Anarcho-Capitalism: A Branden ‘Blast from the Past’

[Selene]

That paper is actually avaible as a typical tabloid in print.

"Sparsely populated outside of town" sounds about right. About 5 kilometres outside and at the most 3 separate houses or so visible at a time. Something like 30-50 metres between each house in this little "village". Crops on a large (3 full properties or so) field nearby. You get the picture hopefully.

Thanks Thomas:

Yes, that is the picture I had in my mind.

We would call it "bucolic," or, the country.

As to putting the number in parentheses, no, not common at all.

I do it as a self discipliner. Additionally, my graduate school training and legal documents as a mediator cause me to do that.

Lol, some folks would think it is affected/effected**** and be annoyed by it.

You make some fascinating observations about Ayn, and/or, "O"bjectism, out of curiosity, how old are you?

A...

Post Script:

English is an extremely frustrating language. I still get this one wrong.

****The misuse of the words “affect” and “effect” is such an epidemic that some folks are considering assembling regional support groups to deal with the problem. But while the words are often used incorrectly, deciding whether to use affect or effect isn’t as tough to as you may think. Let me explain.

“Affect” is generally used as a verb: A affects B. The eye-patch affected my vision. In this sentence, the eye-patch (A) influenced my vision (B).

“Effect,” on the other hand, is almost exclusively used as a noun: A had an effect on B. Acting like a pirate has had a negative effect on my social life.

So the basic rule of thumb is that “affect” is almost always a verb and “effect” is usually a noun. There are deviations from this, but when in doubt, stick to the rule. If you need help remembering, think of this mnemonic device: The action is affect, the end result is effect.

http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/affect-vs-effect-2

[ThomasHägg]

That paper is actually avaible as a typical tabloid in print.

"Sparsely populated outside of town" sounds about right. About 5 kilometres outside and at the most 3 separate houses or so visible at a time. Something like 30-50 metres between each house in this little "village". Crops on a large (3 full properties or so) field nearby. You get the picture hopefully.

Thanks Thomas:

Yes, that is the picture I had in my mind.

We would call it "bucolic," or, the country.

As to putting the number in parentheses, no, not common at all.

I do it as a self discipliner. Additionally, my graduate school training and legal documents as a mediator cause me to do that.

Lol, some folks would think it is affected/effected**** and be annoyed by it.

You make some fascinating observations about Ayn, and/or, "O"bjectism, out of curiosity, how old are you?

A...

Post Script:

English is an extremely frustrating language. I still get this one wrong.

****The misuse of the words “affect” and “effect” is such an epidemic that some folks are considering assembling regional support groups to deal with the problem. But while the words are often used incorrectly, deciding whether to use affect or effect isn’t as tough to as you may think. Let me explain.

“Affect” is generally used as a verb: A affects B. The eye-patch affected my vision. In this sentence, the eye-patch (A) influenced my vision (B).

“Effect,” on the other hand, is almost exclusively used as a noun: A had an effect on B. Acting like a pirate has had a negative effect on my social life.

So the basic rule of thumb is that “affect” is almost always a verb and “effect” is usually a noun. There are deviations from this, but when in doubt, stick to the rule. If you need help remembering, think of this mnemonic device: The action is affect, the end result is effect.

http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/affect-vs-effect-2

Thanks. Well I'm not that old, let's just say that. I think the use of smileys and the way I use language in general might give away my age sufficiently already. I'll make that official in the future, but right now I don't want to make my it part of any debates or flame wars that I'm almost certain to start....

Acting like a pirate would almost definitely affect my social life by the way... But I see what you mean. ;)

Where are my ;) smileys?

[Brant Gaede]

To effect a solution is the use of an affect.

--Brant

maybe more than one

[Selene]

To effect a solution is the use of an affect.

--Brant

maybe more than one

Ah, that got through my blind spot.

Effected means executed, produced, or brought about. For example, The dictatorial regime quickly effected changes to the constitution that restricted the freedom of the people.

On the other hand, affected means made an impact on. It is the past tense of the verb form of affect, which means to impact. For example, Carbon dioxide emissions affected the environment.

So we can say that "The dictatorial regime quickly effected changes to the constitution that affected the freedom of the people."

Just like your example.

Thks Brant

A...

[ThomasHägg]

To effect a solution is the use of an affect.

--Brant

maybe more than one

Ah, that got through my blind spot.

Effected means executed, produced, or brought about. For example, The dictatorial regime quickly effected changes to the constitution that restricted the freedom of the people.

On the other hand, affected means made an impact on. It is the past tense of the verb form of affect, which means to impact. For example, Carbon dioxide emissions affected the environment.

So we can say that "The dictatorial regime quickly effected changes to the constitution that affected the freedom of the people."

Just like your example.

Thks Brant

A...

Can there still also be "affect of an effect"? (it sounds wrong to me already, but grammatically speaking I mean)

By the way Selene, what is meant by "O"bjectism? (quotation marks around O supposedly makes evident the use of a capital letter?)

I often don't know if I should be using a capital letter in "Objectivism" or not.

[Brant Gaede]

Under every effect there is an affect.

In effect, it's effected affections all the way down.

--Brant

[ThomasHägg]

Under every effect there is an affect.

In effect, it's effected affections all the way down.

--Brant

I don't know why asked anymore, but very well put.

[Selene]

By the way Selene, what is meant by "O"bjectism? (quotation marks around O supposedly makes evident the use of a capital letter?)

I often don't know if I should be usinga capital letter in "Objectivism" or not.

Sorry Thomas, that is my way of separating the "orthodox" Objectivism of Peikoff, the pitiful carrier of Ayn's flame...and taking the rational foundational parts of her philosophy and growing them based on NLP and eliminating her bizarre theory of art/aesthetics, etc.

A...

[ThomasHägg]

By the way Selene, what is meant by "O"bjectism? (quotation marks around O supposedly makes evident the use of a capital letter?)

I often don't know if I should be usinga capital letter in "Objectivism" or not.

Sorry Thomas, that is my way of separating the "orthodox" Objectivism of Peikoff, the pitiful carrier of Ayn's flame...and taking the rational foundational parts of her philosophy and growing them based on NLP and eliminating her bizarre theory of art/aesthetics, etc.

A...

Which NLP ? Sorry So if I use capital O people here might think I'm a cultish follower basically? That's unfortunate.

Not sure if I like the "orthodox" Objectivism or not. It should be clearer from the "Love defined in one sentence" thread. But it would seem some people react to statements despite them being ideas I've seen plenty other places than the ARI. (Which, on the whole, I'm not really that familiar with either. Although I've listened to Peikoff some and at that point he seemed intelligent about whatever he was discussing)

I think context can be huge when it comes to what Rand said and many other things. Not to say that she never made any mistakes. We all know she did.

[Selene]

By the way Selene, what is meant by "O"bjectism? (quotation marks around O supposedly makes evident the use of a capital letter?)

I often don't know if I should be usinga capital letter in "Objectivism" or not.

Sorry Thomas, that is my way of separating the "orthodox" Objectivism of Peikoff, the pitiful carrier of Ayn's flame...and taking the rational foundational parts of her philosophy and growing them based on NLP and eliminating her bizarre theory of art/aesthetics, etc.

A...

Which NLP ? Sorry So if I use capital O people here might think I'm a cultish follower basically? That's unfortunate.

Not sure if I like the "orthodox" Objectivism or not. It should be clearer from the "Love defined in one sentence" thread. But it would seem some people react to statements despite them being ideas I've seen plenty other places than the ARI.

I think context can be huge when it comes to what Rand said and many other things. Not to say that she never made any mistakes. We all know she did.

Sorry, I do not like when folks speak "alphabet" to me either...tried to rush that post...

Michael's favorite topic, Neuro Linguistic Programming...which has made leaps and bounds over the last 2-3 decades...

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2436#entry15538 <<<< 2006 thread on cults and Objectivism...

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11703#entry155122 <<<< speaking of pitiful Pope Peikoff - this one is on date rape and had some of the great and problematic posters of that period on OL...

A...

[ThomasHägg]

By the way Selene, what is meant by "O"bjectism? (quotation marks around O supposedly makes evident the use of a capital letter?)

I often don't know if I should be usinga capital letter in "Objectivism" or not.

Sorry Thomas, that is my way of separating the "orthodox" Objectivism of Peikoff, the pitiful carrier of Ayn's flame...and taking the rational foundational parts of her philosophy and growing them based on NLP and eliminating her bizarre theory of art/aesthetics, etc.

A...

Which NLP ? Sorry So if I use capital O people here might think I'm a cultish follower basically? That's unfortunate.

Not sure if I like the "orthodox" Objectivism or not. It should be clearer from the "Love defined in one sentence" thread. But it would seem some people react to statements that in my mind are not all that "hard core" and despite them being ideas I've seen plenty other places than the ARI.

I think context can be huge when it comes to what Rand said and many other things. Not to say that she never made any mistakes. We all know she did.

Sorry, I do not like when folks speak "alphabet" to me either...tried to rush that post...

Michael's favorite topic, Neuro Linguistic Programming...which has made leaps and bounds over the last 2-3 decades...

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2436#entry15538 <<<< 2006 thread on cults and Objectivism...

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11703#entry155122 <<<< speaking of pitiful Pope Peikoff - this one is on date rape and had some of the great and problematic posters of that period on OL...

A...

Perfect. Thanks! I've heard of Neuro Lingustic Programming before, even "studied" it some because it's really interesting, but I never thought I'd find much relating to that here.

[Selene]

By the way Selene, what is meant by "O"bjectism? (quotation marks around O supposedly makes evident the use of a capital letter?)

I often don't know if I should be usinga capital letter in "Objectivism" or not.

Sorry Thomas, that is my way of separating the "orthodox" Objectivism of Peikoff, the pitiful carrier of Ayn's flame...and taking the rational foundational parts of her philosophy and growing them based on NLP and eliminating her bizarre theory of art/aesthetics, etc.

A...

Which NLP ? Sorry So if I use capital O people here might think I'm a cultish follower basically? That's unfortunate.

Not sure if I like the "orthodox" Objectivism or not. It should be clearer from the "Love defined in one sentence" thread. But it would seem some people react to statements that in my mind are not all that "hard core" and despite them being ideas I've seen plenty other places than the ARI.

I think context can be huge when it comes to what Rand said and many other things. Not to say that she never made any mistakes. We all know she did.

Sorry, I do not like when folks speak "alphabet" to me either...tried to rush that post...

Michael's favorite topic, Neuro Linguistic Programming...which has made leaps and bounds over the last 2-3 decades...

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2436#entry15538 <<<< 2006 thread on cults and Objectivism...

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11703#entry155122 <<<< speaking of pitiful Pope Peikoff - this one is on date rape and had some of the great and problematic posters of that period on OL...

A...

Perfect. Thanks! I've heard of Neuro Lingustic Programming before, even "studied" it some because it's really interesting, but I never thought I'd find much relating to that here.

Lol - this ain't your standard Objectivist forum...

It is the only one that I have ever participated with and I went to NBI [Nathanial Branden Institute] in the 1960's.

Yes, I have seen them in the flesh, Ayn, Frank, Nathanial and Barbara.

You should poke around in the "corners of insight" in the forums section of OL, both Barbara and Nathanial have separate sections in the sub menu.

[ThomasHägg]

By the way Selene, what is meant by "O"bjectism? (quotation marks around O supposedly makes evident the use of a capital letter?)

I often don't know if I should be usinga capital letter in "Objectivism" or not.

Sorry Thomas, that is my way of separating the "orthodox" Objectivism of Peikoff, the pitiful carrier of Ayn's flame...and taking the rational foundational parts of her philosophy and growing them based on NLP and eliminating her bizarre theory of art/aesthetics, etc.

A...

Which NLP ? Sorry So if I use capital O people here might think I'm a cultish follower basically? That's unfortunate.

Not sure if I like the "orthodox" Objectivism or not. It should be clearer from the "Love defined in one sentence" thread. But it would seem some people react to statements that in my mind are not all that "hard core" and despite them being ideas I've seen plenty other places than the ARI.

I think context can be huge when it comes to what Rand said and many other things. Not to say that she never made any mistakes. We all know she did.

Sorry, I do not like when folks speak "alphabet" to me either...tried to rush that post...

Michael's favorite topic, Neuro Linguistic Programming...which has made leaps and bounds over the last 2-3 decades...

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2436#entry15538 <<<< 2006 thread on cults and Objectivism...

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11703#entry155122 <<<< speaking of pitiful Pope Peikoff - this one is on date rape and had some of the great and problematic posters of that period on OL...

A...

Perfect. Thanks! I've heard of Neuro Lingustic Programming before, even "studied" it some because it's really interesting, but I never thought I'd find much relating to that here.

Lol - this ain't your standard Objectivist forum...

It is the only one that I have ever participated with and I went to NBI [Nathanial Branden Institute] in the 1960's.

Yes, I have seen them in the flesh, Ayn, Frank, Nathanial and Barbara.

You should poke around in the "corners of insight" in the forums section of OL, both Barbara and Nathanial have separate sections in the sub menu.

Yes, I noticed that. All I can say is that at least in some aspects/respects, Nathaniel has made a very positive impression on me. In others not as much.

Considering your (and Brants) time in "the movement" and perhaps I should say even The "M"ovement, I would be more than happy to gain some of your insights into potential problems with the way I construct my philosophy and how I try to adhere to "O/objectivism" as stated and expanded upon by Rand (and anyone helping her in the process) in her non-fiction books foremost, but also in her fiction provided they can all be understood to be congruent by me personally.

(The last part of the previous long sentence where I described this wish of mine, would be a sort of "mission statement" or standard regarding my own philosophy, rather than a question. But I still wouldn't mind an answer to it.)

You don't have to psychoanalyze me now or anything like that, I'm not asking that of you or anyone else. But just, you know... If you see me around the forum, don't be shy to challenge my thinking.(or correct my grammar for that matter) - As long as it's done without malevolence of course, but you seem to have better social skills than a lot of people I've had great conversations with before.

[Selene]

And I am housebroken...

[ThomasHägg]

That's a good thing I guess.

[ThomasHägg]

Sorry Thomas, that is my way of separating the "orthodox" Objectivism of Peikoff, the pitiful carrier of Ayn's flame...and taking the rational foundational parts of her philosophy and growing them based on NLP and eliminating her bizarre theory of art/aesthetics, etc.

A...

May I ask what (if possible to describe here) it is that you find bizarre in her theory of art? I have yet to study it properly, but from what I read here it seems to work with me. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/art.html

What I didn't see, was any direct reference to examples of "dark" forms of art. You know, creating things that are not nice and wonderfully perfect, but the kind of art that you create to make clear distinctions between good and bad. Rand herself didn't write "wonderful fairytales" so I don't think she herself would have had any problem with that kind of art, but none the less there is nothing explicit about such art in that description.

I will probably buy that book to study it more sooner or later. Maybee as a late christmans gift for myself.

[anthony]

By the way Selene, what is meant by "O"bjectism? (quotation marks around O supposedly makes evident the use of a capital letter?)

I often don't know if I should be usinga capital letter in "Objectivism" or not.

Sorry Thomas, that is my way of separating the "orthodox" Objectivism of Peikoff, the pitiful carrier of Ayn's flame...and taking the rational foundational parts of her philosophy and growing them based on NLP and eliminating her bizarre theory of art/aesthetics, etc.

A...

I can't accept "bizarre" Adam. But you know that. Unusual, perhaps. What's good for life and the individual's life and mind - is "good". That's all it is.

It simply and exactly follows from all the rest of the philosophy.

[Selene]

By the way Selene, what is meant by "O"bjectism? (quotation marks around O supposedly makes evident the use of a capital letter?)

I often don't know if I should be usinga capital letter in "Objectivism" or not.

Sorry Thomas, that is my way of separating the "orthodox" Objectivism of Peikoff, the pitiful carrier of Ayn's flame...and taking the rational foundational parts of her philosophy and growing them based on NLP and eliminating her bizarre theory of art/aesthetics, etc.

A...

I can't accept "bizarre" Adam. But you know that. Unusual, perhaps. What's good for life and the individual's life and mind - is "good". That's all it is.

It simply and exactly follows from all the rest of the philosophy.

The issue of music was where I was focusing.

And bizarre is, like The Donald, hyperbole.

Also, not an area of philosophy that is a strong area for me.

What did she state was acceptable when it came to music?

A...

[ThomasHägg]

By the way Selene, what is meant by "O"bjectism? (quotation marks around O supposedly makes evident the use of a capital letter?)

I often don't know if I should be usinga capital letter in "Objectivism" or not.

Sorry Thomas, that is my way of separating the "orthodox" Objectivism of Peikoff, the pitiful carrier of Ayn's flame...and taking the rational foundational parts of her philosophy and growing them based on NLP and eliminating her bizarre theory of art/aesthetics, etc.

A...

I can't accept "bizarre" Adam. But you know that. Unusual, perhaps. What's good for life and the individual's life and mind - is "good". That's all it is.

It simply and exactly follows from all the rest of the philosophy.

The issue of music was where I was focusing.

And bizarre is, like The Donald, hyperbole.

Also, not an area of philosophy that is a strong area for me.

What did she state was acceptable when it came to music?

A...

I will post the most "cold" logical part of Rands description that I know of in this area and it is better, I think at least so far, than her description of "art".

Music gives man’s consciousness the same experience as the other arts: a concretization of his sense of life. But the abstraction being concretized is primarily epistemological, rather than metaphysical; the abstraction is man’s consciousness, i.e., his method of cognitive functioning, which he experiences in the concrete form of hearing a specific piece of music. A man’s acceptance or rejection of that music depends on whether it calls upon or clashes with, confirms or contradicts, his mind’s way of working. The metaphysical aspect of the experience is the sense of a world which he is able to grasp, to which his mind’s working is appropriate.

Music is the only phenomenon that permits an adult to experience the process of dealing with pure sense data. Single musical tones are not percepts, but pure sensations; they become percepts only when integrated. Sensations are man’s first contact with reality; when integrated into percepts, they are the given, the self-evident, the not-to-be doubted. Music offers man the singular opportunity to reenact, on the adult level, the primary process of his method of cognition: the automatic integration of sense data into an intelligible, meaningful entity. To a conceptual consciousness, it is a unique form of rest and reward.

- "The Romantic Manifesto", this time as well.

There is also a try to explain music itself as being in part a mathematical phenomenon, but that is not necessarily a part of "objectivism" (capital O or not I would think) as Rand made sure to point out in connection to it that "I can offer a hypothesis on the nature of man’s response to music, but I urge the reader to remember that it is only a hypothesis". In other words, she knew she was not a scientist and didn't want to mess up her lifes work.

The kind of valuation that goes on in art and music, can in my opinion at times be subtle in a similar way as to that which goes on in the beginning of the process of choosing a partner for sexual romance, as I tried my best to describe in the "Love defined in one sentence" thread under the (perhaps not perfectly fitting) term of "being hot for someone".

She also claims that

Until a conceptual vocabulary is discovered and defined, no objectively valid criterion of esthetic judgment is possible in the field of music . . .

No one, therefore, can claim the objective superiority of his choices over the choices of others. Where no objective proof is available, it’s every man for himself—and only for himself.

Well I like the sound of that lol....

Myself I listen to all kinds of music. Sometimes I focus intently on the lyrics, other times I just love the sound of the music itself. Jazz, soul, blues, rock, hard rock, heavy metal, techno, reggae, (modern and old) rnb, rap, even opera some times - If I can give it enough focus and some time to grow on me I can enjoy almost anything where there is tone, rythm and skill involved. My taste may vary from time to time; "sense of life" is what matters.

And listening to new and novel music some times is good for the imagination and creativity I think. The brain creates new nervepaths to deal with the "strain" and the more you listen the more you like it, as long as you take a break once in a while of course.

A personal anecdote on the topic;

Having listened to dubstep for a longer period of time because of the novel feeling it gave me, I realized upon listening to opera on the radio during work hours that I actually found it pleasurable!

I used to hate it entirely in all its forms, but I was starting to notice that there were these rythms and tones that to me were actually "pretty similar" to what I focused on in dubstep.

I think my brain may have done exactly what scientists describe and essentially developed a series of nervepaths (in common terms "a taste") for things similar to dubstep, in this case opera.

The way the brain works with music is both strange and interesting I think.

Neither dubstep nor opera is my favourite kind of music though. Heavy metal and rap for work and jazz for complete relaxation...

[Selene]

Did not even know that this book existed...

In response to the question "What is art?", today's arts establishment has a simple answer: "anything" is art if a reputed artist or expert says it is. Many people are sceptical about the alleged new art forms that have proliferated during the 20th century - from "abstract art" and "performance art" to "Hyperfiction" and "chance music". Yet today's "experts" claim that all such work, however incomprehensible, is art. An alternative to this view is provided by philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand (1905-1982). Although best known as the author of "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged", Rand created an original and illuminating philosophy of art, which not only offers a profound analysis of the cognitive and emotional function of art but also confirms the widespread view that much of today's purported art is really not art at all. In "What Art Is", Torres and Kamhi present the first in-depth examination and critique of Rand's aesthetic theory. Contrasting her ideas with those of other thinkers, they conclude that, despite shortcomings in detail, Rand's account is compelling. Moreover, they demonstrate that it is supported by evidence from anthropology, neurology, cognitive science and psychology. The authors apply Rand's theory to a debunking of prominent modernist and postmodernist "artists". Finally, they explore its implications for such fields as arts education, law and public policy. Fifteen years after Ayn Rand's death, interest in her life and ideas is booming. All her published works remain in print, and hitherto unpublished writings continue to appear. In 1998 the Showtime cable TV channel will air a movie adaptation of Barbara Branden's biography "The Passion of Ayn Rand", starring Helen Mirren as Rand.

http://www.amazon.com/What-Art-Is-Esthetic-Theory/dp/0812693728

[Selene]

And this by Sciabarra ...

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/rush.htm

One key to the divergence in ideology between Rand and most "countercultural" Progressive rockers might be found in their respective uses of Apollonian and Dionysian archetypes. Rand herself appropriated these archetypes from the works of Friedrich Nietzsche. As Rand (1975a, 57-58) puts it:

In The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music, Nietzsche claims that he observed two opposite elements in Greek tragedies, which he saw as metaphysical principles inherent in the nature of realty; he named them after two Greek gods: Apollo, the god of light, and Dionysus, the god of wine. Apollo, in Nietzsche's metaphysics, is the symbol of beauty, order, wisdom, efficacy (though Nietzsche equivocates about this last)—i.e., the symbol of reason. Dionysus is the symbol of drunkenness . . . wild, primeval feelings, orgiastic joy, the dark, the savage, the unintelligible element in man—i.e., the symbol of emotion.

[ThomasHägg]

http://www.amazon.com/What-Art-Is-Esthetic-Theory/dp/0812693728

Great! It's on my list now...

And this by Sciabarra ...

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/rush.htm

One key to the divergence in ideology between Rand and most "countercultural" Progressive rockers might be found in their respective uses of Apollonian and Dionysian archetypes. Rand herself appropriated these archetypes from the works of Friedrich Nietzsche. As Rand (1975a, 57-58) puts it:

In The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music, Nietzsche claims that he observed two opposite elements in Greek tragedies, which he saw as metaphysical principles inherent in the nature of realty; he named them after two Greek gods: Apollo, the god of light, and Dionysus, the god of wine. Apollo, in Nietzsche's metaphysics, is the symbol of beauty, order, wisdom, efficacy (though Nietzsche equivocates about this last)—i.e., the symbol of reason. Dionysus is the symbol of drunkenness . . . wild, primeval feelings, orgiastic joy, the dark, the savage, the unintelligible element in man—i.e., the symbol of emotion.

Yes, the Nietzschean influences are clearly there, but even Nietzsche got some things right... Thankfully Rand did see a spectra, not merely two sides with nothing inbetween. (Though she could ge too agressive and bad at putting that forth at times)

I don't know virtually anything about Sciabarra but have already seen him mentioned a couple of times since I joined. Is he very respected in "objectivist" circles/on this forum?

[Selene]

http://www.amazon.com/What-Art-Is-Esthetic-Theory/dp/0812693728

Great! It's on my list now...

And this by Sciabarra ...

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/rush.htm

One key to the divergence in ideology between Rand and most "countercultural" Progressive rockers might be found in their respective uses of Apollonian and Dionysian archetypes. Rand herself appropriated these archetypes from the works of Friedrich Nietzsche. As Rand (1975a, 57-58) puts it:

In The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music, Nietzsche claims that he observed two opposite elements in Greek tragedies, which he saw as metaphysical principles inherent in the nature of realty; he named them after two Greek gods: Apollo, the god of light, and Dionysus, the god of wine. Apollo, in Nietzsche's metaphysics, is the symbol of beauty, order, wisdom, efficacy (though Nietzsche equivocates about this last)—i.e., the symbol of reason. Dionysus is the symbol of drunkenness . . . wild, primeval feelings, orgiastic joy, the dark, the savage, the unintelligible element in man—i.e., the symbol of emotion.

Yes, the Nietzschean influences are clearly there, but even Nietzsche got some things right...

I don't know virtually anything about Sciabarra but have already seen him mentioned a couple of times since I joined. Is he very respected in "objectivist" circles/on this forum?

I would think so, however, I have not been involved in the post 1968 Leming actions by the Wahabi Objectivist sect led by Pope Leonard the Lame....

[ThomasHägg]

http://www.amazon.com/What-Art-Is-Esthetic-Theory/dp/0812693728

Great! It's on my list now...

And this by Sciabarra ...

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/rush.htm

One key to the divergence in ideology between Rand and most "countercultural" Progressive rockers might be found in their respective uses of Apollonian and Dionysian archetypes. Rand herself appropriated these archetypes from the works of Friedrich Nietzsche. As Rand (1975a, 57-58) puts it:

In The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music, Nietzsche claims that he observed two opposite elements in Greek tragedies, which he saw as metaphysical principles inherent in the nature of realty; he named them after two Greek gods: Apollo, the god of light, and Dionysus, the god of wine. Apollo, in Nietzsche's metaphysics, is the symbol of beauty, order, wisdom, efficacy (though Nietzsche equivocates about this last)—i.e., the symbol of reason. Dionysus is the symbol of drunkenness . . . wild, primeval feelings, orgiastic joy, the dark, the savage, the unintelligible element in man—i.e., the symbol of emotion.

Yes, the Nietzschean influences are clearly there, but even Nietzsche got some things right...

I don't know virtually anything about Sciabarra but have already seen him mentioned a couple of times since I joined. Is he very respected in "objectivist" circles/on this forum?

I would think so, however, I have not been involved in the post 1968 Leming actions by the Wahabi Objectivist sect led by Pope Leonard the Lame....

"Wahabi" lol are they really that bad? I'm gonna have to look into these "blasphemers" properly in the future ... So you're saying he's a follower of this Wahabism espoused by the dear Pope or the opposite?

[Selene]

I don't know.