realitycheck44

I am not in college and don't really know what you want to do, but you could go into engineering. It seems like you already have the math/physics mostly down, so it shouldn't be as hard for you as other people who are trying to understand physics at the same time. Just a suggestion. Zak

Yes, welcome. May I ask where you gave the lectures and what were they on? Anybody find the caliber of intellectuals we get on this forum amazing? Kind of refutes the notion that Objectivists are just angry teenagers mad at the world. Zak

First off, thank you for the compliment. Well, I see your point. I know no one right now who shares all of my values, although most of my friends value things such as honesty, hard work, integrity, pride, logic, etc. Even before I discovered Objectivism I knew what my values were (didn't quite know why they were my values but...) and I was friends with those who shared similar ones. I still hold the same people as my friends today. I think most of my friends are still at that stage right now. They just don't bother to get to the root of all of their values: selfishness, and the root of that: objective reality. As I said, I do see your point. I just became a little offended at the post made by Rational One. No harm done. Zak

Well then, by defalt, my "powers of observation" are very good.

"We know not the future, and cannot plan for it much. But we can... determine and know what manner of men we will be whenever adn wherever the hour strikes." Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain (from The Leadership Moment by Michael Useem)

I don't quite have it yet. Barnes and Noble hasn't had one in the like 50 times I've been in there. And not always the same on either. I've been meaning to order it (online), along with DiLorenzo's (sp?) How Capitalism Saved America Zak

"Many of the founding fathers, of course, continued to believe in God and to do so sincerely, but it was a vestigial belief, a leftover from the past which no longer shaped the essence of their thinking." -Peikoff (Religion Versus America) Read Religion Versus America by Leonard Peikoff in The Voice Of Reason. It deals with these issues explicitly.

Not to burst anyone's bubble, but this guy hasn't signed on since June 20, 2004.

What is wrong with taxation is that it relies on the use of force. People have free will and buying a lottery ticket is a choice. Paying taxes is not. Zak

That's a great article. Haha; a funny story on it: I was watching The O'Reilly Factor tonight. They were interviewing the defendent of the Ten Commandments. I started laughing when he said (paraphrasing) "they're more than just religious commandments, they are philosophical too." Too bad he didn't know exactly what they meant philsophically. (If he did ..., that's sick) [edit to add last sentence]

That's really quite sad. I hope you mean met as in physically, because Tommy Edison, non-contradictor, and I are purpose driven and at least attempt to be rational. Please do not make such sweeping generizations. Zak

That article is AWESOME! It was precisely what I was looking for. Thank you so much! I'll be sure to post any further questions on the subject. Zak

On topic to the thread title, off topic of this discussion right now: I was looking on Encarta and it spells Objectivism with a small "o" in regard to Miss Rand's philosophy. So if anybody who looks searches Encarta to find out more about Objectivism will only find it spelled with a lower case "o". Zak

Her point was that Capitalsim requires an abundance of natural resources. The only way to get those, when you run out, is imperialism. That leads to militarism and nationalism. Not to argue with you, and I don't know alot about economics, but according to Encarta (and supported by the textbook)"While businesses showed remarkable gains in productivity during the 1920s, workers got a relatively small share of this wealth produced. Between 1923 and 1929, manufacturing output per person-hour increased by 32 percent, but workers' wages grew by only 8 percent." But the rich still needed the poor to buy products, so they invented "credit- an attractive name for consumer debt. People were allowed to 'buy now, pay later.' But this only put off the day when consumers acumulated so much debt that they could not keep buying up all the products coming off the assembly lines. That day came in 1929." (Encarta) If the cause of the Great Depression was not the wealth gap, what was it? I should have done that. Two reasons I didn't : 1. I didn't think of it because I'm not usually that nice. . I either tell them they are wrong and why, or I just keep my mouth shut. Arguing with her would have been futile, but this may work. I'll definitely use it next time she makes an absurd claim. (I'll let you know how it worked tomorrow probably ) 2. Whatever she says, I don't know whether its false when she says it; it's only after researching on Encarta or the net that I find the truth. Thanks everyone, Zak PS: Word isn't working right now, so I apologize for any spelling errors.

I had one philosophical talk with her. She told me Rand was a "dangerous" philosopher. She actually said "I don't understand how the factory worker deserves any less or advances society any less than an inventor". !? She admires Howard Zinn, Chompsky, etc. I try to do this as much as possible, but it is quite hard when she flat out denies facts. For example, she said the poor got poorer in the Industrial Revolution. Not the rich got rich faster than the poor, but that the poor actually got poorer and were worse off than before. I went home and checked some facts on the Net,and it simply isn't true. I don't usually bother arguing with her though because I'm sure she could simply say I got my info off a bias site. She's the teacher, so I wouldn't win. Thanks for the advice, I will continue to try it. Zak PS: Is Thomas Mann's The Magic Mountain worth reading? She recomended it and I check on Amazon, the reviews say its either really good or boring. Nothing about bad philosophy or being wrong though.

Thanks. I'll definitely have to check it out. Zak

I have this completely horrible AP World History teacher. She is exceptionally dangerous to the class because she does not directly embrace socialism, she just gives quotes by socialists to support any viewpoint on the subject she might have. Up until now, I have been able (partially) to retain my sanity, but now I'm just lost. We are starting a study on World War I, the Great Depression, WWII and the Rise of Fascism. She has been talking about The Wasteland alot, especially the spiritual wasteland (ie the idea that people/humanity had lost a sense of itself and all that was good). She seems to express the view that this is all a result of Capitalism. She said that with World War I a significant change came over the world. A sense of disillusionment and irrationality happened. She made us look a Dada and surrealist art as an analogy to what had happened. Her view that she departed on the class was that the whole of western society and ideals all lead to a war. The Great Depression was the topic of today. Instead of using my book, I decided to do some research on Encarta. For the causes of depression, it said was the widening of the wealth gap that caused the stockmarket crash. (searched Great Depression and clicked on causes). Apparently in 1929, the top .1% of the US population had a total income equal to that of the whole bottom 42% of the people. My teacher argued that this was due to the Capitalists greed and made everyone live in poverty. She went farther to say that the Industrial Revolution (along with Capitalism) caused Militarism, aggressive Nationalism, Imperialism, and the rise of Fascism. Her quote to us from George Orwell gives her opinion quite clearly "You've got to get rid of the troublesome person who points out that fascism and bourgeois democracy are tweedledum and tweedledee." I am looking for a book, website, or simply discussion, that counters her view of capitalism. I do not know where to begin, since I know very little about history. Any help is very much appreciated. Zak

Yes it does. I know this because I started questioning God directly after reading it, which caused me to do more reading on this issue. I think it is mostly in Galt's speech, so Teqlump may not have gotten to it yet, but it is definitely there. Zak

Why? Not to why you believe in god, but why are you so certain that you always will? If it is truth that you seek, why would you make this statement? I don't believe in god, but (and I can't ever see this happening) if there was rational, non-contradicting definition of god, along with proof of his existence, then I would believe in God, not on faith but on reason. [Edit to fix spelling of existence ]

It looks pretty good; what CD is it off of? I think I saw a new music video for them when I was in Canada last week, which means they have a new cd. I'll have to get it. I have started looking more for songs, rather than bands that have good lyrics. (I didn't have very much luck finding bands that always have lyrics consistent with Objectivism). Some of my favorite songs (that have good lyrics): "Given the Chance"-The Starting Line : A song about loving life and the potenial everyone has, if given the chance. "Asleep in the Chapel"- Thusday : A song about questioning faith, not just in the church, but everywhere. It links faith to force and the irrationality people could do in the name of faith. They probably want it replaced with nihilism, but it doesn't say that in the song.) "Okay I Believe You, But My Tommy Gun Don't" - Brand New : Besides the title and the first line ("I am heaven sent), it's a good song. Its about a guy who is good at everything, but his relationship with his girlfriend suffers because she hates his goodness. "Walk of Life"- Dire Straits : Need I say more? If anyone else knows good songs, perhaps this thread should turn that way. Zak [Edit to add "Walk of Life"]

I find particuarly interesting that he equates not sacrificing yourself for others to genocide. Where did anybody from the Galt's Gulch kill anybody? His response to your e-mail tells me all I need to know.

Okay, I hope this makes sense. There are two types of objects. Metaphysical and man-made. If it is man-made, it has to be produced by man (ie Existence has primacy over Consciousness.) That which is metaphysical will not change, it will act in accordance to its nature, ie("nothing is possible except what is actual"). When man acts on a metaphysical, it becomes man-made. With either kind of object, neither hoping nor wishing will change anything. Praying will not make God come down and help you because that would mean that you are changing a metaphysical object without acting on it. God cannot be man-made and metaphysical at the same time. (The law of Identity). Zak

Thank you very much for the responses. I understood romantic love, but now I see that all emotions are objective. (I was a bit slow on the uptake. ) The first question was the most confusing for me, but I understand now, (I think). I have one more question. Why did Rearden allow his family to mooch off of his money? I think the answer is the unearned guilt he felt for them, but I'm not sure. Thanks again, Zak

I have a question on the subject, but not yet discussed. If I should start a new thread, let me know. Since we have only covered romantic love so far, I was wondering about the objectivity of a different kind of love. I suppose family love is the name, I'm not quite sure what to call it. The love between a mother and child, or between brothers. A mother/father may be displeased with the way their child acts, but rarely do they stop loving the child. This I am guessing, because I am not a father (and certainly not a mother) but I do know that brothers love each other differently than they do anybody else. My dad had a talk with me a while ago that basically said I couldn't hold my brother to the same standard of perfection/morality that I hold myself and my friends, ie I had to like my brother and do things with him even if he wasn't perfect, (or even good by my standard.) I dismissed most of the ideas and handed my dad "The Cult Of Moral Greyness" in The Voice of Reason. My brother would not be my friend if we were not related; but since we are, I love him (sometimes ). I generally try to pick out his good characteristics and focus on those rather then his bad ones. My brother is not where near as bad as Rearden's, but Rearden did put up with his brother, and mother, more than he would have most people. So, since that ramble didn't actually ask any questions... 1. Is a mother's love for her child rational and objective? Does it have to be? 2. Does love between brothers have to be rational and objective to be moral? 3. Is it rational to love someone simply because of blood relations? The Internet ate the first copy of this post, so if it's confused let me know. I will clarify, but I don't have time right now.

The Red Green Show is awesome! They still play it from 10 to 11 where I live, so if I manage to finish my homework, I watch it to wind down. Mythbusters is also a really great show. Most of the stuff on the history channel is fascinating, especially Mail Call. I almost always watch soccer or skiing if I happen to catch them on.