Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About studentofobjectivism

  • Birthday 08/27/1988

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Pawtucket, RI
  • Interests
    1. Music (Bass, Guitar, Drum Set, Trumpet, Piano)<br />2. Integrating Objectivism into my subconscious

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Real Name
  • Copyright
  • School or University
    Blackstone Academy Charter School
  • Occupation
    Student/Retail Cashier

studentofobjectivism's Achievements


Member (4/7)



  1. Have you seen what's happened in Iraq? If we plan to use the same strategies for Iran as Iraq I don't think I want war with Iran: unlike Saddam, Ahminedijad (sp? tried my best) won't be afraid to drop a nuke on America. I think we can only use force against Iran if the White House miraculously grows some "balls" and dispenses with these ridiculous rules of engagement.
  2. I think there are more improbable issues in the Bible to address than the contradiction of "God hates fags": talking donkeys, giants, and a man who single-handedly kills one thousand soldiers with a jawbone just to name a few.
  3. I think a lot needs to be cleared up about what the Uncertainty Principle actually is. The Uncertainty Principle doesn't contradict the Law of Identity or causualty. All that the Uncertainty Principle says is that, at this current point in time, we cannot measure extremely small particles accurately because using a photon to find out the position and velocity of another particle will necessarily have to distort this measurement. It does not say that these particles do not have an absolute, objective identity, just that our measurement cannot be accurate. At least that's my interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle from reading A Brief History of Time. Even if we can never measure particles accurately in the span of human time, wouldn't this be our reality? Wouldn't the fact that we can't measure the particle accurately be an objective absolute in itself? Even Ayn Rand said that our sense-perception mechanism is limited and reaches a ceiling (crow epistemology anyone?), so the fact that we wouldn't be able to measure the particle accurately would not in itself contradict Objectivst metaphysics and epistemology correct? From my point of view, Peikoff seems to be expressing a kind of "primacy of consciousness" himself. He says in effect that because everything has an identity and because humans have the ability to reason that we should necessarily have the ability to observe the workings and mechanics of the universe. But man is not omniscient; he cannot know everything about the universe and Ayn Rand even acknowledged as much, only a "god" has the power of omniscience. I think that Peikoff irrationally and casually dismisses the Uncertainty Principle. Instead of looking at the facts and at the evidence (that we cannot identify both the absolute positions and velocities of a particle at the same time) and drawing conclusions from there, he offhandly dissmisses the scientific evidence and imposes his own "prejudices" as to what reality should be i.e. we should be able to identify the consituents of the universe at all places and at all times. I hope I'm wrong. Which brings up another subject. Is one not an Objectivist or is one irrational if one disagrees with Leonard Peikoff? Is one irrational if one disagrees with Ayn Rand (I know you wouldn't be an Objectivist)?
  4. *** Mod's note: Merged with an earlier topic. - sN *** I think that Leonard Peikoff unnecessarily and unjustly dismisses the uncertainty principle as irrational. For those who aren't familiar with the term, the uncertainty principle states that the more accurately one predicts a particle's velocity, the more innacurately on can predict that same particle's position and vice versa. As Stephen Hawking explains, Leonard Peikoff is clearly in opposition to this position. I think that he arbitrarily dismisses the uncertainty principle. He says Peikoff's dismissal of the uncertainty principle and quantum mechanics, two theories that are observable and have empirical evidence, seems ignorant and irrational in my view. Can anyone explain this contradiction?
  5. In its current state, string theory cannot be tested empirically. It is not falsifiable and is therefore not a good scientific theory.
  6. Khatchaturian - Violin Sonatas I second Shostakovich - Symphony #7 and any of his other works for that matter Schoenberg - String Quartets (JUST KIDDING haha)
  7. "The art of arranging sounds to be heard in linear time passage" I don't think this is a proper definition. There is music which is not organized in a "linear" time passage. Free jazz and avant garde come to mind.
  8. Great article. Thanks! I like that he even criticizes his "colleagues" for abhorring selfishness. My favorite quote from that article is "kindness can only give away the goods self-love [aka self-interest] provides". He realizes that altruists can only survive and operate through an intermediary: egoists.
  9. I agree with marko 25. If songs with "recycled" chord structures were deemed morally corrupt, you'd have to reject the blues and a lot of jazz. The blues has ONLY one progression (I-IV-V) and jazz composers frequently use and insert the ii-V7-I progression into their sheets.
  10. As a jazz lover and jazz musician (guitar, bass, alto sax) I can tell you that this is an unfounded and untrue statement. While jazz was built on earlier styles (blues, spirituals, and ragtime) it is hardly anything like the music that came before it. To say that "most jazz is just a new interpretation of an older tune" is unfounded. Even though there are ::some:: standards found on ::some:: newer albums (most likely the Chris Botti type) most albums are all original. There have been countless innovations in jazz that probably never could have happened in any other genre because of the total constraints that are put on you such as in rock. Could there ever have been such a thing as "modal rock"? Could there have ever been such a thing as "free rock" (not to say that free jazz was a good genre)? No. And contrary to popular belief, Miles Davis is not the be all end all of jazz. There is no doubt he was a prolific writer, arranger, and had an uncanny knack for finding talent (Coltrane, Hancock, Carter, McLaughlin, Corea, Williams, etc.), but he was frankly a mild trumpeter compared to the likes of Dizzy Gillepsie. Anyone that knows anything about jazz will tell you this. Also it is a wide jump to compare improvisation with composition; the two are complete opposites. If you want to compare jazz improv with rock improv (there harldy is any, but there is some), you can do that. If you want to compare jazz comp with rock comp, you can do that. But improv and comp cannot be compared, they are two different beasts and require two different sets of standards. /end rant P.S. This isn't personal
  11. This is true, but I have yet to see an Objectivist validate the use of alcohol as either good or evil. And if we live in a world of absolutes, then if having massive amounts of alcohol is an immoral act, then having a minimal amount of alocohol would also be an immoral act. Until he validates the us of alcohol as either good or evil - which would most likely require a logical proof, I do not think that he can judge her based on that topic alone.
  12. [Moderator's note: The following have been merged into this thread. Their original thread was this one.] First of all, I don't think any Objectivist has properly proven that the use of alcohol is either good or bad. Therefore, I do not think that you can judge her based on her use of alcohol until you prove that the use of alcohol is immoral (which it certainly cannot be since many of Rand's characters use alcohol throught her novels). Am I wrong?
  13. I play guitar, bass, and sax. What are you looking to do? Some sort of Rush/Yes/Genesis thing?
  14. I nearly jumped out of my chair when I saw the words "David Kelley" and the subtitle "Philosopher" under it! Walter Williams (From Capitalism Magazine) also made a few comments. They were shown in good light, however, as John Stossel explained how selfishness improves life for the better. Anyone else see this?! This is amazing!
  15. I hate working in groups at school. I have classes that are of mixed abilities, from the non-motivated and not so smart kids to extremely motivated kids such as myself. My Art History teacher assigned the class a project to work on and she also assigned the groups we'd be working in. I was assigned the group leader to two non-motivated and not-too smart kids. I finished my half of the powerpoint presentation. One kid didn't do anything and the other kid filled his slides with false information. I thought the teacher would grade us according to what each of us did, but she didn't. We all got the same grade: 75. I know I would do much better than a 75 if I had worked alone as I HAD a 95 average in the class until the presentation. When the teacher talked to us about the presentation, she used the other kid's slides as examples of poor content, etc. Mine were fine. Question is: In the future, how can I work in groups effectively without having to do all the work? Am I supposed to recheck everyone's work to see if it is the correct information? I don't really want to do 3x the work if I don't have to. I am at a loss.
  • Create New...