C. Jordan

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About C. Jordan

  • Rank
  • Birthday 07/09/1969

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Chrysaor Jordan
  • Description
    Let me think about this one...

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Don't look now, I'm right behind you
  • Interests
  1. On reading Andrew Russell's thoughts about fundamentalism, posted in this thread and in that thread, I thought it a shame that no one commented. I thought I'd take the time to do so. The leitmotif of Russell's first article is that fundamentalist believers are bound by concrete thinking. The leitmotif of his second article was that young people are attracted to fundamentalist beliefs because they fear the unknown. In both cases, he has a point. I see some more to be said. The first one that strikes me is that fundamentalist belief is a question of authority. A Christian fundamentalist by defin
  2. My personal favourite 419 e-mail came from no less than Miriam Abacha herself, or so the writer claimed. Of all the ±100 such letters I've read, that is the only without blatant mistakes in African history that even an amateur, such as myself, can see clearly. This letter could have been written by Madam Abacha. Not that it matters. Her husband was the worst dictator in Nigeria's post-colonial history. Sani Abacha was a crook, and if this was his widow writing to me, I definitely do not want to answer her. Would you buy a used car from Miriam Abacha? Yes, absolutely, and please tell those Area
  3. Here's the irony: if only the press release hadn't been self-important, it would have been meaningful. Robert Mugabe is barbaric, and any country which shows any degree of respect for human rights has the right to invade Zimbabwe. I could get started, but that would not be humourous.
  4. This discussion is perfectly useless. After all, Ayn Rand once denounced humour qua humour, because one doesn't laugh at a hero. She also said some nice things about James Bond, but that is not the point. The point is: HOW DARE YOU introduce humour on a board which YOU CLAIM to be dedicated to Ayn Rand. You can't be a halfway Objectivist. It's all or nothing. It's black or white. If you think that is a black-and-white philosophy, then I say unto you: DUH! Objectivism IS a black-and-white philosophy, with no room at the table for the half-Objectivist-half-subjectivist. It stands to reason that
  5. Ayn Rand was absolutely right about that.
  6. This is a good topic. I've always been ambivalent about Ayn Rand's perspective on adjectives. But where to start? I agree with 75% of that. Let's start with her second point: all creative writing should strive to be "different and illuminating." That should apply to the adjectives. The part about "analyses of psychology" is a good point. Many writers do that, and few writers do it well. I would prefer (as a reader) to have less overt analysis, except from characters and then where it helps my understanding. But when characters spend too much time discussing why people behave like thus and so,
  7. That is precisely why I hated school.
  8. Most welcome. I liked the pictures. Regarding Rand's view, you said: Point accepted. I could see that as an interpretation of a hypothetical painting. And yes, some people see symbolism into everything. The problem is (and this would be another thread) that symbolism has an element of subjectivity. One can interpret the same symbol (fire, ocean, wind, mountain) in many different ways. And you asked my writer's goals? Presently: a 3-part epic over a pair of identical twin brothers and their world (which is Asia of ±200 years hence). For later: a journey inspired by African history, but in this
  9. RTB: The point is not whether a thought should be judged. It is whether a thought should be judged as worse than an action. The point is also whether a thought leads to an action. In Stuart's example, while Copernicus' work made the moon-landing POSSIBLE, it did not make the moon-landing INEVITABLE. By the same logic, while Marx gave Lenin, Stalin, and those who followed a JUSTIFICATION for their actions, he did not make those actions INEVITABLE. In addition, EVERY state with a Communist government, or that once had a Communist governmet, also has a tradition of autocracy, social stratificatio
  10. Now to address Michael Newberry. This also answers Dragonfly's question: what do we think of Newberry's paintings? I will give you MY interpretations: The first one I would call "STAMINA". It illustrates a runner's high, when there is a kind of euphoria hidden under the pain and exhaustion. Wielrenners know what that feels like. And that light from the chest illustrates the heart, the will to keep going, courage and strength. Because the light shines, it can also be a beacon. I mean the way that seeing another distance runner or another wielrenner keep going can give me the courage to keep goi
  11. I should address both Michaels. First to Michael Stuart Kelley: Your point that volition being at the centre of Rand's æsthetic theory is taken. My point is that Rand spent too much space (in my judgment) writing negative commentary about Naturalism than in writing positive commentary. And yes, there IS positive commentary in The Romantic Manifesto. Rand's praise of Victor Hugo is worthy of Victor Hugo. Her statement on why she wrote, is worthy of any writer's attention. Yet Rand also gave much space to her denunciations. I consider she gave too much space to denunciations; and if you don't ag
  12. I agree with you. And Leonard Peikoff appears to disagree with us all. If you read his Fact-and-Value business, you'd get the impression that evil ideas always and necessarily lead to evil actions. I wonder if Peikoff has considered that he is denying people their free will. If Immanuel Kant caused Hitler and Stalin to commit mass murder (which Peikoff argues) then how can either of them be guilty? I take the position that Hitler and Stalin both had free will. So, P.I. Rakovsky (who wrote The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion) did give Hitler a rationale for his Final Solution against th
  13. All puns are language-specific. Do the words "west" and "knee" and "to inhale" sound alike? Not in English. But they do in Chinese. The next pair of puns are only possible in Dutch. I include an English translation below each, but you need to read them aloud in Dutch. In English there is no joke. "In de Winkelcentrum van Bilthoven er is een winkel, Hans. Er is ook en winkel, Hans Anders. Zo: wat maakt Hans anders van Hans Anders?" (In the Bilthoven Winkelcentrum there is a store [called] Hans. There is also a store [called] Hans Anders. So: what makes Hans different from Hans Anders?) "Ik had
  14. Another urban legend was told me at the University of Georgia. Supposedly the final exam for Philosophy 101 was one question: WHY? The students who over-philosophised earned B or C grades. The student who said "Why not?" earned an A minus. The student who said "Because" earned an A plus. If that didn't happen, it still makes a good story.