theestevearnold
-
Posts
282 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by theestevearnold
-
-
Well okay. But I mean, do you have an example of a person that does this? Where is an example of this?
I'd prefer to treat this as pondering the morality and ramifications of an event that could occur in the future.
It would be inappropriate for me to give the real, concrete example I have.
-
Steve: "Wrong" - to or for whom?
The original literature stands, and so for the rest, let the buyer beware. (The thinker think.)
The wrong is commited against Miss Rand, and against my concept of intellectual property rights. She created a philosophy and named it Objectivism.
If a man wrote a book presenting the philosophy of AR's Objectivism, with Christianity as one of its core tenets, the right thing to do would be to call his new philosophy by a new name.
The original U.S. Constitution still stands,
-
Still don't know what all the fuss was about.
1. Ayn Rand = sole proprietor;
2. Interested scholars publish their interpretations of her philosophy.
It's right for interested scholars to publish their interpretations of her philosophy.
It's wrong for anybody to edit AR's philosophy with contradictory principles and present their version as Objectivism.
-
She dismissed 19th century Romanticism for its rebellion against the rationalism of Enlightenment values.
I think I know what you meant, but in the interest of precision, AR's main qualm with 19th century romanticism (which she favored above all eras), was writers' explicit, altruism-based philosophies, which made it hard for them to portray a great hero.
Or in the case of Hugo, her favorite and mine, the beautiful sense-of-life that came out in his writing never matched up with his conscious beliefs, which made his soul have to hold contradictions.
Romantic-realism has the romanticism of larger than life characters and plot driven stories, with the realism of settings and events that can (and should) occur in reality. That's why I wondered if the realism part of romantic-realism is applicable to settings in the distant past (because the settings are so out-of-date, they can't occur). But I agree with SoftwareN that stories set in the past can be romantic-realism. And I'll add that what would qualify as romanticism, but not romantic-realism, is Star Trek and similar tales set in a place that couldn't have, or can't occur in reality.
I wouldn't consider the Three Musketeers romantic-realism because its characters and plot showed the highest elites rubbing elbows with a king and queen. AR's architect, and her woman running a railroad, and her scenes (which could occur in regular society), give AR's romanticism the realism of which she spoke.
The 19th century romanticism of Hugo had grand themes with deep moral issues interwoven into the plot structure. AR pointed out that, nowadays, the grand themes and deep moral issues of 19th century romanticism have been reduced to the plain old romanticism of good versus evil.
P.S. Cyrano de Bergerac by Rostandt is the greatest romantic play ever and it's a short read.
-
Closed.
AR named her philosophy Objectivism and never implied it's a living, breathing document.
If a person or committee, all of whom weren't appointed by AR, decide to make a "correction," and I don't accept it as valid, there become two or more Objectivisms.
If anybody wants to "correct" Objectivism, please give your results a new name, so there's no confusion.
-
I googled Objectivism Online and it said the people running this site are a bunch of hypocritical crybabies.
I followed the trail to a site called Objectivist Living, where Objectivist Living Stuff by Michael Stuart Kelly informed me that the position of the site is that Objectivism is "dynamic, not static," and they "correct" it.
If the owner of OL wants a committee to amend AR's philosophy, he should call the results something else, and without any hyphens bumping up against Objectivism.
-
Hello,
I am looking for a book (not too long) that capsulizes Romantic Love. I would like a book that was written for the 1900-1960's setting in somewhere like New York.
Doesn't have to be in NY or that time period, but I would like to avoid any rural setting if possible
.Thank you.
This isn't the value you seek--it's a movie and it's in a rural setting--but it's definitely a great work of fiction, it's about romantic love, and it's set in the time period you wanted: Australia, starring Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman.
-
In my above post I shouldn't have assumed everybody knows identity is the corollary axiom of existence.
-
On my post #45, I accidentally put my words in Hernan's quote box. My words begin when I told him: "You don't understand how great fiction works."
-
What would that brilliant Marx fellow say in this situation?
-
Let's set aside the fortuitous circumstances (your girlfriend, that people listen to you, etc.) and focus simply on this: what does the term "withdrawal of sanction of the victim" add to the above? If you had simply outlined the above plan as a method for freeing yourself (and others) from the IRS it is at lease plausible. But what did the "sanction of the victim" contribute to the explanation? (And, note, we could as easliy invent a story that liberates a slave population (see e.g. Exodus) or a population from Communism (see e.g. the fall of the Berlin Wall).)
I noted before that a story that rests on populism is not very interesting. That's old-school politics. What made Rand's story so interesting was that it entailed so few people going on strike. People were not persuaded by Galt's speech. Any plan which rests on perduading a significant number of people that the IRS is evil and that they should, in some coordinated fashion, obstruct it, is just not realistic. Is that too pessimistic?
You don't understand how great fiction works. Unlike the slice of life naturalists who present an issue that only applies to a specific bunch of folks next door, Good Romantic fiction presents grand themes with moral implications that can be applicable to a billionaire industrialists or a skateboarder, when the general guiding principles are understood.
Do you understand?
-
Marx was brilliant
Who Is Marx?
-
1. I decide to withdraw my sanction from the IRS.So tell us how you withdraw your sanction of the IRS? I submit that the cases where the withdrawal of sanction is applicable are negligable.
2. I think about what would be the most effective way to do it (Defining "most effective": a plan that would ensure that the repercussions would be something I am willing to accept, and one where the end result would quite possibly not turn out to be that my efforts were all for naught)....I get an idea! I think about if it is worth the risk.
3. I decide to go for it.
4. I take action. I text my homegirl, Kennedy, 'cause she just landed a new show called the Independents on Fox Business. I explain to her that I wanna give a five minute speech on her show that will garner great ratings, due to the controversial nature. I explain the general outline and assure her that, when she reads it, if she doesn't think it's worth it, I won't pressure her.
5. I write a speech which, in five minutes, will explain the philosophical principles that prove taxation is immoral and convince the majority of taxpaying Americans to go on a tax strike until the government finds moral ways to earn revenue, some of which I'll outline, along with mentioning legislators from both sides who have said they could support my ideas.
6. I show Kennedy the speech. She says, "Your nuts, but go for it. Five minutes. Then no fillibusterin', and your gonna have to debate a former IRS bureaucrat." I accept and thank her.
7. I put on a suit and tie and shave and Kennedy's makeup artist covers up my face and neck and hand tats. I go on her show immediately following a segment about the IRS targeting not only righties, but lefties too, and showing the negative impact on the young regarding the Obamacare mandate tax (with clips of outraged lefties and righties and college kids). I look great, I give my speech and spank the IRS dude in the debate.
8. My speech hits all the media outlets and, although I don't like the word "populism", that's the word all the journalists, commentators and pundits are using when they hear about the tens of millions of former taxpayers who have gone on strike until the government implements moral ways to earn revenue.
9. The IRS doesn't try to arrest everybody. They can't.
My example was withdrawing sanction against the U.S., one of the hardest to do, but possible. There are almost an unlimited number of other lesser instances that occur constantly in lives all over the world, and all those cases that you submit, the application of which, as being negligible, I submit as being a profoundly vital recognition, choice, and action available to billions of people. The principle remains the same whether it's withdrawing sanction from a powerful, immoral government or an ungrateful wife. It doesn't apply to all situations and wishing it to work out fine won't achieve the desired results. But it can be an important realization and decision and application in many lives in which the context makes it a good option.
-
As a layman, it seems that Vicksters determinism implies a creator and some other complicated things have implied that the corollary axiom, identity, doesn't always apply.If I mischaracterized it I apologize. If I got it right then I disagree on the philisophical grounds that my volitional consciousness has been proven to exist (thereby negating determinism) and leaving the creator issue as an arbitrary assertion (thereby no response is necessary), and you can't disprove existence (identity) without accepting it as a premise in your argument (thereby contradicting oneself).
If trying to prove determinism (and therefore deism), and that some things have no identity, is what that great mind is being used for, he's wasting his time.
-
And why do bad things happen to good people and vice versa?
!@#%* happens.
-
Turn it round, why do bad things happen to good people? Or, why do good things happen to good people? Or bad things to bad people?
The questions presuppose that everyone always gets his justice in reality - or, is rewarded/punished by some mystical Being (which can be safely dismissed in this company.) But being "good" in Objectivist terms, while no guarantee of only good things, in the short run - sets one up to withstand the bad things: supporting one's values by dint of rational selfishness and one's virtues.
A "bad" person by any definition, is always one who exists (in one way, or other) through, or by, other people - is therefore, self-sacrificial - therefore, altruistic. When he gains anything "good" by immoral means, he cannot take pride in their possession. When the bad things come along as they will (and victims withdrawing their sanction is only one possibility) he has nothing left, existentially, because he has already surrendered his self.
Thank you, man. I agree, if you're implying that the question has a false premise. And it smacked of determinism or some kinda oriental karma trip. Or just plain ol pessimism.
What are good people? People who think and act in accordance with reality.
Why do good things happen to them? Most importantly, because they shape events to produce good outcomes.
What are bad people? People who don't think and act in accordance with reality.
Why do bad things happen to them? Among other things, they sometimes feel that wishing for things is enough to stop bad things from happening to them, or when they do take action to shape events to prevent a bad outcome, their lack of adherance to reality causes their efforts to fail.
-
Let me note the points of agreement and the proceed to the points of disagreement. I agree that context matters. I agree that there exist contexts where a mere withdrawal of sanction is sufficient (I previusly gave the example of Rearden and his wife and family).
It is right to ask what is "sanction of the victim". I read that term as meaning some choice that the individual makes. In the example of Rearden and his wife and family, he was choosing to allow himself to be impresoned by them. Once he realized this he was able to choose differently. Their power over him rested on his sanction alone. However, defining sanction of the victim as you have seems absurd for the reason I noted previously. Better, I think, to say, as you seem now to imply, that in some situations a victim can gain his freedom by withdrawing sanction and recognize that this is not the general case.
The examples of slavery, then, is not invalid. It is simply an example of a situation where sanction of the victim does not explain and thus withdrawal of sanction is useless.
As for being "too late" in some situation, this is also pretty useless. When has society ever been without taxation, for example? When have the makers ever been free of takers? It would be more useful to inquire as to resolution in any actual situation or in the most dire situations (e.g. slavery or full blown statism). Did Rand really have nothing useful to offer to those living under Communism, for example? If you can answer the worst or the general case then you can answer the easier cases. If you can only answer the easy cases then, well, so what?
Perhaps I expected too much from Rand's explanation but, if so, I am not alone. See e.g. the second post in this thread.
I said it's not too late because there are certain contexts when withdrawal of sanction doesn't work, as when a government becomes too oppressive, and the U.S. government is not there yet.
AR never said it would be appropriate for slaves. She never said it would be appropriate in all contexts. You've found a context where it wouldn't apply and you repeatedly point to that as your example.
And since this issue was in the context of the U.S. moving towards statism, and you ask me if AR had nothing to offer communists, it's clear that, while you aknowledge the importance of context, you seem intent on removing the context by pointing to situations (slavery, communism) that don't apply.
And it's clear that you aren't recognizing that the thought, "I withdraw my sanction," requires action. You only speak of making the "choice" to withdraw sanction. I choose to be rich. But that alone ain't gonna do it. Actions must follow. Whether withdrawing my sanction is as easy as the action of saying, "I won't comply," or as difficult as Ghandi and a million other sanction withdrawers getting together to sit down and refuse to do what the cops tell them to do (which wouldn't have worked in other, much more brutal nations at that time, aka other contexts), action follows thought or it's just ivory tower blather.
-
This expands the meaning of the phrase to meaninglessness. If my withdrawal of sanction depends on the actions of John Galt and the coordinated activities of dozens of others then it's not very meaningful. I am not, in that case, a victim merely because I am sanctioning my oppressors but because some external chain of events has yet to transpire.
Returning to the example of slavery, it's like saying that slaves sanction their enslavement because they have not been liberated yet.
Did you fail to notice the context surrounding each instance of withdrawal of sanction? (Notice that Reardon had to drive down all the way down to the court building, stand up, and give a speech to withdraw his sanction.
But maybe you consider a "withdrawal of sanction" simply a thought without action? Do you? I don't. Thought without subsequent action is an academic excersize at best. If I wanna opt out (withdraw my sanction) of an internet service, I must take the action of clicking the link, then clicking the opt out box. Sometimes withdrawal is much more difficult. Context must be considered when determining the actions required.
Again, you revert to your invalid slavery example. Withdrawal of sanction is possible in certain contexts, like the context of the situation in the U.S. at the time Atlas Shrugged occured. AR never implied that withdrawal of sanction would've been an appropriate remedy for slaves, and although I don't have the quote, she's indicated that in a full-blown, statist, totalitarian dictatorship with full censorship, it would be too late. (It would take force, which is not a "withdrawal of sanction.")
And the context of each particular victim's situation dictates the level of action required. andCan you provide an example that would fit into the context of the U.S. (in the near future, before it falls into full blown statism)?
Or can you pick a specific example of an instance in Atlas Shrugged and invalidate it by applying it to the current situation of the U.S.'s trajectory.
-
As I noted originally, Rand's theory was the "sanction of the victim." But this explanation is, I believe, inadequate. Yes, there may be some situations where this holds true and it may well be part of the problem in every case but it cannot alone resolve the paradox.
It's adequate, and paradox-free, if you don't drop the context:
AS is set in the U.S., where there is no slavery, so your slavery example (below quote) is a straw man.
The strikers in AS withdrew their minds' as group, within a short time frame, which made it work, and which makes your implications regarding citizens in jail for tax evasion serving to warn others (below quote), a context-drop, because it doesn't properly recognize that crucial element of the story.
Example: If enough U.S. citizens recognized forced taxation for what it is and, suddenly (say, within the time frame of Ellis Wyatt's strike and Hank Reardon's), refused to sanction it, it would stop. The IRS wouldn't dare prosecute a hundred million Americans earners who suddenly said no to taxes, and publicly explained why.
Sometimes a victim withdrawing his sanction can be as easy as saying no, and maybe hiring a divorce lawyer.
Sometimes it requires an impeccably-timed orchestration of a single genius who offers his fellow victims a specific way out. (Who is that?)
Precisely. Similarly, we can say that slaveholders do not need the sanction of slaves so long as they are wiling to be absolutely brutal. It's true, of course, that dead slaves don't till soil and that citizens in jail do not pay taxes. But that they do serve as warnings to others.
-
I want a woman who has mastered a musical instrument (except trombone, unless it's a tiny one), who's quick rough pencil sketches of superheroes always include receding hairlines that bear uncanny resemblances to mine, and who doesn't snore (or works a night shift).
-
When a street cop glances in an open window and sees a parent spanking his child?
When an illiterate parent homeschools his child?
When a religious parent forces his son to go to church?
What special rights (similar to property rights) do parents have concerning their children?
-
Toilers of the Sea by Hugo
-
Wait...Can stories set in the past, like the 1920s, be considered romantic-realism?
-
Well to be more specific, I'll use the actual words "valid" and "invalid" when describing styles of art. So the styles that I was talking about being "excluded" (impressionism, naturalism, modernism, photography, etc.)
shadesofgrey, you've misrepresented Objectivism. The above quote is one of your few lines that had a valid--no pun intended--issue to clarify......
AR defined art as "a selective re-creation of reality according to the artists metaphysical value judgements."
Modern art such as Jackson Pollock's paint splatters do not qualify as art, though it could be classified as the lesser, decorative art.
Photography does not qualify as art either, though if a person re-created reality into a scene to be photographed, he could be considered an artist.
Impressionism is art.
Naturalism is art.
Is Objectivism an Open or Closed System?
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted
Because it involves a prominent member of a different Objectivist site. A moderator of this site made me realize that possibly creating what might seem like a cross-site tit-for-tat would be inappropriate.