Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ed from OC

Regulars
  • Posts

    240
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ed from OC

  1. I've always had trouble with weight training. For some reason, a rolled-up newspaper and a loud "no" don't prove effective...
  2. I believe the author of that particular term was "The Fonz."
  3. I can make an oscilloscope sing.
  4. Outfit? Which do you.... oh yeah. Which adjective best fits, do you think? Cute? Beautiful? Nah. Lusty. Definitely lusty. I think it was created by the same gang who did the new "Catwoman" outfit.
  5. Argive: thanks for starting the thread. I wouldn't have seen King Arthur if I hadn't read your first post. The ads and previews for the film really didn't do the film justice. I really enjoyed the film. The departure from standard lore was quite interesting. I liked seeing standard characters and elements put together in a very different way. The magic and mysticism was replaced with a struggle of noble men to be free. I especially liked the unapologetic heroism. No feet of clay here. And Keira Knightley -- wow. This movie and Spiderman 2 are like night and day. Peter Parker (in the movie) is a whiny little wimp. All he does is whine. And you can't root for a hero who whines. By contrast, Arthur has some internal conflicts (some, but hardly earth-shattering) yet doesn't whine on and on about it. I recommend the movie, but I wouldn't call it an all-time great.
  6. If my choice of words was confusing, I hope I've clarified things now. My point was the choice of job carries an implied moral sanction. It also means providing practical support in the pusruit of the group's aims. I think you go to far in your claim of "virtually nothing", but it's not an issue worth debating here and now. I certainly did not assert that "just the clerks" are immoral.
  7. To my post, I forgot to add: 3. While under the threat of force, evading taxes would not be practical. Tax avoidance through any legal means would be moral and practical. However, one definite way to protest taxation is: don't support it. Ever. When the opportunity arises to vote against taxes, to speak out against them, one is entirely justified in doing so. And, certianly, not working within the tax collection system is another form of protest: one has withdrawn whatever benefit they might have had from a willing, active mind. After all, someone has to come up with the new ideas for what to tax, who to pursue or audit, new ways to place hidden taxes on the marketplace, new ways to increase the efficiency of tax collection, etc. Even answering phones can be a way of supporting taxation.
  8. 1. David, in a free country, one's job is a matter of choice, barring some rather unusual circumstances. Are you contesting that? If not, I'm not sure what your objection is, exactly. 2. Working for a group whose essential function is immoral grants that group a moral sanction, regardless of whether one works for the IRS, the Mafia, or the local welfare office. This DOES NOT include working for gorvernment as such, because whatever its flaws, there are moral functions that it performs. So one could, morally, work for Congress, for example, so long as one's actions are primarily in accord with freedom. An Objectivist could morally be a police officer, too, even though some of the laws called upon to be enforced (drugs, vice, antitrust) are immoral. But it is not clear to me how acting as a part of the tax collection system could be justified. There, one's entire purpose is dedicated to using the threat of force to take money from citizens. However, there may be details I've missed, or circumstances left undisclosed, so that is why I asked questions in my post. I did not mean to imply any doubt on my part about the moral principles. If the concrete details are what I assume them to be, then "FaSheezy" is acting immorally. I'm not sure if she is aware of this, but if not, I wanted to inform her.
  9. This is a side issue to the thread, but I'm surprised to see this. Why do you work there? It's one thing to comply, at the point of a gun, with tax laws. It's quite another to voluntarily lend support to such laws. Am I missing something here?
  10. To answer your specific question: to my knowledge, AR didn't say anything specific about depression. She did have some things to say about the field of psychology as a whole, though. I'm not a mental health professional and neither are most people, including Objectivists. I would be EXTREMELY wary of accepting specific medical advice from nonprofessionals. The only advice I can confidently give is to see a professional, and there are Objectivists in the field, such as Dr. Hurd and Dr. Kenner. There are some good authors on the subject, such as Aaron Beck and David D. Burns. Dr. Hurd has an interesting list of recommended books here. I've seen a few Objectivists -- with no medical training -- cite specific headline-grabbing maladies (such as chronic fatigue syndrome or ADD) as examples of the consequences of bad philosophy. It is extremely rationalistic to jump from "the philosophy of the general culture is bad" to "this medical condition doesn't exist" without bothering to be an expert in the field. So I hope you won't equate an Objectivist's medical knowledge with that of a doctor.
  11. No, but TOF is worth owning. It has a lot of terrific essays not reprinted elsewhere, unlike The Ayn Rand Letter, The Objectivist, and The Objectivist Newsletter, each of which have some of the best reprinted -- sometimes as abridged versions -- in CUI, ItOE, VOR, RM, etc.
  12. Yes, but the first thing is to get an idea of what Kerry would do if elected, which is why I started this thread as a focus on Kerry, rather than a comparison of the two candidates.
  13. I'm not for or against torture per se, but if it would be a viable method of interrogation, then there are contexts in which I support it. I phrased my question carefully to be more broad than just torture. Who knows what regulations properly motivated bureaucrats can dream up that would impede interrogation, especially if the issue is put in terms of 'humanitarian concerns.' I'm especially concerned about politicians imposing restraints on counterterrorism efforts in the wake of the Iraqi prison debacle.
  14. Yes, he'll appease Europe... or yes, he's willing to act withot their sanction?
  15. I'm looking forward to it, but casting DiCaprio as Hughes could be bad. He just looks like such a young kid, while Hughes, in my mind, should look like someone in his late 30s -- very clearly a man in his prime, not some pretty-boy. DiCaprio is a good actor, at times -- see "Catch Me If You Can" -- so I'll give him a chance. Maybe he'll do well here, too.
  16. I'm sure several on this forum have looked into Kerry's views and record to see what kind of President he would be. Above all else in the upcoming election, the way he would prosedute the war on terrorism would determine for whom I would vote. So I'd like to get some reliable info on Kerry's views. I've heard a number of rumors, but haven't looked into them enough yet. Questions I have: Does he view the war on terrorism as an actual war, or as a criminal matter? Would he appease Europe, or be willing to act "unilaterally?" Would he reduce support (financial and political) for military and intelligence activities? Would he endorse constraints on war-fighting activities? (This might include hamstringing interrogations, for instance.)
  17. I wasn't required to take any philosophy courses on the way to my physics degree. Most engineers dismiss philosophy completely, precisely because of the irrationalism that has overtaken the field. The concept of a rational philosophy is completely alien to some of them. As far as schools go, I think the schools that are more practical and down-to-earth are better. For instance, the University of California system focuses more on theory than the California State University system. As a result, some of the software people from UC schools can't program nearly as well as some of the CalState grads. So I would expect to encounter worse explicit philosophy in classes at UC schools, while the Cal State programs are more focused on preparing students for future jobs. I'll also add that the community college course I took on Shakespeare was amazingly good. My lit courses as an undergrad were overwhelmingly focused on political discussions, using books as a jumping-off point. This Shakespeare course focused on the stories as such, with a little history thrown in for context. That was my favorite humanities course. So as a rule of thumb, I would say the more prestige a school has, the worse its philosophy. I'm sure there are exceptions, and would definitely look carefully at a school, and within the school, at the particular program. Course catolog descriptions can be very revealing if you know what to look for.
  18. Those interested in the meaning of the concept of "perfect" and its connection to philosophy would most likely greatly benefit by reading Harry Binswanger's essay "The Possible Dream", in The Objectivist Forum, Feb. and April 1981. As a teaser, here is how HB defines the term: "The actual meaning of 'perfection' is: flawlessly complete satisfaction of a standard of value." (Feb. '81, p.3) Personally, I found this essay to be one of the more thought-provoking in the whole Objectivist body of literature -- and that's saying a lot.
  19. I agree and had the same reaction. The explicit philosophy is quite bad. As a work of art, though, it was quite good. Near the end, I was quite caught up in the story. I saw a way for the movie to end the way I thought it should, which required MJ doing something that I didn't think she would. And then she did it. It made my day. It's not the best movie out there, but I had a good time. (This post was deliberately vague to avoid spoilers.)
  20. Really? I'd like to read more about this. I hadn't heard that either fellow had much respect for Objectivists before.
  21. Ed from OC

    Help Me, Please.

    I think it is VERY important -- especially when feeling the way you describe, but throughout one's life in general as well -- to find pleasure in living. Find hobbies. Travel. Try new things. Heck, try a new flavor of ice cream. Go see a movie. The world is literally filled with new joys and pleasures to explore and discover. If you are bored or frustrated, and feel like just giving up, one thing to try is finding things that give you pleasure. Don't worry about deducing whether eating ice cream is proper or not according to Objectivist principles. Don't sweat about whether one more scoop will endanger your health and therefore is anti-life. For heaven's sake, don't let "being a good Objectivist" become more important than enjoying life. And, make an actual effort to focus on the good things in life, not the bad. There's a time and place for "fighting mediocrity" and so on, but if you feel as bad as you describe, isn't it time for a break? All of this can help on an emotional level to renew one's sense of joie de vivre. That said, you raise a great many issues, which would take a lot of time to go through. To look at just one paragraph: You wrote: "What is the proper choice of career for a man? Isn't that too an objective decision? It must, realistically, be based on a proper assessment of one's aptitudes and talents, must it not?" It should be primarily based on one's values -- not just philosophical ones, but personal values -- those things that matter to you, your interests, those things that give you pleasure. Maybe Roark could have been a terrific sculptor or scientist, but it was architecture that he loved. For the most part, aptitudes and talents are skills that can be acquired and improved upon. "What if each course does not give me what I want from it?" I took several classes that were not enjoyable or profitable. Was it worthwhile? Well, I have a degree, and that led to my first "real" job, which led to my second, etc. Realistically, any job you get will have some parts that aren't pleasant. Some things in life are really chores, but they need to get done. Perhaps you can try to make the best of it -- look for the good in it. Maybe there's some aspect that could be interesting. Or, you could turn it into a mental game of some sort. "I have been very late in making this decision for I have already spent three years in my undergraduate course and at this point, while I cannot go backwards, I surely have no desire to go forward." I don't know why you say "very late". Aren't people allowed to change their minds when it becomes clear a mistake was made? Plenty of people (including me) took a long time figuring out what they wanted to do. It ain't the end of the world. My point is, it isn't too late. Re-examine your premises and adjust your focus. Keep in mind that the good is out there, but if you aren't looking for it, would you know it even if you tripped over it?
  22. From the horse's mouth: "I don't agree with the copyright laws and I don't have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people. As long as they're not doing it to make a profit, you know, as long as they're not trying to make a profit off my labor. I would oppose that." -Michael Moore So if you want to watch it for free, you can go here to www.moorelies.com and follow the links.
  23. I read a wide range of fiction -- Hugo to Tom Clancy, mysteries to 19th-century adventure novels, classics to popular novels. After that, I like history, lately with a military and middle eastern focus. For variety, a have a few books on investing and math & science. I recently bought John Derbyshire's Prime Obsession and can't wait to start it. I'm currently reading Inside al-Qaeda and wish I had more time to just sit and read it.
  24. Hi Alex. How do you reach this conclusion? This would rule out an alternative such as the idea that these little things may interact with each other in such a way as to create new ones or destroy old ones. The universe, as a whole, may be eternal, but I don't see why that must necessitate immortality for its ultimate constituents.
  25. A common problem is substituting "I wish" for "it is"-- that is, taking a primacy of consciousness approach to romance. It is very easy to meet someone, find a good trait or two, and develop an infatuation. The thinking may be along the lines of: "Gosh, she's beautiful, and wouldn't it be great if we were dating? If only she weren't religious. And if she were a little smarter. And if she respected me more. And if she'd realize what a jerk her current boyfriend is..." Notice how the positive traits are taken out of context, and the negative ones are evaded. If you want a relationship with someone, remember who it is you are having the relationship with -- all their traits, good and bad. If you can't live with the bad, then don't pursue a relationship. It is this particular person, in the flesh, not some abstraction or fantasy that you are considering. The kernel of truth in the advice against trying to change someone is a call to focus on the facts -- i.e., who she is -- rather than the fantasy -- i.e., who you want her to be. Yes, people can change, but there are degrees of appropriateness. The object of affection may be willing to change a minor trait, but asking the Pope not to be Catholic is out of the question. And this is not the first time in the history of the universe that a guy has been attracted to some, but not all, of the qualities of a particular gal. It happens every day. Another bit of advice: it is easy to overlook criticism coming from the gal you are interested in. She may be critical of your ideas, even sneer at them, and you galze over her response with the thought that she's naive or you can change her. Well, what for? Self-esteem means treating yourself with respect, and not accepting unwarranted insults. If the gal doesn't have respect for you, there is ABSOLUTELY NOT EVEN A SNOWBALL'S CHANCE IN HELL that a healthy romantic relationship can develop. Some women like to use men; it's a power trip for them, a secondhander's attempt at self-esteem. They may flirt a little with you, just enough to get your attention, then get you to do something for them. They may declare to your face that they respect you or that you are "such a good friend." But they use you just the same. It sucks, but it does happen, and it pays to watch out for it. Remember, there really are plenty of fish in the sea, and if this one gives you such trouble, move on. Why waste your time on someone who is marginally acceptable? Keep looking for the brass ring, the one about whom you don't have to fight with yourself, that you can love, lust for, trust and respect.
×
×
  • Create New...