Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Chumley

  • Birthday 12/16/1964

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Roswell, GA
  • Interests
    Computers, music, physical fitness, literature and philosophy, home improvement, politics, and learning to live by the philosophy of Objectivism.

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
    In a relationship
  • Sexual orientation
  • Real Name
    Martin Cade
  • Copyright
  • School or University
    U. S. Naval Academy
  • Occupation
    Software Engineer

Chumley's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)



  1. One small correction - I learned during my time in the UK that an Imperial pint contains 20 Imperial fluid ounces, not 16. An Imperial ounce is slightly smaller than a US ounce but more of them make up a pint. When the UK had to switch to metric measures, I was curious to find if the word "pint" would take on a new meaning of being 500ml or half a liter. Does anyone know if this has happened?
  2. Isn't it "A bush in the hand is worth two of anything?" I think it's from Heinlein but I don't remember which book.
  3. Thanks, Sophia. I asked because I was wondering if it's worth getting a copy of the book to have in addition to the articles in The Objectivist. It might be better organized in book form than in article form. Would you say that's the case?Dan,Good timing, I read your blog just after I posted my question!
  4. Dan, How much of The Psychology of Self-Esteem is covered in Branden's articles in The Objectivist? Thanks.
  5. I think you're close, and I agree with your general meaning. I'm not sure what you mean by "recognizing another person who has no empty spaces," though. I can feel love for a person based on her character and the values she brings to my life as a friend, companion, or lover. She may not be "perfect" but she's "good enough." But I don't think that expresses exactly what I'm trying to say.
  6. Do you mean Judging, Feeling, and Not Being Moralistic? It's available at the Ayn Rand Bookstore.I have the CD, and it's pretty good. Short and to the point.Also, if you ever read Dr. Michael Hurd, you might have caught a comment he made a few weeks ago. The essence was not to have "expectations" of what you want people to be, but have standards of judgment based on what they really are.
  7. Oh yes! That used to be one of my all-time favorite recordings! I haven't listened to it for a while. Now I need to pull it out of my collection and listen to it a few time. Thanks for reminding me of it!
  8. I was told that this was for visual symmetry, so IIII would be balanced with VIII. I used Google to see what else I could find, and I found a FAQ page with a few theories on this: http://www.ubr.com/Clocks/faq/iiii.html
  9. Here's another one that might be helpful: http://thomas.loc.gov/
  10. Yeah, but I think Neal approves of Angelina Jolie in general. I doubt if it's anything specific to do with the movie.
  11. I'd like to add one other point. It's not as if being an "Objectivist" is a title of honor to be bestowed on those who have earned it. It's just a description. If I were to learn something about the philosophy that I disagreed with, and upon further learning I still did not believe it was correct, then I would no longer consider myself an Objectivist.
  12. Do you think someone has to have omniscient knowledge of Objectivism before they can live by it? If that's the case, then I disagree with you. An Objectivist is someone who knows the philosophy, agrees with it, and lives by it. There is no dichotomy between mind and body. But you have to keep the context of human nature in mind. Error is possible, and it is possible for someone to find out that they have misunderstood part of the philosophy - even a fundamental part. An honest man who finds himself in that situation will correct his knowledge and will examine his own actions in light of his improved knowledge of Objectivism, and if necessary will change his behavior. He's still an Objectivist. I see no need to say one must have complete knowledge of the entire philosophy without error. My other use of the word "Objectivist" was in regards to works of philosophy that are not part of Ayn Rand's philosophy but are based on it. That's a different context. I think this has been discussed endlessly on other threads, too. If you want to go in the direction of "Who is an Objectivist" or "What does Objectivist mean", you should probably find those threads and add to them instead of continuing with this one.
  13. OPAR is not "part of" the philosophy, but I think of it as holding a unique position as a presentation of the philosophy. If you want to understand Objectivism, Peikoff's work is important. But remember that you always need to judge for yourself how accurate OPAR is, and refer to Ayn Rand's original works as much as possible. In this way OPAR is different than works by Tara Smith, Harry Binswanger, et. al., that take Objectivism as a starting point and apply the philosophy to areas Ayn Rand didn't cover. Even though their works may be correct, and completely consistent with Objectivism, they are not part of the philosophy. I think of these works as "Objectivist", where "Objectivist" is an adjective meaning "Based on and consistent with the philosophy of Objectivism." Not all Objectivists would agree with me on this, though.
  14. I saw it at 12:40 this morning. Same problems.
  • Create New...