Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Carla

  1. Jennifer, I'm glad you started this topic! I was just thinking about how I'd like to have some Objectivist girlfriends to gab with about this sort of thing. Not that you can't get good tips of this sort from non-Objectivist women, but that with an Objectivist, I feel like I'm getting someone who has thought about these sorts of things in a different way. Here are a few recommendations off the top of my head: Tanners: I, too, am "blessed" with a fair complexion. For years I feared sunless tanners for the orange problem, too, but I've found that Neutrogena Build-a-Tan Sunless Tanner is a pretty good product. It changes your skin tone very, very gradually (I have to use it a few days in a row to approach anyone else's idea of "tan.") I haven't used anything on my face, but I just found that Neutrogena has a version for the face as well. Just a few things to keep in mind (with all tanners, I think). It's best to exfoliate before applying to prevent "patchiness"; go slowly and apply very evenly to prevent streaks (these are not pretty, trust me); and go light on areas where the skin is thicker (and this more likely to soak up the product): knees, ankles, elbows, etc. Put a little moisturizer on these areas immediately before applying will make things easier in this respect. Moisturizer: I'm a big fan of Cetaphil Face Moisturizer with SPF 15 (scroll down a bit). It's light and oil-free, a bottle costs about $13 at the drugstore and lasts forever (maybe a year?), and it has the SPF, which is good to use year-round to prevent wrinkles. Cosmetics: For daily wear, I use 4 products. I use the most natural shades I can find--I am on an eternal quest for a lip color that is essentially my natural color, but a few shades more intense. I've been pretty happy with Clinique products, which are sort of expensive but worth it in terms of quality and how long they last (as in months). Their Long Last Soft Matte lipsitck is the best I've found in its category. It's easier to apply than the ones that come out of a tube, and doesn't fade in the center, leaving a weird ring-around-the-lips effect. It doesn't last though everything--putting on lip balm will take some of it off, eating lunch will take all of it off--but it does last longer than a normal lipstick. My favorite color (for my coloring) is Berry Berry. I would make such a good infomercial! I'm really looking forward to what the rest of you have to say. Does anyone have a good mascara rec? I'm constantly rubbing mine off.
  2. Ah, I should have figured that out (my sister is a Gallatin student). Too bad, what a damper that puts on public events. (On the other hand, I know that NYU needs to have good policies in place to keep students safe). I hope the events go well!
  3. I just wanted to point out that your website says nothing about needing to RSVP to attend. If I hadn't read this post (I found out about the lectures through a different website), I wouldn't have known at all. You might want to make that clear. (You also might want to consider that requiring an RSVP might be the step that causes some potential audience members not to come. Having recently graduated from college, I know well the tendency of college students not to plan anything in advance.) But otherwise, bravo! I wish I could attend, but unfortunately I don't think I can make the roundtrip from Philly in one night. I hope to send friends in my stead.
  4. I'd like to point out that, while DavidOdden's reply is important, there is another aspect of GWDS's statement that should be addressed. Ayn Rand never said "To survive we need X, therefore X are rights." In fact, she thoroughly opposed that idea. What she did say (paraphrased, of course) was this: The primary right is the right to life. All other rights derive from this. Just because a man has a right to his life, doesn't mean that he has a right to Y or Z (where Y might be food and Z might be shelter). The right to life does mean that a man has the right to act to gain (or earn) Y and Z, and that once he has earned Y and Z, no other man (or group) has the right to take it from him. That's the basic formulation. There are, of course, stipulations. The man must act ethically to gain Y and Z--he must not steal or defraud. In other words, he must not violate another's rights. Further, if he attempts to act to gain Y or Z, but he is not successful, he does not get an A for effort. In other words, he might apply to a number of jobs, but his application does not make him entitled to the job--etc., etc. Rights theory is a more extensive topic, but I wanted to point out that GWDS had misconstrued one of the basic tenets of Objectivism.
  5. Oh, even better! I was on my lunch break, so I didn't have time to look further. Maybe I'll get it, then. I always thought it was too bad that Slytherin, the house associated with "great ambition," was also associated with evil wizards or bullies. It might be interesting to look at it more closely, though. Congratulations on the publication!
  6. I read the passage from the Lexicon that you refer to a long time ago, so I am going on my recollection of it (I do not have access to the book at the moment). While I entirely agree with the "destructive" nature of humor and laughter in that context--we laugh at the absurd or the contemptible--I believe it leaves out other contexts for laughter. One reason I laugh, from time to time, is as an expression of happiness, one that goes beyond a large grin. Seeing a dear friend for the first time in too long, for example, might bring about this reaction. I suppose, though, that this is not laughter “as an expression of humor.” Another cause for laughter might be the cute something that my 8-year-old brother did or said. For example, he plays soccer, and once described his team playing against another as "versing": "We're versing the Blue team this weekend," as in Red versus Blue. My laughter (and my dad's) was not because we had contempt for an 8 year-old trying to use the rules of grammar where they don't apply, but because it was such a sweet, creative, intelligent attempt. Perhaps this fits into the realm of the absurd, but I would certainly not describe our reaction as "destructive" laughter—still, I would classify it as “humor.” As to the frequency of laughter—I love to laugh. Most often, I enjoy it in my “down” time, when I’m relaxing. I enjoy watching certain sit-coms or comedic movies, or just laughing over funny stories with my family or friends. Is this, Burgess, what you’re referring to as “suitable to the occasion”? I also enjoy laughing with colleagues at work from time to time. The experience of laughter with colleagues or friends serves to strengthen the relationship bond. One way to describe this is, “we get the same jokes,” or, more broadly, “we get each other.” While the objects of the humor might be absurd—in other words, the laughter might be destructive—the purposed of sharing in the laughter is not to spend time destroying things, but instead to share commonalities. I would say that I am a passionate valuer, and that sharing humor and laughter contributes to many of the things I value—strengthening my friendships, or my relationships with co-workers. (As a side explanation, I value strengthening my relationships with co-workers because it creates a pleasant working environment and creates a common background that smoothes the path during difficult situations.) Burgess, this may not contradict what you’re saying—I just wanted to add my thoughts on the value of laughter. This is not to say that one who does not laugh often—or, one who does not often laugh in the presence of strangers—is necessarily missing out on something. My greatest experiences of laughter occur in the presence of those people whom I value the most.
  7. While browsing the philosophy section of my local Borders yesterday, I noticed a book called Harry Potter and Philosophy: If Aristotle Ran Hogwarts displayed somewhat prominently (cover faced out rather than just the spine out). Today, I went to the philosophy section of the local Barnes and Noble and saw the same book, similarly displayed. For fun, I decided to take a look at it--my first thought was, "good, it says 'If Aristotle Ran Hogwarts,' and not Plato!" Opening up to the table of contents, I found that the second essay was, "Dursley Duplicity: The Morality and Psychology of Self-Deception," written by Diana Mertz Hsieh! Diana posts here from time to time, and also runs a great Objectivist blog called NoodleFood. I couldn't bring myself to drop the cash on the book, but I did browse quickly through her footnotes, to see (to my even greater pleasure) that Diana cites OPAR. You can see Diana's summary of the essay here. What a great way to inject some Objectivist perspective into popular culture! Has anyone read the essay and/or more of the collection?
  8. Has anyone else seen Kinsey? I saw it on Christmas day and thoroughly enjoyed it. In fact, I think it is my favorite movie of 2004. Here is Scott Holleran's review of it at Box Office Mojo. It's also on CapMag. I don't always agree with Mr. Holleran's reivews, but I thought he was spot-on in this one. Here's an excerpt: I don't know anything about the real Kinsey, but that doesn't matter. This film would be just as good if it were entirely fictional. The acting is superb--Neeson is extremely appealing, and the supporting actors "melt" into their roles. The plot is, perhaps inevitably, engaging, but more importantly, the story is told very well. There are no loose ends, no moments of over-exposition or boredom, and none of the all-too-common, modern penchant for deconstructed storytelling. Finally, the predominant themes of the movie are overwhelmingly life-affirming. I'd highly recommend this movie to all Objectivists.
  9. Thanks for the recommendation, khaight. I will look into it. I've also heard good things about Paul Johnson's A History of the American People. Can anyone second that idea? I've read Locke's Study Methods and Motivation, but I'm not a student anymore, so I'm looking for something more general/less geared toward students.
  10. I've heard good things about that one, too, actually. Maybe I'll finally take a look at it.
  11. I often find myself in the position of wanting a good resource on a particular topic, but not knowing where to start looking. I thought it might be useful to have a kind of "go-to" thread where one can request or post recommendations about good resources on a variety of topics. So, I'll go first. I'd like to read a basic overview of American history. I'm most interested in the early history of the United States (and the American colonies) through the end of the 19th century, but some information on the 20th century would be good, too. I'd prefer a single volume, but I realize that it's a pretty broad topic. I would appreciate clear, straightforward prose, and anti-American authors need not apply. I'd also like a book on time management, preferably directed toward a youngish working audience (i.e., not students, and not parents). Anyone else?
  12. Two weeks from now, I'll embark on my first "real" job as an Editorial Assistant at a publishing company that produces non-fiction books for young adults. I am also studying for the LSAT, though at the moment I'm not sure when I'll want to attend law school--probably one to four years from now.
  13. My apologies, and you're welcome. Ma phrase: Quand vous avez dit, <<Ah, Kittyhawk, ah!>>, elle réponde, <<Oui? Peut-etre vous pouvez entrer dans les détails?>> est fausse. La version correcte: Quand vous avez dit, <<Ah, Kittyhawk, ah!>>, il réponde, <<Oui? Peut-etre vous pouvez entrer dans les détails?>> -- My sentence: When you said, "Ah, Kittyhawk, ah!," she responded, "Yes? Perhaps you could elaborate?" was wrong. The correct version: When you said, "Ah, Kittyhawk, ah!," he responded, "Yes? Perhaps you could elaborate?"
  14. Maybe I met you, then. I'm pretty sure I met Leonardo, though I can't exactly picture him now. I've graduated, so I won't be attending meetings, obviously, but I'd like to hear about any events you might be holding at Drexel. Good luck revamping the club. While there was little to no interest in Objectivism while I was there, you might think about advertising club meetings/events at Swarthmore (and at Bryn Mawr and Haverford, for that matter). It's pretty easy to get to Drexel from the 'burbs. If you have funding, take out an ad in The Phoenix (http://phoenix.swarthmore.edu/); if you don't, put one in the Weekly News (http://weeklynews.swarthmore.edu/), which is free. What's a Co-op cycle?
  15. (Kittyhawk @ 7:18 AM) Bencil, J'ai étudié un peu de Francais à l'université, mais c'est tres mal maintenant. Néanmoins, peut-être je pourrais vous assister un peu? Kittyhawk a posé deux questions: 1. Les oeuvres de Ayn Rand, sont-ils publié en turque? 2. Ma traduction meilleure: <<Bencil, j'ai lit la préface de votre dissertation d'éducation, et j'ai jeté un coup d'œil à la table des matières. Il me semble très interresant, et je suis sur qu'il y'a beaucoup des idées bon. Mais j'ai un question preliminaire. Decrivez-vous une système d'éducation privée ou publique (les écoles sont privée our publique)? Depuis je préfére une système d'éducation publique bonne au l'éducation privée mal, c'est malgre tout vrai que toutes formes d'éducation publique sont immorales.>> Alors, Quand vous avez dit, <<Ah, Kittyhawk, ah!>>, elle réponde, <<Oui? Peut-etre vous pouvez entrer dans les détails?>> Vous voudrez bien m'excuser, il y'a deux ans que j'ai utilisé mon francais. Je ne suis pas compétente à faire les traductions extensives, mais je pourrais vous aider un peu. -- For the benefit of everyone else: If you are better at French than I, you are perfectly welcome to add to/correct my writings here! If you don't know French, here's a quick summary. I wrote: Bencil, I studied a little French in college, but it's very bad now. Nevertheless, perhaps I can help you a bit? Kittyhawk has asked two questions: 1. Are the works of Ayn Rand published in Turkish? 2. My best translation: [translation] So, when you said, "Ah, Kittyhawk, ah!" she responded, "Yes? Perhaps you could elaborate?" Please accept my apologies, it's been two years since I used my French. I'm not able to do extensive translations, but I could help you a little. We'll see how this goes! PS: Kittyhawk, I'm not sure if you're male or female, so I'll correct that if necessary.
  16. Andrew, I don't supposed you participated in the Drexel/UPenn O'ist Club this past year? I went to a single meeting (I went to Swarthmore) in Feb., but it seemed like nothing ever happened after that. I was kinda bummed. I also saw Yaron Brook speak about the war at UPenn, in March or thereabouts. It's too bad there didn't seem to be more events this year.
  17. Is there a policy that governs the use of forum posts by other websites? I have a blog (generously hosted by GC), and today I found a post that I wanted to refer to on my blog, because I thought it was so good (Jack Wakeland's post in the thread "Peikoff for Kerry?"). I linked directly to the post but did not quote from it. While I don't expect to link to very many forum posts, I thought it would be good to have a clear policy on the subject (i.e., what constitutes fair use, is it appropriate for blogs to quote from the forum, etc.). Thanks.
  18. 1. Ayn Rand (100%) 2. Aristotle (92%) 3. Epicureans (91%) 4. Aquinas (83%) 5. John Stuart Mill (83%) 6. Thomas Hobbes (75%) 7. Jeremy Bentham (74%) 8. Cynics (70%) 9. Nietzsche (70%) 10. Plato (67%) 11. St. Augustine (63%) 12. Spinoza (62%) 13. David Hume (56%) 14. Jean-Paul Sartre (54%) 15. Stoics (43%) 16. Kant (38%) 17. Ockham (37%) 18. Prescriptivism (26%) 19. Nel Noddings (14%) I thought that pretty much all of the questions and answers were poorly written, so I left most of the "priorities" at medium. 1. a medium 2. b medium 3. e medium 4. d medium 5. b medium 6. a high 7. c low 8. e medium 9. a medium 10. b medium 11. c low 12. b medium
  19. I had always heard that NYC had good-quality water, but perhaps that was just hearsay. Eran--Terrific! Have a great time. I'll be in the city for a bit this weekend, and if I remember/come upon anything else I think is a "must," I'll post again.
  20. I completely forgot about comedy clubs, I second Dangerfield's. Went there twice, great comics both times, and funky without being tight-as-sardines. For pizza, I would recommend John's, at 278 Bleeker St. It's a village legend, cheap and very casual. Coldstone Creamery is an ice cream place right by Times Square (there might be other locations)--it's ice cream and performance rolled into one. You pick your ice cream flavor, then decide which kind of add-ins you'd like, from Snickers to brownies to three kinds of nuts... You can find sunset and moonrise times here: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.html Matt--I think NYC has great tap water. Westchester, too (they use the same supply). Anywhere else, I drink bottled or filtered water, but whenever I visit my mom in Westchester, I go straight to the sink. Eran, when you get back, you'll have to give us a minute-by-minute account of which suggestions you acted on!
  21. Oh, I am so excited for you! New York is the best place in the world. For a truly delicious meal in a casual but refined atmosphere, go to Union Square Cafe, which is on Union Square West and 16th Street. It's on the pricey side, but it would be well worth it for a special meal with your girlfriend. Union Square itself is a fun place to explore--there's the huge Barnes & Noble that Free Capitalist mentioned, a Virgin Megastore (mostly music, I can't remember if they carry books at that location), and a pretty park in the center, with lots of restaurants and other things all around. On Saturdays and Sundays the famous Green Market takes place there--tons of regional vendors with fresh, fresh produce, delicious cheeses--all the culinary delights you could ask for! The great thing about NY (well, Manhattan, but that's pretty much the only place you'll want to go) is that is fairly small, so you can cover a lot of ground just walking. The Statue of Liberty won't be open until August 3 (has been closed since 9/11), so I suppose that you'll just miss it. The best thing about Times Square is that at night, it is literally as bright as daylight. You really *must* go there! The Virgin Megastore there is open 24 hours a day. If you're interested in military history, go to the USS Intrepid, on 12th Ave. and 46th Street. You can't miss it. It's an aircraft carrier that was in operation from the 40s to the 70s, then was docked in the Hudson River and turned into a museum in the 80s. On the flight (top) deck, they have tons of military planes--fighter jets and spy planes--and some helicopters, spanning the decades. Inside there are lots of exhibits, flight simulators, you get the idea. Also on the same pier is a military submarine. When you're on the flight deck, you get an awesome view of the river and of the city. Oh, here's the website: http://www.intrepidmuseum.org/ Oh, and while I'm thinking of it--one New York specialty that you must try is a real New York bagel! Get it with scallion cream cheese and lox (smoked salmon). H&H is a great one to try (a small chain)--there's one on 46th street, just across 12th ave from the Intrepid. Consider taking a horse and carriage ride--you can find them all around Central Park--or a gondola ride on the lake in Central Park, or rent a boat on that lake (Loeb boathouse, on the east side between 74th and 75th; website: http://www.centralparknyc.org/virtualpark/.../loebboathouse). Picnic in Central Park, especially on the weekend. Especially in Greenwich Village, you'll find restaurants with small but beautiful gardens, really nice to eat in on a summer evening. For a really good guide to restaurants in NY (yes, I love food!) get the Zagat guide, a narrow, dark-red book you can find in any bookstore there. It's also online at www.zagat.com, but you need a subscription to see the reviews. Enjoy! EDITED to fix two minor errors.
  22. You know, after I posted that, I realized that might be the case. For the sake of continuity (and not making your post refer to nothing), I'll say here that a better example might be The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts. (In other words, other books not specifically endorsed by Rand but written by Objectivists.) Thanks for the correction, Don.
  23. First, it's important to recognize that there's a difference between objectivism and Objectivism--the second being the philosophy created by Ayn Rand. The first, according to my Webster's 10C, is a term coined in 1854, the first definition of which is: "any of various theories asserting the validity of objective phenomena over subjective experience." I don't mean to quibble, I just wanted to point out that it's possible to be vague in using the term. But, to try to get to the crux of the issue. Oakes, one of the principle tenets of Objectivism is the law of identity--A is A (and it seems like you're well aware of that). During her lifetime, Ayn Rand chose to name her philosophical system "Objectivism," I believe because she didn't like that some of her students were beginning to use her name to identify it. In any case, she specifically gave the name to her system, and to her work therein. Therefore, the name "Objectivism" applies to the philosophy as Ayn Rand wrote/spoke about it. Now, there are plenty of Objectivists, Objectivist thinkers, teachers, etc.--men and women who call themselves, and continue to do work in philosophy, based on Objectivism. They identify themselves as Objectivists, but would not refer to their own work as part of the Objectivist corpus. Perhaps if Ayn Rand had said, "I intend/give permission for this term to refer to future work by Objectivists who consistently apply my principles," then we might call, for example, The Ominous Parallels "part" of Objectivism. But she didn't say that, so we don't. Two more points: Some (like myself), who might not read all of the Objectivist literature or do not feel comfortable identifying as "full-blown" Objectivists refer to ourselves as "students of Objectivism." So, if you're looking for a label (not a bad thing, since it does identify the essentials concisely), that might be the one to go for. In response to the part of your post that I quoted: The reason Objectivists would say that someone who disagrees on "a minor issue that is nevertheless part of the official definition" is not an Objectivist, probably has nothing to do with the issue specifically. Rather, it has to do with the root of the disagreement--usually the disagreement actually comes down to a matter of premises/principles. That is, the disagreement on the "minor issue" is actually based on a principle in conflict with a fundamental premise of Objectivism. I'm working hard to make this as clear as possible, but I'm struggling--so, if you need clarification, let me know.
  24. I don't have too much to add at this moment, but I wanted to respond to this one tiny point in Geoff's post. I've heard before--and I believe, have seen discussed on this board before--that Rand's discussion of masculinity and femininity are properly in the realm of pschology, not philosophy. Moreover, her explicit statements regarding the subject (in "About a Woman President) were basically side commentary. Given these two points, Rand's views on the subject are just that--her opinions--and not an essential point of her philosophy. Therefore, while many Objectivists may agree with her, her writings on this subject do not represent the Objectivist viewpoint. In other words, we can call ourselves Objectivists, or students of Objectivism, and yet disagree with Rand on this point.
  25. CapFor, I think what you're saying may be the most accurate interpretation of Rand's point of view (that I've heard), but I'm finding it extremely uneven. From this line alone, the essence of masculinity--heroism--is "to be a hero"; that is, to live as a hero. Fine. But that femininity is to worship such a hero seems to mean that the man acts and the woman worships. Now, I'm even reminding myself of feminists here, but that's not what I'm trying to get at. What I mean is: The definition of masculinity seems to cover everything in a man's life; while the definition of femininity could (I think) only refer to part of a woman's life--her romantic life. Perhaps this lopsidedness is acceptable, but something seems very out of order about it to me. This is exactly what a woman should want, too (changing "beautiful and lovely woman" to "handsome and strong man"). Placing the woman in the position of "partner" here seems to imply that the woman is a secondary supporter to her lover's primary goals, is this what you are saying? As a woman--rather, as a human--I strive to be productive, to create wealth, to gain knowledge, and to overcome evil. I do not wish to be a partner to a man who is doing this, I wish to do it myself. Of course, if I find that being a partner--in a different sense--to anyone, man or woman, will further my goals, I will engage in such a partnership for that reason alone. I may be misinterpreting your words, but it seems to me that your definitions place the woman in the place of "assistant"--she may be indispensable to the man, but still, she is not the primary mover in the goals she is working towards. At this time, unfortunately, I have not formulated a full definition of my own, but in my view, a relationship between a man and a woman is one essentially of equals. Each has his or her own goals, and perhaps they work together, but only for the sake of furthering goals they both believe in, not because one is a man and one is a woman. I am not implying, of course, that the man and the woman are of equal physical strength or necessary equal in other ways, but that they treat one another equally, with neither playing any sort of "assistant" role. I had to write this post rather quickly, so please do ask me to clarify if there's anything I've left amiss, and do let me know if /how I've misintepreted your post.
  • Create New...