The Atlas Shrugged sequence is actually happening
- Thread starter brettman9
- Start date
Remember that in some contexts 2+2=22...
Like I said, it depends on the context, and what formal grammar is used. If you look at grammars, automatas, etc you will find that there is a lot more to mathematics than just algebra.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automata_theory
Also, like I explained earlier - e.g the various gas models - there are times and conditions when we just don't understand yet how things work. In areas like Quantum Chromodynamis, about gravity, superfluids, biochemistry - it is all very new territory.
If you think 2+2=4 is an absolute - you too should also look at ZFC to understand what mathematics really is.
Hypocrisy is what you need to understand about the degree of truth, there are extremes on that scale; there are also degrees of hypocrisy.
It IS true that humans still are very much the same - when it comes to interpersonal relations. We have just the same social squabbles as the chimpanzees... and little has changed. We express it differently, but the conflicts are the same, as they always have been.
What truly is changing is the scale of civilizations and cooperation. That is something that only can be called progress and evolution, sustainable development instead of social Darwinism.
Quote from ScottD:
T. Boone Pickens as Ellis Wyatt
Ross Perot as Midas Mulligan
Christopher Cox as Wet Nurse
Ron Paul as Hank Rearden
Aaron Copland (rip) as Richard Halley
Leonard Piekoff as Hugh Akston
Gringo The Brazilian Mind Bender as Dr. Simon Pritchett
Monica Lewinsky as Cheryl Brooks
..and of course myself as Ragnar Danneskjold
Finally, a productive post. Great cast.
Hehe,
but unlike Pritchett I think that the strength of reasoning is what gives integrity, and makes it easier to evolve, adapt and progress - grow. And I'm no fan of Occam's razor used at everything.
The Neocons also use logics and science to found their ideas... and see how that goes with Irving Kristol being one of the most bigoted persons you can imagine - hating any counter-culture, and Charles Murray along with James Burnham think they can aggressively shape the system like they want - because they have the right, née a responsibility to lead the rest of the herd...
Aggressive philosophies don't let other people continue on their merry path - but make people turn into authoritarian freaks.
Systems can be changed by anyone - but they become sustainable when they have integrity and not cancerous growth of corruption and bias.
but unlike Pritchett I think that the strength of reasoning is what gives integrity, and makes it easier to evolve, adapt and progress - grow. And I'm no fan of Occam's razor used at everything.
The Neocons also use logics and science to found their ideas... and see how that goes with Irving Kristol being one of the most bigoted persons you can imagine - hating any counter-culture, and Charles Murray along with James Burnham think they can aggressively shape the system like they want - because they have the right, née a responsibility to lead the rest of the herd...
Aggressive philosophies don't let other people continue on their merry path - but make people turn into authoritarian freaks.
Systems can be changed by anyone - but they become sustainable when they have integrity and not cancerous growth of corruption and bias.
I was using 2+2 as an allegorical model. And don't get me started on math.....I took more than a few PhD level math courses while pursuing my degree, and know a little about math.
I also teach a trading course for a PhD program at a large university. I do not ever allow students to cite wikipedia, so you might want to revisit your liberal use of wikipedia, which anyone can edit.
The essence of Ayn Rand is in her own words when she says,
"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
Hard to argue with that.
I don't need to refer to books to reply to debates defending Objectivism, as earlier claimed in this thread.
But seriously, why wax philosophical(which we can do at a later time), while this market is offering unparalleled trading opportunities not seen since 1907.
Jeff
Well, I am sure maths and financial theories have evolved since then too. As you might agree Wikipedia is not something bad in itself, and especially for the scientific topics, the references are mostly similar to those references on CiteSeer or BibTeX which you might be familiar with from academics.
Also, I use several sources - but for the ease-of-use in discussion with persons who do not even have an introductory knowledge of some of the fields I am referring to, Wikipedia is better than citing e.g CiteSeer papers. It is much more pragmatic. In serious scientific works - of course serious argumentation and referenced works is necessary to continue building strong integrity and trust.
I don't agree with Rand's assessment of "life's purpose" at all - and as I said earlier it strongly reflects on her poorly developed people skills. She completely misses out on the inherent hypocrisy of "own happiness" as also including the sustainable, harmonic environment around anyone.
I agree with your criticism of Any Rand's philosophy. I think it is overrated and "underthought." However, I disagree with your comment that she is a good writer. I slugged through her Atlas Shrugged and her somewhat charitably shorter The Fountainhead some years ago to see what all the hoopla was about. I was disappointed. She could have conveyed her message in far shorter books had she not mired herself in gratuitous repetition. The dialogue was stilted. The content was preachy, with the subtlety and nuance of a sledgehammer. Everyone wore either a white hat (the good guys) or a black hat (the bad guys). You could see them coming from a distance. (Just like real life, eh?)Quote from Gringinho:
Ayn Rand was a good writer.
Atlas Shrugged is a compelling, well-written masterpiece of literature, fiction but still takes the moral point across.
I was not saying the book was crap.
There... happy?
And so, as with her philosophy, I think her books are similarly overrated and "underthought."
During the brief time I was acquainted with her, she seemed to be totally at ease with her life, history, and accomplishments. She was an utterly charming woman with grace, good manners and a first rate mind. Her people skills and manners were beyond reproach. When you refer to her people skills, is this an observation you made from personally knowing her, or are you getting your views from second hand sources?