Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Jon Pizzo

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jon Pizzo

  • Birthday 01/17/1989

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Philosophy, Ethics, Politics, Writing, History

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Real Name
    Jon Pizzo
  • Copyright
  • Biography/Intro
    I believe in reason and rationality, purpose and optimism.
  • School or University
    Miami University
  • Occupation
    Writer, Student

Jon Pizzo's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)



  1. My main point is this: I disagree with anyone relying on how they look for any sort of confidence or self esteem, or even approval from others. I think that one's mind/principles is the soul most important aspect of how they should be judged. I do not do anything to enhance my appearance, other than personal grooming. However, what most of you seem to be saying is this: in reality, at least for an objectivist, it is the opposite. You are not relying on your looks for your self esteem, but your looks are a product of your self esteem, or what you want to portray. All I'm saying is that for me at least, I don't place much emphasis on aesthetics when it comes to my own appearance. Why? because I don't care to portray anything to anyone. I guess it has to do with how I act socially. I don't really have more than a few people of value in my life, and that's okay with me. Aequalsa put it perhaps more directly than I could have: "I take him to be differentiating(perhaps too strongly) between self-esteem derived from character and self-esteem derived from vanity or other shallow characteristics. While taking care of myself hygienically and health-wise is important, and liking how I look(to myself) is fairly connected to self esteem, in the sense that I identify what I see in the mirror with everything that I am, it is not causal in the way that I think Jon is viewing it. I do not esteem myself highly because of how I look. Rather, because I esteem myself highly, I like how I look and spend some time to maintain it. The problem with vanity comes from this reversal of cause and effect which later manifests itself in too much time spent trying to maintain your appearance. Which, sadly, is of paramount importance if it is the primary source of self-esteem." That is the point I was trying to make.
  2. Very good point, one which I hadn't considered yet. So I have learned something. If a woman is doing it for the reasons you stated, then I see no problem with it whatsoever. I wouldn't do it, but that has nothing to do with being against it. I think that the problem is, like you said, most women don't do it for honorable reasons, they do it because they are self conscious and care too much about their physical appearance in the eyes of others. Capitalism Forever: If I looked into the mirror every day, what reason would there be for me to feel like vomiting? Because I was "ugly"? Why should it matter, or affect my self esteem? I don't get my self esteem from anything about my looks. I do concede that I may have been mistaken about how Rand described Roark in the Fountainhead, however, at the party in Pt. II, Chapter 6, one of the guests asks miss Francon if she is joking when she describes Roark as good looking. Either way, never in a million years could I see him doing anything to enhance his looks, whether he was horribly "ugly" or terribly "good" looking.
  3. I think that clothes are different, because they are something that society requires in order for a man to live freely. A perfect instance is portrayed in the Fountainhead when Roark says something along the lines of "I will wear their clothes because I am required to, but I will never do this." I can't remember exactly where in the book it is, but I'm sure you can remember it. You cannot walk down the street naked, because society literally would not allow you to do so. Wearing makeup and other sorts of vanity are different, in my opinion. As for wearing "nice" clothes. Would Dagny buy a business suite that was more expensive made by a name brand, if there was one that looked exactly like it made by a more "fashionable" brand? If that is not what you meant, please clarify. And to all the other responses: I see where you're coming from, but I still disagree. To me, it simply shows that you care what other people think, enough to try and enhance your own beauty. Tell me, are you really doing it for your own sake? Also, I would like to point out that in the Fountainhead, Roark is clearly described as not being very physically attractive. However, where in the book does it discuss him doing anything to "enhance his beauty"? He doesn't. Perhaps I am in the same boat with him, and, while I don't think that wearing makeup is morally wrong, I simply see it as completely pointless. I don't fix my hair, but I keep it well groomed, and that's because I like being clean. It has nothing to do with beauty. (since I'm not a woman that is really the only parallel I can think of)
  4. I guess it really doesn't matter if Dagny would wear makeup or any sort of thing related, but I don't really see how, someone believing the things she believes would go out of their way to create a false image to portray to others. When I say false I mean this: The makeup on your face is not what you really look like, and by putting it on you are trying to create the illusion that you look different than you do. Why would any objectivist do this, when in my understanding it violates A=A? You cannot be what you are not, you should not try to look like someone you don't look like. That is the way I see it, but if someone else has another perspective I'd be glad to hear it.
  5. I haven't seen you post any arguments in this thread. You keep saying that objectivism is not the right philosophy, but I haven't seen any reasons why (if you have in another thread, i apologize in advance). You keep saying that we need to be tolerant of other kinds of philosophies, but tell me, honestly, how do you expect us to do that, when all of those philosophies offer us only one thing in the end? The believers in objectivism know exactly what I'm talking about, and you will too someday, I hope, for your own good.
  6. He (Rourke) is one of the kinds of people I was referring to when I created this thread. He attacks Objectivism, but I have not seen him give one direct argument against it. It seems to me that he is afraid that perhaps only one philosophy can be the right and rational one, and, just like mystical spiritualists, insists that any road is the right road as long as the intentions are honorable.
  7. I have yet to hear anyone make this point in a more clear, concise way. It's exactly correct, they can't both be right. The sooner people start realizing that, the better.
  8. That is horrible. And people that tell us we are wrong think that they know what the word 'evil' really means. I am sure that your wish will be fulfilled, because you are the kind of person who will make it happen, without the help of their crutch of a God
  9. I agree. While everything about the extremist Muslim culture deeply angers and disturbs me, I could never validate using open aggression on a culture. To expand what Moose said about Nazi Germany, I think that we are on top when it comes to military might in the world, but think about what would happen if the rest of the entire free world decided to engage us in war because they viewed us as fascist basically committing, well, Genocide. (That is assuming we do like $$$ said and wage war against the muslim world.) Also, consider what it would do inside our own country. If we took that action, I cannot help but think it would ultimately result in our demise. * Edit: by the way, you claim that the CIA and National Intelligence Agency predicted Pakistan's fate, but I'm not sure where you got that information. Anyway, assuming it is true, how many times have our national agencies been wrong? Many.
  10. Two good points. I don't know much about her history, but yes, by the way the media is portraying her, you can't tell that she was corrupt. If she was, then no side is greatly better than the other I guess. From what I've heard, she wanted womens' rights, democratic voting, and free trade, but I'll have to look into it more. Also, I agree that elections there are a joke, but at least if they are having elections, they have no one to blame for their leaders' faults but themselves.
  11. Ironically enough, I posted a topic about this woman a month back, when islamic extremists launched a failed assassination attempt in Pakistan. Now, the former Prime Minister and Democracy advocate actually has been assassinated. This angers me deeply, because, as usual, the perpetrator took his own life via suicide bomb (while taking the lives of more than 20 bystanders as well). The reason I am discussing this is because I wonder what effect it will have on the upcoming elections, or whether or not Musharaff will even allow elections.
  12. I don't think that a man needs to "find a reason" to live. It depends on what you're talking about here. Are you talking about stepping in front of a bullet for someone, or are you talking about someone asking you to sacrifice yourself so that they can live? If you're talking about stepping in front of a bullet for someone, here's what you need to remember: when force is used against someone, logic and reason go out the window. There can really be no 'logical' action at this point when a gun is fired. I would step in front of a bullet to save someone I cared about, not as a sacrifice, but because I would not want the situation to be on the shooters' terms at all. You have to remember that it is not my Moral Duty to step in front of the bullet, but you can't say that I am irrational for doing so.
  13. I watched the trailor, and quite frankly, I don't know how this person could get this footage without being an accomplice, as no criminal in their 'right mind' would let a random observer, for example, film them killing a rival gang member.
  • Create New...