Nxixcxk

In a way, yes. If I sell a piece of paper to Man X so he can slit his throat, knowing fully that that is what he's going to use the paper for, then I see no harm in doing so (so long as his death only effects him and puts no burden on any others). If I know that the piece of paper I am selling to Man X will be used to kill Person B unjustifiably, then I am at fault for doing so, since the unjustifiable killing of Person B is an indirect infringement upon my right to life.

And what is this something that you've found that can NEVER be used for a helpful effect? If it does not effect me, how can it be evil? Agreed. But if the suicide bomber is simply using the bomb to blow himself up and no one else, am I still at fault? So guns kill people--people don't kill people? And as a side note, the expenses and time that one must go through in order to get a proscription for pot from their doctor is extremely costly I would imagine. No one wants to jump through 50 hola-hoops in order to procure something that should be absolutely legal.

Hi nk2005, and welcome to the forums. Although I appreciate the cognitive reframe, I thought the film had some ulterior motives. What about this ^ ^ idea as well? In what category would you place it? Me too ..which is why I originally saw the movie. In my school, it was under much adjulation so I thought it give it a try.

Would you mind elaborating, since I cannot find a reason to agree so long as the vices people practice do not conflict with my right to live. If people want to buy knives specially made for tearing apart flesh and I, as a knife builder, make knives that fit this endeavor efficaciously, what is wrong in me doing so? Agreed. Simply b/c I save one thousand people does not justify the fact that I unjustly killed one. However, the kid simply sold marijuana; he wasn't selling babies for prostitution. A particular reason for why I admire the kid is b/c he had the audacity to sell contraband--which SHOULD not be illegal to trade. I admire him for the same reasons for why I would admire one selling gin or tobacco or any other "illegal/highly taxed good" back in the 1700s.

So long as the vices do not interfere with your rights, why do you care? The kid also used his money to further that which he valued (videotaping interesting stuff, etc.), so I see no reason to give him contempt.

Well...I found it mildly ironic that true capitalists (hopefully the overwhelming majority registered here) would complain about the characteristics of your letters, fonts, symbols, etc.--t'would have been better of them to simply boycott the style by not responding to your posts and allow 'the readability and market of thread readings' (for lack of better terms) to run its course...although maybe the people of this forum were just nice enough to let you know that they would not read your posts if you did not switch your format--rather than just letting you figure it out the hard way

I enjoyed the movie as well, but how would you suggest the producers of the movie integrate philosophical discourse into the film w/o detracting from its overall flow? I thought it was funny, however, when the color "red" appeared and all the people in Pleasantville were like "OH MY GOD, LOOK, RED!" I'm curious as to how they all knew what 'the' name for the color was! Those geniuses... Nevertheless, aside from that inconsistency, the movie was absolutely unpassable. Personally, I can relate to the emotions the people of P.V. felt when they first saw the color red (induced from enlightenment); it was like my first time reading the F.H. or understanding Objectivism principles. Seeing colors for them was like finding out the three basic axioms of reality--exciting and paradigm shifting! The movie was an explosion of creativity that made me wonder what the American society will look like in 100 years--what cultural novelties will replace outdated ones? Psychologically, the movie basically makes the watcher introspect after viewing. You're left wondering, "What 'boxes' am I trapped into that do not allow me to see the 'color'"? "What shifts in my thinking methodology and perspective do I need to change?" "Is there a purpose to this...is there a purpose to that?" "Could this be done more creatively and effectively?" After some time introspecting, you'll probably realized that your brain is caught in habitual methods of thinking. When you cross your arms, legs, or intertwine your hands, do you notice that the same hand/leg/arm is always on top of the other? Do you always put your left shoe on first? Which leg do you put in first when stepping into pants? Which hand opens the door? How does your body act when it's under stress? When your angry, what idiosyncracies do you ellicit? And, if the habitual crossing of your legs, arms, and hands is controlled by the power of your mind, does that mean that are mind is also 'stuck' in habits too?

What about them? I enjoyed the movie and especially admired the kid with all the technology: he ran his own business (and ran it off of contraband, which gains my doubly admiration) and exuded much self-confidence.

Valjean, how does one acquire knowledge? (If you go through the steps, then apply those steps to the proposition of God existence, then you should be able settle your own question.) Philosophical skepticism isn't withholding judgement; it's implicitly and insidiously stating that knowledge is not possible.

Measurably so But so much of our knowledge is abstract. The fact that you can even posit a question such as so, is purely from abstract knowledge. I challenge you to find me abstract knowledge that has no purpose. And it didn't raise mine either, but that was when I had a superficial understanding of it. After rereading VOS in conjuction with OPAR, my level of happiness has sky-rocketed. Personally, I was always mired in some form of skepticism or determinism, and when you're not able to sort these things out, life necessarily becomes morbid and unfulfilling. May I ask as to why Oism hasn't made you happy? Aren't there parts in your life that have confused you but then after studying Oism you thought, "Ahh yes, it makes sense; NOW I see the course of action I should take and how it relates to underlying principles."? Doesn't Oism help you settle internal as well as external disputes?

Hah! Thanks for your commensurate response; I didn't expect it...shows that you really are trying to sort thigns out I agree. Personally, I think those that simply stand around are more of an embarassment than those who try to dance (even if they can't) in the context you've given (this is probably the thoughts of most women as well). Give yourself an analogy and you'll come about the same conclusion...who goes to the library to work out? Who goes to the gym to read? Who goes to the supermarket to dance? And as a side note, dancing isn't as tough as some may think it is (I'm assuming you lack dance skills--if you don't, then disregard this paragraph). Just simply bounce your legs to the beat but don't force it so to speak, make it look natural--simply walking and moving arms to the beat doesn't look bad either (Imagine if everyone in the club held the beat, even if it was merely tapping their feet, the crowd would look awesome!). And if you're freaking with the ladies, hold their hips and follow their movements but don't exagerrate them; it's that simple. (Also, I'd suggest not believing people when they say that dancing just comes natural to them. BS, like everything else in life, dancing takes practice) You're not alone! I sometimes do as well (and thanks to your thread, I'll begin to "check" myself more often). And those who claim that they are not afraid of the judgements of others are most likely lying about themselves (and to themselves--which is one of the most negative acts one can do to one's self), are insecure, or don't really know what's going on inside of them. You only live once, so you have to ask yourself what you value more...having fun, or suppressing that opportunity for fun for the sake of not having someone pass a judgement upon you. Not only that, but MOST guys feel the same way in regard to dancing, and if they made fun of you, then most likely they are simply manifesting their own insecurity and jealousy in the most childish and demeaning way...and you know what? F**k em. But don't you walk away from parties where people are acting completely stupid, thinking, "Boy, I'm glad I'm not friends with them." Personally, this has happened to me on several occasions. One of my close friends will invite me to a party and I'll decide to go, but nothing exciting or interesting ever happens; it's the same sh*t over and over and over; everyone gets drunk and runs around like a bunch of fools. But I'm curious, do you value the people whos judgement you are afraid of? And if so, do you grant the same value to stranger X as you do to acquaintance Y? The bold was to hopefully show you that you were trying to reason as opposed to use emotions as your guiding force in life. If history has shown that people solely make decisions based off of emotions, then is this fact subject to emotional scrutiny as well? I don't think it sounds preposterous at all; in fact, most conditioned Americans would agree with you. Oh my god! A man sharing his feelings! Blasphemy! But is it trully weak to do so? I'll take the word "weak" literally and ask you this: How many men can bench 500lbs? How many men can express their feelings? How many men dare to express their feelings? Who are the trully weak ones? Whew, you're human after all. It seems completely normal to me to have some anxiety around this new job; after all, you're walking into an unfamiliar place, meeting unfamiliar people, and are tackling unfamiliar problems; hell, Howard Roark would probably even have some anxiety. Sorry for the anecdote, but when I used to play basketball competitively, I knew I was better than every other man out on the court, yet I would still be nervous before tip off. I had great skills, was confident in my ability, etc, yet the nervousness was still there before EVERY single game ( I even remember thinking to myself, "Nick, why the hell are you so nervous, not one of these guys can beat you...yet it would always be there). So maybe nervousness isn't such a bad thing but a normal emotional response to what the future may bring. Hell, even Micheal Jordan got nervous before games. Anyhow, hope this helps Nick

Oh, and also, I've read in several places that his material was burned by OUR US government (the same one that suppose to protect liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc)...regardless of how ludicrous his works may have seemed, censorship of any kind is quite scary.

Is anyone familiar with the works and thoughts of Reich and or psychotherapy in general? According to some psychotherapists and Reich, when an individual goes through trauma, the body (in its nervous system) remembers the trauma and holds onto it in the form of "armoring"--a term coined by Reich. Apparently, Reich didn't believe that anyone experiencing some sort of trauma could be fixed via psychotherapy alone--there'd have to be some sort of bodywork involved in order to trigger the body's remembering of the incident--otherwise, an individual could be completely cognizant of a traumatic incident (say, incestuous relations b/t a son and father) but b/c the body wouldn't let go of it, neither could the mind. Let me give a pretend example to help concretize my confusing paragraph above: Pretend a 25 year old woman is traumatically raped while going for a jog. For the next few years, she experiences intense depression and cannot seem to figure out why. She goes to a psychoanalyst who puts who through a series of tests and comes to figure out that her depression is probably a result of the traumatic rape. The unveiling of this knowledge to the woman doesn't help her at all with her depression, but merely restates a fact. The psychoanalyst doesn't know how to fix her depression and decides to refer her to a Reichian bodyworker/psychotherapist. The Reichian beings to work her diaphragm during the session, asking her to take nice, deep controlled breaths. After a minute or so of this work, the women begins to shake, cry, and mildly hyperventilate--all of which she ellicited during the rape. They finish the session have a few follow up ones, and the woman's depression quickly begins to go away. END OF EXAMPLE The Reichian bodyworker would probably say that the woman had built up armoring from the rape, and that the bodywork reminded her of the incident, but the shaking, crying, and mild hyperventilation were the ways she needed to get rid of the rape form her body and thus subconscious. Anyhow, I have more to say if anyone's interested, but I'm curious about anyone's thoughts or opinions on the matter.

Andro would you mind offering me an example of something you wouldn't do due to being afraid of the judgements of others? And when you say their judgement had some very big importance to you, in what way did it have that effect? What part didn't you buy? Bold is mine..hopefully that makes some sense to you Andro, if it doesn't, ask and I'll explain. I think, to a certain extent, we all need some type of social relationship (using the term loosely). The person who lives in complete isolation will probably not stay sane for too long. As before, and example of a situation as such would be nice . When you do get nervous or scared by your confronters, have you tried verbalizing your feelings to them? I would occasionally fall into this mind frame too, and I consider myself to be quite selfish. It is possible for a certain action to be either selfish or altruistic, depending on the context and the reason for why one is behaving so. For instance, in the above case, so long as you are receiving some sort of benefit from your actions, and so long as there are no sacrifices involved (i.e. a higher value for a lesser one), then you are acting selfish. Selfishness does not mean inconsiderateness. Here's another example: If you are waiting in line and the person behind you seems to have some sort of urgency and you decide to let then step infront of you, that could be considered a selfish act. Maybe you value helping him relieve his urgency more so than you do having to spend two more minutes in line knowing someoone behind you has some sort of urgency. You must, to some degree, "care" about others, if you didn't you'd probably end up dead in no time. Caring for others can be as simple as recognizing them as humans beings with the same inalienable rights that you have. Hopefully I've cleared some things up, and remember, be selfish!

When not at school, I don't really socialize; I workout for a few hours, read books, study my vocab, dance to music, daydream, and work on my creativity...go to bed, wake up, rinse and repeat. Loneliness? It used to strike me but not anymore, and I'm almost completely happy with where I am in terms of social relationships, or lack thereof. *Cough*narcissism*Cough* But honestly, how interest are you in your self? How interested are you in setting personal goals, whether minute or grand, and accomplishing them? Do you consistently challenge yourself mentally and physically? So my answer to this question: is to turn that desire inward. Also, if you're wondering if there are other humans out there and you're occasionally feeling the need to connect with someone to express thoughts, feelings, etc., try "opening up" to someone and see what happens. Obviously you don't spill all your deep philosophical thoughts on him at one time but gradually. Personally, I don't mind talking to other individuals who's opinions I am diametrically opposed to so long as they are able to hold an intelligent conversation...plus I always enjoy finding out why people believe what they believe. Anyhow, sorry if it doesn't help, but those are just some ideas that have worked for me. Hope all goes well and have fun ! Peace

Welcome Tom. I'd also like to here some of your piano playing

Yeah, just ask Muhamad Ahli. This has absolutely no bearing on the matter. What is the essential similarity b/t assassination and gladiatory--the fact that one man is killing another? It can't be, since both men have agreed to participate. This is nothing like an assassination: the assassinated didn't agree upon being the prey. You're right. They aren't volunteering to die, no more so than any American solider. They are volunteering to engage in combat, with the known and possibly probable risk of death. What does this have to do w/ a violation of rights? You're context dropping. You're forgetting that the men have agreed to risks their lives' in whatever way they see fit for whatever benefits may be rewarded to them if they win. Gladiatory may be disgusting, revolting, and "irrational" in a sense that the risk of participation definitely outweighs any type of benefit, be it monetary or something else. But nevertheless, the battle and the circumstances were agreed upon by both participants, each of who has a right to his own life.

Sign me up! I've always thought we were missing gladiator-like combat in our society. I don't see why not. The right to one's own life means that one may dispose of one's life if one so chooses and however one chooses, so long as it does not conflict with the rights of others; thus, MAY THE FIGHTING BEGIN! A few years back, there was an event called the U.F.C. (The Ultimate Fighting Championship) which still exists today, but in a watered down form. Two fighters would go against each other untill one of them came out victorious. There were basically no rules, and, if I remember correctly, the only attack a fighter could not do was eye gouging and biting; everything else was legal (even neutering blows to the testicles). There was a referee to stop the fight if things got bad or if an opponent was knocked unconscious; however, if you've seem any of the UFC footage, you'll notice that it's no joke and one could easily die in the ring. Anyways...we were so close!!

hahahah lmao, dond, you're my hero!

Since rational people still have the capability to "go postal" so to speak, a government is needed to protect against this possibility. And of course, there will always be a need to protect against foreign invasion. I don't think mutual arbitration is feasible since there would need to be some principles or laws that everyone would operate off of in order for the mutual arbitrartion to work properly. The only institution that could do this would be some form of government. Our discussion here also leads us to define the term 'rational person.' There are people who I consider to be rational even though they may not agree entirely with Objectivism--in which case (since our principles may differ), we'd definitely need a government to resolve rational disputes.

Hi Bobby and welcome to the forum. Have you had the opportunity to read any Objectivist non-fiction? If so, which ones? Ahh if only we didn't have choice . There are some interesting threads on this forum regarding the need for government even in a society replete with Objectivists. I'd suggest you take a look at them and see what you think. Who knows, maybe you'll change your mind about the role government plays even in a society of rational individuals. Welcome aboard Nick

This definition (if you can even call it that) is contrary to any definition of altruism that I've found. Altruism IS selflessness. Practice complete selflessness for three days and if you are able to come back and describe what a wonderful experience it was, I'll give altruism more inspection and consideration. If this "type" of altruism is not your position, then what exactly IS your position? What is the difference between this view here and Objectivism's idea of living for one's self?

Humor is anything that makes one laugh. To be humorous is to have the capability of making one laugh. Genus=Anything (indicating humor's connection to a wider group of existent's) Differentia=Making one laugh (distinguishing it from all other existents) Now THAT's a humorous definition! *runs away laughing while Burgess gives him a reprimanding look* Honestly though, after some minutes of thinking, that's the best I can come up with for a definition--although "anything" should probably be switched with "an emotional response." To a certain extent. If a person is consistently funny--that is to say, if I hang out with him and he makes me laugh or chuckle a few times in a time frame of twenty minutes, then I must call him intelligent. Now, as to the purpose of humor--it's simply to ellicit an emotional response of laughter. The next logical question is, "What's the purpose of laughter?" That one I'm not sure I'm ready to tackle; however, we do know that people voluntarily go out and seek laughter (as in the case of watching a comedian), so there must be a purpose behind this. The purpose, I will presume, is psychological release.

Yes, Ayn Rand did say that, but with what argumentation did she back it up with? To me it (the issue of femininity) definitely doesn't seem self-evident.

I've got that one as well, t'will be interested to see what it's like.