• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Matus1976 last won the day on July 13 2009

Matus1976 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About Matus1976

  • Rank
  • Birthday 07/26/1976

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Michael D

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Interests
    Philosophy, Science, Politics, Art, Motorcycles, Inventing, Physics

Recent Profile Visitors

3,180 profile views
  1. My original intention was to compare Rand's characterization of feminine beauty against the 'norms' of western society's concept of feminine beauty, which are usually considered to be shy, passive, demure, submissive, along with a slender delicate body and highlighted female body features. I thought for source material to use the movies which depict an unattractive woman being turned into an attractive one and told how to dress, act, etc, in order to be beautiful. For these I picked out She's All That, Miss Congeniality, and The Princess Diaries. Surprisingly I found Rand's depiction of beauty
  2. I found this interesting article on the topic, which I've only skimmed so far It points out Rand's unique view of gender but also some contradictions which present themselves through her writings on femininity.
  3. Looking at the full quote in context, it does seem like this is something Lillian is thinking. Contrasting this with Francisco's description of Dagny a few pages later at the same party, it seems even more evident that the 'chained' comment was Lillian's thought
  4. Looking at the full quote in context, it does seem like this is something Lillian is thinking.
  5. Here's some of the source material I've gotten so far...relevant but yet to be edited.
  6. Thanks everyone for suggestions so far. I'll add mine as I transcribe them. That line always bothered me. I read one reviewer suggesting that it was a thought of Lillian's, and not of opinion of Rand's, since it was Lillian's reaction to Dagny entering the room that solicited that response/passage. But given Rand's on record opinions it does not seem unreasonable that it was her's. Just women for the purposes of this paper Excellent suggestion!
  7. Forced to take a 'social science' course and ending up in Sociology, for the assigned paper I decided to contrast the gender conceptions of beauty from common media sources against those portrayed in Atlas Shrugged. I'm pouring over the text again for the goodies, but looking for help from fellow Rand admirers, point out your favorite examples that convey the concepts of feminine beauty, such as Rearden seeing Dagny for the first time, etc. I particularly like the way Rand conveys beauty in the feminine context and it stands as a stark contrast to popular conventions, where women are often por
  8. I realize this is an old thread, but it is still an interesting topic. I just came across this in a recent issue of Scientific American Mind which empirically answers the perfect pitch question about innate talent vs practice. "In an experiment published in 2006 my colleagues and I gave a test for perfect pitch to two l arge groups of music conservatory students - Mandarin speakers at the Central Conservatory of Music in Beijing and speakers of English or of another nontone language at Eastman School of Music in Rochester, N.Y. - and found that the prevalence of perfect pitch was indeed far
  9. Wow Jeff! Really! Objectivism uses terms in ways that are different than the norm! Oh my god, you've found the one fatal flaw of Objectism! Wow! Guess I'll just be burning my copy of Atlas shrugged and wipping out Das Kaptical... The Fact that Rand took some words and used them in a different AND VERY SPECIFIC way, was obvious and very intentional, and the reason was because the hi-jacking of those words is a manifestation of corrupt and malicious philosophical systems and, since words are the only way which we can express ideas, necessarily subjugate the very ideas so critical to human unders
  10. The part I bolded is the part that is a subjective valuation. There is nothing in reality that forces you to adopt that as the guiding principle. You think that survival is important, and therefore construct your moral system around it. "to exist or not to exist" is a fundamental question only if you think continuation of existence is a fundamental value. This again is you reverting back to your flawed definition of what "Objective" means, which you for some reason think is difference in the context of morality. There is nothing in reality that FORCES you to agree on what the mass of an e
  11. Consensus is irrelevant, truth is not ascertained by 'popular vote' and suggesting as much demonstrates only an incredible ignorance of science and the concept of "Objective" You ignore the essential part in my quote, namely the scientific method. If you think that this is the same as 'popular vote', then you have no idea what science entails, as this is the crucial difference between objective and subjective arguments, it guarantees that the results of different persons will converge, independently of the person who uses this method (which does not mean that it is infallible, new data and ne
  12. You could use juggling flaming torches as your standard of morality as well, but that does not mean it is an objective standard for morality, or that there is no such things as an objective standard. If "political" animal or "social" animal are used as your standard for morality, they lead to death. No amount of chattyness and voting will grow your food and build your shelters, only the rational application of mans efforts will do that. Only reason is the objective standard for morality, because everything else leads to death. MSK - the great thing about life qua man being the objective s
  13. Consensus is irrelevant, truth is not ascertained by 'popular vote' and suggesting as much demonstrates only an incredible ignorance of science and the concept of "Objective" But this 'lack of consenses' anyway - is because those people, and you, and X-Ray, continue to insist that "OBJECTIVE" *ONLY* in the context of morality means it must be accepted by everyone and nothing other than that ever believed. If there is an "OBJECTIVE" Standard of morality, the rationality, logic, and science will answer in the affirmative or negative. Only one definition of Morality is not irrational, the sta
  14. You just don't get it, XRay, "Objective" in the context of ethics and morality is simply the same as "Objective" in the context of any analysis of reason. You must use a different definition in order for your twisted point to be valid, as any elementary listing of your actual logical argument would prove. This discussion is exactly about the properties of matter, the properties of matter that make up things which live, and the rules of existence which govern those things which live. Those rules say that unless those things which live behave in a manner which makes them continue to live, the
  15. This paradox of choice non-sense is rooted in the same basic philosophical corruption - a worship of platonic idealism and holding human errors of judgement up against some impossible standard of omniscience. Instead achieving happiness in the face of a vast array of choices rationally by suggesting people merely adopt a 'good enough' attitude, and pick a 'go-no go' time for decision making, these idiots feel it necessary to force everyone to make the same choices by severely limiting the number of choices. But if this were truly such a psychologically crippling phenomena, how would any hum