Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

JASKN

Admin
  • Posts

    2624
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    78

Posts posted by JASKN

  1. Not at all, I'm not gay. You can?
    Uh, yeah, I think that was pretty obvious in my post. I really couldn't say how different a male heterosexual approach to male beauty would be from a homosexual approach. My guess is that they aren't far off, but homosexuals "follow through" with sexual desire and heterosexuals don't. Homosexuals probably have a more specific approach, too.
  2. Yeah, she's made a number of comments like that, including flat out stating that the purpose of her writing is to portray men as heroic.

    As far as perfect looks, it's basically a deduction on my part. I am not aware of her ever saying anything to the tune of, "He looked perfect," but she did say her husband looked like her idea of Galt, and she married him. And she's made a point to describer her heroes as physically on par with their minds, her idea being that lean bodies imply active bodies. Also, she's described facial features and expressions to correspond. I just don't see why she would exclude his face as being the only imperfect part about him.

  3. I don't know if Galt is supposed to be the most beautiful man alive ... handsome, yes, and certinly not a beast. Which creates an interesting question - since men are more visually stimulated than women, what do men think is handsome?

    Based on looks alone - not acting ability or any other factor - who would, in your estimation, be a beautiful enough man to play John Galt?

    Well, synthlord, I haven't been ignoring your post, I've just been having a hard time coming up with an adequate man. I searched the net for both male actors and models, but there's a fundamental problem: Rand's taste in men and my own do not perfectly coincide. She preferred men with angular faces, lean muscles, and exaggerated frames. To boot, I still think she considered Galt to be the perfect human (wasn't that the underlying point of the book?), which includes perfect looks. And I have a hard time picking one perfect. I consider a lot of different types of men to be beautiful, but as you can tell by my link, there is definitely a pattern as to what my main preference is. I think I prefer more exotic men than Rand, with slightly exaggerated facial features.

    Your first inquiry, what do men find physically attractive in other men, since they are more visually stimulated than women, is interesting any way you look at it, from a heterosexual or homosexual standpoint. But that's for a different thread I guess.

    The link has men that I either find to be basically perfect, or good candidates for Galt. So what about you, or anyone else? Do any of those men live up to your expectations?

    138466205_ad0e68f7ba_o.jpg

    EC:

    I used "beautiful" as a way to refer to attractive physical qualities in men. It could have been "handsome," "good-looking," whatever. And there is nothing "gay" about another man being attractive. As far as I know, "gay" only has to do with two men actually having sex. You can't tell the difference between an attractive man and an ugly one?

    Edit: I can't figure out how to get the image to size down, so if a moderator could do that for me, tell me how, or just remove it and keep the links, I would appreciate it.

  4. Today in my miserable U.S. History class, my professor spoke on September 11th, 2001, the attacks against the United States. Last week he showed a play-by-play documentary set in New York City, which was emotional and disturbing for me. This subject still gets me riled up, and the more I think about it, the angrier I get.

    This, and with the national release of (the critically acclaimed) United 93, got me thinking about the attacks in the broadest historical context. Ultimately, men representing the lowest, most miserable offering of the human race, or of existence, given that humans are the greatest known assemblance of matter, set out to destroy the greatest of men/existence (their capitalist country) by destroying what they viewed as a symbol of their greatness (the Towers, political buildings), for exactly the fact that the United States was the greatest.

    We are living the most brilliant time of advancement and achievement known. Maybe I am being emotional, but I think that for those men to destroy New York, the United States, the greatest country of all time, and the people in it, and to do it for their reasons, the attack on September 11th was the single worst, most horrible atrocity in the history of existence. The key is the reasons for which they did it.

    So I would like to know who agrees, and for what reasons, and who disagrees, for what reasons, and what event (or era, if you think that is more appropriate) you think should replace September 11th as the worst.

  5. It is the lack of a proper philosophy that is causing the disintegration. I don't think that the complexity of the society or the division of labor has anything to do with it.
    I disagree, although obviously philosophy has something to do with everything. Inspector, I think you're right, and your obesity observation is on point. I was recently arguing with one of my university classes against government intervention in oil prices. My efforts were stunted by their complete refusal to imagine a life void of some basic luxuries, like a grocery store, or a car.
  6. Because he may or may not consider it a favor. The fact that you don't get annoyed doesn't mean that it isn't rude; for instance I'm not much bothered when people don't say "thank you" all the time, but its still rude.

    Rude = against protocol?

    This may be a little off-subject, but who exactly determines the protocol? I mean, with that particular example, why is it still my problem when I am the one who does not have an issue with it?
  7. However, Illuminaughty, it is rude to correct your friends' malapropisms regardless of how goofy they are; if you can't resist, just do what I do and giggle to yourself, then when they ask you what's so funny insist that it's "nothing, no really, nothing, go on" and giggle some more. It'll make them nuts.
    Why, that's ridiculous, and if you're going to waste the time giggling, why not just do your friend a favor and correct the misuse? Personally, I find nothing offensive about someone correcting my blatant error of word. In fact, I would actually prefer that someone correct me than not.
  8. Oh, no way could Catherine Zeta-Jones do it. Yes, she's absolutely stunning, but she's definitely latino, and Dagny is not. And if you're worried about accents, Zeta-Jones? She's from Wales! Not to mention that she shields her accent with varying degrees of success movie-to-movie (lately it's been better).

    Christian Bale is a great actor who could definitely pull it off. But for me, he's just not attractive enough. Isn't Galt supposed to be about the most beautiful man alive?

  9. ...besides which I consider it demeaning to one's audience. I'd much rather give them the benefit of the doubt and assume the best of them until they demonstrate otherwise.
    I agree. Personally, I consider myself to have an ok vocabulary. But when I don't know the meaning of a word in conversation, I simply ask for it. It takes no time at all, and I have never met anyone who was annoyed as a result. I agree, too, that organizing conversation is more important than the actual words implemented in the conversation. You might consider that, Illuminaughty.

    Also, it does no good to get irritated at people for not knowing words, in general. I know several people whose vocabularies are significantly lacking, but who have no problem understanding concepts when they are explained differently. I guess if it bothers you that much, just stop talking to the person. If you think their intellectual capacity isn't worth anything to you, also just stop talking to the person.

    Also Illuminaughty, there are a lot of irritating people in their late teens and early twenties in Ohio. Well, at least Northeastern Ohio. As you can tell by this forum, it isn't like that everywhere. Until you get out of Ohio, you may just have to surrender to the notion that you will have very few in-person relationships, or maybe just conversations, for which you hold value.

  10. RationalCop:

    That's why I said, "I would be surprised" and not, "I know for a fact," although I wasn't really banking on the opinions of only this forum to go "against" Rand's novel. Anyway, you're right that it is off-topic. Although I appreciate you looking for the link, don't worry about it. I'm not very interested in debating the topic further.

    Felix:

    I think Kiera Knightley would make a good Dominique, but she is too young for Dagny. But you and Moose are right in regard to acting. I was thinking the same thing about Angelina Jolie. Personally, I could probably not hold a conversation with her in real life. I mean, she's obsessed with babies and third world countries! But if I could talk to some of her characters, that would be interesting. On a side note, I guess I would have a difficult time separating my personal beliefs in order to successfully portray a character entirely skewed from my own. Jolie does it, though.

    A.West:

    I think a good screenwriter could build a successful plot which implies most of the philosophy, similar to the book but less forcefully. I'm imagining Jolie (and I guess Pitt) acting out the conflicts you listed, and I'm already interested in the movie. It could be great.

  11. khaight:

    Yeah, I saw Dagny as brunette in my head, which I usually trust, as I make a point to get an accurate mental picture of fictional characters based on the descriptions in their novels. But I had no immediate reference, so...

    In that case, Angelina would only be disqualified for being too beautiful or exotic (her eyes, lips and skull structure), since I remember Rand making a point to describe Dagny as striking but not beautiful (in contrast to Dominique in The Fountainhead, who was "the most beautiful woman he had ever seen," or something like that.)

    AMERICONORMAN:

    Atlas Shrugged is long-winded, and by that I do mean that it is unnecessarily long. I understand that you are a writer who especially holds Rand in high esteem. Well, I am a reader, I'm not really interested in justifying a novely by pidgeonholing it into an established genre, and strictly as a narrative, at times Atlas Shrugged was almost painful to trudge through. There must be a way to give your reader a heavy sense of the passage of time without actually making them experience it in real life, as they read.

    Anyway, I still like the book for other reasons, but honestly, I would be surprised if you weren't in the minority in thinking that it is concise. I mean, she drills the same points over and over again sometimes three and four times!

  12. Myself:

    Angelina is a great actress. In fact, she gets better with every movie. She is excellent at conveying confidence and intelligence and she is absolutely beautiful. I will admit she looks terrible as a blonde, but I don't remember Dagny's hair being blonde like that... actually, whose hair was that blonde in the story's time frame? Nobody's, right?

    Brad Pitt is a good-looking 40-year-old, but an awful actor. He also isn't built like John Galt.

  13. Angeline Jolie could pull off any part in this movie, because she can play anything, even when she has to be ugly (Girl, Interrupted). The most important factors in casting these rolls: facial beauty and flawless acting skills. Brad Pitt isn't so good, so I would not like to see him in this movie. In fact, I can't think of any actor right now to fill those rolls, beauty-wise or based on acting ability. Some excellent, beautiful young actresses: Natalie Portman, Naomi Watts... well, Gwyneth Paltrow isn't beautiful, but she's a young, amazing actress.

    Casting is difficult, as this thread shows, so I'm actually more concerned about a good casting director for the movie. They know what to look for and how to look for it, and they have a plethora of new talent available to them at all times, not to mention every known star. Too bad I'm not familiar with any casting directors to pitch my hopefuls.

  14. I think you guys are right about the college education. I quit school for several years because I couldn't stand the format: forced to pay for classes yourself which you have no desire to take, waiting years to learn the practical parts of your major (and I'm still not sure that time will come), having to sit through long classes "learning" something you could easily learn yourself in a fraction of the time, while listening to other students ask the most ridiculous, mindless questions... yeah, it's horrible. I can easily refer to most of my university education as Google Classes, where I could learn the entire course in two weeks or less with the help of Google, assuming I would want to.

    At this point I've basically concluded that school is the fastest way to not have to go to school, meaning the piece of paper still counts. I believe I will benefit very little from a formal education, and I plan on learning everything that is actually important to me by myself, outside of school. I've also spoken to some of my peers who have graduated, and though they have a hard time finding work, at least the work is not $7.50 per hour in food service or retail. I would say the university degree is even still a better way to go than trade work like construction or car repair. I do not understand the students that DavidOdden describes who stay in school when they don't want to be there. Just quit already! Why waste the time and money?

    As far as lazy youth goes, my current theory is that if kids were taught a healthy work ethic there would never be any tendency toward laziness. I don't think being born into wealth has anything to do with it, unless the parents do not parent. In fact, wealthy kids have a greater potential to learn the value of a good work ethic, since wealthy parents probably have a better understanding of what it takes to live well.

  15. As I first read through Ayn Rand, I left with the impression that relationships are not very important and that you should be able to get along without them. This might sound ridiculous to some of you, but for a long time I was genuinely astonished at my loneliness. I have since spent some time rethinking my initial conclusion, but I don't feel I have made much headway. Much to my dismay, the only remedy I have discovered for my loneliness is new friends. But I still think that I shouldn't need friendships and relationships.

    So what are your thoughts on the importance of relationships, and why? Can someone live a sane life without human interaction? Does circumstance play in? For instance, I have theorized that with the available option of daily relationships, a person would be miserable not to take part. However, living alone on a desert island facing no foreseeable contact with other humans, he may be fine.

  16. I was reading recent comments about a small survey of Americans' views on atheists, and a post by Toolboxnj got me thinking about business ethics:

    I've accepted the fact that there are people of faith and knowing the faith could be a strong advantage in business. For instance, the large Syrian Jew population in my town has specific needs per their religion and needs to be catered to - and they have the cash to do business.

    So what do the rest of you think about that? As an Objectivist, a rational person, an atheist or anyone not of a particular religion, is it ethical to conduct business with said religion in a way that directly supports it? Where is the ethical line drawn?

    Personally, I would never produce a single piece of Jewish paraphernalia, even with the intent to sell. I think holding Jewish beliefs is irrational, thus I have no desire to have any sort of relationship with Jewish people where their religion is involved.

    On second thought, would Jews hold the same beliefs even if there was no one to produce the necessary traditional Jewish products? Likely. So am I actually promoting their ideology? Or am I simply taking advantage of the market?

    I decide: Jewish beliefs are void of reason, and I can only count on and deal with reason. Thus, it would not be to my advantage to bank on the false, irrational philosophy of the Jews, which could drop out from under me at any time. It's bad business, and bad ethics.

    I vaguely remember reading Ayn Rand's take on it as something like, "It is not your responsibility to keep everyone else's philosophy and ethics in check." But there must be a line drawn somewhere. What do you think?

  17. There's one of your mistakes.

    "Happiness" is an ongoing state of well-being. It requires the fulfillment of goals, the realization of one's life and values.

    "Euphoria" is fleeting, momentary. It is not a good indicator of morality because a man's life must be taken as a whole, not just on his emotional state from second to second.

    I provided definitions supporting why I equate all positive emotions. Besides, all "momentary" happiness adds up to is life happiness as a "whole." It is not one of my mistakes. However, if you know another, I would like to know it.

    dondigitalia: Let me state it clearly: I am articulating to the best of my ability what I mean to say. Since I am the one asking for help, it is up to anyone who wishes to help me to articulate what he means in such a way as to allow me to understand. If you do not understand what I am trying to say, do not respond.

    DavidOdden: You're exactly like one of those religious zealots who take excerpts of the Bible out of context in order to promote any idea.

    This website facilitates trade among Objectivists and students of Objectivism. The primary -- but not only -- form of trade will be information about Objectivism and discussion about its applications.
    I could only guess your motive for posting in this thread.

    The bold was mine.

  18. Jaskn, you seem to be confusing "happiness" with "euphoria". Happiness is a "state of being" not a momentary feelinf of goodness. It is possible to be happy, and feel sadness, because happiness is an overall state of being.
    Merrium-Webster Online Dictionary's definition of happiness:
    2 a : a state of well-being and contentment : JOY b : a pleasurable or satisfying experience
    Merrium-Webster Online Dictionary's definition of euphoria:
    : a feeling of well-being or elation

    A "state" is a "feeling" in this context. I am equating all positive emotions.

    Firstly If you're not willing to listen to "Objectivist Jargon" to use your words, I highly suggest you leave, or at least limit your activity to the debate forum.
    I call it Objectivist jargon because the words sound like Objectivism but the application doesn't make sense. I also stated my general ignorance of how this forum operates. If this thread needs to be moved somewhere else, so be it. If you mean that I need to stop challenging Objectivism and just accept it as being right, I am saying, "No." If you are saying this forum does not tolerate views opposed to Objectivism, I say remove this thread and I will willingly not return.

    However one has the ability to choose a course of action contrary to that end and pursue one's own destruction[...] any given person may hold values that contradict life, or leads someones to destruction.
    Every man is "pursuing his own destruction" whether he likes it or not, because he will die. That is why I brought up the element of time. Clearly I can kill myself this very moment or kill myself in a more extended fashion before I would die naturally, or die naturally, but it is still death. I say, "Why strive for the longest possible life?" because I could die at any second. Clearly the value lies in striving to prolong your life. Well, I argue that there is nothing inherently good about living as long as possible. There are enjoyable things in life which shorten a predicted life span. Ayn Rand herself was an avid smoker. I would argue that seeing a movie "shortens" your life by serving no other purpose than the momentary joy you experience while viewing it.

    By the way, I used the word 'integrating' as in reference to concept formation, not in reference to adding something to my life, as you said.
    It is the same thing, to a lesser degree.

    However, it is unavoidable that to value 'death,' as you do when using it as 'justification' is a blatant stand against reality.

    If you deny reality I can naught but ignore you.

    To ask a question such as above is to say that you, in fact, do not value your life, and to any person in such a miserable state I say, "End it."

    Again, I resent these pretentious remarks. You are jumping to false conclusions. I have made it clear that I am honestly trying to understand the contradictions I have presented in these posts, which flies in the face of the notion that I hold no value in my life. I will go further to say that my willingness to sit through your misunderstandings, spending my time trying to explain what I mean to you, so that someone else may understand what I am saying and possibly provide some insight is a clear indicator of where I hold the value of my life. Since I am "insulting" to you, and since you are clearly not helping me, again I will say, "Just do not respond."

    And again: if there is anyone who actually understands what I am saying, knows a solution and can articulate it, I would really appreciate the feedback.

×
×
  • Create New...