• Announcements

    • Kat

      09/05/2011 - No more blogs

      The community blogs on Objectivist Living are not being renewed and will be removed by 9/7/2011. If you have a blog, please make a copy of the text and paste it into Word to keep for your files.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Jonathan

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Full Name Jonathan Smith
  • Looking or Not Looking not looking

Contact Methods

  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location Minnesota
  1. Superbowl

    Thanks, but I didn't do quite as well as you guys thought. You made a typo in post #9, which made my prediction look better than what it was. I was expecting Carolina to do a little better on offense. I had it 26-20, not 26-10. And I agree with Adam. Badass defensive games are awesome. J
  2. Superbowl

    I'll go with Denver. 26 to 20. J
  3. Carly Fiorina

    I think Carly is attractive, and I don't care about any quirkiness of her mannerisms, as long as they're hers, and not the result of following the stupid advice of her handlers or critics in the media. I loved her as a candidate until she went softer and sweeter so as to relate better to whichever demographic her handlers and the media thought she'd do better with by artificially smiling more and being softer and sweeter. J
  4. Judgmental Aesthetics Time!

    Then you need to focus harder, and pay closer attention. And, more importantly, you need to stop willfully trying to misinterpret my statements. Stop trying to pick fights for the sake of picking fights. J
  5. Is Donald Trump like Gail Wynand?

    Ooh, I missed that. I assumed that he was talking to me, due to his post appearing right after mine and the lack of his quoting anyone, but now I see that he could have been talking to you. Whatever. J
  6. Carly Fiorina

    Bad hand control:
  7. Is Donald Trump like Gail Wynand?

    That's fine if you don't have time to invest in watching hours and hours of entertainment programming. My point was simply that those who have watched it have been exposed to more of who and what Trump is than you have, which I'm just suggesting should be a factor in evaluating where they are coming from in their positive attitude toward him, and their excitement about his candidacy. J
  8. Is Donald Trump like Gail Wynand?

    Don't just read about it, but watch the damn show! Watch Trump, and his very bright adult children, in the boardroom judging the competitors' performances. Pay attention to the logic and fairness that they bring to dealing with clashing personalities and egos (the celebrity version of the show is better, in my opinion, because of the larger egos and wallets involved).A lot of Trump's dedicated supporters have watched him on his program for years, and it's their source of their feeling that they know him in a sense and can trust him more than other candidates. They have this long history of seeing him in action -- what appears to be his fairness and generosity -- and if you haven't seen it, then they're just going to laugh at you when you claim that Trump is the opposite of what they've consistently seen season after season. J
  9. Is Donald Trump like Gail Wynand?

    The Celebrity Apprentice is anything but "highbrow," but it's fun as hell. It's a typical "reality" TV show with the atypical feature that the celebrity contestants have to be creative, and they have to produce and sell. I think that it has consistently done well in the ratings -- it keeps getting renewed and hyped and watched. J
  10. Is Donald Trump like Gail Wynand?

    I also think he is, and that if Rand were alive she'd have a crush on him. J
  11. Judgmental Aesthetics Time!

    Where in Rand's writings on art do we see any indication whatsoever that she gave serious consideration to investigating the possibility that aesthetic judgments are not objective (by her definition, or by any other)? Where did she do anything beyond merely shallowly mocking and sneering at others for their recognition of the reality of the subjective nature of aesthetic judgments? Where's the rational substance to support her position? Where is the actual argument rather than just bluff and puff and snarl? Where might we see examples of her applying logic and reason to the issue of objectivity versus subjectivity in aesthetic judgments, instead of example after example of the unsupported, predetermined conclusion that proper aesthetic judgments, especially hers, MUST be objective? Where might we see, from Rand or from any of her followers, the identification of actual objective standards and criteria for aethetic judgments? Where in her writings did Rand later pick back up on the task of providing the missing proof of her theory of objectivity in aethetic judgments, which she had skipped due to its having been "outside the scope of the discussion"? Where might we see examples of Rand admitting to having discovered that she had been wrong in some of her own aesthetic tastes and judgments? After all, she wasn't very knowledgeable or experienced with certain art forms, so it would logically follow that, when applying truly objective aesthetic judgments, she would learn some things that she hadn't known before, and would discover that certain of her passionate evaluations were mistaken. I haven't seen any of that. I've only seen the opposite: her absolute certainty that her tastes were right, and objectively correct, and superior and righteous, and that others, including very knowledgeable, experienced and accomplished others, needed to be reprimanded for their tastes and judgments. Are those the behaviors of someone who is openly investigating the nature of aesthetic judgment, and following wherever reality leads? No. Are they the actions of someone who is rigorously following the Objectivist epistemological method of applying logic and reason, of being critical of one's own theory and testing it from every angle? No. They're the behaviors of someone who wants/needs to believe that her tastes are objective and superior, and who wants/needs to belittle others for their differing tastes. The goal is not identifying the nature of aesthetic judgment. The goal is "I am right and superior, you are wrong and disgusting." J
  12. Judgmental Aesthetics Time!

    I think that a few things add up to sufficient proof: Rand's abundant use of the weapon that she created, while offering nothing objective or rational to back up the smears of others based on their creation or enjoyment of art. The eagerness and glee with which she used the weapon on others. Her abandonment of her own stated epistemological method when addressing the subject of art and aesthetic judgment. Her belief in the "objective superiority" of her personal tastes, interpretations and judgments, and her very snooty, snotty attitude toward judging art (and others' judgments of it), especially in regard to art forms about which she knew very little. (Her lack of self-questioning, her lack of curiosity on the issue of how she happened to become the ultimate objective technical expert on all of the art forms without having been educated on them.) J
  13. Any fans of "pro-life" music out there? :-)

    That's the essence of the creative process. It has to fester and ferment. You have to stay away from it, and maybe even be repulsed at the idea of going anywhere near it for a while. It needs lots of subconscious or semiconscious (or whatever) input and processing. It needs to play and fuck around, and it'll let you know when it's done. J
  14. Judgmental Aesthetics Time!

    The problem isn't just with "some Objectivists," but with the actual, official Objectivist Esthetic theory. It was ~designed~ to be used as a weapon of moral and psychological condemnation. It was ~intended~ as a tool to be used in posing as superior to others. It was constructed for the purpose of attempting to validated the belief that certain people have "objectively superior" tastes and interpretations of art. In other words, it's not actually Objectivist in its epistemological method. It's not a rational, dispassionate, philosophical investigation into the nature of art and aesthetic response in reality, but rather a personal introspection into Rand's tastes and interpretations, combined with lots of bluff and transparent attempts at intimidation. I'm glad you're not falling for it! J
  15. Any fans of "pro-life" music out there? :-)

    Yeah, that's pretty much how the Objectivist method of judging artistic talent works. J