source
-
Posts
632 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by source
-
-
As I understand Objectivism, I must act in my self interest, anything which hinders this I must regard as evil.
I hope you understand that in Objectivist philosophy, every "must" is conditional, i.e. it is true that "If I want X, I must do Y." There is no "I must, period."
The wording of your sentence is a bit unfortunate, however. What one would normally regard as evil is that which destroys his life or his values and not that which hinders his self-interest. (Does the fact that the shopkeeper won't give you the bread you need for free hinder your self-interest? After all, you would prefer to have the bread and keep the money, no?) Also keep in mind that a mistake isn't necessarily evil, even if it does result in destruction of values to some extent. Even the most moral person can make honest mistakes. When judging good or evil you should be looking at how decisions are made, rather than what were the outcomes.
Finally to answer your question, many confuse giving charity with altruism, but that isn't necessarily so. You can give something of yours away without having a guarantee it will ever come back, without actually making a sacrifice, if you have it in abundance. And helping someone who has had a streak of bad luck in life can be rewarding, if for no other reason then for the warm feeling you get for knowing that you were able to help someone. Normally, I think, people don't like it when other people are miserable, especially when it is not their fault.
-
Accessing the member map causes the following error:
Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 67108864 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 346595 bytes) in /home/objectj0/public_html/objectivismonline/forum/admin/sources/classes/output/formats/html/htmlOutput.php on line 639
I'm using Google Chrome.
-
Hey, I haven't been active here for quite a while and thought I'd say hi.
I've graduated in the meantime and got a job, so now that I don't have to study all day I suppose I'll find some time to stop by a couple of times a week.
Cheers!
Nikola
-
One thing I haven't seen addressed in this thread is the fact about how overblown this thing is in the media. I don't know how it is in the US, but over here in Croatia the media, as well as the government, are spreading panic for some reason. As far as I can see, H1N1 is no more dangerous than seasonal flu, so why all the fuss? If I understand it correctly, the H1N1 strain isn't even new. The mortality rate of H1N1 is the same as that of a seasonal flu.
Any comments on their reaction? Thanks.
-
With regards to prophecy, Richard also comes to understand later on that free will is the counter to prophecy.
Argh! Spoiler!
-
I do acknowledge that Richard is not fully integrated in the beginning of the series, and sometimes makes irrational statements or does irrational things out of ignorance. Many characters in Atlas Shrugged do this too, until they learn better. So the question is: is this a purposeful decision by Goodkind in order to show how Richard uses his experiences to eliminate the contradictions from his character? The other option is that Goodkind himself changed while writing the series. Either way, I am very pleased with the outcome. Richard's initial occasional irrationality doesn't bother me at all; I am more interested in the quality of the plot and characterization. That is why Blood of The Fold is my least favorite SoT book; not because of thematic reasons.
I'm now reading book 5 and surprisingly enough, book 4 didn't have any quotes that stand out as being too irrational, like some I quoted from Blood of the Fold. There were a couple of instances but they weren't strong enough to make me put them here.
However, I wouldn't say that book 4 satisfied me much.
Still the plot revolves around the prophecies and I don't like that one bit. Moreover, at times the book was a drag. I was waiting (*cough* reading) for something to happen - for Richard to figure something out - and was disappointed. I was also disappointed in Kahlan not being able to figure out it was Richard with her in that room when they were supposed to "consummate" (I hate that word in this context, by the way) the marriage - the marriage from the prophecies that is. Even I knew it. Still the book had some highlights, but nothing that wasn't already dealt with in Wizard's First Rule.
I'm looking forward to the next book, and then the next. I'm expecting Soul of the Fire to be better than the previous couple of books
on the grounds that Zedd is finally back with Richard! If as you say Richard learns during the series, then I'd say it's extremely important for him to have Zedd nearby. He can teach Richard about magic so that he can finally stop relying on "instinct", which was what spoiled books 2 and 3 for me.
In any case, I'm not going to stop reading until I'm through with the series. These books are by far the most captivating I've ever read. I must admit that I haven't immersed myself this deep into the story even as I was reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.
-
Actually, Blood of the Fold is the low point in the entire series in my opinion. Wait until you get to Faith of the Fallen.
I get there by waiting?
Also, keep in mind that some of the Wizard's Rules are warnings as opposed to recommendations.Agreed, but that does not disaffirm the blank-out suggested by my conclusion made from the quotes I've given.
Quote:
Blade, be true this day.This is an interesting line that pops up on various locations throughout the series until now (I'm currently reading Temple of the Winds, Chapter 24). The last time it was mentioned in this book,
Richard already knew what would happen when he swung his sword against Cara (what's curious, though, are his thoughts after the blade stops, when it's revealed that he wasn't certain -- it's curious because I was). However, in previous instances of this quote, Richard left the fate of the people he was about to use the Sword against entirely to the blade. To me that seemed like some sort of intellectual laziness on his part. The blade will only kill (unless white, of course) if there is absolutely no doubt in the wielder's mind of the victim's evil. That means Richard should be able to discern for himself the outcome of such use. But he isn't doing that. Instead, with this line, he is trusting the blade to be the judge, with himself acting only as the executioner.
-
The vast majority of SoT books do not end via Deus Ex Machina. Most plots are resolved as in WFR, with Richard (or other characters) using reason to solve their problems.
I actually can't believe how similar my previous guess was to the actual ending of the book, so that's 2 out of 3 for me with the Deus Ex Machina ending.
Anyway, here come the quotes:
He didn't know if the sense of danger was a true perception or not, but he dared not ignore his feelings. He was learning to trust in his instincts and be less concerned with proof.
'Wizard's Third Rule: Passion rules reason. Kolo warned that it was insidious. I've been breaking it by thinking I had broken it.'
The above two combined seem to say:
I should act by instinct and not concern myself with proof, because if I think I'm letting my feelings control my reason, then I'm breaking Wizard's Third Rule.
The first quote by itself is a horror as it is. I said before and I'm saying it again - Goodkind gives way too much importance to instincts. Maybe he just got lazy after doing a great job in WFR? I don't know, but The Stone of Tears and Blood of the Fold are the only two books I've ever read that get more and more boring as the story reaches its climax (well, with the exception of those that are also annoying).
-
As an example (A bit of spoiler ahead, if you haven't read it yet), when Richard and Berdine first visit the Wizards Tower -- he admits explicitly that the only reason they did not die horribly is because Berdine was constantly distracting him, thus allowing his gift to "guide" him through the traps, without the interference of his focused intent disrupting it.
Yes, that's what I wanted to quote just now but I'll skip it since you mentioned it. However, there's one other thing that's bugging me and it has to do with the prophecies.
Nathan and Ann have repeatedly discussed how to influence the events so that they should take the correct fork in the prophecies. The both of them knew a lot about what was going to happen, centuries before Richard was born. They knew it in such detail that Nathan was able to write The Adventures of Bonnie Day, that they knew they should acquire The Book of Counted Shadows and who to give it to, that they knew exactly which people to influence and which not to influence just so that the prophecies should take the correct fork.
But doesn't that make them limited by the prophecies? They could have acted so as to prevent the whole ordeal from ever happening, but since there was no existing fork in the prophecies, they haven't considered it. They turned all the prophecies on the "right" forks into the self-fulfilling prophecies (which is, by the way, the only kind of prophecy that I believe can come true), just because they neglected to act.
On the other hand, throughout the majority of the books, Richard does figure many things out through conscientious application of his reason to the matter at hand -- which just makes it more confusing when Goodkind proceeds to tell you that Richard's nature is that of instinct, not choice.Yes, I find that confusing too. Just as I find confusing those instances where he claims selflessness, yet Goodkind doesn't neglect to mention every single selfish reason for whatever it was that Richard did.
In Blood of the Fold, his war wizard powers are new to him and because his gift is largely driven by anger and need, he tends to view his gift in terms of an emotion/thought dichotomy. He gives up eating meat in Stone of Tears (and Blood of the Fold) because he proceeds under the assumption that this provides balance to his gift.As Richard's story progresses over the course of the novels, he gradually checks these premises. He discovers that emotions are not separate from or antagonistic to rational thought. He begins to understand that emotions are a response to values. But this integration does not happen all at once for him.
That's great, but I still think Goodkind gives Richard's instincts too important a role.
When he defeated Darken Rahl again in The Stone of Tears, he walked out of the room and told his captain that he had no idea how he did what he did. At the very climax of the book he proclaims he had no idea what he was doing -- that he doesn't know how he ended it all. A majority of authors I've read who do not claim to be Objectivists -- and would probably speak against it if asked -- don't do that. It's ghastly!
As far as I can tell, to humans instincts can only say "run" and "hide". Everything else is sheer luck, or skill (or the mixture of both). Richard has no skill and luck just doesn't come in those amounts.
I don't see what it was that prevented Goodkind from making other books more like the first one,
when Richard literally figured out a way to beat Darken Rahl.
THAT was interesting! What have I to look forward to at the end of the Blood of the Fold? That he's suddenly going to shoot lightningbolts and kill all his enemies and at the end of it all in a blind haze he's going to say "I've no idea how I did it" and Goodkind's going to credit his success to his good instincts? That's just lame -- much like the end of The Stone of Tears.
Edit: Changed wording.
-
I find it deeply disturbing that the protagonist of a book which is supposedly based on Objectivism can get away with "I don't know how I did it", when referring to the way he resolves all problems in the plot during the climax. I'm now reading book three which - it seems - will be like book two when it comes to climax, and judging by a number of reviews I've read on the Internet, book one is an exception to the rule. Richard resolves problems by means of instinct and gut feeling. Can someone explain to me how any of this can be called Objectivism, or at least based on Objectivism?
I'm going to use this thread to quote from the book the passages I find to be non-Objective, especially those in complete contrast with the philosophy of Objectivism. Feel free to contribute and comment. I'm not going to backtrack (quote from passages I've already read), but instead I'm going to quote as I go from where I am at the moment in Blood of the Fold. I'm going to rate each quote according to how much I think it is opposite to Objectivism, using the following system: weak (when I can see how this particular quote can be Objectively justified), moderate (when my explanation is a bit of a stretch), strong (when I can't see any Objective explanation), contrary (when I think the quote challenges the ideas of Objectivism). Here's two quotes now:
From Blood of the Fold, Chapter 29 (strong):
In helpless abandon, Richard gave himself over to that calm center, the instinct beyond the veil within his mind. He let himself fall into the dark void. He relinquished control of his actions to what would be. He was lost either way.
Why is it not Objective: Richard's giving in to his instinct rather than reason. At first I thought the last sentence was a bit redeeming, that he had no other choice but to let go. But that's exactly when one must switch on rational thought. Prior to this on several occasions it is mentioned that something's telling Richard (in his mind) that what's happening is wrong. At this very moment, he should try to figure it out rather than let go.
From Blood of the Fold, the end of Chapter 30 (moderate):
Richard is a war wizard. It is his instincts that guide him, and everything he has learned and holds dear forge his actions.
Why is it not Objective: Richard's instincts guide him? What is he, a mere animal?
Probable explanation: From the perspective of the characters who have not yet fully formed some concepts, Richard's actions may seem like instinctive when, in fact, they may have been thought through. This is a bit of a stretch, though, because as you can see from the previous quote, he does give in to instincts, at least sometimes.
-
As SD26 said, you may have a good start of an idea there. That's your basic conflict. Now, if you've read Ayn Rand's Art of Fiction and/or any of her journals, you may recall that she liked to ask how to make things even more difficult for the protagonists - how to make matters even more complicated for them. The trick is not to deviate too much from your basic conflict, for example by inventing another conflict. Think, rather, in terms of "expanding" what you have. Use the characters you've already created to deepen the tensions between them to make your story interesting and to "demand" immediate resolution or bust, so to speak.
I almost gave an example for it, but I'll just leave my thoughts here now so I don't end up writing your story.
-
The production and distribution costs of a television show require it be made to appeal to a wider audience to be profitable.
I'll give you two examples. First, Harry Potter. The books are great! The movies are great. They don't take away anything from the characters, and they don't change them in ANY significant way whatsoever. Their depth shows on-screen as much as it does off it (in the books). Second, The Lord of the Rings. I'd say that characterization in the movies is even better than that in the books which is something I've never seen before, or after. In both cases, the philosophy behind the novels has remained intact when transferring it to screen. You will note that the popularity of both movies is enormous. OK, so Sword of Truth is a TV show, so maybe it's different. But that's just nonsense. Dr. House has been characterized brilliantly in his show; Captains Picard, Janeway, Archer, Kirk and Sisko have been perfectly characterized in their respective shows - and all of these have enormous popularity - and very little has been lost or changed. Yet here changes are so extensive that except by similarity in names it is virtually impossible to recognize what book this show was filmed by.
You tell me I'm being unfair... I've seen a part of the first episode, I know what impression the characters have left on me - "Friends" has more interesting characters than that - and judging by how people talk about the show (e.g. "oh yeah, I remember that there was this brief moment when someone actually used brains in ep. X"), I seriously doubt anything would change if I see more of it.
Kahlan was keeping from Richard the nature of a Confessor, sure they revealed in the first episode that she was something called a confessor, but not what a confessor does,
Which diminishes the character of Richard, who, in such a situation, would ask "What is a Confessor?" At least, Richard from the book would - and did for that matter.
It's not a perfect show, or even great one, but it certainly has the potential to be a decent one,Which means, in other words, it's not even decent. A fetus has a potential of becoming a child, but the mother still (should) have a say in it.
and it's unfair to hold it to the exacting standard of the Books.I think I've shown that it isn't.
Does it matter really thatRichard burned the book of counted shadows in the opening episode or that he burned it with his father when he was younger?
Well, for one thing,
Richard in the TV show doesn't know the book by heart, and that was one of the most crucial things at the end of the book. I haven't seen this, but if he committed it to memory in this episode, that's just too ridiculous to be convincing.
One makes a connection between a work of art and the real world because art is a selective re-creation of reality and not a selective distortion of it.
orthat there were 8 people chasing Kahlan instead of four?
No, that doesn't matter much, but still it's one less thing to like about the show - the book had it beautifully explained why
there's exactly four people in a quad.
or that her hair doesn't actually go down past her waist and not all the women in the Midlands have short hair?
Well, it certainly diminishes the part where
Rachel meets Richard and Kahlan.
What matters most is the story of Richard rising to a great challenge and developing his own courage and devotion to reason and logic in order to overcome these challenges, forming the appropriate rational mutually beneficial relationships along the way, and ultimately directing the course of events in that world to the outcome he desires.What matters is not only that he does it, but also how he does it. Face it, in the show, Richard is less than a half-wit, at least in that part of the show that I've seen. In the books, whenever he found out something new, he asked questions about it so as to explore what this new information means. In the show, he's fed information and he's like "oh, OK, whatever", or "oh, I'm gonna have a bit of a problem with it, but eventually I'll go along with it because it's in the script". The show turns characters into exactly the kind of characters that Objectivist writers (including Ayn Rand) were accused of creating - shallow, one-dimensional, uninteresting. Why should I pick watching this over Xena the warrior princess, or Hercules? Heck, even the two of them do more "brainwork" per minute of show than Richard (in the show).
The series is doing a halfway decent job of building to this.Which, again by your own words, means it's not even decent.
-
I absolutely love the character. But I suppose his premise reveals most in one instance when he's treating a woman who he thinks is going to die, and she has a daughter with whom she's completely honest. There is an instance when the conversation goes thus (paraphrased, I don't remember the exact words):
Mother: It's going to be alright.
Daughter: No, mom, you're going to die. It's not going to be alright.
House later comments this to his friend with the words (also paraphrased):
House: I'm honest because I don't care. She cared and she told the truth regardless.
-
The use of "only" plus the cleft construction adds to that the element of contrastive focus and evaluation,
Then you made a mistake. You said "I suggest that your feeling that you like [the first sentence] better than [the second sentence] comes from the fact that the latter conveys more information...", where you should have said "...comes from the fact that the former conveys more information..."
That was the source of my confusion.
-
I'm completely disappointed with the TV episodes. I watched about 20 minutes of the first one and I just couldn't stomach any more. I'm not watching another second of any.
The episodes have no relation to Goodkind's novels except for character names, names of places and things, and things themselves. Characterization is non-existent. Plot was rewritten by someone with barely half a brain. Characters are puppets at the mercy of that guy.
I mean, come on!
One of the most crucial things of the novel was for Kahlan to keep the fact of her being a Confessor from Richard! What happens at the beginning of the first episode? They're not even friends. Heck, Kahlan doesn't even care for Richard, not even after Zedd names him Seeker. And what of Richard and Zedd? Richard doesn't even know Zedd and the very fact that they were friends in the book brings about the dilemma of who betrayed Richard near the end. And, their friendship was what prepared Richard to become Seeker in the first place. The naming of the Seeker as it was done in the episode is the same in both manner and principle, to me naming you (the one reading this) the Founder, except I haven't a fancy sword to give you. And how do I know you're the one true Founder? Because you can read this. What is the Founder? He is the hero who arises in the time of great financial crisis with the purpose to stop it. Now go about until something terrible happens and changes your mind about accepting the title. And yes, this is mockery (of the TV episodes).
The first episode managed to destroy most of the novel's most interesting plot twists in the first five minutes of its running. I don't even know why I watched the other 15 minutes. Perhaps out of sheer disbelief.
If I had stumbled upon the episodes before I got the chance to read the book, I'd never have read the book, except at the insistence of someone whose judgment I trusted.
I only hope Terry Goodkind learned something from this too. I'm only sorry he had to learn it this way.
Edit: Fixed spoiler tags.
-
Well, I suppose you're way past WFR now, but I'll answer anyway. Having read the book just today I can safely say that he doesn't resolve this conflict here. I think it's something TG wanted to resolve later in the series.
-
Briefly, yes.
Goodkind doesn't really let his inner Rand out to play until the sixth book in the series, Faith of the Fallen. Before that there are hints, but he isn't consistent -- as you noticed.
Oh dear. I've only just finished Wizard's First Rule. I guess I'll be reading a while before that. But still, even from this first book I have learned so much so fast I have difficulty putting it into practice all at the same time. I can't wait to see what's new in the next book and knowing that later on even this issue is addressed makes me want to read it even more.
Thank you for the reply.
-
Please bear in mind that I've only read the first book. I loved it and already decided it to be the best fantasy book I've ever read. However, seeing that Terry Goodkind is an admirer of Ayn Rand and her philosophy, I find it odd that he would have his protagonists speak of selflessness and duty in high regard (well, Richard doesn't speak of duty that way, he thinks it is a burden on him that he must carry).
My question is whether in later books he addresses this in any way and if he makes his protagonists realize that what they do is, in fact, selfish (rationally selfish, not traditionally)? Please answer as simple as possible, so as not to spoil any of the plot.
Thanks.
-
It would be useful to not use terms like "passive voice" which has a well-defined meaning.
Hmm, now I take a closer look at it, "It was only an ordinary motor boat that shattered Joe's quiet solitude, but to him it felt like the sound and fury of an invading armada" is in fact active voice. I must have been confused by the "It was..." part. But then, so is D'kian's other example (active voice), which makes the choice be based on style, rather than on whether it's an active or passive voice.
I suggest that your feeling that you like [the first] better than [the second] comes from the fact that the latter conveys more information [...]Could you show what is this extra information that the second sentence reveals, which the first does not? Here they are again, for quicker reference:
It was only an ordinary motor boat that shattered Joe's quiet solitude, but to him it felt like the sound and fury of an invading armada.
The sound of an ordinary motor boat shattered Joe's quite solitude with the sound and fury of an invading armada.
Thanks.
Edit: Added clarification.
-
Yes, the first example is active while the second is passive, so you are not giving a counterexample here. In fact, you are showing disgust with the passive voice.
Please read the entire sentence...
Edit: The entire paragraph, for that matter.
-
By the way, I think Rand uses the passive voice a lot, [...]
I know my word processor (MS Word) often reminds me that I should use active voice instead of passive. If Ayn Rand used it a lot too, perhaps it may have to do something with both of us (Ayn Rand and myself) having a Slavic language as our mother tongue. I found writing some things in active voice after I've written them in passive voice a rather unpleasant experience and not just because I had to do the same work twice.
Hence, I like D'kian's first sentence better. It makes more sense to me to write active sentences when describing what people do, rather than when describing what happens to them. Thus, I'll gladly say "Michael went to class" instead of "The class was attended by Michael" (ugh); but also I'd sooner say "His peace was disturbed by a loud explosion" than "A loud explosion disturbed his peace." It kind of puts man in the center of attention.
-
I see in Ayn Rand's writings that she begins creating stories by inventing characters, what they do, and then asks the question "What kind of situation he can be in?" In other words, what is his conflict. Ayn Rand also said that while creating a story, the writer must think in terms of conflict.
Suppose you have a theme for a novel. How do you make conflicts relate to that theme? What comes first - the conflict, or the theme?
-
Now here comes the crux of the current problem. You, the bank, has money to loan out for housing. The government says you must loan out some of it to people who cannot afford to pay the principle, especially with interest. If your bank refuses to go along with this, you get fined per customer denied and you won't get your government loan to continue operations.
Please, let me just make sure that I got this right - in the US, right now, banks get fined by the government per customer denied?
In any case, this is exactly what I was looking for. Great post, Thomas.
Thanks!
-
You are discussing things of little relevance.
First of all, who's Andrew Ryan at war with? The rest of the world? Let's say he is. So what? Rapture is by centuries more superior in technology and could destroy any force the world could send to destroy Rapture. What means does the rest of the world have to destroy the underwater city anyway? Submarines? I think that one shock plasmid would be quite sufficient do disable at least one of them. Not to mention all the rest of the weapons. Face it, the world stands no chance against Rapture even if the secret gets revealed.
Second of all, when I mentioned dr. Steinmann I wasn't just talking about how immoral or insane he is. What I was talking about is the very fact that he even exists in a free society. In a free society (and therefore on a market that is free), he would be at least imprisoned because he mutilated his own clients. And it was against their will. That he would be a complete failure on such a market is also obvious because after he does one deliberate mutilation he can no longer be trusted by his other clients. He'd go bankrupt AND go to jail, or worse (for him).
Also, what kind of business is it that the villain is into? Smuggling? SMUGGLING?! In a free society? Is this a joke? There is no such thing as "smuggling" in a free society. In a free society merchants sell what their buyers wish to buy. And if it's the Bibles and crosses then so be it. The government does not tamper with the economy, not by contract or force or any other means.
Ont he other hand, if it WAS a contract that those people signed to move into Rapture, then we aren't talking about government. We are talking about business and no businessman can act like the government. Certainly, businessmen can secure their premises and throw people out or sue them or even kill them if they pose immediate threat, but no business can claim the monopoly on force - retaliatory or otherwise. Such monopoly is to be reserved for the government, and the government does not sign business contracts. From what I've seen, Andrew Ryan acts like a bit of both - the government and the businessman - which is another non-Objectivist notion.
Just in case you're wondering what the difference is between Rapture and Galt's Gulch, then take a look at the filters they have on who to let in and who to not let in. While Rapture is open to anyone if they wish to enter (and sign a contract if there was one anyway), Galt's Gulch is closed to all except a select few. Or have you forgotten that John Galt himself interviewed everyone who was inside the Gulch before admitting them in? People in Galt's Gulch are creators; people in Rapture are just about anyone.
Another difference is when you wish to exit. Anyone can leave Galt's Gulch; nobody was allowed to leave Rapture.
Why isn't Objectivism taken seriously?
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted
I can't help but wonder what on Earth they mean. Things are not *how* simple exactly? Things are not what they are? Consciousness is not conscious? A is not A? It's no wonder they blank-out at the mere mention of morality.
From Wikipedia:
Good for whom? No answer.
Bad for whom? No answer.