Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

dadmonson

Regulars
  • Posts

    368
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by dadmonson

  1. There's more to art than hitting notes.

    I didn't say that there wasn't.

    Most of the time, I have to be able to like the voice of the singer, lyrics, and the melody of the song in order for me to like the song though...and if you can't feel Michael Jackson in that audio of him singing live then we will have to agree to disagree. The guy was only 12-13 at the time and was singing his heart out. I could feel it and I can definitely recognize talent when I hear it. You say that you are talking about Michael Jackson's music as a whole but I doubt that you've even listened to Michael Jackson enough for you to get 'a whole' picture.

  2. I wouldn't. I like some of his songs, but much prefer the Beatles. Nevertheless, he was certainly a great musician and dancer. How odd though to see a grown man with such an immature attitude toward life and the choices he made.

    I never did like the Beatles with the exception of a few songs. It sounded as if they were high when they created their records and 'low and behold' I come to find out that they were high. Also I didn't think Beatles voices were all that impressive. Rather ordinary and plain.

  3. But I can't prove this, the way I can prove that MJ was all that I said he was,

    All you said was he likes children and he had plastic surgery. I don't give a fuck about that. I said I liked some of his music in my first post in this thread but after listening to more of his songs I realize that this guy had many great songs. I would much rather to listen to Michael Jackson sing and perform than the Beatles.

  4. a good singer (for what it's worth)

    Enough with the backhanded complements in this thread. Michael Jackson was a great singer and I thought his voice was awesome, soulful, and unique! Try reaching those notes he did in Thriller without using falsetto. He hits those notes like a bomb.

  5. kids are innocent and happy, adults seem grim and dishonest. A person seeking to enjoy life can easily make the mistake of thinking that the source of joy is a childish spirit.

    I think external factors had a lot to do with his detirioration. Had the world been a better place, I don't think he would have broke down like he did. I find his story tragic.

    Interesting...Ayn Rand talked a little about talent and sensitivity here:

    ...Talent does not survive all obstacles. In fact, in the face of hardships, talent is the first one to perish; the rarest plants are usually the most fragile. Our present-day struggle for existence is the coarsest and ugliest phenomenon that has ever appeared on earth. It takes a tough skin to face it, a very tough one. Are talented people born with tough skins? Hardly. In fact, the more talent one possesses the more sensitive one is, as a rule. ...

    I'm not going to get into all the gossip and rumor mills about Michael Jackson because this is not a gossip site.

  6. Do you have a better explanation?

    Nope, I can't really assume what made Farrah think that about Rand...

    Even though we had never met (and never did), she seemed to think we must have a lot in common since we were both born on the same day: February 2nd.
    I guess Farrah would've thought that Ayn felt that way, all because of an icebreaker.
  7. How did you first learn of Ayn Rand’s interest in you? I gather she got in touch in the late '70s, when Charlie’s Angels was one of the biggest hit shows ever to appear on TV?

    Ayn contacted me with a personal letter (and a copy of Atlas Shrugged) through my agents. Even though we had never met (and never did), she seemed to think we must have a lot in common since we were both born on the same day: February 2nd.

    What?

  8. I always thought that Michael Jackson hated to be black because he changed his skin color to pale white, straightened out his hair, and made his nose rail thin. He's been out of the limelight for a pretty long time now so most people know him mostly for the two cases where people were trying to sue him for money(allegations that were never proven), South Park Episodes, Wacko Jacko, and so on. People that knew him personally do have fond memories of him though and I did like some of his music and he did accomplish a lot with his time on earth.

  9. Interesting.

    What do you suppose the Objectivist answer to overpopulation would be?

    That between a free market with a gold-standard currency, no welfare programs, and the availability of Green Revolution technology and medicine, etc., the population would eventually stabilize over time at a manageable number?

    Thanks to everyone for the help.

    Right, children are more expensive in industrialized nations so people are more likely to have less kids.

  10. I doubt the cash back incentives are what killed GM and Chrysler.

    It definitely added to the problem. Companies sometimes make the mistake of focusing on building market share, assuming that profits will follow. Those 3 companies have consistently sacrificed short-term profits to achieve market share by offering high-dollar incentives to increase sales of new cars.

  11. I'm not saying that you should turn a blind eye to the news but like everyone has been saying you can't control what the politicians do in Washington. You can however control what you do in your own household.

    Besides, even Great Britian had Maggie Thatcher after the massive socialization that country went through in the 50s and 60s. We can always fire the bozos in Washington.

  12. From my run-ins with people who claim to have been Objectivists, it's usually extreme arrogance. They are usually under the impression that they are able to understand a novel or a body of work like Rand's by reading a few online posts or a review.

    And then they read some other article, that superficially condemns Objectivism, and they move on to the next thing that tickles their ego and makes them feel super smart and special. They're easy to spot, on account that they have no idea what Objectivism is and what Rand wrote about, when you go beyond egoism or "small government".

    In general, what makes these people tick is looking down on the silly people they "outgrew" without even making an effort. In reality, they are going through life so effortlessly because they don't bother making an effort and understanding complex ideas.

    I agree. Most of the time to get something burned into your memory you have to read the material over and over again. This is expecially true when trying to learn Objectivism. More often than not you aren't going to remember and/or grasp 'everything' in one go around. The answers to the questions you may have are all there, but many times people forget what they read.

    The Ayn Rand Institute has a suggested reading list; I would recommend an astute philosopher to read those essays on that list atleast five times and Ayn Rand's fiction works(TF and AS) atleast three times. I haven't done this yet myself though so you may disagree with me all you like.

  13. CTRL Y you do realize that potential doesn't equal actual right? Just because a man might have been first it doesn't change the fact that he wasnt. The losers in a trade of the kind that you mentioned has to to accept the fact that in seeking to trade with other people he must face the possibility of a competitor winning the race. In all types of competition this is true.

  14. Grey probably made more money than Bell in his lifetime.

    As for Darwin Vs. Wallace...Darwin spent 20 years researching and writing a great book detailing and supporting the theory. They both came up with the theory, but Darwin was the one who convinced people.

    Here's a quote from an article;

    It was not until he was 50 years old, in 1859, that Darwin finally published his theory of evolution in full for his fellow scientists and for the public at large. He did so in a 490 page book entitled On the Origin of Species. It was very popular and controversial from the outset. The first edition came out on November 24, 1859 and sold out on that day. It went through six editions by 1872. The ideas presented in this book were expanded with examples in fifteen additional scientific books that Darwin published over the next two decades.

    What finally convinced Darwin that he should publish his theory in a book for the general educated public was the draft of an essay that he received in the summer of 1858 from a younger British naturalist named Alfred Wallace , who was then hard at work collecting biological specimens in Southeast Asia for sale to museums and private collectors. Darwin was surprised to read that Wallace had come upon essentially the same explanation for evolution. Being a fair man, Darwin insisted that Wallace also get credit for the natural selection theory during debates over its validity that occurred at a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Oxford University in 1860. We now know that Darwin deserves most of the credit. In 1837, one year after he returned from the voyage on the Beagle, he made detailed notes on the idea of evolution by means of natural selection. At that time, Wallace was only 14 years old. In addition, it was Darwin's book, rather than Wallace's essay, that had the most impact on the Victorian public. Darwin not only described the process of natural selection in more detail, but he also gave numerous examples of it. It was his On the Origin of Species that convinced most scientists and other educated people in the late 19th century that life forms do change through time. This prepared the public for the acceptance of earlier human species and of a world much older than 6000 years.

    http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_2.htm

  15. Ayn Rand said Frank gave her a boost at one point when she was feeling discouragement while writing The Fountainhead. I wouldn't say she fail back on him and depended solely upon him though, but he did help.

    Here's The Quote:

    I did not feel discouragement very often, and when I did, it did not last longer than overnight. But there was one evening, during the writing of The Fountainhead, when I felt so profound an indignation at the state of "things as they are" that it seemed as if I would never regain the energy to move one step farther toward "things as they ought to be." Frank talked to me for hours, that night. He convinced me of why one cannot give up the world to those one despises. By the time he finished, my discouragement was gone; it never came back in so intense a form.
×
×
  • Create New...