equality72521

an over all note on this thread. For a forum supposedly filled with Objectivists, I have discovered that rand was right. "The most difficult thing to explain is that thing which everyone has agreed not to see." I have heard from most of the response on this forum nothign but subjectivist crap. I try to have an objective definition of man and what i hear is 'there is no objective definition of man'. I have heard the praise of emotionalism and it used as an excuse. I have heard attacks that have nothing to do with the original point of this post. What the hell are you people doing here? you claim to be objectivists and you violate every principle of the philosophy. (not all of you but most). many people here have been a disappointment. I came to what I thought was the base of a mountain to look up at greatness, and have found myself standing at the edge of a cliff looking down.

This is in essence the major problem with Rand's definition of Human, i have met mentally retarded individual who would be excluded from Rand's definition of human. Rand confuses an aspect of the essence of man and uses it as the whole of what man is. Rights cannot conflict this is true, the question is does the mother in fact have that right. that is what is truly the point is. If the fetus is a human the mother can have NO Right to end the life of the human within her.

Rich, Thanks. I had a good laugh about your post. While it is right on, I did not really have any true belief that I would get an intellectual discussion over this thread. Experience is the best teacher, and I have been burned too many times not to learn that people are rarely rational about "Holy" things. I think the vast difference between myself and many (not all) others on this forum is that I challenge everything. I take nothing for granted and believe no ones word until they have proven themselves to be reliable. In my youth I was exactlly the opposite, however there are too many people in the world who stand on their head and tell you that your upside down. I now instead prefer to know for sure that the person I am talking too is not standing on their head. I did have a small hope that this thread would be an intelligent conversation about the topic originally posted. As to my Dyslexia. It has not been a soft struggle however I don't use it as a crutch, or an excuse to be unintelligent. Instead I have chosen to use it as a whip to drive myself on and become more intelligent. as to this thread in particular. I have often been refered to as a fire-starter. I do not go out of my way to start fires however I have a habit of challenging peoples fundamental beliefs in hopes that they will do the same for me. I do think this thread should be deleted because it has broken down into some of the most unintellectual dribble i have read. There are some posts which I am going to respond to in hopes to salvage this thread.

if my friend and i open a publishing house i will publish my own stuff. nothing before what i have written now but i am working on 2 things right now that i would not mind publishing.

To begin the Thread is called Randian Falacy (should be 2 L's i know) However I would like to point out to anyone who cares to observe that the mistake you are making is that of the concrete bound type. You have completely ignored everything I have said. Perhaps you think I am not an objectivist because I disagree with the great goddess? Did I not say that Rand is completely right in the Principle's of her philosophy, perhaps because my dyslexia I am using the wrong Principle but i don't think so. I do not refute a single core doctrine of Objectivism, however as i said that is different than Randianism. Here is what I want from you ted and I will try to put it in words a child can understand. Define Human. once we have defined Human than we can determine if the Fetus is a Human. Once we know that then we can ask the question is the Fetus an aggressor/initiator of force. You have in no way attempted to address any of these points. Your condescending attacks on the "great goddess" are a pathetic revelation - about you. You don't know me nor about my specific reasoned disagreements with Rand. Nor that I think she was wrong on some of her arguments regarding abortion. But I don't take it as a proper ground for discussion that I either have to agree with your silly putdowns of Rand or admit myself a bigot. As for you Brandt, if you don't know the importance of Rand's explaining at length why the stolen concept is a fallacy, you do not understand Objectivism or have anything of interest to say to me. This has been very educational. Please and I say this with all sencarity, present your disagreements and corrections to Rands arguments for abortion. The problem I have with you Ted is that you have not made a single argument with my argument. You present no counter argument. Why am I wrong. Something I find funny. It is amusing to me that you think "the great goddess" comment is a putdown of Rand. Here is a hint. its not.

OK, a human is a 6 months or greater fetus. So if its less that 6 months old its not human and has no rights. Ok thank you general semanticist you have given me a place to start. Now why 6 months. is 6 arbitrary or is it an objective definition? if objective please explain why a fetus that is one day 182 days old is less Human than a fetus that is 183 days old? The problem is that you really have not given the definition (essence) of Human, you have said when but not why.

Before I get to Ted, Brant, Thank you for giving context to your general position. I have been rather confused by things you have posted, however now they make sense. As to my not providing quotes mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Here I was in error, It is my experience as a general rule that most objectivists know rands view of abortion and hold to a similar view. I do ask pardon for tribalizing, it can be difficult to do when you experience certain groups who identify themselves with certain beliefs to remember that not all who classify themselves as X believe Y. This is no excuse it is a recognition of my mistake and i will work to correct it in the future. further I do not hold that claiming someones particular application interpretation of a principle is "grandious". a brief side note on your comment on philosophical forcing. Here is the difference (at least between you and I), I view all life through the prism of Philosophy. I hold that a "Culture" is a specific group of people who have as their common root philosophy X, and further express said philosophy through Y and Z. You can have sub-cultures and even anti-cultures in a society however a culture is simply an expression of philosophy. To begin the Thread is called Randian Falacy (should be 2 L's i know) However I would like to point out to anyone who cares to observe that the mistake you are making is that of the concrete bound type. You have completely ignored everything I have said. Perhaps you think I am not an objectivist because I disagree with the great goddess? Did I not say that Rand is completely right in the Principle's of her philosophy, perhaps because my dyslexia I am using the wrong Principle but i don't think so. I do not refute a single core doctrine of Objectivism, however as i said that is different than Randianism. Here is what I want from you ted and I will try to put it in words a child can understand. Define Human. once we have defined Human than we can determine if the Fetus is a Human. Once we know that then we can ask the question is the Fetus an aggressor/initiator of force. You have in no way attempted to address any of these points.

Michael, Laughs hard. This is the second post today that has caused me to have a good laugh. Alright, so funny story time. I was the editor-n-chief of my HS newspaper(remember couldn't spell does until 9th grade). I do have experience with editing however I am no fool. I do not edit my own work for grammar or spelling it would take me years to edit even a short story satisfactorily. Seriously I know spelling errors get through but you have no Idea how many i make in even a short post. You all are lucky i don't spell oil O3L (a cookie for anyone who can tell me who did that without looking it up. I leave grammar and spelling to someone else for the most part (my friend and I would most likely hire someone to help him with that part). What I edit is structure and style and phrasing. (to the story) I once spelled wonder as wounder in an article once that got published. Because I am an Autodidact I have taught myself many neat little tricks over the years that have helped me greatly. For example I am writing this on an iPad. when I read posts or responses to post I lock the screen and flip it so the words appear to be upside down. My speed of reading triples when i do this. Also if i am reading a book I can use a piece of pink cellophane over the page this also helps. If you notice I did not make my first post by asking people to forgive my spelling and grammar mistakes in my first post. I mentioned it not in a way that was whining and begging but in a way that is proud. I was attempting to give context to my knowledge base. I don't even usually mention it then, only when people attempt to discredit a post of mine by pointing out spelling and grammar errors (something i loath) do i mention it usually. I do this to show the person for the fool they are. I have never been one to care what people think of me, however i care greatly for peoples ability to prove or disprove something i put forward. Because of my lust for knowledge of any kind I have little tolerance for fools, who's best argument is "You spelled a word wrong". I try (and with great difficulty sometimes) not to comment on how stupid some people are, instead i prefer to rip them in half with their own argument, exposing their own stupidity to themselves and everyone else. This tends to cause people to think I am "ruthless" and that I am arrogant, never willing to admit I am wrong. However what most people don't realize (because it happens so rarely) is that I am only too eager to admit when I am wrong. However in order for me to say "I am wrong" i want proof. When I was a young pup someone gave me a pin that said "Everything I know I learned from reading band books." I want proof, always proof, and knowledge, more knowledge. Sophia my love my sweet temptress, O' goddess of my desires come to me, for you I wait in the night, My love, my sweet love, for but one kiss I would die for thee.

Whether the fetus is a human with rights or not is a matter of opinion and ultimately the laws of the land decide. You cannot "prove" this like some mathematical equation. So that others do not bother to waste space. You cannot prove that a fetus is human or not? Yet again I ask for a definition of Human. I gave mine. Without a definition you cannot PROVE anyone or anything is human. Define, Define, Define. Edited: A wise man once said if you have nothing intelligent to say, do not speak. You can prove that a Fetus is human by providing a definition for the word Human. Even if it is different than mine provide one, if you disagree with my definition (which is the only way to exclude the fetus from behind Human) than provide a definition for Human yourself. At least give me something to work with. If you are not going to contribute to the discussion don't post.

Reidy, Thanks for the laugh but that definition of ejaculation is why i said look it up. I was kind of hoping (i guess beyond hope) that someone would not go there. An Ejaculation is also a type of Prayer (Like many words in the English language it has been too narrowly defined.) Spitting is orally ejaculating, so is speaking in some contexts, you have penile ejaculation, vaginal ejaculation, wounds can also ejaculate. I say this (in hopes) so that no one will make another comment like that. As to my age... I am Older than I look and younger than I sound. When I was 21 I looked like I was 18, I had a girl in the class ask me how old I was and was standing near the college professor, I asked her "how old do you think I am?". She said "18" out of curiosity I asked the professor to take a guess and he said Early to mid thirties. He told me that he knew some people that age that looked rather young. As a joke i said i was not rich enough for plastic surgery. I think he was rather surpassed to find out I was only 21. As to my taxonomy as I said taxonomy is as of yet a non objective matter. I would have to think on it much more to really define the terms and order in the most precise manner. It was an ejaculatory(in keeping with my word of the day) example. This is the first time I have ever tried to concretize the example so much, I usually go through 4 or 5 examples before i find one i like and that people can understand.

Ted, As I have stated else where I am dyslexic and it takes may reviews through spellcheck just to make sure that I am spelling things accurate enough for people to understand what I write. If you have a problem with it... I really don't care. Side note: you may also want to go to the creative writing section and comment that I spelled Prometheus wrong in the title to my poem "Prayer to Prometheus". I spelled it Promethius For everyone else, Here is an example of what I meant by a personal attack. Notice that he does not ever once attempt to actually defeat my argument. If someone wants to debate this matter with me they will do so on my terms. The ONLY valid method of debate that of deconstruction and construction, it is only by this method that one can come to validity of an argument. Murder (as opposed to killing) is objectively evil, rape is objectively evil. It is the subjectivists way to grant sanction to the rapist and murder because it was a priority in their hierarchy of values. The question as set before those who wish to carry out this discussion is 1) is the Fetus a Human, and 2) is the fetus the initiator of force, and thus forfeits their Right's. Now that I have used Ted as an example as to what not to do and what the central points which are up for debate. Brant, If you wish for quotes I will refer you to the Ayn Rand online Lexicon. Perhaps I made a mistake and did not make clear what the "Randian" Fallacy is. When I speak of Randian and Randianism I am making a distinction between Objectivism (The Philosophy of Objectivism) and Randianism (Ayn Rand's particular interoperation of that Philosophy). Randians follow the religion of Randiansim and believe every word of the goddess Rand to be true and beyond question because it came from her pen, or lips. I have been blasted by many so called Objectivists for my STAND on abortion, yet none refute or even try to refute what i put forward (as special note: No one not once has addressed a single point I made.) Ayn Rand was 100% right when it came to the discovery of the principles of objectivism, however she was not always consistent in the application of her own philosophy. This is but a single example of how she was wrong in the application. The question at hand is rather simple, is the Fetus Human, if so is it committing an act of aggression, and if not does anyone have the right to destroy the life of another human who has committed no aggressive act? Philip, I did not present a summary for good reason. If any single part of what I have put forward is discredited than the whole thing falls apart. I do in fact disagree with Rands (And the vast majority of other objectivists) application of Ethics in this particular issue, this however has no validity on the question of is my position Right or Wrong. Either what I have posited is true and thus the rational thing to do would be to adopt it, or it is false and the logical thing to do is for me to change my position. I have but one God and His name is Truth, if anyone is able to show that I am wrong than I MUST change my position. I left no conclusion because it is not needed I have stated my arguments clear enough. i begin by pointing out the fallacy of the Pro-Life Pro-Choice diachotomy(Stupid spellcheck). whYNOT, *Equality72521 Raors in frustration and rips hair out* Here! Here! Here, is something I absolutely HATE. I am asking for people to show the logical fallacies of my arguments so I will do you the favor of doing the same for you. Prometheus help me! Where do i begin? I prefer the Socratic Method of teaching and learning. I have presented my evidence, thy theory is now on trial it must either stand or fail on its own merit, baring any evidence to the contrary there is only ONE single conclusion which can be drawn. I gave concrete examples and am waiting for someone to destroy my theory. The thing which I hate however above all other things that anyone could have said here is the willful ignorance and the emotionalistic attitude which you adopt regarding abortion. Because some how the decision is some how painful gives it merit? Mean to or not that is what you implied. Further (and still even more outrageous) you assert that Rand is right without any intellectual ideas to back it up. If in fact the theory I put forward is Right than the State MUST act. Rand herself said that the purpose of the state was to stop or punish aggression 'No man may initiate the use of force against another', and to enforce contracts (fraud is the initiation of force. The questions (yet again) are 1) is the Fetus a Human thus possessing the inalienable Rights of all men. and 2) is it an initiator of force? did I make a Social argument for abortion? No. did i make a Religious argument? No, in fact i blasted it. did I make a Governmental/Statist argument? No. You still go further in the Randianst doctrinism. You (like Rand) FAIL to ask the most vital question to the issue at hand. It is a question which no objectivist who holds to abortion wants to answer. IS the fetus a Human? You assert/assume no. Fine, why? Give me something to work with define Human.

Yes this is mine. it took me about 2 minutes to write and was a complete ejaculation(look up the word) I spent a good deal of my youth in the study of different theologies. and have a very different view of gods and religions. To quote a friend "We are the gods reborn... If we choose to be.". The gods are fictionalized men who represent perfectly the ideal, and we should strive to embody the gods. I myself am an objectivist, however I despise the narrow-mindedness of objectivists, the dogmatic doctrinal Objectivists who cannot see past their own nose. These would be objectivists have no influence in the culture because "there is no such thing as objectivist art." they fail to see that as a logical consequence of a comprehensive philosophical system. A person who posses a comprehensive philosophical system and applies it consistently internalizing it does all things through the lines of that system. They say "there is no such thing as an objectivist lawyer, or cook, or etc.", these same people would of course be wrong. There are Christian lawyers, cooks, teachers, dancers, artists, there are Jewish lawyers, cooks, teachers dancers, artists, the same with every other philosophical system. To internalize a system fully grants to that individual the title of "Kantian, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Socratic, etc." lawyer, teacher, cook, etc. The reason for this is simple, every individual posses either by cognitive choice, or subconscious indoctrination a philosophical system. All things are done by threw and for that system. When I say "I am an Objectivist." I am not simply stating my philosophical belief as do most who say "I am an objectivist" or "I am a Kantian" or "I am a Christian", I am describing a part, what could be argued to be the most important part of my essence, that thing which is essentially me. When a cook makes a dish, or an architect builds a house, or an artist paints, they pour forth into their work their very soul brining it to life, bestowing in it a life of its own. This is why so many who have passion for their work compare it to brining forth a child. Eat the food of a person who half heartedly makes a dish, than eat the food of a person who pours their soul into a dish, yes ingredients must be mixed, and measured, however you can taste the soul poured into the food. When an individual pours their essence into something that thing must also take on a part of that essence. (Returning to the Prayer of Prometheus) When I speak of Prometheus brining fire to man I do not mean that he literally brought fire on a stick to man, fire becomes an allegory or synonym (take your pick) for reason, sanity, the rational mind. We are all in essence Homo Sapien, however this can be broken down still further because the essence of each man is not limited to physical descriptions, or genetic code. This is why in another post i refer to "Romantic Objectivist Art", in biological terms we could describe this example as Family: Romantic, Genus: Objectivist, Species: Art. Depending on the topic of conversation and context the Family, Genus, and Species can all change places or if it can be understood properly the definitions of these terms can be better defined which will grant them narrower movement from one field into another. As a reminder of the limitations of this type of example Taxonomy is an art and has (that I know of) not been objectively defined.

O'ye bringer of the flame, you lighter of fires, spark now the mind of man, pray you, pray you, pray you come. You above all other gods came, you above all other gods loved, you above all other gods gave, fire, fire, fire, to man. O' that I do beseech thee, you god of the fire hear me. Darkness now consumes the world, bring fire to man once more.

Alan, The work you are referring to is not a book. It is a paper from 1956 by George A. Miller published in The Psychological Review. It is online here: The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information This paper is usually present in the bibliography of the works I am currently studying on human behavior for my Internet marketing work. It is one of the cornerstones of sales copywriting, believe it or not. And, yes, I have printed it out and read it (several times, in fact, despite that kind of literature being really boring to me). This paper also has a counterpart in Objectivism called "crow epistemology." This refers to a passage in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Rand (Chapter 7, "The Cognitive Role of Concepts") where she discussed the limits of how many different existents of the same kind we can keep in mind on the perception level before conceptual integration kicks in. In her case, she used crows to illustrate. Here's the quote: Rand stopped at six for the limit and Miller does seven. That's close enough for me. It's in the same ball park. And you are right. This information is really useful once you start learning how and where to use it. Michael Quite right Michael I could not remember the name exactly, its been a long time. If it is the same work it was a research project paid for by the bell telephone company. I have gathered what appears to most people to be a lot of useless data. A lot of that comes from a wonderful teacher I had in fifth grade. If you have not noticed my grammar and spelling are not the greatest in the world, I am a dyslexic and was about 4 years behind the new dyslexia programs that are being used. For this reason I had a teacher whom i am truly grateful for in the fifth grade who told me that I would never be as smart as everyone else. When I was much younger there was one sure fire way to make sure that I would do a think and that was to tell me I couldn't do it. My teachers to that point and even after (with the exception of 1 teacher in High School) never taught me anything. I managed even with dyslexia to read Freud (who i hated with a passion and still do) and shakespear by the age of 14. The greatest thing the public school system did for me was not teaching me anything. Its true that my spelling and grammar suffer worse than they already would have due to my dyslexia ( i couldn't spell does until 9th grade) but that is a small price to pay for my mind remaining intact and uncorrupted. This single event in fifth grade spurred me on to be smarter than all my classmates, all my teachers, and most of the people I know. I have found few exceptions when it comes to people who are my intellectual equal or greater. But when I do find these individuals especially those who are my betters I want to bow down kneeling before them and say a prayer to Promethius, that God who brought fire(reason) to man. O'ye bringer of the flame, you lighter of fires, spark now the mind of man, pray you, pray you, pray you come. You above all other gods came, you above all other gods loved, you above all other gods gave, fire, fire, fire, to man. O' that I do beseech thee, you god of the fire hear me. Darkness now consumes the world, bring fire to man once more.

while i do not hope for it ( i do not know enough about this type of thing) I do know that the work of one of the greatest Americans ever is proving many old theories about electricity wrong. It is the work of the electric man himself Tesla. There has been strong headway in his work in the last decade and it is causing scientists to rethink everything that everyone said was crazy about Tesla's work. If i remember correctly he did say it could be done, so who knows maybe it can maybe it can't only time will tell if Galt's motor will come to be.

Ok so now that we have gotten completely off topic. If Anyone is interested in what this post is originally about I will help developing your skills as a writer IF YOU WANT. Private message me if you are interested. My friend and I are still attempting to work out the details of the business plan, however I would like to get an idea of how many people are interested in the idea of a Romantic Objectivist Publishing house.

Ok I am breaking my own rule for a second because I had to jump in here. I usually don't reply to a single post until I get caught up an all that followed so you may have said something somewhere else to expand, (rambling) so let me get to the point. I made the horrible mistake of going to University (Yes I know, what a waste of money) I was told by all my Non-Socialist/Commie Profs (yes they did ID themselves as Socialists/Communists) that I should become a teacher or college professor. I was also told by most of my classmates that I should become a Professor (I retaught many classes after the Prof butchered the material). I will never be a professional educator for one plain and simple reason, I would want to kill half my students, and the other half would already be dead. I have an extremely low tolerance for willful ignorance. In the past I have taught Philosophy, Computer repair, writing, and other things informally, I never had more than 15 students at any given time and I had one rule if your an idiot don't bother showing up. In one particular philosophy course I expelled 8 students on the first day (I taught 3 students for the next six months). I loath the education system and feel much sympathy for good professors. I like Rand believe that talent is not innate that it is in fact learned, I do make room for those born with an abnormally high intellectual capacity. The Capacity however is not the same as the exercise of that capacity, those born with higher intellectual capacities must still train them. I do not believe that Rand is one of these people, (on a personal note I do not consider myself in that category either incase your wondering). You can see very clearly in Rands early work the development of her thought and of her talent. For most people this is difficult to see because they do not realize the difference in the different types of writing that Mrs. Rand did, ie Silent film, vs talkies, vs play's, vs short stories, vs novels. beyond that if you read We the Living and than Atlas Shrugged you will see a vast difference and the leaps in development she had as a writer. Michael I do not know if you have ever take an introductory art course however I am going to recommend that you do if you have not, (this goes for everyone actually). You can directly apply the principles that they teach in introduction to drawing to .This is more or less the basis of the re-write, when your learning to draw, or paint or anything like that you begin by copying. The principle is to use an existing work, say a drawing of a bowl of fruit, and to copy it exactly. You copy it and copy it until you get it perfect and have every line in its place. In Writing you cannot just copy another authors work that will not improve your skill but you use the skeleton of works they have already done to help improve your own writing. The best pieces of Lit to do rewrites with are journalistic works, as you do the re-write you see the flaws in the authors work, how it should have been described Romantically. The way I describe it is like doing a translation of a work from one language into another. I LOVE Latin, with a passion, I am also an autodidact, and have never taken a professional course to learn Latin yet I can translate most work now without a dictionary(I will come back to this). In the same way I translate a piece of Latin, I translate a journalistic novel into Romantic Art. As to using Rand's terminology. When I teach a course I always revert the students back to the very beginning. Day 1 its (What ever you think you know forget it because its wrong). Depending on circumstances I will often times use translated words (sometimes German most of the time Latin) and define them. For your sake I will do it in Spanish, so Plot theme becomes Parcela Tema. What you end up doing is tricking the student by giving them a new term to use at the beginning of the class, then half way through the semester you start to phase out the spanish and instead use the English. The student then begins to replace the old definition of plot or plot theme with the new one. The confusion it sounds like your having from your students is that they are trying to use two definitions of the same term at the same time, the one they grew up with all their life and Mrs. Rand's. Also what I like to do is to break up the definition of a term and then expand it for my students, thus you break down Rand's term Plot Theme into several smaller digestible parts and then feed it to your students over a series of classes rather than all at once. There is a book I am going to suggest that you get if you can find it, the book is called "7+/-2". The book is about memory in Humans. Another exercise for the students is for them to go online to CliffNotes and look up particular stories and have them find and define the Theme and Plot Theme from the CliffNotes. This concretizes the difference in their minds. an interesting side note: do you know why phone numbers have as many numbers as they do? 7 + or - 2. How many numbers do you memorize when you memorize a phone number? 1-215-555-6171 The answer four sometimes five. One - two one five - five hundred and fifty five - sixty one - seventy one. even though you memorize the 215 part as two one five, your brian registers it as one number.

This Article is meant to spark discussion as well as to examin certain flaws of Randianism. If someone wants to have a Rational discussion I ask that they attack the definition of the terms and attempt to demolish the definition. I will not respond to personal attacks as they are unintellectual and therefore unworthy of my time. Definition: Randianism/Randian- A specific application/interpertation of Objectivist Philosophy. One of the greatest Objectivists fallacies is the belief that Ayn Rand created whole and entire Objectivism, while it is true that Any Rand discovered the principles of Objectivism and constructed them into a comprehensive philosophy she no more created those principles than she did the Universe. Many "Objectivists" who believe that Mrs. Rand created the principles of objectivism also view her application and interpretation of those principles as dogmatic and unquestionable. This is one of the many reasons why the Philosophy she discovered has become stagnate, it is only when The Apostles of Objectivism seek out and destroy the Mrs. Rand's contradictions that the Philosophy itself will grow. For this reason I here present the following for discussion and debate. Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice The politically correct terms of "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" are confusing anti-concepts, the fact that both are used and given equal validity can do nothing but cloud the issue. Pro-Lifer's belief that the Fetus is a Human and thus should be gratned all the same Right's and protections of any Human. Pro-Choicers believe that the fetus is not a Human and that it therefore deserves no special considerations and cannot be grated except artificially the same Right's and protections of any other human. The Pro-Abortion advocates(PAA) claim that it is a womans right to choose, as well as that it is her body which is being invaded by an unwelcome guest, and that just like one should be able to expel an unwelcome guest from their home they too should be able to expel and unwelcome guest from their body. This position is false as it never asks the question weather the fetus is Human. The Anti-Abortion adovates(AAA) do no better because they fail to ask the same question, and still further they fail to provide any proof as to if the Fetus is Human. Their intellectual cimes go still further in that the vast majority of AAA use "God" as their primary proof as to why Abortion is right or wrong. Ayn Rand herself held that Abortion was a matter of property Right's and that because a woman owned her body she had the right to expel any invading intruder. She however failed to delve deeper into the question and answer the question 1) is the Fetus a Human, and 2) If so is it an invader? For simplicity sake I will offer a simple definition of "Human" if someone wishes to offer a better definition which does not confuse the issue I will more than gladly use it. Humans are those animals who share a specific and limited genetic parameter,within Natural Philosophy (what is now commonly and mistakenly called Science) Spicies is a group of organisms which can interbreed and is capable of producing fertile offspring. . According to this definition Fetus's are Human, ie we can distinguish a "Human Fetus" from a "Pig" or "Primate" Fetus. Alternative definitions of Human which I reject are "Humans are Animals capable of advanced rational thought". The reason for rejecting this as a definition is two fold 1) it is becoming more and more possible for genetic manipulation and thus more and more possible to create other rational animals not related genetically and thus unable to cross and bare offspring. 2) this precludes the mentally retarded and small children from the definition of "Human" (If someone really wants to go there I will otherwise I wont waste my time). Philosophically we must speek of "essence" or what is it that is the essentials of being Human, a minimal or maximum rationality level does not preclude or exclude a creature from being Human. "Humans are Animals with certain phical traits." While it is true that genetics does help determine physical traits an individual how has only one arm or leg is no less Human than an individual who has two arms or legs(again if someone really wants to go there I will but i prefer not to waste my time). Thus according to the definition above a Human Fetus is no less Human than a Human Adolecent or Human Child. This now brings us to Rand's flaw in her argument for abortion. Rand asserts that a Human Fetus which is unwelcome by the mother is an invader and that it has no Right to "initiate force" against the mother. This presumes without proof that the Fetus has infect initiated the use of force. When two adults of opposite sex have sexual intercourse there is the possibility of producing an offspring, while this is not the only reason for having sexual intercourse it is a natural consequence of such an action while the female of the species is fertile. The Sperm and the Egg do not "Initiate force" any more than a damn which breaks initiates force. If a damn breaks it does so because the damn became unsound and according to the Law's of Nature a certain consequence must occur. Because an action can only be moral or immoral for rational creatures a fetus cannot be held responsible for coming into being. (Note we are not here discussing contraceptives). The HUMAN Fetus however once in existance has by its nature all those Right's which other Humans have, in this case the Right to Life, Liberty, and Property (their own body). "Who's Rights?" The question will now be raised "Yes but doesn't the mother have the right to decide what will or wont happen to her own body, you are now violating the mothers property Right". This is a fallacy and a misrepresentation of the case. Justice imposes upon all men certain obligations, for example the man who steps off the top of a skyscraper in just his shorts must fall. Justice also requires a Murderer be put to death, it requires that when someone steals they must pay due compensation. The woman who becomes pregnant through a consensual act of sex has no Right to blank out the consequences of her actions, she in fact gives up her Right not to bare a child when she becomes pregnant. In addressing the question of Rape. I said above consensual sex but what about questions of rape? Does this change the fact that the Human Fetus is not the aggressor? Do you punish Peter for a crime Paul committed, when Peter had no knowledge of the crime, no say in it, and no way to prevent the outcome? This tribalsitic view is beyond destructive, it is the belief that children are responsible for their parents debt even and especially that debt accrued before their existence. In the question of sickness The question of a woman being physically sick to the point of near death during pregnancy is the most difficult question to tackle morally. In any situation where two lives are in question and one must be saved over the other or both lost we. This morally must be considered the same as two people hanging on the edge of a cliff and you can only save one. It must be the choice of the mother/father as to who will be saved if it is a matter of life and death. If all options have been exhausted and either the Mother or Fetus will be lost (I am using the term child to denote a born Fetus) those parties able must decide which life is worth more. Though the choice is subjective a lack of choice is a death sentence for both and there is no other standard by which to make the choice. Again do not attack me attack the argument and specifically definitions. If in fact as a Claim the Fetus is a Human that Humans Right to life cannot be subjugated to the mothers/fathers whim of blanking out the consequences of her actions. Either prove the Fetus is not a Human OR that the Fetus is in fact initiating the use of force. If the Fetus is not initiating the use of force the mother/father is initiating force in the act of abortion. One Final Note: This discussion is not meant to determin IF those who have had/preformed abortions should be held accountable for murder, that is another question that must come after this one is resolved. Because a large number of people would or would not be held accountable for murder should have no effect on this debate, or in other words "groupism" is not at question.

I enjoyed reading Also Sprach Zarathustra, I say this is what I read rather than Thus Spoke Zarathustra because I had the benefit of someone who read and spoke German to discuss the work with. (Quite a different experience discussing the translation while reading the book). I have always wanted to write a complimentary piece since i first read this work. There are many things that Nietzsche says that I agree with, however I disagree with almost everything he means by what he says. The reason I have wanted to write a piece in this style and of this type is not only because it is a beautiful piece of Lit. but also because I want to see a work like that which is congruent.

Having read some of your posts before I started this thread I did not doubt that you knew the difference but only used that as a specific example for others who are reading this post. In discussions with audiences I have a habit of explaining things for the sake of the audience. I developed this habit mostly from arguing with Idiots who refuse to see truth, if it is just me and the idiot I will stop a discussion. However if there is an audiance I allow the debate to continue to demonstrate to the audiance which of the two of us is correct. I have expanded the practice from use beyond arguments with idiots to also encompass important points in public discussions. It allows for greater clarity and it is my hope that the audience can learn something new. In this particular case I am sure that there are a number of people who will read this thread who understood and knew the difference between earned and unearned guilt. However unfortunately there are also a number of people who call themselves objectivists who really do believe that all guilt is bad. In address to writing and the feeling of guilt. If the guilt is earned than the author needs to address that feeling and exorcise it by correcting the error, this can be solved by editing or rewriting the error in the writing. In a case of unearned guilt the first step to correcting this error of thinking (all emotions are a result of conscious or subconscious thought) is to identify it. once the error has been identified the next step is to place the situation into perspective, no painter becomes a master overnight, it takes years of practice and sometimes decades. In the same way for any novice to compare themself to a master is a logical absurdity and should be seen as such. The biggest cause however of this unearned guilt among many authors who are objectivists is that they try painting the Mona Lisa before learning to draw a stik figure, or as the old axiom goes "one must learn to crawl before they walk, and to walk before they run." Rands greatest mistake in the Art of Fiction (i have not read the art of non-fiction) and in the Romantic Manifesto is that she does not reveal the development of a writer, for this reason I will list here some simple exercises for those who are interested. 1) Character writing- This is the development of Characters absent of any true story. (think Anthem) The writer is more interested in showing the thought process of the character, for aid the author may create a general scene or event. It may also help to fictionalize real people around you, by this I mean take a real person around you examine their behavior and their philosophy of life and write a fictional back story to explain the persons philosophy and behavior, the best writers are the best psychologists. 2) The re-write- It is good practice for beginning authors to take works which have already been written (and that the copyright has expired on) and re-write parts or all of that work. Find the flaws in plot, in the characters, and in the style. My personal favorite when I began (even before I read Rand) was The Driver. I myself have rewritten parts and the entire novel several times each time is a little different than the time before. With this particular novel what allowed me to improve on it was the journalistic style in which it was written, I translated the work from a piece of journalistic fiction into a piece of Romantic fiction. In my favorite version of my rewrite I almost completely rewrote the character of Henry Galt, and subtracted one of his daughters from the story and gave him a son. Re-write are not only good for helping an author develop their style, but it is also good in concretizing Character writing. 3) When beginning original works start small. A new author as a rule of thumb should never try to write a novel, even a dime novel or novella is really too big. Do not count pages. Start with a simple plot and plot theme. Write a beginning, middle, and end. Keep the number of characters limited. Do not try too much too fast, as you become more confident in the short stories start to write longer and longer short stories by going back and expanding short stories that you have already written. Expand their plots, and develop the characters more, complicate the story in gradual phases. Once you are comfortable with your development than write longer short stories from scratch. 4) AFTER writing either a character, a re-write, or a short story go back and look for and correct the flaws. This is more than just simple grammatical editing, this is going back and asking "why did i have the character say and or do this". in the beginning the process is slow, however the more you do this thie faster it will go until you know automatically why you did this or that. This is something which should be done in the beginning. 5) Do not ape. One of the biggest flaw of any new author (and I did it myself) is the attempt to ape another author. For myself I did this with Nietzsche and Shakespear. You are not the author you are trying to ape so don't try to be. To thine own self be true.

Reason, Justice, Truth. My Triune Goddess

you are confusing concepts. Concepts are different than the words we use to define them. If i agree or disagree is not relevant to this discussion what is is the terms and concepts being used. The term duty as you are using it is not the same as the term as Rand used it. Remember Rand was fighting Kant and his definition of the term duty, this is as opposed to what you seem to mean by duty. duty as I understand your use of the term is an obligation to act in accordance with Justice, where as Kant held that duty was an unearned obligation. Kant held that you have a duty to your parents because they are your parents Duty as you seem to define it is you have an obligation to your parents if they are moral and just.

I have done searches like that already which is part of the reason why i am looking at this option. I really enjoyed the Romantic Manifesto and it help me greatly. I think the problem with the Romantic Manifesto as well as the Art of fiction is that Objectivists that are trying to become authors or aurthors that become objectivists do exactly what Rand said not to do. In other words they say "look at Howard Roark" forgetting Howard Roark. From what i have seen in terms of many objectivists who attempt to write they try to monkey Mrs. Rand. They want long elogant speeches with deep philosophical meaning, they look at We the Living, Atlas Shrugged, and the Fountain Head and forget about the plays and short stories she wrote before that. Many would be authors (not just those who are objectivists) have the problem of trying to write more than they are ready for. There are two books which I would like to write and have spent the last 6 years developing in small party. I will not take on either of these projects full time yet however because I am not ready they are currently beyond me. I conceived both of these books before I discovered Objectivism and thus some of the things that I wanted to do in them will not work now, they are less integrated than they were before, so while i can keep the basic outlines I must completely think the plot theme as well as the structure of events. Where I am able to reconsider and than reform my ideas in this way i think that many Objectivists take the Piekoff approach and become dogmatic in all the wrong places. For them everything becomes a question of Objectivist Dogma from the colour of their underwear to which hand they use to blow their noese "Well the goddess did not do it this way." and Heaven above & Hell below don't even suggest that she got something wrong. These people are unable to distinguish principle from anything else. I have discovered that as far as I understand her principles Rand was always right. However she was wrong about certain applications of those principles. you here demonstrate what I mean about principle and Rand. Rand never ever said guilt is bad she said unearned guilt is bad and there is a rather vast distinction. Guilt itself is an emotional response to something, and just like phobia's are an irrational fear so unearned guilt is irrational. When these autors experience guilt over their writing they should step back and examine the emotion. Is the guilt due to a betrayal of ones values in the piece written? if so than the guilt is earned and the error needs be corrected. If the guilt is due to expecting Atlas Shrugged on ones first try than the guilt is irrational. the problem is (and here Nietzsche was right) there are too many people who are taught to read who don't know how to read. there is a vast difference between knowing there are words on a page and knowing what they mean when put together in a specific structure. they are unable to conceptualize and comprehend what is originally meant by the author. I actually think that now is an optimal time to start something like this because of the economic situation. I am beginning to develop the business plan and it looks like if we do most of the publishing digitally that the cost will be rather low and the price able to be charged is lower still. as far as fostering talent I don't care if this takes 10 years to get off the ground as long as there are others who are interested in trying to get it off the ground. but i dont want to start a project to change the culture and this be a two man army (my friend and I).

That's what you get for capitalizing it: "Objectivist Art." You "don't write for the enjoyment of others." That's quite a twist on Victor Hugo who wrote that if he were only writing for the present he'd not write. You come here trolling for value without really telling us who you and your friend are and not offering any actual value in return. It's rather easy to publish electronically so who needs an electronic publishing house? You are coming across as an elitist snob. If you, "an author with no little skill," are not interested in putting your work out there, why should anybody else put out their work for you? "Oh, here's another submission. I write better than this crap--toss!" --Brant I prefer Victor Pross Yet again i state this is an inquiry to see if there are others who are interested. This is in the beginning stages and I personally do not want to do the loads of work it would take to put this together and then find out that no one is interested. The reason for a publishing house of this kind is so that those who are interested in this particular type of Art would be able to find it easily. Three dozen different authors publishing themselves does not lend itself well to piggy backing. The idea is to publish works with a similar aesthetic and philosophical value in the same place to allow readers to piggy back from one author to the other. As to me not publishing my work. Up to this point I have never considered it for various reasons not the least of which is that until a few years ago I had a major hangup about being dyslexic. Because of things I have mentioned i am reconsidering and if i did this i would publish some of my work. as for your assessment of the criteria we would throw out works that don't meet the criteria, however I would no more judge them against my work than i would Rand's.

I have already explained what I mean by objective art. Objectivism is a philosophical system. Romantic is a type of art. Thus the art that we are looking to promote by this is romantic in style and objectivist in philosophy. The dogmatism sounds like it's coming from Brant. You create new terms when the old ones are not sufficient. This Romantic objective art.