Reidy Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Here is a video of one of the most beautiful places in the world. I have long believed that Wright's autobiographical account of the building was Rand's source for the Stoddard Temple in The Fountinhead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Here is a video of one of the most beautiful places in the world. I have long believed that Wright's autobiographical account of the building was Rand's source for the Stoddard Temple in The Fountinhead.Too angular. Lacks warmth, a human touch. Some curved surfaces would help....Ah! here is the problem. That building is .... grim.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Here is a video of one of the most beautiful places in the world. I have long believed that Wright's autobiographical account of the building was Rand's source for the Stoddard Temple in The Fountinhead.Too angular. Lacks warmth, a human touch. Some curved surfaces would help....WTF are you talking about? Too angular for what? The Stoddard Temple? Are you criticizing Wright? Are you being facetious?--BrantPeter starts a thread because he wants to share something he thinks is beautiful which is kinda like he invites you--and me--into his living room--so then, what do you do?--sound off like a critic of Roark's housing project design Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 He was truly a man with vision... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 He was truly a man with vision...Who made a very oppressive looking place of worship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 He was truly a man with vision...Who made a very oppressive looking place of worship. Maybe wright, maybe wrong. Maybe you should go see what you are.--Brantfirst--but maybe you already did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 It is certainly beautiful. I was struck by the differences in the outside façade and the inside design. The outside reminded me of Egyptian architecture, though not the pyramids, and the inside had a Christian touch but no crosses were displayed and no cross patterns were seen anywhere, not even in the stained glass windows.I could imagine Celtic Woman doing a show about Druids and ancient Irish mythology inside the building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Who made a very oppressive looking place of worship. Bob, what's funny is that you're a secularist who doesn't even worship God. Unity Temple doesn't oppress me because I'm not led by my emotions. Wright effectively communicated reason with his design... right down to the propriety of positioning the word GOD above the word MAN in his inscription.Some of the most beautiful works of art in the world have been created in grateful appreciation of God... and this is among the finest.Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guyau Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 .Deleted for continuity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Unity Temple doesn't oppress me because I'm not led by my emotions.Hahahaha!Wright effectively communicated reason with his design...Walk us through how his design "effectively communicated reason." And I mean his design, and not the words written on one of its walls. Explain precisely which elements communicate reason rather than any other concept. Demonstrate that Wrights design selections were based on reason rather than on his personal subjective tastes and aesthetic preferences. Demonstrate that Wright's design is more efficient and effective than any other potential alternative.In other words, prove that you're opinion about the building's design is something other than your being led by your emotions....right down to the propriety of positioning the word GOD above the word MAN in his inscription.So you're saying that "reason" means whatever your emotions lead you to want to believe that it means.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Walk us [leftist collectivist groupspeak] through how his design "effectively communicated reason."It effectively communicates reason to me... but not to you.Because we each live by different values... we each see through different eyes.Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reidy Posted June 4, 2015 Author Share Posted June 4, 2015 The best explanation of how the building communicates reason comes from somebody who (apparently) never saw it in person:The Temple was to be a small building of grey limestone. Its lines were horizontal, not the lines reaching to heaven, but the lines of the earth. It seemed to spread over the ground like arms outstretched at shoulder-height, palms down, in great, silent acceptance. It did not cling to the soil and it did not crouch under the sky. It seemed to lift the earth, and its few vertical shafts pulled the sky down. It was scaled to human height in such a manner that it did not dwarf man, but stood as a setting that made his figure the only absolute, the gauge of perfection by which all dimensions were to be judged. When a man entered this temple, he would feel space molded around him, for him, as if it had waited for his entrance, to be completed. It was a joyous place, with the joy of exaltation that must be quiet. It was a place where one would come to feel sinless and strong, to find the peace of spirit never granted save by one's own glory.The Fountainhead, 343 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Walk us [leftist collectivist groupspeak] through how his design "effectively communicated reason."It effectively communicates reason to me... but not to you.Because we each live by different values... we each see through different eyes.GregDoes reason as such communicate reason to you?--Brantnow that it's been communicated, when are you going to use it?use it or lose itget it or forget itlay it or bed it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 The best explanation of how the building communicates reason comes from somebody who (apparently) never saw it in person:If I did, the communication could only be that much stronger.Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Walk us [leftist collectivist groupspeak] through how his design "effectively communicated reason."It effectively communicates reason to me... but not to you.Because we each live by different values... we each see through different eyes.GregDoes reason as such communicate reason to you?Jonathan naturally reasons differently from me as we each live by completely different values. Now, whose subjective view better agrees with objective reality could only be determined by the different ways each of our lives has unfolded.Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Reason is reason. How your life unfolds has so many variables. What you think about and what you do with what you conclude plus who you are, not what the other guy is, etc., etc. Thus each human being is unique and it's next to impossible for an outsider to know the nature vs nurture ratio in any one much less how reason about this and reason about that figured into what one is looking at. Might work with introspection. Maybe Robert Bidinotto's thesis that criminal thinking leads to criminal behavior could give one some purchase on your idea. I prefer integrity and doing the right thing using reason, of course, to reason per se, for reason doesn't have a moral component; that resides in the human actor. And I do think you are trying to mix up reason with morality, but left out too much.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Reason is reason. How your life unfolds has so many variables....and nearly all of those "variables" are consequences of your own actions.Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Reason is reason. How your life unfolds has so many variables....and nearly all of those "variables" are consequences of your own actions.GregWhy act? The horse of reason and the cart of your life. You seem to put the horse behind the cart.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Reason is reason. How your life unfolds has so many variables....and nearly all of those "variables" are consequences of your own actions.GregWhy act?Inherent to every action is moral accountability for the consequences.Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Walk us [leftist collectivist groupspeak] through how his design "effectively communicated reason." It effectively communicates reason to me... but not to you.Because we each live by different values... we each see through different eyes.GregReread my post, Apey. I didn't give an opinion on the building's design or what it means to me. I asked you to demonstrate which elements of the design communicate reason to you, and to explain how your interpretation wasn't just an emotional reaction. You were not able to do so. Instead, you were once again, as always, dominated, ruled and led by your emotions to parrot your standard, kindergarten-mentality, affirming-the-consequent, relativistic nonsense.Do you actually believe that anyone falls for it?J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Have your reason and eat it too. Works for Greg--here. Here it's just words. He's all about action--but he's here. You can't have your actions and eat them too, but you can with words. Greg is OL's resident troll. I'm the only one having fun with him? If I wasn't I'd stop replying to him and qua me he'd go away. Anyone else can do the same. All Greg does is reply to the replies. If one says ten things to him and he sees a hanging pitch he'll swing at it. Otherwise he'll take nine balls and just stand in the box. This is the Warren Buffett philosophy of investing: no one has to swing at anything. Oh, yes, Greg knows all this.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Reason is reason. How your life unfolds has so many variables....and nearly all of those "variables" are consequences of your own actions.GregWhy act?Inherent to every action is moral accountability for the consequences.GregYou didn't reply to the rest of my post. Here you're only pretending to answer my question. Instead you merely state a consequence to an action unless we (oops!) act for "moral accountability." Not acting, of course, is in itself a kind of action, presuming the existence of an actionable choice.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Reason is reason. How your life unfolds has so many variables....and nearly all of those "variables" are consequences of your own actions.GregWhy act?Inherent to every action is moral accountability for the consequences.GregYou didn't reply to the rest of my post. Here you're only pretending to answer my question. Instead you merely state a consequence to an action unless we (oops!) act for "moral accountability." Not acting, of course, is in itself a kind of action, presuming the existence of an actionable choice.--BrantThat's true, Brant. Nonaction is also an action......and it's the proper response to most of our thoughts and emotions. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guyau Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 . . .Jonathan naturally reasons differently from me as we each live by completely different values. Now, whose subjective view better agrees with objective reality could only be determined by the different ways each of our lives has unfolded.GregGreg, are you insinuating you actually know whose life has unfolded in a better way, yours or Jonathan's? I mean if you asked Leibniz how he knows this world is better than any possible world that could have been created, he would say that he knows this actual one is better than any of the other possible ones because this actual one is the one God chose to create. So I was wondering if you perhaps think you know your life has unfolded better than Jonathan's of necessity because you are a Godly man and he is not (and after all, having God at the center of your life is surely a big plus in the makeup of your life's unfolding, a good factor perhaps infinitely greater than any other good there might be in the unfolding of a life). Or, on the other hand, do you leave it as honestly unknown to you whose life has unfolded for the better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 . . .Jonathan naturally reasons differently from me as we each live by completely different values. Now, whose subjective view better agrees with objective reality could only be determined by the different ways each of our lives has unfolded.GregGreg, are you insinuating you actually know whose life has unfolded in a better way, yours or Jonathan's?I'm saying that I understand the moral principle which governs how everyone's life unfolds... including yours and mine. Whenever there is an obvious difference between subjective views, that difference is a natural result of each person living by different moral standards. Now, whichever subjective view agrees more, or is in less conflict, with objective reality, that life will naturally unfold more harmoniously.And concerning God:He made specific conditional promises......and anyone who fulfills their moral responsibility to honorably uphold their part in those promises is already enjoying God's blessings in their life......regardless of whether or not they "believe" in God.Contrary to popular opinion, God doesn't need our belief. Doing what's morally right isn't for His sake... it's for our own good.Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now