c_prompt
-
Posts
19 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by c_prompt
-
-
While I see most critics rightfully jumping on the ridiculousness of "safe spaces," try not to bang your head against your keyboard when you read this: This is Not a Day Care. It’s a University!
To mock the "trigger warning" culture, here's a taste:
QuoteThat feeling of discomfort you have after listening to a sermon is called a conscience. An altar call is supposed to make you feel bad. It is supposed to make you feel guilty. The goal of many a good sermon is to get you to confess your sins—not coddle you in your selfishness. The primary objective of the Church and the Christian faith is your confession, not your self-actualization.
Doesn't get any clearer.
-
21 minutes ago, JASKN said:
I'm not sure how you might have been using RSS since I didn't use it myself, but there is still an RSS link at the top of the "Unread Content" (ie. your default content stream) page. I couldn't locate another RSS button elsewhere.
The URL used to be: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?app=core&module=global§ion=rss&type=forums&id=3 but I see that unread content RSS link which is now http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/discover/1.xml. Thanks.
-
RSS is gone? :(
-
Having gotten both a business B.A. and MBA, I can very much appreciate your lack of inspiration from a business education. I think this kind of reaction/reflection is one of the reasons why business schools are seeing such a huge interest in entrepreneural programs.
I have a friend who's an artist (primarily realistic oil paintings, but her abilities span the artistic gamut). She's a huge fan of Rand's work (The Fountainhead being her favorite) and she's even volunteered at an ARI event in the past. She doesn't really have any business experience but she's starting to create ideas for putting together videos to learn to paint. Perhaps you and her could work together to join your business knowledge with her artistic knowledge and create a business together. You could help her plan the videos (e.g., by asking her questions around how to get into painting, share the types of art you'd like to be able to paint so she could use those as guides for the video content) and then be a guinea pig to "test" the effectiveness of the videos. You could even video yourself applying the concepts which could later serve as a good marketing testimony to the effectiveness (and also provide improvement ideas).
Doing something like this would make your business classes more relevant (because you'd be trying to apply the concepts), it would allow you to try out a potential passion (painting), and it would give you the opportunity to work with someone who shares some of the same ideals as you. If you're interested, PM me and I'll give you her email address.
-
http://magazine.jhsph.edu/2015/summer/forum/rethinking-put-the-ph-back-in-phd/index.html
Conceptually, I agree with his view that without a better understanding and appreciation for philosophy, humanity is limited by the progress science makes. But if I'm understanding his reasoning, he wants more philosophy so that scientists can become well-rounded generalists, reduce competitiveness, and better communicate to voters and politicians. These might be valuable benefits but, to me, humanity could benefit most if scientists had a much better understanding of rational ethics. IMO, universities are churning out too many Dr. Robert Stadlers. A rational understanding of ethics is needed to reduce the researching and funding of the plethora of Project X-type efforts. Not to mention that if scientists ever truly learned rational ethics, they'd no longer ask for government grants as they'd know it's wrong to take stolen money.
-
-
In capitalism, people are viewed as being free to work and trade as they please.Under this system, the businessman -- like any other person -- is free to do what he likes with his business and his money. The only lines are the rights: where they all respect the rights of others. The businessman -- like any other person -- can decide what he thinks is good for him, and he may do it. The state defends his pursuit of his happiness, as an end in itself. The state sees its rationale in guarding the individual's pursuit of his happiness.
My apologies if I misunderstood dream_weaver's comment. I took it as asserting point #3 as contradictory to the definition of fascism.
-
That's a pretty blatant contradiction.
How so? Certainly not definitionally.
-
I can't seem to find a definitive definition of fascism and can barely stand to look for one anymore, because all the descriptions of it I've read are obviously written by leftists who want to associate it with corporations and capitalism. Is there a set of essential characteristics that Objectivists ascribe to fascism, or can I conclude that 'fascist' is simply something that certain political 20th century political parties called themselves and that liberals call Republicans now?
For comparison, and contrary to reddit's Anarchism group, anarchists who voluntarily choose to operate under a capitalistic economic system don't suffer any contradiction as capitalism, by definition, does not include government involvement. Also known as laissez-faire or anarcho-capitalism, these economic systems specifically remove government involvement from the marketplace. I often read comments from people complaining that capitalism has proven to be a failure. I am not aware of any country that has operated or currently operates under a real capitalistic system. (Calling a bird a fish doesn't make it so.) All current, purported, capitalistic systems are, by definition, mixed economies. For example, the U.S. does NOT operate under capitalism. At best, the U.S. operates a mixed economy of capitalism and socialism. At worst (and I happen to agree with John Flynn on this), the U.S. really operates under fascism:
...we may now name all the essential ingredients of fascism. It is a form of social organization
- In which the government acknowledges no restraint upon its powers - totalitarianism
- In which this unrestrained government is managed by a dictator - the leadership principle
- In which the government is organized to operate the capitalist system and enable it to function - under an immense bureaucracy
- In which the economic society is organized on the syndicalist model, that is by producing groups formed into craft and professional categories under supervision of the state
- In which the government and the syndicalist organizations operate the capitalist society on the planned, autarchical principle
- In which the government holds itself responsible to provide the nation with adequate purchasing power by public spending and borrowing
- In which militarism is used as a conscious mechanism of government spending, and
- In which imperialism is included as a policy inevitably flowing from militarism as well as other elements of fascism.
Wherever you find a nation using all of these devices you will know that this is a fascist nation. In proportion as any nation uses most of them you may assume it is tending in the direction of fascism.
-
Wasn't clear to me how to embed the YouTube video, but this is a short clip useful for sharing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQVrMzWtqgU.
[Edit: Embed by pasting the video link into the text box and hitting Enter to the next line. Make sure "http" is included, but not "https" -- JASKN]
-
I had tears in my eyes laughing as I read #1. Thank you for sharing.
-
FTA:
"Ayn Rand fans, here’s something to whet your appetites: New American Library has released the cover image for “Ideal,” the first Ayn Rand novel to be published in more than 50 years...
“Ideal” tells the story of a screen actress who is accused of murder and visits six of her most devoted fans to ask for help. In 1934, when she was in her late 20s, Rand first wrote “Ideal” as a work of fiction.
But Rand was dissatisfied with it and set it aside. The same year, she rewrote it as a play. The play didn’t have its New York premiere until 2010 – 66 years after she wrote it." -
-
I re-read both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged whenever I need strength. Do I admit too much when I reply that I stopped counting after reading each 25 times?
-
Quid pro quo. Agree?
Made me think of Stephen Colbert's take when he jokes about compromise and working with those who have different values (stray cats): Formidable Opponent - Pragmatism or Idealism.
-
At what point should I start/stop trying to create the world I like, and start/stop accepting the way it is now?
I'm not sure I understand why you consider these mutually exclusive. I think back to Dagny's idea (paraphrased): as long as I choose to live, I can't abondon a battle which I think is mine to fight. To accept the way the world is now is to acknowledge reality. To continue to fight for the world you want is heroic. To live as a rational being, you're compelled to fight for the world you want. At the same time, to accept the world the way it is doesn't require you to give up your rationality.
Yes, too many people act irrationally and value the mundane (and evil). I take comfort in now being able to almost immediately recognize them and avoid them. Sure, the world is a lonely place as a result, and that can be depressing. But to give up on my values (i.e., the world I want) because I can't find others who share them is to put the value of others higher than the value of myself. A very hard, painful lesson in life for me: compromising values to be less lonely isn't worth it.
Rearden Roark Music
in Music
Posted
Just discovered this Chicago-based Indie band: http://reardenroarkmusic.com/the-band/
A sample: