• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by studiodekadent

  1. Its strange that Michael's impression of Ms. Ali is that she is a complete "nuke all Muslim's" variety (well, even Michael doesn't believe this but I mean she considers Islam totally evil). During her interview with the 7.30 report (Australian TV program) she said that not all Muslims are dangerous extremists and that she thinks it is important to seperate Islam from Muslims. In other words, Ms. Ali believes that being a completely consistent (fundamentalist) Muslim naturally results in a psychopath. I think this is a fair assessment. The majority of Muslims are not completely consistent. The same of course applies for Christians; most arent consistent and being totally consistent creates a nutcase of sorts. Her intellect is incredibly admirable. Her standing up to the left's multiculturalism and (to a lesser extent) the right's embrace of religion is commendable. She is truly a great Classical Liberal enlightenment-modern mind. We need more like her.
  2. By Analytic philosophy Im referring to the philosophical tradition descended from G. E. Moore and Bertrand Russell.
  3. Just because Objectivism has a different conceptual framework to analytic philosophy does not mean it is 'selfcontradictory jargon.' We frequently explain our definitions, and we frequently point out we do not use the term "Objective" in the sense that the analytic philosophers use the term. This discussion thread unfortunately did not sufficiently specify that and as such you are attacking Objectivism for not being intrinsic. And Victor, no problems with the crossing post. Yes, I am an Objectivist, I have posted a bit on these forums before.
  4. No insult taken. But I did not attempt to point out a problem. Im an Objectivist too, remember? I simply wanted to point out how there are different ways of interpreting the is/ought problem and to which interpretation is solved by Rand. Ive had some training in philosophy at university, so I learned the conventional framework. Im simply trying to show where Rand fits in it. Sorry if I confused you... I tried to provide definitions in my post.
  5. This is precisely why I pointed out that the Anti-Rand side are using different definitions than the Pro-Rand side. The Anti-Randians are obviously using the analytic philosophy definition of objective, which is, to the Pro-Rand side, Intrinsicism. And laws of physics do have a context: this universe. There could (yes, this is speculation, but the example is valid) be multiple universes with different laws of physics. And in the end all human knowlege is within the context of human experience so all knowlege is contextual. That does not mean our knowlege is worthless, it simply means that if it isn't an axiom, its subject to revision, criticism, modification, etc. As for the blog post at the start of this article: ERROR: Conflation of economic value with moral value. ERROR: Misinterpretation of Rand. "Matter is indestructible, it changes forms (including changes to energy, such as being burnt) but it cannot cease to exist" (brackets mine) and "Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence." (The Objectivist Ethics). Hence, Rand was referring to the existence of life, not existence as matter.
  6. Ann Coulter is a frightful, fascist bitch. But at least she is funny.
  7. "It is the little 'misfits' that have the best chance to recover...The children who did not conform, the children who endure years of agonizing misery, loneliness, confusion, abuse by the teachers and by their 'peers'.... but remain aloof and withdrawn, unable to give in, unable to fake, armed with nothing but the knowlege that there is something wrong with that nursery school" "The nonconformists are heroic little martyrs who are given no credit by no one....not even by themselves, since they cannot identify the nature of their battle. They do not have the conceptual knowlege nor the introspective skill to grasp that they are unable and unwilling to accept anything without understanding it, and that they are holding to the sovereignty of their own judgement against the terrifying pressure of everyone around him." "A thinking child cannot conform: thought does not bow to authority. The resentment of the pack towards independence and intelligence is older than progressive education; it is an ancient evil." (About trying to conform) "He never succeeds and is left wondering helplessly: "What is wrong with me?" "What do I lack?" "What do they want?"" -The Comprachicos "From the first catch-prases flung at a child to the last, it is like a series of shocks to freeze his motor, to undercut the power of his consciousness. "Dont ask so many questions-children should be seen and not heard!"-"Who are you to think? Its so because I say its so!"-"Dont argue, obey!"-"Dont try to understand, believe!"-"Dont rebel, adjust!"-"Dont stand out, belong!"-"Dont struggle, compromise!"-"Your heart is more important than your head!"-"Who are you to know? Your parents know best!"- "Who are you to know? Society knows whats best!"-"Who are you to know? The bureaucrats know whats best!"-"Who are you to object? All values are relative!"-"Who are you to want to escape a thug's bullet? Thats just a personal prejudice!" -Atlas Shrugged
  8. I think that something needs to be stated: From what I know, the two sides; "Pro-Rand" and "Anti-Rand" (the latter is not meant to be an insult) have different definitions of Objectivity. Anti-Randians are using the analytic philosophy definition of Objective, i.e. "exists as a physical thing." In short, their Objective is what the Pro-Rand side would call Intrinsic. In terms of the fact-value distinction, there are two interpretations of it: one is the wide interpretation, which is "values cannot have any factual basis whatsoever" and the other is the narrow interpretation, "One cannot logically deduce morality from metaphysical fact alone." Rand rebutted the wide interpretation. The narrow interpretation still stands however and Rand herself basically would have conceded it. The only way one can rebutt the narrow interpretation is through intrinsicism. Now, lets look at Rand's ethics. Rand, strictly speaking, developed a code of ethics that was a form of constructivism. Constructivism states that morality is real but humans make it so. Wether or not this is a form of "realism" or "anti-realism" is still being debated. In a way, "Realism-Constructivism-Antirealism" can be looked at as a relative of the IOS Trichotomy with Realism being a belief morality exists independently of humans (intrinsicism), Constructivism being morality exists in a way related to humans (this includes Objectivism although it can be embraced by different ideas too, like subjectivism) and Antirealism being morality completely invented by humans (subjectivism). On to my version of the Objectivist metaethical derivation: FROM OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY: We know that concepts arise from a context (a set of circumstances under which a concept is formed). So, the first question is "what context gives rise to concepts of value?" FACT (the use of value judgements): Concepts of value are used by human beings to make choices between alternatives. QUESTION: Why do we need to make choices in the first place? FACT (the role of choice in the human condition): If we do not make choices, we just sit down and do nothing, then we will die. After we die, we can make no more choices. CONCLUSION (the context of value): Just as values presuppose choices, choices presuppose life. Hence, values arise within the context of life. Only a being that is alive and chooses to live is a being that has to use concepts of value. Anyone that does not want to live can go off and die. CONCLUSION (the standard of value): Hence, the standard of value is human life. Not mere biological functioning, but life proper to human nature. From this it can be seen that in Objectivism, there is no intrinsic good. Even life man qua man is not valuable without someone choosing to value it. However, valuing it is a causal precondition for moral concepts to exist. Therefore it can be seen that in Objectivism, the concept has to be constructed by the human mind (out of empirical fact of course, like all of Objectivism's concepts). Therefore Objectivism is technically constructivist in terms of metaethics (although after that, it is naturalist, because the standard of value requires empirical research to find out what achieves it).
  9. Michael, My article was intended as a brief summary rather than a conclusive philosophical review. A conclusive and thorough review of Strauss would need a book length. And the quote I provided from Strauss was directly from Strauss, and Im sure you would agree that the quote has rather frightening implications. There are many other elements of Strauss I could bring in, for example his belief that the goodness of a society is not in the freedom enjoyed by the citizens but how virtuous the citizens are. In practice this means the state enforces its version of morality at gunpoint. Strauss certainly deserves a longer 'thorough critique' than what I have given, but as I said I did not want to advance the definitive rebuttal to Strauss, merely contribute to the Anti-Straussian intellectual ammo.
  10. Pot is boring. Tried it once, was like taking a valium. Screw weed. Stimulants are where its at.
  11. My parents were involved with WW. Back when they did it, one weekly meal of liver was compulsory. They tried everything to make it edible.... liver curry, liver burgers, liver and apple salad.... it failed miserably. I once lost about 12kg's (approx 30lbs) in a month on the Atkins diet (no carb). Its a bitch to cook for but it works.
  12. Jeff, I have no medals on my shelf. I was kicked out of the debating team in year 12 for, essentially, not being a 'good example of the school community' (my ability, displayed in a brilliant previous debate, obviously didn't matter). I have not one tangible prize from any competition. Zip. Zero. Zilch. I was once bitter about it. Then I realized, 1) competing with other people presupposed that I want to beat them. I dont care about them, they might as well be dead to me. If you want to compete against something objective, just have someone time your individual running. 2) competing with others also extends to them some element of equality (I de facto considered them worthy opponents). When I realized their corruption, their inability to think for themselves, I realized they werent worthy to lick the scum off my boot. 3) competing for a prize presupposes granting some sort of authority to the party that issues the prizes. I dont grant authority over me. Now, visibility is a value. We value receiving the adulation that we deserve. But this requires someone with similar values. As far as Im concerned, people that refuse to recognize my nobility are only passing a judgement on themselves: they are proclaiming their ignorance (or evasion) at a high volume. Also remember, placings are relative. It is not a matter of "if I lost, that means I am not perfect." The winner proved that he was better at one task than the other competitors. That is all. He did not prove he was 'perfect' at that task. Also, lets remember that physical abilities and moral perfection are different matters. Being desperate to beat others is second-handing. Dont sink to that level Jeff, you know you are better than that. Also, as both Ayn Rand and Benedict de Spinoza would say, if you love the good in yourself, you should love it in others. Congratulate the winner. If he doesn't appreciate the gesture, that demonstrates his utter depravity.
  13. Leo Strauss: Philosopher of the New Right by Andrew Russell A long time ago, the US Republican party stopped paying even lip service to Classical Liberalism and instead became controlled by "Neoconservatives." Neoconservatives believe in, essentially, top-down politics. By this, I mean they believe a society must be manipulated and engineered by the government. Many political creeds believe this: Socialism (especially of the Marxian variety) believes that this must be done through economics (since people are automatons controlled by their economic circumstances, they will follow the economy). So-called "Feminism" (more correctly; political misandry masquerading as equal-rights-for-women) believes this must be done through family law and education. So-called "Multiculturalism" (reverse-racism and thought-reform masquerading as tolerance) believes that this must be done through coercive 'diversity training' that preaches no people of different race can get along without big brother. The Jesus Fascists of the right believe their values (which belong in barbaric, pre-enlightenment ages) should be directly legislated. Oakshottean Conservatives (Conservatives in the traditionalist sense of the word) try to strike a balance, in that they recognize traditions and institutions are ground up, but they protect those institutions with top-down laws, only allowing very slow change on the grounds of 'stability.' Classical Liberalism, on the other hand, had the insight to realise that society is, generally speaking, self-regulating, and that the only things that must be removed from social relationships are interpersonal coercion (violence or the threat of) and fraud. Hence, it can be seen that the New Left and the New Right are both in open revolt against Classical Liberalism. Both the Diversity Nazis and the Jesus Nazis are Fascists. Neoconservatism is one arm of the New Right. In order to explain how its 'top-down' politics work, I will use as evidence a quote from the Neocon's favorite philosopher; Leo Strauss. In short, human beings are evil and depraved in virtue of their nature, not their actions (what they do) but in their natures (what they are). A newborn human being is evil. This is a restatement of the Christian concept of Original Sin (although the concept is not unique or essential to Christianity). Lets also look at "he has to be governed." By whom? Blank out. Its obvious that human government must be governed by humans (God ain't faxing orders down from heaven these days, and the Aliens sure as hell haven't landed), and yet humans are intrinsically evil. This means that we are not fit to decide our own actions, but we are fit to decide the actions of others. I think it is relatively obvious how absurd this truly is. Lets look at another component of the quote: "such governance can only be established, however, when men are united." That perpetual emphasis on unity can mean only one thing: collectivism. Man united as, to use Ayn Rand's words, "one neck for one leash." Now, what instrument to use to craft such a collective? Such unity? Strauss recommends religion. To Quote Drury, Religion “is the glue that holds society together.” Any religion will do. “Secular society … is the worst possible thing,” because it leads to individualism. “You want a crowd that you can manipulate like putty.” Drury, may I add, is a leftist, so she is not a friend of Individualism. However, the fact remains that Strauss is yet another piece of evidence that religion (any religion) is the enemy of individualism and freedom. Even so, look at how absolutely cold the use of Religion actually is; it is merely a tool and the elite do not need to actually believe it! Now, what movement was beginning to gain strength in the late 80's? The Christian Right! How perfect for the Straussians! Its obvious why the Neocons are so enamoured with the Christian right. Who is the puppet-master in this axis of evil? Manifestly the Straussians. Look at the intellect of the Christian right, or the current ignoramus in the Oval Office: obviously they are critically dependent on advisors (who happen to be, surprise, all Straussians!). On to the final component of Strauss's quote. "And they can only be united against other people." This explains precisely how monstrous Strauss and his intellectual progeny actually are. Pick a scapegoat, any scapegoat, or let your Christian Soldiers do it for you (and so our scapegoat is homosexuals, maybe muslims as well). Or even better, lauch a war against other people! To the Classical Liberal vision, war is a catastrophe. War is not only economically counterproductive (there is no such thing as war profiteering, contrary to the ignorance of socialists) but it is a moral monstrosity: the only justifiable reason for going to war is self-defense (real self defense, not falsificated intelligence speculating about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction). To the Straussian view, war is a requirement of government. The prosecution rests. SOURCE:
  14. Mark, You are entitled to your opinion. However, note that Youtube audio is anything but precise, and the music does sound much more complex when listening to a hard copy. It may convey, to you a sense of death, but it does not do so for me. Yes, it is dark music, but dark and death are not synonymous (as I understand it). Not only is this matter epistemologically subjective (i.e. it conveys different things to you than it does for me), even according to Ayn Rand in The Romantic Manifesto, but I would appreciate if you specifically stated that you were not attempting to claim I was some sort of psychoepistemic pervert. Im aware you probably do not think that, but the behavior of some Objectivists makes me uncomfortably aware of the possibility. After all, I could say that your self-proclaimed Bass-Pig-ness is a product of a subconscious yearning to obliterate the differences between concretes and embrace some sort of Hegelian-Spinozan monism in a quest to avoid extrospection: avoid diversity and embrace the fact that it is all the one (or all the bass). However, I know that doing such is irrational rationalism and a personal attack disguised as philosophy. Since I do not think of you as corrupt on the grounds of your sonic and musical tastes, I would be most appreciative if you would assure me that you do not consider my tastes a sign of corruption.
  15. "The only way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it" - Oscar Wilde (its funny because its true)
  16. Thats because techno pays, Industrial doesnt pay nearly as much (much more niche market) and Kurz=pricey pricey pricey. Industrial music is, well, an imprecise term. Generally speaking, the term refers to any form of predominantly electronic music that is dark, hard and/or harsh. However, there are many subgenres to it. One sub genre is called "EBM" or "Electronic Body Music," which all modern techno producers were raised on. The sound of EBM is essentially Kraftwerk but with a lot of punk-like aggression, so the sound was rather mechanical and dark and sinister.... Go to and watch the music video for the quintessential EBM song: "Headhunter" by Front 242.Then, there were more experimental acts who took the Kraftwerk sound and mixed it with really really weird experimental performance art type stuff. The band here to look for, essentially the founders of the modern electro-Industrial sound, is Skinny Puppy. Im linking two of their more accessible songs (they are melodic and kind of pop-ish, but still demented): "Dig It" (Nine Inch Nails plagiarized this song on their song "Down In it") And (considered by many Puppy fans their best song) "Worlock" Then, a Skinny Puppy offshoot called Front Line Assembly came along and basically tamed Skinny Puppy's sound by adding a strong EBM/dancefloor influence and a cyberpunk feel to it... The video here is "Mindphaser" (brilliant video) and "Prophecy" (fan video but the song is awesome) Best FLA albums are "Tactical Neural Implant" and "Hard Wired." Those acts basically founded the genre and codified it. Will give you an idea of what to expect. It sounds to me like you were listening to Power Noise or the like rather than genuine Industrial. Real Industrial is harsh and violent (to an extent), granted, but its rarely totally amelodic. I dont like amelodic music. Also, lets add that 1) Rand conceded that music was epistemologically subjective, and 2) the reason I like Industrial is because not only is technology an embodiment of the genius of man, but Industrial stirs up my emotions.... can be (with the right kind of Industrial) triumph, rage, vengefullness, demented confusion. Its not because I think reality is malevolent... its because many of my experiences have been of malevolent people.... bringing back those feelings, fighting with malevolent people, is somewhat exhilarating (like a horror film).... also helps demonstrate my own heroism for refusing to give in to their onslaught. Good. Ill make sure I tell you when I can show you my work.
  17. Reading about Leonard's DIM scheme as a 'theory of everything.' Sounds to me like he is comitting the logical fallacy of false precision. Also, Mr Engle added that there is partial integration. DIM would call that M (error). Its integration based on an incorrect premise. Like any rationalist, LP is saying that one tiny error fucks up the whole chain regardless of how correct any of the other principles are. Yet more evidence that LP is a rationalist. Lets remember that Rand loved the economic conclusions of Ludwig von Mises. Mises was a rationalist Neo-Kantian and a utilitarian to boot! BUT Rand did not throw out the conclusions. Leonard, by his rejection of partial integration, would. Reminds me how some early Objectivists shamefully attacked the Austrian business cycle theory as "Marxist." However, I should add that Mises' essential economics does not require rationalism: see "Methodology of the Austrian School Economists" (e-published at, Mises was the only fully-fleged rationalist in the bunch (Rothbard however comes close despite his philosophical closeness to Objectivism). But Leonard, since ARI 'Objectivists' loathe every economist but Mises, would probably ignore these and reject much of Mises on the grounds of misintegration. This of course would be a disastrous fallacy. LP might, however, endorse Carl Menger, an openly-Aristotelian. But to endorse Menger and kick out Mises.... along with Hayek, Bohm-Bawerk, Weiser and Rothbard. Its shameful how badly, in the name of Ayn Rand, the rationalists claiming to be Objectivists over at DIMwit central might treat the greatest politifcal economists. DIM is not original (its a restatement of the IOS trichotomy, with I=M, O=I, S=D), its rationalistic and it is probably just going to be another weapon in ARI's witch hunt against doctrinal unorthodoxy.
  18. I see why you choose the Kurz's. They are great for the orchestral/natural sounds you are after. Since I am an Industrial musician I tend to avoid natural sounds. However, VAST certainly is a great technology albiet its a little difficult to control. Wish you all the best in your audio whoredom... When I have my first EP done, Ill see about selling it around here and maybe you will allow your speakers to suffer my abominable cybernetic onslaught.
  19. I must object to people saying Mises was not a Libertarian. Yes, at one point Mises supported the military draft. This support was a mistake on his part but his contributions to liberty as well as the fact he conceded all of the basic premises to liberty indicate that he was obviously a libertarian. Its manifest that his temporary support for the draft was most reluctant and it was certainly temporary. Remember that Mises was a utilitarian, not an Objectivist. To say Mises was not a libertarian because he at one point supported the draft is equivalent to saying Hayek was not a libertarian because he believed some sort of minimal safety net was needed. The Austrian Economists destroyed socialism's claim to economic legitimacy and history has proven them correct. Lets not crucify them.
  20. Mark, I thought my Dad was an audiophile whore until I read this thread. His Bang and Olufsen fetish is a toy in comparison to your audio setup. Mon Dieu. Just looking at your page makes me think about how I could torment those speakers of yours with my synthesizers.... I must say, for a self-proclaimed Bass Pig, Im amazed you only use digital gear (Kurzweil is amazing... their KSP8 is something I have Gear Acquisition Syndrome over from time to time), analog does the best bass. Buy yourself a Sequential Circuits Pro One.... that synth is so ballsy and aggressive.
  21. If debating counts, then debating. Otherwise, I am not even remotely interested in any sport; playing or watching. Id rather play with my synthesizers or listen to music.
  22. You can use flares, or your light augmentation (f12 by default)
  23. My point is that something cannot be 'socially objective.' Prices can be derived from facts of reality, but not only will they not always be (as you conceded) but because we cannot verify the mental processes behind the value judgements then we cannot verify correct integration. You can do this with one mind, not with a process that imputes the verdicts of billions of minds.
  24. Ahh, the conflation of "good for others" and "bad for self" continues! Basically every academic study of altruism done by evolutionary psychologists and MRI-monkeys screws up the definition of altruism. The reason that altruism cannot be academically modelled is simple: What makes something altruistic or not is not in what is valued (say, others happiness) but WHY it is valued. I find seeing other human beings in misery and pain to be difficult to cope with. Like all humans I empathize. That does not mean helping people out of sufferring is altruism.
  25. I agree with Charles. There is certainly a case for 'rational poly-relationships.' Rand seemed to think that sex was to be reserved for one person at a time, but if you had a number of friends, each of which embodied high values, it seems rational to desire each, possibly in different degrees/ways, but at the same time. Oh dear, looks like we have a justification for Objective Orgies now. :thumbsup: