CIRCE

Well, being the elitist music-snob that I am (I'm a singer and have been a musician nearly my entire life), I usually don't talk much about my music tastes--because people make fun of me for being a dork. But I'll bet most of y'all would be interested in real, quality music. So, some of my favorites: Brahms (particularly his Requiem, which was immensely comforting to me following the terrorist attacks; it's a Requiem for the living, including words of comfort and inspiration) Mozart (Every decent person must adore Mozart! The Queen of the Night arias in Die Zauberflote are phenominally spectacular!) Verdi (Great Verdi, the god of opera--this guy had a particular knack for shaping the orchestration to the human voices which were to be the focal point. His instrumental accompaniments compliment and buttress, rather than detracting from, the vocal lines they're played with.) Beethoven (The Ninth, of course, is one of the most orgiastically joyful pieces of music I can think of!) Chopin (His piano works have such a wonderful emotional range. His music is flowing and beautiful.) Rachmaninoff (You all know why.) Jonathan Willcocks (He's even still alive. He's fantastic. His music is incredible, running the full range from ecstatic glee to sorrow. He uses the most fantastically complex melodic devices. I don't know that an untrained ear would apreciate his music immediately--particularly when he uses modes and such. It's complicated stuff, but very beautiful. www.jonathanwillcocks.com ) Cantus (Not a composing entity, but a performing group. They're a male choral ensemble, and they kick ass. They perform a wide range of fantastic music flawlessly and with incredibly sensitive, expressive musicianship. And ladies; some of them are HOT! Their artistic director is incredibly gifted and has impeccable taste. Accordingly, their repertoire is totally rockin'! www.cantusonline.org ) Steven Sondheim (Musical Theatre. But he writes like he means it--music and lyrics, and none of that maudlin garbage we come to associate with musicals. He's not the most benevolent crayon in the box, but he's superb nonetheless. Way the hell ahead of his time.) Audra McDonald (A singer who performs primarily for Musical Theatre--but she was trained at Juilliard. Her technique is flawless, she's incredibly expressive, and she picks brilliant music to sing.) The New York Voices (Jazz. Yum. Check out The New York Voices Sing the Songs of Paul Simon. I've never been a particular fan of Mr. Simon, but their treatment of his songs render them brilliant!)

Yeah, obviously a concept refers to an existential entity. Get that. But wouldn't even a concept be classified as part of "reality" as a whole? *Don't* concepts have an identity? So--rather than "contradictions do not exist", what about "contradictions are not valid"? I see that as more clear, assuming I'm arriving at the right conclusion. ?

Okay, guys; check this out: "A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one's thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one's mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality." (Atlas) Why this didn't bug me before is beyond me. Okay, so a contradiction can't exist. However, when it *does* exist, it means your thinking is screwed up. Now, fine--I get what she means--that the referents in reality don't contradict each other. Correspondingly, if our ideas contradict one another or reality they're wrong. However, the contradiction *can* exist within the realm of though--which of course is still part of the metaphysical universe ('cause there is nowhere else for it to exist). So this sure as hell looks bad from a semantic perspective, no? How *should* the sentence be constructed?

Well, as he's pointed out to me in regard to other things; if we examine the roots of our ideas about morality from the context of "Why do you prefer to not lie?"--aren't we just rationalizing our feelings on the subject? So many Objectivists and Objectivish-types do that with more optional values! That's not how it's *supposed* to work. Good idea, though--will check OPAR (which, yes, of course I'm familiar with). It can be frustrating to argue with him about this stuff, but y'know why? Because he challenges me. I'm not a professional intellectual, nor do I aspire to be. So, for the most part, I've read the books, I think I've integrated the ideas, and I go about my life based on that. Every once in a while I get my ass kicked into going back and having to re-assess my premises. And I need not begrude his making me do that! After all, I should understand why I hold the ideas I do well enough to explain them to a well-meaning, honest man.

Hello, there. I'm new to the forum. I've been an Objectivist since 1996, or rather--that was when I began to study Objectivism. I currently reside in Madison, WI--through a series of sick misfortunes that forced me to take a hiatus from my beloved home: New York. I'm hoping to make my return this summer! I'm an actor/singer/dancer/model, though like many artists, I'm currently working outside of my field. Of course, I'm the coolest person I know. So if you're a happening individual, you'll probably like me, too! Drop me a line. My job is about as demanding as a cactus, so I have ***so*** much free time online! Good premises!

Along these lines...I'm conflicted about a close friend who considers morality a matter of preference. However, in contrast with the original poster, this is someone who does *act* morally. His "preference" in this regard are in keeping with my own idea of morality, and he's very important to me. But he insists that he isn't troubled by conscience...he just prefers one type of action (ie: honesty) to another (ie: stealing). I'm not able to get through to him in explaining why morality is objective. He thinks that your rights consist of "that which you can preserve"--so you don't have an unalienable right to your life, because somebody can kill you. The tack I'm taking in response is "Yeah, well, you have to recognize the concept of rights in order to live in a society." Not working. Help? Thanks.