Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Carla

Regulars
  • Content Count

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Carla

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 09/09/1982

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Pennsylvania
  • Real Name
    Carla

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    CGreenberg99
  • Website URL
    http://carla.rationalmind.net
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Pennsylvania
  1. Jennifer, I'm glad you started this topic! I was just thinking about how I'd like to have some Objectivist girlfriends to gab with about this sort of thing. Not that you can't get good tips of this sort from non-Objectivist women, but that with an Objectivist, I feel like I'm getting someone who has thought about these sorts of things in a different way. Here are a few recommendations off the top of my head: Tanners: I, too, am "blessed" with a fair complexion. For years I feared sunless tanners for the orange problem, too, but I've found that Neutrogena Build-a-Tan Sunless Tanner is a pretty good product. It changes your skin tone very, very gradually (I have to use it a few days in a row to approach anyone else's idea of "tan.") I haven't used anything on my face, but I just found that Neutrogena has a version for the face as well. Just a few things to keep in mind (with all tanners, I think). It's best to exfoliate before applying to prevent "patchiness"; go slowly and apply very evenly to prevent streaks (these are not pretty, trust me); and go light on areas where the skin is thicker (and this more likely to soak up the product): knees, ankles, elbows, etc. Put a little moisturizer on these areas immediately before applying will make things easier in this respect. Moisturizer: I'm a big fan of Cetaphil Face Moisturizer with SPF 15 (scroll down a bit). It's light and oil-free, a bottle costs about $13 at the drugstore and lasts forever (maybe a year?), and it has the SPF, which is good to use year-round to prevent wrinkles. Cosmetics: For daily wear, I use 4 products. I use the most natural shades I can find--I am on an eternal quest for a lip color that is essentially my natural color, but a few shades more intense. I've been pretty happy with Clinique products, which are sort of expensive but worth it in terms of quality and how long they last (as in months). Their Long Last Soft Matte lipsitck is the best I've found in its category. It's easier to apply than the ones that come out of a tube, and doesn't fade in the center, leaving a weird ring-around-the-lips effect. It doesn't last though everything--putting on lip balm will take some of it off, eating lunch will take all of it off--but it does last longer than a normal lipstick. My favorite color (for my coloring) is Berry Berry. I would make such a good infomercial! I'm really looking forward to what the rest of you have to say. Does anyone have a good mascara rec? I'm constantly rubbing mine off.
  2. Ah, I should have figured that out (my sister is a Gallatin student). Too bad, what a damper that puts on public events. (On the other hand, I know that NYU needs to have good policies in place to keep students safe). I hope the events go well!
  3. I just wanted to point out that your website says nothing about needing to RSVP to attend. If I hadn't read this post (I found out about the lectures through a different website), I wouldn't have known at all. You might want to make that clear. (You also might want to consider that requiring an RSVP might be the step that causes some potential audience members not to come. Having recently graduated from college, I know well the tendency of college students not to plan anything in advance.) But otherwise, bravo! I wish I could attend, but unfortunately I don't think I can make the roundtrip from Philly in one night. I hope to send friends in my stead.
  4. I'd like to point out that, while DavidOdden's reply is important, there is another aspect of GWDS's statement that should be addressed. Ayn Rand never said "To survive we need X, therefore X are rights." In fact, she thoroughly opposed that idea. What she did say (paraphrased, of course) was this: The primary right is the right to life. All other rights derive from this. Just because a man has a right to his life, doesn't mean that he has a right to Y or Z (where Y might be food and Z might be shelter). The right to life does mean that a man has the right to act to gain (or earn) Y and Z, and that once he has earned Y and Z, no other man (or group) has the right to take it from him. That's the basic formulation. There are, of course, stipulations. The man must act ethically to gain Y and Z--he must not steal or defraud. In other words, he must not violate another's rights. Further, if he attempts to act to gain Y or Z, but he is not successful, he does not get an A for effort. In other words, he might apply to a number of jobs, but his application does not make him entitled to the job--etc., etc. Rights theory is a more extensive topic, but I wanted to point out that GWDS had misconstrued one of the basic tenets of Objectivism.
  5. Oh, even better! I was on my lunch break, so I didn't have time to look further. Maybe I'll get it, then. I always thought it was too bad that Slytherin, the house associated with "great ambition," was also associated with evil wizards or bullies. It might be interesting to look at it more closely, though. Congratulations on the publication!
  6. I read the passage from the Lexicon that you refer to a long time ago, so I am going on my recollection of it (I do not have access to the book at the moment). While I entirely agree with the "destructive" nature of humor and laughter in that context--we laugh at the absurd or the contemptible--I believe it leaves out other contexts for laughter. One reason I laugh, from time to time, is as an expression of happiness, one that goes beyond a large grin. Seeing a dear friend for the first time in too long, for example, might bring about this reaction. I suppose, though, that this is not laughter “as an expression of humor.” Another cause for laughter might be the cute something that my 8-year-old brother did or said. For example, he plays soccer, and once described his team playing against another as "versing": "We're versing the Blue team this weekend," as in Red versus Blue. My laughter (and my dad's) was not because we had contempt for an 8 year-old trying to use the rules of grammar where they don't apply, but because it was such a sweet, creative, intelligent attempt. Perhaps this fits into the realm of the absurd, but I would certainly not describe our reaction as "destructive" laughter—still, I would classify it as “humor.” As to the frequency of laughter—I love to laugh. Most often, I enjoy it in my “down” time, when I’m relaxing. I enjoy watching certain sit-coms or comedic movies, or just laughing over funny stories with my family or friends. Is this, Burgess, what you’re referring to as “suitable to the occasion”? I also enjoy laughing with colleagues at work from time to time. The experience of laughter with colleagues or friends serves to strengthen the relationship bond. One way to describe this is, “we get the same jokes,” or, more broadly, “we get each other.” While the objects of the humor might be absurd—in other words, the laughter might be destructive—the purposed of sharing in the laughter is not to spend time destroying things, but instead to share commonalities. I would say that I am a passionate valuer, and that sharing humor and laughter contributes to many of the things I value—strengthening my friendships, or my relationships with co-workers. (As a side explanation, I value strengthening my relationships with co-workers because it creates a pleasant working environment and creates a common background that smoothes the path during difficult situations.) Burgess, this may not contradict what you’re saying—I just wanted to add my thoughts on the value of laughter. This is not to say that one who does not laugh often—or, one who does not often laugh in the presence of strangers—is necessarily missing out on something. My greatest experiences of laughter occur in the presence of those people whom I value the most.
  7. While browsing the philosophy section of my local Borders yesterday, I noticed a book called Harry Potter and Philosophy: If Aristotle Ran Hogwarts displayed somewhat prominently (cover faced out rather than just the spine out). Today, I went to the philosophy section of the local Barnes and Noble and saw the same book, similarly displayed. For fun, I decided to take a look at it--my first thought was, "good, it says 'If Aristotle Ran Hogwarts,' and not Plato!" Opening up to the table of contents, I found that the second essay was, "Dursley Duplicity: The Morality and Psychology of Self-Deception," written by Diana Mertz Hsieh! Diana posts here from time to time, and also runs a great Objectivist blog called NoodleFood. I couldn't bring myself to drop the cash on the book, but I did browse quickly through her footnotes, to see (to my even greater pleasure) that Diana cites OPAR. You can see Diana's summary of the essay here. What a great way to inject some Objectivist perspective into popular culture! Has anyone read the essay and/or more of the collection?
  8. Has anyone else seen Kinsey? I saw it on Christmas day and thoroughly enjoyed it. In fact, I think it is my favorite movie of 2004. Here is Scott Holleran's review of it at Box Office Mojo. It's also on CapMag. I don't always agree with Mr. Holleran's reivews, but I thought he was spot-on in this one. Here's an excerpt: I don't know anything about the real Kinsey, but that doesn't matter. This film would be just as good if it were entirely fictional. The acting is superb--Neeson is extremely appealing, and the supporting actors "melt" into their roles. The plot is, perhaps inevitably, engaging, but more importantly, the story is told very well. There are no loose ends, no moments of over-exposition or boredom, and none of the all-too-common, modern penchant for deconstructed storytelling. Finally, the predominant themes of the movie are overwhelmingly life-affirming. I'd highly recommend this movie to all Objectivists.
  9. Thanks for the recommendation, khaight. I will look into it. I've also heard good things about Paul Johnson's A History of the American People. Can anyone second that idea? I've read Locke's Study Methods and Motivation, but I'm not a student anymore, so I'm looking for something more general/less geared toward students.
  10. I've heard good things about that one, too, actually. Maybe I'll finally take a look at it.
  11. I often find myself in the position of wanting a good resource on a particular topic, but not knowing where to start looking. I thought it might be useful to have a kind of "go-to" thread where one can request or post recommendations about good resources on a variety of topics. So, I'll go first. I'd like to read a basic overview of American history. I'm most interested in the early history of the United States (and the American colonies) through the end of the 19th century, but some information on the 20th century would be good, too. I'd prefer a single volume, but I realize that it's a pretty broad topic. I would appreciate clear, straightforward prose, and anti-American authors need not apply. I'd also like a book on time management, preferably directed toward a youngish working audience (i.e., not students, and not parents). Anyone else?
  12. Two weeks from now, I'll embark on my first "real" job as an Editorial Assistant at a publishing company that produces non-fiction books for young adults. I am also studying for the LSAT, though at the moment I'm not sure when I'll want to attend law school--probably one to four years from now.
  13. My apologies, and you're welcome. Ma phrase: Quand vous avez dit, <<Ah, Kittyhawk, ah!>>, elle réponde, <<Oui? Peut-etre vous pouvez entrer dans les détails?>> est fausse. La version correcte: Quand vous avez dit, <<Ah, Kittyhawk, ah!>>, il réponde, <<Oui? Peut-etre vous pouvez entrer dans les détails?>> -- My sentence: When you said, "Ah, Kittyhawk, ah!," she responded, "Yes? Perhaps you could elaborate?" was wrong. The correct version: When you said, "Ah, Kittyhawk, ah!," he responded, "Yes? Perhaps you could elaborate?"
  14. Maybe I met you, then. I'm pretty sure I met Leonardo, though I can't exactly picture him now. I've graduated, so I won't be attending meetings, obviously, but I'd like to hear about any events you might be holding at Drexel. Good luck revamping the club. While there was little to no interest in Objectivism while I was there, you might think about advertising club meetings/events at Swarthmore (and at Bryn Mawr and Haverford, for that matter). It's pretty easy to get to Drexel from the 'burbs. If you have funding, take out an ad in The Phoenix (http://phoenix.swarthmore.edu/); if you don't, put one in the Weekly News (http://weeklynews.swarthmore.edu/), which is free. What's a Co-op cycle?
  15. (Kittyhawk @ 7:18 AM) Bencil, J'ai étudié un peu de Francais à l'université, mais c'est tres mal maintenant. Néanmoins, peut-être je pourrais vous assister un peu? Kittyhawk a posé deux questions: 1. Les oeuvres de Ayn Rand, sont-ils publié en turque? 2. Ma traduction meilleure: <<Bencil, j'ai lit la préface de votre dissertation d'éducation, et j'ai jeté un coup d'œil à la table des matières. Il me semble très interresant, et je suis sur qu'il y'a beaucoup des idées bon. Mais j'ai un question preliminaire. Decrivez-vous une système d'éducation privée ou publique (les écoles sont privée our publique)? Depuis je préfére une système d'éducation publique bonne au l'éducation privée mal, c'est malgre tout vrai que toutes formes d'éducation publique sont immorales.>> Alors, Quand vous avez dit, <<Ah, Kittyhawk, ah!>>, elle réponde, <<Oui? Peut-etre vous pouvez entrer dans les détails?>> Vous voudrez bien m'excuser, il y'a deux ans que j'ai utilisé mon francais. Je ne suis pas compétente à faire les traductions extensives, mais je pourrais vous aider un peu. -- For the benefit of everyone else: If you are better at French than I, you are perfectly welcome to add to/correct my writings here! If you don't know French, here's a quick summary. I wrote: Bencil, I studied a little French in college, but it's very bad now. Nevertheless, perhaps I can help you a bit? Kittyhawk has asked two questions: 1. Are the works of Ayn Rand published in Turkish? 2. My best translation: [translation] So, when you said, "Ah, Kittyhawk, ah!" she responded, "Yes? Perhaps you could elaborate?" Please accept my apologies, it's been two years since I used my French. I'm not able to do extensive translations, but I could help you a little. We'll see how this goes! PS: Kittyhawk, I'm not sure if you're male or female, so I'll correct that if necessary.
×
×
  • Create New...