Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

BIGBANGSingh

Regulars
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    76

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by BIGBANGSingh

  3. What to tell religious parents

    in Ethics

    Posted

    I'm in the same boat. I have a very close-knit Sikh community, and even was an "orthodox" Sikh in my high school years. All my family is Sikh, and the majority of my friends are Sikh. While Sikhi is a philosophy based on reason, though incorrectly applied, I have to admit now that I don't believe in it and am an Objectivist. I tried explaining my new-found beliefs, or even philosophy in general, starting w/ my parents, but it seems that they don't have the capacity to understand what I'm trying to say. Any more feedback on how to live w/o tension w/ people you love after a significant personal philosophic change would be appreciated :confused:

  7. Objectivist Books

    in Miscellaneous Topics

    Posted

    Did you perhaps misread the title?

    The front page of his site makes it quite clear that the free book is intentionally crippled so that you would buy either the CD-ROM version for $39.95 or the hardcover version for $66.50. I think the book is worth either price. If it's not worth it to you, then you will have to abide by his wishes and read it at your computer.

    Property rights are a bitch, huh?

    My mistake. It just seems silly that I have the entire text to read in front of me and I can't print it. I'll eventually buy the hard copy though.

  9. Objectivist Books

    in Miscellaneous Topics

    Posted

    Well, here's what I've compiled so far:

    Ontology

    "Philosophy" by Ayn Rand

    (The Nature of Consciousness) by Harry Binswanger

    Epistemology

    "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" by Ayn Rand

    "An Introduction to Logic" by H.W.B. Joseph

    Axiology

    "The Virtue of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand

    "Capitalism" by Ayn Rand

    Physics

    "Induction in Physics and Philosophy" by Leonard Peikoff

    "The Anti-Copernican Revolution" by David Harriman

    Psychology

    "The Psychology of Self-Esteem" by Nathaniel Branden

    "The DIM Hypothesis" by Leonard Peikoff

    Biology

    "The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts" by Harry Binswanger

    "Biology" by Neil A. Campbell

  10. Guide to Objectivism

    in Miscellaneous Topics

    Posted

    The point is that his claims are typical anarchist nonsense and have been refuted long ago. See "anarchism as a form of statism" - OPAR p371.

    Perhaps, but the word "Objectivism" refers to a particular philosophy, as presented by a particular individual. It is intellectually dishonest to either represent Ayn Rand's ideas as your own, or your own ideas as hers.

    Would you mind analyzing and criticizing HIS arguments for anarchism in context? I would greatly appreciate it ;)

  11. Guide to Objectivism

    in Miscellaneous Topics

    Posted

    One thing that I take issue with his book is his view that Rand was wrong to use the word "selfish" in the manner that she did. I disagree with him of course. David King's "book" is the kind of stuff I need to fuel the fire in my fireplace.

    The word selfish does not necessarily imply that one would a parasite or a second-hander. It simply means that one would act in one's own self-interest and according to Objectivism one would do so in a rational manner.

    While there are some wrong portions of his book, as a whole the book is an excellent presentation of some right Objectivist fundamentals. I would definitely recommend Objectivists read this book, gain some new insight on some right ideas, and feel free to reject the wrong ones. I'm sure anyone who reads his book in its entirety would agree w/ me.

  13. Guide to Objectivism

    in Miscellaneous Topics

    Posted

    You make good points. I was hoping for arguments not like "he advocates anarchism and as we all know that is obviously wrong therefore he is clearly wrong." I was hoping for arguments like "in chapter X section Y he is making a case for anarchism and here are the flaws in his argument."

  15. Guide to Objectivism

    in Miscellaneous Topics

    Posted

    The thing about this guy's philosophy, Objectivism or not, is that each chapter builds on the next, like Objectivism, and you can't understand one chapter w/o reading the previous chapters. Like it's easy to denouce him as an anarchist libertarian, but I'd like to see criticisms of his arguments in context. Just curious, has anyone actually read the entire book besides myself?

  19. Exercise

    in Psychology and Self Improvement

    Posted

    Amazing how “horribly wrong” some people claim Mentzer was when there is ample evidence that his principles do and have worked.  I have actually gained 20 lbs in 10 months strictly using his workout. With no fat addition. 

    I looked at that hypertrophy page and it sure does look scientific.  If I were a professional trainer or body builder, I might actually try to read through it, but not anytime soon.  I want to be healthy with a large muscular physique, but, like me,  there are few who want to look like that guy in the photo or spend their time learning whatever that says and compare it to all the other “scientific bodybuilding” theories out there to go workout.  If you do, so be it.

    Mentzer’s thoughts were not the end-all in body building, but he laid a pretty good foundation.  His workout is very simple and shows good results for some time.  If you are a not a beginner and not a professional body builder, his high intensity workout is just fine. 

    As a person progresses, then his workout knowledge, his charts, and his knowledge of his ability will also. 

    Its great to learn how to workout the best ways and to keep up with current thinking, but I really disagree with those who scoff at worthy ideas.  And its worse when they turn around suggest some highly complicated and difficult theory.

    Think of it like this:  “I’m learning math.  I just got this great book on algebra.”  “Oh, that stuff sucks.  Here’s this great guy who writes about differential multi-variable equations.”

    I don't mean to bash Mentzer, but his theories have zero scientific evidence behind them, & are based strictly on his imagination. Sure HIT might work for some people, but that doesn't mean another program won't work better. I agree that HST can be confusing since it's based on independent, peer-reviewed research, & not somebody's imagination. There is a layman's book being released soon, so wait for that.

    "HIT or HD

    To understand any comparison to HIT or HD use the following definitions:

    Intensity = percentage of voluntary strength. In HIT terms it is equal to “perceived effort”.

    Maximum capability - maximum voluntary strength

    HST does not equal HIT. Except perhaps that they both have an H and a T in their acronyms.

    - HIT's measuring stick is based on strength (performance).

    - HST's measuring stick is based on growth (size).

    - HIT is based on how hard it feels to lift a weight.

    - HST is based on progressively loading the tissue.

    - HIT's goal is fatigue.

    - HST's goal is hypertrophy.

    - HIT is based on a philosophy of stress.

    - HST is based on the physiology of muscle cells.

    - HIT came from the imagination of Mr. Jones.

    - HST came from the research of dozens of independent researchers.

    Understand that it is not necessary to train at 100% voluntary strength levels to stimulate "growth". This is one fundamental difference between Hypertrophy-Specific Training (HST) and HIT. HST is designed only to stimulate growth. Strength of course will increase as well during HST training but this is not the primary goal of the method. It isn't necessary to push against a weight that won't move (due to load or fatigue) to induce the necessary strain to muscle that leads to growth.

    After years of training I realized that I would never get any bigger training the way I was unless I could get stronger, but I couldn't get any stronger until I got bigger. I had to discover a way to get bigger without getting stronger first. The HST method allows a person to get bigger before they get stronger. Accomplishing this is dependent on frequent loading (hitting same muscle at least 3 times per week), rapid progression in loading (mandatory increase in weight every workout), and Strategic Deconditioning (a week or so completely off to allow the muscle to become vulnerable to the training stimulus).

    HIT training takes this "deconditioning" too far. They think the muscle is "recovering" when it is actually past recovery and beginning to decondition thus allowing the stimulus to work the next time the muscle is trained. Unfortunately, the rate of growth is greatly dependant on the frequency of the stimulus. So with HST you hit a muscle at least 3 times as often as with HIT, and growth is greatly accelerated."

    - Bryan Haycock

    "I used HIT-type training principles before I began to analyze muscle-cell research. It should be understood that HIT and Heavy Duty are not based on muscle-cell physiology. HIT and HD are actually based on Selye's GAS (General Adaptation Syndrome) more than anything. Jones and Mentzer loved to talk about philosophy and logic, but seldom ever mentioned a sarcolemma, MAPk, myogenic stem cells, or even such obvious things as intracellular IGF-1. The reasons they chose to ignore such basic principles of muscle cell physiology remain with them.

    HST differs methodologically from HIT primarily in the fact that HIT uses extremely infrequent workouts and requires that the lifter always use 100% RM weight loads regardless of the condition of the muscle. Conversely, HST incorporates a training frequency based on the time course of elevated protein synthesis after training, and weight loads sufficient to induce hypertrophy based on the muscle's current condition. These types of things can't be determined without acknowledging how muscle cells respond to loading, so HIT and HD couldn't be expected to incorporate these methods.

    My only other problem with HIT is its blind devotion to "intensity." Intensity as described by Jones, is based on perceived effort, and doesn't necessarily measure a set's ability to stimulate growth of the tissue itself. The authors of HIT and HIT-type routines believed fundamentally in GAS, supercompensation, and the intensity myth perpetuated by popular muscle magazines in the 80's. All three of these principles are, at best, only indirectly related to muscle growth."

    - Bryan Haycock

×
×
  • Create New...