MrBenjamatic

You guys are funny

Reidy, as I mentioned to Aristocrates, I created a new definition of believing for the purpose of differentiating thinking and non-thinking. I created this definition for the same reason Ayn Rand created the following definition for sacrifice which hadn't existed before: the giving up of a greater value for the sake of a lesser value or a non-value. Sacrifice was always preached as a noble deed and Rand wanted to differentiate the difference between giving up lesser values or non-values for the sake of greater vales and giving up greater values for the sake of lesser values or non-values. Most people today hold that thinking and believing are interchangable words. I have created a new definition of believing to make clear that there is a difference between identifying and integrating emotions, wishes, whims and faith and identifying and integrating sensory evidence (by the standard of the laws of logic). According to my definition of belief, you did not believe that today would be Wednesday, you knew it (knowledge is sensory evidence and reason based on sensory evidence). By my definition of believing, yes, I used to be somewhat of a believer but upon discovering Objectivism I gradually replaced all my believing with thinking. Now, according to my definition of believing, I believe nothing (I'm not whimsical, I don't act on emotions, I don't take anything on faith and I know wishing won't make it so). I have been more clear in my argument in my reply to Aristocrates. Have I been clear?

I HAVE CORRECTED THIS IN THE FOLLOWING WAYS: 1. I WAS WRONG IS CREATING A DEFINITION OF BELIEVING WHICH UTTERLY CONTRADICTED ITS OTHER DEFINITIONS. I HAVE REPLACED BELIEVING WITH WHAT I FIRST HELD IT TO MEAN: NON-THINKING. 2. I MISCONSTRUED THINKING AND REASON TO BE THE SAME THING. REASON IS THE CAPACITY TO THINK (IDENTIFY & INTEGRATE SENSORY EVIDENCE). THINKING IS THE IDENTIFICATION AND INTEGRATION OF SENSORY EVIDENCE ITSELF. I HAVE CORRECTED MY IMPROPER USE OF THE WORDS THINKING AND REASON. I'd be glad to! It will be easiest for me to use my architecture as an example first. But before I do so I'll stress how it would be impossible to do so by non-thinking and by refusing to know. Plato held that effects don't pressupose causes; that something can move without anything causing it to move. To accept this as true would be an act of faith as the law of causality is an absolute. Could the man who invented the first car have done so by taking on faith Plato's assertion that things can move without anything causing it to move. How, then, would the car move? Because you wish it? Faith is not evidence of reality as faith is that which you accept as true without proof of its validity. Many people have faith in god; I've concluded he doesn't exist because I have no sensory evidence that he exists. A wish is not evidence of reality. Could you invent something new by wishing it will exist? No. Will an invention work because you whimsically decide it will work? No, you have to know it will work. Knowledge, said Rand, is sensory evidence and reason based off sensory evidence. Sensory evidence is evidence of reality; your senses are valid. Have I been specific enough in stating how genius can't rest on an attempt to identify and integrate wishes, whims and that which one takes on faith? Now I shall explain how all genius is based on sensory evidence and the capacity to and act of identifying & integrating sensory evidence. Reason is the faculty of identifying and integrating sensory evidence. Thinking is the act of identifying and integrating sensory evidence. Sensory evidence, indubitably, is evidence of reality. Your senses are valid. In order to build a bridge one has to know on what terrain one is going to build it. How can one know the metaphysical properties of the terrain if not by first sensing it with his five senses? He will then have to identify and integrate the sensory evidence in order to build the bridge. Ask yourself how long you would be able to remain in existence if you were born without your five senses. What if you were born without your faculty of sight, of touch, of hearing, of taste and of smell. Think about that then ask yourself how anyone can remain in existence bereft of consciousness-the faculty of percieving that which exists? Man is a being of volitional consciousness. Now ask yourself if you would be able to remain in existence by refusing to know sensory evidence, by evading consciousness. How could you read this right now if not by excersizing your faculty of sight (which is sensory evidence). Take, for instance, Gary Cola, the creator of Bainite Steel (7% stronger than steel!). Cola is a self-taught metallurgist who created a new metal, the strongest metal on the market. Do you think it would be possible for him to create that new metal by refusing the know sensory evidence? He would not have been able to create Bainite Steel had he evaded sensory evidence for the same reason you would not be able to remain in existence had you been born without your faculty of percieving sensory evidence. The creators principle (which I've created) is: "if something exists and you don't like it, create a solution. If something doesn't exist and it can exist and you think it ought to exist. Create it". Creation exists in reality. How can you percieve reality if not by virtue of your 5 senses, your faculty to percieve reality? How can you solve a problem in reality if you refuse to know sensory evidence? I think I've made clear that acting in accordance to sensory evidence is requisite to live and to create (and basically to do anything in accordance with reality). Now I shall discuss why genius is based on reason (the faculty that identifies and integrates sensory evidence) and thinking (the identification & integration of sensory evidence). Before discussing genius, I shall discuss thinking itself. Thinking is the non-contradictory identification and integration of sensory evidence by the standard of the laws of logic. Rand said, "the process of thinking . . . is the process of defining identity and discovering causal connections". I have realized I've made a mistake as you can identify and integrate your emotions (as I have done that); I defined thinking as the identification and integration of sensory evidence. I think it would be more fitting to define it as the identification and integration of that which exists (as this covers emotion and sensory evidence). As for Rand using the words casual connectings in her description of thinking, can anyone tell me what she means by this? These mistakes have not changed my conclusion that the majority of people refuse to know greatness as they refuse to know sensory evidence and thinking based on sensory evidence which justifies great creations. I've made the point that the laws of logic must be held as absolutes in order to reach valid conclusions. Thinking and the laws of logic are corrolaries. Would any thinking person believe that a thing is not itself- an overtly evident axiom?- In my psycho-epistemological study I had many long philosophical discussions with those who thought the laws of logic were folly, they were not rational. How can one be rational and at the same time believe that a thing can be itself and not be itself at the same time- believe that something can be absolutely true and false at the same time? They can't. Rand said a lot about the laws of logic and I suggest, if you're interested, you go to the Ayn Rand Lexicon. As I've proved, sensory evidence is absolutely evidence of reality. Sensory evidence is automatic. You cannot choose not to see that which is front of you without gauging out your eyes as you cannot choose to stop your heart from beating without moving. A pursuit of thinking identifies and integrates that which is absolutely evidence of reality, of existence. Being a genius presupposes acting in accordance to reality and thereby thinking in accordance to evidence of existence- of reality. In order to live, you must think. In order to achieve greatness you must think. You also asked for me to be specific as to what I meant when I said great. I hold a great man to be a genius. Greatness rests on the grounds of great virtue (thinking), great ability (reason), and great talent (creativity achieved by thinking because of reason, purpose and self-esteem). When I use the word great before virtue, talent and ability, I mean "an ample supply of". A genius is incredibly virtuous, able and talented, if that makes more sense. I misconstrued thinking to be the identification and integration of sensory evidence. I subconsciously made that mistake because, as a creator, identifying and integrating sensory evidence (not emotions or anything else) is what I know it takes to create great things; at least in my case. A great musician, Lionel Yu, composed songs which he claimed were based on his emotion. I hold that his great work was achieved by his acting on reason, purpose and self-esteem. I have no problem admitting that when I acted on emotion in my past my work was horrid to the degree I was acting on emotion. Lionel Yu may have acted on emotion for some songs but most of his songs are brilliant and were achieved by acting on reason, purpose and self esteem. The emotion of happiness, for me, is the reason I create, the reason I go through a ream of paper a month and have been since I was 5 BUT I DO NOT INTEGRATE MY EMOTIONS INTO MY WORK: a crucial point in understanding why greatness is evade. Keep in mind that, though happiness is the motivation of greats (even though they may not know it as I didn't until last year), creation is achieved by the identification and integration of sensory evidence. Louis Sullivan, the creator of the sky scraper, is great. It took an incredible amount of virtue (thinking), talent (rational creativity: a mind divorced from reality is NOT creative) and ability (reason) to create the skyscraper for the first time. I don't know the exact number of commissions he recieved; he didn't recieve many. His greatness was evaded by non-thinkers, by man-haters, by mediocrities (they didn't want to believe a sky scraper could exist or should exist). That which I put in brackets in the last sentence may not be objective, correct me if you can. The man who first invented the automobile is great in his virtue, talent and ability. His greatness was evaded; a great many people said they'd rather stick to their horses. Not all greatness has been evaded of course, in the long run; as evidence I offer you Coco Chanel. Ayn Rand, a genius, was evaded much more than she deserved; what she said is true, is right and good and she shouldn't have been evaded at all. It is most clear with Ayn Rand, as she created a great, non-contradictory, logical philosophy, that she was evaded by those who REFUSE(D) TO KNOW RATHER THAN TO THINK. Believers evade, refuse to know and are terrified of the laws of logic; they intentionally ignored Rands philosophy as it held the laws of logic as abolsutes -it held reason an an objective absolute. I may have made a mistake in this, though I find it probable that I didn't. An individuals view of man is introspective. That being said, I only create by identifying and integrating sensory evidence. One's emotions have nothing to do with laws of physics and certanlty nothing to do with My Benjamin. I know that non-thinkers attempt to integrate their wishes, whims, beliefs, that which they take on faith and their emotions (while refusing to identify them which is impossible; they pretend to have different emotions than they do and integrate that I think, none-the-less they integrate, in some way their emotions). I previously called this process believing; I admit I was wrong to. Their attempted integration of the above is bound to contradict sensory evidence as knowlege is hierarchal and so more contradictions sprout from the continuance and acceptance of contradictory premesis. The false can contradict the false. The false always contradicts the true. Those who hold and continue false premesis which contradict the truth of sensory evidence, refuse to know that specific sensory evidence (which contradicts their premises) upon reaching the contradiction. I realize that SOME genius rests on thinking which identifies emotion. Ayn Rand is an example of that. I will now, insted of using the concept of sensory evidence use the concept of truth so to be objective. BELOW I'VE STATED MY MOST UPDATED CLARIFICATION OF THE POINT OF THIS POST: WHY, THROUGHOUT HISTORY, HAS THE MAJORITY OF MANKIND REFUSED TO KNOW GENIUS' AND GREATNESS. All greatness is based on truth. SOMETIMES (AND VERY VERY OFTEN) when a non-thinkers false premises contradict a truth in existence, they evade that truth. When the truth upon which any genius or great creation may rest contradicts a false premises held vigorously and continued feverishly by a non-thinker, they will refuse to know the truth which contradicts their premises, thereby they refuse to know the thinking based on that particular truth, thereby they refuse to know the genius which rests on the thinking which rests on the truth which contradicted their false premises. This, I hold, is why, throughout history, the majority of mankind have refused to know genius' and refused to know the existence of great creations. If you still don't understand how greatness has been ignored I refer you to Howard Roarks speech. I did originally use the word 'evaded' and if I confused you I apologise. I will say again that Rand is the perfect example to use of a genius and to answer your question. I say when truth and thinking based on truth clash with and contradict a non-thinkers beliefs, they refuse to know that truth and all thinking based on it. Objectivism, which Rand created, is a GREAT philosphy based ABSOLUTELY on her thinking based on that which, to the extent of her knowlege is true and objective. The truth and thinking based on truth Rand used in creating objectivism clashed with and contradicted the beliefs of MANY people as I'm sure you've realized. Argue with an anti-objectivist. Do they refuse to know the truth on which your thinking is based? Do they refuse to know the truth and the thinking which Rand used to justify Objectivism? The means justify the end. Objectivism is justified by truth and thinking based on truth. Have I made sense this time? GOD I LOVE THINKING!

Incidentally, do you know where I can hear MSK's music. I couldn't find him on the website. I adore talented genius composers. Have you heard Karl Jenkins composition: Sancta Mater . That's my favorite song and what i hold to be the greatest song ever written in the history of mankind. I like it more than Vivaldi's Four Seasons, Mozarts Requiem, Tchaikovksy's 1812 Overture, Rachmianoff's Second Concerto, anything by Chopin and the rest of the lot. Bogdan Alin Ota is another non-fiction Richard halley (Atlas Shrugged). This was the video that I fell in love with: . My favorite composer is Lionel Yu. My favorite waltz is written by him: . He is my favorite!

This is appalling. What kind of monster hates a 5 year old child? I would guess that many members here were creative at an early age. MSK with his musical talent for a prime example. I used to make up stories and poems from about 5, I am sure many more did the same. I got some laughs and sneers from my "audience", sure, and I certainly was not praised to the skies, but never did I feel hated for my efforts. When I hit another kid on the head with a hammer in a sandbox at that age, I was hated and deservedly, but it had nothing to do with anybody's talent or confidence. It was about somebody's toy truck. You'd be surprised haha. My parents were and still are the most evil people I've ever known. They destroyed every drawing of mine from age 5 to 18 (except the 2,000 I hid). Living at home was comparable to Soviet Russia under direct control and supervision of hatred-eaten dicators. I go through a ream of paper a month (500 pages) which would add up to 6,000 a year. 18-5=13 so they destroyed a total of 78,000 drawings. Having an intellectual argument with Dad, I mention the first law of logic: a thing is itself. He said I was venturing into territories which didn't make sense, which made me burst out laughing. He asked me to give an example. I said a table is a table. He said he could change the definition of table. LOL. He didn't realize that even if he still changed the definition, the world table would still mean the word table. They believe that by changing definitions they can change reality into what they want, wish and believe it to be. Do you know when one first bursts out laughing in the face of evil? Upon realizing that the evil is the stupid. I laugh at evil people for the same reason I laugh at Michael Scott in the office.

The reason why my post was so long is that I have a lot to offer. I don't remember what it was titled or where it was from, but I agreed very much with a piece by Rand which stated the eagerness of a creator to show and to offer his values. Perhaps you may be right that I took it too far. I have a strong, passionate love of my work and I only wanted to show that which I have to offer and got carried away. I apologize if I have inconvenienced anyone.

To Michael Stuart Kelly: I have only had the chance to talk to one Objectivist before and I very much enjoy it. I love talking to thinkers as I love virtue. The reason for my posting my work is to show it to thinkers. Since I began my pursuit of My Benjamin at age 5, my only audience have been believers who have hated me for my talent and confidence. I thought here, it would be different.

Daunce, to the extent of my knowledge, most, not all, people believe rather than think. You can't be an absolute thinker and a believer at the same time. That would be a contradiction. You either act on reason absolutely or you don't. Either you think or you don't. Look around you (and I'm not speaking of this website), most people don't absolutely think. Of course there are undoubtedly those who accept reason as an objective absolute, but most of the population compromise between thinking and believing. Does this make sense?

I haven't. Have I missed something, Michael? I was stating that which, to the extent of my knowledge, is true. I merely wanted to have a philosophical conversation. That's all. Has Rand said anything on this point? I haven't read all her works yet. PDS: I did type this somewhat fast so I'll clarify it and edit the end. A belief is the attempted identification and integration of emotions, wishes, whims and that which one takes on faith. Believing is done in the expediency of the moment. When sensory evidence clashes with a believers belief (go back 2 sentences to see what I said of beliefs) a believer refuses to know the sensory evidence (that contradicted their beliefs). Greatness can only be justified by reason based on *sensory evidence*. When the sensory evidence, upon which the reason of a creator is based, clashes with and contradicts the beliefs of a believer, the believer will evade the sensory evidence thus evading the reason of the creator thus evading the greatness achieved by that reason. Does this make sense? The reason a believer evades sensory evidence (and reason and greatness which rest on that sensory evidence) is because a believer believes that his beliefs justify his existence. As I said it is insane, stupid and evil to believe; no existence can be justified by insanity, stupidity and evil. The believers are subconscious of this; they are subconscious of their evil insanity and refuse to know the sensory evidence and reason which proves it. They evade sensory evidence because if they didn't they would know that they're evil and insane. That terrifies them. That is why they're terrified of the laws of logic. Terror and fear go together; you can't have one without the other. If you ever converse with a believer and you, in conversation, hold the laws of logic as absolutes and prove that their premises contradict the laws of logic, you'll scare them and they'll get angry. Does this make sense?

I MADE TOO MANY MISTAKES IN MY ORIGINAL TO KEEP IT HERE. I HAVE POSTED MY UPDATE BELOW AND MY ORIGINAL BELOW IT. I HAVE CORRECTED THIS IN THE FOLLOWING WAYS: 1. I WAS WRONG IS CREATING A DEFINITION OF BELIEVING WHICH UTTERLY CONTRADICTED ITS OTHER DEFINITIONS. I HAVE REPLACED BELIEVING WITH WHAT I FIRST HELD IT TO MEAN: NON-THINKING. 2. I MISCONSTRUED THINKING AND REASON TO BE THE SAME THING. REASON IS THE CAPACITY TO THINK (IDENTIFY & INTEGRATE SENSORY EVIDENCE). THINKING IS THE IDENTIFICATION AND INTEGRATION OF SENSORY EVIDENCE ITSELF. I HAVE CORRECTED MY IMPROPER USE OF THE WORDS THINKING AND REASON. I'd be glad to! It will be easiest for me to use my architecture as an example first. But before I do so I'll stress how it would be impossible to do so by non-thinking and by refusing to know. Plato held that effects don't pressupose causes; that something can move without anything causing it to move. To accept this as true would be an act of faith as the law of causality is an absolute. Could the man who invented the first car have done so by taking on faith Plato's assertion that things can move without anything causing it to move. How, then, would the car move? Because you wish it? Faith is not evidence of reality as faith is that which you accept as true without proof of its validity. Many people have faith in god; I've concluded he doesn't exist because I have no sensory evidence that he exists. A wish is not evidence of reality. Could you invent something new by wishing it will exist? No. Will an invention work because you whimsically decide it will work? No, you have to know it will work. Knowledge, said Rand, is sensory evidence and reason based off sensory evidence. Sensory evidence is evidence of reality; your senses are valid. Have I been specific enough in stating how genius can't rest on an attempt to identify and integrate wishes, whims and that which one takes on faith? Now I shall explain how all genius is based on sensory evidence and the capacity to and act of identifying & integrating sensory evidence. Reason is the faculty of identifying and integrating sensory evidence. Thinking is the act of identifying and integrating sensory evidence. Sensory evidence, indubitably, is evidence of reality. Your senses are valid. In order to build a bridge one has to know on what terrain one is going to build it. How can one know the metaphysical properties of the terrain if not by first sensing it with his five senses? He will then have to identify and integrate the sensory evidence in order to build the bridge. Ask yourself how long you would be able to remain in existence if you were born without your five senses. What if you were born without your faculty of sight, of touch, of hearing, of taste and of smell. Think about that then ask yourself how anyone can remain in existence bereft of consciousness-the faculty of percieving that which exists? Man is a being of volitional consciousness. Now ask yourself if you would be able to remain in existence by refusing to know sensory evidence, by evading consciousness. How could you read this right now if not by excersizing your faculty of sight (which is sensory evidence). Take, for instance, Gary Cola, the creator of Bainite Steel (7% stronger than steel!). Cola is a self-taught metallurgist who created a new metal, the strongest metal on the market. Do you think it would be possible for him to create that new metal by refusing the know sensory evidence? He would not have been able to create Bainite Steel had he evaded sensory evidence for the same reason you would not be able to remain in existence had you been born without your faculty of percieving sensory evidence. The creators principle (which I've created) is: "if something exists and you don't like it, create a solution. If something doesn't exist and it can exist and you think it ought to exist. Create it". Creation exists in reality. How can you percieve reality if not by virtue of your 5 senses, your faculty to percieve reality? How can you solve a problem in reality if you refuse to know sensory evidence? I think I've made clear that acting in accordance to sensory evidence is requisite to live and to create (and basically to do anything in accordance with reality). Now I shall discuss why genius is based on reason (the faculty that identifies and integrates sensory evidence) and thinking (the identification & integration of sensory evidence). Before discussing genius, I shall discuss thinking itself. Thinking is the non-contradictory identification and integration of sensory evidence by the standard of the laws of logic. Rand said, "the process of thinking . . . is the process of defining identity and discovering causal connections". I have realized I've made a mistake as you can identify and integrate your emotions (as I have done that); I defined thinking as the identification and integration of sensory evidence. I think it would be more fitting to define it as the identification and integration of that which exists (as this covers emotion and sensory evidence). As for Rand using the words casual connectings in her description of thinking, can anyone tell me what she means by this? These mistakes have not changed my conclusion that the majority of people refuse to know greatness as they refuse to know sensory evidence and thinking based on sensory evidence which justifies great creations. I've made the point that the laws of logic must be held as absolutes in order to reach valid conclusions. Thinking and the laws of logic are corrolaries. Would any thinking person believe that a thing is not itself- an overtly evident axiom?- In my psycho-epistemological study I had many long philosophical discussions with those who thought the laws of logic were folly, they were not rational. How can one be rational and at the same time believe that a thing can be itself and not be itself at the same time- believe that something can be absolutely true and false at the same time? They can't. Rand said a lot about the laws of logic and I suggest, if you're interested, you go to the Ayn Rand Lexicon. As I've proved, sensory evidence is absolutely evidence of reality. Sensory evidence is automatic. You cannot choose not to see that which is front of you without gauging out your eyes as you cannot choose to stop your heart from beating without moving. A pursuit of thinking identifies and integrates that which is absolutely evidence of reality, of existence. Being a genius presupposes acting in accordance to reality and thereby thinking in accordance to evidence of existence- of reality. In order to live, you must think. In order to achieve greatness you must think. You also asked for me to be specific as to what I meant when I said great. I hold a great man to be a genius. Greatness rests on the grounds of great virtue (thinking), great ability (reason), and great talent (creativity achieved by thinking because of reason, purpose and self-esteem). When I use the word great before virtue, talent and ability, I mean "an ample supply of". A genius is incredibly virtuous, able and talented, if that makes more sense. I misconstrued thinking to be the identification and integration of sensory evidence. I subconsciously made that mistake because, as a creator, identifying and integrating sensory evidence (not emotions or anything else) is what I know it takes to create great things; at least in my case. A great musician, Lionel Yu, composed songs which he claimed were based on his emotion. I hold that his great work was achieved by his acting on reason, purpose and self-esteem. I have no problem admitting that when I acted on emotion in my past my work was horrid to the degree I was acting on emotion. Lionel Yu may have acted on emotion for some songs but most of his songs are brilliant and were achieved by acting on reason, purpose and self esteem. The emotion of happiness, for me, is the reason I create, the reason I go through a ream of paper a month and have been since I was 5 BUT I DO NOT INTEGRATE MY EMOTIONS INTO MY WORK: a crucial point in understanding why greatness is evade. Keep in mind that, though happiness is the motivation of greats (even though they may not know it as I didn't until last year), creation is achieved by the identification and integration of sensory evidence. Louis Sullivan, the creator of the sky scraper, is great. It took an incredible amount of virtue (thinking), talent (rational creativity: a mind divorced from reality is NOT creative) and ability (reason) to create the skyscraper for the first time. I don't know the exact number of commissions he recieved; he didn't recieve many. His greatness was evaded by non-thinkers, by man-haters, by mediocrities (they didn't want to believe a sky scraper could exist or should exist). That which I put in brackets in the last sentence may not be objective, correct me if you can. The man who first invented the automobile is great in his virtue, talent and ability. His greatness was evaded; a great many people said they'd rather stick to their horses. Not all greatness has been evaded of course, in the long run; as evidence I offer you Coco Chanel. Ayn Rand, a genius, was evaded much more than she deserved; what she said is true, is right and good and she shouldn't have been evaded at all. It is most clear with Ayn Rand, as she created a great, non-contradictory, logical philosophy, that she was evaded by those who REFUSE(D) TO KNOW RATHER THAN TO THINK. Believers evade, refuse to know and are terrified of the laws of logic; they intentionally ignored Rands philosophy as it held the laws of logic as abolsutes -it held reason an an objective absolute. I may have made a mistake in this, though I find it probable that I didn't. An individuals view of man is introspective. That being said, I only create by identifying and integrating sensory evidence. One's emotions have nothing to do with laws of physics and certanlty nothing to do with My Benjamin. I know that non-thinkers attempt to integrate their wishes, whims, beliefs, that which they take on faith and their emotions (while refusing to identify them which is impossible; they pretend to have different emotions than they do and integrate that I think, none-the-less they integrate, in some way their emotions). I previously called this process believing; I admit I was wrong to. Their attempted integration of the above is bound to contradict sensory evidence as knowlege is hierarchal and so more contradictions sprout from the continuance and acceptance of contradictory premesis. The false can contradict the false. The false always contradicts the true. Those who hold and continue false premesis which contradict the truth of sensory evidence, refuse to know that specific sensory evidence (which contradicts their premises) upon reaching the contradiction. I realize that SOME genius rests on thinking which identifies emotion. Ayn Rand is an example of that. I will now, insted of using the concept of sensory evidence use the concept of truth so to be objective. BELOW I'VE STATED MY MOST UPDATED CLARIFICATION OF THE POINT OF THIS POST: WHY, THROUGHOUT HISTORY, HAS THE MAJORITY OF MANKIND REFUSED TO KNOW GENIUS' AND GREATNESS. All greatness is based on truth. SOMETIMES (AND VERY VERY OFTEN) when a non-thinkers false premises contradict a truth in existence, they refuse to know that truth. They continue their contradiction as they want to believe or believe that contradictions exist. When the truth upon which any genius or great creation may rest contradicts a false premises held vigorously and continued feverishly by a non-thinker, they will refuse to know the truth which contradicts their premises, thereby they refuse to know the thinking based on that particular truth, thereby they refuse to know the genius which rests on the thinking which rests on the truth which contradicted their false premises. This, I hold, is why, throughout history, the majority of mankind have refused to know genius' and refused to know the existence of great creations. If you still don't understand how greatness has been ignored I refer you to Howard Roarks speech. I did originally use the word 'evaded' and if I confused you I apologise. I will say again that Rand is the perfect example to use of a genius and to answer your question. I say when truth and thinking based on truth clash with and contradict a non-thinkers beliefs, they refuse to know that truth and all thinking based on it. Objectivism, which Rand created, is a GREAT philosphy based ABSOLUTELY on her thinking based on that which, to the extent of her knowlege is true and objective. The truth and thinking based on truth Rand used in creating objectivism clashed with and contradicted the beliefs of MANY people as I'm sure you've realized. Argue with an anti-objectivist. Do they refuse to know the truth on which your thinking is based? Do they refuse to know the truth and the thinking which Rand used to justify Objectivism? The means justify the end. Objectivism is justified by truth and thinking based on truth. Have I made sense this time? GOD I LOVE THINKING! My original post is below. I made many mistakes and I have corrected them. Incidentally thats one of the most profound reasons I'm on this site is to have my mistakes corrected as I want to and must be right. The reason I post it below is so readers will know what the first posts were referring to. Thinking is the non-contradictory identification and integration of sensory evidence by the standard of the laws of logic. Sensory evidence IS evidence of reality. Believing is the attempt to identify and integrate emotions, wishes, whims and that which one takes on faith (accept as true without sensory evidence). There are many degrees between thinking and believing, however, it is RIGHT to absolutely think (and never believe). Neither emotions nor wishes nor whims nor faith are evidence of reality. When a believers beliefs contradict sensory evidence and truth, they struggle to evade sensory evidence and truth. Firstly, ask yourself how long you would be able to remain in existence if you were born without your 5 senses (sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste). Ask yourself whether those who evade sensory evidence wish to remain in existence or to escape it and die. As I mentioned earlier, when a believers beliefs clash with and contradict sensory evidence, they evade sensory evidence, they refuse to know it exists. Believers thereby evade and refuse to know all reason based on sensory evidence which clashes with and contradicts their beliefs. Greatness and genius is based on reason based on sensory evidence. Believers are thereby evasive of greatness when the reason it presupposed is based on sensory evidence which clashes with and contradicts their beliefs. A belief is the attempted identification and integration of emotions, wishes, whims and that which one takes on faith. Believing is done in the expediency of the moment. When sensory evidence clashes with a believers belief (go back 2 sentences to see what I said of beliefs) a believer refuses to know that sensory evidence. Greatness can only be justified by reason based on *sensory evidence*. When the sensory evidence, upon which the reason of a creator is based, clashes with and contradicts the beliefs of a believer, the believer will evade the sensory evidence thus evading the reason of the creator thus evading the greatness achieved by that reason. Throughout the history of mankind, the majority of individuals around the globe have been, to whatever degree, believers. It is insane, stupid and evil to believe: to act on the premise that emotions, wishes, whims and faith are evidence of reality and that sensory evidence is not (evidence of reality) when it contradicts ones beliefs. I hold that it is sane, smart, and good to think, as all true objectivists agree; this is because sensory evidence IS evidence of reality, so the non-contradictory identification & integration of sensory evidence by the standard of the laws of logic (which are axioms) is to act in direct accordance with reality. You can't be an absolute thinker and a believer at the same time. That would be a contradiction. You either act on reason absolutely or you don't. Either you think or you don't. Look around you (and I'm not speaking of this website); most people don't absolutely think. Of course there are undoubtedly those who accept reason as an objective absolute, but most of the population compromises between thinking and believing. As George Bernard Shaw, an evil fabian socialist, so eloquently said, "Most people only think once or twice a year". That is INCREDIBLY true. Either you accept reason as an objective absolute or you don't. Thinking is good and believing is evil. As all middle-ground between good and evil is evil, all middle-ground between thinking and believing is believing. Shaw dubiously joked, "an asylum for the sane in America would be empty". Then came Ayn Rand. New: Many have been misconstrued by my definition of believing as it contradicts previous definitons, which I think is impractical. It occured to me to hereby call NON-THINKING that which I called BELIEVING. Do you agree, brother? CORRECTION: What if, I call non-thinking the evasion to exersize the mind and/or any attempt to identify and integrate emotions, wishes, whims and that which one takes on faith,;and as an estimation of non-thinking rather than a definition? Do you agree with my new estimation? Do you agree with it being an estimation rather than a definition? *P.S. my purpose in doing this is to clearly differentiate thinking and non-thinking by being as clear in my estimation of non-thinking as Rand was in her basic estimation of thinking (the identification & integration of sensory evidence). If you can think of any way to better achieve this purpose I'd very much like to hear it. The non-thinkers sell non-thinking as thinking and I want to make it difficult for them to argue that they think. My primary purpose is to make aware of non-thinking those who want to think so they can more clearly and consciously evade non-thinking.

Let me be frank and ask what you meant by here we go? I've witnessed, on Leonard Piekoff's facebook, an odd, presumptuous boy pretending to be a creator, and, I assume that there are more like him. I'm curious, is my assumption correct that you think I'm like the presumptuous boy?

It's haute couture; it is sewn to fit your body specifically. I'd have you 3d scanned first, have your dimensions sent to CAD then have a model (with your exact dimensions) 3d printed then sew on that. Which middle one are you referring to?

A great deal of the photos are not shown as the number of them I included was above the limit. My facebook (Philip Benjamin Hart) shows them all and more.

An architectural sculpture I did about a year ago. The center statue is of a hooded Prometheus. I couldn't create the atrium. Though you can't see it clearly, it gives you an idea of what Benjamatic architecture looks like, however, indubitably, Benjamatic architecture has utterly, utterly progressed aesthetically and technologically since this was made. In fact, in the past year and a half, my architecture has furthered more so than in any other time in my entire life. This is because of my discovery and full acceptance of Objectivist philosophy. The second photograph is of the same sculpture lighted at night. I apologise for the cell phone quality picture, my scanner and computer are done for. Storage Room for my works (perfume & sketches), lit by fire, made of wintergreen i-crete, gold (the gold statue of the previous picture), fusion granite and glass (the floor is glass, and the fire falls into an 8' to 15' deep pit under the glass floor (and the smoke is sucked out by vents in the shape of sculpture). The second photo is of the gold heroine statue from which fire spouts in my Work Storage Room. I'll post one more architectural portrait then I'll post my other work, as, I think only I can understand the 3d dimensions of my drawings. Incidentally it is certain that my architecture can be constructed; it involves The Benjamin Molding process including 3d scanners, 3d printers, CAD, investment casting, sand casting and more. I've already selected who will build my foundry (a foundry is required to build Benjamatically as no foundry in existence is capable of my molding process). Firepit of iron twining which holds scented wood such as cedar. There is a kitchen in which my cook will prepare small french courses to my guests and I as we enjoy a sensuous fire in the Sensuous Forest (the forest on my estate, which is perfumed, naturally, with naturally scented trees, flowers, shrubs and plants. The rest of my writing, to the extend of my knowlege, is readable. A 5 story tall sculpture of Atlas (I know how to build it but will not reveal so until I have regained, duly, the right to build it if offered a commission). The tower is an indoor round-about with fluorescently glowing statues of Gods/Heroes/Aristocrats (ex. Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Frank Lloyd Wright, Louis Sullivan, Henry Bessemer, Ayn Rand, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin....). The fluoresce lights will light, in colors I choose from lighting pad (which controls the color and brightness of the rooms lighting - found on the B-chair and the entrances to the tower). The tower is the indoor roundabout to the exclusive resort (summer or winter depending on location & whether or no that damn dictator of Fiji gets his bureaucratic hell out of my way): Atlantis Benjamatic. Admittance to Atlantis is only allowed to Gods, Heroes, Aristocrats (of the aristocracy of virtue and talent)- those who exist for their own sake, who are rationally selfish and with great ability, who accept or are in the pursuit of accepting reason as an objective absolute to use and act on in every instance of existence. Below I've posted my haute couture Benjamatic. P.S. I've named my work and style Benjamatic after my middle name Benjamin. Below I've posted my Second Renaissance version of Atlas (of which in my architecture there will be many sculptures) and the Atlas cocktail haute couture titled "Atlas Unbridled". The Second Renaissance Atlas sketch reads: The previous Atlas portrays his sustaining of the world to be a stressful burden. It's not. It's in a creators self interest to sustain the world; he sustains the world to sustain himself, his values, his standards, his life. His effort, though great, is not a stressful hassle as his life is not a stressful hassle, its rather brilliant, rather glorious, rather virtuous, its worth it, its true, its right, its good, its great. To a creator niether his life nor his virtue are burdens. The historical version of Atlas portrays a heavy globe; an inaccurate metaphor as his great ability greatly lightens the load. The globe, to a creator, is niether heavy to move nor large; it's his premeses, he thinks internationally, the world is his to move. The world takes the great effort of great virtue to carry, but it's not heavy to Atlas, it's light. Only when one knows one is important is the world light to carry. The entrance-way and entrance bridge of a guest cottage or a creators estate/appartment/winter or summerhome in Atlantis Benjamatic. The nude goddess is an alloy, copper with enough rose gold so that it will not turn green. The i-crete is wintergeen, very pale, almost white. Fragrance can always be expected from architectural commissions Benjamatic: there are scented trees (possibly, if I will it, there may be thick iron twining with ledges on which to light fires with cedar and other fragranced wood. The road are pebbles of amethyst, malachite and chrysocholla, perhaps azurite - all laquered. Under the stones, in certain spots, I have, out of esthetic practicallity, added lighting which glows under the pebbles (accessed and changed by entering the frugal tunnel under the road). The lighting color and brightness is up to the will of the owner and can be changed online (a private online accessable means of controlling one's own architecture Benjamatic!). The bridge is mainly glass (and copper which, intentionally, will green). The color of the glass depends on the natural environment in which it is built. A Second Renaissance Aristocratic heroine. The Second Renaissanc aristocracy shall be a natural aristocracy which rests only on the grounds of virtue, talent and abilitywithout need of noble title. I advocate the natural aristocracy advocated by Thomas Jeffersonand Ayn Rand.http://sphotos-b.xx....561688_n.jpgThe above is an ad for a perfume I want to create called "The Aristocrat Voluptuous". It will have base notes of wintergreen mint, gardenia and peach. It will have deep base notes of'lavdender and dry pinot noir. She holds the amethyst bottle (which can only be made by virtueof the Benjamin Molding process). It would have to be made by hand had I not created my moldingprocess.http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/292453_145470388924625_1235452636_n.jpghttp://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/418257_141850409286623_1962054652_n.jpghttp://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/557697_135201539951510_1262510458_n.jpgBelow: Haute Couture, Black & White, Aristocratic Masquerade Benjamatichttp://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/295124_135205599951104_1934862133_n.jpghttp://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/532596_135205646617766_1964817319_n.jpghttp://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/402925_135205773284420_200402889_n.jpghttp://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/563385_135205799951084_1504942099_n.jpghttp://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/523589_135205816617749_2093033620_n.jpghttp://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/406006_135205843284413_1219175307_n.jpghttp://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/523466_135205856617745_349387428_n.jpghttp://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s720x720/581187_103648306440167_2017773830_n.jpghttp://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/542043_103648516440146_204719025_n.jpghttp://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s720x720/405030_103648733106791_1974422057_n.jpghttp://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s720x720/534305_103659749772356_469185274_n.jpghttp://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/s720x720/301717_103665149771816_788533513_n.jpghttp://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s720x720/543390_103652279773103_2097674552_n.jpgMy second favorite quote: "All the forces in the world are not so powerful as anidea whose time has come" -Victor Hugo. This was the original cover of my book which I'm about to publish. The book is of my court case against the "professional", government-sanctionedcollective regulating the field of architecture who have made lwas making it illegal forBenjamatic architecture to be built. My final cover is below:http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/599881_145470768924587_1407622577_n.jpgMy book is titled: The Benjamin Suit: The Diary, Testimony & Summation of a Fountainhead. Top left: Life, Liberty, property & The Pursuit of Happiness. The Benjamin Suit: The Diary, Testimony & Summation of a Fountainhead - Philip Benjamin Hart. "All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come." -Victor Hugo. Bottom Middle will be changed to: By reason I think, On reason I act. Bottom Right: Don't Tread On ME! Top Right: The Laws of Logic: A is A, Non-contradiction, Either-or. I have based rights directly off the laws of logic, which, to the extent of my knowledge has never been done before. I shall quote, from my case, my explaination of rights: Ihave the INALIENABLE RIGHT to use and dispose of, offer to trade and give awaythat which is mine and no one else’s WITHOUT PERMISSION. Rights can be exercised without permission;only a SLAVE can only act on permission and permission can be revoked at anytime. I shall now prove that I have theright to use and dispose of, offer to trade and give away that which is mineand no one else’s without permission. A thing is itself. That is an irrefutable axiom. A human is a human. A thing is itself. Contradictions do not exist in reality. A human cannot be a toad at the sametime. The sky cannot be all red and allblue at the same time. A rock cannot bea brain at the same time. A thing cannotbe completely true and completely false at the same time. An action cannot be absolutely right andabsolutely wrong at the same time. Aperson cannot be completely evil and completely good at the same time. A thingcannot be itself and not be itself at the same time. A tree cannot be a tree and not be a tree atthe same time. These are the first twolaws of logic. The third is the eitheror law of logic. Either something istrue or it is false. That is anabsolute. Any compromise between thetrue and the false IS FALSE. I could, asan example of something half true and half false, say that 1+1=5. There is some truth to it. The number one exists. Addition exists. The number five exists. That’s true. But 1+1 does NOT equal 5. Eithersomething is true or it is false and the middle ground is ALWAYS FALSE. Either an action is right or wrong and themiddle ground is ALWAYS WRONG. The rightis always in accordance and agreement with the true. The wrong is always in accordance andagreement, to any degree, with the false. In order to stay alive while driving one must identify and integratesensory evidence without contradiction and thereby act in accordance with one’ssenses-right or wrong? In order to discover how to performmathematics, man must think and accept these laws of logic as absolutes becausemathematics is absolutely logical (without contradictions), right or wrong? In order for man to remain in the existencehe affronts he must think, right or wrong? In order for man to fly he must create themeans to as he is not naturally capable of flying without man-made creation, right or wrong? The purely right is in absolute agreementwith the truth required to be right. Thewrong, that which is not the purely right, must not be in absolute agreementwith the truth required to be right. The wrong is that which is not theabsolutely right. In regards tohuman will, the moral evaluations of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are used. Why human will? In order to be evil one has to choose to beevil and the same goes for goodness, wrong and right actions. Choice presupposes will. A rock cannot be evil. An animal acts on instinct; it has no willand thereby can’t be good or evil and the same goes for a robot. The good is in absolute practical agreementwith the truth and the right. The evil,that which is not absolutely good, is notin absolute practical agreement with the truth and the right. The good presupposes the true and theright. The evil presupposes the false andthe wrong. Another law of logic isnothing can be proved that cannot be sensed. YOU CANNOT PROVE THE EXISTENCE OFA NEGATIVE. Using the laws of logic,I shall explain rights and why they’re true, right, good and natural. A thing is itself. You and no one else is you and no oneelse. This is irrefutable. A thing is itself. You and no one else isyou and no one else. You can't disagree with that, you cannot be you andsomeone else at the same time, you're you and no one else. Your mind andno one else's is your mind and no one else's. Irrevocably,irrefutably. Your mind is yours andno one else’s *naturally*. Your bodyand no one else's is your body and no one else's. Your body is yours and no one else’s*naturally*. Your life and no oneelse's is your life and no one else's. Your life is yours and no one else’s *naturally*. That which is yours and no one else's isyours and no one else's. That which is yours and no one else's is yourproperty and no one else's. Thereby, your mind (and no one else's), yourbody (and no one else's), and your life (and no one else's), is your property andno one else's. Your private property is that which is your propertyand no one else's. Thereby your mind, your life and your body(and no one else's) are your private property, becausethey're yours and no one else's. Your mind, yourlife and your body (and no one else's) are your private property, naturally,because they're yours and no one else's, naturally. Ifyou own a car and if that car is yours and no one else's, it’s yourprivate property. Do I have theright to use your car(and no one else's) without yourvoluntary permission? No, because a car that’s yours and no one else’s is yours and no one else's (so I wouldneed only your permission and no one else's to use your car and no one else's). Do youhave the right to use your car and no one else’s with no oneelse’s permission? Yes, because yourcar and no one else’s is your car andno one else’s. Do I have the right to dispose of your car (and no one else's) without your voluntary permission? No, because your car and no oneelse’s is your car and no one else's(so I would need only your permissionand no one else's to dispose of your car and no one else's). Do youhave the right to dispose of your car and no one else’s with no oneelse’s permission? Yes because a carthat’s yours and no one else’s is acar that’s yours and no one else’s. Do I have the right to give awayor offer to trade yourcar and no one else’s without yourpermission? No, because that car is yours and no one else's (so I wouldneed only your permission and no one else's to give away or offer to tradeyour car and no one else's). Do youhave the right to give away or offerto trade your car and no one else’s with no one else’s permission? YES because your car and no one else’s is YOUR CAR AND NO ONE ELSE’S! Your mind and no one else's, your life and no one else's,your body and no one else's and your property and no one else's IS AT YOURUSE AND DISPOSAL AND NO ONE ELSE'S, IS YOURS AND NO ONE ELSE'S TO GIVEAWAY OR OFFER TO TRADE. Do I have the right to use that which is yours and no one else's (your privateproperty) without your voluntarypermission? No, because that which is yours and no one else’s is yours and no one else's (so I wouldneed only your permission and no one else'sto use that which is yours and noone else’s; it is your PRIVATE PROPERTY). Do you have the right to use that which is yours and no one else’s (your privateproperty) with no one else’spermission? Yes, because that which isyours and no one else’s is yours andno one else’s (your private property). Do I have the right to disposeof that which is yours and no one else's(your private property) without yourvoluntary permission? No, because that which is yours and no one else’s is yours and no one else's (and therebyyour private property so I would need onlyyour permission and no one else's to dispose of yourproperty and no one else's). Do youhave the right to dispose of thatwhich is yours and no one else’s(your private property) with no oneelse’s permission? Yes because thatwhich is yours and no one else’s isyours and no one else’s (and thereby your private property). Do I havethe right to give away or offer to trade that which is yours and no one else’s (your privateproperty) without your permission? No, because that which is yours andno one else’s is yours and no one else's (and thereby your private property, soI would need only your permission and no one else's to give away or offer to trade that which isyours and no one else’s; it is your PRIVATE PROPERTY). Do you have the right to give away or offer to trade thatwhich is yours and no one else’s withno one else’s permission? YES because that which is YOURS AND NO ONEELSE’S IS YOURS AND NO ONE ELSE’S ANDTHEREBY YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY! Your mind and no one else's, your lifeand no one else's, your body and no one else's and your property and noone else's IS AT YOUR USE AND DISPOSAL AND NO ONE ELSE'S, IS YOURS AND NO ONE ELSE'S TOGIVE AWAY OR OFFER TO TRADE. In order to use and or dispose,give away and or offer to trade that which isn't yours, YOU MUST RECIEVEVOLUNTARY PERMISSION FROM HE TO WHOM IT BELONGS. The only validpermission to use/dispose/give away/offer to trade that which is yours CAN ONLYCOME FROM HE TO WHOM IT BELONGS TO AND NO ONE ELSE. Theright to property is the right to use anddispose of, give away and offer to trade that which is yours and no one else's WITHOUT PERMISSION. Your properties are: your mind and no one else's the ideas of your mind and no one else's the material products of your mind and no one else’s (whether it be your creations and no one else’s or the financial profit earned by your creation and no one else's) Your body and no one else's Your life and no one else’s That which you and no one else earned from voluntary trading with others That which you and no one else receive from others by their voluntary charity The right to life is the right to use and dispose of, give awayand offer to trade your life and no one else's WITHOUT PERMISSION. The right to thepursuit of happiness is the right to bevirtuous WITHOUT PERMISSION, so long as you do not use initiatory force onothers against their will to be either virtuous or un-virtuous. Value isthat which one wants to gain and keep. Virtue is the act of gaining andor keeping it. Individuals have the right to be virtuous so long as theydo not initiate the use of force on others against their will. It isright to have a right to be right. Inorder to remain in existence you have to be right because to be wrong in actionis fatal, to the degree of your error in relation to your existence. As I said, one must be right in order toremain in the existence you affront. That’s why rights are called rights; because it is right to have a rightto be right so to self-sustain your existence. One must be virtuous in order to remain in existence, thereby it isright to be virtuous, thereby one has a right to be virtuous. The virtues are: rationality, independence,integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride; one must exercise thesevirtues in order to remain in existence. “Rationality is the recognition ofthe fact that existence exists, that nothing can alter the truth and nothingcan take precedence over that act of perceiving it, which is thinking-that themind is one’s only judge of values and one’s only guide of action-that reasonis an absolute that permits no compromise-that a concession to the irrationalinvalidates one’s consciousness and turns it from the task of perceiving to thetask of faking reality-that the alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith,is only a short-circuit destroying the mind-that the acceptance of a mysticalinvention is a wish for the annihilation of existence and, properly,annihilates one’s consciousness. “Independence is the recognition ofthe fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help youescape it-that no substitute can do your thinking, as no pinch-hitter can liveyour life-that the vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction is thesubordination of your mind to the mind of another, the acceptance of anauthority over your brain, the acceptance of his assertions as facts, hissay-so as truth, his edicts as middle-man between your consciousness and yourexistence. “Integrity is the recognition of thefact that you cannot fake your consciousness, just as honesty is therecognition of the fact that you cannot fake existence-that man is anindivisible entity, an integrated unit of two attributes: of matter andconsciousness, and that he may permit no breach between body and mind, betweenaction and thought, between his life and his convictions-that, like a judgeimpervious to public opinion, he may not sacrifice his convictions to thewishes of others, be it the whole of mankind shouting pleas or threats againsthim-that courage and confidence are practical necessities, that courage is thepractical form of being true to existence, of being true to one’s ownconsciousness. “Honesty is the recognition of thefact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value, that neither love norfame nor cash is a value if obtained by fraud-that an attempt to gain a valueby deceiving the mind of others is an act of raising your victims to a positionhigher than reality, where you become a pawn of their blindness, a slave oftheir non-thinking and their evasions, while their intelligence, theirrationality, their perceptiveness become the enemies you have to dread and flee-thatyou do not care to live as a dependent, least of all a dependent on thestupidity of others, or as a fool whose source of values is the fools hesucceeds in fooling-that honesty is not a social duty, not a sacrifice for thesake of others, but the most profoundly selfish virtue man can practice: hisrefusal to sacrifice the reality of his own existence to the deludedconsciousness of others. “Justice is the recognition of thefact that you cannot fake the character of men as you cannot fake the characterof nature, that you must judge all men as conscientiously as you judgeinanimate objects, with the same respect for truth, with the same incorruptiblevision, by as pure and as rational a process of identification-thatevery man must be judged for what he is and treated accordingly, thatjust as you do not pay a higher price for a rusty chunk of scrap than for apiece of shining metal, so you do not value a totter above a hero-that yourmoral appraisal is the coin paying men for their virtues or vices, and thispayment demands of you as scrupulous an honor as you bring to financialtransactions-that to withhold your contempt from men’s vices is an act of moralcounterfeiting, and to withhold your admiration from their virtues is an act ofmoral embezzlement-that to place any other concern higher than justice is todevaluate your moral currency and defraud the good in favor of the evil, sinceonly the good can lose by a default of justice and only the evil can profit-andthat the bottom of the pit at the end of that road, the act of moralbankruptcy, is to punish men for their virtues and reward them for their vices,that that is the collapse to full depravity, the Black Mass of the worship ofdeath, the dedication of your consciousness to the destruction of existence. “Productiveness is your acceptanceof morality, your recognition of the fact that you choose to live-thatproductive work is the process by which man’s consciousness controls hisexistence, a constant process of acquiring knowledge and shaping matter to fitone’s purpose, of translating an idea into physical form, of remaking the earthin the image of one’s values-that all work is creative work if done by athinking mind, and no work is creative if done by a blank who repeats inuncritical stupor a routine he has learned from others- that your work is yoursto choose, and the choice is as wide as your mind, that nothing more ispossible to you and nothing less is human-that to cheat your way into a jobbigger than your mind can handle is to become a fear-corroded ape on borrowedmotions and borrowed time, and to settle down into a job that requires lessthan your mind’s full capacity is to cut your motor and sentence yourself toanother kind of motion: decay-that your work is the process of achieving yourvalues, and to lose your ambition for values is to lose your ambition tolive-that your body is a machine, but your mind is its driver, and you mustdrive as far as your mind will take you, with achievement as the goal of yourroad-that the man who has no purpose is a machine that coasts downhill at themercy of any boulder to crash in the first chance ditch, that the man whostifles his mind is a stalled machine slowly going to rust, that the man wholets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap,and the man who makes another man his goal is a hitchhiker no driver shouldever pick up-that your work is the purpose of your life, and you must speedpast any killer who assumes the right to stop you, that any value you mightfind outside your work, any other loyalty or love, can be only travelers youchoose to share your journey and must be travelers going on their own power inthe same direction. “Pride is the recognition of thefact that you are your own highest value and, like all of man’s values, it hasto be earned-that of any achievements open to you, the one that makes allothers possible is the creation of your own character-that your character, youractions, your desires, your emotions are the products of the premises held byyour mind-that as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain hislife, so he must acquire the values of character that make his life worthsustaining-that as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being ofself-made soul-that to live requires a sense of self-value, but man, who has noautomatic values, has no automatic sense of self-esteem and must earn it byshaping his soul in the image of his moral ideal, in the image of Man, therational being he is born able to create, but must create by choice-that thefirst precondition of self-esteem is that radiant selfishness of soul whichdesires the best in all things, in values of matter and spirit, a soul thatseeks above all else to achieve its own moral perfection, valuing nothinghigher than itself-and that the proof of an achieved self-esteem is your soul’sshudder of contempt and rebellion against the role of a sacrificial animal,against the vile impertinence of any creed that proposes to immolate theirreplaceable value which is your consciousness and the incomparable glorywhich is your existence to the blind evasions and the stagnant decay of others. The above virtues were described byphilosopher Ayn Rand. Of course it goeswithout saying that there are other philosophies and with very differentmoralities. It is well known that AynRand’s philosophy of Objectivism vigorously clashes with that of everyreligion. Religions have different moralitiesand philosophies have different moralities. Different moralities have different virtues. The right to the pursuit of happiness is theright to pursue happiness by any morality, not just Objectivism, so long as onedoes not, in their pursuit of morality, violate anyone’s right to use anddispose of, offer to trade and give away that which is theirs and no one else’swith no one else’s permission. The onlyway to violate another’s rights is by starting the use of force againstthem. The government must hold amonopoly on force: retaliatory forceused against those who initiate its use. Retaliatory force must be used on he who initiates force to the degreehe violated someone else’s rights. The right to liberty is the right to exercise your right to that which is yours and no one else’s, to use and dispose of, to give away and offerto trade that which is yours and no one else's, WITHOUTPERMISSION. The right to liberty secures your ability to exercise yourrights by FORBIDDING the ONLY act that violates your rights and ability to exercisethem freely: the initiation of physicalforce.