miketheidiot
Lifer
- Sep 3, 2004
- 11,060
- 1
- 0
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
atlas shrugged?
*facepalm*
Originally posted by: Lawlcaeks
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
atlas shrugged?
*facepalm*
The library of congress did a study back in he 80's and found it was #2 on the list of most influential books of all time, right behind the Holy Bible.
Rightly so IMO. I wish it were required reading for every high school graduate.
Originally posted by: BrownTownI think the point is that its kinda sad a book at crappy as Atlas Shrugged is so influential. But putting it on par wit the bible is exactly right imo, seems like people see it as a work of scripture more than a book. And I actually really enjoyed it and though it made a GREAT message, but even a person of average intelligence should be able to understand the gaping flaws in her reasoning.
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: BrownTownI think the point is that its kinda sad a book at crappy as Atlas Shrugged is so influential. But putting it on par wit the bible is exactly right imo, seems like people see it as a work of scripture more than a book. And I actually really enjoyed it and though it made a GREAT message, but even a person of average intelligence should be able to understand the gaping flaws in her reasoning.
What did you think were the gaping flaws in Ayn Rand's reasoning?
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
The Screwtape Letters, Cat's Cradle, Hiroshima, maybe The Handmaid's Tale.
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: BrownTownI think the point is that its kinda sad a book at crappy as Atlas Shrugged is so influential. But putting it on par wit the bible is exactly right imo, seems like people see it as a work of scripture more than a book. And I actually really enjoyed it and though it made a GREAT message, but even a person of average intelligence should be able to understand the gaping flaws in her reasoning.
What did you think were the gaping flaws in Ayn Rand's reasoning?
You are asking this question during the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression after 8 years of laissez-faire government ???
I liked the book. There were neat elements (such as the 'Politics of Pull') which are appropriate today but the overall story was farcical and Rand is just not that great a writer. That said ...
"But the damned and the guiltiest among you are the men who had the capacity to know, yet chose to blank out reality, the men who were willing to sell their intelligence into cynical servitude..." - John Galt
Originally posted by: leingod86
I find the fact that the majority of books presented in this thread are related to politics or religion rather than critical thinking or reasoning telling regarding the priorities of the average (American) person.
Originally posted by: leingod86
Why? How does one deduce the nature of God?
[/quote]If one does somehow assess it, how does it affect the logical processes that were required to discover it?
There doesn't have to be one Though my thinking on "the point of it all" is that we are just following biological imperatives. The rest is our own prescription.Originally posted by: Atreus21
[ What's the point of anything
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
There doesn't have to be one Though my thinking on "the point of it all" is that we are just following biological imperatives. The rest is our own prescription.Originally posted by: Atreus21
[ What's the point of anything
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: leingod86
Why? How does one deduce the nature of God?
We can't deduce the true nature of God, but I think we can deduce part of proof of his existence.
If one does somehow assess it, how does it affect the logical processes that were required to discover it?
If God doesn't exist, then nothing is meaningful. What's the point of anything, including logic, if there isn't a universal truth of some kind that we strive to understand?
I know where this is going, to which I respondOriginally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
There doesn't have to be one Though my thinking on "the point of it all" is that we are just following biological imperatives. The rest is our own prescription.Originally posted by: Atreus21
[ What's the point of anything
Why do we follow biological imperatives?
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: leingod86
Why? How does one deduce the nature of God?
We can't deduce the true nature of God, but I think we can deduce part of proof of his existence.
If one does somehow assess it, how does it affect the logical processes that were required to discover it?
If God doesn't exist, then nothing is meaningful. What's the point of anything, including logic, if there isn't a universal truth of some kind that we strive to understand?
We create "Meaning". Long before "God" existed, "gods" gave "Meaning" to Egyptians and numerous other cultures. Somehow "Meaning' survived the massive culling of countless "gods".
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
I know where this is going, to which I respondOriginally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
There doesn't have to be one Though my thinking on "the point of it all" is that we are just following biological imperatives. The rest is our own prescription.Originally posted by: Atreus21
[ What's the point of anything
Why do we follow biological imperatives?Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
If my reply confused you, it is only that I thought a philosophical question, deserved a philosophical answer.
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: leingod86
Why? How does one deduce the nature of God?
We can't deduce the true nature of God, but I think we can deduce part of proof of his existence.
If one does somehow assess it, how does it affect the logical processes that were required to discover it?
If God doesn't exist, then nothing is meaningful. What's the point of anything, including logic, if there isn't a universal truth of some kind that we strive to understand?
We create "Meaning". Long before "God" existed, "gods" gave "Meaning" to Egyptians and numerous other cultures. Somehow "Meaning' survived the massive culling of countless "gods".
I don't see how. Whether or not God exists seems to me to make quite a difference in how many of us would conduct our lives if we knew for certain one way or another.
I find the fact that the majority of books presented in this thread are related to politics or religion rather than critical thinking or reasoning telling regarding the priorities of the average (American) person.
Originally posted by: ModerateRepZero
I find the fact that the majority of books presented in this thread are related to politics or religion rather than critical thinking or reasoning telling regarding the priorities of the average (American) person.
Why can't they be interconnected instead of mutually exclusive concepts? I'm sure alot of people are interested about the War on Terror, and I found Benjamin Wittes's book "Law and the Long War" an impressive and well-argued/well reasoned book which referenced some books I had previously read on the topic (ie Goldsmith's The Terror Presidency). I'm not fully convinced of Wittes' conclusion, but otherwise found the book insightful.
Similarly for the Intelligent Investor, anyone investing would benefit from adopting some sort of conservative approach to what is basically gambling; when one puts money in the stock market, commodities, bonds etc they are either buying with the expectation that it will increase in value and sell to gain a profit (or conversely short or bet against growth and benefit from a price/value decline). Common sense such as building in a "margin of safety" when making calculations to account for some fudging or unexpected disasters can change one's behavior.
And it seems to me that what you're asking for and what the title asks for can mean 2 different things to people.