realitycheck44

If and only if, you think you are prepared enough to debate with the Kantians, Chrisitians, nihilists, etc, and convince others that Objectivism is logically superior. Otherwise, it's not worth it. You do not want to test you current understand of Objectivism through a public debate, unless you have a very good understanding of it. You can debate in private with just about anyone to test your understanding. I am a sophmore and would probably pick Objectivism if I had to do a similar project. If I ended up debating someone, as I often do, I would probably not be able to explain my position well enough to the other person to convey my ideas. I usually think of exactly what I want to say about five minutes after the person left. This would be disastrous in a public setting. If you think you can do it- great! But don't do it just to add time or test your ability to debate. You and Objectivism may end up the laughing stock of the school. Good luck! Zak Ps: When is this due?

That's regular, man. Goofy is right foot in front and left foot in back.

Please do tell us. You must remember that not everyone here is an Objectivist. In, fact, almost all of us are still learning and integrating. Objectivism is a "closed system" in that only the writing Miss Rand approved before she closed it. (She did this before she died. FYI, there is a thread on that, too.) can be called part of the philosophy. The point is nobody here speaks for Objectivism, we are here to discuss the ideas of Miss Rand. If you find something immoral, I, for one, am interested in what and why. You may be right; you may be wrong, but either way, you will help me learn. Zak

I do not understand how you arrived at the conclusion that you should place greater value on the government's opinion than your own from what I said. I do not think you should trust anyone's opinon more than your own, so I am wondering what I may have said to make you think otherwise. Did you not understand the analogy about Greece? (Yes I am pretty sure it was Greece, though it may have been true for Rome too. I got the example from "Religion Versus America" by Leonard Peikoff in The Voice of Reason.) Just because you and I know it is not in one's own self interest to violate others rights does not mean that everyone else does. Here is where the analogy comes in. Say you have a society like Greece where nobody accepts anything on faith (obviously this is a bit exagerated for the sake of argument). The world is running great- people and governments are reconizing rights; philosophy is reasonable, etc. Then come the Dark Ages. This illustrates that, while man may know faith is bad and achievement only comes through reason, they accept faith anyway. (Or in our senario, violate people's rights anyway.) There has to be an objective way to protect every man's rights. That is the government's job. I don't see how everyone's rights would be protected without a government. Zak

Yes, that is true. However, it does nothing to back up your argument. Because every single man has free will, every single man has to make a choice on what is right. If he has this choice, there is always the possibility for him to choose poorly. This is what governments are here to protect us from. An example of why this won't work: Greece. I dont' know an awful lot about the the civilization but I do know this. Greece was unparalleled for a long time in achievements in human rights and technology. Interestingly, this was the first secular political stystem. Yet for some reason, the Dark ages came about. The intellectuals turned to mysicism and their civilization failed. See a corrilation? Now for some reason, this society is starting to head back to mysicism too. Hope this helps! If it's convoluted, I'll answer questions later; I have soccer now. Zak

Haha, sorry guys. I meant to hit "edit and ended up quoting myself!

Last summer my mom told me to read Atlas Shrugged. It is her favorite book, though she is not an Objectivist. I had been dying to read it for like five years, since I found out it was her favorite book. I'm glad I waited. Any earlier and I probably wouldn't have been able to understand it or take my mom to bat on the existence of a god. I haven't stopped reading Miss Rand since. Zak

Hey, welcome to the forum! As others have said, this forum is a great place for intellectual discussion. I held many of Objectivism's premises and conclusions implicitly, but it wasn't until reading Atlas Shrugged that I figured out how to articulate correctly many of the things I was thinking. It was like being hit in the head with a 2x4. I am interested in what you will think of Miss Rand, since you seem to hold much of her philosophy explicitly (much more so than I did anyway. ) Two questions: Where did you draw most of your philosophy and politics from? What exactly is "anarcho-capitalism"? How does this differ from laissez-faire capitalism? Again welcome to the forum. Enjoy your stay! Zak PS: Read Atlas Shrugged after you finish The Fountainhead.

Yeah, I saw it not too long ago, too. I liked Elliot, except for the end, as you mentioned. However, I didn't really enjoy the movie in general. The characters were never fully developed, so I didn't really care about any of them. Plus, it was way too predictable. I mean, I could judge exactly how it was going to end from like halfway through the movie. *Spoilers* Seriously, the plane igniting on the last cartriage, the nomads showing up, the plane dropping off the cliff and then rising just before the mountain. Geez! I want a movie just once, to end with the plane crashing. Of course it couldn't be the designer/hero's fault, but it would be a little more exciting. Zak

I believe he is saying that Objectivists will vote for those who are less statist, but will not vote for Libertarians because they do not/cannot back up the principle of Capitalism on a moral level. By claiming to be Capitalists, they end up hurting Capitalism because they cannot properly defend it. This is what I believe anyway, not to put words into Mr. Little's mouth. Zak

First of all, welcome to the forum. This is quite a first post! Cool; I love math too! What did you major in, by the way? Awesome, except I have no idea how you got that. The answer is right, but I'm stumped as to how you got 11/24. I did it by setting the first vector at {45,0}. The second vector is above by x degrees (it has an hypotenuse of 60). Add the vectors together and figure out where the resultant (90) goes. Now you have a parallelagram with one diagonal (90). Just solve for the base angle using law of cosines. Subtract that from 180. Yeah, I'll have to get back to you later on that one. I don't have the time to think about it right now. Plus, the teacher just told us the angle would be the same on the test which make things a heck of a lot easier. Actually, its a high school pre-calculus class, but the cables are rigid. I would very much like to take a mechanics course, though. Thanks very much for all of your help. My test is on Wednesday. I need an A; the quarter ends in two weeks. Zak

Um, I think he was talking about somebody who was apprehended before being able to commit the murder, not because of a "change of heart". As always, correct me if I'm wrong. Zak

Okay, I understand how to do the first one, but if anybody knows how to do the second one, I would really appreciate it. Zak

If you have time: Why? Thanks in advance. Zak PS: Did your problem have to do with proving i* = 1? (*=squared)

Okay, I need help again. I need help on two problems: 1. Find the angle between the forces given the magnitude of their resultant. Force 1= 45 pounds Force 2= 60 pounds Resultant Force= 90 pounds 2. There is an upside down triangle of cables, with angles A (upper left), B (upper right), and C (bottom). A and B are attached to a bridge, and there is a 2000 lb weight hanging off C. Angle A= 50 deg Angle B= 30 deg. What is the tension in each cable supporting the load? Note: The answers are in the back of the book; I need to know how to do them, not what the answers are. Thanks guys! All help is greatly appreciated. Zak

Yeah, the last couple trips in the mountains have been pretty hot. As you probably know, Steven's didn't have a season really and the trip up to Big White (the most recent one; I refer to it in my first post in this thread) was pretty warm too. Before that, it was summer. I'd rather have the windows down, but my mom prefers the air conditioning. In the winter, I usually don't turn on either. Yeah, TV comercials are exactly like billboards to me: great analogy . I enjoy a few commercials because they are witty or just classy. I always enjoy watching the "Best Commercials of ... . But other than that, commercials mostly insult your intelligence. Zak

While this is true, you shouldn't love someone because they are better than the alternitives. You should love them because they are perfect for you. If you had to choose between three women, but you didn't love any of them, would you choose the one who is the best of the three? Or would you pass and find someone who truly makes you happy? Personally, I would, and have, passed. Zak

Yeah, I've gotta take the World test at the beginning of May. Any study suggestions? Thanks, Zak Edit to change "that" to "World".

Oh, of course, anything else would be a violation of property rights. I was speaking soley from the aethetic point of view. They are great in cities and exit signs I wasn't really considering as billboards. I suppose billboards are like most things; if done right, they are good, but if done poorly, they are bad. I just happened to see many that were done bad. But no, I don't generally do as Dagny and Galt did and look for billboards as a pillar of human progression. The fact that I can drive mountain passes while listening to my favorite music with the air conditioning on is what human progress is about. Not some billboard advertising some casino or whatnot. Zak

You're lucky that when you were in high school (or perhaps it's where you live), honors actually meant something In my honors chemistry class the other day, my lab partner was high () so I had to do all the work. That just pissed me off. I have no problem with people getting high (they are obviously not my friends), but it'd be really nice if they were only in "regular" classes. Zak

Hey man, what's up? I'm a Sophmore in high school. This forum is excellent for rational discussion, plus questions are always welcome as long as they are formulated right (ie they are asked in an honest way by someone seeking an honest answer). This should be fun. Welcome to the forum. Zak

Eh? According to Ayn Rand integrity is acting on one's convictions. So this would be more irrational than a lack of integrity. As long as the person your are trying to immitate has good convictions, what is wrong with it? Are you taking immitate to mean do everything that person does (clothes, aethetics, job, etc) or is immitate trying to be like that person? Just wondering. Zak

You have no idea how awesomely you just expressed an opinion I could not articulate but have held forever. Zak PS: Change Vail to Whistler and it's perfect.

Hey dude, I'm in high school too. Welcom to the site. Anyway, as to your specific problem I can sort of relate. I'm kind of an outcast, but that is because I want to be. I used to wonder why I wasn't popular and then concluded it was because I didn't wantto be. I don't hate other people, I just don't care about what they think. That is your problem right there. As Elie Wiesel said, "The opposite of love is not hate; it is indifference." And being indifferent to those around will, in my experience, give you the most happiness. Also, when someone asks you to compromise, just ask why. They won't be able to answer, and then you can tell the truth about compromise. As others said, do not act irrationally. It is never in your rational self-interest to act irrationally. Don't compromise and don't give up hope in others. I haven't ever met another Objectivist in person either. Some people drive me crazy; I just avoid them. Another key: always be completely, brutally honest. Then, people who don't like that will avoid you, and people who do value honesty will come to you. One more thing (if this applies to you); try to be at least cordial to others. It may help them and you. I try to think of it like this: Would a person with as great a self-esteem as I have really need to degrade others? My answer is no. Zak

There are times in Atlas Shrugged where Miss Rand refers to billboards as a symbol of human progress. I remember one scene when Dagny and Hank are on their trip to find the inventor of the motor and she was looking off into the distance hoping to find a billboard. I was driving up through British Columbia to go skiing the other week when I ran across a beautiful town that was scattered with billboards. I found them horribly unattractive in what would have been a nice town. The town to me was the symbol of progress- the Walmart and the relatively nice cars- not the billboards. That being said, I do think that in cities, if done properly, billboards are not too bad. I just wanted to see what position you guys take. Zak