Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Tenure

Regulars
  • Content Count

    1081
  • Joined

  • Last visited

7 Followers

About Tenure

  • Rank
    Delicious
  • Birthday 07/17/1989

Previous Fields

  • Country
    UnitedKingdom
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Public Domain
  • Biography/Intro
    I'm a student at the University of York. I am an enthusiast in the theatre, specifically the nature of acting. I love dealing with all theory associated with the expression of meaning in the arts, so long as that theory isn't too convoluted. I'm a lover of big, extraordinary things.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    London
  • Interests
    I have an eclectic taste in music, but it'd be fair to say I'm a fan of mostly modern stuff. I'll listen to classical music, and classic rock, but it's not what I pursue really. I like something with a good bit of wit to it, like Cake, for example. Or something well constructed, by a band of people I can respect, like lostprophets.<br /><br />As for movies, it's even harder to pin it down. I definitely like Sci-Fi, though I'm not that avid a fan. And I like some anime stuff (Cowboy Bebop especially). Basically, if the writing is good and it seems like everyone made an effort in making the film, I'll really like it. <br /><br />Books, well, there's poetry and prose. I like Rudyard Kipling, Shelley, Keats, Wordsworth and Byron. It'd be safe to say I'm a bit of a Romantic. As for novels, I like Gaiman's work, the way he explores his themes through vastly imaginitive worlds (American Gods, Mirrormask, etc), as well as his far more autobiographical stuff (Fragile Things). Palahnuik's fine for his style and research, but I'm not so sure about his themes. I also like this little-known Russian author who emigrated to America as a kid. You've probably not heard of her.

Recent Profile Visitors

8175 profile views
  1. Come the revolution, are we first up against the wall?

  2. I love this post by Betsy where she states the basic difference between Rand and most academics is their repudiation of objectivity (a bit of a 'Well, duh!', but it bears repeating): http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...ost&p=47976 In fact that whole thread, from that point on, is a good discussion of Rand's method and why the fact it is not 'academic' is what's so damn good about it!
  3. I can't wait to see what they do with that live-action film of Tin-Tin now. "My god, Tin-Tin, they've stolen the Professor's shark-submarine!" "Indeed, Captain Haddock. Shit's gonna get fucked up. Fucked up, Belgian style."
  4. Ah! I only listened to the first few of those lectures in induction back last year. They're hazy in my memory, and I had no idea what the 'problem of induction' was, so it never really integrated properly. I knew he said *something* about the crow/swan thing, I just didn't know what it was. I thought it was something like the response to Descartes' doubt thing, "There's no reason to consider the arbitrary... unless you have reason; in which case, it wouldn't be arbitrary anyway". But, in fact, it seems what Peikoff was saying in this case was that this isn't about considering the arbitrary, bu
  5. David - reading that section, when she approaches the end, she says: "What have I added to the term "reality" by saying "facts"? I have narrowed it. I have said: whichever aspects, events, or existents you happen to know, these are the facts of reality -- meaning: these are the things which actually exist." (Emphasis mine; for convenience) Am I right to draw from this, that we can possess knowledge, of which we can be justifiably certain, but which turns out to be false? Does it turn out to be false in the face of facts? And, given that, are facts knowledge which can never be false?
  6. I hope a few people here are aware of Gettier's problems with Justified True Belief (JTB). We're looking at it in our Epistemology seminars, and I thought I had a response to it, but it turns out I may have made a mistake. I'll summarise what I said, and then post what I originally said. Basically: something is true only once it has been identified as so. A 'fact' describes the relationship between our mind and reality - namely that our the a proposition in our mind reflects something in reality. This relationship is justification. In the "Justified True Belief", the word "true" is redundan
  7. I would mention one other thing that a friend pointed out to me: there is nothing wrong with an Objectivist supporting a Libertarian group. The whole issue has always been that, well, it looks like "Objectivism" is endorsing this or that position, and that there's no difference between the two. But the truth is, one is a human being first and an Objectivist second. Whilst Objectivism guides ones life, and one practices what one preaches, one is not a representative of 'Objectivism', in the sense that everything which one does is representative of what Objectivism is about. But that's w
  8. Hugh Jackman Edit: One guy who looks good in a Fedora wearing modern clothes:
  9. I would say it's a result of people not dressing so smart anymore. I'm no expert on fashion, so I have no idea why smart went out of style. You'd have to look into that to find your answer - why the shift towards casual? An embrace of the joys of life? The freedom (and money) to enjoy the luxurious and casual? I don't think it's the 'hippy generation' though. I wouldn't want to see them brought into style, unless suits came back big time. And I don't honestly care to see everyone dressing so formal again. I prefer seeing variety - it's why I like living in the city. Formal hats on a guy in
  10. I'd offer, although, Santiago does have a good voice.
  11. Well, there's part of your problem. You haven't essentially defined what an ethical system is. You've imported a normative ethic (an ethical rule) into your definition of "ethical system". A certain ethical system could be one which sees people doing "whatever they want" as being wrong. This causes issues for you, because then you can't understand a system which tells you what you may do -- you only understand it in terms of things which you are forbidden to do; constraints on your choices, telling you what you shouldn't do, rather than guides to choices, telling you what you should do. As
×
×
  • Create New...