Chumley

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?

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.

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!

Dan, How much of The Psychology of Self-Esteem is covered in Branden's articles in The Objectivist? Thanks.

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.

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.

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!

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

Here's another one that might be helpful: http://thomas.loc.gov/

No argument from me on either of your points!

Yeah, but I think Neal approves of Angelina Jolie in general. I doubt if it's anything specific to do with the movie.

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.

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.

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.

I saw it at 12:40 this morning. Same problems.

This is affecting me while using Firefox to browse the site.

Romantic?

How about this? :-0==#

Lee Zeppelin also did this - I think "Gallows Pole" is an old folk song.

What kind of recording equipment do you use? I have a laptop with Cubase and a Firepod. I play guitar and bass, and a little bit of keyboards. I think it would be fun to do some Internet collaboration on music.

I don't think that ITOE or OPAR are particularly difficult to read. I find them to be clearly written, but they are "deep" in the sense that they contain a lot of detail that's not obvious the first time through. I tend to read things very quickly, seeing a big picture, and on further re-reading I get more detail every time. For example, I have read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged at least a dozen times each in the past 15 years, and every single time I read them, I pick up on something new.

Thanks for the laughs. And thanks for making it possible for me to waste half of my morning reading these.

After listening to the question and answer from Certainty and Happiness, here is a more accurate summary of what Dr. Peikoff said. This Q&A was recorded on August 5, 1988. I do not know if he would still hold to these points. (I want to point out that this is absolutely NOT a verbatim transcription and any errors in accuracy as to what Dr. Peikoff said are mine. Quoted portions are transcribed word for word.) The question was about how to contain the Objectivist message in a movie. Dr. Peikoff answered that he wanted to “de-escalate” peoples’ expectations, as “no movie will present Objectivism to the public.” He said that a movie could, at most, function as an advertisement that says “There is such a thing as a philosophy different from what you have heard, and here are some glimmerings of an indication. If you’re interested, read the book.” Galt’s speech was to be condensed to 5 minutes. (At this point there was incredulous laughter from the audience.) There are 5 key philosophic points to contain in the movie, and if they’re simply indicated – nothing more than a bare suggestion – Dr. Peikoff would consider it a 100% success, philosophically: The heroes stand for reason, and the villains for unreason. Reason is the source of material wealth. What one thinks is the source of one’s sex life. Selfishness is a virtue. Physical force is destructive. He also said that Miss Rand had estimated that the movie could possibly be squeezed into 4 hours and 40 minutes. My opinion? After the success of the Lord of the Rings movies, a much longer movie - or a trilogy - could be successful. The problem isn't length, it's whether the ideas would find a receptive audience.

I listened to Peikoff's "Certainty and Happiness" last week and he made some comments about the movie during the question and answer session. I'll have to listen to it again and summarize what he said, but from memory these are some of his points: Ayn Rand thought the movie would have to be 4-1/2 hours long There were going to be "drastic omissions." Peikoff was asked to shorten Galt's speech to 5 minutes! There is no way to convey the philosophy in a movie. The most you could do is say "There is such a thing as philosophy, and here is where to go for more information." Peikoff also mentioned 5 things that he thought would need to be included for the movie to be a complete success as far as he is concerned. I don't remember all 5, but from memory, here are some: Reason is Man's means of survival Force is evil Capitalism is the proper political system. Sex is good (Disclaimer: This lecture was recorded in 1989, so I don't know if Peikoff would agree with these points now.) In regard to the first point, I think it would be possible to make Atlas Shrugged a longer movie, broken up into parts. "Lord of the Rings" succeeded as a trilogy, and I think AS could be done the same way. As I said, I'm posting these from memory. I have to stay home tonight (I'm on call - part of having a real job ) - so maybe I can listen to this part of the tapes again and post a better summary of what Peikoff said.

I voted for Washington, so I did my part! (That's sounds good saying to to myself, "I voted for George Washington!" ) I recommend the Dr. John Ridpath's lecture George Washington: Integrity and the Founding of America - it brought tears to my eyes both times I listened to it. Definitely inspirational!