Tryptonique

Well...she wrote a poem for President Cliton's inaugeration if that gives you a good starting point . Aside from that, though...I don't think she has ever been politically active except with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in the civil right's movement. This is the most I could find on her activism : from - http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Maya_Angelou

Check the link! It is a Discovery Channel thing. It says "Nominate and then watch Discovery Chanel and then watch in June as we count down to the Greatest American of all time." There is even a link to a video streaming preview. This thing is sponsored by AOL and The Discovery Channel. They are going to count down from 100 all the way to number on in the month of June.

Glad for the positive responses:)

http://tv.channel.aol.com/greatestamerican

How about selflessness is a vice?

Your motives were good. I can't think of anyone on this site who WOULDN'T want to help spread Objectivism, raise it's profile, and have an easy way to identify other lovers of reason/rational thought. ARI does so many wonderful things to help that cause. On campus Objectivist clubs, student leaders now have access to free "Who is John Galt?" buttons, flyers, and pamphlets regarding Miss Rand's work. They also are helping to give English teachers free classroom sets of The Fountainhead so they can start teaching Ayn Rand in the classroom. If you want to spread merch like that, you should email Leonard Peikoff and see if you can get permission or if there is some way that they might incorporate new merch ideas in the Ayn Rand Bookstore on www.aynrand.org See, what kind of angered me is that it isn't just one overzealous Objectivist selling this kind of stuff. go to CafePress and just type in "John Galt" in the search bar. There is everything from bumper stickers, license plate frames, thongs, T-shirts, dog t-shirts, etc. Definitely agree with you. You are trying to tie together a philosophy that is based upon one person's groundbreaking ideas. Trying to do this in words that are more rofound than this groundbreaking philosopher is a difficult thing indeed, considering that she was such a brilliant writer. I don't think your other designs totally suck...they just pale in comparison to Ayn Rand's own work. If you can come up with something better or something that is cool on it's own, I will be a customer in no time:).

Because things like pharmeceuticals, lumber, and other natural resources (I'm not sure about textiles) are subsidized by many socialist governments. This allows them to undercut laissez-fair markets in many cases because their prices are cheaper. This also means that buying such products in turn supports anti-capitalist regimes, foreign policies, and other nasty things that a lot of people just personally don't want to endorse.

Would this be considered an intellectual property violation or trademark/copyright violation? We obviously all know that John Galt's existence and the very phrase plastered all over this merch (Who is John Galt?) came from another person's work (obviously Ayn Rands). Even if it isn't illigal, you would be directly profitting from another person's intellectual property (the phrase "who is John Galt?") without their consent. I guess coming up with your own product is a bit too difficult nowadays. Why not bum slogans or intellectual products from your betters, hmmm? If there was a texbook example of second-handing I think this would be it. (my problem is with your "Who is John Galt?" merch not the bland and uninspiring "follow reason" that you probably came up with yourself or the A is A that Aristotle came up with) I would expect this on another forum, not this one. [edit] = In case anyone has any doubts as to how Leonard Peikoff (Miss Rand's intellectual and legal heir) stands on issues concerning violations of Ayn Rand's intellectual products, he sued a rock band called "Atlas Shrugged" for intellectual property violation. With pretty damn good reason, I might add. What is with all of these people on Cafe Press trying to sell other people's ideas? Go down one post and you will find ANOTHER vendor for this junk.

I was an LDer for three years (I qualled to Nats and split rounds with Oscar Shine and Jen Larson who were the respective national and TOC champions that year). I also did the new Public Forum Debate (the year that it was created) and was an octafinalist at nats that year. I'm 19, and I coach high school debate a bit and my girlfriend who is also an Objectivist also teaches at VBI (one of the best LD camp in the country). If you need any help with cases, topics, etc..you can contact me via AIM. My SN is Tryptonique. In the mean time, I will think about this topic and get back to you on it in a day or two. -Evan

I think Leonard Peikoff sued that band a long time ago for copyright infringement (and rightfully so).

He wrote "Death of a Salesman" and "The Crucible" which are common staples of high school English courses all over the country.

Would this be considered an intellectual property violation or trademark/copyright violation? We obviously all know that John Galt's existence and the very phrase plastered all over this merch (Who is John Galt?) came from another person's work.

What is the problem with the article or the situation? I'm not seeing it. I'm not trying to be dumb here, but where is your beef? I'm not sure what your argument is at this point.

He IS an anthropologist. He had over 30 years of field experience with the New Guinea tribe that Yali (the guy in the preface that supposedly asks the question that motivates the book) belonged to.

I love the line about winners and the prom queen:).

Another example I have happened to read about (a long time ago) regards how sucessful the Cherokee tribe has been in comparison to others due to the wise investment and acknowledging that their reality had changed with the coming of the white man and thus their approach and attitudes had to change as well.

Hey! Crossfade is awesome! I saw them open for Smile Empty Soul once and they put on an awesome live show. On Feburary 4th I'm seeing them on the Winterfresh SnoCore tour with Chevelle (I have seen Chevelle twice before too..lol). If you like Crossfade and don't have their album, check out some of their songs here:http://www.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewProfile&friendID=2781992&Mytoken=20050121130457 I really like the song on the player called "No giving up." That song is really really good in my opinion. I love the chorus and I love what this song says in the lyrics.

If you like The Used, check out some of my other recommendations(like Kill Hannah, Camera, etc) on this thread. I provide links so that way you can listen before you actually spend any money.

Fair enough I guess. Consider it done and done. You can't have a debate with one party. Just so I make it clear, I don't like the methods you use (respond to the first HALF of a sentence and ignore the rest of a half-page and then admit you haven't even read the thread to begin with) because it is just bad debating. Note that the title of these forums is "debate and discussion." What I don't understand is if you "haven't been reading most of what I write" or even this thread in general, why did you interject in the first place? That seems unconventionally juvenille. Like some punk kid at a party who walks in and starts yammering after missing the last 30 minutes of the conversation. Then when someone tries to logically say "You're wrong for the following ten reasons" the kid wanders off midsentence. I honestly don't think that the opinions differ at all. Maybe Steven likes folk music? I don't know. I don't think that is what is really being debated here. I personally don't like folk music, but the reason I don't like it has nothing to do with Ayn Rand's characterization of it or even her reasons. I don't have a problem with people who DO like folk music. My mom likes country and I like hard rock. My girlfriend loves classical and I prefer vocal music. Whoopee. It isn't like differences of simple opinions can't be reconciled. This isn't Dr. Seuss with the people who like their toast butter side up going to war with those who like their butter side down. At least I hope that isn't what is going on. What more or less happened is that WilliamB made a post and Betsy jumped in and labeled him a "mind reader" and "psychologizer." I said "hold up, based on the evidence you don't have to be a mind reader or a psychologizer to come to that conclusion." Then Steven puts up a pretty weak defense based on one liners and not actually reading the discussion which also drew fire from me just due to the fact that it makes for crappy discussion and even crappier debate. Moreover, it is unwarranted tripe. He might as well be saying "tra la la la la snicker snash picker pash." It would have as much relevence. Based on the fact that he doesn't give my post any respect by not reading it, I might as well be singing gibberish too. For all he knows I'm damning him to the infernal pits of hell or singing his praises to the angels on high. We have what we call in debate "two ships passing in the night." We don't have any clash, we just have talking and subpar attempts at arguments that were weak to begin with. I think that is an overall crappy thing and I have no problem pointing it out to anyone. That was my problem with Betsy and that is my problem with Steven. I don't think that Steven necessarily "disagrees" with the meat of my posts (or other posts) considering he didn't friggin read them. I wouldn't waste this amount of time on a simple disagreement about whether or not folk music is good or not. I have actually said very little on that very subject (whether or not I think folk music is good or bad). I would and did waste my time trying to inject a level of reasonability and fairness when another user was labeled unfairly and Steven decided to flush actual debate and discussion down the toilet. I'm thinking our disagreement happens to center somewhere along those lines (the fact that I pretty much have said all of the above in the last 2 pages). Apparently he doesn't "appreciate my tone, perspectives, or interpretations" and thinks my posts are "too long and rambling." That should give you somewhere to start.

1) Black Sabbath's first album was released in 1970 and didn't go gold (500,000 records until 1971). You can verify this at www.riaa.com 2) Led Zepplin's first album went gold on 7/22/1969 and didn't go platinum until 1990. I doubt this was really catching Ayn Rand's attention especially since it wasn't exactly super popular immediately at it came out. It's following was wayyyy less than any folk artist of relative importance. 3) King Crimson's only album to even go gold didn't GO gold until 1977. Wrong time frame. 4) The Doors and The Stones? Possible. Carlos Santana is also possible. Among hippies themselves though (which is the group referred to in the quote), those bands were pretty mainstream and not hippie fodder. Go look at the Wiki article. You won't see hippies characterized by Black Sabbath, Carlos SantanaThe Rolling Stones, or even The Doors. What you also aren't accounting for are the comments made on folk music in her fiction works which were far before either of those artists. Like...I dunno...Atlas Shrugged perhaps (1957) ? Considering the fact that Ayn Rand already made it pretty clear that folk music wasn't at the top of her list, isn't it more logical to think that she was continuing to talk about that music? Ayn Rand understood the importance of concepts. That is why she didn't just label music "that one type of music that I don't like." She repeatedly used the labels "Folk music" "Classical music" and even pop music or "tiddlywink music." Notice how that conceptual label would be missing if we just assumed that she was talking about heavy metal, or rock, rock and roll or even hard rock/acid rock/psychedic rock. The labels were around at the time to describe OTHER forms of music with jungle beats. Why didn't she use them? Either just wasn't simply knowledgable about them and just lumped them all together (which would have been a bit hasty and not in line with how consistent she was/is in her philosophy) under one big umbrella or we can assume that she quite simply put wasn't talking about those types of music. If she didn't have a specific label to work with (like heavy metal for instance) isn't it logical she just would have said "I don't like X group or musician" instead of just making a generalized statment characterizing a genre but leaving out the label? Based on jungle beats alone we could make a random guess and say "Hey...she was talking about The Beatles!" The only thing is though is that The Beatles were predominantly characterized as rock and roll until Sgt. Pepper. Morever, her comments about folk music even in The Romantic Manifesto came before bands in spinoff genres (like grunge, metal, punk, acid rock, etc) became really noticable. If she was talking about one type of music, why not give it a label other than "jungle music?" S If nothing else, that is a damn poor label considering that the time signatures and repetition in indigenous music enjoyed by primitive people are also utilized with great regularity in modern rock from Chuck Berry on to Nirvana. That would also include John Denvery, Bob Dylan, and folk artists. Either she -highlighted folk music because she disliked it even more than the other "jungle music" but also had a low opinion of other forms of music that shared similar if not identical elements that were just applied in different ways. - she lumped all rock music and it's various spinoffs under the same umbrella and for some strange reason mentioned folk music by name and not any other genre of "jungle music" and just expected all of her readers to understand she was referring to a subject that had already been covered (folk music) . -she lumped all rock music and it's various spinoffs under the same umbrella and for some strange reason mentioned folk music by name and not any other genre of "jungle music" and just expected all of her readers to understand she was referring to a type of music she hadn't discussed in any way shape or form up until that point. - she didn't treat all rock music the same in her value judgments but didn't give us a relevent way to identify WHICH jungle music she was referring to when she mentioned a type of music that she hadn't really discussed before (assuming that she ISN'T talking about folk music). This also makes us ask the question "If Ayn Rand didn't like Led Zeppin, Carlos Santana, The Stones, or any of those other bands for the reasons that they are jungle music, why would folk music be exempt?" Why can't we apply the same conclusions given the same basic formula and elements (but put together in a slightly different way)? It also seems a weensy bit unusual for someone who placed a premium on precision and conceptual identification to just lump everything together if she didn't indeed think that most modern rock (in any form) was indeed boring and uninspired. What else could it be? There are only so many options. No matter which one you take, you can't really get away from the fact that EVEN if she wasn't referring to folk music in that specific instance/quote, folk music does indeed share the similar elements...so why would it be except from her personal value judgment? You bite a bullet no matter WHAT your explanation is. To give you an analogy it would be like me saying "All foods with lactose are horrible" in one book and saying "cheese sucks" in another books. I might not mention yogurt...but do I really have to?

Your sig has a bit of irony to it.

Well...the quote is backed up by several others which provide a little thing called "context." Impressive how you dropped the rest of my post which indicates WHY a direct "I hate folk music" quote isn't needed to acertain what Ayn Rand thought about it. Pray tell..what OTHER friggin type of music could she be talking about when she explicitly refers to hippies and their music that is like the drumbeat of the jungle? I'm sure that hippies at the time that she was referring to when The Romantic Manfiesto was published were listening to OTHER types of music right? Never mind that literature concerning hippies themselves mentions folk artists as the music types they listened to were experimental in nature and had overlap in several other genres like rock and psychedelic rock.Never mind the fact that she puts folk music in the same category as Phillip Rearden's OTHER hippie causes (and yes they are hippie...read the article as proof if you want a warrant for MY assertion). Lets close our eyes and say "tra la la la la I'm ignoring empirical evidence left and right" and pretend it's the same as a real argument. You words indicate that if one doesn't have an explicit statment, one can't infer meaning from the way one talks about an issue in another context Nice to know that I compare cheese something primal that is used by jungle natives and unrefined hippies. Nice to know that I can further and make extended comparisons about how only humble wretches indulge themselves on excruciatingly boring and uninteresting foods like cheeses, but unless I come right out and spell it out like a teacher talking to a third grade class we can't infer the simple abstraction that "Evan doesn't like cheese" without being labeled psychologizers or mind readers. You know what the irony is? I agree that folk music sucks. I don't like it and I agree with Miss Rand's opinion that it is excruciatingly boring. My problem is with the fact that pointing out that Ayn Rand DID have a pretty strong opinion towards folk music gets an unwarranted label of "psychologizer" or "mind reader" when such a label is hasty and unwarranted. Morever, it is blatantly wrong given that WilliamB's position has been backed up by a sizable body of evidence. Also interesting to note that when Besty asks WHERE did Ayn Rand label folk music as redundant, repetitive, simplicity that WilliamB never said she DID in the first place! He actually said :"On the one hand, she could denounce folk music because of its redundant, repetitive simplicity, and feel, perhaps justifiably, that such music was beneath her since it offered no challenge to her intellectually, and caused in her a purely negative emotional response;" Note the magic word, "Could." He said [paraphrasing] based on Ayn Rand's intellect she could have legitimately come to X conclusion and labeled folk music boring, repetitive and stupid because it didn't challenge her intellectually. Note that that never says that Rand DID label folk music in that manner. It says that given variable X...Y could happen. It never says that given variable X that Y WILL happen. Big difference. Ah well...that is just one problem among many. Lets take a look at the next one shall we? I Don't mean to be Captain Obvious here, but reading selected bits and pieces and then debating certain parts while ignoring the arguments made in refutation that actually contain solid empirical data isn't a solid debate strategy. I also don't mean to be super obvious when I say that not reading the material (in this case the thread itself) isn't a great way to get a handle on what is actually being discussed. It might make more sense to read the whole thread FIRST (it was only one and a half pages long with Steven interjected for pete's sake) before interjecting and once again proceeding to "not read." Call me old fashioned I guess.

It doesn't have to. Look to other writings and you can pretty easily see that she isn't talking about something like heavy metal, reggae (as it wasn't prominent among hippies and is more a neo-hippy thing), or trance. "I am trying to raise money for Friends of Global Progress." Rearden had never been able to keep track of the many organizations to which Philip belonged, nor to get a clear idea of their activities. He had heard Philip talking vaguely about this one for the last six months. It seemed to be devoted to some sort of free lectures on psychology, folk music and co-operative farming. Rearden felt contempt for groups of that kind and saw no reason for a closer inquiry into their nature. Check this out:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippie Lets look at some of the highlights of the article: "Hippie political expression often took the form of dropping out of society to implement the changes they sought. The back to the land movement, cooperative business enterprises, alternative energy, free press movement, and organic farming were all political in nature at their start." Hmmmm cooperative business enterprises. "Back to the land" movments and "organic farming." I'm seeing a connection with how she negatively characterizes Phillip. I'm thinking that this folk music tends to fall right in line with the other hippie aspects of Phillip Rearden's causes. It isn't like folk music ISN'T similar to "the beat of the jungle." It doesn't exactly have complex time signatures and has simple "earthy" lyrics. If you keep reading the Wiki article it also says: - Listening to certain styles of music; psychedelic rock such as the Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, Janis Joplin, Sly & The Family Stone; modern jam band counterparts such as Phish, String Cheese Incident, moe., the Black Crowes, or Goa trance music If you click on Psychedelic rock you get commonly accepted folk artists like Cream, The Band, and Bob Dylan mentioned in connection with hippies. Does anyone want to argue that Bob Dylan and his progeny (Sheryl Crow, etc) aren't hippies? Have fun with that. If nothing else, the key and time signatures psychadelic and beatnik rock share with folk music make it very similar in elements. Stuff like Peter Paul and Marry, John Denver, and Bob Dylan were pretty popular among that crowd, even if it WAS a subset. I'm guessing that Rearden (a Rand hero) who didn't like folk music had his hippy brother Phillip as the antithesis for a reason.

I hope it is true as well. I just think that Woodward and Bernstein wannabees should SHUT UP and let covert operations stay COVERT for pete's sake! This journalist (who also exposed the whole Abu-Graib thing) possibly jeopardized lives and quite possibly the mission itself. If Iran has nukes, I WANT them destroyed. I don't want to make a big fan fare about it and let the enemy know we are coming before we have ever started with our operations though.

Are you trying to imply with the two statments you quoted that I am contradicting myself? If so, you are wrong amigo. What I said in the first statement was that he didn't say that Ayn Rand thought or felt something without pointing to the large work of quotes in her various books showing that she did indeed think and feel that way. He didn't "mind read" by any stretch of the imagination. He didn't say "Ayn Rand thought X [thought green cheese was good for your health for example] or felt Y [felt that poodles were better than German shepards]" without any empirical evidence at all. If you cut out the bolded part, it looks like I contradict myself as you took what I said and sort of ignored the context in which it was said. Is this like a trend on this board or am I just missing something? If WilliamB would have posited to know Ayn Rand's thoughts or feelings without having any evidence to back it up...I would call it an unwarranted assertion and throw it out. In that case "mind reading" works just fine at describing what would have gone down. The fact of the matter is, he DOESN'T say things like that. If I was unclear, that is my fault and I apologize. As to what intellectually challenging means, I think it means just what it says. Something that isn't absorbed passively. Something that DEMANDS your full attention to comprehend, understand, or fully enjoy. Something that challenges the intellectual process. As to the Objectivist theory of aesthetics, that is fine and dandy. If it doesn't have to do with the intellect what does it have to do with? It clearly elicits a response which if not intellectual would have to be emotional or "value oriented" in nature. Emotions are automatic responses to your intellectually chosen values. On some level of the chain, intellect is involved indeed. Maybe in a secondary or tertiary way, sure. Was that ever really in question though? I don't know about you, but when I hear a piece of music that I really really love...I don't just brush it off and say "whatever." I think "What is it in this piece that makes my heart sing with delight? What do I love here? Is it something in the melody? Something in the lyrics? What is it?" To me that process of evaluating music on a cereberal level can be every bit as rewarding as your first listen. It is like eating a good cake, you know? It is fun and enjoyable. To me it is can be just as fun to go back to the kitchen and watch how the chef does it so you get a better appreciation of the culinary arts. Something like culinary arts doesn't interest me to the degree that music does (as working in the music industry is going to be my future career). So to me, I would probably just be content with eating my cake and moving on. Food is fine, but if I had to make a list of what I hold dear...it probably wouldn't be anywhere near music. Intellectually understanding music is important to me. I see music and art as being detached from intellect when it comes to the initial viewing. After that, I start thinking and observing. I pick up more and more details and really try to get a grip on what I'm seeing. Then I might take the knowledge, store it away, and then look again. Maybe I'm wrong or I have my head on backwards? I dunno. I wonder how I fit in with the Objectivist theory of aesthetics? GAH!!! *tears hair out in frustration*. Check yours, amigo. I just spent around 2 pages of discussion under the Objectivist bands thread agreeing with that statment and solidifying it. I agree 100% that simple stuff can have great depth and complexity should never alone be your criteria for judging music or art. I have NO problem with acknowledging that fact. You mention The Moonlight Sonata (TMS). That is fine as an example goes. You realize that when people learn to play piano that TMS is something most people learn to play fairly early on. I'm sure you understand that a pianist who has studied at Juliard and is now a professional pianist has spent hours and hours of time understanding musical theory and the pieces themselves. Thus, if he was going to sit down and discuss a piece that was more complext than an intro level piece like The Moonlight Sonata, he would probably be able to say something more meaninful about it on a technical and in depth level. He might come to the same conclusion as Miss Rand (that piece A was a good piece of music), but the way he came to that conclusion is just as important because there are definitely more advanced ways of thinking (musically speaking) and understanding music. Does anyone really disagree with this? That is definitely NOT music. I don't recall WilliamB, myself, or ANYONE defending that kind of crapola on any level whatsoever. One doesn't need a degree to denounce such tripe as tripe. Do you think that the only bad music is that which is so obviously NOT even music that a simple glance at the definition of music would tell you that we were getting into the realm of the non-topical? Once again, I buy that. Not all bad philosophy clearly has a sign saying "Caution, this philosophy is BAD BAD BAD! Avoid at all costs!" That is why Ayn Rand's work in the field of all branches of philosophy is so darn important. It gives one the tools to understand good philosophy (Objectivism) and bad philosophy in their complete forms. There are many snake oil salesmen out there in the world as well as bad philosophers. They don't all necessarily have the same pitch or even the same product! Look at TOC for example. Many people were quite obviously swindled into believing that TOC was a legitimate organization (like Diana Hsiah for example). I think it takes a lot of hard study to really grasp philosophy and integrate it with your actions. Remember Andre from We The Living or Hank Rearden from Atlas Shrugged? Were they 100% Kantian evil in the flesh? Of course not. Andre and Rearden weren't 100% philosophically integrated. They aren't simple cases. Neither is all art or music. On the same level, not all music is equally crappy or obviously crappy. It isn't ALL Beethoven on one side of the spectrum and Cage on the other side of the spectrum. There are subtle levels of goodness in mixed pieces and often subtle levels of crappiness. One might not need a degree in music to tell you that Cage and Shoenberg are crap. One might need a degree in music to tell you why Rachmaninov's pieces were so brilliant or why certain pieces are mixed bags. After all, remember Henry Cameron? He was an expert architect. One didn't need to have him around to point out the obvious flaws in worms like Keating. However, one DID need him around to point out the flaws in Roark's work which ultimately made him a better architect. He was also needed to truly understand where genius manifests itself because he alone knew what exactly made Roark's buildings genius in nature. Austen Heller, Wynand, and the boy on the bicycle understood in a simplistic way why Roark's buildings were important. They didn't understand fully, though. Is it that off the mark to say that Ayn Rand herself might not have understood something completely (such as high level music theory)? Is it so off the mark to insist that higher level understanding is indeed important to pass judgment on higher level works of art or music? Is it off the mark to say that some works of art aren't understandable tin a meaninful way o the average untrained eye or listener?