We've come to a point with the forum software where we need to upgrade to the next major version. Not upgrading will soon see us getting fewer updates and patches. 

If anyone is curious what the new software feels like, you can check it out at: http://testoo.objectivismonline.com/

That test site should let you do the normal things you do on the forum, but it will be deleted once we upgrade the real thing.

The new one is a bit slower, but that is probably a question of tuning things once we go live.

Upgrading the test forum (a copy of the real thing) was easy-peasy. Unfortunately Murphy's Law caught up with us. Doing "exactly" the same thing live was not as smooth.

We plan to try again on the weekend.

I will post again on the day.

Here's one:

"Man's Ego is _____ this (fill in the blank) ____ of human progress". 

That was a Final Jeopardy question that stumped a professor recently.

So, there's one more reason to read Rand: not doing so could cost you $30,000! (Though, I'm not sure I'd have got the answer right either.)

Consider that the Objectivist virtues, to the extent they can be exercised today, must be exercised in the context of the existing society and culture.

To the extent actual individuals in society are irrational, evaders, and to the extent honesty would prevent them from evasion, causing them discomfort, "pain", and at worst "insulting" them, how can the full virtue of honesty and its benefit to the speaker and the spoken to, come to fruition?

Is it better simply to, on policy, be honest "hardly ever" in such a society?  

Does anybody here have any advice for me? Has anybody here intentionally improved their thinking?  If so, how?  Are there any specific exercises I can do?  Book recommendations would also be appreciated.  I don't have too much time to devote to this though since I'm in school (finance/accounting not philosophy).

Ayn Rand’s recommended books on capitalism;
The meaning of productiveness for one whose wealth is already assured;
Why the use of force is not in a rational man’s interests;
Breaking with society vs. breaking with the culture;
The psychology of Dominique in The Fountainhead.

Yet, would I lie to people in the process of dying?
What do you think?

--> There are absolute principles, and they are reached  only by means of reason, despite my education on the philosophy of Friederich Nietzsche

--> What my senses percieve is reality, and it would continue to exist without me. Reality is objective, despite my education on the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.

--> Even though there are many perspectives on a single matter, it is possible to attain certain, objective knowledge, despite my education on José Ortega y Gasset.

--> My actions are my responsability alone, not my parent's or the society's, despite my education on Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud.

And I have recently added to this list the discovery that altruism is destructive. See, my parents have been life-long altruists (and socialists, by the way). They were the ones who taught me that man is valued not by his ability, but by his need. Not by his wealth, but by his scarcity. That businessmen are the incarnation of greed, and that the poor are the moral righteousness. That is the code they taught me. And worse: it is the code they lived by. Therefore, I was taught that I owe my existence to them. That the fact that I have an education is only because of them. Hell, I even felt guilty about the food I ate. They told me I was selfish for craving excellence and despising mediocrity. The country I lived in didn't help either. A country which has only made the transition from a dictatorship to a democracy recently, and even then a socialist, looting democracy. So at school teachers told me it is evil to want to be rich. Hell, if the state can give you a menial job and a retirement, why do you want to strive for greatness?

I was taught I lived for others.

I was taught enjoyment was unfair if others can't have it.

I was taught I shouldn't live for myself.

Enough.

I heard the words of Midas Mulligan in my mind. The most evil of men is not he who does not have pity for others, but he who uses the pity of others to attain his ends, and disguises it in the name of justice.

I will only live for myself for now on. I will not sacrifice myself for others, nor will I ask others to sacrifice themselves for me. 

I had an argument with my parents. They disaprove. They said I was selfish. However that won't reach me anymore, because the final veredict on who I am is only up to me.

Thank you, Ayn Rand.

Ms. Rand called them the "Mystics of Spirit" and the "Mystics of Muscle" to describe the categories in history of irrational human beings attempting to dominate the people in their lives rather than producing wealth for themselves.  For my purposes in this OP, I would like to summarize these types of people into one easily understood category.  BULLIES.

Bullies are people who find value in controlling others for any number of irrelevant reasons.  "Bullies of spirit and bullies of muscle" is a corollary to Ms. Rand's ideas.  I substitute "bullies" for "mystics" because while "mystics" is conceptually better for the arguments, "bullies" is the most common, concrete expression that people are familiar with in their everyday lives.

Mystics/bullies are a fact in the range of human, sense-of-life,  identity and these people are drawn to governing in private associations and public government  The primary, natural, purpose of instituting a government is to insulate citizens from the effects of bullies, but bullies are attracted to the organization of a governing body because the governing body is given the power to control with sharply reduced requirements for justification.

The above being the natural evolution of communities and nation states among reasoned individuals, it should be obvious, that giving a governing entity any function over and above protection of citizens from force and fraud, opens the governing entity (and the bullies attracted to it) to the misuse of the power they are given by the citizens.

Ignore these clear facts and you end up with crony capitalism at best or Nazism/Stalinism at worst.

I spend my time on metaphysics and epistemology and my further philosophical interest on ethics and politics, but movies have become a more widely accessible reflection of the culture and I enjoy many of them.  I know they must reflect ideas in the culture.

If I list some of the movies I especially enjoy, would those of you who have the knowledge of this art form analyze and comment on my choices?  And then recommend movies that might provide the same celebration?

My movies are "Mr. Holland's Opus," "On Golden Pond," "Out of Africa," and "Lion in Winter."  I may be fooled by superlative examples of acting, editing, music, etc.  In my limited experience, these movies make me feel good vicariously or directly. 

Thanks for your time and knowledge in this endeavor.  Jack

In one of the best examples of science working, a researcher who provided key evidence of (non-celiac disease) gluten sensitivity recently published follow-up papers that show the opposite.

The paper came out last year in the journal Gastroenterology. Here's the backstory that makes us cheer: The study was a follow up on a 2011 experiment in the lab of Peter Gibson at Monash University in Australia. The scientifically sound -- but small -- study found that gluten-containing diets can cause gastrointestinal distress in people without celiac disease, a well-known autoimmune disorder triggered by gluten. They called this non-celiac gluten sensitivity.

...

"In contrast to our first study ... we could find absolutely no specific response to gluten," Gibson wrote in the paper...

You would have been charged at a premium call rate, when you called back and the scammers would get a portion of it. You will be kept on hold, while they play music or even run erotic audio tapes in an effort to keep you hooked. The longer they manage to keep a victim on the call, the higher they make.

These calls arrive at night or early in the morning and would ring only once or twice, ensuring the call is missed. Being off guard at such odd times, many people end up calling back, only to be kept on the phone line, for several minutes.

A is A.  Existence exists, regardless of wishes, fantasies, prayers, dreams, hopes, evasions, etc.

My entire life I hope to use the entirety of my mind to integrate my perceptions into a mental schema that most closely reflects reality as it is.

This is my dedication to the truth, one of my highest values since childhood.

But can one ever call their own integrations "truth" or "fact"?

Example:

Extensible Objectivism via Branden versus Non-Extensible "Closed" Objectivism via Peikoff.

For Branden, Objectivism is Extensible.  Would he have considered this "reality" and "truth"?

Peikoff states the opposite and I'm sure holds his perspective in the same high regard.

Is Truth and Fact "subjective", whereas Reality can only be non-integrated perceptions?

Am I even making sense?

Help!

PS I am not trying to start a debate on extensible vs. non-extensible Objectivism.

I just want to know at what point can we call our concepts that we have created using the entirety of our minds to integrate perceptions according to reality..."Truth" or "Fact".

The area of the largest equilateral triangle that fits inside a unit square exactly equals the side of the largest square that fits inside a unit equilateral triangle.

After [Jeb] Bush's speech, hecklers from a group called "Black Lives Matter" caused Bush to simply leave the scene. When Trump opened his question-and-answer period by pointing to someone in the audience who had a question, a Hispanic immigration activist who had not been called on simply stood up and started haranguing.

Trump told the activist to sit down because someone else had been called on. But the harangue continued, until a security guard escorted the disrupter out of the room. And Jeb Bush later criticized Trump for having the disrupter removed!

What kind of president would someone make who caves in to those who act as if what they want automatically overrides other people's rights -- that the rules don't apply to them?

Trump later allowed the disrupter back in, and answered his questions... [bold added]

The philosophical impotence of the older generation is the reason why the adult authorities -- from the Berkeley administration to the social commentators to the press to Governor Brown -- were unable to take a firm stand and had no rational answer to the Berkeley rebellion. Granting the premises of modern philosophy, logic was on the side of the rebels. To answer them would require a total philosophical reevaluation, down to basic premises -- which none of those adults would dare attempt.

Hence the incredible spectacle of brute force, hoodlum tactics, and militantly explicit irrationality being brought to a university campus -- and being met by the vague, uncertain, apologetic concessions, the stale generalities, the evasive platitudes of the alleged defenders of academic law and order. [Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, pp. 252-253]