musenji

I agree. It depends on a person's musical context, for what emotions a piece of music evokes, and it depends on a person's whole life, for what images fit those emotions. What I'm looking for are thoughts from a person who does think Dvorak's 9th fits Halley's 5th--a description of how/why it fits for them, personally.

Dvorak's 9th is my favorite symphony. I think it is totally wrong for the 5th concerto by Halley. First of all, it's orchestral. Halley was a pianist. But that's a bit moot. I think it's musically wrong as well. The music, in my mind, matches the theme of discovery and colonizing. I actually have pictorial narratives in my mind for pretty much the whole symphony...so of course I'm biased. I think there's too much tension in movements 1 and 3, too much hearth and home in movement 2, and too much brass in movement 4 (hahahaha)... However, I would love a chance to look at the symphony in a new way. If someone could describe to me what about it matches the theme of rising above, of breaking free from burden, of celebrating the highest in man, let me know! (Actually it just occurred to me that discovering a new world is in a way "breaking free" from the old, and one of man's greatest features is the will to explore and discover...but it still seems different from the nature of the 5th concerto to me. It's breaking free in a different respect.)

It was partially joking, partially serious. I am a guitar player, and have derived a great deal of joy from it. If I haven't played in a long time, just hearing the sound of my guitar making notes brings me joy. But that's also because I love my guitar. Plus, I am a person of selectivity. I like the feeling that everything I have, I use, so I'd hate to own a musical instrument that never got used. And, if you like the form, why not learn the function? On a side note, are you the kind of person who consciously decides what sort of emotion you ought to be feeling, or puts a lot of conscious effort into analyzing emotions? I was, too...now I'm less so. I think to experience some kinds of emotions you have to be able to stop consciously analyzing it and just let it happen, because emotions are the result of SUBconscious integrations in the moment. Think of Dagny on the train with Halley's 5th in her head, thinking, "just this once, it's okay to let go and just feel".

Learn to play the guitar.

So when a (phone rings)/(supermarket scanner scans)/(something beeps) in the key of a song that is playing in the room you're in, do you point it out to others in the room, only to receive odd looks? Also do you harmonize with fire alarms and sirens y/n. hahah

How are things looking now, given the changes?

Twice she put a direct quote from Frank in her work, so I speculate that their night-long talk may have been essentialized/paraphrased at the end of John Galt's speech: "In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title. Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours."

It's altruistic if this life is all that exists, long-term selfish if the next life exists. Assuming that an eternity of bliss followed, then giving up everythiing that means anything in this life would not be altruistic, but the most disciplined selfishness--giving up temporary values for greater gain in the long (eternal) term. But this is a moot point to our disagreement. Our disagreement was already stated in my last post--I do not think "selfish" means "rationally selfish" or "selfish with respect to the long term". Your rejection of my hedonism example requires that it does mean those things, and does not actually get to the root, why "selfish" necessarily includes those other things. Yes, a word means more than its definition. We agree on that much. But I don't think "selfishness" includes everything you think it does.

As I understand it, you just contradicted yourself. The first definition, and the one Ayn Rand gives, "concern with one's own interests", does not mean the concern will be effective, intelligent, long-term, or even rationally based. A Christian who believes he will go to heaven if he lives according to certain dictates is selfish--he is concerned with his own (eternal) self-interest. It is not rational, it is not true, but it is self-concerned. It is not a contradiction to be irrationally selfish. Take hedonism. That a hedonist's idea of his own good is to live each moment with disregard for the next does not change the fact that his concern is selfish as opposed to altruistic.

Wow, me too, John! We're bored buddies. Apparently something significant happens later on in the article before he sees the error of his ways? For some reason I was expecting less than 1,000 words.

First of all, this breakup is probably inappropriate. I believe the word "unselfish" was meant to apply to both "regard" AND "devotion". Normally I'm very lenient, but this is just absurd. You're playing a semantic game here, and it rings false. A synonym does not always signify the same thing. It depends on context. For example, "affection" is a given synonym for "love" but to love a thing and to have affection for it are different. You can love a cool spring breeze. You cannot have affection for a cool spring breeze. "Without concern for oneself" is the essence of unselfishness. It is not the essence of generosity. Generosity has more of a connotation with abundance. One can give generously, even while making sure one doesn't give too much.

Now THAT's disturbing.

You know, on my last read-through I had the same thoughts. Seems odd coming from a guy who thought that Renaissance was the end-all supreme style of architecture. edit: (not odd because Renaissance is necessarily bad, but because his speech implies that the field is still evolving, in contrast to believing the evolution ended with Renaissance.)

To some of the more snarky repliers: it may be helpful to keep in mind that since Rand is in the media so much now, there will be many more people who have heard bits and pieces about her and her philosophy (as interpreted by the media, mind you), but have not read her works. Shooting them down isn't going to help anything, but pointing them in the right direction probably will. Doing both at the same time is wanting to have one's cake and eat it too--people generally don't want to learn more when shot down. Maybe it would help to ask: slacker00, exactly how familiar are you with her actual works? What works have you read yourself?

http://www.catholic-forum.com

Of course, even if I judge someone to be a friendly acquaintance, I am not morally obligated to deal with him. Then you are rejecting my post by definition, and not by identification of some error. Would you give your definition of "enemy"?

Agreed. And I really LIKED the book, which seemed an honest attempt at a biography, including tons of first-hand interview material. It's been a while, but the movie came across as an attempt to smear Rand while exorcising Barbara Branden's personal demons about the affair.

I must admit, this part of the thread was difficult for me to read. Currently I'm in a bit of a slump of inactivity and disorganization. I know that when I read about others who are organized, it inspires me to become so myself, and actually I've been hoping for a little such inspiration...but then it can be hard to read about, cause then I know I'll have to do something about it! Well, I'm off to do something about it.

....How did the friend know about the sale?

My mistake, I should not have said every encounter, and I should not have said supremely virtuous. It is, however, virtue that attracts them to each other. Roark doesn't immediately have sex with Dominique. I think Dagny, yes, did know that Francisco was supremely virtuous, as a teen, as far as he could've been at that time. No, Roark did not think Dunning was supremely virtuous, but it's clear that her virtue was what he was attracted to. It was in those moments when she spoke in terms of a heroic view of man that he became interested. And it was in response to her vice that he stopped sleeping with her. I did not mean to suggest any course of action, only to point out the difference.

People have been arguing against hypothetical person A giving sexual pleasure (mental or physical) to person B when person A knows virtually nothing about person B. In every instance of Rand's heroes having a sexual encounter, both of them are supremely virtuous, and both know the other is supremely virtuous, and that knowledge--that judgement--is the very basis of the sexual encounter. "The point is not what is different, the point is what is the same." ...Yes?

I find it amusing that an actual Rand character would never answer this question, as they'd never subject themselves to someone else's scale.

You can "make a friend of an enemy" in a number of ways, two of which I see as perfectly moral: 1. You can convince them of your point of view. 2. You can choose to focus on shared positive values rather than differences. 3. You can ignore their vices completely, and act like "everything's okay". I think that 1 and 2 are moral. While 2 and 3 may superficially appear similar, they are not the same. The difference between 2 and 3 would be context--how bad the vices are compared to the value you gain from dealing with the person. Neither self-interest nor justice is served by pointing out every little thing you think a person does wrong, every time they do it, because that crosses the line into altruism--trying to "fix" them.

The problem with reading VoS first is that it spoils the fact that John Galt is a real person in the novel, and a person of import. If one doesn't know that already, VoS's first essay ruins much of the dramatic tension and mystery. Unfortunately almost all the news coverage going around today says right out who John Galt is and what his function is in the novel.

I'd say your error wasn't just in saying he hadn't read Rand, but also in acting like from one action you automatically know his entire psychology. If you really wanted to engage him, you could've avoided the psychologizing and just called him out on his argument from intimidation, a known fallacy. You can point out that that's weak, without making overgeneralizations. And since he's just claiming by fiat that selfishness is bad in groups "by definition", maybe ask, "what definition?" Ask him to elaborate further, again. And yeah, if he just resorts to name-calling again, do heed this comic: http://xkcd.com/386/