Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Eponine

Regulars
  • Posts

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Eponine reacted to Repairman in Is what Kira did to Andrei justifiable?   
    Well, I suppose she had every reason to proud that she saved Leo through the only means available. And I have the DVD of the film. I wasn't thinking of it as I read the book, but as I recall, her angry expressions to Andrei were mixed with her anger toward the Revolutionary authorities he represented. I'd be cautious about comparing the book with the film. If you have the same DVD set that I have, you know the story of politics and other problems involved in adapting it from book to film. Either way, Kira was in a very bad place, and anyone surviving a totalitarian government is likely to have lingering doubts or distortions about truth and justice.
  2. Like
    Eponine reacted to secondhander in Pride in ancestors   
    A person should only take pride (or shame) in their own actions, not those of other people, including ancestors. In my view, knowledge of ancestral background only has one benefit: Appreciation of good things and hard work done by your ancestors that put you in a better starting place in your own life.  Note, that's appreciation, not pride. You cannot take pride from other people's actions. That's stealing pride, and false pride.
     
    (Perhaps a second benefit is learning from the mistakes and successes of other people, but that's not confined to your ancestors. You can learn from anybody's mistakes or successes.)
  3. Like
    Eponine reacted to VECT in Hong Kong   
    I think asking CCP to withdraw their CE condition (and incidentally granting a purer democracy) in this case is a defensive tactic.
     
    People in HK are wary with Beijing when it comes to freedoms (look at the rest of China). If CCP can pass laws directly from Beijing to affect HK without resistance, today it's a condition on the CE election, tomorrow it can be a condition on the freedom of speech...etc.
     
    If the protest this time pans out and Beijing backs off with their new condition on CE election, that sets a precedent and deters future attempts by CCP to pass laws to affect HK directly from Mainalnd. Also, given the persuasion towards individual freedoms with HK locals, it's less likely any candidate they elected through universal suffrage will stand idly by if Beijing tries to pass laws to limit HK freedoms in the future (or worse, a puppet CE that pass laws to erode HK freedoms from inside out).
     
    Of course, like you said, and I agree, that there is very little chance CCP will coming off looking weak and compromise with the protesters.
     
    Still, one can hope.
  4. Like
    Eponine reacted to VECT in Hong Kong   
    Nicky, you place too much faith in laws.
     
    Laws are are just words. The reason they have power is because:
    People recognize authority/sovereignty the words derive their powers from There are people with big sticks willing to enforce the words Hong Kong recognizes CCP's sovereignty over them and also recognizes CCP have the bigger stick.
     
    As long as these two conditions are met, the CCP already have all the power they need to manipulate the laws of Hong Kong as they wish. The only questions left are if they intend to do so, and how gracefully will they do so.
     
    Invade with the PLA and asking Hong Kong to change laws is probably the most crude of crudest strategies, so of course that will never happen.
     
    Having a puppet Executive (who is not answerable to the local people) that will be able to change/add the the laws you want is much more efficient.
     
    When HK was under UK, UK had no interest/intention of using their sovereignty power to manipulate HK by-laws to erode their freedoms, so people then didn't feel threatened and see a need for protest for more democracy transferring political power from the sovereignty to the people.
     
    Now you have CCP, which in HK's eyes is a lot less trust worthy than UK. So when CCP renege on giving HK more democratic power to its people as was promised, HK feels threatened because they fear CCP, as opposed to UK, have the intention of using their sovereignty power to manipulate HK laws in the long-run, to the possible decimation of the  freedoms that HK now enjoys, and they see this act of reneging this transferring of power as a manifestation of that intention. 
     
    Then again, who knows; CCP might not actually erode HK's freedoms any further, even when they have all the power they need to do so, with a puppet Executive and all.
     
    Still, people don't like it when the political power that can limit their individual freedoms lies with a sovereignty their do not trust. That I imagine is the root-cause of this protest, rather than just a protest for democracy for democracy's sake.
  5. Like
    Eponine reacted to softwareNerd in Loving a country of one's choice?   
    So each is a mix of positives and negatives. John has decided that the mix represented by A is better -- considering the package as a whole. If he's right in his evaluation, it makes sense that he'd love A more than B... it's sort of saying the same thing, but using the language of emotion instead of reason.
  6. Like
    Eponine reacted to Iudicious in Is there an increase in "parasitic" entertainment?   
    All of the quotes below are from the OP, CptnChan
     
     
    Consider a couple things here:
     
    1. I'm not actually sure that you're correct that these are more prolific than people who create "new" content.
    2. Critics, reviewers, and game-streamers are delivering an actual product/service. They are content creators. The fact that you don't like their content doesn't actually mean anything - they are delivering value to someone. 
     
     
     
    Except you're wrong here. That streamer is delivering content. People watch his channel, as opposed to other channels, because they enjoy watching him play, they enjoy listening to him talk as he plays, they enjoy the content he has created. What he has created is separate from the game he is playing - and it is content that clearly a lot of people enjoy.
     
    Just because you don't like it, does not mean it is not content or that value has not been created.
     
    I personally enjoy watching game streams. I've done it a lot lately, in fact, because I don't have time to play a lot of video games, but it's quite fun to watch them being played while I do my work. When I was a kid, I used to watch my friends play games more than I played them myself - that was enjoyable for me. That's how it is for a lot of people. So these game streamers are creating content, both by doing what they're doing, and by adding value in the form of the commentary and such that they add to their streams and their videos.
     
     
    No, but judging by the rest of your post, you sure would like it to.
     
     
     
    These reaction videos get millions of views usually because they're funny or because the people involved have personalities that people enjoy listening to or watching. It's literally the same thing as morning talk shows. People tune in because the reactions are funny, the conversations are interesting, and the personalities are fun to listen to/watch.
     
    This type of entertainment is highly accessible. It doesn't require a lot of time - so there's a low barrier to entry, a low up front cost - and it's usually humorous, entertaining, enlightening, easily understandable, et cetera, so a high amount of value is obtained from it. The fact that you characterize this kind of entertainment as having nothing of interesting and contributing nothing doesn't make it so - it could very well be that you've seen a few videos and simply generalized. 
     
    Keep in mind here - if value was not being gained by watching the videos, they would not be getting watched so much. People are mostly rational actors, if simplistic ones. Viewers tend to go for entertainment that has a low barrier of entry, and a high payoff. Which explains your next contention:
     
     
    Historically, art has a high barrier of entry. It takes a lot of work to get into it. This isn't a new phenomena - it's ages old. Did you ever learn about Shakespeare? One of the reasons we discuss Shakespeare still today is because he wrote plays that were easily accessible to the general public. Low barrier of entry, with a fair amount of very low brow wit - some of it was frankly even slapstick. So, low barrier of entry, high entertainment value. 
     
    That is how it has always been. The most complex art historically has been reserved mostly for nobles, the rich, the clergy, and various other people who had the time and money to kill to appreciate it, while lower entertainment was preferred by the masses - because it had a low barrier of entry, and a high payoff. 
     
    This doesn't mean that one is better than the other, nor does it indicate anything particular about people. The fact is, everyone has their passions and their interests - and outside of their passions and interests, they're not likely to invest a whole lot of time into something. Why would you expect a creative work of art to have millions of views? Of course it wouldn't. Because the ONLY people who gain something from it are people who are passionate about art in the first place - so people who are passionate about, say, plants or math (me!) would spend hours on plant videos, but they wouldn't spend hours on creative, artistic videos - rather, I'd be likely to watch a low brow video that has a high entertainment pay off and a low barrier to entry, or else spend my time on the things I actually care about. 
     
     
     
     
    The reason most people don't care is because you're stating the blatantly obvious.
     
    What you've said amounts to this:
     
    People, in general, won't put in the time and energy to understand and appreciate things that they don't have any previously existing interest in, and would rather enjoy something that doesn't demand so much of them.
     
    This is obvious. Why would people - the majority of whom have working lives, passions, interests, and goals which they are already putting a significant amount of time into - spend extra time on something that isn't their interest? Just because you think something artistic on youtube is worthwhile doesn't mean others will. Yeah, a lot of work went into it - and that work pays off to the people who have an existing interest in it. But for everyone else, there's just a high barrier of entry and something that's demanding a lot more time from them than they have to be spending, for a minimal payoff.
     
     
     
    Nobody is living off of other people's content. You're creating an issue where none exists. Just because you don't like some content, doesn't mean that the people who made that content are parasites. 
     
     
     
     
     
    Beyond ALL of that, consider this:
     
    https://www.youtube.com/user/1veritasium
    https://www.youtube.com/user/AsapSCIENCE
    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=DIY

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCduKuJToxWPizJ7I2E6n1kA

     
     
    This is just a very small sampling of original content on youtube with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of views. Your notion that people aren't paying attention to original content is patently wrong - they're just not paying attention to the content you care about. Which makes sense. You pay attention to that content because it's of value to you, so the barrier to entry isn't a big deal. But for people who have no interest in it? The barrier to entry IS a big deal, so they're naturally gonna pay attention to things that either A. are of interest to them or B. have a low barrier to entry (cat videos, reaction videos, et cetera)
  7. Like
    Eponine reacted to JASKN in How should a discriminating young man approach/view sex if no one he e   
    That wasn't my intended implication -- quite the opposite. I think change should happen as often as an individual feels that it's necessary. But he should be the reason behind his own change, and in fact if he tries to change for others it will be inauthentic and unsuccessful. If he wants to change because it will make him better suited for a relationship he desires, that is his decision and may be a good one.

    But changing because someone tells him to is not his decision. Likewise, expecting someone to change just because you want them to, without the motivation coming from within that other person, is worse than pointless, it's actually insulting. "Do because I say, and who cares what you want."

    Maintaining independence is the most important reason to leave changes up to each person, but it's not the only reason. "Teaching" a romantic interest how to be "better" has many other potential negative psychological consequences.
  8. Like
    Eponine got a reaction from JASKN in Voting eligibility and profile views   
    Thanks for your answer and compliment, JASKN.
  9. Like
    Eponine reacted to JASKN in How should a discriminating young man approach/view sex if no one he e   
    Heading into any relationship with the intent to change the other person is, in my experience and opinion, a guaranteed path to disappointment, anger, resentment... nothing good. Even in the most ideal (and uncommon) of scenarios where the person actually does want to change, the chances are they won't wind up wanting to change in exactly the ways that you would have them change.
    I think it's better to take people for what they are, or not. And likewise, present yourself to other people as you are, offering them to take it or leave it. If this approach yields a long term friendship (not likely but still happily possible), it will have done so in the best of ways, with the personal independence of each party intact, even through many life changes.
  10. Like
    Eponine reacted to whYNOT in 'Love' in films   
    All manner of suspect things get passed off as okay under the justification of "it's love!" - and the movie industry is a major culprit of evasion,imo.

    Their scriptwriters have entrenched the message that love is a fundamental right for all, irrespective of the integrity and self-worth of the characters.
    The pursuit of love is the right we have. While I do believe that 'sense of life' is highly important in the attraction between lovers, too many movies offer no prime cause of love save he's strong and handsome and makes her laugh/ rescues her/ etc., and she's, well...beautiful.
    Or else they have in common some destructive weakness like e.g. drug addiction, and have equally low self-esteem.
    "Love must prevail" - as if love is a separate mystical entity, independent of the participants. That's pure intinsicism.
    Also, with the increasingly younger film-viewer in mind, I do think that there is a gradual 'dumbing- down' of love, by movie makers, so that every teenager can now pass off his or her immature infatuation, as the real thing.
    Actually, that's mostly what a lot of movies portray, not love, but infatuation; and the 'loving' couple won't last long in the real world.
  11. Like
    Eponine reacted to Eiuol in Relationship Anarchy: questioning romance   
    "Relationship anarchy" is a term I've been thinking about lately. The term isn't referring to anarchy as about rejecting government - it is not political. Instead, it is about rejecting rules that exist on a social scale for how to treat relationships, especially regarding friendship and romance. I don't mean a disregard for social norms altogether, I just mean social norms pertaining to romance. The link is a decent source, but keep in mind that the term hasn't been around long at all, so a lot of it is vague or disregards principled thought, but a gist of the idea is there:
     
     
    and
     
     
    RA implies a few more ideas, namely, non-monogamy and because each relationship is independent of other relationships. Think of it as a form of polyamory. That you have two or more mates (I mean "mate" as a romantic relationship) need not mean that the two relationships leech the quality of love with both your mates. Additionally, sex between friends is morally acceptable with this view, since it rejects the norm that sex ought to be between mates only - or only with your "highest value" in Objectivist parlance.

    Clearly, RA is not an Objectivist view, at least regarding sex. To be clear, the rest of my post assumes selfishness as a virtue and all that good stuff, I'm discussing this on questioning Objectivist views of sex and romance. Let's make the Objectivist view about romantic relationships clear:
     
     
     
    A lot more can be said, but I chose these points because I think they are the most essential. As for sex:
     
     
     
    This last quote is from the Playboy interview, and I think it is a source at least reliable as most of Rand's non-fiction for portraying Objectivist philosophy.

    These quotes open questions for me. For one, why is romantic love the "most exclusive" form of love? I read lines like this before, but it seems to come out of nowhere while not making a lot of sense considering the points like love is an unlimited response to be earned. So how can romantic love be "more exclusive"? I suppose it means a sharper focus and more intense love, but I'm still not seeing why exclusivity matters other than how it is a standard view. RA, and polyamory in general, both reject exclusivity. Additionally, I don't see exclusivity as an Objectivist view if we look at Rand's overall message, that love is an unlimited response to values and sense of life.

    My other question is why sex is only proper with regard to highest values as opposed to sufficiently high? Let me take an arbitrary value ranking of people as follows: Philip, 7; Kate, 9; Rick, 1; Gina, 5. Suppose 7 is a sufficiently high valuation to warrant sex, assuming the feelings involved are still a notable response to values. That means it is proper to have sex with Philip and Kate. Rick is perhaps equivalent to a one night stand where sex happens once but not contact again. Gina is a good friend, but there isn't a great deal of intensity despite an enjoyable friendship. Philip is "just a friend", while Kate is a mate. Yet why would Objectivism say sex is only proper with Kate? RA goes further than simply saying sex doesn't need to be with highest values - it says that sexual/romantic relationships don't have to be more important than non-sexual/romantic partners.

    To begin, I want to pay attention to the difference between friendship and romance. Some would say they are a difference in kind, except when I take into account all that Rand wrote on love, I don't see how even Objectivism properly justifies that conclusion. Take this line from ITOE:
     
    Somehow, romantic love is incredibly unique, all while Rand is saying here that romantic love is more intense than liking, not a concept with a different genus. Love versus hatred is an example of two concepts of consciousness with a different genus. I prefer to get more precise than this, though. I say romance and friendship share many dimensions and vary on a dimension of intensity of loving feelings. What kind of feelings does friendship cause if not just a reduced intensity of loving feeling? It doesn't seem like there's a reason to preclude loving acts like sex in friendship if love should not be purely platonic. If romance shares dimensions A-D with liking, but primarily differs along E, intensity, then it would make sense to say that in principle sex is proper in greater degrees of E. Furthermore, the degree of E doesn't mean always that the relationship is more valuable. In my mind, it is epistemologically important to define relationships in terms of maximizing values rather than holding romantic love as the "be-all end-all" form of love. Otherwise, it compartmentalizes thinking in unnecessary ways.
     
    ((All quotes about Objectivism I got from the lexicon.))
  12. Like
    Eponine reacted to theestevearnold in Objectivism, Preferences, and Happiness   
    This was old draft I started before I read all the posts and realized there was nothing I could add. You and You, etc. had said it all. But  maybe my concrete ending might be of value to this great thread.
     
    If a type of food is delicious, it's a value to me. If that food is healthy it's a greater value. If it's unhealthy, it's a lesser value. If it's so unhealthy that the pleasure of eating it is outweighed by the physical harm, then, overall, it becomes a non-value. [i'm not sure if "non-value" in the Objectivist lexicon was the right word; I pawned my Lexicon for rent money...I give the lefty book buyer credit for allowing it onto their shelves. Maybe Capitalism is stronger nowadays than I thought, 
     
    My point is that even the things that can lead to an earlier death (than would've been had I not done them) can still be a value, because they make my lifetime greater. Though maybe shorter. Example: My dad was a great man who fought in the Korean War off air craft carriers as a lieutenant commander and was then one of the world's best interior designers since 1967 where he founded his business in Waikiki (knowing there was gonna be a boom there) and did hotels--all around the world-- a cruise ship, and an airplane until the day he died suddenly of a rare disease. He love to drink. He was an alcoholic but not in the "our lives had become unmanageable" doctrine of the flawed AA; he "Walked the Line" like the Johnny Cash movie I quoted meant. What I mean to say is that when I saw his medical records, my dad was given a year to live due to scirrocis (sorry no spell check) of the liver attributable to alcohol abuse since his days in the Navy till the morning he was taken to the emergency room for Hemachromatosis.
     
    Here's my point: We can die tomorrow on our way to work, in a car crash. My dad's liver held all the way to his "car crash." So the physical damage I do to my body, might not even matter if I never make it that far, so the enjoyment of life must be weighed with the prolongment. 
     
    Tying it back to the ultimate end: a full life specific to man is NOT me on life-support. If that's all it is, with nurses wiping my ass, I'll pull the plugs outta my arms like my dad did when he came to in the hospital. That's not what Miss Rand meant when she referred to Life. Though I'm sure she wasn't saying that if you're an old folk in a hospice you should kill yourself; please don't get me wrong.....there are still things worth living for when the pain is unbearable. Music. Film. Literature. Sex (Cialis can wake the dead). 
  13. Like
    Eponine reacted to Nicky in Did Ayn Rand live by her own philosophy?   
    Do the people we love have a moral obligation to never upset us?

    I don't know anything about Barbara, but Frank and Ayn grew old together, didn't they? I'm sure both did things that upset the other person, over the course of their lives. Sometimes, that is morally justified. Just because you're in a relationship, doesn't mean you now have to live for the other person first, and yourself only once the other person is fully satisfied.

    You still live your own life, and share it with the other person to the extent you can. Obviously, in this case, Frank and Ayn accepted what each had to offer. I would've judged it immoral if Ayn Rand put her husbands feelings first, and suppressed her own love for another man, not the other way around. If anything, her honesty towards herself and her husband was admirable.

    Most people would either lie to themselves (and their spouse, about their own feelings) and stay monogamous, or lie to their spouse and cheat, in a similar situation. Very few people would even think that the right thing to do is be fully honest with everyone involved, irrespective of how it may hurt their feelings. But that's, as far as I understand, precisely what Objectivism is. To me, this episode has always been a shining example of how Rand lived her own ideas. And I have a feeling it has been that for her critics, too: that's why they keep harping on it, because, on an emotional level, it's an indictment of her ideas.
  14. Like
    Eponine reacted to abott1776 in Jerry Seinfeld fights back against multiculturalism/PC   
    On Yahoo news I found this article:
     
    tv.yahoo.com/blogs/tv-news/jerry-seinfeld-s-blunt-take-on-diversity-in-comedy---who-cares--195219911.html
     
    In it he says about people complaining that his comedy lacks diversity:
     
    "People think it's the census or something? Does this [have to] represent the actual pie chart of America? Who cares? Funny is the world I live in. If you're funny, I'm interested. If you're not funny, I'm not interested. And I have no interest in race or gender or anything like that."
     
    Go Jerry!, Go!
×
×
  • Create New...