fight4thefuture

It's so difficult for me to figure out what is going on with China. We're both mixed economies. A professor came to my school to give a lecture on her book "The Dragon's Gift"--China's decades long influence in Africa. She explicit said that Chinese foreign policy was "non-altruistic" and more of a business-like approach while ours was altruistic and detrimental to Africa and ourselves. A professor asked her to elaborate on her use of the term altruism and she just stuck to her argument and terminology.

"If it tastes good, spit it out."

"If man made it, don't eat it."

I just had to share this:

http://xkcd.com/610/

Amivi Gama's violent rise to power in East Timor has proved that women are just as capable as men when it comes to brutality and oppression.

Here is a quibble. You wrote: "In a heartbeat, they were seen racing back towards the hospital."

If the road was abandoned, who saw them?

Haha, God. (Just kidding)

Thanks for reading it, Michael. You are very perceptive. This story was a prototype for something larger I want to do.

Julian

This is my first story ever. It is about a doctor that is faced with a tough dilemma. He is on his way to help a patient on an emergency call when he witnesses a murder in progress. He must decide who to save, and every second counts.

http://heyjude83190.deviantart.com/art/Eme...Care-113092910#

Any comments or critiques are appreciated!

In the Hunchback of Notre-Dame, Victor Hugo included an article titled "This Will Kill That." It discusses how architecture was developed to record the ideas of men, its evolution throughout the centuries, and how the book will one day replace the edifice. I can't help but think that this may have influenced Ayn Rand in choosing architecture as a backdrop for The Fountainhead--and to record her ideas. I have never heard her say this though, so I was wondering if anyone else here may know? Otherwise, I guess we'll never know.

Excerpt: In fact, from the origin of things down to the fifteenth century of the Christian era, inclusive, architecture is the great book of humanity, the principal expression of man in his different stages of development, either as a force or as an intelligence.

When the memory of the first races felt itself overloaded, when the mass of reminiscences of the human race became so heavy and so confused that speech naked and flying, ran the risk of losing them on the way, men transcribed them on the soil in a manner which was at once the most visible, most durable, and most natural. They sealed each tradition beneath a monument.

The first monuments were simple masses of rock, "which the iron had not touched," as Moses says. Architecture began like all writing. It was first an alphabet. Men planted a stone upright, it was a letter, and each letter was a hieroglyph, and upon each hieroglyph rested a group of ideas, like the capital on the column. This is what the earliest races did everywhere, at the same moment, on the surface of the entire world. We find the "standing stones" of the Celts in Asian Siberia; in the pampas of America.

....

The generating idea, the word, was not only at the foundation of all these edifices, but also in the form. The temple of Solomon, for example, was not alone the binding of the holy book; it was the holy book itself. On each one of its concentric walls, the priests could read the word translated and manifested to the eye, and thus they followed its transformations from sanctuary to sanctuary, until they seized it in its last tabernacle, under its most concrete form, which still belonged to architecture: the arch. Thus the word was enclosed in an edifice, but its image was upon its envelope, like the human form on the coffin of a mummy.

And not only the form of edifices, but the sites selected for them, revealed the thought which they represented, according as the symbol to be expressed was graceful or grave. Greece crowned her mountains with a temple harmonious to the eye; India disembowelled hers, to chisel therein those monstrous subterranean pagodas, borne up by gigantic rows of granite elephants.

Read the rest at: http://www.online-literature.com/victor_hu...k_notre_dame/24

"I am an architect. I know what is to come by the principle on which it is built." - Ayn Rand

Thanks, mrintegrity!

I hear the words wedded to the disco-like pulse and a memorable melody (which is a relief compared to a lot of the stuff out there) touching on the issue of the mind-body dichotomy almost on a pre-verbal level. Which is more important, mind or body? Free will or genes? Are we in control of our destinies or or we mere accidents dancing to the music of blind chance, or even dancing to the music of a Higher Power?

These are good questions and we all feel them rise within us when we get reflective. It is rare to see such reflectiveness injected in a context where reflection is supposed to be turned off and a person is just supposed to feel and move.

These guys managed to do that. If anyone thinks that's easy, they should try it. I remember another older band who did this kind of stuff in a more religious vein (and a vastly different musical style): Tears for Fears, like in the song "Love is God's Mistake."

I normally don't like this kind of music (although I produced some similar stuff in Brazil), but I intend to keep an eye on The Killers.

Michael

And amen.

No, but they are directly proportional. The more advanced something is the more successful it will be.

Certainly not. Being more advanced often means also being more vulnerable. Bacteria that lived billions of years ago survived large numbers of far more advanced species. Cockroaches will probably survive us.

How does it mean being more vulnerable? Advanced means improved. Something that is improved is less vulnerable, not more vulnerable. And I refuse to believe that a cockroach is more successful than me.

Do you think we should feel guilty for having to kill innocent people in war?

Julian,

Who said anything about feeling guilty?

But let's look at it. As human nature stands, this is something most people who kill innocents in war are going to feel anyway. I dread to think what a person who feels guilty will do if he learns how to alleviate his tormenting guilt through the lesson (on a psychological and premise level) that killing innocent people can be a moral good. I'm not so sure his subconscious will be as discriminating as his conscious mind in choosing innocents the next time, especially if he is a person who likes to be good.

I think a much more realistic thing is to say that it was a terrible thing that needed to be done under extraordinary circumstances and strong wishes that it should never happen again. And if the person feels guilty, that is merely a sign that he is a human being. I see that as much healthier for those who have killed innocents in war. Through that way they can find some peace.

Ignoring the fact that most people who have killed innocents in war are going to feel guilty all by themselves is ignoring reality. Trying to program that out of people and dismissing it by saying they shouldn't feel that way in the first place (because they were performing a moral good) is a bit too much for my reality meter—in addition to the fact that it can be quite dangerous to peaceful society.

Battles are not just fought on the battlefield in war. They are also fought in people's minds and souls. Within this context, I fully believe war is hell.

Michael

What do feelings have to do with thoughts? I just thought it would help me better understand what you were advocating, and it did. All of the abstract reasoning was getting a little much for me.

You might find this interesting, Michael... From the play Think Twice featured in The Early Ayn Rand: "Ingalls: I've told you this because I wanted you to know that I don't regret it. Had circumstances forced me to take a valuable life--I wouldn't hesitate to offer my own life in return. But I don't think that of Walter. Nor of Serge...."

Bacteria are the most reproductively successful organisms on earth and they have little or no self-awareness. After them come the insects which have no self awareness. From a reproductive standpoint (which is the only one that matters for evolution) self-awareness is highly overrated.

Ba'al Chatzaf

According to that standard, bacteria would be a more advanced species than humans.

"Advanced" is not the same as "succesful".

Considering all living beings, self-awareness is certainly not a decisive factor for success, as the examples of bacteria, worms and insects show. However, in a narrower context it may be an important factor, as we're certainly doing better than many if not most of our closer relatives among the vertebrates. But we shouldn't judge too quickly, after all those dinosaurs that are often thought of as a failure managed to survive a thousand times longer than the human species did so far, so the jury still has a long wait ahead before we can claim our superiority in surviving.

No, but they are directly proportional. The more advanced something is the more successful it will be.

The reason why sentimental Good Guys can sleep in peace is because their beds are guarded by unsentimental rough men.

Bob,

Right.

Until the unsentimental rough men turn on the sentimental Good Guys who are sleeping in peace.

No thank you.

I prefer that thing about he who fails to learn from history is doomed to repeat it.

Michael

Michael,

Do you think we should feel guilty for having to kill innocent people in war? As a human being I understand what you mean. I would hate that I would have to do it. I would feel intense indignation and outrage. I would even feel a sense of helplessness, because I would not want to kill these people; I'd just have to. But I would hate the people who make such horrible choices necessary, not myself. Sorry, if you already answered this. A lot of technicalities were being discussed, so I did not go through all of the posts.

Reproductive success of one's genes, not necessarily of oneself.

This is NOT the same thing. It may seem like a subtle difference on the surface, but it's not. Often this mistaken position is the basis of much confusion over evolutionary concepts. The distinction is very important and has surprisingly profound implications on behaviour.

Good point. I've been reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, the famed evolutionary biologist, and in Chapter 6 (pgs. 248-9) he says, "The whole idea of the selfish gene, with the stress properly applied to the last word, is that the unit of natural selection (i.e. the unit of self-interest) is not the selfish organism, nor the selfish group or selfish species or selfish ecosystem, but the selfish gene. It is the gene that, in the form of information, either survives for many generations or does not. Unlike the gene (and arguably the meme), the organism, the group and the species are not the right kind of entity to serve as a unit in this sense, because they do not make exact copies of themselves, and do not compete in a pool of such self-replicating entities."

Ba'al Chatzaf, I think you are being too dismissive of self-awareness/communication. What you say may be true of animals, but I'd think it is much more important and vital to humans. It is not a mere byproduct to our nature; it is an essential component.

Can you show that self awareness increases reproductive success? That is the bottom line.

Bacteria are the most reproductively successful organisms on earth and they have little or no self-awareness. After them come the insects which have no self awareness. From a reproductive standpoint (which is the only one that matters for evolution) self-awareness is highly overrated.

Ba'al Chatzaf

According to that standard bacteria would be a more advanced species than humans.

Julian,

I believe we are on the same page. Sorry if it seemed like I jumped down your throat. I was lambasting the words, not the person. Of course it would have been far better if I had asked if my understanding of your meaning was correct.

I did make a distinction above between pro-Israeli propaganda and pro-Israeli reporting. I imagined this was clear, but I could have been clearer.

As to my reasoning in itself, I stand by it.

EDIT: My post crossed with several here. I second Barbara's interest.

Michael

No worries.

Bob,

Not so fast.

I don't speak for Julian and I only see an insinuation, but I believe his premise is that self-awareness is more than a random byproduct of the God Nature.

It's a top-down thing, except human beings get to have a top, too. Not just the God Nature.

Michael

Correct, Michael. I know absolutely nothing about anthropology, but this struck me as a potential area for more science-minded egoists to investigate.

That's right. You usually hear people saying that we developed communication to build a better community (which is true to a certain extent), but that is not the main reason. We could already do that before. The real benefit came in being able to communicate to oneself, which until then was impossible.

Efficient communication between people made for better food gathering (especially hunting). This promoted survival. The groups of hominids with good communication skills had a survival advantage. Being able to talk to one's self, is most likely a side effect of the characteristic selected by nature.

William H. Calvin in is book -The Throwing Madonna- attributes our facility in speech to our ability to sequence our fine control body movement such as those required for throwing missiles accurately. Speech facility uses the same brain circuits (in the temporal lobe) as required for accurate throwing, so our ability to articulate speech might be a side effect of an ability that was promoted by Natural Selection.

Nature does not care if you are smart. It cares if you live long enough to reproduce your kind.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al Chatzaf, I think you are being too dismissive of self-awareness/communication. What you say may be true of animals, but I'd think it is much more important and vital to humans. It is not a mere byproduct to our nature; it is an essential component.

Are We Human or Are We Dancer

By John C.

Las Vegas alternative rock band The Killer’s latest hit single is called “Human.” In the weeks following its release, it has sparked a mass controversy over the internet, specifically whether the main line of the song is “Are we human or are we dancer” or “Are we human or are we denser.” After all, dancers do tend to be human beings, and after the past century, it is a legitimate question whether human beings can be called ‘civilized.’ I cleared out my ears and cranked up the volume, and although it was hard to tell, it still sounded like they were saying dancer. Were my ears deceiving me? Was the band trying to pull one over on me? Did they mean Dancer, as in Santa’s reindeer Dancer? These now famous lines have been dubbed “The Silliest Lyrics of the Week” by Entertainment Weekly, though some fans have come up with some pretty deep interpretations of the song. Does the “dancer” have any meaning at all? But then again, is there a meaning to being a human either? I think The Killers might be on to something.

“All the world’s a stage and all of us merely” dancers. It certainly seems as if life can be choreographed at times. Sometimes we just go through the motions without rhyme or reason. We follow the music and listen to the crowd. Every morning I embark on the bus and plug my iPod into my head. I may not be physically dancing, but I need something for my mind to dance to. I need something to take my spirit up and twirl it about on the divine dance floor. I need a beat. I need motion. I need emotion. I need something to embrace me, to consume me, to bathe me, to cleanse me, to rock me back and forth. But if life was a dance, then where is the grace? Where is the pace? Where is the all-consuming embrace? Is life purely physical like dancing or is there something else? Do we even have free will, or is it more along the lines of free style dancing? Sometimes I want to be human and think things through, but sometimes I just want to be able to turn on the music and dance the nights away...

I see this all the time. Kids who can not decide whether they want to be humans or dancers. They go to parties every weekend, get blown away, stay up until 3am in the morning. They are addicted to the dance floor. It is where they go for safety and to surrender their nature as human beings. No talking or thinking is necessary for dancing. You just have to feel the beat pulsating inside of you and sway to the gyrating groove. It enables you to give up the intellectual for the physical, your mind for your body, your reason to your feelings. In America, rave parties often attract more than 20,000 people. Starting in the 1980s, teenagers and young adults began going to these huge parties to just go wild and forget themselves. The events are usually accompanied by fog lights and drugs to complete the effect. I am half Turkish, and I have always been fascinated by the Whirling Dervishes, a religious sect which uses dance to experience an out of body experience. They dance endlessly in circles to leave their human bodies and reach religious ecstasy or majdhb, fana with God. I am sure if you asked them if they were humans or dancers, they would say they were dancers. Jump onto the giant hook and you will soon become a marionette puppeteered by the music, a puddle dropped into a vast ocean manipulated by the waxing and waning of a musical moon. Do not believe me? Try it yourself. Go to a typical Allied dance and watch your fidgeting peers before they switch into dancing mode. We are so used to using a different part of our brains that it is difficult for us to transition. We are so used to being in control that it is hard for us to let go of that control and let something else lead us for a change. Not even to let lead, but just to be led. Hip-hop, fate, God, or nature, it is all one in the same. Yet ever wonder why the smartest kids are the ones who are most gifted at music? Why Mozart was not only a musical genius, but a genius générale? The music which helps us escape logic is ironically sound shaped into a logical pattern. That is why it is so hard to answer the question, are we human or are we dancers? It is like asking what came first, the chicken or the egg? The music or the dancer?

If life is a dance and humans dancers, then for it to be real, it can not be just a recital. It has to be a live show with a real, live audience. Who or what constitutes that audience is the question which has plagued mankind since we first began pirouetting on our tip toes. Is our audience ourselves, God, or society? If we are our own audience then the goal of each of our shows should be to just entertain ourselves and do what makes us happy. If God is our audience, the supreme judge of good and bad—dance styles that is—then the purpose of each of our shows is to please God, and Heaven would be reminiscent of Dancing with the Stars, the real stars. If society is our audience, then our goal should be to entertain others and get as many fans and followers as we can get by giving them a performance they will never forget. Aristotle danced for himself. Mother Teresa danced for God. John Lennon danced for others.

Whatever The Killers meant by their song “Human,” they have gotten humans both on and off the dance floor to question what exactly it means to be “human.” Finally stifling the debate, though not the confusion, the band has confirmed on their website that the lyrics do indeed say “dancer” and not “denser.” Brandon Flowers, the vocalist and keyboard player, has said in an interview that it is actually a reference to a remark made by the late Hunter S. Thompson, an American psychedelic journalist and author, who said that Americans were being raised to be a generation of dancers. Maybe he was right.

The following is an excellent article from Live Science that I came across. I bolded the part that I thought was particularly interesting though.

Where Words Come From

By Meredith F. Small, LiveScience's Human Nature Columnist

posted: 02 January 2009 11:25 am ET

http://www.livescience.com/culture/090102-hn-words.html

I want to tell you something. Wait, wait, I'm searching for the right word to begin. I just can't remember it. Oh, there it is ...

We all fumble around for the right word, and once you get to a certain age, that fumbling often ends with, "Ah, another senior moment," and the secret worry that dementia is around the corner.

Researchers at Rice University in Houston have just discovered that there is a particular part of the brain that guides us when choosing words. On an MRI brain scan, the left temporal cortex and the LIGF, an area that encompasses Broca's area, which is known for speech production, light up when people are trying to choose between two words. The researchers were also able to pinpoint those two areas as the spots for word choice when testing subjects with brain damage.

Any research that informs us about language production is important because words are what make humans special.

No one knows when people began to speak, but anthropologists assume that talking came when we emerged as fully human, about 200,000 years ago. Of course, there was communication before that. All animals have ways to convey their feelings to others — dogs bark, birds sing, monkeys screech — but in most cases individuals are calling out their immediate situation. That communication is important because those calls can mean the difference between life and death.

But it gets interesting when animals have something else to say besides, "Help! That eagle is going to eat me." And it's not just humans who choose the right words.

Anthropologists have dragged recorded equipment into the field to figure out exactly what nonhuman primates say to each other. They recorded the animals in various social situations and then replayed the recordings to see the animals' reactions. It turns out that monkeys can identify calls from individual troop mates, that is, they "know" each others' voices, and they use this information selectively. And the grunts, calls, and screams of primates carry more information than the emotional reaction of fear or contentment. In other words, they have words, of a sort.

For example, rhesus monkey mothers can tell if their kids are really in trouble. When a juvenile is being attacked by a relative, it seems, they call out in a fake-y way and mothers ignore them. But if the kid is being attacked by a non-relative, someone who really might hurt them, the mother goes running. And the kid does this using "words" alone.

The words we primates choose are especially important in social interactions.

Anthropologist John Mitani of the University of Michigan analyzed the shape of the male chimpanzee's classic "pant-hoot," a call that starts out with a low "huh, huh, huh" and then builds to a scream. He compared this call from two sites in Tanzania and found that males modulate their voices to sound like each other, much as we take account of the accent of another country or culture when we move around. Sounding like each other, Mitani thinks, is important to male chimps because they are tightly bonded. Males hang out together, patrol the borders of a territory together and hunt together.

We don't know why exactly humans developed their word play beyond grunts and screams. But in doing so, we gained the ability to talk about more than predators and more than each other.

Unlike other primates, we can choose the right words to describe a dream, or talk about our goals. We can tell a story, or write a column, if only we can find the right words.

That's right. You usually hear people saying that we developed communication to build a better community (which is true to a certain extent), but that is not the main reason. We could already do that before. The real benefit came in being able to communicate to oneself, which until then was impossible.

In my 15 years online I have only had one discussion that mattered to me. I posted on www.allaboutpalestine.com (search for joelmac to see me get epically owned, btw) for about a year and had a series of interesting conversations via PM with a French Palestinian when the riots were happening. We shared similar political views but mostly it was interesting to learn about his identity as a Palestinian, how the 'issues' affected him and how he was treated by French society. On the same board I was able to gain empathy with other Palestinians - Secular and Muslim as well as a Jewish Settler.

This is the only kind of value I've gotten from the internet, not a new political outlook but a more basic understanding of who other people are. I have to ask, what values are being exchanged in this thread? How is anyone being made richer by these posts?

There's no guarantee that it is easy, but I don't see any other way to win the minds and hearts of the bulk of non-Jewish good people.

And a very, very large portion of Jews.

Joel,

I can relate. My father is Muslim, and sympathizes with the Palestinians, so I have plenty of dinner table arguments with him. I was a Muslim a few years ago myself and was more sympathetic towards the Palestine cause as well, so maybe I could write a piece explaining how I came to support the Israeli side.

I did not write this commentary for Objectivist Living, but I thought I'd share it here, anyway. I posted it in a place where we did not share similar values.

Julian

Julian,

I hold that good people get turned off when a lie is perceived. They no longer trust the liar.

I believe this attitude of lying to the public because the enemy does ("because it is necessary") is one of the things that keeps much of the public from sympathizing with Israel. I know I personally don't trust much of the Jewish reporting I read. I always try to get corroboration from a different source.

Whatever happened to the idea that "the truth shall set you free"?

It certainly set the blacks free.

There's no guarantee that it is easy, but I don't see any other way to win the minds and hearts of the bulk of non-Jewish good people.

My suggestion is keep exposing the liars, not become a liar yourself.

I am reminded of Rand's observation (from "How Not to Fight Against Socialized Medicine" in The Voice of Reason):

In any issue, it is the most consistent of the adversaries who wins. One cannot win on the enemy's premises, because he is then the more consistent, and all of one's efforts serve only to propagate his principles.

Jews will always be pikers at lying compared to Hamas and other Islamist fanatics. They are light years more consistent. Israel will never beat Islamist fanatics at the game of telling whoppers in public and being taken seriously.

Michael

Michael,

I misunderstood what you meant by propaganda. I never meant to expouse any of what you said, and I feel like you kind of jumped on me. By propaganda, I meant forgoing a neutral tone, and writing with an obvious emotional stake in the piece. Granted, one definition of propaganda according to Microsoft Encarta is "2. misleading publicity: deceptive or distorted information that is systematically spread," I understand your concern.

In The Art of Nonfiction, Applying Philosophy Without Preaching It (pg. 32), Mrs. Rand said, "I propagandize for Objectivism constantly, in various degrees." Obviously she did not mean that she lies for Objectivism.

Julian

To my mind, real change in public perception will not be made by pro-Israel propaganda (especially if it is grossly exaggerated), but by pro-Israel reporting. Just that facts. (That is why I am so happy Israel is doing a media campaign and so disappointed when I see propaganda seeping in.)

Hi Michael,

I agree, but unfortunately to counter the current amount of anti-Israel propaganda, it is necessary.

Around the world, Israel is being criticized for responding to Hamas’ rocket attacks with military force. There are protests against Israel in all of the major cities of the world, including the United States. Let’s take a look at what these protestors are saying.

The protestors say that they want peace. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is hard to believe that they want peace when they are only denouncing Israel. It was Hamas that broke the peace agreement by ending the ceasefire and barraging rockets into southern Israel. By defending Hamas, a terrorist organization that wants to destroy Israel, you can not be in favor of peace.

The protestors say that they want to free Palestine. That is a complete distortion of the facts. Palestine does need to be freed, but not from the Israelis. Israel is the freest country in the Middle East. Hamas is just as dictatorial as any. They may have been democratically elected because of U.S. pressure, but democracy is just a means to an end. Hamas’ party platform calls for the foundation of an Islamic dictatorship with the Qur’an as its Constitution. They call that freedom? If the protestors really wanted to free Palestine, they would try to persuade the Palestinians to lay down their arms and beg to become Israeli citizens, but the protestors will not, because they are not in favor of freedom.

The protestors say that they want to protect the lives of innocent civilians. They are asking for the impossible. They express outrage at the Israeli bombing of mosques, government buildings, and universities, but they are being used by Hamas to make, store, and deploy weapons to kill other innocent civilians. If Israel did not bomb these targets, innocent people would still die, just Israeli citizens instead. The only choice Israel has is to kill innocent Palestinian civilians or let innocent Israeli civilians be killed. There is no other option. Hamas has rigged the game to be death or death, our death or your death. The protestors can not protect innocent lives by having innocent Israeli lives killed in their place. That would only make them further into hypocrites.

The protestors say that they want to keep Israel safe. I find this claim particularly perplexing. They point to the 2006 war with Lebanon as an example of military force backfiring. Israel’s objective during that war was to destroy the terrorist group Hezbollah which was launching rockets into northern Israel, but they actually made Hezbollah stronger by caving into international pressure and standing by while they were democratically elected into the Lebanese government. In other words, Israel became less safe by giving into the protestors who now protest that they give into their protests right now.

The only way to achieve Middle East peace, Palestinian freedom, Israeli safety, and the protection of innocent lives, is for Israel to ignore these protestors, and thoroughly defeat Hamas.

I don't know why I posted this. It's not even interesting. I have to stop letting this nonsense get to me. It is hard to ignore though.

How do you guys cope with the state of science and the culture?

Wow! This is the reason to post on Objectivist fora - you sometimes learn new things. I have put all those books in my basket at abebooks.com. Thanks!

Ditto.

Thanks for all the references guys. I got a little creative in my own research. I read The Invisible Man. Right now, I'm reading The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Dorian Gray is next! I also saw The Phantom of the Opera in NYC a few days ago for my early b-day present. I'd have to say it's my favorite play. It definitely evoked some deep thoughts and feelings from me, and strengthened my desire to be a plastic surgeon.

I'll enjoy checking out the other books listed on this thread.

As you are so kindly allowing strangers to analyze your psyche, would you mind telling me how you settled on being a plastic surgeon?

--Mindy

Looking back, I probably wouldn't have started this thread, but I don't think it is possible to analyze my psyche based on the limited information I've given you.

Like Brant said, I think I've given some general reasons on here before. They're not my definitive reasons though. Those I would not simply share with strangers.

OK, I read his posts. I read that he wants to see beauty in the world. I see that plastic surgery might be a choice related to that sentiment, but so would a lot of others. It's not important, I don't mean to pry, if it is very personal.

--Mindy

Even a garbage man can make the world more beautiful by clearing trash off the streets. I think it is a sentiment involved in many professions.

Writers make words beautiful. Musicians make sound beautiful. Embalmers make the dead beautiful. I want to make people beautiful.

This is off the subject, but you allude to something that I've wondered about. The great ugly-outside-but-beautiful-within stories seem all to come from France. You named two, plus The Man Who Laughs, Cyranoand Beauty and the Beast. I have no idea what the significance of this, if any, is.

Dorian Gray is just the opposite, and The Invisible Man avoids the question altogether.

I've wondered the same exact thing.

I forgot to add I Will Fear No Evil, which is about an old, dying man who has his brain transplanted into the body of a beautiful, young woman. :thumbsup: Robert Heinlein isn't French, but he won 4 Hugo awards, named after famed science fiction writer Hugo Gernsback, who was born in Luxembourg, which borders France. Could be pure coincidence though.

Wow! This is the reason to post on Objectivist fora - you sometimes learn new things. I have put all those books in my basket at abebooks.com. Thanks!

Ditto.

Thanks for all the references guys. I got a little creative in my own research. I read The Invisible Man. Right now, I'm reading The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Dorian Gray is next! I also saw The Phantom of the Opera in NYC a few days ago for my early b-day present. I'd have to say it's my favorite play. It definitely evoked some deep thoughts and feelings from me, and strengthened my desire to be a plastic surgeon.

I'll enjoy checking out the other books listed on this thread.