DanaMarie215

I was discussing Objectivism with a friend of mine who said he'd be an Objectivist but he believes there are situations where morality and acting in your self interest come into conflict. The example he gave me was that if the 2 of us were stranded in the middle of nowhere & there was only supplies for one of us to survive, wouldn't it be in our individual self interest to kill the other? I told him I wasn't sure how to answer it & I've been thinking on it for about 2 weeks. I think this situation wouldn't occur if the 2 of us were looking out for our self interest from the beginning and never let ourselves get stranded and without the things needed to sustain both of us- keeping both of us from getting into the described situation above. Another scenario he provided is that he is dying and a doctor has the cure needed to save him. He claims it is in his rational self interest to force the doctor to treat him- anything to keep himself alive. My thoughts on that come to the value of the life you're leading after forcing another human to act as your slave. How great could a life, after forcing another human, could you have? I know it may vary for people, but for me, I would be disgusted with myself and unable to truly enjoy life after sacrificing another to me. I just wanted to get other thoughts on it before I responded to him.

I wasn't driven off & the cheerleaders didn't bother me. I don't mind contention or arguing either- you'll find it takes a lot to drive me off. I also don't mind men, you gentlemen seem decent enough. Additionally, I think Yaron Brook is fantastic. His views on Objectivist foreign policy are not any different from Rand's. I think he is, above all, very warm to other people. Where Peikoff might ignore offers from John Stossel, PJTV, and other conservative/libertarian outlets- Brook has decided to embrace the possibility that their could be a conversion there & he is right to do so. I was a christian conservative & my hero was Reagan- but after reading Atlas Shrugged, it flipped me. If there is a chance to reach the reason of another human being, Brook takes it.

Well, it may not be you, but, obviously, it is us, or some of us anyway. It had nothing to do with "her" and everything to do with Dennis and football. We got exuberant for the off-topic post is all. Anyone think of PMing her? It is alright. I enjoyed watching the back & forth. I enjoy observing interactions so it was actually entertaining for me.

Thank you, Michael. I am looking for a place to explore other ideas, debate the ones I don't need to explore, and see what other Objectivists & Rand fans are thinking. I'll debate the things I stand by but I'm also looking to learn about ideas and thoughts I haven't considered yet. Thanks for the welcome!

I'll check them out if I have time.

You're right, I have zero interest in whatever created the rift between Peikoff & Kelly. I find it irrelevant to me.

George Carlin explained the key differences between football and baseball very well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om_yq4L3M_I The bottom line: Baseball is for pansies! (Nothing personal, Mike.) It’s true that the NBI staff in the sixties always played baseball, never football. But I think that was because every time someone suggested football, Ayn always insisted on being the quarterback. You can imagine how that worked out. As for the Lexicon, one look at Binswanger and you know he’s a baseball guy. (Actually, probably a badminton guy.) I would bet Nathaniel prefers football. I seem to recall visiting his home back in the 70’s and noticing an autographed picture from Johnny Unitas, another great Colt quarterback and Peyton's mentor, on his wall. I would swear to it. I've always thought that Carlin put the differences between football & baseball beautifully. I find myself resorting back to his ideas when trying to compare the two.

Hi Andrew, I have not declared a major yet & have no idea what I will when I do so. I'll probably major in communication or something with a journalism type of focus but this changes probably weekly. I have no idea what I want to ultimately do & because I have a number of things I'd be good at, it gets difficult to narrow it down. I understand and appreciate the warnings. I've been careful not to fall into the trap of objectivist dogma and the worship, so to speak, of Rand. I love both but I also aknowledge that I don't need to march in lockstep with all of her views to live by reason.

As long as he doesn't have to run (er, attempt to run), Manning is great. But until the Colts lose Austin Collie (prick from BYU) I cannot cheer for them. Go Steelers & Bears... and any team with my fantasy players. Mike I prefer the NFL, I don't have a favorite college team. I do enjoy watching the SEC though- I don't have a specific team though.

Hi there Dennis... & the Colts? Eh. I'm a Bronco fan so I'll have to disagree with you on the idea of the "best quarterback in all of human history". I like Peyton, but Elway takes the GOAT title. Ha. I'll be sure to keep the 2nd part of advice in mind.

So, hi all. I’m Dana and, obviously, new here. My purpose of joining this forum is to interact with Objectivists and other Ayn Rand fans. I am a 19 year old college student and being such, it is like nails on a chalkboard when I try to discuss Ayn Rand with those older than me…“You’ll grow out of it” “I loved Ayn Rand in college but then I got into the real world” “You’ll have to compromise someday” “I loved Gary Cooper in the The Fountainhead” are just some of the things I hear from people after telling them I am an Ayn Rand fan and an objectivist. It is incredibly exhausting. I don’t take sides in the Peikoff vs. Kelley argument. I do, however, really like Yaron Brook and think he is a wonderful advocate of Objectivism and Capitalism. I could give you a long description of who I am and the things I value but I won’t. I’ll just say that the character I admire most in all of literature is Hank Rearden. The one I relate to the most? Dominque.