[Previous] Dancing Sucks | Home | [Next] Interests in Problems or Topics

Elliot Temple on May 17, 2016

Comments (95)

E-Book

I will be using this to quote and use text.
pieceofmind.publicrealm.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/The-Fountainhead.pdf

Anyone finding it hard to find an online ebook can use this.
I will reading the book from my iPad though.

I do not own any copyrights to this.
Use it at your own risk.

Somename K Person at 3:24 AM on May 17, 2016 | #5286
the FH has a word count of 312,000. that's large. was it necessary that it be so long? how well does it adhere to DRY and YAGNI?

Anonymous at 4:23 AM on May 17, 2016 | #5287
sheesh AS is 562k approx. that's gonna put a lot of ppl off.

Anonymous at 4:27 AM on May 17, 2016 | #5288

Mysterious J

Anonymous 4:23AM, what's your argument for applying DRY and YAGNI to the writing of philosophical fiction?

Anonymous at 4:31 AM on May 17, 2016 | #5289
they're principles for organization of knowledge. good fiction should follow those principles.

Anonymous at 4:42 AM on May 17, 2016 | #5290
Do principles for organizing knowledge in any particular field apply directly to any other field?

Mysterious J at 4:52 AM on May 17, 2016 | #5291
Ayn Rand did not know about DRY and YAGNI

Forgive her.

Anonymous at 6:20 AM on May 17, 2016 | #5292
I think repeating yourself can be helpful and good when trying to discuss and explain ideas which are at very strong variance with the dominant culture/ideas. Like maybe any given explanation of aconcept reaches 5% of people, but 10 different explanations of the same concept with slight variations reaches a much higher percentage of people.

Another thing is that if something seems repetitive, you can skim over that part.

People complain about various high quality writers not PERFECTLY optimizing their works for the complainer's problem situation (which is impossible). and the complainers meanwhile do nothing to take control of their experience of the work.

Sad!

Mysterious J at 6:38 AM on May 17, 2016 | #5293
> Do principles for organizing knowledge in any particular field apply directly to any other field?

knowledge in a "field" often has applicability in another field. so knowledge doesn't respect field boundaries. so the answer to the question is yes.

the concept of "field" is a curiosity limiter. it's the kinda thing educationalists like. fts.

Anonymous at 11:20 AM on May 17, 2016 | #5294
Anon at 6:20am - why do you think Rand did not kno abt DRY and YAGNI?

Anonymous at 11:23 AM on May 17, 2016 | #5295
Ayn Rand put a large amount of effort into editing her books. She deleted many unnecessary parts including some characters.

Mostly, Rand doesn't repeat herself. She writes action-packed books that are really densely filled with amazing content.

Sometimes she explains an important idea in several ways. That's helpful.

Sometimes there are brief repetitions in order to refer back to themes. She'll explain an idea and then later bring it up again to relate it to some new ideas or situations. The second time she'll give a much shorter version – more like the English equivalent of a function call back to the original (like DRY programmers would do) rather than a repetition.

What do her books have that you think violates YAGNI? Example?

It's hard enough to explain Objectivism to people who are willing to read millions of words. For other people, don't worry, she tried to help them too with the shorter book _For The New Intellectual_.

curi at 11:30 AM on May 17, 2016 | #5296
what's an "intellectual"?

Anonymous at 1:31 PM on May 17, 2016 | #5297
why do you care about defining that word? what does it matter?

Anonymous at 2:03 PM on May 17, 2016 | #5298
the book says its for the "new intellectual". I have no idea if I'm a new intellectual. is it for me?

Anonymous at 2:19 PM on May 17, 2016 | #5299
intellectual = thinker

yes you could try it.

Anonymous at 2:37 PM on May 17, 2016 | #5300
why are u sarky?

Anonymous at 2:46 PM on May 17, 2016 | #5301
?

Anonymous at 2:47 PM on May 17, 2016 | #5302
intellectual sounds like a prestigious term

Anonymous at 2:49 PM on May 17, 2016 | #5303
> intellectual sounds like a prestigious term

it is today. idk about in Rand's time. regardless, i know what she meant in this case and told you.

Anonymous at 2:50 PM on May 17, 2016 | #5304
misread comment as saying I could try thinking. u meant I could try the book right?

Anonymous at 2:52 PM on May 17, 2016 | #5305
yes, u cud try the book

Anonymous at 3:24 PM on May 17, 2016 | #5306
>"It's for four years. But, on the other hand, Guy Francon offered me a job with him some time
ago. Today he said it's still open. And I don't know which to take."
Roark looked at him; Roark's fingers moved in slow rotation, beating against the steps.
"If you want my advice, Peter," he said at last, "you've made a mistake already. By asking me.
By asking anyone. Never ask people. Not about your work. Don't you know what you want?
How can you stand it, not to know?"
"You see, that's what I admire about you, Howard. You always know."

I would be confused about the decision too if I was in his position.

How do you know what to do in life?

How to not be Peter Keating?

Anonymous at 7:08 PM on May 17, 2016 | #5309
please quote better.

your question is very broad. so a broad answer: guess an explanation of what to do and improve it with criticism.

Anonymous at 7:14 PM on May 17, 2016 | #5310
> I would be confused about the decision too if I was in his position.

You'd only be confused if you, like Keating, cared about prestige. Keating is asking what is more prestigious, to study four more years in the most prestigious school or to to take the job in the most prestigious architect office? Keating's standard is prestige. Keating's standard is what other people will think of him. He wants people to look at him and think "He's the best!"

Keating is asking Roark a question that Roark can't answer. Roark cannot answer this question because his standards are different. Roark doesn't care about prestige. Roark cares about merit. He cares about doing the work he likes to a standard of quality.

Keating didn't even like architecture. So the reply to his question was "neither". He should have gone to study painting, which is what he liked.

Keating had suppressed his love for painting because it was shameful. His mother had manipulated him into going to Architecture because it was the most prestigious profession for her.

And because Keating's question is about what is more prestigious, and the answer has to please his mother, only his mother can answer. And she does, in the scene after that one.

If you like this dialogue I recommend The Art of Fiction where Ayn Rand explains this dialogue by comparing it with a rewrite where Roark's lines are different. Ayn Rand teaches well, she's very honest about what she learned and sympathetic to the difficulties writers have.

> How do you know what to do in life?

The most important thing is to learn not to care about prestige and what other people think of you. Let things interest you. Be honest about what you like. Try things. If you are conflicted, analyse the source of conflict. Are you caring what others think?

Personal example: I used to have a reputation of eating everything as a child (not being a picky eater) and somewhat carried this to adulthood with pride. Only recently I realized how dishonest this was and how silly. There are foods I don't like. Having preferences is a good thing.

> How to not be Peter Keating?

Don't do anything he does. Don't care about prestige. Don't care about pleasing your parents if that means repressing something you like. Don't care about being popular. Don't care about degrees and awards.

leonorgomes.com at 2:43 PM on May 18, 2016 | #5331
leonorgomes.com deletes posts and comments, and added anti-FI and anti-anonymous rules on the sidebar.

she also posted accusing core FI members of sucking ass. but she was completely unwilling to give any details, arguments, or examples. that kind of contentless hostility is bad.

then she has the nerve to advertise a site like that – which is fundamentally hostile to the values of this blog – here. wtf?

she also violates consent.

Anonymous at 2:53 PM on May 18, 2016 | #5332
Anonymous rather talk people than ideas. And he hides in anonymity so nobody can find his own flaws and contradictions.

Anonymous at 2:53 cares more about my reputation than what I said. Had I posted anonymously, he couldn't have brought it up. But I would still be the same person with the same "anti-FI" blog. So why does it matter?

What matters if that FI is full of contradictions.

> and added anti-FI and anti-anonymous rules on the sidebar.

In what way are the rules anti-FI? Because FI people like to be anonymous?

FI people were trolling my blog, anonymously, cowardly. I do not want anonymous cowards commenting on my blog anymore. I don't want to attract people who are afraid to take personal responsibility for what they say and who are afraid to have their name on my blog.

Good people are fallible, admit their mistakes, take responsibility for them, and move on. And if others hate them for it, they are bad anyway. They don't matter.

> she also violates consent

Whose consent did I violate?

leonorgomes.com at 3:32 PM on May 18, 2016 | #5333
when you advertise a website, that website is relevant. you should stop advertising anti-FI stuff here.

you violated Elliot's consent. he wrote

> you may email me at most once every 4 months with an explanation of why to unban you.

and

> you may send the first one July 9 or later, if you want to.

you emailed him before July 9 to call him a troll.

that blatantly violates consent.

Anonymous at 3:40 PM on May 18, 2016 | #5334
No reply to any of my criticisms. Hypocrisy. Dishonesty. And still talking to me anonymously. Coward. Not wanting to take responsibility for who he is choosing to be.

Why not? Because anonymous wants the pleasure to beat others when they post by name, but doesn't want to allow others to do it to him.

> when you advertise a website, that website is relevant. you should stop advertising anti-FI stuff here.

You didn't explain why it's anti-FI.

FI is not a static world, is it? Do people learn and change in FI?

I will not censor myself.

The person who saw my comment might prefer my writing. I actually provided an interesting reply to what they asked. The anonymous before said nothing.

The person who asked might prefer to read my blog. They might not want to comment. That's their problem.

By not wanting me to identify myself and post my blog, you are pro-censorship and fear competition. Isn't that anti-FI?

leonorgomes.com at 3:57 PM on May 18, 2016 | #5335
> Keating had suppressed his love for painting because it was shameful. His mother had manipulated him into going to Architecture because it was the most prestigious profession for her.

i recall HATING that my parent wanted me to be a physician for HIS prestige.

it's weird. i recall my parent trying to convince me to become a physician and one of his reasons was prestige (the other was lots of money) BUT from the way he wording things, i could tell that he wasn't saying that *I* would have prestige. he was saying that *HE* would have prestige.

so he thinks i should live my life a certain way so that people can look at my parent a certain way? wtf?!

i don't know why i hated that. i don't know what i knew that made me hate it.

why didn't Keating hate it? what was he missing?

Anonymous at 4:46 PM on May 18, 2016 | #5336
> i recall HATING that my parent wanted me to be a physician for HIS prestige.

I think Keating also hated it.

But he broke.

I don't know why people break.

> it's weird. i recall my parent trying to convince me to become a physician and one of his reasons was prestige (the other was lots of money) BUT from the way he wording things, i could tell that he wasn't saying that *I* would have prestige. he was saying that *HE* would have prestige.

How did he word things to make you so aware of what was going on? And why didn't you care to please your father?

> so he thinks i should live my life a certain way so that people can look at my parent a certain way? wtf?!
>
> i don't know why i hated that. i don't know what i knew that made me hate it.

If you could learn to introspect, you could figure out why you hated it and what you knew and help other people with the knowledge.

If you have children and they are not strong like you, you can hurt them. As a parent act you can enact the static memes of your own parent, but these will be evolved, so they won't be easy for you to criticize. To criticize them you have to know your ideas explicitly. You have to know to explain why you thought what you thought and did what you did.

> why didn't Keating hate it? what was he missing?

He was missing the knowledge that makes some people strong and some people weak. What knowledge is this that strong people have? What makes some people have it so early? I do not know, I do not have it. You do, so think. And tell us.

leonorgomes.com at 5:22 PM on May 18, 2016 | #5337
violating consent is a big deal

Anonymous at 5:23 PM on May 18, 2016 | #5338

how to quote better

My quotes seem to come out OK but I don't know the explanation.

What I do is to copy paste any text that I select to notepad. Notepad is "text only" and will eliminate any hidden code or formatting the text might come with.

Then I do the quoting by hand. It works for the whole paragraph if I put just one arrow in front of the first line. So I don't break continuity. I put an arrow in empty lines between paragraphs. If when I quote my text from notepad it appears messed up, ticking "word wrap" on and off often fixes it. If it doesn't I copy paste the text again and remove all line breaks.

But I don't know what I am doing.

leonorgomes.com at 5:31 PM on May 18, 2016 | #5341
Google word wrap, soft wrap, hard wrap, some stuff like that, to understand what you're doing.

Anonymous at 4:02 AM on May 19, 2016 | #5347
oh, was that helpful for you? :)

Anonymous at 4:24 AM on May 19, 2016 | #5348
Why don't you discuss my story?

leonorgomes.com at 1:36 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5424
Elliot discuss her story pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaase

I will take all the blame.

I am begging in front of you.

Peter Keating at 1:39 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5425
among other things, violating consent is a big deal.

Anonymous at 1:41 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5426
>among other things, violating consent is a big deal.

Forget that.. Move on.

Peter Keating at 1:43 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5427
Lets make a deal.

What will it take for you to move on?

PK at 1:45 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5428
> Forget that.. Move on.

no

> What will it take for you to move on?

problem solving. at this point it won't be on my initiative.

failing that i'll permanently drop this one issue for $5000.

Anonymous at 1:51 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5429
I was angry, because FI people were trolling my blog. I wanted them to stop. What shall I do about it?

leonorgomes.com at 1:55 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5430
>problem solving. at this point it won't be on my initiative.

failing that i'll permanently drop this one issue for $5000.

5000 is too much!! Discount please..

Anonymous at 2:00 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5431
> failing that i'll permanently drop this one issue for $5000.

i offer $5.

leonorgomes.com at 2:00 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5432
You should pay Leonor 1 Million for trolling her blog.

Anonymous at 2:02 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5433
leonor has a history of getting angry repeatedly. i don't want to deal with that. she isn't solving the problem.

Anonymous at 2:03 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5434
>leonor has a history of getting angry repeatedly. i don't want to deal with that. she isn't solving the problem.

She gets angry at me daily.

She thinks I am Elliot.

I spend hours trying to explain her that I am not.

Am I Elliot?

Anonymous at 2:06 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5435
lol

Anonymous at 2:06 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5437
I am not a spy for Elliot either..

Elliot Hates me.. Why would he hire me as a spy.

Anonymous at 2:07 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5438
Elliot tell me do I work for you?

Did you hire me to spy on Leonor?

Anonymous at 2:09 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5439
lol

Anonymous at 2:13 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5442
Are you familiar with Steven Crowder?

Here is his rebuttal of Alien De button's Karl Marx video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFxWXbdqGIg

Debunking Communism from 'The School of Life'

Anonymous at 3:25 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5443
> leonor has a history of getting angry repeatedly. i don't want to deal with that. she isn't solving the problem.

you said you were willing to drop the issue for $5000. now you don't want to deal with it. what gives?

Anonymous at 4:25 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5445
>>> leonor has a history of getting angry repeatedly. i don't want to deal with that. she isn't solving the problem.
>>
>> She gets angry at me daily.
>>
>> She thinks I am Elliot.
>>
>> I spend hours trying to explain her that I am not.
>>
>> Am I Elliot?
>
> lol

lol? i didn't give fallible fool consent to share that information.

leonorgomes.com at 4:27 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5446
> Are you familiar with Steven Crowder?

yes.

> you said you were willing to drop the issue for $5000. now you don't want to deal with it. what gives?

i don't understand the contradiction.

Anonymous at 4:34 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5447
>lol? i didn't give fallible fool consent to share that information.

You accuse me of stuff and I need your consent to share them?

I did not share any personal info..

This is important.

I don't like being called a spy every 2-3 days?

Anonymous at 4:39 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5448
> I don't like being called a spy every 2-3 days?

You can stop talking to me instead of violating privacy.

leonorgomes.com at 4:41 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5449
>> you said you were willing to drop the issue for $5000. now you don't want to deal with it. what gives?
>
> i don't understand the contradiction.

I'm trying to bargain with you. Why are you ignoring it.

leonorgomes.com at 4:42 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5450
> You can stop talking to me instead of violating privacy.

The info has more to do with me than with you.

You accused me of being Elliot.

Now I need to ask the real Elliot about it.

Anonymous at 4:50 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5451
>> I don't like being called a spy every 2-3 days?

> You can stop talking to me instead of violating privacy.

sounds like you shouldn't tell him private stuff.

Anonymous at 4:52 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5452
>sounds like you shouldn't tell him private stuff.

I shouldn't share the stuff that concerns me?

She accused me of being a spy.. I need to share it.

Anonymous at 4:53 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5453
>> sounds like you shouldn't tell him private stuff.
>
> I shouldn't share the stuff that concerns me?

It doesn't just concern you.

> She accused me of being a spy.. I need to share it.

Why do you need to share it for?

leonorgomes.com at 9:20 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5454
>Why do you need to share it for?

Because Elliot needs to clarify about it.

Anonymous at 2:17 AM on May 22, 2016 | #5474
>>> She accused me of being a spy.. I need to share it.
>>
>> Why do you need to share it for?
>
> Because Elliot needs to clarify about it.

How do you expect him to clarify?

leonorgomes.com at 11:20 AM on May 22, 2016 | #5516
>How do you expect him to clarify?

Why don't you take your discussion elsewhere?

Anonymous at 11:38 AM on May 24, 2016 | #5550
> “The gentleman was not bowing to the ground, he was not unrolling a carpet, he was not waving a fan over her head; he was only holding the door for her. It merely seemed to Keating that the gentleman was doing all of that.”

why did it seem to keating that the gentleman was doing all that?

Anonymous at 8:15 AM on May 29, 2016 | #5788
While PAS and Tessa are still struggling to read Anthem and Justin is wasting their time helping them through "technical difficulties", I've finished another reading.

Anonymous at 6:35 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5795
Why is Justin so forgiving to PAS and Tessa?

I was told I don't like drawing. They don't like reading.

Actually, they don't like learning. They also make excuses for audio-books.

Actually, they don't want to live. Anthem teaches them how to live.

A book changes you. They resist change. Life requires change.

Anonymous at 6:36 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5796
PAS falls asleep. He also says "I have no time." Did the time thieves took it?

Tessa hears Gollum's voice in her head to mock the book in order to make it un-serious to her.

PAS and Tessa blame Ayn Rand for their refusal to learn. They trash her beautiful writing. They are close minded. They rather have their dumb expectations of how a book should start be satisfied, than to learn.They're like shitty Ayn Rand critics saying they didn't like The Fountainhead because Howard Roark didn't crack many jokes.

Anonymous at 6:36 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5797
It's horrendous.

Yet Justin treats their refusal to live as real technical difficulties.

This is what PAS and Tessa are not:
We have come to see how great is the unexplored, and many lifetimes will not bring us to the end of our quest. But we wish no end to our quest. We wish nothing, save to be alone and to learn, and to feel as if with each day our sight were growing sharper than the hawk’s and clearer than rock crystal.
From that book you didn't want to read.

Anonymous at 6:36 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5798
> While PAS and Tessa are still struggling to read Anthem and Justin is wasting their time helping them through "technical difficulties", I've finished another reading.

this comment seems kinda pointless without saying who you are.

what's the point?

Anonymous at 6:37 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5799
> this comment seems kinda pointless without saying who you are.

You want to out an anonymous?

You will be banned for that!!

Let me give you a clue - "I was told I don't like drawing. They don't like reading."

Anonymous at 6:41 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5800
We know who "you" are.

Anonymous at 6:43 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5801
If you out yourself, that's not the same as somebody else outing you.

Anonymous at 6:43 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5802
> We know who "you" are.

This content is stolen from LG's blog post.

My identity doesn't matter.

Anonymous at 6:52 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5803
> If you out yourself, that's not the same as somebody else outing you.

Good Point.

Anonymous at 6:52 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5804
> Let me give you a clue - "I was told I don't like drawing. They don't like reading."

As far as I can tell this is Fallible Fool impersonating Leonor. Leonor is the would-be artist who had the thread where she was told something along the lines of she doesn't like drawing.

Fallible Fool is also the one who impersonated the guy who built the deck and caused a lot of confusion in that thread.

Leonor is banned, so it would be a big deal if she posted here anyway. It would be the use of force against me.

Fallible Fool, this is a warning. You will be banned if you impersonate someone again. It's fraud and it's destructive.

curi at 7:00 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5805
> As far as I can tell this is Fallible Fool impersonating Leonor. Leonor is the would-be artist who had the thread where she was told something along the lines of she doesn't like drawing.

WTF!! I am not impersonating leonor.

I am copy-pasting what she said.

Anonymous at 7:03 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5806
CAN'T YOU READ THIS WHAT I WROTE ABOVE:

This content is stolen from LG's blog post.

My identity doesn't matter.

Anonymous at 7:04 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5807
> Leonor is banned, so it would be a big deal if she posted here anyway. It would be the use of force against me.


These are pieces of a blog post.

So it would make reading easier.

> Leonor is the would-be artist

I GAVE THAT CLUE TO IDENTIFY THE WRITER NOT ME.

Anonymous at 7:06 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5808
if you ever again copy/paste anything leonor wrote, without providing a link or other clear source AND putting a quote mark in front of it, you will be banned.

you fucked up big time.

you may now calm down, apologize, repent, and make a statement about your intention to change and reform and learn from your mistake, or you will be banned.

curi at 7:06 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5809
> you may now calm down, apologize, repent, and make a statement about your intention to change and reform and learn from your mistake, or you will be banned.

If I wrote LG or the blog ID that would be impersonating.

You won't believe my apologies.. ( Even I don't believe them)

You don't believe I can change.

what difference does it make?

Apologize for not putting a link?

Anonymous at 7:12 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5810
I am already banned from FI for one year+++

Anonymous at 7:17 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5811
you are wasting my time. repeatedly. this is a problem for me.

one solution i see is for you to leave and never come back. that would solve the problem for me.

i'll give you two other options.

you can leave for a month and then you can write a comment with an idea of a solution to the problem.

or you can paypal $100 to [email protected] to show you care at least $100 worth (not much, yet i'm guessing it's actually more than you care), and then you can discuss a solution in comments tomorrow.

curi at 7:17 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5812
> While PAS and Tessa are still struggling to read Anthem and Justin is wasting their time helping them through "technical difficulties", *I've finished another reading*.

(Emphasis mine)

Is this showing off?

Anonymous at 7:25 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5813
> you are wasting my time. repeatedly. this is a problem for me.

Wasting time is bad.

Your time is very precious I understand that.

You can stop reading & replying to my comments instead of banning me for a month.

> one solution i see is for you to leave and never come back. that would solve the problem for me.

I don't want to do that.

There aren't many good philosophers out there.

> or you can paypal $100 to [email protected] to show you care at least $100 worth (not much, yet i'm guessing it's actually more than you care), and then you can discuss a solution in comments tomorrow.

I would have payed you that if I was atleast half of Rami's level (of knowledge)

Anonymous at 7:29 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5814
> You can stop reading & replying to my comments instead of banning me for a month.

1) you don't sign them

2) no. you actively cause problems by e.g. impersonating leonor

i take it you choose option 1. don't post again for a month. don't reply to this. in a month, only post what you've come up with about solving the problem in the mean time.

curi at 7:45 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5815

Struggling to read Anthem

> While PAS and Tessa are still struggling to read Anthem

I (PAS) want to be clear about just what the nature of my struggle is. It is to read with none of TCS-Coercion, to the extent that I understand that concept.

I could easily "force myself" to read Anthem or anything else Rand wrote. I have done that explicitly and inexplicitly with much much harder material. Try Henry James for example...then again, DON'T. You could trust me, he sucks.

But it is in trying to do so without admitting any TCS-Coercion which is the struggle.

PAS at 7:50 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5816
>> While PAS and Tessa are still struggling to read Anthem

>I (PAS) want to be clear about just what the nature of my struggle is. It is to read with none of TCS-Coercion, to the extent that I understand that concept.

>Try Henry James for example...then again, DON'T. You could trust me, he sucks

Lol! Henry James is one I didn't persist with either.

I agree that it makes sense not to feel under external pressure when reading.

I want to say that I didn't struggle to read Anthem. I don't know why Anon has come up with that story. There was nothing in my post saying that.

I enjoyed reading Anthem despite and whilst noting the silly ideas some phrases provoked (these ideas were in *my* head, not Rand's, as I believe I said. They do not make Rand's ideas in any way silly.) I was aware, though, that others could be put off by such things. I think I persisted and did not feel coerced because I had read her other novels and knew I would get value from reading it.

Tessa at 12:58 AM on May 31, 2016 | #5817
https://www.facebook.com/groups/285247948157887/permalink/1444806748868662/


Elliot Temple
September 9
Hi I'm a objectivist philosopher starting an email newsletter. I integrate Objectivism with Karl Popper's epistemology. I write articles like this Rand and Popper comparison (they have more in common than most people realize): http://curi.us/1579-objectivist-and-popperian-epistemology
For updates on my work sharing philosophy with the world (which sadly it seems not very many Objectivists put a lot of effort into, but I'm trying!) sign up at: http://fallibleideas.com/newsletter
Many Objectivists are unaware that Ayn Rand was a fallibilist, so you may be interested in this too: http://fallibleliving.com/…/episte…/135-rand-and-fallibilism
curi: Objectivist and Popperian Epistemology
Ayn Rand has the best moral philosophy ever invented. Karl Popper has the most important breakthrough in epistemology. Most Objectivists seem to think that Popper and Rand are incompatible, and Popper
CURI.US
LikeShow more reactionsCommentShare
Comments
Clyde Lyman
Clyde Lyman there is no such thing as "an Objecitist and..." that is properly a "mixed" or "mongrel" since Objectivism is a whole philosophy and an integrated whole philosophy; complete and self-contained. It has a complete metaphysics, a complete epistemology, a ...See More
True-believer syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
True-believer syndrome is an informal or rhetorical term used by M. Lamar Keene in his 1976 book The Psychic Mafia. Keene used the term to refer to people who continued to believe in a paranormal event or phenomenon even after it had been proven to have been staged.[1][2] Keene considered it to be a...
EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 10:01am
Elliot Temple
Elliot Temple Objectivism doesn't have "a complete epistemology". for example, it doesn't have a solution to the problem of induction. nor a solution to Paley's problem.

Rand never wanted a static, unchanging philosophy with no progress allowed. she never claimed perfection or to have figured everything out with no need for further discoveries. i appreciate the caution b/c most ppl interested in making refinements are trying to ruin objectivism, but you shouldn't reject all change out of hand.
Like · Reply · 12 hrs
Clyde Lyman
Clyde Lyman Sehe did not want it mongrelized

How can a philosophy "change" and still be the same philosophy? Principles don't change. They are timeless. That is what makes them principles. Rand also said "Objectivism is complete, It can neither be added to or subtracted from"

Induction is not a "problem" it pertains to the "facts" in "factual premises and valid reasoning yield true conclusions". Reason is "the faculty that integrates the material provided by Man's senses into a non-contradictory frame of reference". Induction preceded philosophy/ Induction only becomes a problem with Ratiionalistic philosophies where you try to "reason" to facts from consciousness or explain the universe in terms of consciousness, which are Platonisitc

As I have said elsewhere. There are a couple of places I disagree with Rand and they are on the structure of the whole subject, and not on Objectivism and one place where I see some incompleteness:
1. Rand said "Cosmology ought to be thrown out of Philosophy". If I understand correctly, Cosmology integrates time into the equations. It carries the contents of the Law of Identity forward. Absent Cosmology, Heraclitus is right; "You can't step into the same river twice". Ontology is about nouns, cosmology is about verbs: What happens to those nouns over time? which is vital in the Law of Non-Contradiction; "A thing cannot be A and non-A in the same respect at the same time" and in principles: A principle cannot be A and non-A in the same respect at any time
2. She has variously described Capitalism as a "social system", a "political system", an "economic system" and a "political-economic system". It cannot be all of those. It can be a political-economic system. since it is the result of what happens when politics intersects with economics. I don't know about "an economic system". That would be like labelling Netownian ideas, Gallilean ideas and Eisteinian ideas as a "science system". No, they were subparts of science which is independent of any particular person. Colloquially you might call capitlaism an "economic system". It cannot be a political system since a political system is mostly about non-economic issues: how leaders are chosen, the branches of government, what a government may or may not do, etc. And it certainly cannot be a social system, since a social system subsumes politics and other thing like mores, folkways and customs: And political economic systems. Capitalism is incompatible with Alturism, well, altruism is an ethical idea which precedes politics. Capitalism requires individual rights, which requires adherance to some form of free will and egoism. A thing can not be both itself and it's prerequisite or roots. Will either of these change Objectivism? No, One will better validate the idea of cause-and-effect since time is now put in the equation and the other will prevent trying to do something that is patently false
3. Rand did not give a full up-or-down answer on religion. She said she was comfortable with "Thank God" and "God bless you" as metaphors, she also wrote "Soren Kierkegaard was better than the Existentialists. He was a religious man" and in the Cantor-Brat race, where the ARI held that both were influenced by ATLAS SHRUGGED, with no stated difference thereof, and the only known difference being that David Brat was explicitly religious. they sided with Brat to stick it to the establishment. The whole of this has led to an unintegrated view of religion. which kind of bears on the Objectivist Standard "debate", "is Christianity good for Man or bad for Man?" for which both sides were ill-prepared. I could have defended either position and actually come to a conclusion. Religion is a philosophical subject, so the real question is what are its components, is it totally rational or totally irrational (before you jump on the last. Think of Aquinas and that Christianity held to an Aristotelian view), and how does it stack up against other systems? Given that it's major competitor is Nihilism, which I will explain at length, I could argue that it is good for Man. Observe thest two items https://www.facebook.com/notes/clyde-lyman/religion-and-the-left/233916676703150 and https://www.facebook.com/notes/clyde-lyman/the-secular-progressives/634456559982491 and compare them with https://www.facebook.com/notes/clyde-lyman/atheism-and-the-right/333075930120557 What comes out of it?

Clyde Lyman
February 19, 2012 ·
Religion and the Left
You will often see from me "if you doubt me [or this]; and I hope you do", because I want you to think for yourself and find out if what I say is true. I do not ask to be believed; I ask to be understood, from that, belief will follow. However that understanding can come only from honest thought. That means I do not "i...
Continue Reading
Like · Reply · 8 hrs
Elliot Temple
Elliot Temple "Principles don't change." i didn't say i was changing any key principles of Objectivism!

> Rand also said "Objectivism is complete, It can neither be added to or subtracted from"

she said a lot of stuff contradicting that, so whatever. also you should cite quotes, especially which don't appear on google.

> Your search - "Objectivism is complete" "It can neither be added to or subtracted from" - did not match any documents.

(no results using "nor" either)

> Induction is not a "problem" it pertains to the "facts" in "factual premises and valid reasoning yield true conclusions".

the "problem of induction" is a well known topic in philosophy. whether or not its a problem, that is a standard name for the established topic. you seem to just not even be familiar with it. so your understanding is incomplete in that way (Rand on the other hand knew about the problem, but didn't have the answer to it. this isa acknowledged in IToE 2nd edition.). you can read about the problem of induction in Karl Popper and David Deutsch's books. it's also discussed in many pro-induction books.
Like · Reply · 3 hrs · Edited
Clyde Lyman
Clyde Lyman I've been an O'ist for 48 years. the quote is either from the Ford Hall Forum or In one of the issues of The OBJECTIVIST NEWSLETTER. You might try the online or print version of the Ayn Rand Lexicon. Most of what has been said or written about anything does NOT show up on Google. Especially in it's early stages 1959 to about 1968 or 9. You would have to verify my claims via finding persons who were there. Maybe at the Ayn Rand Institute. Also all that is written about Objectivist Epistemology was in the Introduction, which is quite long and detailed. You might find something in her Notes. But, in any integrated system there is very little "play" and also very little in a stable system. What could you change about Objectivism?

I've heard of the "Problem of Induction". I regard it as philosophy going where it doesn't really belong. Inductive reasoning is simply observing and extrapolating the obvious. If the extrapolation fails, ti is because of some interference or lack of full knowledge of the phenomenon, not a failure of reasoning which extrapolates ceteris Paribus, the same as in Managerial Accounting or any predictive activity. it is recognized in Statistics as "error", In research as "alpha" and "beta" errors and in Correlation and Regression (Statistics) and "k; Coefficient of Alienation]" and calculated as k=1-r sub x,y ^2 where r sub x,y is the Pearson Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation. At any rate, the inability of induction to always predict correctly is recognized all over the place. There is also the is-ought problem that Rand says she solved. Again, I never saw a problem there, the solution is that "is" implies "ought" since life is conditional rather than trying to prove that the is=the ought. Now here's a REAL problem in logic "The barber shaves all and only those who do not shave themselves: who shaves the barber?" also, if you want to play with linguistics "The gostok distims the doshes"
Like · Reply · 3 hrs
Elliot Temple
Elliot Temple published Rand quotes typically show up on google. stuff on the lexicon website shows up. quotes from her popular books also often show up via google books or elsewhere. it sounds like you have rarely searched for Rand quotes. i do it all the time.

the word "complete" appears on 24 pages in the The Objectivist Newsletter, but there's no results for "is complete". i checked all 24 and didn't see anything resembling your line.

"Objectivism is" shows up 4 times. i went through them and none are similar to your memory of what Rand says.

since you aren't able to remember where you're getting this quote from, i'm unwilling to take the contents of the quote as accurate. and if you believe it's an important Objectivist position, i'd expect you to know offhand a published quote along similar lines and provide it. providing exact quotes with sources is what i do when i want to claim Objectivism says something, and I don't think lower standards are a good idea.

> I've heard of the "Problem of Induction". I regard it as philosophy going where it doesn't really belong. Inductive reasoning is simply observing and extrapolating the obvious.

i think it's naive and unobjectivist to consider a major part of thinking to be obvious and not take it seriously as requiring careful thought, systematic methods, etc


Galt said, "Live and act within the limit of your knowledge and keep expanding it to the limit of your life." keep EXPANDING, don't just say philosophy is done and stop.


here's IToE since you don't seem familiar with the passage:

> Prof. M: The question is: when does one stop? When does one decide that enough confirming evidence exists? Is that in the province of the issue of induction?
> AR: Yes. That’s the big question of induction. Which I couldn’t begin to discuss—because (a) I haven’t worked on that subject enough to even begin to formulate it, and (b) it would take an accomplished scientist in a given field to illustrate the whole process in that field.


Rand says there's a big question here and that she doesn't have the answer. Popper does. So isn't that *good*? Can't I appreciate Objectivism and also get an answer to something where it's incomplete from Popper?
Like · Reply · 4 mins

Anonymous at 1:43 PM on October 15, 2016 | #6835
From the Ayn Rand quote you put for discussion on HBL:

> If one found it difficult to maintain one’s loyalty to one’s own convictions at the start, a succession of betrayals—which helped to augment the power of the evil one lacked the courage to fight—will not make it easier at a later date, but will make it virtually impossible.

Is this what Ayn Rand meant by "It's too late, Peter"?

Anonymous at 2:49 AM on November 19, 2016 | #7670
From Elliot's HBL post "Ayn Rand quotes discussion"

> Taking life seriously, and really insisting on the best right now, is the only way to live. Pursuing the truth with no boundaries is completely urgent. Do it now, or you never will.

I am not sure what you mean by "insisting on the best right now" and how it shows in actually living life.

Anonymous at 3:00 AM on November 19, 2016 | #7671
you need high standards NOW.

yes Peter's succession of betrayals made things worse and harder, and ruined his life.

Anonymous at 10:28 AM on November 19, 2016 | #7678

@PAS

from #5816
> I could easily "force myself" to read Anthem or anything else Rand wrote. I have done that explicitly and inexplicitly with much much harder material. Try Henry James for example...then again, DON'T. You could trust me, he sucks.

> But it is in trying to do so without admitting any TCS-Coercion which is the struggle.


So you're not fully convinced to do it. You have other things you want to do? Or is it your reading style that is coercive and you don't want to read that way?


I put on audio books in the background sometimes instead of music.

Sometimes I listen to them while I'm going to sleep/waking up. I leave them running through the night. Then while I'm dozing off/waking up I can listen to a little more. Realise something new, identify some nuance.

It can be nice to listen to while waking up in the morning and be inspired to get to work right away :)

Anonymous at 6:11 AM on December 1, 2016 | #7771

Reading books

> So you're not fully convinced to do it.

Right. But most of my objections are either completely inexplicit or explicitly tied to inexplicit assessments. Like "boring". I don't explicitly know why I assess it as boring compared to other options, but I do.

> You have other things you want to do?

Yes. Work. House projects. Tinkering / hobbies. Read and respond to online content (including FI, but not just FI). Watch videos. Install and play around with a new Linux distro. These (and similar) are all things I typically choose to do instead of read a book.

I read books pretty much only when I'm effectively prevented from all of those other options. Long plane rides for example. Though I could find a way to watch videos the way I want on a plane, or read & respond to forums offline etc. it's not worth the trouble and so I most often just read books.

I used to read books more than I do now, because I used to be in positions where other things were infeasible more.

> Or is it your reading style that is coercive and you don't want to read that way?

Could be, but I haven't found a style that works for me. I've tried paper books, ibooks type digital reading, RSVP, and voice dream.

> I put on audio books in the background sometimes instead of music.

I used to listen to music in the background. I don't any more - I find my productivity is less when I have background, so I stopped.

> Sometimes I listen to them while I'm going to sleep/waking up. I leave them running through the night. Then while I'm dozing off/waking up I can listen to a little more. Realise something new, identify some nuance.

I don't think that's feasible for me for various reasons. TL;DR because it would cause many problems with my sleep.

PAS at 8:46 AM on December 1, 2016 | #7772
> Could be, but I haven't found a style that works for me. I've tried paper books, ibooks type digital reading, RSVP, and voice dream.

i don't suggest combining learning RSVP or audio listening with reading a book you aren't very interested in. that's just two problems at once, it'll be harder.

unless you're super interested in RSVP or audio listening. if they really excited you then it could work.

even when you're good at them, it's unclear to me they're advantageous in general with books you aren't very interested in. going faster does help with borderline books or TV (means more stuff per minute, which can push it over the threshold to hold your interest). but it also generally requires more focus and effort per minute than slow reading, so you kinda needa care.

curi at 12:00 PM on December 1, 2016 | #7773

What do you think?

(This is a free speech zone!)