volco

on Ayn/Nietz: EXACTLY! Thanks that's all I meant. She tells us the story of her influence AND rejection in one of her collection of essays, I don't dare say which, but I remember it vividly. I've read Rex Curry and his (cute) attack on the Bellamy Bros. I like Rex Curry for the same reason I like that proswastika dotorg site: because they both debunk (in opposite ways) a couple of symbols hijacked by the XXc most spectacular event. I actually hate that event because it blatantly defined the new totems and taboos of the age of the masses. This is the propaganda inspired by and paid for the conclusion of the event in question. Aren't half, maybe 3/4 of those pictures even more revolting than the dullest Socialist Art? so I guess you are correct. In an age of incipient non representational art, representational art is going to look 'alike'. But, let's not stop there, it wouldn't be fair to the sculptures she liked, and the architecture she liked. Some of the paintings she very much liked were non representational although not abstract either (she had symbolic capability, enough to be a great poet) But back to the coincidences: Why? Pre Revolutionary Socialism believed in standing up to the elements and constrains of nature, and create a new civilization after the revolution. (Italian) Fascism believed in standing up, together as a nation, and together with our guests and distant cousins, and revive the greatest and most universal civilization that ever existed until the USA in 1943. Austrian and Spanish Fascism was tranquil Christo Fascism and so didn't believe in anything new German National Socialism believed in standing up, together as a nation, against their enemies and against nature (the only worthy foe) and create a new German Century. A new, improved version of Rome, with universal pretensions but exclusive admission (this one wouldn't fly). So all these turn of the century 'philosophies' and their appendixes, fervently believed in an ideal with certainty, much like their art tried to represent reality with certainty. In contrast to the Relativistic World that eventually 'won' and found it useless, redundant or wasteful to accomplish such an easy or obvious feat as recreating reality with certainty. What certainty since we don't believe in any certainty? And what ideal since following idealism makes you a bigot? So that's what The Romantic Manifesto has in common with any ideal from the times of the Belle Epoque.

I frequently make that mistake myself, I confuse Ayn Rand with Objectivism. The fact is that I'm one of those who arrived at Objectivism because I fell in love with Ayn Rand and the THINGS she liked, not the other way around. I'm talking about America seen as a foreigner, skyscrapers, bridges, the emotional value of skyscrapers, bridges, and inspiring cityscapes. The profound disdain for pretentious out of place ornamentation, the sin of the wasted opportunity of modern technology when one gazes at the Woolworth Building.... etc.

Yes, or none of the above. (However I don't see how a species disappears without being either wiped out or absorbed into a new one..) About those figures, they are more or less correct as far as we know. But the Neanderthals were able to conquer a limited geographic area that corresponds to Northern Africa, the West Asian land bridges and the European peninsulas. There is little doubt that humans and Neanderthals lived at the same time and most likely had to compete for territory, abeit that particular territory that holds certain cultural and historic, even prehistoric significance to us modern humans.

'Tad, I never said it was better, I said it was more determined by diet than other genetic predispositions. but as Gramlich correctly pointed out: this is 'ALL' speculation. In any case, one can formulate and approach the problem in many different ways, many a ways that don't indirectly insult tall, short, hairy people hairless people, Koreans or Basques, and one would still have the same problem: we have ( I do, and one out of two human beings I know, does) an almost irrational affection for dogs. Actually, outright irrational unless we explain why we still keep and revere dogs in the city. This year it has been 'discovered' that we share a relatively big sclera for our bodies, and that we are able to communicate by movements of the pupil. just linking the article in my previous post. let's continue this discussion in 2013/4.

wow las fleurs del mal, my brother used to torture me with that back in the 80s. thanks for the dubious memories. (not that there's NOTHING new in the world, but creation vs invention, eh?!) this is eastern music that at one point sounds like Bach. The wrapper's better too.

@Kate87 Bless you for pointing out the obvious and being insistent about it. It's remarkable that this is the first time (recorded) that this issue has been discussed in this forum. I am certain it's not the first time it has been discussed among Objectivists and Ayn Rand fans in the last 60 years. @Grames. Thanks for the first correct and honest answer. The resistance to this obviously legitimate question is probably explained because Objectivism does have some aspects or veins that can be rightly compared to Socialism and Fascism, and until Grames replied everyone was too unsecure of Objectivism to be able to defend it. In the Oath of the Horatii we see each Horace saluting standing up with their palm down, and their arm bend up high and straight. This is the Roman Salute or Ave (hail) which contrasts to the Asian and Christian bow, the lowering of the head and facing up of the palms, as in asking for pity or pardon (demonstrating submission and humility). Because of some random historical and cultural factors these last generations conjure up German Nazi imagery when witnessing this salute, but the salute itself is not more German than American, with its origin being Rome and its ultimate expansion the whole World. It is, again, simply the opposite of the bow or kowtow. And wasn't standing up instead of kneeling or bowing, the essence of what Ayn Rand built in her Heroes? I'd say this posture is what Fascism, Objectivism and Utopian Socialism have in common. Being irrationally defensive on the question of being influenced by Nietzsche is another thing the three philosophies have in common. But why is this style of art conjures up images of Socialist or Fascist art as much as the Hail? Probably because it's evolution was stunted (or spared) by the prohibition of experimentation with surrealism and abstract art , and other 'returns to the primitive' that Einstein and the Theory of Relativity allowed for.

As I learned it, it was the appearance and refined tolerance of 'skepticism' what differentiated the religious, purpose-driven late middle ages (purpose as in Crusades, Reconquista, and Conquista or Age of Discovery, which was a continuation of a frustrated Crusades) from the Enlightened Renaissance and Baroque/Industrial ages. Not the other way around. In any case, there are some factors that are outside our control, and the civilization and stage we're born into undoubtedly cause (but not determine) some things which can not be chaged by will. To determine, is to decide, or to affect an outcome willfully. Chance can cause things but it cannot decide them. Only conscious entities can chose, decide or deterine. Objectivism is 'against' Determinism because we conclude that Determinism can only make sense with a universe that is concious of itself, something Ayn Rand and Aristotle both cover in their definition of existence.

Well it seems that, a year after writing it, the only thing wrong about my first post continues to be the grammar and maybe spelling. It would seem that dogs indeed played an important role in making us civilized humans, or humans as we know it. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/05/humanitys-best-friend-how-dogs-may-have-helped-humans-beat-the-neanderthals/257145/ Just as there are wild dogs, coyotes and wolves, all of whom can interbreed with dogs, producing semi house trainable puppies, (commercial wolf dogs are about 3/4 dog, not even half), I wonder who constitute our family. Are lost tribes like the khoi san, 'pigmies' or andaman negrito as distant genetically to the rest of mankind as a wolf is to a husky? less? more? Are we so homogeneous to the point that our closest biological cousin used to be the neanderthal which is either extinct or absorbed into the European and Basque population? Or is most of the human race homogeneous with a long tail of, quickly disappearing, pigmy cousins? Is it a coincidence that these small human isolates (read andaman negrito, or central african pigmy) have not domesticated the dog? (*this is probaby if nof definitely, not the case for the khoi san) Some things are obvious 1). I believe I had read about our diminished senses and increased intelligence (maybe Konrad Lorenz?) but in any case it can be deduced using logic alone that our common ancestor was just another simian, not a very particular or distinct one. All simians have a good sense of smell (compared to us homo sapiens sapiens), and they all have to be alerted of danger while they sleep - most land animals do. 1)e.g. People also come taller (depends hugely on diet), less hairy and in some cases with less teeth every generation, it's folk knowledge, but only validated after Darwin's theory was formulated, and eventually corroborated. In any case I find the possible ramifications of this discoveries quiet interesting, even disquieting. Wolf and dogs are pack animals, maybe more individualistic than apes, but not a lot more. Humans can easily master that pack dynamic and adapt it to dogs (as in successful domestication, what the dog whisperer teaches) and even to wolves ( ). The Historical Civilization we members of Objectivism Online consider the greatest of all, according to recent polls, is even symbolized by the reverse situation, a she-wolf 'domesticating'/raising feral humans constitutes the basis of its founding myth. (and the she wolf also displays the most 'humanistic' attributes of all the characters, since she feeds the little humans that would grow up to develop homicidal rivalry). The conclusion would be that 1) pack behaviour defined certain human traits related to the organization of power which are by now deeply ingrained, and 2) that we owe our success as a species as much to reason (which Neaderthals shared) as to pack behaviour and fidelity which allowed us to exterminate the only other species on Earth that also had more brains than brow. So that is the ambivalent nature of our relationship to dogs. Rationally, we could even eat them, and at least two prominent peoples, Cantonese and Koreans, do. Most Europeans consider eating dog highly taboo, and in history dog eating appears only at the last stages of a long siege. Cantonese and Koreans never had to compete for territory with Neanderthals East Asians are also in average less hairy and, everything would indicate, more intelligent. Do they also have less teeth/more cases of tooth agenesis? Could Neanderthals have been more intelligent but never had a chance because dog aided brow, beats brain?

Two members seem to be going to the gulag. I remember Ayn Rand citing Victor Hugo on disproportionate punishment. http://www.brisbanet...1023-283lg.html As a side note, we can see the girls wearing full leg cover and skirt, and head cover, as demanded by tradition and good manners (and didn't take anything off), and even knelt. It shouldn't count legally, but it goes to demonstrate that they probably didn't intend to offer the Church and its followers. Even the lyrics sound like neo Protestantism (Raskolniki), rather than un-Christian:

Taking pride in working blue collar jobs is a uniquely and distinctly American stance, as unique as its pride in going it alone and being inventive.

yes, the standard would go higher. In the meantime colleges could rely on personal essays and use judgement and academic criteria for once. Are you not being ironic? That has happened many times in the past including America, Germany and Japan, and each has solved its problem with, let's generalize, immigrants, gestarbeiters, and robots respectively. Another trend we see in America is that blue collar jobs are in high demand and skilled plumbers get a lot more work than skilled architects. Some former unemployed white collar worker could decide to take up blue collar jobs for a number of reasons, including lifestyle choice (as illustrated in the movie Office Space) In any case even if all students got As an every educational advantage, that would only count for less than half, with genetics (IQ) and circumstance accounting for the rest, allowing plenty people to fall into the blue labor pool.

That sounds exactly the way American 'Private' Universities work at the moment. I don't understand the following: what if many home-schooled children shared private tutors and study time by neighborhood easing the burden on the parents and allowing that fantastic socialization. Would that constitute an impromptu private school? Does this thing even exists? I understand Brandon Cropper tried to do something of the like. I understand the van Damme Academy would constitute something like this, but on a fully organized, high cost basis. I'm asking whether grassroot unregulated classrooms exist in America? Other than the Quaker schools....

Welcome! Objectivism surely conciliates a lot of seemingly opposite extremes, or artificially opposed concepts, such as the apparent paradoxes in your' list of whys.

http://inversions-and-deceptions.blogspot.com./2012/09/diamond-bob-and-biggest-boson-in-world.html I suppose Europe winning a Nobel Prize made me think of the general and pervasive phoniness of institutions that bare the title European in their names. Did you enjoy the joke?

Hello. I was subject to mild environmentalism like making recycled paper, planting a few trees, and maintaining a rather cool greenhouse and meteorology mini station in elementary private non religious school, but it never took more than one half day a school a week and we still learned a few skills and even science (this was when we were worried about the Ozone Hole (and our Southern Hemisphere skin) being repaired by avoiding using spray deodorants to write in fire for the kicks- way before Cimate Change turned into organized religion). I was then subjected to rather intense old school Maoist (not exaggerating) in a retrograde but finest public high school; but even there we still had to learn a lot of actual details, and unused but interesting languages (reading anti imperialist texts in French for instance) and math was very demanding and ideology free. Further this was compensated by an education in Classical History that accompanied Latin class in which we had to learn the ways of the Roman reading texts in vulgar but correct Latin about the patriarchate, the esteemed Greek slave and teacher of the house, and the Empire, not in a necessarily bad light. If your story is not an exaggeration then I'd love to know more about it as it illustrates so perfectly the theory that formal education is rotten and introduce you to the ideas of Celia Green on education and the exceptional kid.

I could not have passed any subject if I hadn't had time to study it by myself. Without exception the subjects I excelled in consisted of content I'd learned earlier in life myself such as History and Geography (this was before the time both were replaced by 'Social Studies'). Same with English, despite studying it in school I could only learn the language after studying it by myself in only one summer and by devouring English literature and content. In France Public Education is an institution (a 'right') not to be messed with, it is almost equivalent not only to the 'Republic' which it guards, but even to the Parisian centralization efforts that predate the revolution. Public Education in France is to be blamed for the belittling and almost extinction of many rich, older languages of France, such as all Occitan dialects, as well as curiosities (Breizhig), German(Alsati, and isolates (Basque). 'Speak properly, speak French' is written in schools all over Provence and Gascogne, as if those languages were deformed dialects 'Patois' of Francian French and not the other way around. People who used to speak, say, Gascon, at home usually felt ashamed of it, and called their language a 'Patois' themselves. Self-belittling, the ultimate expression of the power of generations of Public Education, and Government-influenced Church education (in France) too. This education campaigns were brought to competing, more international, Anglophile, religiously diverse, seagoing towns, like Bordeaux, only after brutal cleansing campaigns extending from the 100year war to the repression of the Huguenots. I'm saying that France's education system is a continuation of a (civil) war of centralization unseen in the rest of Europe, and in this primary and secondary levels can't be seen as aything but Social Engineering. The President's latest efforts seem directed at more inclusiveness and assimilation of the many Muslim immigrants and of what little remains of 'patois-speaking-natives' of which 'students from poor backgrounds' is a euphemism for both. / Some geographical economic theories blame France's 'success' in becoming a fully centralized state for its being disconnected from the Productive Crescent that extends from the Lower Countries, along the West border of Germany, Switzerland, and Northwestern Italy. Disconnected by the sheer underdevelopment of 'marginal' areas of France in benefit of Paris (as in this Statist country, the Capital absorbs all energies). Remember Absolute Monarchy in Europe had its biggest expression in France, and it was that same Absolutism that led to France becoming Socialist in 1789, and on and off, again and again, in blood-stained cycles of New Numbered French Republics ever since.

I somewhat guiltily enjoy Alternative History. I have imagined with some trouble how civilization would have played out had Christianity never existed, had Jesus never either been born, or rather never picked up by Greek scholars. A World without Islam would be slightly easier to imagine since the Point of Divergence would have occurred later. Top of my head, Europe would have become a more chaotic version of China. With the Eastern Roman Empire unchallenged, the Western Emperor would fuse with the Pope. Western Europe would all be called Roma, or the Holy Roman Empire, (much like China was the 'Celestial Empire') with Haven's seat in the capital. Jerusalem, Tarsus, Levante and Greece, and maybe the Eastern Empire in general would be like Tibet and India, the semi barbarian regions from which the state religion(s) originated. With no obstruction (but the Turks on the North) in the Middle East, trade between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean would have continued at Roman pace eventually fusing with Malay and Persian traders that connect Christian Ehtiopia (Aksum) with The Spice Islands (Insulindia) and China. The Turkics peoples could not have adopted Islam, but very likely Christianity as the Bulgars and Magyars did in real life.. This choice of a Monotheist religion was rather pragmatical with a bold King declaring the state religion (Like the Khazar khan adopting Judaism). Instead of a Muslim Khanate, there would be something like a Greater Bulgaria, or a Christian Tartary. If they converted in time they could have stopped the Slavic expansion Eastwards of the 14, 15th and 16th centuries, no European power would have reached the shores of the Pacific, but several Christian Kingdoms and Empires would be scattered across Siberia. Islam is a simplified, decentralized religion with simple and common codes. It also has no shame in expanding itself by the sword which allowed for the creation of a very large continuously Muslim territory: a cultural albeit not always political entity that in our history facilitated trade of goods and ideas between East and West. More importantly Islam gave identity by opposite identification to Christian Europe. The expeditionary adventurous character now so naturally attributed to the Western Man arose out of the expedition to the Crusades. The myth becomes history. The promise of a holy grail, a golden material and spiritual reward after a dangerous, outgoing adventure, probably inspired and gave meaning to tales of 'The City of Gold' or the 'Fountain of Youth' that Spanish Conquistadors sought after. Before the crusades the Ocean and the concept of 'abroad' was as frowned upon as in China. The Christian object of desire and identification, Jerusalem, had to lie unreachable outside the realms of Christianity, to inspire men to go out into the World, and go the around the World in search of those lost Christian Kingdoms of Cathay and Sipango. Without Islam, who knows what people would have circumnavigated the World first, and at what time. China didn't have much physical barriers to navigate and expand its culture down to Indonesia and Australia, not an ocean separates them. Rome could have continue its expansion from Egypt down to Erythrea and Abyssinia, and nothing could have stopped it from reaching India by ship from the Horn of Africa or Persian Gulf. Maybe Christianity would have been challenged by a more ancient and maybe a wiser religion, Zoroastrianism, much like Buddhism was and is challenged in China by Confucianism. So, thanks God for Allah? Who knows?

Then a nihilist would be just fine in solitary confinement? You';re not taking into account time, and the process of maturation. That GIRL testifying in Congress that the taxpayer should pay for avoiding the natural consequence of having sex, might grow up to be a detractor of the system she's now supporting - particularly after having getting so inside of it; and more than a bimbo who might never even develop the intellectual curiosity for one philosophy or the other (Which I consider more nil, rather than Nihilist, in practice) I could easily contrast her with a fervent sermon by a right wing 'nut'. As for the lady in Michigan, that looks like a cheap blow. Below a certain level the populace can be manipulated as easily anywhere. I suppose an inbred Appalachian could say he'd vote for Romney because 'Obama kills babies' referring to the Liberal and Democrat stand on abortion, but I suspect it would be harder to capture on video and come back alive. @9thDr. I'm sorry but you seem to be just creating that distinction int he service of separating Objectivism from its portion of crazy or crazed followers quiet deliberately. Randroid is just a derogatory term for Objectivist without any further distinction much like Oso says. I commend the service you're doing this philosophy, but so essiy distancing yourself from that offensive term reminds me of Christian moderates commenting how they met a few extremist nuts but that his church is one of the sane ones.

In fact I'm a fervent adherent of that last advocacy group mentioned in the video and would love to see more info/promoters at the airports telling people about the benefits of its power.

I would

Thanks for sharing, so very much like that actress in Galt's Gulch who relocated there so she could play non beauty-being-punished roles. Only that this actress was supposedly invited to parties by John Galt instead than by John F Kennedy In his post he insinuates the distinction between someone who knows a lot a about Objectivist and keeps to himself the degree in which he applies it, and an easy-to-label proselytist.

You seem are clearly implying that one side, Conservatism, is more positive, or a more positive method than Liberalism. But are you actually saying that Post Modern nihilism is worse than Old Fashion Tradition-based-Religion and the epistemology that arises from it? Or more to the point, that someone with a church going hard working background is more likely to study and or accept Ojectivism than someone from an Agnostic bourgeois, necessarily Liberal, family of generations of professionals? Before resolving her conflict and consummating her love for Howard, Dominique was described as a very sarcastic woman, in fact some of the few humorous pages of The Fountainhead consist of her colorful descriptions of the precedents for Mc Disney architecture Just as Rearden is described as her analogue on the opposite side of the political, economical, religous and gender spectrum, a conservative Presbyterian man who worked his way p from the bottom. Ayn Rand was invited to speak at West Point but she shunned the Conservative aspects of the non religious Right as much as she shunned the Anarchist and Relativist aspects of the Libertarian left. More clearly she painstakingly denounced the trap of a Left Wing that had it almost right on Personal Liberties and a Right Wing that had it almost right on economical issues. Ayn Rand intended Objectivism to be a Futurist Optimist (Benevolent Universe Premise) and her defense of the Right was limited to their shared commitment in the preservation of noble, working but 'old' structures from Futurists doing it wrong, specifically in a iatrogenic manner and at an alarming speed. (Socialists and technocrats / materialist futurists). A border Nihilist Cynic depressed by coldly analyzing life, could as easily or difficultly become an Objectivist as a passionate mystic with unabashed curiosity for the universe.

I truly apologize, I have to admit I felt you were poking ridicule at my assumption (since I misread Suvine's first post) while I had no reason to think it. I know that statistically Objectivism seems to attract (at least temporarily) more exConservatives than exLiberals (hence that thread, 'when did you become a Conservative' (!!!) ) But considering the importance Ayn Rand gave to openly discussing sexuality and the contempt she held for prudish Conservatives and religion, I would not be that surprised if a softcore model beame interested in her philosophy and posted in this rather popular and successful forum. And Suvine only had a couple of posts when she opened this thread. I have unfortunately met White Supremacists in this forum who had to learn from me that Ayn Rand was born a Jew, even if atheist, a member of Yisroel in the diasporah. One of those individuals reached dozens of posts before understanding how irreconcilable his mindset was from Objectivism. And I know you have met religious fundamentalists here who tried to temporarily forgo the fact that Objectivism owes its name to a principle irreconciliable with anything supernatural. After those encounters I wouldn't find it that wild to find a proud Miss September interested in Objectivism. But statistically you have a point and maybe it shouldn't go unexamined: How come a philosphy as adverse to Conservatism as it is to Liberalism, seems to attract more stock from the former (at least superficially)? This is not a rhetorical question by any means, but one that in fact has sparked much debate and doesn't have a clear answer. Maybe the answer is simple, there are more religious fundamentalists than libertarians, so there's more stock from one extreme. Or is it that Objectivism arose in America where the population is rather Conservative, yet the country as a whole is the most literally Progressive?

This come from British Israelism, the same religious philosophy that much later gave rise to Christian Identity, which is probably the worst of the worst of American religiousness. It is surprising and intriguing however that Americans are the only Christian nation that massively (60%plus) practice the Jewish covenant and rationalizes it medically. It is just as surprising and intriguing that the most advanced, scientific and progressive nation in the World, the USA is also the only First World Nation that still actually believes in G-d. Coincidence? Some other explanation? I might still abstain from writing the name of the LORD but I've always been atheist, and raised as an atheist, and America's religiousness couple with its technological advancement astounds me. Without alluding to mystic reasons, I'm certain circumcision is not a simple coincidence. I think humans have a natural tendency to compensate. As for the brit ban, I think it is 1) FAIR, as no child should have to undergo that irreversible unnecessary surgery and 2) unavoidably antisemitic

Didn't Ayn Rand wanted to convince Walt Disney to make an animated film based on Anthem? Am i remembering wrong or making this up? i'm sure i've heard this before. As for the Fountainhead comic, that's news to me, actually, damn it!