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
    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
    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 me
    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 interest
    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
    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
    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, bea
    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...