[Would this be considered objectivist music?]

King, in response to the question in your subject header:

Whether Rand thought it was trash, or not even music, she herself said there is no such thing as "Objectivist" art. (Incidentally, she didn't disqualify as art something based on her personal opinion.)

But this is what she said:

"So many combinations of premises are possible that you can't make a rule applicable to everyone who claims to like all kinds of art. You can say the same about people who claim they only like "romantic" art or-be careful here-"Objectivist" art (if there ever were such a thing, which there isn't.) You cannot always be sure what a person's premises are; most people are inconsistent."

Since you're interested in the matter, you might be interested in my blog, Orpheus Remembered, where I discuss the relationship between music and Objectivism.

Shine on,

Joe

Hey,

Thank you for the clarification. I now realize that I wordered my question completely wrong.

What I should have asked is "would an objectivist consider this music" I think.

Cheers,

Mike

[Prove that god doesn't exist. (Proving a negative)]

I cant possibly think of a completely rational and logical argument to prove god does or even does not exist. All this is is speculation, you can disprove/prove certain gods exist, but you cannot go any farther than that. Who knows the true nature of a potential god except for its self?

[God exists]

if you cannot prove that gods exist or do not exist, then why debate without any hard scientific facts?

I am talking about a creator, as opposed to god existing in literature.

Without facts all that is being done is speculation.

[Would this be considered objectivist music?]

Hi,

I will introduce my self since this is my first time ever using this site or even participating in an organized objectivist community. I first learned about objectivism when reading the Fountainhead in my (Mrs. Oliver's) English class. In a discussion I had with her, I asked if a band's (Rise Against) music would be considered art through the objectivist lens.

My question is not if the band preaches objectivist principles (part of its stance coincides with objectivism while other parts disagree), my question is if an objectivist would consider this art.

The song that we specifically discussed can be found here:

(Give It All)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ify2fJeqG8...amp;sitesearch=

She said that the screaming could never be considered art.

The lyrics to this song, in a sense, portray man as a heroic being and at his best while also critiquing man.

This song shows that the band is capable of more than screaming:

(Swing Life Away)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2gUDls6QlY...amp;sitesearch=

The above shows that the indicates that if the band can do more than just scream, Give It All must be presented in a style that helps tell the story of the song, and an acoustic guitar just does not support the theme.

Some other songs if you are interested but not necessarily involved in my argument:

Rumors of My Demise Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

(the title is a quote by Mark Twain)

Prayer of the Refugee

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcsTIWEhZZw...amp;sitesearch=

Bricks

Their songs do portray man at his best in some cases, and critiques man to show how he could be better. Their lyrics have depth that I believe many modern artists lack, I have actually analyzed their lyrics as a poem, and it was very interesting to see the recurring themes.

Anyways, mind helping me out with my question?