<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: QUESTIONS</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.peikoff.com/questions/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.peikoff.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:52:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<meta xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex,follow" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Benjamin Steinhart</title>
		<link>http://www.peikoff.com/questions/#comment-3972</link>
		<dc:creator>Benjamin Steinhart</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:52:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.peikoff.com/?page_id=101#comment-3972</guid>
		<description>&quot;Consciousness is conscious.&quot;--Part of Objectivism?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Consciousness is conscious.&#8221;&#8211;Part of Objectivism?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dylan Boyd</title>
		<link>http://www.peikoff.com/questions/#comment-3969</link>
		<dc:creator>Dylan Boyd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:18:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.peikoff.com/?page_id=101#comment-3969</guid>
		<description>What do you think about the creative output of the artist Marilyn Manson, since he is a artist who is an individual who stands for his own creative being and productivity as his highest moral value and doesn&#039;t harm anyone else?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What do you think about the creative output of the artist Marilyn Manson, since he is a artist who is an individual who stands for his own creative being and productivity as his highest moral value and doesn&#8217;t harm anyone else?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justin Wisniewski</title>
		<link>http://www.peikoff.com/questions/#comment-3963</link>
		<dc:creator>Justin Wisniewski</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 18:27:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.peikoff.com/?page_id=101#comment-3963</guid>
		<description>Was Frank O’Connor ever jealous of the love Ayn Rand had for her male characters?  Did he ever feel insecure about being compared to them?  I ask because I think if I invented a character that I said represented my ideal woman my wife would inevitably compare herself to such a character. She would probably assume that any differences between her and the character might reflect some kind of disappointment or disapproval. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Was Frank O’Connor ever jealous of the love Ayn Rand had for her male characters?  Did he ever feel insecure about being compared to them?  I ask because I think if I invented a character that I said represented my ideal woman my wife would inevitably compare herself to such a character. She would probably assume that any differences between her and the character might reflect some kind of disappointment or disapproval.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Edmund Bonczyk</title>
		<link>http://www.peikoff.com/questions/#comment-3961</link>
		<dc:creator>Edmund Bonczyk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 05:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.peikoff.com/?page_id=101#comment-3961</guid>
		<description>Dear Esteemed Dr. Peikoff-$,  

    In an earlier podcast, you were questioned concerning Ms. Rand&#039;s Russian-accented English and the difficulty of others to understand her.  I have a tape cassette of Ms. Rand reading her &quot;The Simplest Thing in the World&quot;.  I could not imagine anyone else reading this peice better.  She was brilliant and the story is one of my favorites.  More importantly,  I found her voice wonderful. 
     Did she say anything concerning Henry Dorn to you?  What other characters in Romantic Comedy does he compare to? 

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Most Rationally,
 Edmund Bonczyk, $

PS. Your piano studies have inspired me to tackle Helmholtz&#039;s &quot;Sensations of Tone&quot;.  The local university has an edition dating 1895.  As always, may The Best Within Us Bless you and yours. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Esteemed Dr. Peikoff-$,  </p>
<p>    In an earlier podcast, you were questioned concerning Ms. Rand&#8217;s Russian-accented English and the difficulty of others to understand her.  I have a tape cassette of Ms. Rand reading her &#8220;The Simplest Thing in the World&#8221;.  I could not imagine anyone else reading this peice better.  She was brilliant and the story is one of my favorites.  More importantly,  I found her voice wonderful.<br />
     Did she say anything concerning Henry Dorn to you?  What other characters in Romantic Comedy does he compare to? </p>
<p>Thank you very much for your time and consideration.</p>
<p>Most Rationally,<br />
 Edmund Bonczyk, $</p>
<p>PS. Your piano studies have inspired me to tackle Helmholtz&#8217;s &#8220;Sensations of Tone&#8221;.  The local university has an edition dating 1895.  As always, may The Best Within Us Bless you and yours.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Isaiah Navarro</title>
		<link>http://www.peikoff.com/questions/#comment-3958</link>
		<dc:creator>Isaiah Navarro</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 03:22:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.peikoff.com/?page_id=101#comment-3958</guid>
		<description>I love my mother, but not my father. Is it immoral to tell him that I love him to spare his feelings?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love my mother, but not my father. Is it immoral to tell him that I love him to spare his feelings?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alexander Lee</title>
		<link>http://www.peikoff.com/questions/#comment-3957</link>
		<dc:creator>Alexander Lee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:01:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.peikoff.com/?page_id=101#comment-3957</guid>
		<description>I would like to know a principle that will allow me to decide whether or not I should compensate individuals I have harmed, according to the extent to which I harmed them.

I am now 18, and have realized that a number of things I did as a young teenager were immoral.  Here is one example:  While playing with plastic BB guns with friends, I trespassed in two different properties, leaving a number of small white plastic BB&#039;s in both.  The BB&#039;s are probably now covered up by accumulated dirt and plant matter.  It is beyond question to me that the trespassing was immoral, but I am not sure what action I should take now.

I also have accidentally done things that may have harmed property of others:  Once while hiking I accidentally dropped my water bottle, and it rolled down the hill out of sight.  It may have landed in a private property.

And lastly I have done things that caused minor harm to the property of others, but which I found acceptable nonetheless:  I flew a paper airplane off of a hill, and it landed somewhere in a residential area, probably in a yard.


I am trying to decide whether I should now go to the trouble of giving the owners of these properties money to clean up. In most of the mentioned cases, finding and compensating the injured party would be exceptionally difficult and time-consuming.

I have thought about the story regarding Abraham Lincoln, in which he walked 3 miles to return 6 cents that had been mistakenly taken from a customer.  I think that such an action is rather silly and is not the behavior of a productive man concerned with matters of significance.  Yet I cannot find a way to justify compromising on a principle.  I suppose that this issue may be one of “how many hairs make a beard;” although it is obvious that compensation is necessary in major cases, there is a lower border of significance that is not clearly defined.

If I reduce the question to absurdity, I can see that, if I were compelled to compensate the victims of every harm I cause, I would have time for nothing else.  For example, what of the gravel that shoots out from under my car&#039;s tires and lands in roadside properties?  And when I go out in public with a cold, the germs coming from my mouth and nose sometimes reach other people and attack them.  When my cats go outside, they often exit my yard and “trespass” in other yards, causing I know not what mischief.  When I use my basketball hoop, I create moderately loud noises of ball against backboard which reach my neighbors; and when I shot a raccoon out of one of my trees, the sound of the shotgun was deafening.  Clearly there must be some delineation of how much harm is enough to warrant compensation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would like to know a principle that will allow me to decide whether or not I should compensate individuals I have harmed, according to the extent to which I harmed them.</p>
<p>I am now 18, and have realized that a number of things I did as a young teenager were immoral.  Here is one example:  While playing with plastic BB guns with friends, I trespassed in two different properties, leaving a number of small white plastic BB&#8217;s in both.  The BB&#8217;s are probably now covered up by accumulated dirt and plant matter.  It is beyond question to me that the trespassing was immoral, but I am not sure what action I should take now.</p>
<p>I also have accidentally done things that may have harmed property of others:  Once while hiking I accidentally dropped my water bottle, and it rolled down the hill out of sight.  It may have landed in a private property.</p>
<p>And lastly I have done things that caused minor harm to the property of others, but which I found acceptable nonetheless:  I flew a paper airplane off of a hill, and it landed somewhere in a residential area, probably in a yard.</p>
<p>I am trying to decide whether I should now go to the trouble of giving the owners of these properties money to clean up. In most of the mentioned cases, finding and compensating the injured party would be exceptionally difficult and time-consuming.</p>
<p>I have thought about the story regarding Abraham Lincoln, in which he walked 3 miles to return 6 cents that had been mistakenly taken from a customer.  I think that such an action is rather silly and is not the behavior of a productive man concerned with matters of significance.  Yet I cannot find a way to justify compromising on a principle.  I suppose that this issue may be one of “how many hairs make a beard;” although it is obvious that compensation is necessary in major cases, there is a lower border of significance that is not clearly defined.</p>
<p>If I reduce the question to absurdity, I can see that, if I were compelled to compensate the victims of every harm I cause, I would have time for nothing else.  For example, what of the gravel that shoots out from under my car&#8217;s tires and lands in roadside properties?  And when I go out in public with a cold, the germs coming from my mouth and nose sometimes reach other people and attack them.  When my cats go outside, they often exit my yard and “trespass” in other yards, causing I know not what mischief.  When I use my basketball hoop, I create moderately loud noises of ball against backboard which reach my neighbors; and when I shot a raccoon out of one of my trees, the sound of the shotgun was deafening.  Clearly there must be some delineation of how much harm is enough to warrant compensation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gordon Webb</title>
		<link>http://www.peikoff.com/questions/#comment-3955</link>
		<dc:creator>Gordon Webb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2012 06:15:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.peikoff.com/?page_id=101#comment-3955</guid>
		<description>Dear Dr. Peikoff,

I have to take a moment to thank you again for your podcasts.  They are literally guiding me through my studies.

I&#039;m reading the Bible again, after ignoring it for three decades, and themes like malevolent universe and nihilism are exactly what the Bible is all about.

I can&#039;t thank you enough.

Your grateful student,

Gordon Webb</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Dr. Peikoff,</p>
<p>I have to take a moment to thank you again for your podcasts.  They are literally guiding me through my studies.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m reading the Bible again, after ignoring it for three decades, and themes like malevolent universe and nihilism are exactly what the Bible is all about.</p>
<p>I can&#8217;t thank you enough.</p>
<p>Your grateful student,</p>
<p>Gordon Webb</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lou Bernard</title>
		<link>http://www.peikoff.com/questions/#comment-3952</link>
		<dc:creator>Lou Bernard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 22:59:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.peikoff.com/?page_id=101#comment-3952</guid>
		<description>I have heard that Ayn Rand and many of her followers (including you) have not voted in presidentail elections in essence because neither party had a condidate worth supporting (my own paraphrasing of what I believe I have heard).  
My two part question is:
1) WIth the election of Obama, do you still think that such a stand was correct?
2) Do you plan on voting in the 2012 presidential election?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have heard that Ayn Rand and many of her followers (including you) have not voted in presidentail elections in essence because neither party had a condidate worth supporting (my own paraphrasing of what I believe I have heard).<br />
My two part question is:<br />
1) WIth the election of Obama, do you still think that such a stand was correct?<br />
2) Do you plan on voting in the 2012 presidential election?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Katie Pruett</title>
		<link>http://www.peikoff.com/questions/#comment-3951</link>
		<dc:creator>Katie Pruett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 07:56:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.peikoff.com/?page_id=101#comment-3951</guid>
		<description>Leonard, 

What are your opinions on Buddhism?

I am an Objectivist, and my boyfriend of five years is a Buddhist. While I understand and respect his beliefs, I can feel no emotion towards them. 

I appreciate many of the tenets, however, I don&#039;t feel I can support them in any capacity.  Is there any answer you can give me to help me understand me confusion, or is this independent of my philosophy?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Leonard, </p>
<p>What are your opinions on Buddhism?</p>
<p>I am an Objectivist, and my boyfriend of five years is a Buddhist. While I understand and respect his beliefs, I can feel no emotion towards them. </p>
<p>I appreciate many of the tenets, however, I don&#8217;t feel I can support them in any capacity.  Is there any answer you can give me to help me understand me confusion, or is this independent of my philosophy?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steven Lubars</title>
		<link>http://www.peikoff.com/questions/#comment-3950</link>
		<dc:creator>Steven Lubars</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:32:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.peikoff.com/?page_id=101#comment-3950</guid>
		<description>That we have free will is self-evident, yet our current understanding of physics only includes two mechanisms of action:  The completely deterministic, and the completely random.  Because those two mechanisms are insufficient (in any combination or quantity) to model free will,  can we conclude that our current understanding of physics is incomplete?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That we have free will is self-evident, yet our current understanding of physics only includes two mechanisms of action:  The completely deterministic, and the completely random.  Because those two mechanisms are insufficient (in any combination or quantity) to model free will,  can we conclude that our current understanding of physics is incomplete?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

