Welcome

[Alfonso Jones]

Welcome to Objectivist Living, Darrin!

I think you'll find this an interesting group - always ready for a discussion. So - make yourself comfortable, ask questions or post your thoughts, and enjoy.

Tell us more about the theological discussions. You'll find we have a lot of very interesting backgrounds among the people who frequent Objectivist Living (OL).

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Lukon]

Hellz ya. I am Luke from Olympia, graduate of The Evergreen State College.

I'm not an Objectivist, but I know a lot about it.

I'm a secular benevolist. (See http://www.myspace.com/benevolism)

I recently got involved with a Seattle Objectivist meetup group but I've been making too many enemies there. They discover the depth of my rejection of morality and dismiss me as "unworthy" of further communication.

I posted the following to their list, but it has not prevented new enemies. Maybe it will prevent some here.

I want to express my thanks to those of you who bother reading my posts, and especially those who respond.

I suspect I must frustrate some of you with my questions and challenges to Objectivism. If I do, I apologize.

Please know that I don't do this out of spite. I'm not here to hurt anyone's feelings or arouse frustration and anger. I assure you, "the glee of the destroyer" does not motivate me here.

So please allow me to explain where I'm coming from, in the hopes that my doing so will make it easier for you to forgive my endless questions and challenges.

Like most people, when I see other people suffering, I wish I could do something to relieve their suffering and to bring them joy. This wish I have I call "benevolence." But in my case, I seem to have taken this benevolent wish to the extremes of seriousness. I study philosophy because of this benevolence. I want to discover whether, and to what extent and how, all people could live without suffering and with profound joy. My PRIMARY concern is NOT whether people are living qua human or being rational or virtuous or honest or even benevolent towards one another. My PRIMARY concern is whether they are getting what they most want and safe against what they most fear.

And I am continually amazed and dismayed that nobody else shares this primary concern of mine. It is a matter of sensitivity with me also. I frequently feel like crying when I'm reminded that people don't share my feelings about the human condition. Every time someone asserts that morality is more important than the relief from suffering and the joy of gratified desires, I feel pained and terribly alone. I confess that I am desperately trying to find someone who DOES feel what I do, with the passion that I do.

So please, if I ever seem testy or defensive in my postings here, consider that I'm coming from a peculiar kind of passion and desperation. I'm frustrated and sad, and I'm trying to understand everything I can about why everyone else (not just Objectivists) are primarily moved by something other than benevolence. I'm trying to understand it because it truly bewilders and frightens me.

So please have patience with me. And also realize that my passions align me on the side of realism and logic. I don't regard my emotions as tools of cognition any more than any Objectivist. My benevolence toward humanity is of such seriousness that it cannot tolerate expression through the absurdity of contradictions. I seek communications with Objectivists because they too have a seriousness that can't tolerate contradiction. Our seriousness may be of different flavors, but at least both flavors are seriousness in support of logic and the primacy of existence.

So again, thanks for reading what I write and I hope we can continue our mutual studies of Objectivism with at least a foundation of mutual respect.

-Luke-

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Luke,

Welcome to OL. You certainly look like you think with your own mind and will not be cowed into group-think. That is a very good thing.

I, too, care about people. And I, too, have conflicted with some of my colleagues because I insist on examining issues like why practicing benevolence feels so good. (I hardly ever conflict when it is abstract, like what I just said, but when I get specific and make it concrete, like part of a lecture by Wayne Dyer recounting the story of a neighborhood baseball game and Shaya, a retarded child and the reasons why this chokes most people up, feathers sometimes fly.)

My perspective is a bit different than yours, though. I look through two filters at these things: philosophy and biology (psychology), especially human nature. I looked at your MySpace page and I see that you are engaged in seeking a philosophy about caring for others. (btw - I fixed your link since a leftover ")" sign in the URL was blocking it.)

Despite a lot of thought I have given this (and I think you would do well to examine psychology and human nature in depth), I say go for it. I think something good can be built on it. With one observation. After bouncing your ideas around some of the highly intelligent people you will find here (ones a bit more receptive than orthodox Objectivists to a theme such as yours), you might find that your final product will be quite different than you imagine it now.

As you are looking for people of goodwill to examine your ideas, I suggest you examine the ideas of others with the same goodwill. (Keeping an open mind and expecting the same with others without anyone having a wide open mind, as Rand once quipped.) And it will all be good. For everybody involved.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Hellz ya. I am Luke from Olympia, graduate of The Evergreen State College.

I'm not an Objectivist, but I know a lot about it.

I'm a secular benevolist. (See http://www.myspace.com/benevolism)

I recently got involved with a Seattle Objectivist meetup group but I've been making too many enemies there. They discover the depth of my rejection of morality and dismiss me as "unworthy" of further communication.

I posted the following to their list, but it has not prevented new enemies. Maybe it will prevent some here.

I want to express my thanks to those of you who bother reading my posts, and especially those who respond.

I suspect I must frustrate some of you with my questions and challenges to Objectivism. If I do, I apologize.

Please know that I don't do this out of spite. I'm not here to hurt anyone's feelings or arouse frustration and anger. I assure you, "the glee of the destroyer" does not motivate me here.

So please allow me to explain where I'm coming from, in the hopes that my doing so will make it easier for you to forgive my endless questions and challenges.

Like most people, when I see other people suffering, I wish I could do something to relieve their suffering and to bring them joy. This wish I have I call "benevolence." But in my case, I seem to have taken this benevolent wish to the extremes of seriousness. I study philosophy because of this benevolence. I want to discover whether, and to what extent and how, all people could live without suffering and with profound joy. My PRIMARY concern is NOT whether people are living qua human or being rational or virtuous or honest or even benevolent towards one another. My PRIMARY concern is whether they are getting what they most want and safe against what they most fear.

And I am continually amazed and dismayed that nobody else shares this primary concern of mine. It is a matter of sensitivity with me also. I frequently feel like crying when I'm reminded that people don't share my feelings about the human condition. Every time someone asserts that morality is more important than the relief from suffering and the joy of gratified desires, I feel pained and terribly alone. I confess that I am desperately trying to find someone who DOES feel what I do, with the passion that I do.

So please, if I ever seem testy or defensive in my postings here, consider that I'm coming from a peculiar kind of passion and desperation. I'm frustrated and sad, and I'm trying to understand everything I can about why everyone else (not just Objectivists) are primarily moved by something other than benevolence. I'm trying to understand it because it truly bewilders and frightens me.

So please have patience with me. And also realize that my passions align me on the side of realism and logic. I don't regard my emotions as tools of cognition any more than any Objectivist. My benevolence toward humanity is of such seriousness that it cannot tolerate expression through the absurdity of contradictions. I seek communications with Objectivists because they too have a seriousness that can't tolerate contradiction. Our seriousness may be of different flavors, but at least both flavors are seriousness in support of logic and the primacy of existence.

So again, thanks for reading what I write and I hope we can continue our mutual studies of Objectivism with at least a foundation of mutual respect.

-Luke-

There is nothing wrong with wanting the world to be a decent place for us to live together and a good place to raise children. I infer that you care about the neighborhood (meaning the world). That is a sane impulse and inclination.

Now, once we are past our Good Feelings we have to get down to the business of determining how the world can become a better place and how to get their without trampling unjustly on the rights of people. THAT is a non-trivial problem! THAT is going to require a tough mind as much (or even more) than a tender heart. The fact that you want to get an answer to the question/problem speaks well of your mind and motives.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Kat]

Hi Luke,

Welcome to Objectivist Living. I hope you enjoy it here.

I'm not sure how your philosophy of benevolence differs from Objectivism or humanism or what the similarities are, but that would be an interesting topic to explore. I would also like to hear about what you call your rejection of morality. Are you talking about how Christians base morality on faith or how altruists base it on sacrifice, or something completely different. I consider Objectivism to be a very moral and benevolent philosophy and am curious to know what you agree or disagree with in this area.

Kat

[Lukon]

Thanks for your greeting, Kat.

I would also like to hear about what you call your rejection of morality. Are you talking about how Christians base morality on faith or how altruists base it on sacrifice, or something completely different.

The most precise way I can describe it is:

I am a meta-ethical agnostic. This means I'm not sure one way or the other whether morality is a valid concept. I do not know whether moral right and wrong exist. This is like being a theological agnostic wherein one does not know for sure whether God exists. I am both types of agnostic. I see no evidence or satisfactory argument for the validity of either. But my lack of belief does not mean I'm convinced in their non-existence either. I wait for more convincing evidence.

-Luke-

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This means I'm not sure one way or the other whether morality is a valid concept.

Luke,

I thought you were passionate about caring for others, that you consider this as the good. Is that valid for you?

That's one kind of morality.

Michael

[Lukon]

This means I'm not sure one way or the other whether morality is a valid concept.

Luke,

I thought you were passionate about caring for others, that you consider this as the good. Is that valid for you?

That's one kind of morality.

Michael

No. That is not valid for me. I do not consider caring for others as a moral issue. Caring for others is just caring for others, a personal, subjective feeling. It doesn't need to be a moral issue. In fact, I would go further and say that caring for others CANNOT be a moral issue. Caring for others and morality don't mix. It doesn't mix for altruism, nor objectivism, nor any morality whatever. Such is my current thinking on the matter.

I suspect what I'm saying is very alien to you (and everyone), and that you currently see no alternative to interpreting my stance through morality. I'll be challenging that interpretation. I've recently thought to myself that if ever I manage to get another person to understand me, 80% of the work will be in getting them to understand why I believe morality and caring for others don't mix.

-Luke-

[Brant Gaede]

This means I'm not sure one way or the other whether morality is a valid concept.

Luke,

I thought you were passionate about caring for others, that you consider this as the good. Is that valid for you?

That's one kind of morality.

Michael

No. That is not valid for me. I do not consider caring for others as a moral issue. Caring for others is just caring for others, a personal, subjective feeling. It doesn't need to be a moral issue. In fact, I would go further and say that caring for others CANNOT be a moral issue. Caring for others and morality don't mix. It doesn't mix for altruism, nor objectivism, nor any morality whatever. Such is my current thinking on the matter.

I suspect what I'm saying is very alien to you (and everyone), and that you currently see no alternative to interpreting my stance through morality. I'll be challenging that interpretation. I've recently thought to myself that if ever I manage to get another person to understand me, 80% of the work will be in getting them to understand why I believe morality and caring for others don't mix.

-Luke-

Morality and caring for others don't mix if one has no choice. All choices are moral choices because it is choosing and morality that are inextricably intertwined. They can't be separated at the most basic level. They can be seperated cognitively as one considers what to do and why. Thinking is the factory of morality in action. The resultant action is moral action. That is why only humans are moral agents. This leaves open the question of what morality?

--Brant

Edited October 5, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I do not consider caring for others as a moral issue. Caring for others is just caring for others, a personal, subjective feeling. It doesn't need to be a moral issue. In fact, I would go further and say that caring for others CANNOT be a moral issue. Caring for others and morality don't mix. It doesn't mix for altruism, nor objectivism, nor any morality whatever. Such is my current thinking on the matter.

Luke,

Maybe it would be good to define caring for others. You just called that a feeling. Thus you do not consider this a value? Would it be fair to say that caring for others (in your view as simply a feeling) is something like being bored at a lecture or rooting for a team at a football game?

Michael

[Kat]

I'm confused. Can you define morality for me. I think of morality in terms of being ones own personal code of values as far as what is ethical and good and guides actions as far as doing what is right according to your code of values. I am just speaking for myself and not digging into what Ayn Rand or Objectivist literature has to say. That would take some looking up.

So are you saying that helping others is always morally value neutral? ... Even if it makes you and others happy and it is in your rational self interest and that of others?

Kat

[Lukon]

I propose we postpone discussion of this issue until I create a new topic space devoted to it. I think we've done more than just welcome me to OL here, and it's probably making this welcome topic "too weighty" for many. So hey, thanks for the welcome!

-Luke-

[Chris Grieb]

Luke; A belated welcome. Your posts look weighty.

[Will]

Hi, my name is Will, and introducing myself to you from England, a geographical region you will all be familiar with, though perhaps what you will not know is that it is an area that is no longer politcally recognised by the bastion of bad deeds full of (some) good intentions, the European Union. England does not exist! Even our weathermen refer to the weather of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, but never of England, but rather the so-called EU denoted regions of England (EU link)

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/publ...amp;language=EN

So to say I am from England is my small act of politcal rebellion which I hope you will appreciate.

Alas Europe (old & new) is an area of the world that is an intellectual wasteland for new ideas in the realm of philosophy. Yes, the intellectual standard of most English folk is as bad as their teeth!

So why am I here, what is my background and what was my journey to Rand?

As you will gather from my intro my main interest is political, and in this respect I was attracted to Ayn Rand's work after finding out about her existence and her viewpoint that favoured a limited government philosophy though the early objectivist-based writings of Frank R Wallace and his Neo-Tech works. Like yourselves Mr Wallace viewed that objectivism should be an open-system, and his writings were responsible for my interest in philosophical matters beyond capitalism.

And so it was that I was I was introduced to writings on objective moral standards, on the proper purpose and role of emotions, on metaphysics, on the proper role of concepts and on objective versus subjective laws. This point in my life was my intellectual awakening after being only interested in football (soccer) throughout my years of state education, a period in which my brain was dulled with the bordeom of what passed for teaching.

My exposure to pro-capitalist writings was driven by a desire to understand business whilst working on a business college course prior to attending University for a business related degree. I could see the inherent good in profits without necessarily understanding why they were good and it is safe to say that I was never a socialist in spirit.

What my parents lacked in child-raising skills, they at least did not foist on my brain the drivel of religion and I was a born and raised a quiet skeptical atheist that never thought of God, and had an innate dislike for any religious element in Wedding cermonies or funerals I was dragged along to attend. I still struggle to enter a Church to this day even though I do appreciate the technical skills of the stonemason and architect who built these structures 900 years ago. My atheism these days is of the strong kind and I will happily, confidently assert "God does not exist" if asked.

I was pretty much a capitalist before arriving at the open objectivism of Neo-Tech and the natural progression that it took me to thinking about what political arrangment was conducive to promoting capitalism. After reading The Neo-Tech Discovery, and then the more useful Neo-Tech Reference Encyclopedia I was led to read the works of Rand and Branden, both of whom were equally praised by FRW.

I proceeded to read, in an order solely determined by availability in UK bookshops: The Fountainhead, We The Living, Anthem and then Atlas. Once the internet avenue was opened up to me I was then able to access Branden's books on Self Esteem which were not (and still not?) on sale in UK high street bookshops. The Rand non-fiction library followed quickly thanks to Amazon.com.

Other great books read at this time included George H Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God and Julian Jaynes: The Origin of Consciousness, the latter a fabulous thesis that introduced the Bicameral Mind concept to my understanding of human relationships and how people allow their minds to be controlled by others thinking.

In the space of five years or so, combined with studying for my degree, I had travelled a huge distance in self-education and one that continues to this day.

Anyway I think that is enough for now and thank you for your time. I look forward to being amongst you all.

Best regards

Will

[kiaer.ts]

Welcome, Will. Julian Jaynes? A brilliant book, his. Have you read Merlin Donald's Origins of the Modern Mind? I have just picked it up, and it seems very promising. As for England, I have heard of the place. Somewhere near Massachusetts, I believe.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Will,

Welcome to OL.

NeoTech?

Heh.

It's a path, I suppose. It's a valid one if it got you to Rand and Branden.

Wallace was a very colorful person from what little I have read of him. His approach to philosophy is vastly oversimplified (for example, taking the Plato versus Aristotle thing almost as an axiom), he essentially ripped off a lot of his arguments by rewriting other material and making up his own jargon for it, and he got some things flat-out wrong. But he did get a lot right. There is one thing I greatly appreciate in his work. He was interested in the practical results of implementing ideas. He wanted people to be wealthy (by buying his products as a starting point, of course) and treated this issue as a fundamental part of his writing. There are not many Objectivists and Objectivism-friendly people who do that.

This guy was no Ivory Tower writer. His material is easy to read (what little I have read of it). If anyone reads NeoTech material with the idea of critically examining the ideas presented and trying to extract what is good from the jargon-laden gobbledygook, I believe they will benefit.

Don't be surprised if some people within the Objectivist subcommunity bash Wallace without mercy. There is a strong "us against them" attitude with many and they lean toward seeing only the bad in outsiders. Incredibly, you will find many tribal-type people attracted to Objectivism. I still find it ironic that a philosophy of individualism is used to create group-think and follow the leader personality cults.

I avoid this sense of life. I want to be neither leader nor follower of a secular church. My own leaning is toward each person thinking for himself and toward producing stuff. I am not the only one, either. You will also find many, many people who go from the same starting point I do, even if they disagree with some of my conclusions (and are gracious, albeit clear and often passionate, especially when I disagree with some of theirs). They come and go as their lives and values unfold and I make no effort to convince them to do anything other than what they find valuable.

One thing that is personally gratifying is that I always get wonderful emails thanking me (and Kat) for having a place where Objectivism (and other ideas) can be discussed openly without a lot of peer pressure and intimidation. I never ask for anything of this nature. These emails are completely spontaneous, some coming from people who have harshly criticized me in other places, and that makes them all the more valuable.

Using a human mind is serious business. A premise is not just made to be chosen. It is also made to be checked. An independent mind constantly does both and is not threatened by others who do the same.

I hope you like it here. There are many intelligent people of goodwill who post regularly on OL. I suspect you will make some friends since you appear to have the same nature.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Alas Europe (old & new) is an area of the world that is an intellectual wasteland for new ideas in the realm of philosophy. Yes, the intellectual standard of most English folk is as bad as their teeth!

It can't be all that bad. England and Scotland gave us Hobbes and Hume and England produced Isaac Newton, the smartest physicist who ever lived (smarter than Einstein, even).

It may very well be that the Continent has seen its best days many years past.

I get the impression that the Empirical Spirit still lives on in Britain so all is not lost.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[antihero3000]

Hello All,

Being new to this forum, I look forward to learn more about Objectivism from the posts and ask questions.

Thanks.

antihero3000

[Mike11]

Yo,

You'll like it here.

[anonrobt]

Joined a few days ago and jumped right in on the Aesthetics forums, overlooking this spot... been aware of this place since the great breakup of SOLO and its phoenix RoR, but lost the means to this place on the old pc, so only now refound it... ... some might know me from RoR - as Robert Malcom, a retired baker and now artist... and have been involved with Objectivism from the early 60's, tho influenced by Ayn since a child, having seen The Fountainhead back then and always remembering Cooper's speech at the trial - the most memorable bit of film ever, out of hundreds and hundreds seen over the years - and finally, in my teens, seeing the paperback on a rack in a store and wondered if it was the book on which the movie was based...

It is good seeing another Objectivist oriented spot online... and one more inclined to discussing aesthetics, the most overlooked aspect of her philosophy, even as being an artist is, in fact, being a 'spiritual visualizer'©........

Edited November 23, 2008 by anonrobt

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

antihero3000,

Welcome to OL.

Whadda name!

(Robert - I have welcomed you already, but welcome again anyway.)

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Let me add my welcome to you both.

[Will]

Will,

Welcome to OL.

NeoTech?

Heh.

It's a path, I suppose. It's a valid one if it got you to Rand and Branden.

I hope you like it here. There are many intelligent people of goodwill who post regularly on OL. I suspect you will make some friends since you appear to have the same nature.

Michael

Thanks for the welcome Michael to you and all.

[Apologies for the length of this post here, but it further explains where my thoughts are at now on objectivist ideas, as opposed to how I got here.]

Let me add to my initial post by saying that my great attraction to this site was firstly it emphasises "living consciously". That is a great strap line to use on the front page. Wonderful.

I totally agree with your comments Michael on Neo-Tech and Wallace.

Indeed, as you suggest, perhaps those within the Objectivist academic circle could learn to market these ideas better and be more agressive in showing how the ideas do relate to practical issues of day-to-day living. Of course, marketing / business are not the strong suit of academics and so it is the businessmen (such as Wallace) and artists (such as my countryman, Nicholas Dykles) who need to carry this particular responsibilty forward along with the rest of us, even the non-artists, like myself (I am an accountant by profession).

It would be fantastic to see a greater fictional representation of the ideas of objectivism than currently exist, especially in the movies and in theatres, but where are these objectivist artists who can inspire? That for me is the challenge. Perhaps ARI's school program will tempt young people of today to be those future artists who can demonstrate the ideas of what it means to live life as a human being. There is some hope at least through that tremendous value and unfortunately I can only dream of the day when Rand's fiction appears in our school classrooms.

At this point I am pleased to say I have had the pleasure of reading Nicholas Dyles's novel, "Old Nick's Guide to Happiness" this summer. I see he has recently joined this site also. It brought me great joy to see explict philosophical ideas expressed in layman terms within a fantastic story. The writing style was a beautiful example of how ideas can be explained and it is a book to include on all your gift lists this Xmas. I must also recommend Ed Cline's Sparrowhawk series, another superb demonstration of objectivist ideas though the actions of great characters.

Somehow, we all need to come up with a myriad of ways to demonstrate the practical use of these ideas we support, by creating products for people to buy that will help guide or inspire them to better actions. A pincer attack through business and the arts woud increase our challenge against the modern yet distorted and threatened society we live in. Of course, for those of us not so creative in business or the arts, the option of intellectual activism is always there.

Despite what I have said about the lack of intellectual comment in the UK, it is pleasing to report to all of you Stateside that Ayn Rand's name has been receiving great coverage in the broadsheet press over here this summer against the background of the financial crisis. Indeed, BBC Radio Four (our nationwide intellectual radio station - left-wing of course) recently dedicated a 30 minute programme to Rand presented by a well-known former politician who maintains a high profile. So, there is some hope this side of the pond, and perhaps you will be happy if I can provide this site with evidence of the increasing exposure to Rand in the media as and when it occurs here in England (Britain).

Finally, I would like to add that for me, whilst I am interested in ideas, I am less interested in the personailities behind the ideas, and by this I mean whether people such as Rand, Branden or Piekoff, are/were, or are/were not, consistent in living by the ideas they "promote" [i am sure there is a better word than "promote" but I am sure you get the gist]. It's the businessman in me.

This is one reason why I have not joined an objectivist discussion forum before. I am aware of the schism(s) in objectivism, but for me, the focus must always be on promoting ideas that are beneficial to human life. I have read the two Branden books on Ayn Rand, as well as Valliant's book, out of biographical interest, than what thye all think of each other, but quite frankly, I do not care too much for what they have to say about each other. The only important thing in life is being true to living by ideas that are beneficial to you, and testing those ideas for yourself, rather than taking sides in a school playground fight that does no credit to anybody; merely presents the media with a chance to smear and attack rather than evaluate.

Again, please accept my apologies for this lenght of post, but at least you all know where I am coming from and perhaps any further thoughts on how to market these ideas we love should be taken to a separate thread.

Best regards

Will

[arkon]

:super: GOOD EVENING OBJECTIVISTS!!!!! HOW'S EVERYBODY DOING OUT THERE?!!!!

Hey all, Jake here. Thought I'd start here. Whew! There are alot of posts! I figure if I cover a thread a day, maybe in a couple years I will be read up.... but of course there will be new ones starting... So here I am! Figured I'd just dive in as I am too lazy to read through EVERYTHING so I will have to apologize if I bring up something discussed already. Feel free to direct me where I may look. I am socialist/communist type in my political thinking lately, although really I don't think that is accurate, I just like to say it because it is different in the US I think. My philosophies are much different from anything I know of that has been or is practiced currently(politically I mean). Anywho, I have been wanting for awhile now to clarify some of my confusions and frustrations with Rand's work. Is there a good place to ask newbie questions and get harshly lambasted? If anyone is up for it, I figure that would be a much more effective way to perhaps calm some of my concerns then reading book lists and scrolling through the various threads... many of which I've looked at tend to diverge from the topic with great ease, even down to hellos and stuff in the midst of discussions(that's the entire post!).

A couple of my ideas for more clarification;

Reason(or, The "thinking man" as a goal) Vs The Industrialist (meaning, If everyone is an industrial savant, who does the grunt work?)

Idealized Capitalism vs Unresolved History (meaning, How do we overcome current inequities caused by harsh barbarism in the past by enabling these legacies to simple transfer their ill-gotten gains into the new system?)

(I believe I have already read some comments in this direction)->The legitimacy or consequences of using an idealized rather than realizable human conception to justify a philosophy, or at least a set of ideas upon which to base action. (Meaning the nigh mythic or saintly trappings in which figures like Galt appear, and how this word usage rather than any particularly grand behaviors of the character in an objective sense of how literature is written are largely responsible for the generated value of the character's symbolism and the quality of the (for lack of better grammar) philosophy purported by the story.

The Practical Objectivist (meaning, Any suggestions on physical action to promote Objectivist centered ideals and make them a physical reality? Including the conflict between current systems that affect our ability to live reasonable lives and the rational mind, or desired systems, even so far as to purport the breaking of laws as an obvious course for a reasonable person?

[Brant Gaede]

I hope you're not Victor Pross.

--Brant