DallasCowboys

Hey all,

I was going through yahoo news (I think it was yahoo) the other day and there was some article about how Homosexuality is a choice. Now this idea of homosexuality being a choice never made sense to me but not in the way you think. I never understood why it being a choice matters. Who cares if you choose to be gay or if you are biologically that way. Why do people even debate this issue of choice with homosexuality? Nobody debates choice with regard to hetrosexual people or with regard to any other issue of preference. Am I missing something?

Thanks,

David C.

Hey all,

This semester I am taking my third philosophy class and this one focuses on Metaphysics. Today the lecture centered on the perception of reality and its existence and I must admit I am little confused on how Ayn Rand explains reality. I understand that A is A and that reality exists regardless of someones perspective, so I got that part down. What I am confused about is how she proves reality exists in the first place. Everything I find boils down to the word Consciousness and I don't really understand how she defines the word.

Thanks,

David C.

With property rights as a primary we could go back to slavery by individuals voluntarily selling themselves into slavery. Or parents could have property rights in children and sell them off into prostitution. "Get your little girl here! Get your little girl here!" If you can't do that with your own children--horrors!--do it with your slaves or your slaves' children. Or just indulge yourself. Why do you think there's so much white blood in "black" folks?

--Brant

it might have been love too--go ask Jefferson about Sally

Before I start, I apologzie to everyone for writing ethical question than saying if it should be legal. My question was meant purley in a legal sense. Now with regard to Brant's points. Three things. One, you introduced premises that I outlawed in my question, such as being drunk when you sign the papers. You also mentioned being mad when I signed the contract. Emotions can't be controlled so they can't be brought into the discussion. I may sign a big sports contract when I was feeling happy but regret it the next second, that doesn't mean I can bail out on my contract. Two, what defines signing oneself into slavery? If I want to sign myself into slavery as a rational being and not be paid for it then should not that be my choice? I don't see why someone would want to do that but it is their choice. Three, bringing children into the argument is unfair because when do children mature beyond the state of non-rational dependence. Children bring about a slippery slope in Objectivism, how can a parent treat their own child, what are the boundaries? I can't make my child go into prostitution but I can force them to eat their veggies. One is obviously far more extreme but where is the line drawn where I can't force my child into doing something.

Thanks,

David C.

Well, seriously, no. You have two guys initiating force which is against the law therefore.

So you are also opposed to boxing and football?

Football and Boxings goal isn't death. In football I can't finish off an injured player. F.Y.I. I am playing devils advocate because I think it should be legal for people to fight to death.

Hey Guys/Gals,

My question is pretty simple, should two consenting, sober adults be legally allowed to fight to the death?

Thanks,

David C.

My question really is this, did the American economy really recover in the 1980's or just we just let the debt continue to rise and ignore it?

The U.S. economy did much better in the 1980s than the 1970s. Real GDP numbers can be found here. Some of the growth was due to government spending. Rothbard was correct about federal government deficits during the Reagan years. Deficit numbers can be found here.

Much of the improvement was due to the Federal Reserve, Paul Volker in particular. Inflation got much higher in the 1970s and reached about 13% in 1980. Fed policy, led by Volker, reduced inflation to about 4% by 1984. Volker was appointed by Carter, not Reagen. Also, the effect of the deficits on the U.S. economy were much mitigated due to inflows of foreign capital.

Thank you this pretty much answered my question.

Hey all,

I was in class today and the topic was Reagan. My teacher being pretty liberal began class by going on this tirade against Reagan and I was gonna lose it, he was claiming Reagan was a Keynes supporter and I was just about to fire back but I decided to do some research first and what I found kinda shocked me. I found this article http://mises.org/library/myths-reaganomics

and I slowly began to realize two things upon further research.1. I don't understand why conservatives support Reagan, his policies are pretty far from conservative ideals. 2. I don't think I can find a time period in the last 60 years where the American economy was truly free. My question really is this, did the American economy really recover in the 1980's or just we just let the debt continue to rise and ignore it?

Thanks,

David C.

They're not "state holidays", they're simply " holidays".

In certain states some holidays are declared by the state.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0002069.html

Brant is right. There's very little development of Anthem's female character. We can't even call her a female lead. She's a plot tool. A question for you, Cowboy. If that character had been male, would you be asking these questions?

Yes, they could be male or female. On a side note I don't believe they are a plot tool because then story could exist and be pretty much the same without them. She put them in there not to further plot but to make a specific point about male/female relations which in anthem differs from other books such as Atlas Shrugged.

David,

I forgot where I read that. I think it was in one of the older O-Land groups or on an article by someone who participated.

On Googling, here are the numbers I remember from the 1991 Book of the Month Club survey of the Library of Congress: There were 2,032 responses. See here. Look at the blurb in that article for the information, not the text, which is misleading.

Anyway, here's how it works. Someone in O-Land gets wind that there is a survey being taken. Said person spreads the word to all Rand fans possible to vote in the survey and get others to vote. They call, email, visit houses, turn it into a voting campaign to get Rand's books up as high as possible on the survey, even though everybody knows this will misrepresent reality. If it's possible to vote more than once, they are encouraged to keep voting over and over.

In other words, they treat surveys as competitions to win unearned prestige for Rand, not as surveys to gather information on actual prestige. I think the whole enterprise is silly. Rand's impact on the culture is real and does not depend on faking reality.

On further Googling, I came across a good source that goes into this: Atlas Shrugged FAQ at the Objectivism Reference Center. Scroll down to question "6.4 Is it true that Atlas Shrugged is the second most influential book ever written?" Here's the full quote:

No one knows exactly how influential Atlas Shrugged is, because there has never been a proper study done to check. The "second most influential" claim comes from a Survey of Lifetime Reading Habits conducted in 1991 by the Book-of-the-Month Club and the Library of Congress. Printed surveys were sent to members of the Club, asking them what books had most influenced their own lives. A little over 2,000 responses were received. The Bible ranked first, and Atlas Shrugged ranked a distant second. Because the survey targeted an audience of book lovers (members of the Club) and an active effort was required to mail in a response, it is likely that the results were skewed towards people who were influenced especially strongly by a particular book. Such a result cannot be reliably interpreted as reflecting the entire US population, although enthusiastic promoters of the novel sometimes make such claims. (The survey is also often inaccurately described as a "poll" or "study," and various incorrect sources are cited for it.)

Similar concerns affect a more recent list to an even greater degree. In 1998, book publisher Random House ran an online vote asking readers to name the "best" English-language novels of the 20th century. Atlas Shrugged placed first in this vote, with Rand's other novels placing high on the list as well. However, there was a considerable amount of campaigning by special-interest groups to promote particular authors and books. There were also only limited controls to prevent repeat voting and other "ballot stuffing" techniques. In the end, the results probably reflected the intensity of feeling among the most highly motived voters as much or more than the breadth of support for any of the top vote-getters.

Because of the limitations of these surveys, some critics attack them as "invalid" or "unscientific," but that isn't entirely accurate. The survey results are legitimate as long as one understands their biases and limitations. They reflect the strength of influence that the books listed have had on the specific groups involved in the surveys. What is invalid and unscientific is to attempt to generalize the findings beyond those groups without accounting for the skewed participation.

I saw this up close on RoR. There is a section called "Activism" which is no longer very active. The most favored projects back when I participated on the forum were finding surveys where Rand-related works and people were possible to vote for and spiking them. You even got incentives like RoR Atlas points for taking part. The more you voted, the more Atlas points you got.

This, coming from a philosophy where the virtue of integrity is supposed to be one of the top values.

In my view, that kind of bullshit tarnishes the image of Objectivists, if not the philosophy, when people find out.

Michael

Thank you for supporting your claim. I just want to point out how the number I got was listed on Wikipedia which I now have learned is quite misleading. On the Atlas Shrugged page it says "According to a 1991 survey done for the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club, Atlas Shrugged was situated between the Bibleand M. Scott Peck's The Road Less Traveled as the book that made the most difference in the lives of 5,000 Book-of-the-Month club members surveyed, with a "large gap existing between the #1 book and the rest of the list"". 5,000 people were sent the survey but only around 2000 responded. The definition of surveyed is technically just to ask the question but doesn’t mean you have to respond. Regardless I completely agree, that these kind of studies hurt the philosophy.

Go get yourself woman and find out who's really submissive to whom.

--Brant

I am not sure but I am assuming this is supposed to be a joke, if so then it is a funny stereotype. If it is serious then I disagree because I have been in my share of relationships and it really depends on the situation with regard to who is submissive to whom. On a side note this doesn't really address my question.

It's what I call a "think joke." All my jokes are think jokes--being a thinker, natch. In any case, I think of that woman as a prop necessary to give the protagonist an existence, a future. Just an embryo for future Rand female characters. It's interesting to note that the main, dominant characters in Rand's novels are Kira and Dagny with Dominique more ambivalent to her novel. Not so in Anthem. Or, you may have confused submissive with undeveloped. You might do better to examine Kira's character for your idea of submission. There's really no traction for that in this little diamond of a story.

--Brant

Your point is fair but I think there are plenty of examples in Anthem to support my claim as I have provided. I feel that in Anthem Ayn Rand mixes the idea of Hero Worship with submission and blind following. Even though the story is short she does develop the Golden One enough for me to form an opinion.

It's been a while since I read the book, but as I recall, the two gave each other names. He called her The Golden One, she called him The Unconquered. I thought of it as something like terms of endearment, pet names like "sweetheart" and "honey" but with a great deal more meaning under the circumstances.

Also, you have to keep in mind that Rand's female characters practice hero worship. It's part of her psychology that shows up consistently in her work.

Thanks for the response. I am talking about when he names himself Prometheus and he names her Gaia. And I believe Hero Worship is different from blind submission.

See the movie Enemy. You won't think 6-foot spiders are cool afterward. Actually, just watch the last 5 minutes of the movie Enemy.

As to Derek's question... unicorns! With sparkles!

I will definitely check it out. Lets just agree Unicorns with sparkles would so awesome it would be beyond words.

Forget it. The recent failure of Atlas Shrugged has iced the possibility of another Rand adaptation for at least thirty years.

I totally agree, the problem is the films aren't just reviewed bad they didn't make a lot of money. If they had made money but were terrible films they would have a chance.

I listened to the beginning 3 or 4 minutes and had to stop.

Molyneux starts with the famous surveys, like the one where Atlas Shrugged was considered by the American public as second in influence only to the Bible. It's a well known fact that the voting in these surveys was spiked by Rand fans. And if I remember correctly, the sample was around 2,000 or so. Yet he presents the results as if they were established fact for the entire culture.

That's one "truth about Ayn Rand" that's pretty misleading in his catalog of "truths."

I might watch the rest, but up to the point I saw, it looked like a sophomoric collection of factoids gleaned from Google and regurgitated in one fell swoop like a theme paper or class assignment. That's good for sophomores in school, I guess, but not much value otherwise.

Michael

From what I could find the survey was done in 1991 of 5000 Book Club of The Month members and I couldn't find anything on it being Spiked by Ayn Rand Fans. Regardless I agree it shouldn't be used to represent all of American Culture but I was just interested where I could find the fact showing it was spiked.

Just got in from seeing this at the 4 dollar theater and it was pretty good.

The Xenophobia was really on display in this one.

It reminds me of a question I would ask people-

What mythological creature would you like to see found in real life (I personally would love to see Mermaids found) After a discussion on what creatures they love then we talk about what if some individuals decided to cage this newly discovered creatures. Centaurs on display for example. Most of the time the person says that they would be against caging members of a new civilization..... except in the example of Giant spiders. Everyone agrees that if we found a colony of 6 foot giant spiders living in a remote part of the jungle, even if they are hundreds of miles from any human outpost, we should still firebomb the spiders land! The fear is real

Spiders are actually quite misunderstood.

http://listverse.com/2014/10/10/10-ways-spiders-are-just-misunderstood/

I for one would think Six Foot Spiders would be pretty cool. The silk would be an awesome thing to harvest because I am assuming it would be pretty darn strong. With regard to the question I would love to see the Chimera. They have always fascinated me because it is the perfect combination of one of the Strongest large predators (Lion) and one of the Strongest small predators (Snake). Plus the fire breathing just puts it over the top.

Go get yourself woman and find out who's really submissive to whom.

--Brant

I am not sure but I am assuming this is supposed to be a joke, if so then it is a funny stereotype. If it is serious then I disagree because I have been in my share of relationships and it really depends on the situation with regard to who is submissive to whom. On a side note this doesn't really address my question.

Ayn Rands philosophy centers on individualism and the Golden One can't be any further from that.

Think of the context. The Golden One grew up in an environment of total submission to the authorities, the World Council. People who show signs of individualism are burned at the stake. Falling in love with Equality 7521 and choosing to follow him was a once in a century deviation in her world, punishable by death. She was brave beyond description.

Thank you for the response. My problem with your answer is you didn't entirely address my question. I am not arguing whether or not the Golden One was brave for leaving the World Council but that doesn't mean she isn't submissive to Equality 7521. Just because she left a submissive world doesn't mean she hasn't joined another.

I just finished reading anthem and I will say it was a great book but I must say the role of the Golden One confused me. Ayn Rands philosophy centers on individualism and the Golden One can't be any further from that. They are completely submissive to Equality 7521. Here are a couple examples-

1. When meeting Equality 7521 The Golden One agrees to do anything the Equality asks of them.

Even if they had the highest respect for the Equality they shouldn't blindly follow them.

2. Equality 7521 doesn't even let the Golden One choose their own name.

Isn't your name the best example of individualism and they don't even choose their own.

Let me know what you guys/gals think

Hey Guys/Gals,

Before I make my point let me give some back story first. Today in my Seminar History class in which we focus on Indian History I had to give a presentation and to be honest my presentation was pretty bad, and I felt damn near foolish when I finished; good thing it was not graded. Upon going back to my seat and feeling like a idiot it hit me how useless college is. The reason my presentation was bad was because I didn't put the effort in and I didn't put the effort in because I don't like Indian History. This point basically summarizes all of what college is to me, being forced to take classes that I don't enjoy to fill a requirement. Everything beyond basic math, science, and history which to me ended by around 7th grade I have learned on my own. The reason I made the effort to learn it, is because I enjoy it, plain and simple. I enjoy philosophy so I took it upon myself to learn it. Now I am not saying I haven't learned anything in college, I am saying that everything I learned was either useless to me or something I would have due to personal interest eventually learned on my own. What do you guys/gals think? Is college worth it?

Thanks,

David C. (Cowboys are in first place by the way incase nobody noticed haha)

“Have you ever felt the longing for someone you could admire? For something, not to look down at, but up to?”
― Ayn Rand

Isn't it the case that during that time blood lines were still highly valued? Therefore while it may have been possible for the average citizen to accumulate capital in order to buy some land, many times they would be blocked from buying it because they were not of noble decent. Much like black people were blocked from buying into neighborhoods and today buyers of extremely high end art work are literally chosen by the dealer for their added provenance, less prominent buyers would be turned away regardless of whether they can afford the art or not. Voltaire, though rich, had to flee France because he wasn't of proper lineage and he got into a beef with someone who was.

If what I'm saying is true than that is definitely a form of oppression

This is an excellent point that I simply hadn't thought of. This basically answers my whole questions, thanks.

Also, since we are in a correcting mood...

"william.scherk suggested I read the wiki page but even it has a pretty bias biased stance on the matter,.."

A...

I seem to be one being corrected haha

per say?

per se (Latin: in itself)

I fixed it , I worded it poorly.

In response to the Mr. Lee points-

1. Lillian Rearden is not ugly (Physically), she isn't as beautiful as Dagny but she isn't ugly.

2. As is said in the novel multiple times, Rearden Metal is safe, If I remember correctly Dagny even says that she looked at Reardens research and concluded it was safe. Plus, nobody is ever forced to ride on a track with Rearden Metal.

3. The only person who gets anything through violence is Ragnar but as he explains he is simply taking back what was stolen.

4. As jts said anything the government did, the free market could and/or has done better.

5. This is simply not true, the objectivist philosophy looks quite badly on being jealous- being jealous shows low self esteem.

6. Simply an Ignorant statement as jts and Derek have shown

7. When does she ever say pollution is pretty, she found work and production beautiful, Mr. Lee is forcing the connection between work and pollution.

8. Mr. Lee was clearly running out of points.

9. This is a clear misunderstanding, money shows which men have reached as Ayn Rand said "a high level of productivity".

10. Ayn Rand lived in a time when smokings side effects were not nearly as well known as they are today.