anonrobt
-
Posts
558 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by anonrobt
-
-
I don't know if it qualifies as romantic art or not (seems like a rather academic question) but I definitely enjoyed the first season. Why is it so important to pigeon-hole everything into some category? I watch TV for diversion, not to tax my brain. For that I try to figure out my 16 year old daughter.
You mean after 16 years you haven't??
-
If you read what Rand says about specific virtues, she frequently employs the classical "disposition" conception, if only implicitly. For example, she refers to the virtue of rationality as the "total commitment to a state of full, conscious awareness, to the maintenance of a full mental focus in all issues, in all choices," etc. She also speaks of her other virtues, such as productiveness and pride (the latter is obviously not an "act"), in similar terms.
The virtue of rationality described in this way would also apply to a bank robber planning a raid. It would in fact apply to everyone engaging in planning an act involving the selection of suitable means in order to achieve a personal goal, whatever that goal is.
You seem to have a passion for interpreting Rand in most unsympathetic manner possible.
I only quoted a fragment of Rand's discussion of the virtue of rationality. This was for the purpose of illustrating the "disposition" aspect of her treatment. If you read the full discussion in "The Objectivist Ethics," you will find that, for Rand, the virtue of rationality is a kind of generic virtue, one that subsumes a number of other virtues, specifically, independence, integrity, honesty, and justice. These would clearly not apply to a bank robber, no matter how thoroughly he planned his crime.
So how about giving Rand a break from time to time, even if you don't agree with her arguments. Adopting a proofreader's mentality while considering snippets from her work won't get us anywhere.
Ghs
Yes - she keeps trying to turn concrete examples into floating abstractions...
-
The following quotes are mostly from, “Goddess of the Market.” Where I and many scientists disagree with Rand is with her sense of species wide egalitarianism, attributed to “volition.” She tried to convince Rothbard of this mental egalitarianism, by telling him, “I could be just as good in music as in economics if I applied myself.” Rand insisted all men had “similar rational endowments.” Rothbard did not buy that non-scientific observation, nor do I.
Are you suggesting there could not be a Francisco D'Anconia? While most of my life has been directed in more specific areas, largely excluding other areas of endeavors or thought, any which I did decide to devote my time to turned out to be a very competent affair, with only the limits of aging and life limiting the distance which could be gone... am I then a 'freak'? not a 'normal' human being? then if normal, why not others also normal? [granted, on the south side of the bell curve, matters are different, but none of us are discussing them, and to bring them up would be straw-dogging]
-
Wow, I wonder how fast he was going.
My thoughts too - as well as - how does he stop?
-
-
Jonathan,
One of the things that makes discussions with you unpleasant
I think I’ve seen the two of you duke it out on one site or another. FWIW, just looking at this thread, Michael seems the reasonable, polite contributor, and Jonathan just comes across as a dick. It’s like how Xray chases Jeff Riggenbach from thread to thread, even after he’s told her he doesn’t want to talk to her on any subject. I believe the social sciences have provided and explanation for this behaviour:
ROFL... sadly, so true...
-
George wrote: "It seems odd that Haydn would have made the favorable remark he did (about Rand's philosophical system), given how out of sympathy he was with her philosophy."
Here is what I wrote in Passion after reading Haydn's Words and Faces:
"Ayn has often been criticized for refusing to allow any of her work to be edited. But in fact in her earlier work, she had been amenable to editing. George Abbott had suggested a number of changes in her play, 'The Unconquered', to which she had acceded, and she had found Archie Ogden's suggestions for cuts in The Fountainhead acceptable and helpful. It was only now, with Atlas Shrugged, convinced of her literary professionalism and convinced that she had worked long enough and hard enough to be certan that her work matched her intention, that she would not entertain suggestions for change.
"In his Words and Faces, Hiram Haydn was to write. . . 'Ayn's philosophy, replete with ethical and political consequences, troubled me. Left to myself I would not have published that book. Yet I owed it to the partners to steer Ayn to them if I could, for she was a publishing catch with "best seller" written all over her. . . .
"'How she would have laughed had she known the welter of contradictory reactions I was experiencing! And how well indeed I illustrated her concept of the softheaded, ambivalent, tortured liberal!. . . .
"'In her novels, she wedded her ideas to a first-rate narrative skill; the pace of the action was usually fast, and she was proficient at suspense and the melodramatic, spectacular scene. But her style was drab, and although I respected hr philosophy as one kind of arid intellectual triumph, a tour de force that commanded admiration even though she based it on an utterly false (as I see it) central premise -- although that was how I felt in measured moments, there were times when I conceded that the world I lived in was most probably right, and she really was a crackpot, though of a noble sort.
"'Even now I can't write bout Ayn Rand without feeling upset, unhappy with myself. I know of no other relationship with an author in which I played such shamefaced ball, never being wholly for or against her, never saying right out all the things I believed about her book or her ideas or life in general.'"
Barbara
Very interesting, and illuminating - indeed!!
-
Rather than philosophize, we can simply use the knowledge humans already know.
Conceptual thinking is exclusive to primates, mostly humans, some evidence in monkeys. Of course all mammals learn to some degree, but this learning is not considered "conceptual" knowledge, it is considered and observed to be "associative" knowledge.
A dog learns to fetch a blue ball. According to psychological research, the dog has not created a concept of "blue" or "ball." Rather, the dog has identified an object and associated it to a certain motivation (stimulus-response behavior).
Humans of course have both conceptual and associative knowledge.
Christopher
'some evidence in monkeys'?? sure? or maybe ye confusing with apes - they both primates, but they not the same...
-
But how do you propose to do that? I think one way is to just stop adding wood to the fire -- in other words, get the stationary bandits (governments) from the West to leave that region alone and soon any dangerous religious or ideological unity there will, as it did before, fall apart. Add to this, the far more dangerous stationary bandits will lose part of the raison d'etre. The rather miniscule threat from the Islamic world is mainly used to stoke the flames of statism in the West. This isn't to say all's well and fine with the Isalmic world, but, in my eyes, the far bigger problem is and remains statism.
Dan,
If you're talking about the government of the United States, which projects its military power nearly worldwide, your remarks carry some plausibility.
But think about Norway or the Netherlands; in both countries, members of Islamic immigrant groups are frequently at odds with everyone else.
Are these clashes happening on account of Norway invading Iraq, or the Netherlands maintaining forces in Sa'udi Arabia, or either country's government propping up a widely hated regime in Egypt?
Robert Campbell
I'm not as familiar with the cases of Norway or the Netherlands, but the problem there seems to be individuals in those immigrant groups and maybe the social context there -- not the worldwide clash of Islam and the West and not the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Pakistan and the likely future acquisition of the same by Iran. In other words, this is a problem with local people clashing with each other and global Islamic or Western imperialism.
However, perhaps you meant this in the context of Adonis's statement about Muslims being a force to be reckoned with and certainly there is the demographic possibility of descendants of Muslim immigrants becoming the majority in those countries. (Though there's no genetic determinism here that either this must be so or that such descendants will remain Muslims or even Muslims of the kind that would be threatening to everyone else.)
Tho there may be 'philosophical determinism' by the nature of what Islam is...
-
I don't think multiplying entities without regard to necessity implies the primacy of consciousness. If you say that there is something that exists but you can't say in what form, or how it exists that the only thing you know is that it exists and isn't matter or energy you only have to ask how you know it exists. And I think Brant's comment is very good: "Isn't it better stated that time and space necessarily involve existence--i.e., existents? After all, they themselves are not existents."
To be clear about this--what I am saying that it is possible that there are existents that don't exist in time and place--but that it is impossible for us, as existents that exist in time and space, to know anything about them. We can't say that they actually exist; but we also can't say that we know they don't exist. The same bar that keeps us from knowing anything about them also keeps us from knowing that they don't exist--and therefore to state, rather categorically, that nothing can exist outside of time and space is to make an invalid statement.
If time and space are seen as types of relationship, than they are linked inextricably with existents. You can't have a relationship without at least one existent--and generally, there are at least two.
Jeffrey S.
No - to say that one can't say that something actually exist is to say that for you they do not exist [they may be suppositions or 'mind games', but nothing more] - to say you cannot say they don't exist is an invalidation on the face of it , as one does not prove a negative, for the burden of proof is to the one who says 'it is'... anything else is playing to fantasyland... on what basis can you make a claim 'it is possible'?
-
Imagine this caption just after the House passed Obamacare, as it did just now:
"Take that, you God damned Americans! Now who rules?"
Michael
Things have just started to get interesting.
--Brant
Yup. Now it is a fight to the death between independent voters and the democrats. November is coming and the knives are being honed. Every democrat in a district or state with a large independent vote who voted for the Abomination, is now vulnerable.
What happened in Massachusetts, can happen elsewhere
Ba'al Chatzaf
Oh no...no no no no....
Yes - methinks this will be a long HOT summer, FAR more contentious than those of the Bush election years....
-
In all this discussion, am seeing that the supposed definition of art is rarely being given - she wrote "SELECTIVE re-creation" of reality... wouldn't this make for some differences in viewing the definition? for one, it most emphatically does NOT mean copying, or 'mimosis', or imitating... it means taking the essence of the objects, according to what the artist considers as the essence, and in accordance with the artist's sense of life - and utilizing THAT as the presentation in the work [again according to whether the sense is that from the eye, the ear, or the hand]...
-
Roughly half the commercial features the phantasmagoric Boxer-blimp.
That part's brilliant.
The pitch for Fiorina is, ennh, more of the usual.
And I agree with Adam that Carly Fiorina shouldn't be trying to look like a dour feminist professor or a UU minister.
Robert Campbell
You're right there - was surprised seeing her in such short hair - does not look good on her...
-
Well it is pretty, um, explosive.
Robert Campbell
Yes, and rightfully so - great one here, a real blow-out...
-
California dreamin...
Demon Sheep Ad Man Strikes Again, Morphs Boxer Into A Blimp (VIDEO) First Posted: 03-13-10 03:45 PM | Updated: 03-13-10 07:07 PM
digg There are no demon sheep in this advertisement; nor derisive comparisons of Barack Obama to Paris Hilton. But the quirky political ad man who produced those two cult classics has introduced another memorable spot. This one, an eight-minute opus casting Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Cali.) as some sort of self-obsessed, Orwellian, hot air-balloon creature, floating maliciously through the skies of California.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/13/demon-sheep-ad-man-strike_n_497933.html?view=print
I think that Boxer is very vulnerable, but I am not sure Carly is the right opponent.
-
Its hard for me to understand Islam. In Protestant Christianity everything comes down to interpretations of the Bible which are set in stone forever. The Koran however is a historic document that you need to understand the context of. I read the Koran a few years ago and to be honest I was blown away by by the first book, which seemed racist and violent to the core. It was only later that I learned about the relationship with some Jewish tribes in Medina which is what that section of the Koran was addressing and when Muhammad defeated these Jewish enemies his punishment, for the time, was extremely civilized. This is part of what Adonis was saying in terms of denouncing the Jewish and Christian clergy, you need to know the historic context.
Hi Joel,
I'm not quite sure what you mean by the first book this is one of the shortest chapters of the Qur'an, Surah Fatihah. What racist things did you find that was racist and hardcore violence?
Adonis,
If you wouldn't mind educating us further here, what does "Kafir" mean? My recollection is similar to Leonid, it seems to me Islam does have a built in distrust of non-Muslims. It respects People of the Book yes but what about Atheists, Pagans etc? According to the Wiki a Kafir can be defined as someone who is a physical enemy of Muslims, so anyone who lives peacefully with or beside Muslims should be treated with kindness and justice (which seems perfectly alright to me). But it also seems to apply more broadly to all those who reject Allah in willful disbelief (islamonline seems to confirm this) which seems to justify attacks and persecutions against those who are not People of the Book.
I'm not trying to be a prick but I don't know much about Islam, could you clarify this for us?
I don't mind at all, I think you ask questions with a sincere wish to understand and I'm happy to oblige..
A Kafir is not just someone who doesn't believe in Islam or God because they don't know or it hasn't been proven to them..
Rather, a Kafir is someone who knows very well that Islam is the truth and still refuses to accept it.. Not only does it mean that they refuse to accept it for themselves, but they try to say to others that it's not true and try to conceal that truth from others and try and persecute those who are preaching it including by using violence..
That is the real meaning of Kafir, we're talking about one who knowingly conceals truth to prevent people from finding God even though they know it is the truth...
That is a terrible crime to commit..
Then what is someone who knows very well that Islam is a lie, that there is indeed no god, and that all religions are, however gloriously ritualized, just primitivisms that do not address the reality of what it is to be human and to flourish as humans, that there is no 'truth' being concealed but an exposure of this lie?
-
I think the fundamental problem with Avatar is the immoral (because it's a lie) foundation of the "noble savage" picture he was painting.
Bob
Are you implying all lies are immoral?
In that lies seek to fake reality - of course all lies are immoral...
-
Regarding architecture: Do esthetic theories matter one whit to an architect as opposed to estheticians?
--Brant
The same might be asked of novelists, poets, painters, sculptors, dancers, composers, musicians, etc., no?
God bless the obvious. We don't have to argue.
--Brant
poke, poke
True, but was this an attempt on your part to call into question the entire project of esthetics? Or do just mean people don't need to know, think about, or take sides in esthetics theory to create art? If the latter, this is little different than most people not knowing, thinking about, or taking sides in linguistics theories being able to use language and even use it well.
No to the former and yes to the latter. However, much of what I've read qua esthetics I don't respect, much.
--Brant
Understood. I've read some esthetics I've respected, some I haven't, but I don't think I've read any esthetician who argues artists must know esthetics to produce art. (Granted, there's no reason an artist can't enter the field of esthetics and a esthetician can enter the field of art. E.g., some novelists have presented their theory of the novel -- people like Henry James, E. M. Forster, Milam Kundera, and, of course, Ayn Rand. It typically appears when they do this, they're nearly invariably presenting an esthetics that justifies or validates their art work.)
Duh - ye think they'd present one which would invalidate their own art work???
-
Here's a link to a Krav Maga school in NYC which is a school of self-defense used by Israeli's. I've seen this on the discovery channel, and its main characteristic seem to be that it is intent on being practical...no fancy pants waving your arms or legs around like Jackie Chan (whose movies I like btw). People in Florida should be able to find the same thing so if somebody tries to kick you you can kick right back.
Yes - Drunken Master is one of the greatest movies ever...
-
Gentlemen:
I never met a critic who built a bridge!
First, quoting a religious figure as to an issue is perfectly credible. This effete self destructive echo chamber that many Objectivists want to create, in order that they can howl into the void is, frankly boring.
You empower their banal attacks with those kinds of "criticisms."
David: The Fountainhead had many difficult censor issues to smash through. Remember it was made in the early 40's (??). However, the trial did make the film have a more cohesive plot line.
Philosophy on film has its drawbacks.
Are there major American films that basically dealt with a developing philosophical system?
I doubt if their are many.
Adam
Have to remember, The Fountainhead, truncated as it for some seems to be, was still a two and half hour movie, long in general in those days, and still a good length movie today - to give it the full treatment would had meant one the length of Gone With The Wind, not a likely event...
-
Anonrobt:
Out of curiosity, did that Cambridge dude's construction prove it to your standards?
Adam
not really - I've been of mixed minds on this one, as 'common sense' seems to say yes, the marching will vibrate all to hell and pieces... but - there's too many things in the real world that, despite 'common sense', do not work in such a fashion, else everything would had fallen long ago... I think an issue of 'context' is involved that is being overlooked... or, maybe not - just not know...
-
Robert:
Very nice. I was most surprised by the bridge situation. Did they not know about these issues?
I remember that Roebling and his son had been aware of that problem which was why you had signs at the Brooklyn Bridge to "Break Step," because you would create, with that type of synchronous vibration, a bridge that would begin to match the wave. These "harmonics" could literally collapse the structure. Same rule applied to long processions and parades across The Great Bridge [http://www.amazon.com/Great-Bridge-Story-Building-Brooklyn/dp/067145711X?tag=dogpile-20]. Great book by the way.
Angers Bridge, also called the Basse-Chaîne Bridge, was a suspension bridge over the Maine River in Angers, France. It was designed by Joseph Chaley and Bordillon, and built between 1836 and 1839[1]. The bridge collapsed on April 16, 1850, when 478 French soldiers marched across it in lockstep. The bridge spanned 102 m, with two wire cables carrying a 7.2 m wide deck. Its towers consisted of cast iron columns 5.47 m tall.[1]
Collapse
Because the soldiers were marching together, they caused the bridge to vibrate and twist from side to side, dislodging an anchoring cable from its concrete mooring. Though a thunderstorm occurred during the collapse, engineering reports at the time indicated that the collapse was due to the soldiers instead of the storm. Some 226 soldiers died in the river below the bridge. The failure was attributed to a combination of dynamic load and corrosion of the anchors for the main cables.
http://en.wikipedia....i/Angers_Bridge
Adam
That has been conjecture - but never proven... even Mythbusters couldn't prove the conjecture...
-
I wanna make a secret Objectivist cult.
It's about that time. Does anybody have any ideas?
The cult attempts I have seen by a few folks at ARI and assorted mini-gurus online are simply pathetic. They get some parts right and other parts wrong. I don't think they get it wrong because of the reason and individualism in Objectivism, either. I think the cult-dudes-and-dames screw it up for no other reason than they are screw-ups.
So I am seeking a core group of cunning intelligent leaders to be the Galt Dwellers of the Inner Gulch Sanctum. Moi as guru, of course. We can expand from there.
Here's a pretty good blueprint I found on the web, although it will have to be adapted to fit Objectivist jargon:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="
name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Obviously, the mystical parts need to be cut out. But we can work around that. Notice how some of this fits the cult-making attempts of some other Objectivist groups like a glove, though? That's what makes me think it can be done right.
Move over, Rover. Top dog's comin' over!
Just for show to start with, we will probably need some cannon fodder er... marks er... followers. So in my reading on the web, studying James Arthur Ray's prospect profiles and those of the Moonies, I think we should target young people who show the following traits:
They are afraid to be alone.
They strongly feel like victims and want revenge.
They feel guilt about not being worthy.
They are prone to be naive and gullible.
They are open to accepting circular logic.
They like oversimplified ideas as answers to complex issues.
They long for an us against them group to belong to.
They handle money poorly and are used to asking others for money.
They are generally unresourceful.
They blow off facts to cling to milk-and-honey optimism.
We can mold this human clay to do whatever we want with minimum effort.
Let's go save the world in the name of Ayn Rand, folks.
Anyway, I could use the money...
Michael
Sounds like 'rubes' is the word ye looking for...
-
I want to be the Grand Perigo. This is The One who initiates all the nubile females--performed, of course, in our Holy Francisco Chamber<tm>. It will involve a lengthy (and, I daresay, messy) ritual of some sort, whereby and wherefore I will bestow My "Special Blessing" upon (and maybe inside) them (on behalf of the entire Collective, of course, if only by proxy), as they lay prone on The Shroud of Lassie. Cocktails and meet/greet to follow in the Gaede Antechamber And Rumpus Room<tm>
And I think we need outfits, too. Robes, or something. I will shop Goodwill for a fez.
For the Chamber, we'll need to get our hands on a Jacuzzi that can handle a lukewarm oatmeal/pancake syrup mixture. The monkey and donkey could simply be rented until we can afford our own ones.
This is a big undertaking, Michael. Decoder rings, secret handshakes...details will eat you alive if you aren't careful.
rde
There Can Only Be One
The Magdalene Ritual, huh...
A Response to Robert Mayhew's Recent Complaint
in Ayn Rand's Lectures
Posted
her noodlefood, it seems, is egg[head]less... therefore, too starchy for my tastes...