redfarmer
-
Posts
266 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by redfarmer
-
-
Redfarmer, which (if any) works by Nietszche would you recommend reading? Are there any written by other authors which do a nice job of summarizing his philosophy?
Thanks,
Phil
Thus Spoke Zaruthusa is one of his most famous and complete works. There is also a lecture available through the Ayn Rand Bookstore by Andrew Bernstein which summarizes Nietschze's views and explains how they are similar to and different from Ayn Rand's views.
-
Wow, I was about to add a review for this novel when I saw that it had already been done. I loved LaGrecca's novel and, although it has its flaws in style, especially in repeating key details every few chapters, it was a very enjoyable read which helped concretize for me the effects of a state run medical system on the individual. Overall, I'd give it an 8 out of 10.
I also have to say, I absolutely LOVE the cover art of this book and would love to own it as a print.
-
Any other inconsistencies that you've found. I'm a walking Sword of Truth Almanac; a Goodkind scholar so to speak and would be more then glad to answer any questions.
*Chainfire Spoiler*
One inconsitenscy which has bothered me is the fact that, at the end of Naked Empire, Zedd was at the Keep with Rikka, Chase, Rachel, and Friedrich. Zedd had asked Chase and Friedrich to stay and help him defend the Keep in case Jagang ever sent a Pillar of Creation to it again. However, in Chainfire, Friedrich is gone and is not even mentioned. What happened to the gilder?!?!?!
I've heard it suggested, though, that Goodkind may clear this up in Phantom.
-
You should read the article entitled 'Racism' in the Virtue of Selfishness, the first sentence of which is:
(SNIP)
Agreed. Also of interest may be Ayn Rand's essay, "Global Balkanization," which is printed in both Return of the Primitive and The Voice of Reason.
Daniel, one important question to ask you to determine if your thinking is correct is: what is "the left?"
-
Hmm, "existentialism" is a broad term. Which existentialists do you regard as positing a similar ethics to that of Objectivism, and in what respects?
One I've studied some that she bears a resemblance to is Nietszche. And, before I start a flame war, notice I used the word similar, not exact. There are some important differences. Rand believed it was immoral to sacrifice another human being to achieve your values. Nietszche did not. This is one of the many reasons I'm an Objectivist and not a Nietszchen.
-
Someone I've always thought was attractive--especially for someone of his age--is Sean Connery. He was attractive as James Bond and he's still attractive now. He's always superb in any role he plays, which is probably what attracts me to him most.
I also think Terry Goodkind is very attractive. His face betrays a confidence in himself that you can tell he has from his writing.
Edit: Oops, forgot my reasons.
-
I respectfully disagree. To be an Objectivist is to live the philosophy not to worship it or the individual who named it. This is my issue. A philosophy of the individual can not be regulated by any organized group or set of rules. Though I agree she defined Objectivism I disagree Rand is it's creator. One might describe the makeup of an atom or discover a new principle in physics but that does not mean they invented the atom or the principles they find.
I think you're confusing the philosophy of Objectivism with the ideas it contains. To be sure, Ayn Rand did create Objectivism--it was her personal philosophy by her own definition. Was she the first person to think of the principles behind Objectivism? No, and no one would claim she did. Her epistemology is largely rooted in Aristotle and her ethics is similar to that of the existentialists.
I'm sure there were also probably people of the past who lived by the principles of Objectivism but did not know they were doing so as the philosophy hadn't been invented yet.
I don't think anyone anywhere is levying the claim that Ayn Rand was the first rational person on Earth. Thomas Paine is one of my personal heroes and he lived two centuries before Ayn Rand was born.I think it a very hard concept for some to admit that people may have lived a rational philosophy prior to Rands lifetime.Roark and Galt were born Objectivist, that is to say they sprung fully formed and nowhere is it even hinted that either character went off to study philosophy to have the rational views they lived by.Roark and Galt were not Objectivists. Objectivism did not exist in their universe.
Agreed.Therefore it must have been in Rands mind that there were individuals who indeed naturally lived objectively with rational self interest as their philosophy without the aid of a formal organized movement or philosophy professors to open their minds to it.As to the "Package Deal" I may be misunderstanding your meaning. Rand would never sanction package deal thinking. Objectivism is indeed a personal philosophy, but it is not just Ayn Rand's personal philosophy. She herself knew that over associating her rather than the tenets of Objectivism was a bad road to follow.Agreed. However, those of us who call ourselves Objectivists do so because, after studying Ayn Rand's works, we believe them to be essentially correct philisophically.
Agreed. However, it appears that here you are confusing your personal philosophy with Objectivism. Everyone has a personal philosophy, implicit or explicit. Not everyone is an Objectivist.Again Objectivism is a philosophy not a religion.For claritys sake, imagine the time period when Ayn Rand first called her philosophy Objectivism. As she had not yet given her philosophy a name, some were referring to it as "Randism." She hated the name and gave it the name Objectivism to avoid the former term being used as much as possible.
Now, we call Aristotle's personal philosophy "Aristotlism," Kant's "Kantism," etc. However, those who call themselves Aristotlists or Kantists are those who generally agree with the philosophy of Aristotle or the philosophy of Kant. Do people hold the same premises who have never heard of Aristotle or Kant? Undoubtedly. However, those people would be dishonest to call themselves a Kantian since they are not familiar with Kant's philosophy to comment on it.
So with Objectivism. If you get confused, imagine it being interchanged with the term Ayn Rand hated, "Randism."
The titles Randite or Randian tend to grate and are used by critics and the irrational.Agreed. Those terms are typically used as derogatory referring to those who supposedly do everything Ayn Rand said to the letter. These are the people who like Rachmainoff and hate Beethoven because Ayn Rand said so. Personally, I also like Rachmanoff and Beethoven both. I also like rock music and am a homosexual. However, none of these points are part of Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism. As such, I'm honest when I call myself an Objectivist.
It's all a matter of perception but I can understand where you're coming from on those remarks. However, I'm not ashamed to say that I'm selfish despite the negative connotations that word gives.So I can and will call myself an Objectivist because it is the best description to externalize my way of life, should it ever be associated with a political party or become more cultlike in it's asperations I would disasociate myself from the term as the definition will have been changed regardless that the actual philosophy is intact. I would rather be what I am than to seem to be something based on titles.I guess it's up to an individual what they want to call themselves.
CheersJD
Cheers! Welcome to the board!
-
What is really needed is a book that shows people how to apply Objectivism. There are at least two key elements in moving from understanding Objectivism into doing Objectivism (that I've identified in the last 20 seconds of thinking):
1. One must learn to think in principle. Non-Objectivists rarely think in abstractions, they almost always deal only with the concretes of the range of the moment.
2. One must learn what introspection is, and how and when to do it.
If you've got more, feel free to add them.
Agreed. I wonder if the reason Ayn Rand didn't write a book about these herself was because she believed them to be self evident.
-
Religions do not necessarily advocate altruism - if you look at the religions - really, they're acting in selfish fashion - they do things to get them into their "heaven" - so I've heard..
You may want to read Nathaniel Branden's essay, "Isn't Everyone Selfish?" in The Virtue of Selfishness. Branden explains thoroughly why it isn't necessarily selfish to give up your life for a higher cause.
-
Let's suppose there is some circle of people who all know each other and who are all infected with a disease that is fatal unless it is treated. They cannot afford to treat it. They all know about a black market source of stolen medicine and all but one of them use that stolen, inexpensive medicine.
The one who does not use the black market medicine is motivated by a dedication to justice. The one who does not use the black market medicine dies. The others live.
First of all, I have to point out that this would be considered an emergency situation, one which is highly unlikely to happen to you or anyone you know. Emergency situations are not and should not be used as the basis of forming a code of ethics. Ethics is primarily concerned with living your own life and since chances are good you will never encounter such a situation, you should not base your ethics on it.
That said:
Absolutely. The medicine is stolen. No amount of rationalization can make the situation otherwise. To use the medicine would be to fake reality, to use something which is not properly yours. If there is not a honest alternative, then I would rather die.Questions:1. Is the one who dies heroic or not?
2. If life is the standard of value, then can you consistently claim that the one who dies is doing the right thing?Life is the standard of value but when your life continues at the expense of other people's lives, that is immoral in itself. You have no claim to their lives and they have no claim to yours. As such, using stolen medicine could only help you at the expense of someone else.
-
I know there are plenty of people in this forum who attend college. I was recently accepted for the fall semester at Indiana University Southeast in New Albany, Indiana, a medium sized branch college of Indiana University. The college currently has no Objectivism club but I would love to use the experience of college to meet other like minded people who love Ayn Rand.
My question is when you went to college, how did you find other Objectivists who attended your campus? How can I network and meet other Objectivists and possibly start an Objectivism club? Any help or suggestions would be useful.
-
What books would you find helpful in improving your lives? What specific topics are not being covered well in the current alphabet soup on the literary self-help menu?
The problem I've found with self improvement books in general (and believe me, I've wasted plenty of money on them) is that they treat the symptoms, not the problem. If you're depressed because you have a self-esteem issue, they tell you how to not feel depressed but they don't tell you how to raise your self-esteem.
That said, I would like to clarify what exactly it is you seek to accomplish. Do you simply want to expand on existing philisophic literature by tackling specific issues such as fear and anxiety or are you attempting to cross over into helping people with their psychological problems a la Dr. Phil?
-
Books other than Rand to read...
If you like fantasy, Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series is very excellent. Goodkind is himself an Objectivist and is very successful in integrating Objectivism into a fantasy world.
In literature, it doesn't get any better than Victor Hugo. Les Miserables was pure genius.
If you like mystery novels, I'd highly recommend Mickey Spillane (the Mike Hammer Series), Erle Stanley Gardner (Perry Mason), and Ian Flemming (James Bond).
-
Speaking of new Fountainheadesque buildings, has anyone ever published a book of drawings depicting what Roark's buildings might have look like in reality? I would treasure that as my ultimate coffee table book (aside from Cosmo Kramer's coffee table book about coffee tables— complete with little table legs).
Frank Lloyd Wright was originally to make the drawings of the buildings in The Fountainhead movie but he wanted too much money and control over the movie. It's a shame. I would have liked to see his depiction of Roark's buildings.
-
I think that Peter Keating is an easy one to spot. The second-handedness of a character like Peter Keating is so pervasive in our society. I think about all the "popular people" in high school and I see plenty of Peter Keating in them. I think of all the twits who run all the campus clubs in University and run for student politics as well (that is a broad generalization of course). I hate to say, but some people I even grew up with as "close friends" turned out to be quite Keatingesque.
Agreed. It's not hard to spot Keatings and Tooheys. The difficult one to spot are Roarks.
-
I've been told something that may explain why Les Mis is so long-winded....although it was just something mentioned in a conversation and I haven't any concrete proof of it. I was told that authors during Hugo's time were paid by how many words they have in a book whne it was being published. Becuase of that he may have added more than necessary.
I really don't see that as being the case. Hugo was a master at tying all of his loose ends in the plot together. If he talked about it, you could infer that it was important in some way to the story.
In the film Ayn Rand: A Sense Of Life, the narrator says that hearing Victor Hugo's books read as a child is what inspired Ayn Rand to write the way she did. This is because he had such a knack for tying together all of the elements of a story in a nice little package.
-
I wanted to update those of you who told me to stick with Les Miserables. I did stick with it and I'm glad I did. I must say I was completely blown away by the story! When I finished it, I couldn't close the book right away but left it open to the last page, overcome with emotion at the masterpiece I had just read. I can completely understand why a young Ayn Rand would fall in love with this author.
So, I would definitely like to read more of Hugo's works. I am thinking next of reading his other famous book, Notre Dame de Paris. What translations would you recommend for this book?
-
In my opinion, a real conception of "the real concept" of god is not incompatible
with objectivism. Just as a real conception of the real concept of anything is
rational.
I see god in the same way as I see John Galt. They are both ficticious characters
who were created for the purpose of illustrating something to me.
I consider myself a christian. I agree with only those things about "what I call
christianity" that I have a rational need for.
If you call yourself a Christian, you are condemning yourself to partake in the same lot as they do. You have assummed that there are things you need from Christianity. In fact, this is not so. You see, there is nothing good you can get from Christianity which you cannot obtain elsewhere and with much less evil.
I am truly baffled by your position as, by your own admission, you pick and choose what to believe out of Christianity. I am sure you could find some points in Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, and every other world religion with which you agree with. Why, then, do you not associate yourself with those religions?
When the things that I need my "christianity" for are shown to be answerable(solvable/understandable) by my own self-work, I experience "the greatness of
god" that is the realization that yet another marvelous understanding of reality has
been given to me.
This makes god (the ficticious character) MORE impressive to me, as uncovering
more wonderful fiction that actually enlightens me is a good thing.
If god is seen as a "giver" of anything other than enlightenment (the discovery of
the wonders of reality with it's concomittant "emotions'), then one will act
inappropriately toward god, and will be continually disappointed and confused in
relation to god.
Which "things" do you need God for? Why do you need God for these things?
-
There is a button above the text box, alternatively you can type:
[ Q U O T E ]
without the spaces, to start the quote, and:
[ / q u o t e ]
without the spaces, to end it.
Also, when you hit 'reply' to a post, it will automatically setup a quote, in the text box, of the post you are replying to (except it leaves out any old quotes from the old post).
(Editted to hide my ignorance of the English language...
)A faster way to do this is to use the reply button at the bottom of each post. It is the button which is the farthest right of all of the buttons.
The button that says quote is most useful when you wish to quote multiple posts in your reply.
-
I'm starting to think he/she is a troll. How does one alert the moderators to this possiblity?
If you believe a post violates forum rules, there is an alert button at the bottom of each post. Pressing this button will allow you to send a report to the moderators on why you feel this post violates forum rules.
-
What difference does it make? Chi, essentially, is another word for energy.
Have you ever listened to a guy named Tom Lehrer? A very funny guy. Does musical comedy. He has a song called "New Math" Talking about when New Math was introduced (the idea of, it doesn't matter if you get the right answer as long as you understand the process) and poked huge fun at that. This is kind of the same thing. What's the difference between seeing 15/3=5 and 2+3=5. They're both two ways to get the same answer.
I don't believe it deserves responding to when you compare new math to the mystical force of "chi." The difference is: chi doesn't exist and you can't prove it exsists outside of normal physiological processes which have their own name. New math was a theory of learning, a bad theory of learning but a concrete theory that did exsist, nonetheless.
Your statement is very pragmatic. If I were to accept Aquinas' views on God's existence through "reason," would it be justified since I have used reason (be it faulty reason), since reason is one of the Objectivist values?
-
Everything Deserves mockery, as there is no perfection.
Please show us how Ayn Rand and her system of Objectivism deserve mockery.
(This could be very telling if he actually responds.)
-
I'm not really arguing Objectivist Epistemology (and considering I'm still on the first essay of VoS, give me some time to get there
). I'm simply saying that it's interesting when two different ways, arrive at the same conlusion (i.e. differents words with the same meanings). Example- This book. Talks about position and stance and Chi (life energy). While scientists don't see Chi (being a supernatural idea) The effects of "Chi" are backed up by science. Good posture, Running from your body, not just your legs, using big muscles to do little work vs. little muscles to do big work. It's coming from different angles, yet arriving at the same conclusion.
The question is: what is "chi" exactly? Can you actually find something in the body which would be called "chi" or is it actually an elaborate physiological process which has nothing to do with "chi?" Have you considered the possibility that the benefits to the body are not caused by a mystical "chi" at all but rather are just things which are good for the body?
The best example of something which was beneficial to people but which they considered mystical at the time was God's orders to the Jews on dietary guidelines as recorded in the Biblical book of Leviticus. At the time the rules were written, cooking procedures weren't perfected nearly as well as they were today. As a result, food such as pork and shellfish were disease-ridden and dangerous to eat. The Jews' dietary guidelines probably saved more than a few people then but they are contradictory and useless today.
Mystics love to take a perfectly normal process and make something mystical out of it. For examples, look at the ghost chasers who look for electromagnetic energy to detect "ghosts," people who move ouigi boards by the power of suggestion, so called ESPs who use cold reading to make it look like they're talking to the dead, etc. The question you have to ask: is it actually a mystical process or is it something perfectly normal?
This sounds like a good topic for Penn & Teller: Bullsh*#t.
-
Free verse is often compared to poetry what abstract art is to art. One of the most recognized characteristics of free verse is that it often doesn't rhyme. However, I started thinking and wonder if rhyming is an essential characteristic of poetry. Can one still make good poetry if one pays attention to rhythm, meter, etc.?
Brokeback Mountain
in Movies, Shows, and Theatre
Posted · Edited by redfarmer
Without starting yet another debate on the worth (or lack thereof) of homosexuality, I think that my life proves how wrong you are. I could have been ok with it if you said that you didn't like watching gay love scenes. Frankly, graphic loves scenes of any sort I'm not involved in can tend to make me sick.
However, to ascribe a set of supposed lack of values to any man or woman simply because of the sex life they choose without any evidence backing up the statement is mind boggling. There are a great deal of gay people who are without moral worth. However, that does not prove that all gay people are without moral worth. After all, there are just as many straight people without any moral worth.
If you care to continue the conversation, please be kind enough to elaborate on why you made this statement or point me to a source that will explain why it was made. Otherwise, please don't put generalizations onto all of us when they don't belong.