Jack_Browne

I see. Thank you for your quick response. I think I can begin writing my essay now.

Okay, the following is the entire quote + the task I was given, word for word. "Regarding historical accuracy there ...[are] several aspects to be considered: the script itself, the director, the actor's interpretations, the physical elements- sets, ... props, landscapes.. -and the instances of artistic licence. Accuracy and truth are two different things. I would come to consider Ghosts of Mississippi 100% faithful to the spirit of truth and 80% to the spirit of accuracy." Morris, W., 1998 Task: Choose a film or novel which purports to tell a true story about the race issues from slavery (e.g. Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn or Glory) to the Civil Rights movement (e.g. Malcolm X, Salute). How useful is the above distinction between accuracy and truth in analysing the value of your text as an historical source. So, relating this to Huckleberry Finn, I am supposed to analyse how accurate the novel is as a historical source whilst taking into consideration the above distinction the author has made.

Hi there fellow O'ists. For my Modern History class I've been asked to write an essay on truth and accuracy in Huckleberry Finn. The essay is to be in response to a quote in which the author states that something can be 100% true in spirit, but only 80% accurate. I take it that accuracy is the degree of the quality of truthhood and I have knowledge of what a truth is, a statement about a fact of reality, so I'm wondering what the writer of the quote means by true 'in spirit'. According to O'ism (as I understand it) all truths are both obsolute and objective, so how could anything be true 'in spirit'? I'm confused. Could anybody help me out?

If you're looking for a cut off point regarding mental development, we could look at Piaget's theory. The sensori-motor stage begins at birth.

I do the same thing. I'm happy that you've taken the time to write all of that. Could you give me a link to some of the better quality lectures?

People here in Australia preach multiculturalism and 'fairness and equality' all day long. What's even worse though is the level of political 'correctness' Australians hold. It's sort of like Australia's a wannabe Canada. The teachers at my school are all left winged and hypocrites. I had to correct my history teacher when she said 'There are no truths'. As for the whole leather jackets, not many people I know wear them, I'd get slammed by environmentalists if I did anyway. Australia's pretty much a copy of America, except not as famous.

Greetings from Australia, I've been lurking around these forums for the past few weeks in order to better develop my understanding of objectivism. As I lurked, I was extemely impressed by the level of intelligence and rationality I saw, ergo I've decided to register an account in order to hopefully learn from this community. Now, a bit about myself. I'm 15 years old, impressionable and eager to learn. I take it on trust that you people won't intentionally mislead me or do anything of that sort. I live in Brisbane, Australia and I'm in my 11th year of school. My plans for after school are to study both Law and Philosophy. I've been set on doing Law for quite some time but only recently became interested in philosophy. I first heard and was intrigued by objectivism by a series of videos from a YouTuber named 'MrCropper'. I watched his video's on objectivist epistemology and ethics and found that it corroborated with my own ideals. He constantly reffered back to Rand's books so I figured that if I wanted to fully understand him I would first have to read Rand's books. I've read about 800 pages or so of Atlas and have both The Fountainhead and For The New Intellectual unread in my bookcase. People I know in real life call me selfish and arrogant. I agree with them on the selfish remark (any rational person is selfish) but am peeved by them calling me arrogant. I don't think I'm arrogant. I think I'm logical and proud of it. But of course, I can't properly converse with any of them, they're all ignorant schoolkid's. I'm an atheist. To me, agnosticism isn't a word. Anyone who does not consider himself a theist is an atheist however there are varying degrees of certainty of course. Anywho, that's my introduction. I've posted this because I want to learn how to better myself. So please, tell me if I'm irrational. Criticise me. I want to learn.