young_dumb

I understand. Thanks for your answers

Let us say that a man has recently entered the workforce after studying, and found himself a prospective employer. The employer decides to take the man on for the agreed two days a week, both as an employee and as a means to further train him. Eventually the employer takes on more staff, with them all working 5 days a week. The original employee would like to work the extra 3 days a week, but the employer informs him that this is not an option, due to cost vs returns (lack of experience and general skill). If the man decides to work the extra 3 days without pay, where does this decision stand morally in an objectivist world? I suppose it hinges on his reasons for doing so, those being possibly either to gain more experience and show his employer he is committed, or the other end of the spectrum, just to help his employer out during a busy season or similar. Logic says that the man should recieve due reward for his good work, but whose definition of "good work" counts?

Hi again folks, I attend an Institute of Technology in New Zealand, studying Architecture. A fellow student claims to be a full-blown Socialist, which leads to us clashing a lot of the time, especially after 18 hours plus sessions in the drawing room! He is an Australian who has come to NZ a couple of years ago. He works approximately 8 hours a week in a job he cares little for and consistently complains about, for relatively scant pay. He recieves, via the government, a payment of approximately $210 a week that he does not have to pay back. This is due to his employment "situation" combined with the fact he is a full-time student and has expenses of rent, food etc. The rules for this payment also instantly includes anyone 24 years of age or over, which includes me. I currently recieve $155 a week, that I DO have to pay back, though interest free. I find the concept of recieving payment from the government in any form contemptible, and is something I hate doing (regardless of having to reimburse it), but realistically have to due to the long hours I spend at school. I could easily recieve $200 or more a week that I would never have to pay back if I so wished I understand I should consider taking this money, especially given the tax I will likely pay in my life, but I cannot bring myself to do so, without having earned it in some manner. I also see that taking this current payment, in some form makes me an employee of the people of NZ, and indebted to the government. I also work approximately 20 hours a week as a trainee Architectural tech. I live at home, but pay board and buy my own food/fuel etc. He believes his position is unfallable, that "that is why we pay taxes", which obviously is beside the point. How can I explain to him his error? I can never think of, or put into words, that which I think I know. I hope this does not come across as petty. Our discussions are always civil and we are friends

Young_dumb, I vastly prefer a Chinese saying: Ask a stupid question and you are stupid for a minute. Don't ask that stupid question and you are stupid for a lifetime. I believe that the fuel that runs the motor of thinking for yourself is the courage to ask stupid questions in innocence and good will. Michael Thanks for that. Purchased The Fountainhead for a friend today. Although it's for their birthday, she is rather flighty, so the decision to purchase it for her was at least partially for my own benefit, as I'm interested to see the response to it from someone who doesn't embrace many Objective principles in their life. Enjoying this forum immensely. I like being part of a grown-up forum where everyone uses punctuation and spells correctly! The reading continues Eliot; Thanks for the complement. I think. Unsure if the spelling error was intended, but I meant what I said (typed)

Young_dumb, I vastly prefer a Chinese saying: Ask a stupid question and you are stupid for a minute. Don't ask that stupid question and you are stupid for a lifetime. I believe that the fuel that runs the motor of thinking for yourself is the courage to ask stupid questions in innocence and good will. Michael Thanks for that. Purchased The Fountainhead for a friend today. Although it's for their birthday, she is rather flighty, so the decision to purchase it for her was at least partially for my own benefit, as I'm interested to see the response to it from someone who doesn't embrace many Objective principles in their life. Enjoying this forum immensely. I like being part of a grown-up forum where everyone uses punctuation and spells correctly! The reading continues

Reidy: As usual, exactly correct. Additionally, Ayn referred to her "Dominique" character as "Me...on a bad day!" I've seen those eyes narrow and hone in on some psychologically trembling acolyte and it was not a pretty sight. Elliot, just a caution, look at the major characters as archtypal representations of "personality types". Stay focused on yourself. Ayn was one of the most brilliant persons that I have ever met. I did not know her away from NBI, but she was a critical person in how I solidified my ethical and moral base to my individualism and anti government positions. I was 14 or 15 when I closed the cover of Atlas and said, but of course. Just stay true to yourself, not her. She is dead. Her vision and ideas live through us. Adam I understand that Roark and Galt don't exist, never have, and never will, and the best I can do is to understand what aspects of them apply to me. I don't pretend to know anywhere enough to consider entering into discussion with others of different beliefs. I'm a believer in the old saying "It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid, then open it and remove all doubt." Though the first part of that I'm not so sure is true. Thanks for the explanation Reidy, of course after posting I got into bed and thought about it for a good hour!

Hi all, Have since read Atlas (twice), Fountainhead again, Anthem, and am starting on non-fiction. I still hang around, just do a lot of reading. Words fail me when attempting to describe how Rand's work has changed my thought processes in every instance of life. I have far more control over my emotions, I have a better grip on social situations, and others' misguided opinions have taken on a lack of importance. The only problem now is how much I think about her books. Although I'm studying, I find myself continually mulling things over. I even forget major dates of value to me. I am typically a voracious reader, but have read nothing but her works, and only a small number, in almost 6 months. I desire to know more about her way of thinking in ways I've never encountered over any other topic except Architecture. Which leads me to my questions. I'll ask here, but can move them elsewhere if need be. Likely easy one to start with. Why does Dominique Francon work against Howard Roark? Upon reading TF for the 2nd time, it occurred to me it had something to do with her and the smashing of the statue she loved, but didn't want to be "controlled" by. It's 1am here, and I've just got home from school, so I'd best get some sleep. I'll find the book I've been writing my questions down in tomorrow.

Thanks folks, I appreciate the welcome Atlas Shrugged is next on the list, in fact I just purchased it locally. Finished Anthem for the first time last night. Will be starting it again tonight. Very different style of writing to The Fountainhead, and the length (or lack of) was strange also. A much clearer message I felt, possibly more simplistic?

I've already posted but figured it wouldn't hurt to introduce myself properly. My name is Eliot, I live in a small rural town in the middle of the North Island of New Zealand. I study Architecture and care about it deeply. I've recently taken a job offer as a junior Architectural Draughter for a local firm. Nothing as glamorous as Mr Roark I'm afraid, I didn't seek my new boss out, nor am I particularly enamored by his designs. I need a job in the industry so I can one day be able to design how I want. I was given The Fountainhead for my 24th birthday recently and it appealed to me intensely, and not just the Architectural side. I'm from a generation who have coasted for the past 20 or so years on the coat tails of former generations, having achieved little and caring even less about it. The idea of knowing what you love, and doing whatever it takes to make your progression toward it, is beautiful, and an alien concept to myself and my peers/generation I think. I don't understand Objectivism as much as I want to, but I'm working hard on it. In the sub-24 hours I've spent on these forums, I've already learned more than I previously knew. I look forward to hearing from the more scholarly among you on Objectivism. I apologise in advance for my likely lacking in grammar/spelling. I blame the difference in kiwi and U.S. dictionary! Off to the mail box to collect my new copy of Anthem

That made great sense guys, thank you, but I think I'm a long way off understanding them in the way I want to. I need to understand an Objective value better. Sounds like I had my definitions a bit bent anyway. As a note, it's incredible how difficult it is to find Rand's widely known work down here, is that the case the world over?

Hi, new here, all the way from little New Zealand. I recently read "The Fountainhead", and discovered Objectivism. I obviously don't fully grasp the entirety of it, but I do understand scraps. Recently, a friend of mine posted on his blog an article about Karma. It essentially followed these lines. He was studying at University late one night and decided to get an energy drink. As he was leaving the room, a fellow student came in. My friend decided to purchase his newly arrived fellow student an energy drink as well, as he supposed he would need the boost of caffeine/energy due to it being late at night. As a result of doing this, the fellow student gave him a textbook outlining a major assignment more clearly, aiding him to a large degree in his studies, thus "Karma" playing its role. Not sure about a couple of things here. -Is Altruism reaction to a situation only? ie: If my friend had KNOWN his classmate was tired and suffering, and thus purchased the energy drink, this is considered Altruistic? I'm unsure what is to be considered non-favourable in this instance. Given we can only make assumptions because he's stated he only RECKONED he would be tired. -Does the fact he stated/blogged/told anyone he performed this deed make it Altruistic? Is it possible for an act to become Altruistic in the past tense? -If Altruism is performing a normally considered "good" deed to aid others as a reaction to their situation and thusly gaining gratification via it, how is this not conforming to the principle of Objectivism; being "The proper moral purpose to one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self interest"? If you get happiness from being showered with praise for doing something considered good, how is this not in your own self interest? Or is "self interest" in the context of Objectivism more to do with benefits that can be quantified? Pretty basic stuff, and I have more, but just need clarification on these things. I told him Karma was rubbish for the record, which is what started an ongoing debate. He's a 5th year Law Student