DallasCowboys

Members
  • Content Count

    138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About DallasCowboys

  • Rank
    $$$
  • Birthday 01/04/1995

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Oceanside, New York
  • Interests
    Dallas Cowboys
    New York Mets
    Ayn Rand (Objectivism)
    Reading
    Movies (I am quite the movie buff)
    Baseball
    Football
    Red Eye
    Sarcasm
    Anything Hitchcock
    deviantArt

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    David C.
  • Looking or Not Looking
    looking for female
  1. I understand they didn't live in the same time period, I mean I think he is misinterpreting concepts she would later have. Are you filtering Wilde through Rand? You may have too much Rand in your head. I did once. I never read this actual book by Wilde. Are you sure of his intention? From what I know the ending strikes me as hugely ironical plus you get what you pay for and pay for what you get. As for Wilde himself, wasn't wit and use of language the big thing? If not, what? He was not that great if so. For me Mark Twain was great--the greatest American writer. I couldn't say Ayn Rand for her European background and influences meant she never could transcend them enough to be purely and typically American. That's how she could write Atlas Shrugged and fill it up with Russians, albeit not exclusively. Her magnum opus is full of give upperism, except for the parasites. The heroes all gave up being heroes. Dagny, the biggest hero, gave up last. Galt was no hero. He gave up first. God is not a hero. --Brant and the novel needed a lot more sex, but I digress I don't believe I am, as there are several articles online discussing and contrasting their opinons as they share similar ideas in some respects and while Wilde is satrical in some pieces such as the importance of being earnest he has also written non satrical pieces.
  2. I understand they didn't live in the same time period, I mean I think he is misinterpreting concepts she would later have.
  3. Guys/Gals, So in my boredom of being off from college I have been reading as much as I can and today my topic of conversation centers on The Picture of Dorian Gray. Just a heads up if you haven't read it my theory does contain spoilers. My theory centers on Lord Henry and in my opinion he perfectly represents a misinterpretation of Ayn Rand and her philosophy. Here a just some lines he says in the book- "When we are happy, we are always good, but when we are good, we are not always happy." "To be good is to be in harmony with one's self. Discord is to be forced in harmony with others. One's own life- that is the important thing. As for the lives of one's neighbours, if one wishes to be a prig of a Puritan, one can flaunt one's moral views about them, but they're not one's concern. Besides, individualism has really the higher aim." "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his own absolute." Now at first glance when reading the book these lines seemed to fit right in with Ayn Rand and some parts of them do but upon further examination of the character I have come to the realization that he represents something entirely different. Lord Henry is not the man Ayn Rand would have admired because while Lord Henry lives for himself he does so by bringing down others. To Lord Henry even if somebody kills someone as long as they are doing it for their own pleasure then it is ok but in my opinion Lord Henry's view is flawed because he claims to be a man of reason and physical force is pretty far from reason. I also believe that while it can be argued Lord Henry does in fact only live for himself that his character is unrealistic because the way in which he lives for himself is something no man of reason would ever desire. He doesn't care for having friends and he doesn't care for marriage or any type of companionship and he to my recollection makes no reference to wanting sex, and I believe no selfish human being wouldn’t want any of those things; so while Lord Henry might technically be selfish Oscar Wilde makes selfishness imply little care for friends or a spouse which is a false interpretation. Oscar Wilde is painting (no pun intended) a false narrative of selfishness. Edit: I just wanted to add that I believe Oscar Wilde is confused on what pleasure is. I believe he assumes that earthly pleasure has to be something bad such as doing drugs or murder hence why Dorians picture keeps getting worse. Any opinions are always welcome , David C.
  4. Is this the article? I can't find the article you mentioned online so I don't know, my professor just gave us a part of one of her articles it didn't have the title of the piece on it. Sorry
  5. Guys/Gals, My question today is pretty simple, why is Haiti so poor? In my class today we read an article by Dr. Leslie Alexander and she basically blames the U.S. and France for the reason Haiti is so poor but this seems far too simplistic. Any answer is always helpful. Thanks, David C.
  6. Hmm...like: A... Thanks, I think I am starting to understand it.
  7. Not for revenge but only to discourage future crimes. Revenge is negative and destructive. As for the death penalty, even if the crime could be proved beyond all doubt--it can't across all cases--it badly damages the social weal not to mention many people involved in carrying out the sentence. --Brant Thanks, I found this same response in all of Kant and Berkleys work but it still confuses me. They never address the concept of reality with regard to punishment. If reality is made up in the minds of indivduals how can you punish someone?
  8. Be careful what questions you ask. You might ruin philosophy. John Locke made a distinction between primary and secondary qualities. He would call shape a primary quality and color a secondary quality. He probably did not intend any harm by making this distinction. George Berkeley took this distinction and used it to prove that matter does not exist. (All qualities are secondary.) Nobody could refute his proof. Someone tried to refute his proof by kicking a rock. David Hume took it a step more and proved that mind does not exist. Kant read Hume and figured something is wrong with philosophy and wrote 'Critique of Pure Reason', probably the most evil book ever written. All this because John Locke made a distinction between primary and secondary qualities. Ayn Rand rejected the distinction. This didn't really answer my question. If reality can only be perceived through human senses how can Ayn Rand fully prove reality as objective? How could she deny a God, maybe she just isn't sensing him?
  9. Ha, fun question. You can't. With no light there is nothing to see. To see the red of the apple you need light, and that light, depending on its frequency, will affect the quality of the red. You also need a perceiver, not a color-blind guy, and I would guess that there are mechanical tools to measure the visual frequency. If you can't how can you prove that reality is objective? Visually speaking, without light we cannot prove reality exists. In complete darkness you would need other senses to prove it, like by feeling the apple. Then how can Ayn Rand say reality is objective, is her only proof through humans senses?
  10. Ha, fun question. You can't. With no light there is nothing to see. To see the red of the apple you need light, and that light, depending on its frequency, will affect the quality of the red. You also need a perceiver, not a color-blind guy, and I would guess that there are mechanical tools to measure the visual frequency. If you can't how can you prove that reality is objective?
  11. Hello Guys/Gals, I feel like I have asked a similar question a thousand times but I still find myself confused. Ok, an Apple is a room with all the lights on and everybody identifies it as red but if someone where to turn off all the lights in the room suddenly everybody believes the apple is black. How can I prove that the apple is indeed still Red. I understand that nobody can prove somebody elses senses without confirming their own and I understand that reality is objective because even if someone wishes for something to happen it can and most often doesn't but how does someone prove the apple is still red with the lights off? Thank you, David C.
  12. I hate to be that person but can you explain this a bit further, I don't really understand what you mean. Do you mean like physically pay them money?
  13. Guys/Gals, I couldn't think of the proper category to put this in so I just put it in the Objectivist Living Room. My question is in the topic but I will repeat it anyway- What is an Idealist Justification of Punishment? If the nature of reality to them is simply one cooked up the minds of individuals how can you possibly justify punishing someone? Thanks, David C.
  14. If you first become the kind of man that a woman admires and doesn't feel above... ...your goal will become reality because it is in harmony with it. Greg Thanks Greg, I like this way of thinking about it.
  15. Lol... He will have the scratches and experience to prove it too! >>>>>too hot to handle - growl, hahaha.