Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by konerko14

  1. I think that Im judging classical music by the wrong standard. Its a much different type of music than what I usually listen to, which is classic rock. Classic rock is much more simple and easy to understand. What do you guys use as the standard when judging classical music(Mozart, Beethoven era)?

  2. My purpose in listening to music is to have it make me feel something. I listen to "We are the Champions" by Queen when I want some extra motivation. I listen to "Turn the Page" by Bob Seger when I want to experience the emotions of his anecdotel lyrics. I listen to "I know" by Fiona Apple when Im blue. Mostly though, I think I enjoy pieces that make me feel an incredible emotional high, where it gets my adrenaline pumping. Preferably, the song will start off subtle, constantly building momentum until the emotions just explode at the time of the chorus. Do you have any suggestions of specific classical music that represents this structure?

    Also, why is Mozart, Bach or Beethoven considered good? By what standard of judgment? Theyre all of the same era, arent they?

    or you can judge according to something else, such as "what vision of man does this convey?".

    How do you determine that with classical music. I have a hard time doing that, especially since there is usually no lyrics.

    I listen to an online classical music radio station: http://www.xlnc1.org/nuke/iframe.php?file=listen.htm

  3. A rational person is never motivated by the desire for "revenge" (at least not of the kind under discussion here). He wouldn't be concerned about another person's consciousness in that way.

    To derive satisfaction from the infliction of pain per se is sadistic, not an act of justice.

    Justice: administering deserved punishment.

    He is not necessarily receiving pleasure from causing the other person pain, but from the fact that he is serving justice. The other person deserves to be punished. And if its not a situation that can be brought to court, then I think it can be morally right if the person seeks personal justice against the other.

  4. I really like a lot of your artwork. You chose very interesting concepts to portray. As other people mentioned, your use of color is superb too.

    Personally, I like "safe city" the most right now. The light colors you chose set the mood of serenity well. Also, the woman looks like she enjoys pondering. How much can I buy it for?

    The woman in "bride" is very enticing. She has a nice butt(thats meant as a constructive compliment).

    One thing about your characters is that they are all so damn serious. I checked, and there is literally not one piece with a character that is smiling. Why is that? I understand you want to show that your ideal characters are serious to have them portray a sense of strength, but even great heroes feel emotions. A suggestion I want to make to you is to add more emotion to your artwork. Do this with more detailed facial expressions, or certain gestures from the character. I like the characters expression in "naked", and I wish there were more emotionally intense scenes like that.

  5. I'm going to extrapolate what I know with mice to spiders. Let me assume that these people will have the same response to spiders running across the floor as mice. Why would there be the same reaction across cultures to a spider? It is either:

    1. Coincidence

    2. The world is starting to become "Americanized" and all cultures are following ours

    3. People get scared about unexpected things running across their field of vision.

    4. The vast majority of people are born with a fear of mice and spiders because of natural biological reasons.

    I believe we can reject choice 1 based on statistics odds (There is about 500 people working in this building). We can also reject choice 2 because its too unlikely (why is the fear of spiders the only trait that is being carried over in the world??). Choice 3 may make sense, HOWEVER it does not explain why, when a person does recognize that motion as a spider, they refuse to touch it. Therefore, choice 4 is the only logical option, and that also removes such choices as "upbringing" and "culture". Which raises the question: Do humans have instinct (please don't answer it, there's another thread in progress)?

    You dont honestly believe that its a biological fear to be afraid of mice and spiders, do you? I highly doubt spiders and mice were so dangerous to humans(or at all) in the past that the human body had to create an instinct as a way to protect us from these "beasts." The real reason that causes any fear is because the thing causes one to feel uncertain of his safety. A person can probably get over a fear of mice or spiders if he understands completely what he is dealing with;i.e. he gains knowledge.

  6. (I) The reasons why some people find more attractive someone who "doesn't give them the time of day", someone who is "hard to get" or who seems indifferent to them, or even someone who treats them badly.

    They have nothing or little to lose when they pursue another person who isnt very much into them. It takes the pressure off a normally very stressful type of situation, and therefore it makes the situation more desirable.

    And on the other side of the coin: why people loose interest in someone who seems eager to be with them.
    They either dont think they can meet the other persons enthusiastic impression of a relationship that they want formed, or (if they do think they can meet their expectations) they dont want to deal with the pressure of fulfilling the others huge excitation. Or maybe they never liked the other person from the get-go.

    (II) The reason why people feel the need to make sure a person they are in any sort of a relationship with, knows that they are not more interested in him than he is in them, or that they have "a social life"/something else and better to do than to be with him.

    Maybe they dont want to give the impression that anything else matters to them. Its probably just a subconscious prevention to keep the relationship, and cautiousness to try to ensure the other doesnt lose interest in him. If they give the other the impression that their life revolves around them, then maybe the other will do the same thing for him. Not that its necessarily good to do, but they think it is.

    I believe this same section includes putting on a "happy face" for others to see, even when in reality one is not happy at all.
    Whether they have low self-esteem or high self-esteem, it comes down to wanting others to have a certain impression of them. Maybe the depressed guy smiles a lot so others dont see his unhappiness. Maybe another person smiles at others to try to express that they are nice and accepting of them.

    (III) The reason why, if someone insulted them, they would feel the compelling need to return an insult*.

    It obviously offended them and harmed their self-esteem in some way. It might be defense or retaliation that is aimed at getting even with them. Metaphorically speaking, I think its the same thing as when someone gets physically harmed. They act in self-defense or at some point want to hurt them because they hurt him.

    Im not sure I would call it foolish though, as KDel did. Its therapeutic to get revenge- its a form of justice when the other person cant get charged lawfully.

  7. The bigger point is that emotions, such as happiness, sadness, pride, disgust and fear have a rational basis, so the notion of rationality is applicable to emotion even though people often see them as being irreducible primaries that are completely outside of reason.

    Right. Emotions form based on the persons values and actions. Pride has no choice to form, however, if a man is productive and he values productive work- pride HAS to form, same with the other emotions. So that means the decisions made by the person can be irrational but emotions always act accordingly to the laws of nature. Thats what I should have said before instead of saying they dont contradict anything in reality.

    If you chose to evade the facts that a kitten is of very little harm, then that is irrational decision-making, not an error fear made. Fear itself makes no choices and is never wrong. When fear exists it always means that you are uncertain of safety and harm.

    Fear of cute little bunnies and kitties is totally irrational.

    Is it irrational to fear kittens if you have never seen one or heard of one(but say the person has seen ferocious tigers)? The kitten isnt dangerous, but to the persons knowledge there is a good chance he can be. The basis of his fear formed from looking at facts objectively, he just is very ignorant at this point.

  8. And Christmas is not dependent on Christ. What present would (or could) anyone want to give to an immortal, non-working, non-valuing, non-logical-reasoning bum?

    I dont think its correct to say that. Christians dont intend to give presents to a dead Jesus. Jesus is just what they want for the means for the celebration. They want the celebration of Christmas to be only because of Jesus.

    So, I would say that the meaning of Christmas is ITM:D (implicit-trade-mas)---the celebration and glorification of one's happiness with one's self and one's loved ones.

    I agree.

  9. What is a fear, in your opinion? Are there no irrational emotions? Is it irrational to fear this? Or this? Or this?

    I'll define 'fear' as a desire to want to escape;escape from responsibility, escape from a seemingly harmful event. The fear exists because (at least) your subconscious is not convinced of certainty from harm(emotional or physical harm), and your decision how you handle this fear is what can be irrational.

    I dont think there are irrational emotions because they are automatic. The actions or values one has choosen voluntarily that caused those emotions may be irrational but not the emotion itself.

    I cant say its rational or irrational to fear a little kitten, a bunny, or a dog with large sharp teeth. Like I mentioned in this post, the fear will exist if you are having uncertainties of the event. That means it will depend strictly on the specific situation and person involved. How much does the person value life? Does the person have a gun or weapon? Does the person have knowledge of kittens, bunnies, or dogs? Saying that, I think a fear will always be correct. Correct meaning it will always and only exist when you are uncertain of harm, and also what the person thinks is harmful to himself.

  10. Konerko14, You still have to define your terms. What do you mean by "real meaning" or "true meaning"?

    I think Ive said already. The real meaning is the purpose the holiday was created. In this case, Saturnalia was started in order to have a celebration during this time of the year. It was to have joy and unbridled enthusiasm in December.

    By looking at how and why an activity (in this case, celebration) began, you are implying that ''real'' means original. Does it? Why?
    Real meaning means purpose. I had to judge the originators actions to get a better understanding of what that purpose was. But over time a holiday may run the risk of moving away from its real purpose because people start adjusting the holiday to their wishes, so thats why I looked upon the originators and not the aftermath.

    You also ask, How should Christmas be celebrated? Well, if "real" (or true) means ''original'', and you have got to be true to the truth, then you should go out and do what the Romans did. But, you might ask yourself, Do I have to? Why? Why can't I do what I want to do? Why can't I start my own new tradition?

    The purpose of Saturnalia was to celebrate and have fun. Its up to the individual how he chooses to have fun though. You dont want to bring a tree inside your house? Fine, you can choose to celebrate how you wish. I think its a celebration in general, so you can choose what should be incorporated into the celebration. But to say its strictly a celebration of Jesus, or strictly a celebration of any particular thing, I think is wrong.

  11. Consider the sentences "Pizza and ice cream taste good" versus "Pizza and ice cream tastes good". Most people probably agree with the former, and not the latter. This is because the latter makes a claim about the two foods considered as a unit.

    Isnt that what I said here:

    Are you saying "The only value that men can offer me is the work of their mind" is correct grammatically because Ayn Rand implies that its each individual that needs to develop and then offer their mind, not an offer from a collectived group.

  12. In the case of this particular piece of text, I would argue that Rand's meaning is equal to "The only value that any man can offer me is the work of his mind". That's not a grammatically-dictated conclusion, it's based on facts about Rand. If Rand had intended to say "The only value that the totality of men can offer me is the work of their minds", then I would agree that the text should have said "minds".

    Are you saying "The only value that men can offer me is the work of their mind" is correct grammatically because Ayn Rand implies that its each individual that needs to develop and then offer their mind, not an offer from a collectived group.

  13. Is my phobia irrational? Of course it is - a phobia by definition is irrational.

    Is it right to call a fear irrational? The fear itself consists of no contradictions to reality. Lack of knowledge and uncertainty is what causes a fear to form. Therefore it is the persons behavior and actions(or lack of) that should only be deemed irrational, not the actual fear.

  14. I am no more afraid of spiders than the average person, so don't take this thread as meaning that I have some paralyzing arachnaphobia.

    But a few minutes ago a spider dropped down from behind my monitor, and it made me reflexively roll my chair backwards a few feet. Why do we tend to react that way to creatures that are thousands of times smaller than we are?

    I think catching a glimpse of a living creature(or thinking you see a living creature) when you arent expecting one to be there will initially cause a startling reaction, just because its a natural reaction and part of the alarm stage of humans.

    But when people are afraid of spiders even after they have a clear view of them, its probably because they dont know whether the spider can harm them or not. The average person says "hes probably not dangerous." They dont KNOW though, especially because some species of spiders are dangerous and some arent, and since they dont know exactly which ones are then they are fearful to a degree. People are less afraid of ants though because they are more sure they will cause no harm(they will be more fearful of red colored ants though even if they arent the exact species that are dangerous). The more certain you are that something wont harm you, the less afraid you will be of it.

    Its like when Austin Stevens(on Animal Planet) spots giant pythons in the wilderness, he is probably a lot more confident and less fearful of the snake than the average person. Thats because Austin Stevens understands snakes, has a comprehensive knowledge on all the species, and mainly because he knows how to handle them without getting hurt. The average person will be in shock if he sees a giant python in the wilderness. A giant python in a secure cage however wont make many people too fearful though since they are more certain it wont harm them.

  15. it was to be free from any type of laws or free from any rationality at all.

    I forgot to fix this line when I was typing it. I didnt mean free from any rationality(people can always choose to act irrationally). But it was probably more lenient of judgments from most people during Saturnalia because it was expected to act like that. Most probably accepted whimsical behavior more so during that holiday than their typical days.

  16. Why does it matter where Christmas came from?

    I wanted to know how Christmas SHOULD be celebrated, and if I should participate in it. And what better place to look than its origins, and its causes?

    If you just look at what it is, you see several things (in American Christmas, anyway):

    1) A very few people celebrate Christmas by declaiming that there is a war on it.

    2) A very few people celebrate Christmas by complaining about consumerism.

    3) Many people celebrate Christmas by going to church for an hour or so and listening to a fable about the birth of Jesus.

    4) The vast majority of people (including those in categories 1 and 3 above) celebrate Christmas by singing carols, decorating their houses with trees and lights, eat candy canes and Christmas cookies, send out greeting cards of good will to their friends and buy and exchange gifts, often fabulously expensive gifts, with those they love.

    Just because a holiday currently is celebrated a certain way doesnt mean its the right way to celebrate it. In order to know the real reason why Christmas should be celebrated, researching its hirstory was necessary. I wanted to learn if it should be a religous holiday or a secular one- what are we celebrating for?. I wanted to know the meaning so I can have a firm grasp on what should be included in the holiday and what should be omitted. Why omit the religious figures if they are what the holiday was meant to celebrate? Without knowing the origins and history of Christmas, you are omitting it to change the holiday to your desires, not accept the real meaning of it.

    Everybody else has these traditions during Christmas? Fine, you say, I'll just do what everybody else is doing instead of putting in the effort to know how it should be celebrated. I'd rather celebrate a holiday for its real meaning than to adjust the holiday to my wishes(or everybodys elses wishes).

    I'm not saying popular consensus makes the holiday what it is, but rather that, no matter what certain groups of people might say the meaning of Christmas is, almost all of them invariably celebrate it in the same way.

    I think you are saying popular consensus makes the holiday. Popular consensus and adjusting the meaning of the holiday to your desires is what it seems youre saying. You are not saying there is one correct meaning to Christmas. You are saying its correct when people say Christmas is the celebration of Jesus, you are saying its correct when people say Christmas is only for consumerism, you are saying its correct when people say its a day of celebration in general. Not that youre personally doing this, but how can one dispute the Christians when they call it their holiday? A person who doesnt have knowledge of the history of Christmas would say, "Not everybody incorportates Jesus into Christmas so therefore Christmas should be celebrated how one wishes." And that would be as far as you can proceed with the conversation.

  17. When you say "how the people acted on that day", do you mean all the people? Did all the people, or even a majority of them, get drunk (including the women---half the population---servants, sober thinkers and philosophers)? Probably much less than a majority. Besides, is the meaning of a celebration to be found in the way (the type of actions taken) it is celebrated by some, or even many, people, or in the purpose of the celebration? This is what you are not distinguishing.

    Then I'll answer it now. I had to look at the peoples actions in order to understand the purpose of the holiday and what it stood for. The meaning of Saturnalia was not necessarily to act like a moron, but it was to celebrate. The means they used for this celebration was the god they worshipped, which was Saturn. But judging by their actions, celebrating the existence of Saturn really wasnt the main focus of the holiday- it was to be free from any type of laws or free from any rationality at all. From the knowledge I have on this subject, I think the reason why Saturnlia was created was to have a day of celebration, a celebration in general. And it was a good idea.

    Someday in the future a person may read an historical account of the drunkenness of people celebrating New Year's, but , even among those who drink, the drunkards are a minority, even if a more colorful bunch to write stories about than the "boring" drinkers of coke and 7-UP.
    I think the main focus of the writing would be on the majority of people who celebrated the new year. That a popular attribute of the holiday(in the US) is to watch the big ball drop in NY. Or they may write that it was popular to kiss someone at midnight that day, or that people counted down the last 10 seconds watching a tv screen. I dont think the main focus of the writing would necessarily be about people getting drunk. More likely what would be written is that it is popular to have wine that day, or something subtle like that. But with Saturnalia, anecdotal stories described the King setting up races with naked Jews going against each other- crazy stuff like that.

    Inotherwords, what I am saying, meant as constructive criticism, not as an attack, is that your thinking is much too generalized to enable you to have a firm grasp of reality.

    Im basing my conclusions on the knowledge I currently have on the subject.

  18. What you are saying here---that "Christmas appears to be essentially...a time for irrational behavior" is based on the "drunken wildness" of Saturnalia.

    I said when Saturnalia was around, the people celebrated it with irrational behavior and drunken wildness.

    Why does the essence, or true meaning of ANY celebration have to be----the nature of the actions of long-ago practitioners? I think you should first clearly identify what you mean by "true meaning".

    Did I say that was the "true meaning" of Saturnalia? I believe I said that was how the people acted on that day. And I also said: "But I see no reason to object to adjusting that meaning to a better one, which a lot of people have already done." Meaning, there can be a better way to celebrate than the way the people originally did on Saturnalia.

  19. Im changing my stance on Christmas due to new evidence I found.

    I knew the Christians wanted to overtake other popular December holidays. But it seems their top priority was to convert pagans to Christianity and to change their December holiday called Saturnalia to a predominant Christian meaning, so they changed it to "Christmas". A lot of the traditions of Christmas were taken from Roman pagans, such as bringing trees inside the house and gift-giving- other traditions were picked up along the way. The start of Christmas actually resembled Saturnalia quite a bit, with drunken wildness and whimsical behavior by the masses. I assume Christmas became a much more religious holiday for a time being, even though it doesnt need to be one. So, Christmas appears to be essentially Saturnalia, which was not a religious holiday, but instead a time for irrational behavior and no laws whatsoever. But I see no reason to object to adjusting that meaning to a better one, which a lot of people have already done.

  20. I might add, there is no "true" meaning of Christmas. There is one meaning for a %100 pure Christian, another (and variations) for a variety of mixed up Christians, and another for pure secularists who love celebrating their wealth and giving gifts to their loved ones.

    I think theres a true meaning to Christmas. Just because people adjust the holiday to fit their personal needs and desires, doesnt mean there isnt one correct meaning. As for what the true meaning is, I still see no reason why it wouldnt be to celebrate Jesus' birth. I think this is its true meaning because of the origins of Christmas and the purpose of it described by its creators.

    But, if you don't like the name Christmas, you can always call it Midas Day, in cheerful honor of the man (and woman) who is proud of, and wants to celebrate his productive life, a kind of extension and climax of Thanksgiving.

    Its not the name, its the meaning. Im trying to figure out if it should be recognized as a religious holiday or a secular one.

  21. Xmas isn't a Christian holiday, although some Christians want it to be. It is primarily a celebration of the fact that the sun is starting to return.

    Didnt the Christians create Christmas? Wasnt it created to celebrate Jesus' birth? Yes, there were celebrations for winter solstice and other December holidays before Christmas. But Christmas is a seperate holiday, and non-Christians only want to celebrate it because everyone else does. I understand the Christians wanted Christmas to overtake the already popular winter holiday, but is the true meaning of Christmas not to celebrate Jesus' birth?

    It is a good thing to have celebrations in winter, 'cuz let's face it, it's dark out and dark isn't the most cheery thing.
    I agree. I just dont want to celebrate a Christian holiday just because its there and its popular. It seems like a breach of integrity since youre doing it to join with everyone else, not to celebrate the true meaning.

    Put up those elf, reindeer and Santa decorations (nuts to the manger stuff), buy a fancy ham, go to a part, buy gifts for those who you value, and have a God Jul (pronounced "goo", not "gawd").

    I enjoy seeing and doing these things(except the manger thing), but I think it should be a seperate holiday from Christmas. We should go back to celebrating winter solstice, and the meaning of the holiday would be to celebrate the fact that the days will be longer and the sun will shine more on Earth from then on.

  • Create New...