RI1138

Yes, there are quite a few of the statues around the country, he's a semi-celebrity/martyr here. I beleive the one that imost people are talking about is in Ottawa, near the parliament buildings. 3/4 view front view Thunder Bay statue Although the statue that looks good from the side is mostly seen that way, as that side faces parliament and a busy avenue.

I think modern art started down its current path sometime in the 1910's with Suprematism and Dadaism. Abstract Expressionism absolutely killed modern art because it fooled people into thinking an artist could translate his feelings and emotions directly onto the canvas with some splashes of paint. As a painter (not professionally) I believe this is impossible. Emotions are a person's reaction (or in the logcial mind, response) to certain events/stimuli. Therefore, when one doesn't attempt to represent anything in reality, the emotion trying to be conveyed is completely decontextualized, and the artist begins to rely on symbols (ie: quick, jagged strokes in red to represent violence/anger, blues for sadness, etc). Also I think that some early modern art (impressionism, proto-cubism, futurism, group of seven, and some of post-impressionism) has its merits, and has some interesting ways to reinterpret perspectival representation.

If the argument against the skeptic was, "they are skeptical of the existence of reality, therefore they are wrong." this would be an ad hominem (circumstantial). However, an argument against their contradictions would hold up, and give reason to dismiss their claims. The same claim made by the drug user can be dismissed with what would appear to be an ad hominem. "They are on drugs, therefore, I should not take much they say seriously." I believe there is enough evidence that some drugs in certain quantities can alter one's state of mind enough that they no longer perceive reality correctly. Try telling that to the druggie though.

Make that two CDs, and thats coming from someone who has never bought anything online before today!

quite a bit

I normally don't like that style of music, but this stuff is really good! I just might order your CD! good job!

No I call it a lot because I read them, along with other books inbetween in a short time frame whilst attending university. Also, I love the pic in the the banner on the top of the page, that's the Burj Dubai, right?

That actually makes so much sense, I don't know why I didn't see it before! If one's position is that you cannot know absolute truth, then they are arguing against their own knowledge! Any other opinions on the topic?

First question, be kind I had a debate in a chat room with a person a few weeks ago. It was kept very friendly, and it was with someone about 10 years my elder. I don't think either one of us lost this debate, but I don't believe anyone really won it either. I just wanted to know what you people think in case I happen to come across this debate again in real life. She was arguing the point that reality is subjective, and we cannot truely know what is real or not because one's own interpretation might be differ from everybody else's. I told her that reality is objective by its very definition. I agreed that it was true that one's interpretation can differ from what is actually objectively true, but in that case that person would be wrong. I also pointed out that the only people who actually live their life by her argument live in padded rooms. She could only counter my points with questions (in quite a nihilistic way), although I could not answer to the fact that even if one views reality as objective, that person could also be mistaken. While that argument is an example of begging the question (in which the conclusion is stated or assumed in one of the premises), unfortunately, I could not answer it (and it's difficult to dismiss an argument as a fallacy to someone who hasn't studied logic). So my question to you is: How do we measure/define reality in a way that transcends individual interpretation? Is it possible? Logic and science work, I know, but they always seem to be shrugged off with "well that's just what you think".

This looks like a very nice forum you have here. A Little about myself: I'm a student of Architecture at Carleton University, in Ottawa, Canada. Besides Architecutre, I have also studied History, Art, and Logic. I have been an individualist for as long as I can remember, but I didn't realize what that truly meant until I started reading Rand. I first picked up The Fountainhead after my first year in Architecture (I think this was around July 2005), and I was having doubts about continuing. That book changed my life. Since then I have read Anthem, We the Living, and finally, Atlas Shrugged (Yes... I read a lot). Besides Rand and Libertarian/Objectivist literature, I'm also a fan of Dystopian literature (I've read every Orwell novel and plenty of Aldous Huxley). From what I've seen so far, there are a lot of very friendly and mature members, I think I'll like it here! Now if you'll excuse me, I have some queries, so I'm off to the "Questions about Objectivism" forum.