Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Peikoff's Mullet

Regulars
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    41

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Peikoff's Mullet

  3. Epstein Speaks Up for Fossil Fuel

    in Political Philosophy

    Posted

    21 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

    The thing is, climate change as a myth is pretty ridiculous - it's inaccurate to say. Epstein doesn't say anything about that, just that climate alarmists are wrong about how bad it is. He's saying that whatever bad people argue about is far outweighed by the benefits, and that the philosophy of the alarmists is responsible for even thinking of the benefits as bad (e.g. altering the environment to be different than its natural state is bad). I forget if his speech says all of that, but it is in his book.

    Another important thing most people don't care to realize is that climate is in a constant state of change.  The only way to protect ourselves from an ever-changing climate is energy.

  6. What Gives??

    in Intellectuals and the Media

    Posted

    51 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

    Justice by what standard?  Were not the Holy Wars just in the eyes of those who launched them?  Was not Communism just to those who killed for it and imposed it upon others?  Were not all the lynchings and genocides throughout history not perpetrated by those who though they were dispensing justice? 

    What significance -really- should be given, in face of WHAT a purported hero is portrayed as doing, to the mere fact that that purported hero is portrayed as doing what he or she does out of a sense of justice? 

    Differentiating between a hero sacrificing herself FOR the sake of others' very lives and a hero sacrificing herself FOR the sake of only ensuring others are not denied justice... is a perplexing distinction (in my humble opinion) of little significance.

    :)

     

     

     

    Would you say that battling against an oppressive enemy in the name of freedom (both for yourself and your fellow man) is an altruistic act?

  7. What Gives??

    in Intellectuals and the Media

    Posted

    1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

    Er. ... people ARE persuaded by "art" (I'm including TV....)

    How many popular heroes do you know of are NOT heroic because of self-sacrifice?  How many heroes are portrayed as heroic in the act of self-preservation?  How many Heroes have a climatic moment of self-preservation or accomplishment versus one of reckless endangerment for the "good of the many"?

    I'm not so sure about your thesis...

     

    In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is because of popular art (TV, novels, movies) that people generally ONLY conceive of the hero as one who sacrifices himself to a higher purpose, a greater good, or the greatest number...

    I agree with a lot of this.  However, I think it's important to note that at least some of these heroes don't see their actions as a sacrifice, but rather a necessary deed in order to provide justice.

  9. What Gives??

    in Intellectuals and the Media

    Posted · Edited by Peikoff's Mullet

    A good amount of films (with some very notable exceptions) popular among people today depict very anti-collectivist views. The animated movie Antz comes to mind, and perhaps Star Wars, despite its mystical themes.  Some movies accomplish this while actually attempting to accomplish the opposite (Wall-E, I, Robot).  The point is, a lot of people seem to like these movies, and connect with the subject matter, but they're still bloody collectivist! What gives?? If people can't be persuaded by art...we're doomed.  DIM in reality!!!!

  12. Consciousness = Immaterial?

    in Questions about Objectivism

    Posted

    13 hours ago, Plasmatic said:

    Where did you get the idea that Oism claims consciousness is "immaterial"? Can you supply quotes?

    I've heard Peikoff say, "Objectivists are not Materialists." as well as, "There is matter and there is the faculty which perceives it."  Both of these seem to be implying that consciousness is immaterial.  I seem to recall it being explicitly stated as well, but I can't recall where.

  13. Consciousness = Immaterial?

    in Questions about Objectivism

    Posted

    How are Objectivists so sure that consciousness is in fact immaterial when even science understands so little about consciousness?  I've listened to Peikoff and Binswanger speak on the matter, but I've never quite fully understood....probably because I'm insufficiently integrated....that's probably why I have shit taste in music too :twisted:

  18. Are There Styles of Music Not Compatible With Objectivism?

    in Questions about Objectivism

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Nicky said:

    Yes. I'm not going to go into "which styles" (because arguments over music annoy me beyond belief, especially when they get pretentious), but to suggest that "one aesthetic cannot be incompatible with ANY OTHER aesthetic" is to suggest that aesthetics is meaningless.

    So yes, as long as we agree that music has some kind of meaning, on any level whatsoever, different types of music will by necessity have contradictory meanings. Ayn Rand said that music can express a sense of life (paraphrasing). So, yeah, if you believe that, then music that expresses a sense of life that contradicts the Oist sense of life...contradicts Objectivism.

    And, by the way, listening to such music doesn't make you a heretic. Oism is not a religion. It allows (and in fact encourages) people to listen to diverse points of view, pay attention to diverse types of art, etc. But let's not act like all art has the same aesthetic value, and every artist is equally right about whatever they wish to say through their art. You can in fact be "wrong", as an artist. Just as there's such a thing as an "a-moral" point of view in Ethics, the suggestion that there's no right and wrong art is the "a-aesthetic" point of view.

     

    P.S. I deliberately avoided using "incompatible with", because, like Reidy, I'm unclear about what that means too. Just read what I wrote, and decide whether it fits your idea of "incompatible" or not. It could go either way. Listening to all kinds of music doesn't make you un-Objectivist, but suggesting that no style of music could possibly contradict the Oist sense of life would count as a pretty fundamental disagreement with Objectivism.

    Great response, thank you.  By "incompatible" I just meant that if one listens to music that contradicts the Objectivist sense of life, can it be genuinely enjoyed from an Objectivist perspective?

  19. Are There Styles of Music Not Compatible With Objectivism?

    in Questions about Objectivism

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, Reidy said:

    What does this mean? Musical styles and philosophies would not seem to be the sorts of things that can be compatible or incompatible any more than (to use the stock example) stones and thoughts about Vienna can be.

    1. What is the definition of "compatibility" that applies here? Logical compatibility between statements and personal compatibility between people are easy to understand and easy to apply, but I don't think either notion would hold here.

    2. What are the criteria of compatibility by which we could give a yes-or-no answer about a given philosophy and a given musical style?

    Well, for example, lots of rap and metal are very non-life affirming, very non-romantic, and overall very depressing in tone.  Similarly there is a lot of music that is heavily spiritual and/or related to psychotropic drug usage.  Obviously Ayn Rand would personally disapprove of these styles of music, but does the Objectivist view of art necessarily condemn music such as what I mentioned.

  23. Peikoff on Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher

    in Intellectuals and the Media

    Posted

    30 minutes ago, JASKN said:

    In one sense it was awesome, because he didn't back down to that idiot O'Reilly, who likes to bully his guests. On the other hand, Peikoff is horrible on TV! To the average viewer, it's hard to say whether he left a good impression or not. (But, maybe the average O'Reilly viewer doesn't matter because they can't be swayed anyway.)

    Oh I totally agree with you. I'm sure the average Joe who decided to turn on the O'Reilly factor that night thought Peikoff sounded like and absolute lunatic!....and he sort of does!....and he sort of looked like one too!

×
×
  • Create New...