RobinReborn

This is very interesting. I think one of the reasons why religion has lasted so long is it's ambiguity. It's very open to interpretation and the interpretations have changed over time. I suppose you could reinterpret Christianity to be compatible with Objectivism, but you'd find yourself disagreeing with Christians most of the time. I suppose there are practical reasons to consider yourself a christian, there is still discrimination against atheists in this country.

I think it had something to do with this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imhotep AKA Egypt's Aristotle (and Plato (Aristotle's mentor) studied in Egyptian temples, so it's likely a lot of Aristotle's works came from Imhotep).

@Greg, can you explain to me how you reconcile Christianity with Objectivism? I've read a lot about how people reconcile anarchism with Objectivism but I've never seen anybody try to reconcile Christianity with Objectivism...

Manhattan's streets are an example of what you can do with centralized planning and zoning... But it's still nowhere near as impressive as the pyramids, which were built much longer ago. Those things still face north, despite all the wars and natural disasters that have happened in Egypt in the last 5000 years.

Selene... I think you are too ideological to be a politician. Nobody gets anywhere in politics unless they compromise and nobody gains anything in politics by resisting a higher authority for somebody who is just a figurehead and of no actual importance.

It seems like this conversation is getting personal and straying away from the topic...

William, I understand the argument from the 14th Ammendment, it makes sense to me. I was asking the question of why get married in general. Not just for homosexual people. If you really love somebody, perhaps you should have a ceremony to declare and celebrate that, but why get the government involved? I understand there are some tax benefits for marriage and some other benefits but those things seem arbitrary to me, and probably not worth it for the risk of divorce.

Much as homosexual couples may feel better because of this ruling, I think the real victors here are divorce lawyers. If you're in a committed relationship with somebody, why would you need governmental approval?

I'm not sure if this is Jeb Bush's fault or Janet Reno's. As AG Janet Reno did all sorts of crazy things, perhaps Jeb should have anticipated this but I think the moral blame is much more on Reno than Bush.

I'm not sure if reading something from vdare.com is worth my time... to my understanding, every country which has recently adopting driving as a form of transportation has more accidents than any country where has been driving common for more than 100 years... it has nothing to do with Egypt... Egypt has become a bunching bag lately, despite the relative stability I am optimistic that the economy of egypt will grow.

Very interesting... Ireland only legalized divorce in the mid 90s. FWIW I think a lot of this increasing tolerance for homosexuality is partly due to our current economic situation. During the great depression people had less kids and married later because they couldn't afford kids...

What does this reveal about the artist's sense of life?

Very bright guy, unfortunately I think he couldn't handle the pressure of being in such an important position (basically mathematically demonstrating a strategy for the US to win the cold war). Sometimes Atlas Shrugs, in Nash's case he cracked under pressure.

@Brant the flaw is that they can get what they want without economic problems. They want people to produce with no incentives.

Very interesting article in the New York Times Magazine http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/magazine/a-finance-minister-fit-for-a-greek-tragedy.html Perhaps us Americans will be lucky and Atlas Shrugged will be played out in Europe and the communists/socialists will see the flaw in their ways.

@ Brant, that's fine, I wouldn't say I have a passion for metaphysics but rather an intense (and sometimes cautious) curiosity. I also believe that philosophy is organized hierarchically. That is Ethics is derived from Epistemology which is derived from Metaphysics, so in a sense Metaphysics is the most important part of philosophy. @Greg, I kinda thought this would happen. I think experience is transferable. If you can't explain or justify your experience to somebody else you might be having a hallucination. @Tony Different perceptions of reality doesn't imply disconnection, it just implies that everybody's perceptual system is slightly different. One person may be deaf but have 20:20 vision, another person may be blind but have perfect pitch. For your elephant example, we might be able to agree it's an elephant but that depends on us being able to communicate together effectively and both of us knowing about elephant anatomy and not confusing it with a similar animal. I'm still not sure how you can deny subjective choice exist, people have emotions and they often overpower reason. Isn't preference for a certain type of food subjective? That is to say it's based on somebody's genetics and culture? I actually know the history of the South African currency, some of the younger folks call the currency 'Randelas' because Nelson Mandela's face is on all of the bills. I have a long, strange history with that country though I was born in the USA. I know some people who have left and try to portray their escape to the US as similar to the productive people escaping to Galt's Gulch. Why have you stayed in South Africa?

@ Brant, this is in the Metaphysics board for a reason. Consciousness is always there because there is always something acting on it, even if it's just gravity. @Greg/moralist Really? You know we exist after we die? Care to explain why? I am somewhat hesitant to even ask because every discussion I've had about that has been long, convoluted and full of assumptions I don't agree with. @Tony I think you've inverted reality. Everybody has their own consciousness, but we all perceive reality differently. This might be due to genetics (some people are colorblind) or environment (some people can understand Chinese, others can't). Even the consciousness of two identical twins staring at the same picture would be slightly different because they'd have to be looking at it from different angles. To deny subjective choice exists is to deny free will. PS RSA huh? How do you like having money named after your favorite author?

@Selene, I must admit I haven't thought much about all these ontological concepts. I go with what Ayn Rand said and my intuition... but existence is a property of everything. The one special case is thoughts, consciousness can create things which probably cannot be created in this world. @ moralist if we believe in anything without evidence we run the risk of being wrong. If we believe that something happens after our deaths than we value our own lives less because we are hoping that something better will come after death.

@Selene Existence is the totality of an object or entities perception by all other objects or entities. @Greg pretty sure I do know that. There are weird exceptions like comas, and science may yet figure out how to revive people after they've died but consciousness requires action. Even a sleeping body must breathe, have a heart beat and an active brain.

@Greg, Existence clearly continues after death, your body does not dissappear nor does anything you've produced within your lifetime, it's simply your consciousness which terminates. If you write an autobiography, you will exist in the conscious of the people who read your autobiography. Clearly there's a difference between that and being conscious but it's something to consider for people who value their existence more than their consciousness.

If I define my children as extensions of myself who are worthy of inheriting all that my hard work has produced than my concept of self will not die when I die. It will last at least until my children die, possibly longer if they continue to pass on my values and property from generation to generation.

Interestingly enough Rand's view on smiling seems to be shared by most women: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1390319/Scientists-happy-men-significantly-attractive-ladies.html "Women find happy men significantly less sexually attractive than those who swagger or brood, researchers said today. They are least attracted to smiling men, instead preferring those who looked proud and powerful, or moody and ashamed, according to a study."

I think we're getting caught up in minorly different definitions of words. People leave behind Wills when they die, Rand did. Is this something that people should do to manipulate others to be nicer to them during their lives? Or is it their way of extending their existence beyond their consciousness? I think it's the latter. The extent of which I define myself is up to me. Humans are productive animals and though most humans haven't produced much that exists beyond their lifetimes, some have. The greatest human achievements have been those which lasted beyond the consciousness of their creator. Certainly this level of genius is not within the reach of every human being but that doesn't mean that humans shouldn't strive to exist in the consciousness of humans in the distant future. It's particularly ironic that Rand seems to be arguing against very long term thinking and having an influence long after your existence is terminated when she did such a good job at it.

If we look at Rand's real life inspiration for her heroes, do you think we'll find many of them smiling? I don't think Cyril the British comic book character smiled, if Leo was representative of Russian culture he probably didn't smile much. I don't think her father had much to smile about. Did Frank smile much? What about Nathaniel?

I find it a bit difficult to resolve Objectivism with the idea that everybody has their own world. There is one Objective reality, which we all perceive differently. The death of somebody doesn't cause anything in that reality to change except the consciousness of that person, but when you die you enter other people's consciousness and you may become a historical figure, remembered long after your death. If you aren't careful, people will misrepresent you and twist your words to mean the opposite of what you really meant. You can place all your values on your own consciousness and ignore the future of humanity but that seems short sighted and implies a pessimism for the future of humanity. It seems silly for somebody who wanted to be considered a novelist and philosopher not to place some value on how she and her works will be perceived by future generations.