Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

BIGBANGSingh

Regulars
  • Posts

    76
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by BIGBANGSingh

  1. Hi everyone  :)  yes I love this emoticon!

    So, I hope that all the people that claim to be objectivists here really do practice it. I've met a good number of people who have read Rand's books who just think of them as nice and wish they could be like that, but think it is too idealistic. I don't- I live it and I hope you guys do too because you will be sooooo ubelievably happy! That's my two cents.

    I live in Pittsburgh, PA currently trying to get my PhD.

    Hey. I'm president of the CMU Objectivist Club, which is obviously in Pitt. E-mail me @ [email protected] if you're interested in participating.

  2. My experience is that they don't teach you anything in college that you cannot learn by yourself. If you think you have good chances of running your own successful business, I would definitely recommend that you invest all your time and energy into doing it well instead of wasting your time on the rationalistic indulgences of the Ivory Tower professors.

    I agree w/ this completely. I learned more in my internship over the summer (by myself) than I did over the last two years of college.

  3. If you've studied HST (which I know you have) then you know that all of it isn't based on science. Anything I bring up when argued is replied with "its optional". 15's are optional, their standard recommendation of SD is optional, etc. There is no reason for an athlete to be doing 15's, since he is already an athlete.

    Bryan is not sure on some things, since the science isn't there. The word still isn't out on the repeated bout effect regarding hypertrophy.

    2 weeks for each rep range? This was picked at random because he felt a bodybuilder's ego wouldn't allow longer than that.

    I'm not trying to argue that HIT or any other insane type of routine like it that is not based on science is better, I'm just saying that HST isn't completely concrete, so hailing it like it is perfect is wrong, especially in those avenues.

    To best explain my routine, it would be called "moderately modified HST," although I'll start the training outlined in UD 2.0 soon.

    BTW, I await Bryan's book (if it comes out).

    Umm, I never wrote that quote - please attribute the quote to its proper author. This goes for everyone: please make an honest attempt to understand HST and moreover basic exercise science before you make incorrect claims, e.g. the above two posts. And once again, this is a philosophy-specific forum, not an exercise-specific forum, so can somebody please kill this thread?

  4. Since Peikoff's lectures are available from the Ayn Rand Bookstore, it would be preferable to discuss them rather than someone else's notes which may or may not be an accurate representation of the lectures.

    Also be aware that Peikoff's work on induction is "work in process."  Although the lectures sold by ARB are a combination of the 2002 Palo Alto lectures and the 2003 Pacific Palms lectures, I was present at both and he made some significant changes between the two series.  He also acknowledges that he has more work to do before he will be ready to publish the material.

    They also cost $210, so the notes are better than nothing :P

    Any idea when he'll publish the material? Also, how much physics is in it?

  5. I thought it might be interesting to have a discussion on induction. Here's someone's notes on Peikoff's lecture course to get us started:

    http://www.aynrandchat.com/induction.html

    From the notes:

    "Definition of induction: the primary process of reaching knowledge that goes beyond perception."

    So to start this discussion off, does primary in this context mean "first" or "main?" I would assume it means the latter, because doesn't concept-formation come first? Or could it mean the former, since isn't concept-formation a form of induction? Please discuss ;)

  6. Thanks alot, I've done my share of reading on the site and the forum long ago. If you have any type of objection to my critique then adress it with something instead of saying "an authority said it is better, therefore it is so".

    I'd direct your critique towards the HST forum so it can be more properly addressed. A philosophy forum is not the place to get into this level of detail.

  7. From what I see...a combination of BJJ for ground fighting, Wing Chung for multiple standing opponents, and Hock's modern police techniques would definitely make a well balanced fighter.

    That would take SOOO much time.

    I think I will start out with BJJ for now:)

    If you're training for reality combat, Hock's system will give you a complete arsenal. If you're training for sport competition, Lewis's system will give you a complete arsenal. No need for BJJ & WC really, as any useful techniques from these systems are covered by the above systems.

×
×
  • Create New...