Styles2112

Don't be confused, though. Soldiers are told to think for themselves. Yes, they have to be obediant to rank, and to CERTAIN types of orders given. But that is TEAMWORK, where your survival DEPENDS on your team. Soldiers are not robots. The example of Abu Gharib was bad as those soldiers still know what they are doing, and still have the freedom to know that that was not an order that they could recieve. They chose to do it of their own freewill. And now they pay the price.

My Drill at Basic said that he would never punish us for something we didn't do wrong. He said, of course, that we would always be doing something wrong, so he could always punish us. (makes me all happy inside ) I believe that there is a fine line that can be crossed when testing somebody. I don't think there's a need for physical force (i.e. beatings, unless it's a negative reinforcement), but I see no reason to not have physical pain (i.e. push-ups, all that good military "smoking") and psychological games. Frankly, I found most of that stuff fun at basic, but I don't think it would have been good for Drills to hit people. Now, blanket parties and what-not I would not call hazing, as it does serve purpose, it seems more of punishment than of a test of positive motives.

So, To not add another thread this this area, I'd like to ask a question here. I was doing some thinking about the music business of late and I was curious about your views on it. It would seem like a good thing in the Objectivist view, however, I would view it much like James Taggart trying to force all the great people/artists to be like one another and share everything equally. (Which I suppose, that argument would lend itself more to Internet sharing). Anyways, I've been having conversations about the lack of creativity, and real ART in music, and how the record company is more interested in selling image than music. So, is it still good for the music industry to do this (seeing as they make money), or should the musicians go on strike (i.e. Atlas Shrugged)?

Or is it that you just don't have the fundamental knowledge to explain it? In which case, you shouldn't bother trying to answer my questions and leave it to the people who understand what I'm asking.

im·po·tent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mp-tnt) adj. 1. Lacking physical strength or vigor; weak. 2. Lacking in power, as to act effectively; helpless: “Technology without morality is barbarous; morality without technology is impotent” (Freeman J. Dyson). 3. Incapable of sexual intercourse, often because of an inability to achieve or sustain an erection. Sterile. Used of males. 4. Obsolete. Lacking self-restraint. So, if you're lacking, that means you don't have the power. How is this evil? I would feel the true evil would be if you HAD the power and chose not to use it. It's funny the quote that is used there, as it aptly fits some of the discussion here. My argument is that if you give the "good" power, then you, inherently, give "evil" power, by applying definitions to both. So, the power is within the definitions, not within the words themselves.

Out of curiousity, why is all irrationality bad? Why is all rationality, inherently, good? Okay, so define and prove to me Consciousness, and introspect. My understanding has always been that for proof, there must be measurability. Maybe I'm wrong. By the way, TomL, please don't take anything I'm saying as any kind of attack on Objectivism, I'm very interested in what you are saying and have to say.

Yeah, I use Finale 2004 to do most of my composing. And it's a fantastic tool (seeing as I can't play most of the instruments I write for, other than percussion), but it is devoid of most emotion. I'm a big advocate of ebb and flow in music. It should be able to hit you like waves (orgasmic in a way). It's one of the reasons I like Rush's "La Villa Strangiato" so much. I did an orchestration of it for my orchestration class in college.

So, then are feelings rational? You're saying we cannot do anything based on feeling, because that would be irrational, thus immoral. Yet, two threads down, we discuss LOVE as a rational emotion. So, emotions, thereby must be rational, and if we use our emotions to "see" (There's a better word, but I can't think of it) God, doesn't that PROVE that god exists? I've read a couple books by Ayn Rand, and agreed with most of what she had to say. I've never held a particular belief in a god, but have found value in living for myself and the idea of production and value. I find, though, after reading some of these forums, that I disagree with some of the particulars. I didn't say you said it, I just remember somebody saying it. And isn't your example subjective? How do we form a test group? Variables? Control Group? If it can't be tested, then it can't be ground in reason. (I'm not saying it is or isn't, but my wife brought these points to me, and I'd like someone smarter than me to answer. That way I can look smart to my wife. Seriously, though, it is equally for my own knowledge. )

I'll check out that stuff (probably in a couple months when my finicial burden is not so hard.) I can, very much, appreciate good piano work (haha...unless it's Liszt, in which case it just makes me sick ). I'm gonna have to pull out my Beethoven and start listening to it again. I don't have any of my stuff posted on the web, but if you're interested, I could email you some compositions (which are essentially, in my mind, a bunch of good musical ideas with no connective flow), however, they are in midi format.

That's not true at all. He went in with almost ALL thoughts to his beloved. I also believe that he was torn between leaving and staying because of it. The question, however, was had he never SEEN her or MET her. He might have been more inclined to not do anything (Granted it's been several years since reading it, I still remember much). So, opinion wise, was the love the moving force behind the actions?

I do? Now? Seriously, I have no need to make a decision on God, because God is arbitrary in my life. So, whether it exists or not, has not bearing on how I live my life. Telling me that, because I choose not to decide (I still have made a choice), is immoral is rediculous, when it's not even a fruitful matter. You're telling me that to be an OBJECTIVIST, I have to decide, but by my OWN moral code, I'm perfectly fine in my "sitting on the fence." Should we not except both? If one has power, so must the other. spiritually and scientifically. Calling me a coward isn't really the way to welcome in people looking to learn more about the philosophy. An interesting point, brought up to me last night, was measurability. You all talk about how Objectivism is the only way to be happy, but how do you measure that? Do you have scientific data on that? Or is it a BELIEF that you are happier?

Haha...Not when I'm trying to do a quick read while I'm at work. Yes, it was. I might sometime, when I have a good question. I haven't listened to him. I'll have to check him out. I haven't listened to NEARLY enough jazz, but I'm very selective about the stuff I listen to. I have a friend who's a fantastic jazz drummer, and he's always recommending stuff to me. As a drummer (percussionist) I'm more interested in the drum driven jazz. Just an amused side note. I love Beethoven. I love his use of terrorist dynamics, and sweeping motions. If I could only write rock music (or ANY music for that matter) with that kind of emotion and power, well, I'd be a happy guy. Oh, well, I notice my writing progress more and more anyways.

Believe me, I read everypage of this thread. And I have full understanding of the concepts laid out in your prior post. I don't know. I guess I'm just a very middle of the ground person. I certainly lean more towards atheist thinking, I've just never been one to rule out anything.

Which is kind of funny coming from Objectivists, since Beethoven, by all accounts was a passionate Christian.

"Know your place in life is where you want to be Don't let them tell you that you owe it all to me Keep on looking forward; no use in looking 'round Hold your head above the ground and they won't bring you down Anthem of the heart and anthem of the mind A funeral dirge for eyes gone blind We marvel after those who sought New wonders in the world, wonders in the world, Wonders in the world they wrought. Live for yourself -- there's no one else More worth living for Begging hands and bleeding hearts will Only cry out for more Well, I know they've always told you Selfishness was wrong Yet it was for me, not you, I Came to write this song" -Neil Peart, Anthem, Fly By Night (Rush)

My god you people write novels for responses. Ugh. Anyways, There are some fantastic rock bands out there that really push the limit. Rush (even there new stuff is good, even if not objectavist) King Crimson Mahavishnu Orchestra ELP And there's more. I agree to the value assigned idea for music. Someone was mentioning Bach over Beethoven. I completely disagree, but see exactly where you're coming from. My two favorite composers are Vivaldi and Beethoven. Vivaldi for his clear representations of his visions and pictoral scenes, and Beethoven for his complex emotional outburst. To me, while Bach was good, and set the standard, he was boring as all hell. Jazz is an interesting idiom since most jazz is simply a copy of the music before it. Most jazz that you actually hear is just a new interpretation of an older tune. Jazz is rarely "pushing the limits" anymore and fusion sounds the same in just about everysong. Miles Davis is probably the pinnacle of jazz. (He's one of my absolute favorites) There is something to be said for crazy improv stuff, but it is equal (not greater) than to be said about great rock composition and orchestrating. Christopher, I'd be interested in talking to you more about music. I really liked what you had to say (as a composer, myself)

Well, simply, I'm agnostic. Not because I believe in the possibility of god, but because I haven't seen evidence EITHER way. But, the reality is, he/she/it doesn't affect my life, so whether or not there is a god is "Arbitrary" to the concept we're talking about. I, however, understand if that's how it's written that you have to be ATHEIST (if it's in Ayn Rand's own words), so that pretty well removes any doubt of how it HAS to be. I guess I just disagree with it. On the other hand, I agree with pretty much everything else.

So, another question then (While I still wait for further responces on my first two). I noticed that Rand's works tend to have a love story accompanied with them. In your OPINIONS would the hero have made the choices they made had they not had the love (and the love returned) by their lover. i.e. would Anthem's Hero have gone into the forest had he never seen/met/loved the girl he met in the fields? Would John have fought so hard had Dagny never existed? Or Dagny had John or Hank not been there? Thanks for appeasing my curiousity.

This thread has been incredibly entertaining, and informative to read. I have only a few things to add/discuss. I keep seeing the word "want" in reference to dependance. How does wanting something make anyone dependant on it? I "want" a 2005 mustang sitting in my driveway, but I can live and be happy without it (I think, anyways). Now, if I "NEEDED" it, THEN I would be dependant. Just as most of us WANT love, do we truly NEED it? Also. What are thoughts on LUST? Is it based on NEEDS or WANTS? If our definition (as defined before) of sex is a celebration of shared virtues or goals, is it part of Love? Romantic Love? Is LUST rational? Did Dagny and Hank LUST after one another while Dagny loved John? Thanks for any offerings, as I'm truly enjoying your breakdown of this stuff.

I'm just gonna read as much as I can on here, and maybe pick up some of the books suggested. I'm not really sure I understand all of this, nor agree with all of it, but I'm certainly encouraged to learn.

Very little. Mainly just this thread, which is probably why I'm so confused, because, it seems that even most of you don't agree. I've read "Anthem,""Atlas Shrugged," and I've begun "The Virtue of Selfishness," and "The Fountainhead." and many, many Neil Peart Lyrics.

This is what I was getting at. Whether or not there is a god, it doesn't have any bearing on this philosophy (sorry for not capitilizing your little word), All that's being said is that if there was a creating force it has no bearing on the world now.

From what I can tell, you don't need to be an atheist to be an objectivist. You only need to throw the notion that God/ higher power/supernatural has anything to do with your life. I like a lot of these ideas, but subscribing to only one philosophy, and only one set of books is really no different from religion. Maybe I missed something in those books, but I don't live my life according to Ayn Rand, I live it according to me.

You know what's scary, is I've heard eerily similar statements from fundamentalist christians.