Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/13/16 in all areas

  1. Given the complexity of the human mind, the meet-between of theory and concrete with regard to music will be hard to generalize across many people. A personal example: Radiohead. I developed an interest during a period where my internal outlook was grim, and legitimately "loved" listening, in the "twisted" way that I could love anything at the time. As my life outlook changed, the association to that grim period and the grim music style kept me from listening, but over time I enjoyed them again for the "good" reasons: the music is interesting and complex and has all the elements of music that I enjoy otherwise, except that it is malevolent (although, over time their age has softened that). Furthermore, now I like the mental throwback to that former period in my life! So, they are still one of my favorite bands -- my chosen philosophy is Objectivism, but I love a "malevolent" band.
    2 points
  2. And how do we know that the new guy is in error, versus that his critics are? By whose interpretation and aesthetic response do we judge? We can all declare that we're guided by Objectivism, and therefore that each of our differing tastes and interpretations are the properly integrate ones, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. Then, unless someone can actually provide some proof (which Rand admits is not possible without the missing "conceptual vocabulary") it's basically just an irrational shouting match in which one side is just posing as being better and more integrated Objectivists. As Tyler is suggesting, I think people should like what they like. Instead of asking if it meets Objectivism's criteria or approval, why not start with the assumption that, being an admirer of Objectivism, you probably like it for some reason that is consistent with Objectivism, perhaps even without fully recognizing it yet. So instead of heading down the path to a guilt trip and self-repression, why not ask a different set of questions, such as, why does this resonate with me? Others tend to see it as bad and icky and depressing, but is that the way that I see it? Does it make me feel powerful? Inspired? Rebelious? What virtuous thing about it am I responding to? J
    2 points
  3. I'm surprised a campaigning presidential candidate would say that. Do you have a source? I've seen a video where Cruz responded to a similar question, and he didn't say outright that an atheist shouldn't vote for him in that particular video. However, he did dodge the question and use it as an opportunity to pander to his Christian voter base about how atheists should hope their president has Christian values. Is that what you're referring to?
    1 point
  4. I'm sorry, so your answer is that this music doesn't exist, but it will magically appear some day? Or is your answer that this music does in fact exist, we just can't prove which music it is, just yet?
    1 point
  5. But, what if we observe that many people have a similar response to a certain song or painting? There's an objective observation. But, what kinds of people are they? More objectivity. Even with yourself, there are certain objective conclusions you can draw about your own emotional reactions. Other conclusions are not so clear. Music is so emotional, and it might be useful to say that your reaction is "subjective." But, we know that all of reality is objective, so what you're really terming "subjective" is simply the unknown reasons behind the emotional responses of your mind.
    1 point
  6. Sometimes I fear that discussions like these get a little bit lost in the abstract. How about a concrete scenario for everyone to consider? (This will be detail-lite, which might not serve everyone's interest, but I like to try to keep things simple for as long as possible.) Suppose a guy who grows up enjoying heavy metal music. In his late-teens or early-20s, he discovers Ayn Rand/Objectivism and finds himself convinced that this philosophy is correct. He sets about reassessing various features of his life as he integrates this new philosophy. One day he signs into an Objectivist message board and greets the community, introducing himself as a "big fan of heavy metal." Suppose someone else responds and (rightly or wrongly) says, "Heavy metal? That's not life-affirming; it's not compatible with Objectivism, and you have a lousy sense of life!" How do we assess this situation, and how ought our hero respond (externally and/or internally)?
    1 point
  7. There are in actuality a multitude of options, some of which are variants of, for now (and perhaps thinking long term is not possible yet...): Trying to live through the pain of the loss, keeping her memory alive, being true to her and what she saw and loved about him, honoring the gifts she gave to him by not throwing them all away, taking it day by day and waiting for the time when the fog of pain will start to lift. Give your friend a little time to be crazy, but if you believe he is doing something now which he will regret later, then your self-interest in his end-in-himself interests, requires that you not support him in doing something which is life defeating and possibly require your diplomatic attempts to dissuade him from doing them. You must be careful of course to keep in mind that people do generally know what is best for themselves... although in such a state this depends greatly on the context and the person. You should be careful also, that in addition to your nor supporting his life-diminishing actions that you also positively support him in ways which are life-affirming, (Since paradoxically withdrawal of support for life-diminishing acts may itself have life-diminishing effects if he feels you have abandoned him in his time of need etc.) Simply acknowledging his unprecedented level of pain and the greatness of his loss are of most importance for now.
    1 point
  8. A sudden death so young will always be extremely disorienting. Most people have some rough long-term view of how their life will unfold: not in the details, but in the general category and direction. The view fits integrates with one's purpose in life (or purposes -- plural -- as most would see it). A death means the plans (the concrete one) are wrecked. It's not uncommon for one reaction to be a defiant: "this doesn't change anything... I will stick to my plan". Denial? Sure, but like any emotional reaction, it has its place as long as it does not get out of hand. I agree with the other posters: as a friend, your role right now is to be supportive. Perhaps read up on the "stages of grief", to understand the process. Do not try to rush things. For this to play out over a year would be unsurprising. I'd say: watch your friend and support him all the way to the point where he reaches a phase of depression and self-pity. That will be the most difficult, because the nature of that phase is to push people away by pissing them off. If you value the friendship, stick with that too, and you will hopefully see it wane. That would be the time to help him to the final stage: acceptance.
    1 point
  9. Hey everyone, see what I'm talking about? Thin-skinned mischaracterization of my posts, smugness, condescension and bitterness. Throwing gasoline on the fire. J
    1 point
  10. How are you not understanding that that's exactly what I'm doing?!!! I'm explaining to young, amateur philosophy hobbyists and unskilled promoters of Rand's ideas how to curb their irrational instincts, unearned and unwarranted hubris and zealotry, and improve their methods. You're reaction seems to be quite defensive. Reread what I've written. I've said good things as well as critical things. I've written that OO is generally a good place, that it has improved greatly, but still has a lot of room for improvement, and the same is true of the "official" Objectivist organizations. They should be eagerly inviting criticism and debate on Objectivism, especially from academia, rather than running away from it and doing the best to prevent it. The owners and moderators here should be doing the same thing, albeit on a smaller level. No insult intended, but you're not experts here in any of the relevant arts or sciences. When someone like, say, Daniel Barnes (from the Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature blog) shows up here, celebrate it as an opportunity for intellectual smackdown, rather than snarkily impeding him behind the scenes and then banning him. Do you have confidence in Rand's and your own ideas? If so, then act like it. Actions speak louder than words. J
    1 point
  11. This is relevant to something I was thinking about recently. When I first joined this forum I was dismayed and baffled at the trend of the most competent members posting very rarely or already having vanished entirely, even though I was aware of a number of them definitely still being supportive of Objectivism and interested in things related to it. If it was just a couple people for a while, I would think people probably were just busy. It was too many people for too long to seem likely that was the case though. The other day, I was watching something crappy. (I do have a point, bear with me here for a moment.) A character was looking for a new group to learn about something from which she had recently started studying. To get accepted to this group, she had to demonstrate having some level of knowledge and skill established on the subject first. She did her demonstration, but it turned out that what she demonstrated was already well above what the other people in that group knew and could do. She was no longer interested in this group, but they asked her to stay and teach them how to do what she had just done. She told them basically that she had come there to learn, not to teach, and marched off. My thoughts at this were, "Yeah, screw teaching. Teaching sucks." It occurred to me that that might have a lot to do with the trend I mentioned earlier: we came here to learn, not to teach. Learning is a lot more fun and less work than teaching, especially in philosophy, assuming we're not talking about formal settings with tons of tests and papers and projects involved. Being a student as opposed to a teacher in philosophy mostly involves reading and asking questions when you don't understand something while a teacher does most of the writing and answering of stuff that is old news to them. Teaching obviously can be very beneficial for the teacher too, but in a less direct and less guaranteed way. So, I think when people get to where they feel like they're doing more teaching than learning, they often get pickier about when, where, how, and who they'll teach, aiming to get the most bang for their buck out of their teaching efforts. As it relates to the main thread issue, that may mean less posting in general due to switching from posting abundantly while learning to more sparsely while teaching, but also when they do teach, people may start tending toward teaching (usually it just so happens to take place in private) people they personally know because those people have a greater impact on their lives and/or seeking public platforms that reach as many people as they possibly can. This forum is public and does come up prominently if people search online for places to discuss Objectivism, but many threads and topics are by a small number of strangers and are closely related to topics which have already been discussed pretty thoroughly elsewhere on the forum before. People looking on the forum probably can just go check those older threads instead of seeing posts in the new thread, so those new threads are likely to get less traffic, to have less impact.
    1 point
  12. Peikoff should not name a successor because the idea is ridiculous. Experts on Objectivism should be identified by the independent judgment of each listener, and there is no reason to have one as the 'head' of the movement now that Rand is gone.
    1 point
  13. I voted you down. First you make a comment revealing that you have not quite fully comprehended the point of Atlas Shrugged. That plus the juxtaposition of the comment about the absence of prominent Objectivists which created the association that they are not here because they are on strike against OO.net. Those two sentences are contradictory to each other. It is just an outrageously incoherent casual "drive-by" post, badly composed and creating confusion. I voted you down for form as much as content. As to the rest of you post, define "insult".
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...