Samson Corwell

You are presented with two buttons. If you press the red button, someone close to you dies. If you push the blue button, a random person dies. If you press neither within a certain amount of time both die. What to do?

My reaction might be to let the timer run out, because I cannot knowingly condemn someone to death by my actions. If someone did opt to press the red button, I would not blame them, but I might not call it ethical.

Philosphy ain't going anywhere.

This topic reminds me of modern writers who periodically proclaim that the novel has died as a literary form.

These folks are after the cheap profundity brass ring of fame.

(Like those who blame Aristotle for delaying science instead of advancing it. )

Folly trying to be vanity at play in the fields of the meaning of life...

Michael

Not the issue addressed. They're referring to philosophy in the way a layman to philosophy perceives the term (i.e., the questions that are usually parodied by cartoons and comedies). Translate any philosophical terms into laymen's terms and you will get a resounding "NO" to the poll.

I found this man's videos and I think he is extremely talented with what he does here. In a sentence or two, Brick Stone (real name is David Sirus) thinks on his feet, asking the most outlandish questions and then either trips up the person with their own response or follows up with something even more zany. Some of what he says can be a bit chagrinny (could find a the right word so I turned "chagrin" into an adjective). The video below is my favorite—the last 34 seconds of it will really get you—and I included a link to a playlist I found of all his interviews with them. It will have you laughing hysterically or your money back.

http://youtu.be/74LSy2QFpJI

I saw clips of Alex Jones' reaction/outburst and I wonder if Piers Morgan was an appropriate target for it. I understand that he is arguing against what he sees as tyranny, but I myself would be intimidated by the intensity of his reaction/outburst. Then again, he might respond to that by saying it deserves such intensity.

Concerning the literature, go to Google Books. Bring up Atlas Shrugged. Search on fun. Search on enjoyment. Do the same for The Fountainhead.

I recall too, Rand has Roark, Mallory, Dominique, and Mike sit together after work in Mallory's shack.

They did not speak about their work. Mallory told outrageous stories and Dominuque laughed like a child. They talked of nothing in particular, sentences had meaning only in the sound of the voices, in the warm gaiety, in the ease of complete relaxation. They were simply four people who liked being there together. (357–58)

A friend of Rand's mentioned going on a boat tour around Manhattan with her. (I recommend it.) Rand collected stamps. I'd expect Rand's fun to have been drawn from among the usual suspects. Perhaps for some of us, doing things that are just for fun (other than in the exhaustion of the evening) is more infrequent than average. In her literature, of course, the events and characters are crafted to the themes she selected, for which I'd say occasions of fun should not, if not superfluous, be more than about what one finds in the google searches.

As far as I could get into the book in my English IV Advanced Placement class, that scene is my absolute favorite. I felt that it was like reaching the summit of a mountain for them. Roark had finished his monument, Mallory had finished the statue, Dominique, well, I think she had finished modeling, and Mike sat there smoking his pipe. After hours of work they were able to sit back admire what they had accomplished.

This Professor Irwin Corey looks cool. I think I have another person to admire.

This came to me one day as I was reading about supervillains. It doesn't seem uncommon for people to have a favorite villain. Would this be something that would be immoral or unethical?

Thank you very much for the warm welcome. I cannot say that I will be a frequent poster, but I will certainly drop by every once in a while as my time allows. I already have some ideas for topics brewing in my mind.

Samson Corwell is who I am. I am not an Objectivist nor do I expect that I will become one. But, this philosophy is one that I am obsessed (not really, but it is on my mind often) with. My "philosophy" (maybe it is philosophy, maybe it is not, I am honestly unsure) has been built upon correction over my almost two decades (rounding up) of existence. Some might comsider me to be a deist. You may find my perspectives to be strange. You see someone who is leaning towards Objectivist or someone who is leaning towards "collectivism", but I cannot predict this. If there was ever anyone who felt isolated in terms of world view, it would be me. I live by many things, some fleeting and others not so. Vocabulary is my personal barrier at times.

— Samson Corwell

As an aside, I will give you some random things about me.

Random things I like:

•Gel pens

•Device design

•Mythbusters

•Canadian coins

•Deadpool

Random things about me:

•Short

•Like to imagine I own the Infinity Gauntlet sometimes when I am lost in fiction; it looks cool

•Resigning myself to questioning myself

Phrases or words I've coined for my own thoughts:

•Council of gods

•Separation of consequences

•Ethereal set of principles