CSpeciale

Well, I was hoping I could compare it and standardize it to Ayn Rand's concept of objectivity as volitional adherence to reality by a method of logic, and by her objective logic and critical thinking ... except that I was too hasty in sharing the essay to see that this was never fully spelled-out by Ayn Rand or by Peikoff; neither went into great depth in discussion on this subject... and I've only recently become intrigued by it.

Dr. Richard Paul is the Director of Research and Professional Development at the Center for Critical Thinking and Chair of the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking. On the main website for the center, http://www.criticalthinking.org/ he offers a comprehensive library of topics, lessons and courses on how to think critically and how to teach students how to think critically. The website has impressed me with its objective of defining critical thinking as an intellectual means of integrating information and thinking about one's own thinking process. Additionally, one of the biggest speakers at the Center, Linda Elder, has delivered a short paper on how horrible the Common Core system is. I was interested in how well Dr. Paul's methodology of defining and developing a conceptual level of critical thinking matches up with Ayn Rand's theory of concept-formation and her general philosophy Objectivism. I found Dr. Paul's dissertation: "Logic as Theory of Validation: An Essay in Philosophical Logic." It is extraordinarily impressive. While it does not directly address the analytic-synthetic dichotomy of logic that Peikoff wrote about in ITOE, he holds the Aristotelian position that there is no conflict between matter and form, and that individual substances are made up of both (hylomorphism). He criticizes many logicians in history for failing to address crucial questions that are necessary to defining a method of logic, and seeks to answer them himself, taking many examples from Lionel Ruby's textbook Logic: An Introduction. From my own evaluation, his contribution to logic is gold. If anyone here is interested, I'd like to hear your opinion on it. -Chris Speciale

What don't you like about it? I actually did like it... it cleared a bit of my confusion

Would it be right to say that his statement is not relative for two clear reasons? 1. Dagny Taggart is in fact John Galt's heroine. 2. John Galt's love for Dagny is a love measured higher than his value for his life. I would think that the statement itself could imply one of two things. The first being: Galt is saying he would die for Dagny. But i cant see him doing that, I see Galt as a man who would strive to keep BOTH of them alive. Which bring me to the second possible implication: John Galt is living with Dagny in a world where there ARE no values higher than Dagny. If I may work from there now: John Galt's *second* truest love is to himself. If he can love his life in a world without values, he could certainly love his life just AS MUCH as he does in Atlantis. So even if Galt encountered more women who were just like Dagny, in the newborn Atlantis, John Galt would not change his love, because he'd only want to live through Atlantis with Dagny by his side... Does this sound correct?

What about this question. Any thoughts?

I remember reading somewhere that Rand suggests that it is natural for the feminine psyche to be dominated by a man, not to dominate. I think I disagree on this, in the real world. Perhaps this is the factor I've left out.

Presumably, yes. Does this imply that romantic love, in it's truest form, is an agreement? Or must one permit the other to own and to be owned? Only a slave acts on permission. Roark would not permit Dominique to obey him blindly, to revoke her marriage to Keating, because her mistake was something she had to learn herself how to fix. That was the only way he wanted her, and that was the only way which she could want to be loved. I guess what I think is the contradiction between these relationships is the agreement of two people saying one can run the other's life, and vice-versa, despite how neither person may give up their mind, yet it is by the mind which these people run their life.

Pride is an earned reward as well. Galt, Dagny, and Howard all have it. They live honestly, just, and rationally. They stand knowing that they are right. We can say that Howard chose Dominique because, even though she was not his perfect woman at the time he met her, he knew she was *capable* of becoming that perfected woman, and so he waited patiently for her, never changing his love for her, or redirecting his love to a different woman. Even if Howard had met another girl like Dagny, Howard would still choose Dominique, because she's the hardest for him to win. And for Galt, Dagny is the hardest for him to win. What is it they are winning?

Ayn's. It was my understanding that this is how 'true love' is treated; that a Man can see the woman he claims as his own, and no one else's. After all, Roark was nearly defaced when he heard that Dominique had chosen to marry Peter Keating, and Galt feels anchored to his life by Dagny Taggart, happy merely for the fact that she exists, but knowing he'd be happier if she belonged to him. He was jealous of Rearden-if only for a moment--and he's claimed he has *earned* Dagny, just as Dagny felt she has earned Galt. Similarly, she had only earned Rearden, prior to her change in mind and loyalty to defending Mankind after meeting Galt. Is this also not a relative action? I'm saying that earnings imply ownership, and rewards for one's virtues, just as a paycheck implies achievement, and rewards for one's hardwork. But isn't ownership of a person precisely what John Galt rejected from Twentieth Century?

The typical Randian Hero (Howard Roark, John Galt) claims ownership to the reflection of himself (Dominique Francon, Dagny Taggert respectively). What do they claim ownership to and why? Certainly not her mind? Roark told Dominique that he gives Dominique "my ego and my naked need." What does he mean by this? Galt told Dagny that he "loves her more than he loves his life." Is this a relative statement, due to the fact that the world he currently lives in is a world without value? If he and Dagny both lived happily in Atlantis, would Galt not love her more than his life, since in these conditions, he could give his life more meaning? Or is this statement and absolute? How and why? I've been studying objectivism for over a year now... this is one of a few concepts that still confuse me.

This pretty much answers my question. Thank you! It's eyes kind of made me think of Robert Downey Jr. Never saw the 1st. But Kurt Russel in "Soldier"?? He's certainly quiet enough... Btw i dont care if you kill this thread. this whole forum belongs to you guys

Thats so morbid!! X)

I'm still learning the philosophy of objectivism--i'm currently halfway through AS--and i've got a question that maybe someone here can answer. It seems like objectivism leaves no justification, no standards, no room for children. The prime movers in AS display a high level of resistance against authority, but in my eyes: they can AFFORD to go to jail, to be shot, to be robbed of their mind or spirit. For children, they are still developing the person they want themselves to become, learning the skills necessary to survive. And when threatned to have the sources that allow them to develop removed--schools, parents, etc.--they have no choice BUT to give in to authority, for they need those sources to continue their quest towards Individualism. So my question is: am i looking at this the wrong way? Or does objectivism leave out a huge chunk of ethics for children?

I think the fact that the teachers in my high school go easy on us should NOT be included in the generalizing of public schools. I think the teachers in my public high school go easy on us because they are teaching under the board of education system of North Carolina--aka, the most ignorant state in the nation. x) Ever looked at how many scholarships are handed out to students every year in each state? North Carolina gives ten times more than any other state. A lot of kids around here don't even LIKE to exert energy, nor do they like to THINK to solve a problem, and it's because our teachers have always done it for them.

Oh, you can click on each thumbnail and it'll bring you to a full page where you don't have to wait for the next line to scroll up. And believe me, I keep getting amazed too. I mean... maybe two years ago, I don't think the word "terabyte" even existed! Now they've got computers with hard drives that large, as if it were as simple to make as a pen. (And even THOSE are getting upgrades too!)

Excellent! Maybe you can provide us with a sample of your writing. Is that a public high school or a competent high school? It's a public high school. The only people I hang out with there are the ones who, like me, are NOT local to the region. Perhaps I could sample you guys. I'm very picky about where I leak my unprotected work, though. At any rate, most of my poetry is very inadequate. I've only recently learned how to write a love poem without using the word "love" in it. In my opinion, that's the GOOD kind of poetry. Anyway, there's a link to all of my protected work on my profile. I've got half of a novel uploaded on there. x) It's a speculative fiction, and it's not very good either.

I understand. I'm an upcoming-senior into high school, and the only actual work I do besides my own personal novel-writing is the back line of Mcdonalds.

Christopher: Welcome to OL. Of the two thoughts that you voiced, one is certainly in line with the Objectivist philosophy as enunciated by it's founder Ayn. The second is certainly not. Adam Thank you for the welcoming. Care to elaborate for me on my second thought? Or should I just read Atlas Shrugged and answer the question myself, do you think? ;D

I haven't read Atlas Shrugged. Not yet. I just finished reading The Fountainhead today. I thought the Objectivist philosophy was interesting so I decided to find an online forums to see how the "followers" act. Anyway, from what I learned, that if you want an Objectivist's point of view on your question, then your answer should go along the lines of: Think for yourself. It appears you're looking for the approval or consent of your fellow objectivists. I thought the philosophy was based on the idea that you do what YOU want. I mean... if you DID want the opinion of others just so you could see what they thought, then I guess that doesn't necessarily contradict the concept. But if you were to base your decision off the thoughts of these people... then you're in the wrong forum. Go hang out with the altruists.