative giving, the investments of brave men with hope for the future, trust in fellow man and faith in providence. This impluse of philanthropy is the prime gift of business success." So, anyone who believes that conservatives are friends of capitalism, think again. This shouldn't be news to anyone on this site. Sounds alot like James Taggert, eh? TB

Oh, perhaps I wasn't clear. I am not a philosophy student particularly, but I know Plato, Hobbes, a little Hume, Kant, Decartes, Hegel, Aristotle.. basically the big guys that everyone seems to know. I've taken classes and read on political philosophers like Locke, Marx, Mill, etc. I lack the technical terminology, is what I was trying to say. I know about the ideas on a cursory level except for a couple mentioned above. You are right, though, that a history of philosophy would do me well be it a book or tape set (if they weren't so expensive).

It's for fun and personal enrichment. I enjoy studying things other than Objectivism like Christianity and Marxism in order to challenge myself into thinking different ways. It's also important for philosophic detection, since knowing what your opponent will say in a debate is as important as knowing what your position is. More appealing to the audience and those who haven't made up their mind. I was once a practicing Catholic, and would have benefited from reading debates like the ones I try and participate in. I know that hardcore believers in faith and Christianity will not change their minds so easily because it's almost been engrained in them. At least I can challenge those open-minded enough to think to not evade on these important issues. Yes, they come up with their own definitions. I have the Ayn Rand Lexicon, which is a wonderful tool for definitions since it goes beyond just the dictionary meaning. Faith is probably the more important one: I use Peikoff's standard definition and work from there. They just won't accept it. Andrew Bernstein said in a lecture on tape that it's pointless to debate on others' premises because you'll lose right off the bat. Unfortunately, the Christian definition of faith seems to be different from Peikoff and this presents some problems. For myself, I find trouble in definitions myself. I guess the classic one is "democracy", which we know is mob or majority rule. But scholars (people that are more educated than me) seem to invent new ways of defining it. I'll blame my International Politics professor who said that definitions are totally subjective (this was before I ever heard of Ayn Rand) and as look as you define the term and be consistent you are in the clear. Perhaps I need some clarification on this, since I know it isn't correct. Oh, you are absolutely correct on this. Why do I love this forum? Everyone seems to know what they are talking about and is able to comment intelligently on the issue. Sometimes people in debates post just so their words appear on the screen. I try to avoid this as much as possible. I haven't been "trained" in philosophy like others on this forum. My knowledge is limited to what I've read by Ayn Rand in the non-fiction as well as discussions with O'ists at college. I've only taken two philosophy courses so far, and the ones I've taken have been terrible. So, maybe I wouldn't know the terminology or technical aspects of philosophy since it's a hobby of mine, and not a profession or a purely academic pursuit.

Thanks guys. As usual, you're right on the mark. I'll do some more investigating. Epistemology is my weak point right now, and it gives me something to work on for the new year.

I wanted to revive this before posting another new topic. I sometimes debate Christian Fundamentalists on other message boards, and their only reply when I present a rational argument is "well you have to have faith" or "those with faith can see". Also, they claim that I must have faith in the markets, faith in myself, which I do not. For example, they insist that Jesus Christ died, was buried and resurrected. I claim that a more plausible event would be that his body was stolen or that wild animals ate his corpse. My assertion is impossible to prove (since there are no historical writings of Jesus at the time, except for a brief mention by Josephius, a Roman historian). But, they claim they are right because their faith tells them so, or that it must take more faith to believe that he DIDN'T rise from the dead. Is it just pointless to debate with characters like this? If not, what resources can I read to give me guidance on the issue. Thanks TB

Not only that, but from a strictly realist point of view the more power Japan has vis-a-vis the United States, the greater chance they can challenge American hegemony. Japan can go nuclear at any time, and ever since the North Koreans tested a missle over Japan there has been a stronger push to develop these weapons. In any case, it's not good for the United States. Not only will Japanese power rise empirically, but this may led to tensions with China who is attempting to develop into a stronger regional player as evidenced by its investment in Asian universities.

The events in Asia and this thread remind me of an essay written by Amartya Sen called "Democracy as a Universal Value" written back in 1999. He writes that "democratic governance has now achieved the status of being taken to be generally right". By democracy, I don't think he means "mob rule", but like most political scientists he probably means liberal democracy or republican democracy. But, that's beside the point. Sen notes that "In the terrible history of famines in the world, no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press." He goes on to list China, Ethiopia, Somalia and the Soviet Union. Governments that are unchallenged by opposition parties, the press and any other entities are less likely to have in incentive to respond to the peoples' needs. I understand that this isn't what an Objectivist would say, but I still find it of value. We can then take the Bam earthquake in Iran last year which killed about forty-thousand people. A similar earthquake in San Francisco kills less than two hundred (I am indebted to a writer that brought this point up and I cannot locate the article). Iran, a theocratic, authoritarian regime cannot serve the needs of the people in an emergency, while the United States can. So, should countries have an incentive to modernize, embrace free-market capitalism and form governments that respect and protect individual rights before we give aid to them? Why should the United States, the most free of the major mixed-economies, pay charity to states that will not embrace markets or republican democracy? I cannot find a rational reason why, except to build up "soft power" in the global arena. But, the Muslim dominated Indonesia was quick to dismiss the 150 soldiers that Israel was willing to send to the region in order to help with relief efforts which was a total act of altruism on Israel's part since they have no interest in the region; this was only because they are Jewish and from a Jewish state, even though they are willing to sacrifice (rightly or wrongly) for a suffering people. The United States may have a possible motive: to impede growing Chinese influence in the region that has been steadily growing in the last decade (mainly in the implanting of Chinese influence in universities throughout Asia). Possibly aid should have strings attached, but the Left would cry "American hegemony" and "Empire" while thousands die of sickness and water-borne illness in the streets of Sri Lanka. How is this "compassionate" or have respect for "human rights"? As in any tragedy, whether it be war, hurricane or tsunami, a free nation has nothing to gain. The nation with the most power is the hegemonic stabilizer, the nation of last resort. The UN and the pillagers of mankind will crawl to the steps of Washington DC demanding aid or military assistance in the aftermath of a tragedy that was an act of nature. Yet, they stomp their feet calling America an Empire when she is merely acting in self-interest. They rattle their sabers claiming America has an ulterior motive like stealing oil or implanting fascistic, puppet regimes that will steal the oil for them. America has nothing to gain either way. Washington DC can give all of our wealth to the victims of this "act of God" and it will never appease those who hate America. We can restrict aid or tie it to a liberal reform package and the Left will cry that America is raping the natural resources of foreign lands and forcing democracy on a people who enjoy living in squalor because that's how their ancestors lived. How dare we feel superior to another culture! the Left would scream. I know there will be criticism of this post, and I respect that. First, there will be those who don't appreciate my usage of the word "democracy" as Sen and most others use the term. I also do not mention the Right since I haven't read much reaction from them. A Christian fundamentalist on another forum claimed that God was striking down upon the Muslim nations for their crimes against mankind (I quickly replied that the Vatican would be sunk into Hell if this "God" was just). Edit: Would help if forums had a built-in spell check

So, quite possibly we can see a selfish hero come out of it after all? I don't think so. When he discards the costume and his altruistic tendencies, I felt that the moviegoer was supposed to shun him anyways. The children looking up to him, the crime rate skyrocketing, etc and it's all Peter Parker's fault and no one else’s. Why doesn't the movie question why anyone would want to even live in this environment, since before Spiderman existed this must have been the mainstream. Also, the Aunt May character is horrific. Ever since losing her husband she is depressed and seeks to avenge the person who was responsible. Who was responsible? The criminal that killed Uncle Ben, not Peter Parker. Parker then blames himself for the death when he had little or no causal involvement in it. Aunt May then pushes him away (her only kin), not recognizing this fact that Parker is wrong in implying he had anything to do with it. Edit: speeeeeling

THere's a good article written on smoking and psycho-epistemology on Anger Management (a good blog): http://angermanagement.mu.nu/archives/025605.html

I registered, but I may lack the knowledge in Epistemology to really debate. Seems more important than metaphysics sometimes when debating conservative Christians. I thought it was ironic that a pro-life banner was on the board, but I know that you don't choose the ads,

I saw Spiderman I in the movies a couple summers ago and fell in love with Peter Parker's character. At the time, I was a Christian, Conservative and an other-ist. I placed others ahead of me and constantly betrayed my values for lesser ones. Peter Parker embodied these characteristics and that is why he was a hero to me. He was always doing for others and never took any credit for them; pain seemed to fill his life as those he supposedly cared for were put on the back burner for other things. His "best friend" Harry Osborn took Mary Jane Watson, and Parker does nothing. Since then, I've discovered Ayn Rand and have been a student of Objectivism. That's why when I watched Spiderman II last night I was sick to my stomach. It is absolute that Mary Jane Watson and Aunt May are top priorities in Peter Parker's life. Yet, he is more concerned with saving the world from criminals and evil. To Parker (taking from Rand's Ethics of Emergencies) the world is a '"malevolent universe" where disasters are the constant'. When his health declines (due to lack of self-esteem, probably) he abandons the being Spiderman selfishly and feels the best he ever did. No longer was he doing for others, but he was concentrating on classes, pursuing girls, he went to Mary Jane's play and nearly confessed his love for her. Mary Jane tells Parker that he has changed for the better now that he has focused on what he values. Now, I won't spoil the story (although there isn't too much to it), but Parker again turns selfless by the end of the movie. Instead of abandoning Spiderman for good, he draws Mary Jane into his selfless life. Probably there are a couple questions. Is my analysis of the movie correct (perhaps others can add more)? Broadly, do people (non O'ist) not like a selfish hero, or even think that one can exist? Edit: speeeeeling check Edit 2: I forgot that Steve Ditko was at least positive toward O'ism (someone pointed it out on another board). So, I add this: ATL wrote: My understanding is that the original Spider Man artist, Steve Ditko, imagined Spider Man in the objectivist mold. He first created a character known as "A is A Man", but I don't think anything came of it. Ditko was at least positive toward Objectivism. I think that's my problem, and maybe where I am wrong. Parker is definatly a selfless hero, saving babies at the expense of those more important to him (Aunt May, MJ). He throws away the costume in pure selfishness to get back to his old life and his health and self-esteem improve. When he embraces those he values, he health comes back. This would indicate the ethics of O'ism. But, Parker become Spidey again to save MJ (which is still ok), but it seems he continues the life after she is saved. I can't get that.

Speading less time reading/posting on message boards Seriously, I'll be setting more time aside for reading and perhaps 30 minutes a day for exercise. I got a book on the Menzer method as well, so I'll be reading that. Anything that can help me get rid of this gut and fiting back into my 36:30s again

Honestly, I blame government too.. but for a totally different reason There was a good book and I read only part of, but enough to get the jist of it. Bringing the Jobs Home: How the Left Created the Outsourcing Crisis--And How We Can Fix It says that isolationist and big government policies that are championed by liberals and conservatives are causing the outsourcing "problem". He also is critical over libertarians and Capitalists that say that outsourcing is a natural occurence in the market that we should ignore. If government took a laissez-faire approach (eliminating taxes and regulations, open borders immigration especially from Eastern Europe, India and China, privatizing education, etc) there wouldn't be an incentive to outsource and jobs would remain in America.

I work for B&N. I can't name too many other authors that have more shelve space in the fiction section than Ayn Rand. Also, Rand is very prominent in the philosophy section. Actually, VOS has been the top selling philosophy book in our store in the past year, even when you subtract the 2 copies I've purchased. Every book has a "model" number, which indicates how many copies should be in the store at the time. I know that VOS has a model of four, so when it goes below that the computer automatically reorders the book. The process is kinda cool. Because of the sales figures, VOS has the highest individual model in the philosophy category in my store.

It's funny, because it's the opposite for me. I listen to classical as background when I do work, especailly writing papers for class or studying for exams. When I listen to rock, I think I concentrate on the lyrics more to get the feel for the song. None of the bands are "Objectivist", but we said this half-way in the thread. It's also more difficult to judge music than it is to judge paintings or literature. Maybe that's because I have no formal education in music, but I have a handful of classical CDs by different composers and I can't tell the difference in quality of the work.