No, but progressives worm their way into any institution and work to change thinking by redefining.

Unfortunately all too true. We have a large proportion of non-thinkers and unquestioning ideologues...

Are you sure she's the one that made a fundamental mistake?

From the Introduction to The Virtue Of Selfishness: "The title of this book may evoke the kind of question that I hear once in a while: "Why do you use the word 'selfishness' to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people to whom it does not mean the things you mean?"

"To those who ask it, my answer is: "For the reason that makes you afraid of it."

She writes further: "It is not a mere semantic issue nor a matter of arbitrary choice. The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word "selfishness" is not merely wrong: it represents a devastating intellectual "package-deal," which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind."

She made no apologies for her terminology and explained her rationale.

“Belief in the irrational does not further anyone's life.”

Overall, I agree. Yet, other replies from my post above would challenge that statement. Without all parties accepting the formal rules of debate, arguments can go on seemingly forever. People can easily waste lifetimes fruitlessly debating whether or not something like faith in the supernatural is a valid tool for winning a debate.

"Religious affiliation has no effect on others."

Isn't that like saying political affiliations have no effect on others?

Many would say that U.S. debts, liabilities and money printing have indisputably furthered their lives. Another debate that should be obvious but no one seems to win.

It is not debatable at all. Belief in the irrational does not further anyone's life. A belief in the inherent evil of man is not good for anyone.

(Minus 1). That is not a reply. It is a dodge, a blank-out. Do you mean to say that you are religious and refuse to discuss it further? Do you mean something else? Anything is "infinitely debatable" if you refuse to accept facts and logic. That is why formal debates have rules with judges.

Shivas, the word "selfishness" was _never_ "appropriate"; and neither was "capitalism." You can back away from the harsh meanings of rational and realistic. Sociopaths are said to be "rational" and "realistic" and "selfish." Even your suggested soubriquet or euphemism, "rational self interest" has two red flags: rational and self. We even deny the propriety of "interest" as in "conflict of interest"; or taking the moral high ground by asserting that you have no interest in the outcome.

If you want to make yourself acceptable to most people in most places, you are going to cease being whoever it is you are inside.

It is infinitely debatable whether religious activities rationally further your life. Most of us don't have the time for this debate.

Livefreely, if you read the book _Atlas Shrugged_ you will find Galt's explanation for his choice to return to the outer world. If you read Rand's non-fiction anthology, _The Virtue of Selfishness_ the essays, "Isn't Everyone Selfish" and "Counterfeit Individualism" explain more.

An excellent explanation.

Yes, the human animal has intellectualized lower drives. This has enabled society but at the same time opens up the possibility for twisted drives because logic is not followed and/or one or more axioms are false. The biggest problem affecting the human animal now is the false axiom of economics that inflation is good. In fact, inflation is the underlying force for the obscene income difference between wealth creators and paper pushing financial wizards and other "talent" jobs like sports and wall street lawyers and accountants. And I agree with Rand, obviously, that properly directed selfishness is the path to happiness for the person and is what leads to proper functioning society.

Solver, dictionaries are not authorities. In common speech, we confuse current and voltage, weight and mass, speed and velocity. The root and rock of the political philosophy here in the Gulch began by denying the validity of dictionary definitions of "capitalism" - and the Encyclopedia Britannica article.

I learned that as a teenager from the works of Ayn Rand. Thirty years later, I was granted a literary award on the nomination of a Smithsonian curator because I doubted the _EB_ story for the origins of coinage. (Coins were not invented by merchants, no matter what "everyone" says.) You asked rhetorically whether everyone in the world can be wrong. "Yes!"

Please understand that the purpose of a dictionary is to report what most people mean by a word. Words change meaning. It is why we can read Shakespeare, but need the notes. We argue about the Constitution because the meanings of some words changed in 200 years. I have an 1828 Webster's Dictionary just to help me with those kinds of problems. My two standard dictionaries - Mirriam Webster and World Publishing - are from c. 1960. But my wife is an editor and she always has the latest on her shelf and we do go around a bit sometimes on experts versus experts.

I also speak several languages, as does my brother; and he beats me up over my Langenscheidts; but I took a red pen to my Oxford Paperback. So...

Galt never sacrificed himself. livefreely, have you read AS or have you just so far seen the movies? If not, you may consider starting with the play Anthem. It deals with this very concept.

well an apocalypse is messy. lol
Think of it this way. It was his philosophy that brought about the Gulch in the first place. In order to "right the world" it had to be destroyed first. That was the most important part of his plan. Imagine convincing the best and the brightest to turn their back on the world as it is. Imagine understanding a life philosophy in a few hours. He delivered everyone but Dagny ...and then finally Dagny. "It" had already fallen apart. The speech explained why.

Danno, your claim, "Every action is selfish else it wouldn't be done" is identified as "psychological selfishness". By that simple (simple-minded) theory all actions are directed toward a goal. As you note, that goal can be twisted against the actor. The egoism of Objectivist ethics solves that problem. If you have not read _The Virtue of Selfishness_ you should make the time in order to discuss the ideas.

Moreover, when you say that you are "talking about the human animal, not Rand Philosophy" you are asserting your _own_ philosophical estimate of the "human animal" as if that were unarguable.

Beautiful scene which does support Ragnar's activities but not Galt or Dagny. Galt didn't save many or anything. It was all laid to waste. His speech could actually have been the cause of it all falling apart, so suddenly, especially his order to get the hell out of his way. What did Dagny gain? Her brother went mad. Reardon was already heading out and her railroad was on it's last trip. Galt went back to be handed in. You do raise a valid point though.

I disagree. He was investing in his future by not staying in the Gulch. In the words of Ragnar talking to Rearden:
Rearden smiled contemptuously. "Aren't you one of those damn altruists who spends his time on a non-profit venture and risks his life merely to serve others?"
Ragnar: "No, Mr. Rearden. I am investing my time in my own future. When we are free and have to start rebuilding from out of the ruins, I want to see the world reborn as fast as possible. If there is, then, some working capital in the right hands -- in the hands of our best, our most productive men -- it will save years for the rest of us and, incidentally, centuries for the history of the county. Did you ask what you meant to me? Everything I admire, everything I want to be on the day when the earth will have a place for such state of being, everything I want to deal with -- even if this is the only way I can deal with you and be of use to you at present."