Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Amit

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Country
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. I see where was my mistake. Naturally if i think the theme is inconsistent I will see the plot as inconsistent, but it still is a metaphysical and not aethetical judgement. But just for the fun of it, a movie which i don't agree with but think is good: Se7en (SPOILER) with it's ending when Somerset tells mills that if he kills Doe, Doe will win. (since he will get what he wants, which is punishment for the sinners.) But he wins anyway, since they are judging his according to the christian morality and not theirs. However this scene is really intensive and done brilliantly.
  2. Why would it be a good example? Rand point was that sheer enjoyment of a work isn't a tool for evaluating it, because the enjoyment depends on your subconcious values. I am looking for a method for evaluating films objectively, both estheticly and metaphysicaly.
  3. A piece of art is saying "This is life, and this is how I see it". As Ayn Rand said, you don't have to agree with the artist's metaphysical value judgements in order to evaluate his work as good art. However, let's say that you recognize in a movie the theme that Altruism leads to happiness. if you don't agree with this theme, you will unavoidably find inconsistencies in the plot itself. So how can you evaluate the theme of a movie as wrong and still evaluate it as a good art? Where does metaphysical judgement stops and esthetic judgement begins?
  4. I am struggling to understand the notion of volition. Both Peikoff and Branden says that determinism is self contradictory, since that in order to obtain knowledge, one must choose to think. If a man must believe what he believes, they say, if he can't judge his judgements, how can he know that he is right? that pertains also to the theory of Determinism. (from "psychology of self esteem"). However, the determinist might answer, that he does agree that in order to know something one must focus, but he doesn't have to choose to focus. He will say, I did not choose to think, but I did. I
  5. Sartre once had an example for why ethics is subjective: he told about a student that didn't know if to choose to go and fight the Nazis or stay home and take care of his mother. Sartre said that there is no answer for that: you can't say which option is better, good, and only the action itself will signify what does the student think is better. Now Ayn Rand defined value as "that which someone acts to gain or keep". This definition seems circular to me, so it doesn't solve the problem: value is that which you act to gain or keep, and you act to gain or keep that which you value. It doe
  6. Thank you for your answers. Recently, I've heard a lecture by Edwin Locke, where he says that you cannot cure your self esteem directly. Do you think he is trying to critique Branden's approach? And what do you think about Branden's philosophy of self esteem in general?
  7. I agree, but i am asking about the philosophical differences berween their approaches.
  8. I've been reading "Six pillars of self esteem" by Branden, and I've wondered: What was the source of the dispute between Rand and Branden? I mean, what are the philosophical differneces- the ideological dispute, not the personal one.
  9. Ok, I'm still trying to figure out what is the connection, and nto what it's not.
  10. According to rand, what is the essence of the connection between the mental realm and the physical realm? I understand that it is not deterministic, since that by introspection I can see that i can choose the causes of my action, but does that mean that De facto I am changing the route of the electrons in my brain?
  • Create New...