Styles2112

Two men walk into a bar, the third one ducks. where's the falsity in that? I agree. Doesn't that make it subjective? That's a stretch. I suppose it really depends on the conversation. I really don't like being in a conversation where I made to feel like a stupid idiot. I consider myself the type of person who does his best to look at everything from ALL sides, and sometimes, I feel like people will only look from one angle. There's many grey areas in life, I think humor is one of them.

Somehow I don't think it will make a difference how much I agree with Objectivism to make this right. And, my poor capitilization is due to poor typing skills, not verbal skills. To actually answer the question...well that's hard. I read "Anthem" and agreed with the principles placed out in there (living for ownself, egoism, etc). I read "Atlas Shrugged" and agreed with most ideas in that, and I'm just now starting (again) "The Virtue of Selfishness" (which, I imagine is a much better breakdown of those individual ideas). So as far as the very basic ideas, I agree wholeheartedly, as far as the broken down details, that remains to be seen.

I, honestly, respect your view. And frankly, don't even mind a caustic tongue. There are certain things I don't like being called, and you happened to hit the nails on the head. There are, however, no hard feelings, as I can, (and chances are, will) be equaling insulting. I tend to not mean it, though.

And there's that "Believe" word that Objectivists slam everyone else for. Can you prove that that is what happiness is? A question I asked before, is happiness something you measure? Am I happier than my christian friend because I don't believe in god and he does? We have the exact same things in life. A good job, a loving wife, a family....But, I'm happier, because "reason" says so.

I'm not promoting Hedonism here. You're being accusatory. And where do you get Drug Addict + Cocaine = happy? I've never known anyone who was or is happy that they are a drug addict. (In my experience talking to druggie friends). You're point is not well made. And at what point did I say I was diminishing my own life? Are you the judge of my life? Who are you to say? Who is the judge? You? Society? I follow societies rules, so I'm not diminishing my own life? Elaborate further on how MY life is DIMINISHED.

Of course people aren't going to be like,"I'm a good person, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA that would just be silly. However, my last example still stands. There was no insult, no poking fun (in your definition of "mildly insulting"). Yet, I got a bad response back. Maybe because humor is subjective and everyone has a different sense of humor (i.e. dry humor, toilet humor, etc etc.). The other example is when I refer to myself as a dumb drummer. I don't ACTUALLY believe that I'm a dumb drummer, I'm actually quite intelligent (especially FOR a drummer ), but I'm clearly (in my mind anyways) making fun of the stereotype that drummers are dumb, drooling creatures that bang things. (Which, obviously, we are not). I agree with Iakeo that the dogmatism is not within the philosophy, but within the person. But, like anything, how people represent it, is how others will see it. Okay, you know what? I'm not interested in making enemies here, nor angering anybody. I apologize for such an upheaval of a trivial thing as a joke.

Actually, if you read again, I made them two separate ideas. And at what point did I change my claim?

You want to know the beautiful thing about life and, especially reality? You can be justified in believing whatever you want, and be happy with it, as long as it doesn't affect me. In this case, using reason, if God + Altruism = Happy, and Atheism + Objectivism = Happy what difference does it make how we go to be happy, as long as the INDIVIDUAL is happy?

Here from the Atheist thread where He basically says that it's so because Ayn Rand says it's so. (Because, the "books are the facts of reality")

This, in particular, is quite dogmatic. "We're right, all others are wrong" saying. I shall go find more.

Of course you don't make fun of the things you can't make fun of. But EVERYTHING has at least something to be poked fun at. EVERYTHING has it's flaws. Even if minute. I will find you those quotes, but I'm pretty sure that I will just be told how I'm taking it out of context.

What difference does it make? Chi, essentially, is another word for energy. Have you ever listened to a guy named Tom Lehrer? A very funny guy. Does musical comedy. He has a song called "New Math" Talking about when New Math was introduced (the idea of, it doesn't matter if you get the right answer as long as you understand the process) and poked huge fun at that. This is kind of the same thing. What's the difference between seeing 15/3=5 and 2+3=5. They're both two ways to get the same answer.

Stupid double posts. I'd make a joke about it, but it probably wouldn't be funny. While we're at it, we should probably get rid of the smiley's too. Second edit- Does anyone else find it terribly ironic that we're taking humor this seriously?

I'm not going to respond to that, because I don't know enough of Ayn Rand (the writing anyways) to mock. Though, I'm sure people, more educated than I on the subject could find things funny. Actually, I take that back. What I find hilarious about Objectivism, actually, some of the objectivist people, is that they sound EXACTLY like any other Religious dogma. I'm right, you're wrong that's the end of it. You're wrong because my book says you are. Personally, I find that funny. It's sad too, because I personally believe in what she has to say. But, like anything, when taken to extremes, becomes out of control. And how do you figure that making fun of oneself demeans your values? I think that's the most rediculous thing I've heard. There is a big difference between insulting something and making fun of a stereotype about it. I'm a drummer/percussionist. I know most of the all the drummer/musician jokes in the book. Many of them are quite funny. It has nothing to do with contradictions or demeaning of values, it merely pokes fun at the stereotype. Another example. There was a thread I posted in, where one member said "Joy to the World!" in response to someone's breakthrough in Objectivism. I responded with "Wouldn't the objectivist song be 'Joy to yourself?' " (which in no way makes fun of Objectivism, demeans it, or anything of the sort) and I got this novel of a response explaining something that had nothing to do with a simple joke. Sometimes, if it's just not funny to you, ignore it. I thought it was funny, I thought others might see the humor in it, apparently I was wrong. But, personally, I think that in the same way that you can't take care of others until you can take care of yourself, I believe that you can't make fun of others until you can make fun of yourself. Again, I stress that poking fun at and insulting are two VERY different things.

Everything Deserves mockery, as there is no perfection.

I'm not entirely sure why you're attempting to slam me when I was merely enjoying the play on words. My advice; lighten up. And actually, I'm the guy on the side of that conversation, laughing at both of them.

Thank you scott, That was my point. Even in basic, we are told that which the army cannot make us do. Since, knowing and understanding the Geneva Conventions is a must, those soldiers knew what they were doing was AGAINST the geneva conventions and therefor an unlawful order. Now, it is likely they felt peer/rank pressure, and it is also likely that they would have done it, whether or not it was an order. Point being, that if it was, they had the option/freewill and legal ability to not do it. They all recieved the same training that I did, and there was no excuse for it.

I'm not really arguing Objectivist Epistemology (and considering I'm still on the first essay of VoS, give me some time to get there ). I'm simply saying that it's interesting when two different ways, arrive at the same conlusion (i.e. differents words with the same meanings). Example- This book. Talks about position and stance and Chi (life energy). While scientists don't see Chi (being a supernatural idea) The effects of "Chi" are backed up by science. Good posture, Running from your body, not just your legs, using big muscles to do little work vs. little muscles to do big work. It's coming from different angles, yet arriving at the same conclusion.

That doesn't make any sense to me (maybe I'm just reading it wrong) isn't it THAT question which provokes the "how do I (as man) harness that power?" Aren't those the exact questions that Scientists ask when attempting to make man's life easier? It seems that it's not the question that's the problem, but the cause of the question.

That's true. I suppose it's really semantics. They're simply saying the exact same thing with different words.

Out of curiousity, wouldn't there actually be NO SUCH THING AS ALTRUISM? I really don't know of anyone, who TRULY puts others before themselves. Take most religions, for example. Most say, in loose terms, to give to charity, help everyone you can, blah, blah, blah, but really, people do that so that THEY can get to heaven. I suppose, in my observation, Altruism, then is not the idea of putting others before oneself, but the use of Man's self-interest to accomplish a goal. And if there were/are REAL Altruists, chances are they've already sacrificed themselves for somebody, and natural selection has occurred. OH, and isn't the Not having a philosphy a philosphy a contradiction? or does that fall under the "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" idea? Sounds kind of funny to me. "My philosophy is, not to have a philosophy."

I would like to clarify, from my end, that I did not feel that JMegansnow was giving me "backlash" of any sort, I just felt that she was explaining her view in a slightly insulting way, and was pointing that out. She, or anyone else, could do with it what they pleased. While I still disagree, people are entitled to their opinions, right or wrong, rational or irrational. Also, Hansenalana's comment on "Intellectual shooting matches" didn't have to do with a view for starting debate, but on a comment that JMegan made insinuating that I was "not equiped for an intellectual shooting match." Hope that clarifies a bit.

Yeah, I think at first, I interpreted it as, not asking questions to things that can't be explained.

It took me four times to read what you said, and I still needed you to explain it to get it all. I feel really dumb now. (I am a drummer, but still... ) My only question is, do you speak like that in real life? (It would be quite cool if you did.)

That makes no sense whatsoever. If the facts are there, what need is there for questions? Or are you saying, that an observation needs to come first? (sorry, the epiphany is just hitting me here) are we looking at: A) I want to prove that dragons exist, but I have no proof now. However, ten years later, we find a bone that doesn't fit the known species list, so I call it a dragon bone. or I notice that wind carries lighter items away from the ground, and heavier items remain. So, after studying more I find Gravitation and how strong it is relative to the worlds. (Forgive me, as my examples are piss poor, but I'm just trying to understand what you're getting at.) I'm not sure if you're saying that you can't have a question without having the answer first, or if you can't have a question without having an observation first. EDIT- for poor spelling.