Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

ChristopherSchlegel

Regulars
  • Content Count

    246
  • Joined

  • Last visited

5 Followers

About ChristopherSchlegel

  • Rank
    Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.truthagainsttheworld.com
  • ICQ
    0
  1. Damn right. The fundamental alternative to point out regarding politics is Individualism (i.e. individual rights) vs. Collectivism (i.e. violation of individual rights). Calling him a statist is also accurate, but doesn't help much in political discussions with many people. His various premises & policies are all over the map with various "-isms" (all, except laissez-faire capitalism, of course). They are all accurate to various degrees. I think it is best to call him a collectivist. A spineless, collectivist parasite.
  2. Andrew, what do humans have the potential to do with instruments? Do you have a defintion of music that you could offer in alternative to what you disagree with concerning Ayn Rand's statement? Most specifically, if real-world instruments are "aperiodic", do you think there is a defining or essential characteristic to aperiodic sounds that makes it possible to separate them into two categories: musical and non-musical? My position is that any "auditory object" can be used to create music as long as it can be heard by a human ear and understandable to a human mind as pitch specific. So, you can create sounds from a violin, synth, or drums that are pitch specific enough to be musical in nature. Also, I listened to your MP3s on your myspace page linked in your signature. Are all the sounds in those MP3s representative of what you regard as musical sounds? Can you provide an example of a sound that is not potentially musical in nature? In my estimation this is right on the money. Wow. Well stated. Grames, I've sincerely enjoyed your replies in this thread.
  3. Oh, yeah! And I earned an amp endorsement with Reason Amps this past fall. http://www.reasonamps.com The idea with these vids is to demonstrate the basic settings & parameters of the amp with different guitars. 1. Epiphone jazz box into normal channel. 2. Epiphone jazz box into bright channel. 3. Epiphone jazz box into stack channel. 4. Fender Strat into normal channel. 5. Fender Strat into bright channel. 6. Fender Strat into stack channel. (Check out my shirt in the vid. ) Happy listening!
  4. Been a while since I posted here. Thought I'd drop in and put up a couple more recent links. Here's one aimed at beginners trying to learn lead. It's a primer on combining fills with simple chords in a blues. http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/Less...ead-Rhythm-111/ Here's another Blues Orchestration idea: http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/Less...ation-In-A-112/ Enjoy!
  5. I think your problem is in this assumption. I think it's more accurate to say there is a philosophical basis for it. As in the nature of human cognition & consciouness. There is a fundamental difference between philosophical & psychological. I think the reason it was widely developed was due to a lack of conceptual understanding of the metaphysical versus the man-made. It was used as an "explanation" of nature by some; a tool of manipulation by others. Ayn Rand's essay at the the beginning of For The New Intellectual contains a wonderful discussion & summation of these issues.
  6. Gibson has been gradually adding more of my lessons. My latest is pretty neat, a concise, but still complete intro to Chord Melody Style from the ground up. All still free on Gibson.com! http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/Less...Chord-Style-621 Here are some of my other recent lessons for Gibson: http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/Less...Style-Blues-512 http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/Less...fter-Youve-Gone http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/Less...Louis-Blues-320 Happy viewing!
  7. There is no need for a debate or a poll. We have a lexicon. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfishness.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/self-interest.html You are free to agree or disagree. Your life and the degree to which you enjoy it will be the result.
  8. Fair enough. But in my personal estimation, you seem unnecessarily concerned with upsetting people that are wrong in their understanding. You don't have to convince or conquer them. Just explain that you are rationally selfish and go about your business. You don't have to argue with every fool that comes along. If your actions are integrated with your professed principles, you will be happy, and anyone that is worth dealing with will notice it. Ayn Rand wrote about this issue in The Virtue Of Selfishness in an essay entitled, "How Does One Live A Rational Life In An Irrational Society?". Her theme in that essay addressing that valid question is: "One must never fail to pronouce moral judgment." -Ayn Rand VOS And this goes to the central issue involved here in this thread. You might be surprised how quickly the rats scurry back to their little holes when they hear a confident, perceptually successful, happy individual say with sincere conviction, "Yes, I am selfish. I am rationally self-interested. I have no intention of sacrificing my self-interest." You don't have to be mean or combative about it. Just be sincere. Do not be meek or unconvincing or humble. If nothing else, just do not agree with or acquiesce to the evaluation that self is in anyway bad. If you expect to have a chance to live and enjoy your life, if you ever expect to have a society that is ever more rational, we must never surrender the word self in any way shape form or connotation. Hell, yes. If they are of value to you, then be prepared to rationally, honestly, but not combatively, explain. This is wrong. And I wonder if it is not what is causing you trouble with this issue. Language is primarily about identification. Only after that first crucial task can it be used secondarily, as a consequence, as a tool of communication. So, yes it is individualistic. Like all thinking is. Best of success standing up for your self.
  9. Ayn Rand covered that quite well in Philosophy: Who Needs It. In particular, read the essays "Don't Let It Go" and "What Can One Do?". Also, support ARI - http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...te_arc_activism Some are evil. Most are either stupid or mistaken. Rationality is not automatic. Otherwise it wouldn't be a virtue. Yes, you are quite wrong here. I suggest re-reading Atlas Shrugged here if you truly think that is the case. If they were truly interested in wealth, they would work to create it, or work to protect it's source. Instead, their efforts are aimed at seizing what they did not create in order to destroy the wealth and it's creators. They are interested in the destruction of values, not the creation of values.
  10. I disagree. It is more accurate to say the popular package deal is that anything that is pro-self is immoral. I don't think most people understand that irrationality and not self is the root of immorality. Further, in the popular understanding of selfishness and selflessness there is no room for the trader principle. There is no room for the man that is neither master or slave. For example, it is perfectly moral for me to get a job, mind my own business and have a good life. Then, a local Christian busybody asks me to donate money to her altruist cause. I say, "No." She accuses me of being selfish because I don't want to give away my wealth to a cause in which I have no value. She is right about about this much: I am being selfish. And I would instantly agree with her, "You're damn right I am." But the point on which we disagree is in our moral evaluation of my selfishness. Conversely, by what standard would she call me irrational? She doesn't care about rationality vs. irrationality. She only wants me to give up my values because I value them. I respectfully disagree. An Objectivist (or any human that retains a shred of dignity) should never surrender the word self. Selfishness is the root of all good. No compromise. Ever. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfishness.html This is not accurate. The problem is that people evaluate altruism (via selflessness) as moral. To the degree that, as you say, any people already practice rational self-interest, this is of course how they stay alive (achieve values). The problem is that they regard this part of their lives as amoral at best and as a necessary evil at worst. This is how the average man morally evaluates: To work, earn a living, pay for a house without a handout, to enjoy a few leisure hours. The average man wants to do them and does do them. But he regards them as amoral or immoral. To give away all your money, to wash leper sores, to give up your leisure hours. The average man does not want to do them and does not do them. But he regards them as moral. What is the one thing that can help them to understand they have everything exactly upside-down? http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/self.html Not by itself. But as part of an integrated philosophy that contains the concept of self as good, it will. But of course, you are right that no one is actually selfless. It's impossible to achieve in perfection; it would mean death. This does not stop most people from evaluating altruism as good, and any action taken in self-interest as evil. In other words you have just evaluated stealing, mooching and looting as selfish by saying they aren't being selfless. It would be more appropriate to say they are being irrational by desiring and seizing that which they did not create and does not belong to them. Where is their self? It "exists" in the every person that did create the wealth they desire to steal. But there would not be a body of laws that enshire and enforce altruism as the good. Yes, since humans have free will, there will always be irrational people, parasites. The point is that the laws should restrain them from stealing that which does not rightfully belong to them. The laws would protect the property of those of us that are rational and selfish enough to create values to survive and enjoy life while we have it. Well said.
  11. I recently extracted some of footage from the larger context of a series of lessons on chord melody playing style. In it I play a little bit of W.C. Handy's "St. Louis Blues" by way of demonstration. The Gibson website picked up on it and embedded it on their lesson pages. It has been in rotation as a featured Lesson Of The Day. http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/Less...ouis-Blues-320/ Gibson originally gave me the guitar to do a series of video lessons on an "Introduction To Jazz Style Guitar". For example: http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/Less...z%20Style%20(2) Enjoy!
  12. Depends upon my mood. A quiet, pleasant mood leads to Irving Berlin's Isn't This A Lovely Day; "Let the rain pitter patter, but it really doesn't matter ..." Charming. Or Richard Rodgers' & Larry Hart's My Romance; "Wide awake I can make my most fantastic dreams come true ..." Beautiful. A loud, boisterious mood leads to Van Halen's So This Is Love?; Diamond Dave: "Big double take, but ya keep on walkin'!" Good stuff.
  13. Here is some recent footage of me using my Emperor at a local arts festival. First up is Duke’s luscious “Satin Doll”: Next is Irving Berlin’s lovely “Blue Skies”: A friend captured most of my performance so I have decent footage from 16 tunes that I will edit, render and upload to my YouTube page over time: http://www.youtube.com/user/ChristopherSchlegel Happy viewing and listening!
  14. Is this a remotely serious statement? Is this sarcasm or hyperbole? An Inconvenient Truth was a journalistic documentary-type propaganda film with no plot. It was presented (falsely) as non-fiction; as a "factual" report on real events. Wall-E is a fictional cartoon centered on the love story of two anthropomorphized robots. Did you miss the vast majority of the focus of the movie in which Wall-E follows Eve to the ends of the universe to win her love? At one point by jumping and clinging on to the outside of a launching spaceship?! Did you notice that everything Wall-E does is solely in order to win her love so he can hold (mechanical ) hands with Eve? In fact, even when Wall-E is "helping" the humans in the movie, it is largely in the way of a "comedy of errors". From Wall-E's perspective he is just trying to do whatever it takes to get Eve to hold hands with him like he saw in the old movie. That he helps the humans is practically incidental to him. Would he be chasing the plant around the ship if it was solely for the humans? Or to help "save the Earth"? No! It's all because he knows that it is what Eve wants (her "directive"). And like any good guy trying to win the love of the good gal he does everything he can. Did you even notice the love story? If you did, are you saying that the love story in the movie is a smokescreen set up by Pixar so they can push an environmentalist agenda?
×
×
  • Create New...