realitycheck44

If your conclusions are predetermined, you are not being objective, right? You should evaluate the circumstances and logically draw conclusions from them. Simply because you are more inclined to do something doesn't mean that you can't evaluate the facts. Okay, that makes sense. Thanks. Also, thanks for the Ayn Rand Lexicon idea. Too many times people have different notions of what certain things mean. It is really sad when you have to ask people how they define noble and barbaric (taking Megan's example). Looking up words in the dictionary also needs to be done more often, especially at my age. People (including me) have some wierd idea of what a word means and then we take offensive and get all pissed off, even though it really means something totally different. Zak

After reading Megan Robinson's introduction post, I have some questions. I am taking World History AP (I'm a sophmore in high school) and my teacher assigned some Howard Zinn articles for summer reading. I hated just about everything he said and responded very negatively to all the questions my teacher posed except one. She asked "Can history be studied objectively?" I responded with "No, because, although reality is objective and therefore history occurred objectively, it would be impossible to study it objectively because not everybody recorded it. Typically, (in the case of war) the winner would be around to give their rendition and the losers wouldn't. Even if they were, many articles were declared "heretical" and burned. " Obviously, because Megan Robinson said in her intro post she is going to create a system by which historian can objectively recount history, my statement is false. Could you please explain why? I have thought alot about my statement, but I can't seem to find anything wrong with my logic. While I'm on the subject of history, my teacher also said that it was impossible to be entirely objective because this would mean having no bias, which would mean disregarding your values. (She was talking about the media) Is she talking about a different kind of objectivity? I think there is some logic to what she says. For example: If I am the editor of a newspaper and two stories cross my desk. One is about the death of a skier (who died skiing) and the other is about the death of somebody else. Being a skier, I am inclined to put the article about the skier in front of the other article (all other factors being the same). To call yourself an Objectivist (not that I do. I only read Atlas Shrugged, Anthem, and some of The Voice of Reason) does not necissarily mean that you are objective about everything does it? It just means that an objective reality exists and you should do your best to percieve it, right? PS. I will apologize in advance. I do realize that I really need to read more Ayn Rand because it would answer many of my questions, but because of playing multiple sports and taking all the AP/honors classes, its not going to happen for a while. (Plus, my mom is pushing me to read other philosophies too.) Thanks for bearing with me! Zak

This really is a great quote. I haven't done any research on Patton (besides watching the movie) and he's a little before my time. Great explaination, too. I actually was more focused on Issues 2 and 3 made by Free Capitalist. I understand the issue now. I was reading your responses and it just kinda hit me. I suppose I was caught up in the political rhetoric- specifically with the word "sacrifice". I think I understand now. Zak

While watching the presidential debates the other night, I heard both George W. Bush and John Kerry refer to sacrificing oneself for one's country a very noble thing to do (as John Kerry put it, "the most noble thing one can do"). Until reading Ayn Rand, I would have agreed. Now, however, I realize that in dying for ones country you would be the means to an end for other people. As Rand said, "Every man is an end in himself, not a means to an end for others." Thus sacrificing your life for your country, or sacrificing your life for your neighbor’s right to live free, is amoral. However, this country, and the principle of capitalism for that matter, would not exist today if people were not willing to defend it. The most common argument used is that dying for an idea that you truly believe in is a higher good that sitting idle while that idea is stripped away. But what higher good is there than your right to live? In Iraq's case, they are not a direct threat to freedom in the United States right now. Iraq could become a threat, but not at the moment. So our troops dying over there are not fighting to save their freedom, they are fighting to save future generation’s freedom. And they are fighting to make another country free. Would Ayn Rand (who grew up in a communist state and completely embraced the love of freedom) say that our soldiers are behaving amorally? Zak

I think we are in violent agreement. I had forgotten that quote and it explains the why in Dagny's case. It is a great quote and what I was trying to state all along. What do you mean by material values? Do you mean material objects? I don't think this necessarily means material objects; a smile is not material. I agree completely, but you also get pleasure from helping them. If you don't get pleasure, don't help them. The problem with bums is they often do not deserve such gifts simply because they beg for them.

Yeah, but what about Dagny Taggart helping the bum and then giving him a job at the railroad company? She was a true egoist, right? Yet she helped a bum in her railroad car for her own rational self-interest. This is pure speculation it actually never says why, but I presume there was something about the bum that allowed her to let him stay, and if you see a bum who looks like that (I have no idea what that is ), wouldn't it make sense to help them if they could eventually help you? If I made a wrong presumption, please let me know.

First of all, I doubt that taking the time to teach someone to fish, which makes them less dependent on you and others, takes more time than catching enough fish for yourself and the other person. Secondly, if you are going to get pleasure from doing it, it is not a sacrifice. (If it is, you should not be doing any kind it). And, yes, you are absolutely right. If a bum is willing to learn how to catch his own fish rather than mooch of society, I would be willing to teach him how. (I am not talking everyone, I'm talking specific cases) Also, theoretically nobody should ever really have to teach anybody except their children for free because we have schools to do this. However, if you are going to teach someone how to do something for free, you should expect them to act on the knowledge you give them and give back to society. I do not mean charity at all- I mean with their mind or labor. If everybody worked as hard as they could we wouldn't have bums or moochers. In any case, my point is: if you are going to volunteer x amount of hours, you shouldn't feed them; you should help them learn how to feed themselves.

Here's the problem I have with charity. The old cliché "Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you'll feed him for life" is really true. Charities hardly ever "teach" instead they feed and make other people dependent on them. It is immoral to make people dependent on you. If your mom is teaching people, it's a good thing.

Yes, I agree with that too; however, when the benevolence becomes a sacrifice of things that you value more, it is no longer selfish and beneficial to you. Then it is a sacrifice, which one should never have to do because you should always choose what you value more. Too many parents today do things out of a sense of duty rather than a sense of love for their child(ren). After talking to my mom I realized she is just as selfish and rational as before, she just forgot that the pursuit of happiness can include compromising and being doing things not always for you. I also agree with RadCap saying it is not the job of the employer to teach employees how to do a job. That is true right now, but my impression of Atlas Shrugged was schools and universities were teaching the "whole math" concept and garbage like that. If Dagny would have seen a rational, able mind struggling to overcome the skepticism thinking, I believe she would have tried to teach the person (if they weren't already inducted into John's Gulch), such as Hank Reardon would have done his best to teach "Non-Absolute".

No, I do not think that Dagny treated employees or anybody else in a manner they did not deserve. After re-reading my statements, I see how you could get that impression. That is not what I meant at all. I will try to write more accurately in the future. I also agree that the context of judging adults is in no way the same as judging children, but you asked for specific examples where “she should have tolerated the knowledge of those who knew less than she did. I was going to say that she should not have tolerated those people, but taught them the knowledge she had. However, I just realized while writing this that she would have taught a person who would have been willing to learn and acted on the knowledge they would have learned from her. I had forgotten how incompetent and unable to make decisions her employees were. In regards to my mom, I ended the question as I did because I was questioning the validity of her statement. I did not know her before she had kids; I have no idea if she really was like Dagny Taggart or not. I was wondering if you guys thought a change was possible. By a change, I mean she is much more benevolent toward others (not that it’s a good thing). For example, she will go way out of her way to pick up or give one of my soccer teammates a ride home if no one else can or will. She gives favors without expecting anything in return. I honestly myself cannot see how such a change is possible and simply wondered what others though. I intend to ask her those questions tomorrow because she went to bed. I would like to say that it is great to have my ideas challenged and premises checked. Intelligent discussion is hard to find sometimes and I am really glad that I joined this website.

Okay, by your definition, tolerant was not the right word. I can't really think of any other one that would convey what I mean. If you do please let me know. Thanks for the compliment and the advice later in life.

That answered my question. Thanks. No, I do not see tolerance as opposed to justice. With kids, you can be brutally honest and tell them they failed, and be tolerant by explaining what they did wrong, why, and how to fix it. For example: If a kid says "Look daddy, I tied my shoe all by myself!" And you see they didn't do it right, you should say "No, you didn't. That's not how you're supposed to tie it, silly. This is how you tie it." You are still being just and honest by saying they did it wrong, but being tolerant by showing the child how.

Yes, my mom is great. The parts of Atlas Shrugged that really grabbed me were when Fransico d'Anconia talked about sex and why he wasn't a playboy because I know so many people who have sex at my school and I always knew the act wasn't wrong, but they reason and way they were doing it was. I also enjoyed John Galt's speech, especially the reasons for rejecting God and why sacrifice is the absence of virtue.

Good answers, what I meant to ask was: Do you think Dagny Taggart would become more tolerant of others after having kids? One cannot be as impatient with a kid as she was with her employees. One has to accept their failures and help them through example and explanation how to succeed without beating them down with blatant criticism. Do you think she would become nicer to others who simply cannot do something? Do you think she would become more tolerant of people who are not as smart as her as a result of having kids? While discussing the book,my mom (an engineer) said she used to be much more like Dagny, but having children has made her much more benevolent towards others. I don't know if having children can have that much effect on someone's attitude.

I'm new to Objectivism and love it. I just read Atlas Shrugged and think Dagny Taggart is an ideal character (except for her flaw of placing too much optimism in the rest of mankind), but what would have happened if she had kids? Would she do favors for them, like cooking even if she was tired? Would she take off work to watch their sports games? I am talking about kids that are not old enough to support themselves.

Hey I'm a tenth grade student who discovered Objectivism through Atlas Shrugged, which is currently my favorite book. I read it over the summer, after a recommendation from my mom. It's her favorite book, too. I don't think I have stopped thinking about the book since. It's amazing how much Collectivism you see in the news and people's ideas (especially teachers). Anyway, I am about to start reading The Fountainhead and then as much Ayn Rand as possible. Objectivism makes so much sense. Zak

I'm just starting Pre-calc. If our teacher starts implementing these new ideas, I'm going to calculus or learning it on my own.