Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

ilrein

Regulars
  • Posts

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ilrein

  1. Hey, I know exactly how you feel. Except in my case, every teacher is an altruist-collectivist-socialist. Needless to say, I will be attending an applied science course at college next year and as of right now, I'm absolutely loving my assignments. There is some sort of terrible irony that only when you expect to fail are you free to produce high quality academic papers.
  2. What exactly are games if they are not art?
  3. There is one thing the articles bring to attention: What is the truth behind Branden and Greenspan? How can people dedicated to reason completely reject Objectivism, after spending years advocating it? PS: isn't it funny how biographers pretend to have an objective view of the author but use the ugliest picture of her possible as a cover?
  4. I'm attending Laurier Brantford, roughly 2-3 hours from the heart of Toronto. SuperMeteriod, how long were in you in college before you dropped out? What were you studying originally? What was your reasoning for dropping out? What type of entrepreneurial path did you choose? How long was it before you reached tangible success? What is your life like now? Zip, what did you choose to study? How did it affect your life? Do you ever get bored with your trade? Lucio, I'm not depressed. I never truly get depressed, I just find myself purposeless when it seems that the only course of action availible to me is waiting till I get older. When this happens I blast romantic hip hop and feel ecstatic. The point of the paradox is that it can be answered either way, because it relies on context-dropping to avoid a definite answer. Notice how you have a different answer then Aristotle? Does that make you wrong? Clearly not, both sides are valid in their respective context.
  5. The Futurist: The Life and Films of James Cameron written is a biography written by Rebecca Keegan. I've had a certain respect for the man ever since he appeared on Entourage and I sincerely enjoyed Avatar, and one day while I was at the library (the best socialist manifestation ever!) I picked up this book and fell in love with it. James Cameron is a modern day Howard Roark. The parellels between the two characters are so linear it's practically prophetic. Starting from the lowest rung on the social ladder, he rose to the top through sheer love of his work and refusal to compromise his artistic integrity. A man who is so much more then just a filmmaker, but a true visionary; an entire career that is a slap-to-the-face of those who claimed "it could not be done!" I won't spoil it for you, but like the actor who plays Vincent Chase, James Cameron is far more amazing then what we know from the movie screens. The only criticism I have of the book is the biographers implicit subconscious philosophy, Cameron stands for a rational universe, but Rebecca Keegan does not. It's very small things, like referring to Cameron's leadership skills as "innate" and generally using wording congruent with a deterministic universe. Luckily there are only a few occasions where her philosophy undermines the true glory of Cameron's achievements, it is still a fantastic read!
  6. I'm in Canada, here the distinction between college and university is significant. Unsurprisingly, I didn't read the university papers carefully and registered late -- I got into my major but I had to choose from whatever classes weren't full. This actually hit me heavily, I have been harboring a similar hope and if I stay on this course I am likely to end up in your unfavourable situation. Generally speaking, in Canada university is the theoritical route, which means higher cost and more years but ultimately superior job prospects (allegedly). College is the practical route, learning specific skills in a short time frame which generally lead to fast employment. In the face of educational dissappointment, I have considering dropping out and entering college to learn a practical skill I know nothing about and find enjoyment in the sheer reason. But then I'm scared I'll either get bored of my trade and resent my career, and realize that I have wasted valuable years in which I could have already gotten that godforsaken degree. I feel this is likely, I am the type of person who enters a frenzy of passion with immediate action, only to get a new idea and completely drop the incomplete previous one. PS: Eioul, where did your choice to learn a practical skill from scratch lead you?
  7. Hey bluecherry, I'm attending university, not college. I am here for a variety of reasons-- 1) Obligation. My parents saved money for me to attend post secondary education, and I was pushed into this. 2) Experience. I figured that if I must go to university, I may as well pick one which would allow me to live independently. I'm majoring in Journalism, essentially a useless degree, but its really a class in practical philosophy; it tackles all the major questions of our time, concerning freedom and individualism. I do not think that by changing schools I would escape the problems I find here, altruistic ethics have permeated every fabric of society. The frustration I feel towards my teachers is their lack of adherence to Objectivism. I don't expect them to read Rand, but at least to be rational -- my Environment & Society professor started the class with explaining that humans are innately flawed, but we can "moderate" such weaknesses, believing in some twisted form of biological determinism; that the search for prestige and power is part of the nature of humanity. I can't make stuff like this up. I am here because the subject of journalism -- practical philosophy -- is a stand alone fascination. I am not here because I expect a certain job after, but because the education itself is the end. Hence my serious dissappointment. My big issue is the life choice I have to wrestle with now. Do I stay in school, gather debt, and attend classes I know are useless for an undergraduate degree? I am uncertain, I do not know if it is worth enduring trash for a shiny piece of paper that apparently I cannot live without. One thing I know the degree is truly good for is basically being a travel ticket. I have done some brief research and found numerous decently paid teach-english-overseas jobs that require a degree, and for those that don't, typically result in lower pay. Not to mention, I'm only 18, another three years and I'll be at a prime age for exploring the world; but I risk putting myself in significant debt by the time I actually reach that point. I also hate the idea of merely waiting for time to pass, I feel purposeless
  8. I'm finding myself in a low period, emotionally. Depression is too strong of a word but unhappiness isn't. I felt like writing since I had always found a certain solace in it. I suppose the primary reason for my state is the education I'm recieving. Or lack of one to be precise. Especially so now, during the start of 2nd semester. I see my professors approaching topics which concern our entire lives, being trusted with such a task of incredible importance, of teaching young minds, offering leadership and guidance in a strange and frightening world; and sitting in that class day by day watching them fail spectacularily. I find myself sitting and wishing that our roles could be reversed, knowing to the very center of my being that if I was trusted with such a mission I would do it justice. Every single professor I have had has failed me, and I don't mean in the sense of grades. Today was another especially crushing dissappointment, because my philosophy professor had inspired hope in me the first class, and by the second it was gone. We were tasked with answering the problem of Theseus' Ship. In summary the problem goes like so: Theseus takes a ship loaded with lumber cargo to a destination. On the first day on route, he replaced a plank with some of the cargo. The next day he replaced another one. By the time he reached his destination, the original material of the ship had completely replaced. The question is asked: "is the ship the same as when he left?" Looking at the textbook, I saw two rationales; one supported Yes and another supported No. After some thought and brief research, I realized the purpose and the flaw of this apparent "paradox", and I understood the psychology of a professor who would ask such a question. You see, this is only a paradox because of the way the question is asked, relying on context-dropping to purposefully confuse the student. It blurs the line between metaphysics and epistemology by assuming the concept of the ship is the same as the materials that compose it. The entire strength of the question is simply a question of context, what exactly does the asker of the question mean when he uses the word same? After that, the answer is self-evident. So it makes one wonder why anyone would purposefully ask a question designed to confuse a person, no less being the philosophy teacher, who is entrusted with the vital job of training young minds. I had all this figured out two hours before class started, and I sat down in the lecture hall with the expectation that the professor would ask this question -- play devil's advocate and refute any students logic, by switching the context of the word same -- and then simply refuse to give us the answer, because she didn't know it herself. With all this in mind, I decided to trap the professor into a situation where she would be forced to give an answer. One red-headed student came close to the truth of the paradox, he said that you couldn't answer either Yes or No because there can be no dichotomy. She responded with "humor me, yes or no?" and he was stuck. I figured now was as good of a time as ever, I raised my hand. She acknowledged me. "I have a question for you, and I would like you to humor me with an answer." She nodded. "Are you the same professor as you were last week?" "What do you think?" she curtly replied. "Well, I asked you" I shot back at her. She paused for a moment. Then said "and I asked you." The class burst out laughing. This is the second time my questioning has inadvertedly caused my peers to collectively laugh at me, and this is only my second class. I felt my heart beating rapidly, not because of everyone else, but because I felt a rush of excitement at achieving my goal. Like the red-headed student before me, she was stuck. She paused for a moment a bit longer then necessary and responded by evasion. She said she would answer my question later when we get to people, since after all, its self-evident that humans are different then boats, then she rambled a bit about the mind and body, then she said that for "all practical purposes, you can assume that I am the same professor as last week. Philosophy is concerned with the practical." Then she looked at me with the confidence of a conclusion, blissfully unaware that we just spent 90% of the class dealing with a flawed abstract question, while somehow still holding the notion that "philosophy deals with the practical." And for the fitting conclusion, guess how the answer of Theseus' Ship was resolved? She decided "ok, enough of this" and proceeded to lecture us on some equally clueless philosophers for the last twenty minutes until we were free. I feel much better now. I am caught between a crossroad in my life. I see no valid reason to remain in university anymore, aside from the promise of a undergraduate degree, which would consume vast financial resources and subject me to many more hours of intellectual torture. When I say torture, I am not exaggerating. A philosophy professor who's sheer purpose is to confuse, not educate, is the best of the worse. In my main journalism class, if I asked the professor as to whether he supports communism, he would respond "no" but then proceed to give us a lecture on the pro's and con's of private vs. public radio and support only the latter. Fuck this place. I need to do some serious soul-searching.
×
×
  • Create New...