Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

RationalBiker

Patron
  • Posts

    4155
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Everything posted by RationalBiker

  1. Does anyone here watch this show? Like it? It portrays a rather brutal depiction of the west during that time. There are some facts blended into the fictional story line. One thing that I have noticed is how many of the characters seem to have objectivist-like beliefs. For those not familiar with the story, the main "hero" is a guy named Bullock who leaves a sheriff job in a small town to start a business in a camp called Deadwood. There we meet the story's principal "villain", a guy named Swearengen. These two have an intense dislike for each other almost immediately, but circumstances of survival require that they co-exist. If I were to picture an Objectivist villain (if there is such a thing), I think Swearengen would be it. There's no mistaking that he is unethical, immoral and evil, but he's clearly an intelligent man, and many times during the show he makes decisions with rational self-interest in mind that gives value to the "common good" in order to ensure his livelihood (or value). (i.e. sending for a vaccine when a plague breaks out) Altruism does not even cross his mind. However, his sense of life is severly stunted, and he rarely experiences any hapiness for his efforts of providing whiskey, women and gambling to his patrons. This is usually because of all the problems generated by his efforts running the saloon and trying to maintain a strangle hold over the camp while pursuing his interests. For me however, it is more difficult to assess if Bullock could represent an Objectivist hero. He wants to start a business with his partner selling goods in the camp. He has to deal with Swearengen in order to get the land to do so, and this causes serious tension between the two for a couple of episodes. While doing so, Bullock befriends Wild Bill Hikock, Calamity Jane and Charlie Utter. (A little sidetrack: Bill is on a losing streak, Jane loves Bill but is too much of a "man" to admit it, and Charlie feels obligated to save Bill from himself. There is an odd hint of tension (dare I say sexual) between Jane and Charlie as well.) At times Bullock appears to be altruistic. I say appears, because it isn't clear to me whether that is the case. He becomes involved in several events helping others that it isn't clear (at least to me) whether or not he's doing it because he's getting value from his involvement or because he's sacrificing himself for others. There are a few times when both Swearengen and Bullock have to work together, each to insure their own survival. Swearengen does not represent the greatest evil in Deadwood though. A couple of episode into the series, a new saloon owner shows up in town. Tolliver starts up a saloon (which was bought up for him surreptitiously by another character) which presents a more "upscale" environment than Swearengen's saloon, the Gem. Despite his apparent civility, he's as mean and ruthless as a snake. All of the characters are richly and uniquely detailed, some types rarely if ever seen in shows before. They aren't all likeable, but the are all well designed and acted out. I would like to hear what other folks think of this show, particularly those more knowledgeable about Objectivism than myself. I'm interested largely in your assessment of the main characters, and what you think of my assessment. Here's a link to the show's web page Deadwood. VES
  2. That is funny. I can tell that many of those people posting haven't a clue as to what Objectivism is about. VES
  3. AshRyan, I think the first paragraph in my last response is not in contradiction with what you are saying. I haven't said that her word is the truth and should be sought out in all or even most cases. I said that at times it can be informative to speculate on how she would have viewed things. That is only because you can look at things she has addressed in the past that are analogous to situations in the present. For some folks, like me, who have less than a complete knowledge of Objectivism, and a less than complete knowledge of all things said by Ayn Rand, we try to make corelations between the two. Can that be misused? Of course. Can it still be informative? I think so, in so far as developing a better understanding of the philosophy, and it's practical implementation. It is quite a paradigmatic shift in thinking to go from an altruistic Christian, to a "homeless" agnostic, and finally to a thinking, truth-seeking objectivist. For those who aren't there yet, it can help to have examples. Trust me when I say, I have no use or need to elevate any person to the level of a diety, or as "the truth". At any rate, I understand what you are saying. Thanks for your input. VES
  4. One of the best defenses is to say, "I was only joking." "Receiving" implies that someone is giving. You mean "taking" don't you? The initiation of force is a broader concept than simply the use of physical force. What does that mean? Living life is justification for whatever action follows in it's pursuit? I think not. VES
  5. And I thought the collection of information was interesting. The history of the seller is also quite a drama. Thanks for all the background guys, I'm glad I didn't bid on this. VES
  6. Then why are you bothering with Objectivism? Objectivism is about what Ayn Rand thought and said. She did identify this philosophy. Determing how things would or should be viewed with Objectivism as a guide is a learning process for many which includes sometimes asserting or speculating what Ayn Rand's thoughts might have been on the matter. Is it necessary? No. Can it be productive? Yes. Is anyone here forced to participate that doesn't choose to do so? No. Has someone on here said that Ayn Rand would say nuke Iraq? If so, did you dispute that claim with a reasoned argument as opposed to vague general statements about knowing or not knowing what she would say when you don't know yourself? I read what she said about Vietnam. Your point is? Are you buying into the popular notion that Iraq is "just another Vietnam"? Which terrorists or terrorist group(s) is the US currently supporting in this fashion? If you can name any, is that any reason NOT to address problems with other terrorists? If one or more administrations in the past failed to take a proper course of action, does that preclude a newer administration from doing so? As to why I'm here... http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...owtopic=675&hl= There are plenty of folks on here who debate about issues, and how those issues should be viewed through Objectivism. The thing that I have found unique about this place is the number of issues that actually reach some resolution as opposed to other places I have been where the issue drags on, or the participants still walk away with no better understanding of what the other person said. The majority of conversations here are based on reason, logic, and reality. I appreciate that after having been to a number of forums where that is very scarce. I'm rather disgusted by emotional arguments, arguments from skewed perspectives from people with a collectivist mentality who believe 'perception is reality'. I leave them to their ignorance rather than walk in the door and insult them just because I don't like what I see. VES
  7. Do you think that a government who lends support to these enemies should not be considered an enemy as well? Do you think a government who still hadn't yet been held accountable for it's actions 12 years ago, and who was building up to commit more of the same acts should be ignored? Do you think a nation can just ignore agreements it made 12 years ago (which is why we pulled out then) with impunity? In considering the "complexity" of Iraq, you may not be considering all of the relevant issues yourself. Hmm, my observations are different. I have found this place to be quite civil, regardless of disagreement. Can you link to a representative amount of posts that demonstrates that 90% of the time people are dissing each other? That would be a very long post indeed. In making your original statement, you are strongly implying that there is a disconnect. Now you are saying that you don't really know that there is a disconnect. Which is it? Objectivism DOES seek what's true by examining reality. Well, you can't make a legitimate assertion without knowing something. If you don't know what Ayn Rand would say, how can you demonstrate that what others are saying is wrong? This invalidates the point you were trying to make, that just because you don't know, then no one else could know. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib...97/Robinson.htm http://www.specialoperations.com/Operations/mayaguez.html There are two links that will describe the basic incident, and many more can be found on the web. To reference Ms. Rand's thoughts on this incident I point you to The Voice of Reason, The Lessons of Vietnam, starting on pg. 144. Compared to many of the terrorist acts that our nebulous enemy has committed, with the support of various governments, not the least of which Iraq, the taking of this ship was relatively minor. President Fords response was "swift and violent" and sent an UNEQUIVOCAL message to other nations in that region (if not the whole world) that we would NOT tolerate hostile acts against us. In the book I referenced, Ms. Rand lauded President Ford for "the proper and highly moral action". Even with this happening on the tail end of Vietnam, the majority of the public supported this action. Ms. Rand also states, "...when a foreign country initiates the use of armed force against us, it is our moral obligation to answer by force-as promptly and unequivocally as is necessary to make it clear that the matter is nonnegotiable." I would argue that the newer tactic of supplying money, training, and housing for the "nebulous" terrorist forces that attack us, would easily constitute an initiation of the use of armed force against us. Though they may not necessarily be tethered by nationality, they are by purpose. I believe the above incident is parallel enough to suggest that Ms. Rand would also support our activities today. In fact, the only disagreement I believe she would have is that we are not being unequivocal enough. Everybody here is not an automaton that thinks the same way. If you find a place like that, tell me where it is so I can avoid it. VES
  8. How complex do you make it out to be? Why are you annoyed by people arguing about their various views on Objectivism? Are you trying to learn about Objectivism? Or, did you just come here to "take a dump on the front lawn"? Please explain how the "Objectivist dogma" is at odds with "what's TRUE". What do you think Ayn Rand would say, and what do you base it on? Or, more precisely, how do you think the Objectivist philosophy would guide one in these matters? Why do you think we would be surprised? Are you familiar with what Ayn Rand wrote about the Cambodian incident invovling a merchant marine ship called the Mayaquez? VES
  9. Thanks for the input! They have international shipping, though I don't know if specifically to Croatia. I added another shirt design and a bumper sticker. This is fun! VES
  10. Well, here's my first design: I would appreciate feedback on the design from those who wish to give it. Here's a link to my shop: Rational Creations VES
  11. Great idea MisterSwig! Thanks for pointing me (us) to this web site GC. I have created a store front, but I haven't added products yet. I will be thinking of some logos / graphic designs over the next couple days. VES
  12. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...ssPageName=WDVW What a lot of interesting material! This is NOT my auction if you are wondering, nor anyone I know. VES
  13. I think as you read more, you may find that that is the wrong question. The question is, can an objectivist find value in helping other people, (i.e. disabled, sick, injured, etc)? I also think you will find the answer to be yes. Not everyone will, but someone will. Think trade and value, not charity and sacrifice. VES
  14. First welcome to the forum! I hope you enjoy this place as much as I have so far. Now, to answer your above question, from one who is learning objectivism, I would be a member of such government. Why? As a person who values protection from criminal force for not only me, but my family, I get value in being part of providing that protection. It is an obligation that I choose willingly, that I indeed benefit from as an individual. I value the ability to walk around on the street with a lessened concern about getting mugged or killed. I recognize that in some specific cases, I have to provide for others in order to provide for my own self interest. Willing service is not slavery, it is a value provided for a value gained. Additionally, I get monetary compensation for my effort (read more value). No, I don't think I'm a slave since I can choose to leave this job at any time. VES
  15. Fair enough, my apologies and disregard my inquiry. VES
  16. How can a weapon be wrong? It's a tool. Only it's use by a person can be wrong. VES
  17. I understand what you mean about physical harm (which is inclusive of physical harm up to death) versus, for the sake of discussion, quality of life. My sticking point revolves around the same question I asked erandror. I will however make it more specific than my previous question in light of clarified terminology. As to valuing a trade off of activities/consequences for the purpose of enhancing the quality of one's life where one of the consequences involves the shortening of one's physical life and where the tradeoff causes you to be either more productive or more happy, do you see a limit as to how much shorter you may make your physical life and still consider it a moral choice of values? As to the rest, I intend to read more and think more about it before continuing. VES
  18. Well said Betsy. I hope it's clear that I'm not so hung up on how my effort is categorized as I am what it reflects of my view or my emotions, whether it captures a story, or makes one think. If asked to describe myself, I'd say I'm a photographer, not an artist. VES
  19. Nikola, I like your images. I also like to take photographs while hiking, though I may not go as far as saying I'm a mountain climber. As to whether photography is an art, I have never worried much about it as a classification for my images. There is something about photography that requires an eye, a talent so to speak. You can give anyone a camera, and they can take pictures, but not everyone can capture images that tell a story or evoke an emotion. When we look around, we usually see more than will fit in the frame of a camera. A good or great photographer will see the frame, the composition iniside the larger view (the angle, the subject, the background, etc.). He understands depth of field, which can be used to isolate a subject. He understands what images truly stir his emotions or incite him to think. As Tryp alluded to, a good photographer can catch a sense of motion in an otherwise still shot. Aside from all of these aesthetic qualities, the photographer has to understand how to use his equipment in a technical sense as well. Capturing light is not necessarily an easy thing. Simply put, one has to have an "eye" for photography. This is obvious in any number of books and publications, National Geographic being one of my personal favorites right now. Artist or not, I see photography as a medium for expressing my emotional view of the world. Images can be bleak or they can be vivid and exciting. I usually look for positive, beautiful images. Images that to me go beyond simply documenting reality. VES
  20. Concerto, Black and white imagery can be very compelling. It is an interesting medium of expression that I haven't explored a great deal. I have on occasion taken a color image and made it grayscale for effect. What kind of camera do you use? Do you shoot mostly manually? Here are some color galleries of mine: http://www.pbase.com/vsteven Specifically, I like: http://www.pbase.com/vsteven/blue_ridge_day_trip Colors move me and is often the motivation for the shots I choose to shoot. Unfortunately, some of these shots lack specific "focus" and suffer for it despite how colorful they may be. Even abstract color photography has to have focus. VES
  21. Thanks. Phoenix it is! Aptly titled. VES
  22. I'm not sure which of us you were responding to, but for my part, I don't see the implication that every man is immoral. The only implication that I see is that if one IS immoral and seeks not to be, one should seek to be wholly moral. Now as to valuing a trade off of activities versus the shortening you life, where the tradeoff causes you to be either more productive or more happy, do you see a limit as to how much shorter you may make your life and still consider it a moral choice of values? I have to give this some more thought and do some more reading. However my initial thought would be that chemical dependency is not a good thing. If one has to smoke in order to be able to write, that suggests a chemical dependency issue, not simply a choice. Then one would have to examine why the need to smoke to be productive exists. Do I understand your suggestion correctly when I say, as long as someone evaluates all of the values and consequences involved, the implications that result are immaterial in determining the morality of the action? Or more simply put, does the fact that the choice was wholly volitional justify it's morality? Yes, that can be true in some people. I'm not sure if you intended a connection or not, but phobias are not related to fetishes, at least not normally. Phobias are "unreasonable or irrational fears". Phobias result in avoiding something, fetishes result in pursuing something. I don't think the morality of phobias is at issue here. VES
  23. Ranier is an awesome sight. I haven't been able to go very close to Ranier, but we did do some hiking in the Cascades. I have a few dramatic shots from that hike I'll put up some time. Here is a sky scene I took back in November near where I live in Va. Beach, VA. We don't always get color like that, but when we do..... VES
  24. Very dramatic skies there Tryp! I noticed your shots were named after Spokane. My sister-in-law lives in Seattle. Been out that way a couple times. My wife is heading out there in July but I can't make this trip. Seattle is a very interesting city! VES
×
×
  • Create New...