KendallJ
-
Posts
2800 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by KendallJ
-
-
Well yes. Of course I agree, as far as it goes.
This wasn't meant to be a "strawman" topic, and stating that there's 'nothing wrong' with an honest profit by having a share in someone else's idea and energy, is not quite the same as saying that there's everything right in it.
Woudn't you agree that to profit from one's own mental input and work is ( perhaps hierarchically ) a better thing?
Does this ring a bell with anyone? Because I'm willing to concede that my position is a bit "off the wall".
And isn't there an element of gambling, in that very risk-taking?
You agree and yet the application of that agreement doesn't actually agree. I know it wasnt' meant to be a strawman topic, but one has to state the principles clearly and then apply them consistently.
From what you're saying the basic issue here is the erroneous idea that the only person doing any sort of productive work is the guy inventing the product. That somehow if a product gets to market and is successful the only guy who gets credit for it is him. By that reasoning anyone who profits from the deal other than that person is a 2nd hander. This invalidates the whole idea of a Midas Mulligan.
The act of investing in a company is in and of itself a productive activity because it represents the use of one's mind in making a selection. Successful companies are not obvious (other than in hindsight) and the act of making a successful investment choice subsumes a whole bunch of knowledge and experience and confidence in one's choices. THis is also the reason that insider trading should be allowed. Because sometimes the only poeple who really should be investing in a company are the ones who know the most about it.
As to the question on risk, this works in reverse. Don't you think the the inventor of some product is taking a big risk in believing it will be successful (since so many aren't) and therefore gambling?
-
Francisco d'Anconia played the stock market to put himself through college. So, I'd say Ayn Rand saw nothing intrinsically wrong with the stock exchange.
Also, I can't imagine on a more meaningful level what aspect of Objectivism would actually be against strategic ownership of a stake in a corporate entity...
So says the non-Objectivist. If this is an example of your erudite and highly rational methodolgy to divine what Miss Rand would have thought, then you've given us a great example of why you're having so many problems in other threads.
Objectivism is not what Rand's characters did in her books, and thinking in principles means that sometimes even though her character does something in one context does not mean that she would have sanctioned that activity in any context or in general.
Best to speak for yourself and not for Rand, eh. Especially since that's addressed specifically in the forum rules.
-
Uh, stock is ownership. It is also taking risk. THere is nothing wrong with profiting from a financial interest in a company. Other people's work and ideas succeed because I finance them by investing in the market.
-
Invisible flying unicorns that don't affect anything around them could very well exist,
No they can't. To have some sort of identity is to have some sort of causal effect. Something isolated from causality is a contradiciton in terms. This ist he basic argument against God. Omnipotence, omniscience are non-identity, non-causality.
There is no "evidence" that will ever be presented that violates these axioms. Evidence presupposes identity and casuality.
Everything that has identity, causality, etc is "knowable."
When I suggest that it is "possible" that there are undiscovered moons around Pluto, I am integrating within known knowledge, and according to the basic axioms. When you hypothesize a "God" (as anyone who reasonably defines it) you are not doing anything of the sort.
You're making stuff up. Your "unknowability" really means that something is non-axiomatic. You're saying that it is possible that somehting exists that violates everything you know. There is no integration there with anything that is known. It is completely arbitrary. When you discuss it with anyone, you must allow for any arbitrary option, including the fact that we are really yellow mushrooms, that teapots circle mars. I realize that you don't think of it, but your method would actually require for you to state that in the category of "unknowable" is every other identity violating option you could come up with. To give any unknowable thing consideration you really need to give every unknowable thing since unknowability is really another way for you to say arbitrary.
-
Nonsense. I've met plenty of big names in the Objectivist community who take a foreign policy position of non-interventionism.
This is a bit like claiming you've met a lot of movie stars and not naming names. It carries no weight without the concrete evidence. Start listing guy.
There are 15 pages on this thread guys. I personally participated in multiple pages of it. Your arguments are all given here before in fact. And they've been answered here before.
It must be said, additionally, that Libertarianism in the US takes most of its influence from the Objectivist way of thought. The classical liberalism / minarchist government models that most of them subscribe to come directly from Ayn Rand's ideas regarding the use of force by the State - that the only proper role of government is police, courts, and national defense.Many people claim that their ideas derive from Rand, but the real test if is Objectivists, and most notably Rand herself agreed with such claims. You might try reading Libertarianism the perversion of Liberty by Peter Swartz.
Rand certainly influenced libertarians. That does not mean that Libertarianism is Objectivism.
-
tired of not having a forcefully imperial control over their oil.
You really need to stop asserting that you're an Objectivist. Let your arguments stand on their merit. Claiming this high ground is embarrasing when you directly contradict the owner of the term.
As per this point. You need to learn a little about the history of middle east oil.
-
So please, I ask again, can somebody help me out here? I need to understand how this works.
David Odden already dealt with this. Yet you haven't engaged him in a singled discussion point.
Why would you issue a fresh call for someone to come "help you" when you won't engage one of the best Objectivists on the board?
-
By Kendall J from The Crucible,cross-posted by MetaBlog
The 2nd book in my reading goal is completed. Reading this one was painful, and while I now have Anna Karenina on my nightstand, I’m convinced that it will be a far easier task than plowing my way through Henry James’ The Bostonians.
Published in 1886, The Bostonians tells the story of Boston feminist Olive Chancellor, and her rivalry with Southern lawyer and cousin Basil Ransom. At stake in this rivalry is the allegiance of young Verena Tarrant, a young Bostonian woman, whom Olive has recruited as a protégé in the feminist movement. Verena is a capable public speaker and Olive hopes that she will use those skills in the interest of advancing women’s independence. Basil’s interest in Verena is purely romantic; however, he is a Southern conservative and disagrees with her feminist views entirely.
The plot of the novel chronicles the interactions of these three characters and revolves around Verena’s choices as a result of the influence exerted on her by Ransom and Olive Chancellor. The plot concept has potential and James could have taken it in several interesting directions. However, the book falls flat due to several key aspects.
First, James prose is stiltingly dull and tiresome. I am used to the long extended sentences prevalent during the period, but his descriptions are lifeless and far too abstract. Second, James characterizations do not add to the plot or help explain the characters actions. In fact, the key plot turn centers around Verena’s final decision. To explain this decision he does not expose us to the arguments that Basil uses to effect her change of heart. Even more egregious, he misleads the reader in regards to Verena’s character, effectively saying that her final decision reflects the fact that her actual character is nothing like what he has described throughout the entire book! This is the equivalent to the pulp crime mystery whose final attribution is explained by the revelation of critical knowledge heretofore unavailable to the reader.
I have been told that The American is James’ best novel, but unfortunately, it’ll be a while before I can muster the courage to plunge back into a book by this author.
-
That's too bad. You answered the guy who gave you pretty crappy answers and you ignored the guy who gave you about the best that there are.
-
Just a point of etiquette. What Objectivist (i.e. selfish) reason could you give for someone who you've just accused of endorsing something "horrifically inhuman" actually wanting to "help" you out? Are you honestly asking for help as in "please help me"? Cuz you've just slapped anyone in the face who might actually be interested in being benevolent toward you. Your points are full of errors, which if you'd taken a few minutes to read some of what I'd suggested you, you'd at least know how foolish you look saying them.
What you'll get (read: earn) from this sort of opening is people who are mostly angered by what you've said and will treat you somewhat hostilely.
-
So I guess I'm a minarchist, ARI-hating Objectivist. I hope that my disliking of the ARI can be tolerated by those here, because I'm going to use this forum to primarily understand how the hell anybody can justify the foreign policy the ARI stands by.
Welcome Andrew! Hope you enjoy it here.
Good luck on your quest. I'd suggest that the topic has been discussed numerous times and so there are many threads where the regulars have articulated their positions. I'd also suggest that The Objective Standard has some good articles on the topic. I recall ones on Just War Theory, and Sherman that were good. Also, before you confuse the position with the hawkish stance of Demoracy-building neo-conservatism, I'd suggest Bradley Thompson's analysis of neo-conservatism in the same publication.
I won't engage the debate. I've hashed it out too many times with others to believe that doing so again with you would be of value to me.
-
I've never experienced/heard of this USB glitch before, either. Lately, I've been syncing wirelessly -- although in an unrelated issue, I have experienced USB issues before, so I can relate to this frustration.
I don't believe that Zune's secondary popularity is due to attempts to capitalize on similar fundamentals (aside from the core portable media player). In addition to a few other features, Microsoft developed the Zune's wireless capabilities for a good year prior to the iPod Touch's release (that being said, I wish they would have waited a bit longer).
Like fountainhead777 mentioned, the overall success of these products is largely due to advertisement. Count how many iPod Shuffle/Touch/Classic/Potato Peeler commercials you have seen in the past. Count how many you've seen marketing Zunes. Not to criticize Apple, as I am a Mac and iPod owner, but the media has been infected with a meme when it comes to their products. iPods (and other Apple products) are trendy, indie, and cool -- whereas anything else is unreliable and aesthetically lacking.
Be careful Georgia. Think about what you're saying here. Yes, it's true that brand image and advertising can be factors, but the idea that sustained success comes from unexplainable sustained irrational behavior is very very suspect. When Greenspan suggested irrational exuberance was the cause of the dot com bubble, or irrational non-self interested behavior the cause of the financial crisis it was a complete cop-out. To blame something which is uncharacterized and uncausal does two things. first it causes one to stop looking for the actual cause, and second it causes one to attempt to imitate the exact thing that others are doing in the hopes that some of that magic will rub off on it. Both are recipes for disaster.
If a business student were to make such a case in developing a new business strategy I would be suspect of everything he said after he blamed such an a-causal reason for others successes. His business proposal is almost certainly assured of failure.
The Zune is Microsofts attempt to be trendy, indie, cool, and user interface cutting edge. One can debate the particulars of any feature, but this is the basic model. It is attempting to emulate Apple's model. Unfortunately, the brand image of the iPod is only a feature that was really really valuable in the beginning. Apply now has a significant installed base, and a dominant content portal in iTunes. These are its true strengths. The iTunes library is the most complete content portal on the internet bar none, and being able to buy only some of the artists you like from other portals is a huge disincentive to other players. The installed base is so dominant that Apple (two years ago) advocated for non-DRM protected content delivery.
http://crucibleandcolumn.blogspot.com/2007...s-on-music.html
-
Georgia,
I don't have one, but I was watching them pretty intently for a while when I was considering buying one. I fear that regardless of how good Microsoft makes the product, that it will not be able to compete with the established iPod franchise. By attempting to compete on the same sort of product characteristics, targeting the same sorts of markets, making what are really only incremental differences, and by starting out so late relative to the iPod, MS almost guarantees that it will not catch up no matter how much money it throws into the business model. The key here is not the product but rather control of the distribution channel, which Apple has already dominated.
I know that's off topic from your original question. I think the players look great and probably perform on par with the iPod. I don't think that will be enough.
-
Ah, then I owe you another apology. Thank you for the clarification.
You would owe him an apology even if he had defended the notion. It's inappropriate to go chasing someone around the forum in various threads for what they said in a particular thread (although some here would continue to do it). Especially if the two issues are unrelated and someone has yet to show that the issue from the other thread is somehow clouding his thinking on this topic. We have many poeple who sometimes question volition. That doesn't mean you chase them around the forum not allowing them to ask any other question until they've conceded on volition.
If you deem ctrl y of no value to debate based upon something he said in another thread, then don't debate him at all. If you want to continue debating the issue he raised in the other thread, then do it in that thread.
-
That means a businessperson must be primarily concerned with what others want, and place their values above his/her own in terms of what is produced. Isn't that the definition of a second-hander?
No, productivity, and trading value for value is not about serving the customer to the exclusion of your values. It is finding the intersections between the two. It is asking the question, what can I create that others will value, but which will also satisfy my values in its creation, either by the satisfaciton I gain by doing something I love, or by the things I'll be able to pursue with the money I make.
-
What method are you using to judge these genres?
The method I used is to generate empirical observations of both the mood required to want to listen to the music and the mood it evoked.
It's odd that I'm the one getting the questions regarding judgment since the advocates of the genre are the ones who seem to be that there is good and bad electronica, and don't seem to give criteria based upon anything.
The interesting conversation is around what makes it good or bad, and what basis do you use for determining that judgement. I haven't suggested that there is a right or wrong about it. I simply gave some differeing observations.
I usually find that many people hide behind Rand's statements as a method of not having to analyze the music at all, i.e. of subjectivism. She certainly is right that it's every man for himself. That doesn't mean that whatever you like will turn out to be good. It just means that for now. I'm interested in what makes it good, objetcively speaking. i.e. what can you point to besides some murky intent to distinguish both between and among genres.
Do you think that what she meant by the statement is that you can like anything you damn well please and not think about why you like it, i.e. of not having to deal with even a bit of thinking about what that "conceptual vocabulary" might consist of? That when asked you should simply say "it's not for you to judge. I like it"? It seems to me that to bring up music in a philosophical forum is to be open to the idea of having to think about why it is that you like something, even if the answer cannot be completely judged.
I'll cease and desist now. Obviously, no one is interested in that conversation.
OK, I know the intent and the atmosphere that he 'intends' to achieve because one can have insight into the nature of a thing through observation. A creation cannot be separate from its creator, no?I never said anything about mainstream composers failing or achieving anything.
One can determine the result of a particular piece of music by the end product, but one cannot determine if it meets someone's intent. How do you suggest that be done?
You suggested that there is genius here, but that maybe I had been listening to "mainstream" electonica, implying there is a lesser degree there. If this is your standard for judging then it would seem that either your standard must enable you to distinguish between the two, or you have a different standard which you did not reveal.
Having a way to judge means something. If you assert to me that I must not have been listening to the right form of the music, then it seems you should be able to distinguish between the two in some manner. Don't you think so? The criteria you provided cannot do that, unless you have some method you'd like to show. They are your claims. I'm just asking you to substantiate them.
-
Part of why I like this particular artists is his sense of life and obvious dedication to the perfection of his original sound, blending many different styles, instruments, genre's and beats into a melody that achieves the atmosphere which he intends to communicate to perfection.
And this is so vacuous a statement as to be applicable to anyone you might consider. You need to know his intent, and the atmosphere which he intends to acheive. Do you have evidence for that? Do you have some evidence that the composers of "mainstream" have somehow failed to acheive their desired atmosphere?
I cannot believe anyone would deny the genius of this man's music. I wonder if he is throwing pearls to swine much of the time and perhaps that is why he is relatively 'undiscovered'.Saying that this is just a 'bit more sophisticated' is the understatement of the year as far as I'm concerned.
And this is argument from intimidation. It amounts to "it's obvious. if you don't see it, you must be swine."
Look you don't have to get defensive. If you've got some sort of reason to characterize it as genius. I'd like to hear it. If you don't, then saying you just like it is not a bad thing.
-
Calling electronic music 'simple and fun' does a disservice to the genius, talent and creativity that goes into a lot of it. Perhaps some you guys have only listened to mainstream electronic music. There are many sub-genre's and undiscovered beauties of the electronic music world that perhaps have escaped your ears for lack of looking.
So what is it that makes the "genius, talent and creativity" and why is such genius and talent so undiscovered? That of course was the original intent of the challenge. Just asserting it is so doesn't make it so. I'm trying to see if someone will simply articulate the difference.
Yes, I listened to the links. They sound a bit more sophisticated, but other than that, there isn't much difference. A little more jazzy perhaps. If you can articulate it, I'm all ears.
It's not that I have an issue with anyone who likes the music. Hell, I like the music. But when people assert genius, well then I'm interested in how they arrive at it.
Rand didn't suggest that music was aesthetically subjective. She simply said that there isn't a science of music's cause and effect by which to judge. So the question is why is this music "genius"?
-
There's all sorts of good music, Kendall. You can't compare electronica to most jazz or a symphony because you would never listen to all of that music while you were in the same mood. You should judge electronica against other electronica, or "beat driven" music, or maybe even atmospheric music. Hmm... maybe atmospheric music would be a bridge between a symphony and an electronica song.
I agree that there is all sort of good music, James. But that does not mean that all genre's of music are necessarily good nor that they cannot be compared to each other. Comparing this genre to others is completely appropriate - specifically because of their difference in effect on mood.
It may be true that I use a particular genre of music to achieve a particular end, for example to put myself in a particular mood, but that doesn't necessarily correlate to it's esthetic value.
-
Alright, I'm sure to spark a debate with this somewhat flip comment. I listened to a few of these, since you didn't actually give me any reasons in writing about why this music has more to offer than I might think (I assume an ostensible "obvious" sort of definition is what you were after.)
My first thought was "meh" It's fine. It's catchy. It has a beat you can tap your foot to. It's the elevator music of Gen Y. Don't get me wrong. I think it's fine, in a very specific context (I had XM Chill on in the radio last week in fact while driving to work, and I have a few Rhapsody channels like this bookmarked).
However, if I find myself actually focusing on the music itself, as I would to listen to a symphony or a nice improve jazz set, then I find it dull and boring. After about 20 minutes of it in the car last week, I found myself thinking, gosh, this reminds me of the sort of context that my grandfather used to have easy listening on in the car when he drove -- to have something on in the background that sounds vaguely familiar to some genre of music I like, but for which any single element of is entirely non-descript -- familiar, but not quite memorable.
Metaphorically to me as a listener, I find it a lot like an artistic color study, or like a stitching sampler. Something that the artist uses to build his ear, or practice his technique, but which in and of itself is not really a work.
There. I said it. Let the flames begin.
-
Here is a link to a bunch of before and after's on my house.
Unfortunately now that I have it the way I want it, I have to move...
To Philadelphia...
http://picasaweb.google.com/kendall.justin...feat=directlink
-
Would they exist in a laissez faire society?
May they become an alternative governments?
Yes.
No.
-
If they are using means beynd the "unaided senses" is it not an act of aggression to circumvent someone's reasonable expectation of privacy?
Finally, you are admitting your are depending on the so-called right to privacy. If you create such a right, then yes. Can you define this right please? What is a right to privacy? How does it derive?
"Aggression to circumvent" is not aggression by any definition of the word. The right to privacy lets one create "forceful" out of non-forceful actions.
Ok. Nevermind I used the word stalk. Imagine that there was no harassment. Camera was hidden and I was being very discreet.What's wrong with this? Wat right is being violated in this case?
-
So one can stalk a person, take photos without this person's consent and blog about the person's daily life outdoors? Nothing wrong with that, as long as I photograph the person outside and don't touch the person or trespass said person's property?
Please. Put words in someone else's mouth.
stalk: to pursue obsessively to the point of harassment. http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/stalking
No one said you can harass someone. However, 99.999 percent of the people who use this service are not stalking. To the other 0.001 percent, it is the * harassment* that is the rights violation, not the observation. The observation is not the rights violation. It is a conflated notion of "privacy" that makes it such.
Even if they use a pole to peer over fences and walls, or use x-ray or infrared, or enhanced microphones to breach walls and other constructs intended to give privacy?What property right is being violated here?
I posted a response to you earlier, and you seem to be avoiding it. Is that because you want to cling stubbornly to this idea without actually articulating what right is being violated?
Objectivist's View on Religion
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted · Edited by KendallJ
Why is the non-Objectivist continually answering questions on "Objectivism's view of ...." Other than a really poor and muddled explanation for a religionist, how does this answer the agnostic? Sentence 2 and 4 are directly contradictory. You're really done a hackjob explaining this one. Sentence 4 is the agnostic's position almost word for word. You've accepted it.