tsprat

There are many things that can increase a man's self-esteem, but it is important to remember that self-esteem is an issue created by the individual (albeit, with societal factors influencing). If you're using college as an escape, as an excuse to put off a productive life for four years, then I do not think one should view college as a remedy for low self-image. If, however, you are going to college to explore the opportunities of the world, to expose yourself to new people, to look for something you find passion in, then college is perfectly fine, even if you major in art history or something regarded generally as "useless." Having said that, college was a life-altering experience for me. I had my values and ideals in tact by the time I left high school, but I went to college far away from all my friends and family, and as such, had to learn to cope with learning who I was as a personality. By the end of the endeavor, I figured out I was not at all like the lost little boy I assumed I was, and that in fact, I am much more of a commandeer, a man brimming with confidence whose only real adolescent problem was my strained relationship with my family and some of my friends back home. After figuring out I work best as a leader and that I had a great talent in writing, these qualities both contributed to fostering better self-esteem. However, if I had to point out the one part of my self-esteem that improved more than anything, it was definitely my self-image. In high school, I felt awkward and like a loser, only to find that in college, I had the opportunity to cast off the chains of adolescent social drama and build my own life. And that, simply being around new people, more than anything helped turn me into the man I am today.

I'm working on a novel right now where one of my characters wears a torch pendant on her necklace. It's a symbol for Prometheus, the man who brought fire down from the gods. I always figured a torch would be the perfect symbol for Objectivism because: 1. The denunciation of a higher being implied in the Prometheus story. 2. The metaphorical meaning of the story: bringing light (knowledge and good) to a dark (immoral and evil) world. 3. The torch has been used throughout history as a symbol of enlightenment. However, having said that, I tend to agree with David Odden here, that Rand would not want a symbol to represent her ideas. Rand's ideas were not a matter of "do you believe or do you not believe"? For her, her philosophy was about accepting reality, either you do or you do not. Rand aside, I also find the use of symbols to represent an idea a bit ridiculous. It brings us down to the level of the Christians and the communists. We should not swear allegiance to a logo, but only to ourselves and our minds.

I have the live version. It's from his album "Timeless." I think that's his best album, and you're right, he is always more on his game when he plays live. Philosophically speaking, he probably is in love with his life or a woman, though he does love music a great deal too. Politically, the guy is sort of a socialist weasel, but as is the case with most guitar players (myself excluded), they think with their emotions all too often.

Before I list some favorites of mine, let me say that to me, a good love song should be happy and deliver a romantic sense of life (both in the literal and the Randian meanings of that phrase). Some lonely rocker bemoaning the girl he lost forever may be perfect for certain emotional occasions but does not constitute a love song. Also, many of the pop song love songs are overplayed and completely lack musical talent, by either the performers or the musicians. Their chord progressions are predictable at best and leave nothing to the imagination, making me say, hey, I understand how he/she feels. Having said that, I actually find there are very few love songs in the world worth listening to. Sarah Brightman/ Jose Cura - English translation of lyrics Sarah Brightman/ Alessandro Safina - "Sarai Qui" (Cover originally by Faith Hill) Eric Johnson - "Song for Lynette" Faith Hill - "Beautiful" Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You" Jonny Lang - "Touch" Don't bother searching these on YouTube if I didn't already link them. Either the versions are terrible or covers or something (example: the Jonny Land rap remake - gross).

I like this guy's work very much. And his artist's statement sounds very Objectivism-infused. Is he intentionally advocating romantic realism? Or is that just a coincidence? Nevermind. Neat. Most artists I know are only into weird stuff and environmentalism

That's exactly how I feel about it. Some of my favorite art is the humanist sort coming out of the Renaissance and Baroque periods. For instance, no one, even by modern standards, would question the portrayal of Venus nude in Boticelli's famous painting. Or who would ask why Cupid and Psyche are nude in this sculpture, also a favorite of mine. In both of those works, the figures portrayed are without question of a somewhat sexual nature (Venus being the goddess of love and sex, and Cupid and Psyche is a story of the passion of love). However, the artist did not intentionally depict them as incredibly lecherous, ungraceful, almost inhumane creatures. And to me, that is central to nudity in art. To borrow Objectivist aesthetics, nudity can depict man as a heroic being at his best, his most raw, where we see not his insatiable animal lust (as is the case with pornography) bu rather his purest form, the thing that depicts him as most human. Boticell's Venus conveys the beauty of woman through a female goddess figure. Cupid and Psyche are shown in a passion that, while somewhat illicit according to legend, demonstrates visible passion in the perfection of love. Beauty and love are both very rationally-based concepts, both very human, virtually unique to mankind (discounting things like peacock plummage that are also forms of beauty in their own species).

Obviously, I did not mean that Rise Against is any way objectively superior to Mozart or Tchaikovsky, but rather, that all music can be judged as objectively good in a center context. I listen to anything and everything except rap (which to me, is not music, but beat poetry), reggae, and teeny pop. I can still find objective value in good punk music as I can in Bach or Tchaikovsky or Copland or anything else. I won't call anti-punk statements elitist (simply because I agree they don't hold as much talent as Mozart or whatever) but I think holding yourself in a position that is better than others simply because you disagree with their musical taste is a bit childish. Also, for those of you who don't know your punk history, I'm not a fan of Green Day either, but know that Green Day was never "mass produced," at least, not until more recently. Both Green Day and The Offspring appeared on independent labels in the 1990s and can hardly be called mass produced. As for Rise Against, they had a bit more of an advantage with the mainstream success of other punk groups but nonetheless, managed to develop their own niche, despite their vegetarianism, their socialist politics, and their anti-statist attitude. Before you go dissing particular acts for a lack of musical talent, you should at least get your facts in order. Steve, I know we've met in person, so I guess it's nice to finally see a familiar face on the forums. I'll see you at the April 19 meeting, I'm sure (unless you're in 1FROG).

This is one of the most irritating questions in Objectivism: "Would Ayn Rand approve of this?" is akin to asking "What Would Jesus Do?" The very heart of Objectivism, while involving objective morality, reason, etc., is thinking for yourself. If you find yourself waking up every morning asking if your breakfast would be Rand approved, then you've missed the point in a philosophy that is to be your guide and road to something better. A particularly work of art is meant to celebrate the heroic being and human consciousness. Romantic music in general was very individualistic and beautifully coincides with Objectivism as a philosophy. However, that does not mean every other brand or genre of music on the planet is an abomination. Rand did not care for rock music. Good for her. Neither did 75 percent of everyone living at that time. Remember that when the British invasion hit America, the only people who embraced it were young, idealistic, and not searching for a deeper value in their art. Young people have never made up more than 25 percent of the population, even less so now. Naturally, an older woman who was educated in pre-World War II musical taste is not going to have a deep admiration for something that she would say resembles little more than tribal beats. That was her biggest objection to rock music: the drums. Having said that, remember the following: Objectivism is a philosophy that through reason, advocates a particular way of living. It does not dictate your lifestyle prima facie, such to the point that you are constantly asking yourself whether or not something is appropriate. And more importantly, it does not have an opinion on everything. What it does do is provide a basis of reason and fundamental values with which you are to go off and judge the rest of the world, including your own life. In terms of music (or art), this could mean many anything. Ayn Rand hated Bach, likely for his celebration of religious and aristocratic values just as much as Baroque music's showy sound. I love Bach. To me, the day an Objectivist writes a work half as beautiful as his Mass in B minor, the world will know that Ayn Rand was on to something great. Music can be about many things and as much as I am against relative interpretation of anything, art is one area in which one cannot simply apply a blanket statement denouncing a particular work because it doesn't do for you what you enjoy in your art. What a viewer or listener acquires from a particular work of art may in fact conicide directly with Objectivist values, though the work itself is not inherently Objectivist. Case in point: Rise Against is a bunch of socialist weasels (They are also classified as punk, not emo, don't even get me started on that debate). They hate capitalism and could best be described as anarchists. I can say this as a devoted fan. However, because they advocate anarchy and socialism does not mean I have to rescind my music taste and turn on Rachmaninoff. I can see why the band is not everyone's cup of tea, but for me, they offer something a hundred other bands never could. (1) An amazing sense of fast-paced rhythm and melodic chord progressions that not only help the band set itself apart from lesser punk acts but which also offer stimulation far beyond what one can get out of Romantic music. Have you ever tried to work out with Tchaikovsky? (2) Many of their lyrics are extremely political in nature, however, they do offer a message at the core that is very important to Objectivists: Don't take everything your government does with authority because most of the time, it is wrong. If we were to all denounce every non-Objectivism-oriented type of modern music or band, we would all be listening to Rush (who indeed, dedicated 2112 to Ayn Rand). Not only would this make it impossible to have a variety of music (no matter how long Rush lives or how many albums they've produced), but it is extremely dangerous. For Objectivism to claim one type of music is intrinsically superior to another is no different than Stalin advocating socialist realism. I am not advocating giving up on romantic realism. I am not advocating that Rand was wrong about the state of art and its links to philosophy. What I am saying is that not only should one think for himself but one must think for himself, especially about matters of personal taste, like music or clothing. Objectivism is a philosophy of the world and should be shown to the world. We need to spend more time talking to complete strangers and asking them how they feel about a life of servitude at the hands of altruism. Until then, we will sit isolated in forums and clubs, wondering how we can better spread our message and better advocate our views, debating esoteric topics like what Ayn Rand would wear to the gym.

LOL! I remember the same thing in my constitutional law class. Every time I asked the professor a question about those sorts of matters, such as Heart of Atlanta v. U.S., which was a case really involving discrimination, but was interpreted just so the Supreme Court could circumvent the issue and made it into a case of "interstate commerce," which resulted in yet another surrender of property rights to the government. I asked my professor why they just didn't tell the hotel that they were violating the Fourteenth Amendment, and he said, "It would have been too controversial." In other words, that makes too much sense. Anyway, though that case involved private property, it dealt directly with the fine line between "public space" and "public property," an argument which aside from being rooted entirely in esoteric semantics, leads me to believe that it is only a matter of time before all public space becomes public property. Wait for your local governments to buy out the shopping malls. Back on topic, I see the arguments in favor of compulsory public education of a blatant violation of man's volition. Nevermind the Objectivist arguments against it. I know plenty of libertarians and even conservatives who believe that the government forcing our children to go to school is absolutely ridiculous. Whether or not there is any instance of harm is beside the point. If the government told us all to go grocery shopping at least five days a week, it would be exactly the same justification: it is for your own good. The only difference is food versus knowledge. The government which knows best governs the worst.

I just realized that since Emma Perez, as much of an intellectual moron she may be, doesn't qualify for the Toohey Corps, simply because no one reads her works except already-brainwashed academics. And thinking about this, I would say in order to qualify as a Toohey, aside from being an altruist to the max, one would have to also have mainstream popularity. About Chomsky: I loathe this man more than any academic on the planet. Here is a man who purports to uphold the values of freedom, and yet, he himself cannot and does not actually believe in freedom. To him, freedom is an anti-concept, a word that is as meaningless as his entire academic career. We had to read excerpts from his book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media for a public opinion course. Essentially, his theory consists of the idea that mass media are to democracy as the use of the club is to a totalitarian regime. He places Atilla and the capitalist in the same category, claiming that no man can possess his own public knowledge and that it all comes manufactured for us, therefore, democracy (as dangerous as it may be) is literally a concept of mind control. Yet, hypocritically, he has made thousands of dollars off his own books, propagating the "capitalist media empire" and leading hundreds if not thousands of people into believing his nonsense.

I don't see Coulter or Robertson as being intellectuals, and therefore, they are not in the tradition of Ellsworth Toohey. Rather, they are social critics, poor ones at that, who make their living by being as edgy and extremist (I know Rand and myself hate this word, but it does apply to these two), with a pure goal of causing controversy through speech. I see Toohey more as a respected source of modern knowledge and philosophy, certainly something the right-wing rarely produces, mostly due to Left-wing bias in academia. But anyway, to that list, I would add: Ward Churchill (I was at Boulder for the protests, and know the people who started it all personally) Emma Perez (his coworker who is worse) I'll think of others later.

Young, as someone who has taken several courses involving public opinion and relations (in fact, public opinion is my speciality), I would say there is no one answer to your questions. However, I will address all questions in general with how I see Objectivism as it is portrayed in mainstream society and academic settings. All seemingly awkward and negative groups have faced persecution and public dissent in the past. Christianity certainly found itself at odds with not only the established Roman Empire but also every other religious and secular group in the world. To be a Christian in the first century was to be an outcast, a man who accepted that while his doctrine was flawed in the material world, it was the right path, and it would be praised in the afterlife. While Objectivism is different in the sense that all we have is one life, the earthly life and that there is no chance of a deity redeeming us from our own persecution, it is similar in the sense that it is a relatively new movement (after all, the publication of Rand's books is less than 100 years old), and that we, as Objectivists, face a massive amount of criticism and adversity not only from government but also from modern philosophical movements. Let's face it: the popular post-modern philosophy is a rejection of the past, of absolutes, and an embracement of the idea that we can all just coexist if we simply spend enough time and money trying to understand each other. However, our movement, if we choose to call it that, should take a lesson from history here, specifically Christian history. By the fourth century A.D., the Roman Empire was forced to embrace Christianity, else face the conundrum of a nation of Christians governed by pagans. While part of this certainly had to do with Constantine's acceptance of Christian values, much of it was a matter of public opinion. An empire could not survive, even through force, without a significant amount of support from the public and its values. By the third century, so many had taken to Christianity that it became impractical, even dangerous to not acknowledge it, and in many ways, I see Objectivism becoming the same way. Certainly I do not mean to suggest Objectivism is a religion or that Ayn Rand is a modern Jesus. Rather the important parallel is philosophy. As more and more people come to realize the dangers of socialism and altruism, they will begin to turn. What scoping event this may take is unknown, but aside from just Christianity (think about rationalism and capitalism bringing an end to the domination of Catholic opinion), I cannot and will not believe that the public will forever embrace the values that our modern culture and politics have offered. At some point, altruism will show its true values and results: that man will not and cannot survive by that code of ethics.

You're probably not alone in the reason to come here. I can't say that I agree with 100 percent of what you referred to as "the Objectivist canon", but I totally understand the college life. I went to school at what was at one point the "number one party school in the nation," which I, for one, was never that proud of. It seems like more and more, college focuses on partying and a carpe diem lifestyle, wherein nobody considers the rationale or morality of their actions until (1) they decided to accept Jesus (that seemed to be popular at our school after a long Saturday night) or (2) they wake up face first in a pit of vomit and drool next to someone whose name they don't know only to find that the world no longer makes sense. Anyway, here's to hoping more people will understand that you don't have to be a religious fanatic to understand there is more to college than partying. Which reminds me, does anyone at your school just automatically role their eyes or act like you're a self-indulgent idiot if you tell them you're a fan of Ayn Rand? Anyone else for that matter?

Hi to all the Objectivists on the forum, I am new, obviously, and just wanted to take the time to introduce myself. First and foremost, I consider myself a writer, that being my main passion as well as my collegiate training (B.S. in journalism and mass communication). However, I am not working as a journalist professionally, and soon plan to return to graduate school in the fall to continue studying mass communication, specifically public opinion and its relation to democratic and republican societies. Currently, I am working on a novel dealing with individualism, freedom, and love, as well as an essay outlining the dangers of direct democracy and tyranny of the majority (what I perceive to be the future, if not present of America). As for my background, I was first introduced to Objectivism in the ninth grade, when I was required to read the Anthem (in a public school, nonetheless) for an essay. What I discovered would become my favorite book, though at the time, the philosophy of the novel was admittedly, a bit over my head. After spending several years as a confused adolescent, I rediscovered Objectivism when a friend recommended The Fountainhead my sophomore year of college. Since then, I have considered myself a student of Ayn Rand and her philosophy, as well as its branches (many of you are aware of the different schools and opinions of Objectivism and its relation to libertarianism, anarchy, etc.). I will simply add that I hope to find some interesting people on the forum and look forward to discussing with and learning from each and everyone of you. Thanks, Tobin