CptnChan

If you speak in riddles you get put on ignore.

I know it's much later but I just saw this topic, so idk if OP will see this reply. As a self-employed plumber, I can say that I in no way feel "less important" than a CEO of a large scale company. I would say that I resonate deeper with Hank Rearden than I do with Eddie Willers.
 
This is because I don't equate my success with how much my business grosses each year, or how much I "contribute to society".  I find great pride in my personal success and growth in itself, in relation to nothing at all. I have achieved great success through skill, dedication, and even character (A friendly, positive, and honest personality). My identifying with Rearden as opposed to Willers has nothing to do with Bank statements, it's all about viewpoint. I find pride in my ability and I know I do my job with 100% dedication. That's where the philosophy comes in. Its really not so much, what you do, but how you do it, and how you view it. I can't quote, but I recall Ayn Rand saying something to the effect of: even someone who just files papers for a living needs to use their brain and can find pride in it.
 
Would someone who handles millions of dollars a day consider my life and profession as "important" as theirs? I don't know... Should I care?

I enjoyed this poem on hitRECord, especially the part that goes: "Things matter, because well, they matter to you."
Kind of a nice nod to self interest. I sometimes get a bit overwhelmed, and admittedly I occasionally have a bit of an existential crisis. But this was kind of a cool counter to feeling small in the universe.
 
 

I know it's much later but I just saw this topic, so idk if OP will see this reply. As a self-employed plumber, I can say that I in no way feel "less important" than a CEO of a large scale company. I would say that I resonate deeper with Hank Rearden than I do with Eddie Willers.
 
This is because I don't equate my success with how much my business grosses each year, or how much I "contribute to society".  I find great pride in my personal success and growth in itself, in relation to nothing at all. I have achieved great success through skill, dedication, and even character (A friendly, positive, and honest personality). My identifying with Rearden as opposed to Willers has nothing to do with Bank statements, it's all about viewpoint. I find pride in my ability and I know I do my job with 100% dedication. That's where the philosophy comes in. Its really not so much, what you do, but how you do it, and how you view it. I can't quote, but I recall Ayn Rand saying something to the effect of: even someone who just files papers for a living needs to use their brain and can find pride in it.
 
Would someone who handles millions of dollars a day consider my life and profession as "important" as theirs? I don't know... Should I care?

I know it's much later but I just saw this topic, so idk if OP will see this reply. As a self-employed plumber, I can say that I in no way feel "less important" than a CEO of a large scale company. I would say that I resonate deeper with Hank Rearden than I do with Eddie Willers.
 
This is because I don't equate my success with how much my business grosses each year, or how much I "contribute to society".  I find great pride in my personal success and growth in itself, in relation to nothing at all. I have achieved great success through skill, dedication, and even character (A friendly, positive, and honest personality). My identifying with Rearden as opposed to Willers has nothing to do with Bank statements, it's all about viewpoint. I find pride in my ability and I know I do my job with 100% dedication. That's where the philosophy comes in. Its really not so much, what you do, but how you do it, and how you view it. I can't quote, but I recall Ayn Rand saying something to the effect of: even someone who just files papers for a living needs to use their brain and can find pride in it.
 
Would someone who handles millions of dollars a day consider my life and profession as "important" as theirs? I don't know... Should I care?

I know it's much later but I just saw this topic, so idk if OP will see this reply. As a self-employed plumber, I can say that I in no way feel "less important" than a CEO of a large scale company. I would say that I resonate deeper with Hank Rearden than I do with Eddie Willers.
 
This is because I don't equate my success with how much my business grosses each year, or how much I "contribute to society".  I find great pride in my personal success and growth in itself, in relation to nothing at all. I have achieved great success through skill, dedication, and even character (A friendly, positive, and honest personality). My identifying with Rearden as opposed to Willers has nothing to do with Bank statements, it's all about viewpoint. I find pride in my ability and I know I do my job with 100% dedication. That's where the philosophy comes in. Its really not so much, what you do, but how you do it, and how you view it. I can't quote, but I recall Ayn Rand saying something to the effect of: even someone who just files papers for a living needs to use their brain and can find pride in it.
 
Would someone who handles millions of dollars a day consider my life and profession as "important" as theirs? I don't know... Should I care?

Certainly Objectivism does not hold plumbers, electricians, builders to be "moochers," let alone "useless."
Honestly, when we speak of "utility" and one's "role in society," it makes me a touch uneasy. An individual is not obligated to have a "useful role in society" as judged by me, Ayn Rand, or anybody else.
Worth less to whom?
Every individual is (or ought to be) supremely important in his individual endeavors to himself--that's what matters. It's the only thing that matters. To be honest, I don't understand the point of Nicky comparing "electrician A" to "electrician B," either. You're right in your reply that the truth of the matter depends on their individual context. So much does, and a person born in the slums of India could fight out of their poverty tooth-and-nail, and maybe achieve a success that would appear to be middling, when viewed from middle-class America... yet in so doing be more virtuous and heroic than an apparently successful socialite who was born to wealth. (If you're familiar with The Fountainhead, Roark in the quarry was far more admirable than Keating at the top of his profession.)
As for evaluating one's self, there are questions that only you can answer: are you doing the most with what you have available to you? Do you strive? Work hard? Are you as honest with yourself as you can be?
Being an Objectivist is not about being a Titan of Industry, or bringing the most value to society, and being wealthy or apparently successful is no sure sign of morality. It's about being the best you can be (in your individual context/situation) for the purpose of leading the best life you possibly can.

I enjoyed this poem on hitRECord, especially the part that goes: "Things matter, because well, they matter to you."
Kind of a nice nod to self interest. I sometimes get a bit overwhelmed, and admittedly I occasionally have a bit of an existential crisis. But this was kind of a cool counter to feeling small in the universe.
 
 

I enjoyed this poem on hitRECord, especially the part that goes: "Things matter, because well, they matter to you."
Kind of a nice nod to self interest. I sometimes get a bit overwhelmed, and admittedly I occasionally have a bit of an existential crisis. But this was kind of a cool counter to feeling small in the universe.
 
 

Perhaps one should define what is meant by "voting" and in what context.
 
Certainly in a purely Objectivist society/politics, government's ONLY role would be to protect individual rights and voting, whatever its purpose, would not be capable of changing the role of government nor its limited powers.
 
If the poster is curious about a "mixed" politics, where government violates some of the rights of some of the people in certain ways at certain times because some majority of people voted for it to do so... then you have a non-Objectivist system ... and quite frankly an entirely different kind of question.

The practice of tapping into the history of one's ancestors is so widespread, that I suppose there's one other way forward: tap into the best parts. When people look to their ancestors, they're always being selective anyway. Taken in the right spirit, "We Shall Overcome" can be a good fighting song for a group of people who were enslaved.
 
I'm reminded of Rand's comments on "Roots". Though she's critical of the desire to trace one's own ancestors, she says that Roots presented a view of black people as moral heroes, creating a new and good mythology for a people that have been cut off from so many of their traditional myths. [Q&A, Ford Hall Forum, 1977. Reprinted in "Ayn Rand Answers"]

Some of my science-minded friends have been posting this video on Facebook. This video is a perfect example of what Ayn Rand described as the failure to distinguish the metaphysical from the man-made.

There’s nothing mystical or supernatural about any of this. Math is a man-made epistemological device invented by human beings to measure things. Mathematicians deliberately chose to divide circles into 360 parts (degrees) for the same reason they chose to divide hours into 60 parts (minutes) and divide minutes into 60 parts (seconds): so everything would be highly divisible. The Sumerians invented the base-60 number system which survives today in our system of time.

This is like being shocked to “discover” that there are 1,000 millimeters in a meter and presenting this “scientific discovery” as proof that there must be intelligent design inherent in the universe. The intelligent design is inherent in our man-made metric system of measurement.

I don't think one can answer the question properly unless one at least talks to some people who feel in this way... which would seem completely alien to anyone who does not. 
 
But, I'm really posting to say there's an existing thread on the topic.

...or, because Eddie was more useful to John for information about Dagny's activities.
 
One of Eddies principles was loyalty, and that distinguished him from the strikers who were in it for themselves.  Eddie admired the strikers as heroic beings and dedicated his life to fighting for their way of life; a life that included him as a valuable employee/friend/confidant.  He was left among the wolves several times in the story and performed admirably on his own, most notably in San Francisco by negotiating the reopening of the railway station in a most hostile environment.  When his train breaks down on the return trip, is it any wonder he goes a little nuts from the frustration of it all?
 
He got what he chose.  What he deserved isn't revealed at the end, and I'm frankly astonished to hear Objectivists claiming he deserved to be defeated for not letting the good he believed in go to the wolves.

Reminds me of this article I saw:
 
http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/09/17/why-does-glenn-think-he-could-be-out-of-business-in-two-years/
 

let me just say that I still love the music I listened to in my angry high school years.
 
Even all of the screamo, all of the deterministic lyrics, all of the hatred of the "good".
 
If I pop in an AFI album I will be rocking out pretty hardcore, even though most of those lyrics are about death and how ugly we are inside and blah blah blah.
At the time I thought I was very cool for listening to music which echoed my deep internal flaws, and the imperfection none of us can escape  .
 
I don't view the universe or myself the same as I did back then... but I'll be damned if Davey Havok's screaming in "Death of Seasons" still isn't the most bad-ass things ever!
 
 
(Side note. I agree with you that the SAW movies are a masterpiece, if that is in fact what you were implying)
EDIT (Second side note: I've also played the original Bioshock 6 times. I'll take a ridiculous and ignorant attack on Ayn Rand that has an intruiging story over HALO any day)

Radiohead is still my favorite band. Much of their music is outright depressing, but it doesn't have to depress you. Of course, when I first started listening a decade ago, I liked that it was depressing! But, some of it is beautiful, and almost all of it is interesting, and those are the things that keep me listening still. Besides, sometimes listening to sad ("dark") music can be a way to get through a bad mood.

It was tempted to vote for Rand, but then I realized no one said a Jessica Alba full body bikini shot as a write-in is not an option. So I went with that.

I call using "Sagging Dorsal Fins" for an indie rock band.

I recently watched the film "blackfish", which I found to be full of anecdotal evidence as opposed to facts and statistics, and riddled with biased conjecture. However it did spark quite a chasmed discussion with the people I was with.
 
I am all for capturing animals for human enjoyment. I enjoy the zoo and seaworld here in San Diego. My question is: barring deliberately cruel treatment of animals (i.e. physically hurting them), are there any concerns one should have morally with containing animals?
 
It seemed to me that the primary thrust of the movie's message was that the animals "belong" in the wild, and taking them out of nature makes them sad or angry....
 
This doesn't really convinced me of much. It seems that with an unlimited supply of food, a lack of predators, and generally a longer life than that of wild animals, these contained animals wouldn't have much to complain about if they could voice complaint. What do you think?
 
Oh, in regards to my topic title, orcas' dorsals fins sag in captivity, basically because they don't need to use it. This was supposed to make the viewer feel some kind of anger toward the captors, but in my opinion, if they no longer need to use the dorsal fin because they are safe in captivity, why does it matter if they can't use it?

This is so silly.

I'm not sure exactly what Francisco means that quote, but I would apply it to how it is very common for "forgiveness" to be placed on such a high pedestal.
Hastening to forgive others without context seems to be a trait resulting from altruism. Perhaps that's why Francisco would warn Rearden about forgiveness?
 
Another point I like about forgiveness is something I used to hear a lot on the Dr. Laura radio show. People would often call in and ask if they should forgive so-in-so, and she would very often inquire whether the person even asked for forgiveness, pointing out that if someone hasn't asked you for forgiveness, how can you give it to them?
 
Thought provoking, but it was also just funny to hear the caller scramble to explain why they "felt" they should forgive.   

A movie of Atlas Shrugged, written by committee? 

If you enter "Atlas Shrugged Part 3 kickstarter" in your search engine, you will find that the mass media bloggers from Time to Salon and beyond are having a great time not stating the facts.  
 
The goal of the kickstarter was to put $250,000 into the advertising budget of the movie.  The purpose of the campaign was to let people get involved. 
 
The producers did not need the quarter million dollars -- but money is always nice to have.  What they offered was a hierarchy of values based on your willingness and ability to buy into the process.  For $35 you get a special T-shirt.  For $1000 you get your name listed in the roll-up of the credits at the end of the movie. You can buy a signed film cell, or a specially endorsed DVD, and several other mementos.  These are vanity gifts, indeed, and if you want one, you can still buy one.  The deadline is October 23.
   
 

I think it's safe to say, at this point, that capitalism causes dead bears.

Fairly soon capitalism may be conclusively proven to cause cancer.
Yaron brooks will be forced to put disclaimers on all of his YouTube clips. Obama will get restitution money from taxpayers.

Future candidates will admit to experimenting with working.