Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Sieur Bertrand

Regulars
  • Content count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sieur Bertrand

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 06/15/86

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Saint Charles, MO

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Missouri
  • Relationship status
    Single
  • Real Name
    Derek Bertrand
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Biography/Intro
    Philosopher
  • Occupation
    History and Philosophy - All things intelligent
  1. I'm a hero

    Put it this way, there is no rule or law that says I necessarily have to agree with every single little thing that Ayn Rand says, or perhaps more so what you have so far interpreted as Ayn Rand saying, but it's a lot more complex than that really which is why I recommended you look into evolution if you have not already. It is said that homo Sapiens are social beings but on the same token I would have to agree that they are also sexual beings. The main issue I take with you is your implications. Honestly, why assume or imply something about someone instead of asking? Furthermore I don't see how any of this is an equal and fair trade, nor do I see how I have not sufficiently explained myself. If it is not understood the first time, what the hell should make me think it would be understood the second time around. Quite simply, I am not here to repeat myself. If this classifies me as an anti Social asshole or anything else of that sort, so be it.
  2. My moral dillema

    agreed, or better yet help each other. Watch out for altruism, don't let your guard down!
  3. Exploration of Masochism

    I find the direction of this topic utterly ridiculous. If the truth wasn't painful why the hell would most homo Sapiens go to such great lengths to avoid it? Recognize that "they" not only lie to others, but also to themselves. Furthermore I am not too big on Plato myself, but that doesn't mean I don't, much less can't, find merit in some of his writings, providing of course that they are rational/logical. And on that, How is stating that something is so and so or such as such supposed to convince me, much less anyone, if you don't cite a reason why? What the fuck is this perceptual forums now?! I mean, damn I knew I was controversial but what the hell am I thinking barging into here trying to be productive, golly I'm stupid, somebody change my freaking mind and talk some sense!
  4. Exploration of Masochism

    Well, at least it's good that you see no reason to explain. I, of course wouldn't want you to waste any time on it. Go ahead and throw any other accusations you have off the top of your head while your at it.
  5. I'm a hero

    When was the last time you did any serious research into evolution Inspector? I don't like what you are replying and you sound like a buffoon, try reading/re-reading the original post in regards to Prometheus and see if it registers
  6. Exploration of Masochism

    Pain is to be valued. The truth is painful is it not? Did you not read Plato's Allegory of the Cave, much less the Fountainhead? If you look at the sun, your eyes will burn, but only for a short while. Tell me this, which is better, the man who sees and has pain, or the man who doesn't and has no pain...?
  7. Exploration of Masochism

    It is, however if you wish to pretend it to be something else I don't see the harm
  8. Imagine. A man/woman passed by a man and noticed abrasions upon his back. The person sarcastically ask, "What the hell happened, you get attack by a cougar?" to which the man replied, "Close to it, it's from sex" Scratching, hair pulling, & ripping clothes off during sex are all masochistic actions. It is the fight which excites, the struggle. It is the attempt, the act of attempting, to exhaust another. Physically, mentally, & spiritually exhausting them to the point of surrender. A battle of wills, of strength. Who is stronger, man or woman? Individual vs individual. Sex is meaningless for the common, for the god it is a science. It is a sacred act you perform, a ritual of intoxication. Why else was the Pythia said to react in violent physical sensations when receiving prophecy from Apollo? Anything less may as well be considered impotent. Is not? Choking or squeezing of any kind Necessarily whips, chains, or anything necessarily abusive others? (et cetera...) Is? Smacking biting Violent will struggle fight battle erotic (Etymological Erotika, from Eros-god of love: Cupid in Roman etc...) The human spirit The mind (et cetera.... others?) Sex is the evolutionary compendium of interaction?
  9. Show Your Faces!

    Last one is my normal "critical expression". I do the raised eye brow thing a lot due to the fucked up nature of the world, to put it bluntly that is.
  10. I'm a hero

    I'm not that extreme folks, no dominatrix damnit! Pull the hair, little spanking, scratching, that sort of thing, you know the drill
  11. God exists

    True and I think the question you are "reaching towards" comes down to belief. For example, I am selfish because I believe in no thing but one thing, which is myself and therefore antithesis of selflessness. A religious person on the other hand, will attribute what they perceive as "miraculous" to the external god. This is really strange when I think about it because it is a seeming contradiction yet the evidence says otherwise in that I am subjectively (Believe in self) objective (Selfish w/evidence/reason). What's the story of Prometheus? I put it in my into post, I'll refrain from posting it but you might like to check it out for further consideration. As far as thinking, most people think that which is convenient or easy. In the case of fire, it was thanks to god whereby stating as such is more or less an excuse for their own shortcomings and personal choice as it may relate to mediocrity. Basically they feel/think/choose, for whatever reason, that they cannot simply do a "great" thing such as make a discovery or somehow improve themselves/realize their potential so anyone that does is an automatic threat to their existence which they must, in someway, explain away, hence attributing it to an imaginary god. In the case of the Greeks it was reversed. Whenever something was good, they would often attribute it to man and his ability, but when something was bad, or inadquate, they would attribute it to god (i.e. **** you Eros! Zues, help me out! (Or help myself!) ) -Derek
  12. Proposal: A second Constitution

    I am an objectivist, but I do not see why I must necessarily use the philosophy of Rand to Illustrate my points. Rand, as well as other objectivists, advocated reason and logic above all else did they not? What then, is so wrong of me to present alternative philosophies so long as they are in fact based in reason or logic? I am philosopher, and I admire Rand immensely but on the same token I won't follow her, or anyone for that matter, "to the gates of hell and back" without sufficient reason for doing so. My life is mine alone is it not? With that said I will then proceed to debate the comments made that are wholly understood and accepted by your own objective volition rather than your subjective volition as it may concern to accepting ALL of what Rand illustrated for the sake of your admiration of her rather than the sake of your apparent lack of reason in understanding and applying said concepts by way of a rational choice. There was a man who lived about two thousand four hundred years ago by the name of Socrates. He was the first in a long line of men, some of whom were philosophers while others may be scientists and revolutionaries. He was like the beginning spark in a chain of events that has gone on to shape humanity, and thus the world, until present time. To illustrate, it was once said, "Plato Was a student of Socrates, Aristotle was a student of Plato, and Alexander was a student of Aristotle. Alexander conquered the world." That is not the point I am trying to make however, merely evidence for what I am about to say in relation to the greatness of this man as well as the greatness he bestowed upon humanity as a whole, for, Socrates was a philosopher and he did not teach the civil law. The law Socrates taught, was the moral one; the absolute; the god in man; reason; Logistikon; et al. So then, which is greater, the statuary or the moral? Which is right? Which is Proper? Which is Logical? Which is Rational? Which is Perfect? The function of government is to govern. If it was not, don't you suppose we would not call it government? The questions to ask are: What limits must a (external) government have? What shall the government govern? Who shall be the governed? etc... Why did I make this thread? I knew this would happen. You can say, "well this is a forum if you don't want to debate then don't post" but you know, I would simply tell you that you are not specifically addressing, much less considering, what I originally proposed or my reasons for it... etc... we could go on all day like this, but what the hell is the point? Give and take right? Push and pull
  13. Short Hair is Sexy!

    Great comments, thanks a bunch. I also see Dagny with short hair. -Derek
  14. God exists

    That's all fine and dandy but you still havn't told me why they are wrong, and to be quite honest I don't think you can. What is it that you find fault with my argument? Word Choice? How the statement is phrased? I don't get it. Is it your perceptions that are the conflict?
  15. Proposal: A second Constitution

    If by proper function of government you mean to say that the individual governs himself first and foremost then yes I understand quite well, however, not all people of a country are so able or interested in such as as it may be it is up to those that do to make it known what is proper and improper, through the/a controlled medium of government system by way of written statuary law and the persons who enforce it such as judge and jury or, if need be, the individual himself as in the case of Howard Roark. As far as hubris is concerned, I think you should reread what it said as I don't think you fully understand. That or I am not fully understanding you as I cannot see how anyone in their right mind could state so confidently that a law against hubris or acts of hubris can be wrong and restrictive of free speech. Just as it is morally wrong for a person to physically attack you for no reason whatsoever other than their own desire to, so to it is wrong for a person to insult you for no reason whatsoever other than their own subjective desires. I could very well cite the deterioration of society through various facts and statistics, but I won't because it is irrelevant information being that anyone who is aware enough would automatically realize and know what I am talking about. If you however, are not familiar with it, I would suggest you make it a top priority to find out as it is, as you say, hardly irrelevant and a pressing concern for any free thinking objectivist that knows absolute moral premise(s). Contradictions cannot exist in reality. Therefore if you see one, or should I say, think you see one, it is perceptual and opinionated. Push and pull buddy, push and pull
×