Welcome to Objectivism Online Forum

Welcome to Objectivism Online, a forum for discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For full access, register via Facebook or email.

Nicky

Regulars
  • Content count

    3469
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About Nicky

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Country Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian) Not Specified
  • Relationship status No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
  • Copyright Copyrighted

Recent Profile Visitors

13892 profile views
  1. Okay, thanks. I heard all I needed to hear. You just don't understand, or care to understand, the topic. Now I know why it took you several weeks to get passed the meaningless generalities and try to make an actual point.
  2. Where in Ayn Rand's works did you read that one ought to choose to live? Objectivism presents an ethical system for those who choose to live. It doesn't not tell people to choose to live. It states: "If you choose to live, here are some principles to help you. If you don't choose to live, Objectivism is not for you." There's nothing circular about that. As I explained above, you're wrong. That would be a circular reasoning, obviously, but it's not a line of reasoning that is a part of Objectivism. But that aside, what do you mean by "sterile"? Is there some actual meaning you were trying to convey with that word, or is it an insult?
  3. Not accusatory...just pointing out a fact you seem to be agreeing with: what you're saying needs to be backed up with some substance, eventually. So far, you haven't even touched on any actual ideas. Everything you said could've just as easily been said by someone who has never read a single sentence of philosophy, and just happens to know the names of a few philosophers. Again: not accusing you of anything. Just pointing out what you have and haven't said. Why? We don't think we're omniscient. We're confident in our ability to answer questions (because, unlike most people, we believe reason can be used to figure out the answer to any question there is), but that's not the same as believing we have answered all questions.
  4. Ok, well, hopefully you'll hang around on the forum, and, over time, prove these (thus far superficial) claims by getting into specifics.As a start, would you mind describing what you consider the biggest contradiction within Objectivism? Ok, but what do you do about the actual contradictions (meaning the ones that can't be resolved)? While we're on the subject, how do you define a "contradiction"? Do you accept the Objectivist premise of the supremacy or logic applied to reality? In other words, do you believe that contradictions, as defined by Ayn Rand, are flaws?
  5. It ignores "the reality of human psychology" because it's a hypothetical. It's not reality, it's a wild fantasy. That's the premise here: the idea of an immortal human ignores human nature in general, including psychology, and replaces it with something else. What that something else is, is the question: What would an immortal entity's psychology be like? Psychology is a consequence of our circumstances. Fundamentally different circumstances would lead to a fundamentally different psychology. An immortal human (I mean really immortal: indestructible, not just someone who doesn't age or get sick) would be nothing like a regular human. It wouldn't even be alive (or dead... it would be a third category). Okay, now we left the hypothetical, and we're back in reality. You're talking about yourself...and you're ignoring the reality of human psychology. Our psychology can't escape our nature. Our psychology is a consequence of our nature. And we are mortal. That's the essential attribute of not just humans, but living entities in general. So, like it or not, enjoying yourself enables you to survive. You don't enjoy yourself just to enjoy yourself, your enjoyment has an ultimate purpose, and that ultimate purpose, just like the ultimate purpose of everything else living entities do, is to survive.
  6. What about the contradictions? How do you deal with those?
  7. I agree, her decision wasn't self sacrificial at all. I would've still loved the movie if there was some altruism in it, but there wasn't, the movie wasn't trying to push any kind of ideology.
  8. Seems to me that the morality of what the guy did is about as black and white as it gets, and therefor the forced happy ending was even sillier than it was predictable. But it didn't seem like the movie took itself all that seriously...that was probably its only saving grace. They weren't really trying to discuss philosophical issues so much as they were trying to build a reasonably clever plot around J-Law's running around in hot outfits.
  9. Well the main thing I would point out is that the movie is centered around a personality. That's the point of it: it's not the sci fi plot, it's the sadness of a great intellect, that is portrayed masterfully, and with everything around Amy Adams carefully structured for one and only one purpose: to support her tragic screen presence. The incredible originality of both the plot and the structure of the movie (with the clever lie by omission at the start) are the cherry on top. But what really matters is how Adams' performance makes you feel. How strong and real the admiration and sadness feels as you're watching. Take Jeremy Renner's inconspicuous, almost expressionless acting, for instance: a conscious choice (on the director's part), along with many, many other similar, brilliant choices, to allow Amy Adams to keep the viewer's undivided attention for the full length of the movie...and it was a compelling performance, that made me grateful that I was able to enjoy her soulful presence without distractions. It felt like she was in the room, next to me. P.S. I wasn't an Amy Adams fan, before I saw the movie. Looking through her IMDB, the two movies she's been in that I've seen are Charlie Wilson's War and Catch Me if You Can, but I don't remember her in either. So this isn't fanboy talk, I went into it without any bias. When I went to see Interstellar, I was expecting McConaughey to deliver (and did he ever). With this, I wasn't expecting anything, but what I got was just as great.
  10. Same reason why other newborn animals cry, I assume: birth is an unpleasant process.
  11. ...13 years ago. My post is in present tense. I'm not denying that 10-15 years ago Hollywood movies were still the height of American entertainment. But that changed in the past few years. These days, tv shows have mostly surpassed them. These days, you can find dozens of hours worth of good TV for every good movie that gets released. Case and point is this six hour "Mary Kills People" series, which isn't even a show most people know about. It's a tiny joint-Canadian production. And yet, it's better quality (in terms of writing, acting and cinematography) than any American 2017 movie I've seen so far.
  12. Sounds like a poorly conducted survey to me. Why would any American think that Putin is a communist leader? He's not.
  13. Another good movie that struck me as having a "rationally selfish" theme (or at least interested in rational thought) recently: Gifted.
  14. Me too. Interstellar and Arrival are my two favorite movies of the past few years. Do watch Arrival, if you haven't seen it. It's just as good.
  15. It's not a movie, but check out the TV show "Mary Kills People". It's a beautiful, coherent defense of the right to die on one's own terms. If that's not an Oist value, I don't know what is. And the quality of the show is better than the vast majority of movies, including blockbusters, anyway (that's true for most cable/Netflix/Amazon shows in general). Only six episodes so far, but it will almost certainly get renewed. It's too good not to.