Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Skywalker

Regulars
  • Posts

    56
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Skywalker

  1. If the hardliners created the reform party and there's essentially no difference, why did the hardliners ban the reformists from running in the recent parlimentary election? I'm not challenging anyone's assessment of the situation, merely curious. GC, do you really think there would be any need for nuclear weapons in a battle against Iran? I find that hard to believe, as I was under the impression their own military capabilities were limited. Also, there's a high probability that if we were to attack Iran, the people would rise up against the government as well. I have always viewed nuclear weapons as a last resort, to be used if we were forced into a life-or-death confrontation with a military juggernaut like China. I'd like to add another question to this discussion: What are the chances of a revolution happening naturally within the country?
  2. Well I think based on Rand's philosophy, Richard's "self-sacrifices" can be seen in terms of him doing things for people he values, because it's worth it to him to help those people. That's not altruism in the pure sense. Scowler, it sounds like you've got a problem with Terry's current outlook. "Pedantic Randroid" is pretty harsh. That said, I definitely agree that in his old interviews, he sounds much less like an Objectivist, and in his current ones, he sounds like Leonard Peikoff. The Keeper and the Creator in WFR and SoT are pretty serious judeo-christian allusions and don't fit in with what he's writing now. As such he seems to have completely abandoned them. I agree that he probably won't be able to resolve the conflicts between his earlier and later novels by the series's end. My only problem with the sword of truth series is this disjointedness. The books are all over the place - Pillars of creation, as you note, doesn't even have much of the main characters! And the wizard's rules don't all fit together - in particular the "magic of forgiveness" one doesn't fit in with the hard-line Objectivism he seems to subscribe to now. By the way, do you read any other fantasy?
  3. Slightly off topic, but I have a question for BBrown and Stephen Speicher - I'm wondering how you raise your children in light of your Objectivist views. How much of your beliefs do you introduce them to? I wouldn't expect an Objectivist to behave like a religious parent, most of whom indoctrinate their children with their faith. (I know Objectivism isn't a religion or faith, I'm merely using an example.)But I WOULD expect Objectivist parents to try and instill a sense of right and wrong and the importance of their mind, as well as teach children to feel not guilt about selfish happiness. But I'd like to know what your views on the value-instilling part of parenting are. Also, how do you deal with school? Private schools exclusively? In public schools today, most children are forced to learn about things like the importance of sharing, saving the environment from global warming, and other things that Objectivists find objectionable. I'm curious how you deal with this. This is an area of double interest for me - I'm going to graduate school to learn about early childhood education, and, as a 22 year old with a love of children, I can't wait to have one of my own. Stephen's post is a great expression of exactly why it seems like it'll be such a great experience. So if you have any experience with this, please respond.
  4. But don't you have the same ability to deal with reality, and sense of self-confidence, Betsy? Basically I'm just not seeing how the man is "superior" to the woman in any sense except that he is literally the "penetrator" during traditional intercourse. Men and women should admire each other's virtues, and that kind of mutual respect precludes one exclusively looking up to the other. Are you guys mainly talking about physical/sexual roles when you speak of male superiority? Also, are men capable of "hero-worship"? You'll have to excuse my confusion - I've read the woman president article and never been able to make sense of it. It's always seemed like a tangent to me, and I'd like to try to understand where you all are coming from..
  5. Student, as you can see by now, Rand attempted to reconcile our genetic and environmental influences with our ability to still choose our actions. Your confusion seems to be due to your contention that "to be entirely free (our will) must have no limitations at all." Rand advanced the idea that we maintain the facility of volition despite the "limitations" of our nature. Perhaps free will isn't the right term to use, and volition is better. Does this hopefully answer your question?
  6. Anyone ever see those "female martial artists" from popular video games? They're not big "butch" women; rather they're attractive women who can also kick backside. The "femme fatale" is an archetype that's persisted for centuries, and which many men find sexy. And I hope no one will try to tell me there's something wrong with all those men! Personally, I have to say a demure woman is boring and unappealing. I don't want to date some clingy, weak girl. I want someone whose strength of character is equal to mine. I don't want them to look up to me - I want to have mutual respect. I'd be disgusted if my girlfriend asked me for permission to do something! What is she, a five year old? Quite the opposite - she's a rational, intelligent girl who is capable of making decisions for herself - and that's part of the reason I love her. What's wrong with wanting your female companion to be confident? This doesn't mean she needs to "dominate" you. In my relationship we treat each other completely as equals, and things work perfectly. The idea that women need to "look up" to men is perpetuates the idea of a "lesser sex" - I know that wasn't Rand's intention AT ALL, but that's the premise such an argument is based on. You cannot look up to an equal. That's a contradiction. "Up" means above, on a higher level. You "look up" to someone superior, and try to emulate them, because you are not yet on their level. (Also, isn't there a contradiction between the fact that a woman looks up to a man, but can't become like him, because that would render her "psychologically unworthy"? As I said, the term "look up to" means that you want to emulate a certain person. Children look up to role models. If a woman looks up to a man but is psychologically forbidden to strive for and attain his strength and confidence, then she has posited an unattainable ideal - rather like the objectivist view that altruism posits an impossible moral ideal of total self-sacrifice.) My take on this issue is: I think Rand must have been uncomfortable being in a leadership position within the Objectivist movement, and with being the breadwinner in her marriage. That led her to develop this psychological theory, based on her experience and emotions. However, while this may have been true of her, I don't think it applies to all women. If I love a woman and she becomes president of the United States, why do I need to let that affect my self-esteem? If anything, it'd have a positive affect on me - I'd be happy for her. But on the whole, shouldn't my self-esteem be based on my own achievements? The idea that a person's self-esteem is based on the way others view him or her is contradictory to Objectivist ideals, is it not? Psychology is too complex and individual to be explained in simple catch-all concepts. Yes, women like physically strong men, and guys don't like women to be stronger than them, but that doesn't mean one sex is superior and one looks up to the other. Doesn't anyone see that human relationships are far more complex than that? That no two people relate to each other in precisely the same way? Didn't Rand herself caution against "psychologizing"? Trying to say what goes on within every "proper" and "improper" woman's head is not only impossible, it's degrading to women and contrary to the doctrine of individualism. In short, this theory of women as solely "hero-worshippers" just doesn't resonate with the rest of Objectivism, and I don't think it can be taken as part of the philosophy (or as philosophy, period). It's Rand's opinion, based on her own feelings. Nothing more.
  7. Hi Student, I'm in about the same place as you with my study of Ayn Rand. But let me take a stab at your question. Modern science has advanced the notion that "nature" - genetic heritage - and "nuture" - experiential learning - play a major role in who we become. This does not necessarily mean determinism - it's obvious that we have genetic limitations and predispositions. No matter how much basketball I played, I could never be as good as Michael Jordan. Similarly, I have been able to figure out music by ear for a long time - I know musicians who haven't developed this ability anywhere near as well. Despite this, we can make our own decisions. Even if one is born into a poor environment, one can typically rise above above these circumstances through determination. The classic objectivist example of this is Rand herself, who escaped from the giant prison that was Russia despite the abject poverty the Communist revolution threw her family into. The only questions I can see about free will are in cases of mental insanity, or, as odd as it may sound, pre-menstrual syndrome. I can't count the number of times a female friend has told me they wouldn't have done something, had they not been experiencing PMS. Hormone surges and drops seem to have an affect on one's mind during that time. Both of those cases, however, are exceptions to the norm. When in normal physical circumstances, people can make their own choices and are free to use reason. This of course begs the question: why do most people choose NOT to use it? I don't think most objectivists would accept the idea of a genetic predisposition toward rationality, but it certainly seems like some people come to reason much more easily. Anyway, I think the best summation I can give you is that our ability to choose remains free despite the obvious physical or experiential limitations we may be born into, and that is the conception of free will that is in concert with reality.
  8. Is anyone familiar with C.S. Lewis's essay series "The Abolition of Man"? It's an argument for objective morality, but from a Christian standpoint. Obviously problematic, but my question is: I believe Rand is said to have commented on this book, and these comments are reprinted in the collection of her marginalia. As I can't find a copy of this book and I don't have a credit card to order it, I was wondering if anyone who's read it would be willing to discuss her comments and the book's subject with me.
  9. Slightly off topic, but at the beginning of part IV of the Fountainhead, Roark encounters a young musician, who in his inner monologue mentions two pieces that to him express joy in life. I believe one is Rachmaninoff, but I don't have a copy of the book on me. Could anyone check and let me know what the two pieces are? I'm tempted to say the other one is Tchaikovsky... Also, if anyone who can think of other classical pieces mentioned by Rand herself, I'd be curious to know. Thanks a lot.
  10. Wow, Kitty, I guess you haven't read much fantasy. Compared to most of the crap in that genre, Goodkind's magic is toned down, and his emphasis on the history of his world is minimal. As to "milking the series for all it's worth," I believe he announced a three part concluding volume to debut in January. Master Scowler wold probably have more knowledge about this than I. Also, if you want to try a fantasy with minimal magic, which pretty much just is "several kingdoms at war with each other," try george RR martin's "song of ice and fire" series. It's great, but much less explicitly philosophical than Goodkind, and Martin loves to get his heroes into some terrible situations. But I'm confident they'll triumph in the end. Also, that series has a set number of volumes - it's supposed to conclude after 6 books (three have been written and the fourth is on its way). Just a question for the others: why is pillars of creation so bad?
  11. Have you heard Pat Metheny group? That's composed jazz. It's not Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, etc., but it's really beautiful and hope inspiring music presented in the context of contemporary fusion-jazz, and it's all written music with peaks and valleys, not just improvised solos.
  12. I think we're on the same page, "Good/evil" was just a metaphor I was using. Varying degrees of themes is another way to put it - either way, the central concept is creating drama within the piece through the use of dynamics. And yes, Beethoven is great, some of his earlier work isn't up to the same standard but the 9th symphony and some of the sonatas (waldstein in particular) are just awesome.
  13. You all make good points. I have a couple comments... Feldblum: I understand what you mean now about objectivity. As for Britney being non-artist, I was suggesting that because her music isn't created with the intention of being art, but rather with the intention of making money, it isn't music qua music - it's a musical product of sorts. It's music inasmuch as music is just sound organized into melodies and chord progressions with rhythm - but is it really Art? I know Now, I know you can get paid for performing and still be an artist - Beethoven was paid for his music, Liszt became a celebrity through his - but they were clearly artists because of the intentions of their composition. They wouldn't have changed their art TO make money. Britney Spears's music is written TO make money - it's written to cater to what other people want so that it will sell. That's not art, it's a product that utilizes music. Art must come from the individual. Halley: I don't think a certain kind of music fits certain values in the sense you're implying. Wagner was an anti-semite nationalist-collectivist, but he wrote some of the most heroic, majestic music ever. Liszt was extremely religious, but his music is powerful and uplifting (les preludes anyone?). A person's philosophical views don't shape their artistic taste in as simple as sense as "Objectivists like triumphant music whereas socialists like depressing music." I know some socialists, misguided though they may be, who like great, heroic music. What do you think?
  14. Feldblum - you like George RR Martin? That's great. I love his books. Martin focuses on humans and the moral conflicts his characters face, instead of the usual "sword and sorcery" crap. He creates some amazing heroes, many of whom progress from moral uncertainty to virtue. He also has a very modern and vivid writing style that makes his stuff more gripping. But I thought most objectivists would dislike it, because it's not very overtly philosophical, and the heroes often get stuck in some terrible situations. Scowler - I can understand no being "in complete concordance" with rand's views and thus technically NOt an objectivist - this is my situation as well. But I think it's clear that Goodkind is in agreement with rand's core values, especially in terms of Aesthetics. I haven't read any of his stuff since faith of the fallen came out, but I'm intrigued by your recommendation and I'll check his more recent works. Thanks.
  15. So a few people on this board have mentioned Terry Goodkind and his Sword of Truth series, but for those who don't know what it is, I'll give a brief description. Goodkind writes fantasy novels, but bases them on objectivism. As a result, his books end up with a sense of life closer to Atlas Shrugged than Lord of the Rings. Instead of elves and trolls, he focuses on noble, rational human heroes who oppose evil conquerors. Has anyone read the series? If so, what are your opinions on it? Also, does anyone know when Terry became an Objectivist? The earlier books have less of Objectivism in them, but by faith of the fallen, he's practically paraphrasing John Galt's speech.
  16. No one has really responded to DanielShrugged's assertion that there's no objective standard for music. Someone said "objective judgements can vary from person to person" which doesn't seem to make sense to me - a properly objective judgement must conform to reality. There is nothing challenging about Britney's music, and I don't find it interesting. But the only objective difficulty with it that I can see is that it's not written as pure art, but as a product of sorts. Might this then put it in a different category from music qua music?
  17. Capitalism Forever - Kerry wants to cooperate with the Iranian regime? Is there a link or something where I could read about that? I thought Kerry was pushing his "I'm tougher than Bush on terror" rhetoric recently. I'm not defending the guy, merely curious. Though like AutoJC, I can't bring myself to vote for Bush. His domestic agenda of pushing censorship, faith-based initiatives and "compassion" is far more important to him than defeating terrorism. I also believe that the war in Iraq was a diversion from the greater war on terror, and has failed to make the US more secure. Kerry may not be the answer, but I can't help but see voting for Bush as sanctioning his evils. And beyond the tax cuts, I don't think he's done anything good for the country. Sure, Al Gore would have been worse, but that goes without saying. Going into Afghanistan was commendable, but in the wake of September 11th, even an "appeaser" like Clinton would have probably done the same.
  18. Whoops, I meant to say I agree w/Auto JC about Iran. Sorry, Invictus. As to the libertarian organizations, I understand your problem with them, but I don't understand why we should dismiss anyone calling his or herself a libertarian because of a disagreement with the Libertarian Party and other such organizations. Libertarian is a word that means advocate of laizzes faire capitalism and limited government. I haven't read much released by the CATO institute, but none of the few things I've seen were offensively wrong, or even out of step with Objectivist principles. How is arguing that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because it wasn't in our self-interest not an Objectivist argument? In hopes of allaying my confusion, I'll search for one of the anti-libertarian threads.
  19. I get into arguments with my mother about this all the time. She insists that smoking is a health hazard, and she shouldn't have to jeapordize her health by attending resturants and bars where the air is filled with smoke. By this logic, she deems it "unfair" to allow smokers to indulge their habit in such settings as the smoking ban now covers. But the property rights of the owners of bars and other establishments come before the "right" of anyone else to go there. Certainly people are free to attend any establishment they choose, but the owner's property rights come first. They get to decide what goes on in their own resturant, bar, or whatever - no one else has a "right" to tell them how they must run their establishment. Your enjoyment does not supersede another's rights. If you don't like smoking, find a resturant that doesn't allow it - of their own accord. (After all, if enough people have a problem with smoking in resturants, that's a lot of business an exclusively non-smoking resturant could scoop up.)
  20. I have to agree w/Invictus. Iran's support of terrorism is well-documented. They're listed as the state department's number one sponsor of terrorism. Whatever problems you have with "libertarian" organizations like CATO, I think it's rational to assert that had his priorities out of whack with the Iraq attack. It's not that we weren't justified in removing Saddam; it's that at this point in time, we shouldn't have been doing the UN's dirty laundry. We should have been going after more blatant threats, like the nuke-making Iran (instead of the merely nuke-wanting Saddam). there was something wrong with the reports, or the weapons were moved? Keep in mind also that "libertarian" is a word meaning advocate of limited government and laizzes faire capitalism. Many objectivists have demonized the term because of the stupidity of the Libertarian party, but not everyone who calls him or herself a libertarian is on that low level.
  21. I read the book a while ago, when I was still totally confused about what exactly happened with the branden incident. I have to say the early parts of the book contain tons of information about Rand's childhood and early years in America, all of which presents her very favorably. The objectionable section comes when the focus shifts to Rand's affair with Nathaniel Branden. This particular part of the book does make Rand sound more than a little off her rocker, and is in poor taste. It's like reading Jerry Springer if the guests used terms like "metaphysical" and "epistemology." Needless to say, I can understand why you have such an aversion to barbara branden's work, especially since I believe the movie was based only on the affair section. But the early chapters of her book still have information about Rand I've never been able to find anywhere else.
  22. By what standard are you deeming tomato pickers incompetent? These people are doing hard work, and if they're picking two tons of tomatoes a day, well, that sounds like they're pretty darn competent at what they do. Now, before you jump on me, I'm not endorsing this petition, and I'm not bringing the issue of wages into this. That's up to the companies who employ the workers - though I'll wager that if enough of their customers complain, the companies will raise the workers' wages, in order to protect their own profits. But the point is, these tomato pickers are probably people who came to America from much less free and prosperous nations, and found whatever job they could without speaking much English or having proper education. I don't think that's incompetence; rather, I admire their resolve and desire to work hard and get by in whatever way they can. Any admirer of Ayn Rand should understand that hard work and dedication to one's job are virtues, and as not all people are on the same level of intelligence and skill, some people are best suited to a job like this. But while that doesn't entitle them to a CEO's salary, it doesn't make them incompetent either. There's no reason to insult these people by suggesting they are some way inferior, without knowing a thing about them, especially when they are clearly hard workers. What I'm saying is, it's possible not to endorse this kind of petition, but still respect these hard workers for what they do. Am I wrong?
  23. Very well-written post. I think in 1937, Hitler's stranglehold on Germany was already so great that the Jews may not have been allowed to emigrate - the "final solution" was already brewing. It doesn't seem likely that Hitler would have taken kindly to contributing to the Jewish state's population. This doesn't exonerate the people who rejected the deal and caused today's bloodshed, but I'm wondering if it might be a small inaccuracy in your post? Also, where did you get all of this information from? I'm particularly curious about the origins of the ending section section on Jews who transformed the land. I also can't wait to see what kind of responses you got.
  24. Carla, this may be getting a bit off topic, I agree with everything you state and find your questions valid. I fail to see the difference between Dagny and the male heroes, except that Dagny, as a female, is emotionally and sexually attracted to men. She is as competent and savvy as any of the male characters, My take on this is that Rand was suggesting women look up to the strength and which is traditionally and physiologically associated with males and maleness. This is certainly true to an extent: women are attracted to strength in males, both in the physical aspect of muscular figures, and the emotional aspect of bravery and character strength. Rand is trying to explain this in philosophical terms, whereas it's usually explained in evolutionary and instinctual terms (ie, women look up to men and desire strong partners because their maternal instincts cause them to want a strong provider for their family, and someone to protect them). Are those evolutionary arguments valid, and are they saying in scientific terms the same thing Rand is saying in philosophical terms? Sorry to add more questions to an already convoluted topic, but I think the scientific angle needs to be addressed. Philosophy can only explain so much of something so tied up with the physiological aspect of being human.
×
×
  • Create New...