Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

the tortured one

Regulars
  • Posts

    336
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by the tortured one

  1. I did, and my first impression was that this is three guys, a bag of weed, and a video recorder. If this is going to be an actual movie, this surprises me. As a home video, it's mildly amusing. As a movie with a budget and slot on the silver screen, it's bland and dry
  2. I just recently saw this delightful movie, which had a remarkable sense of life. a synapse of the plot is that it revolves around this woman named Gina (Queen Latifa) who is unhappy with her job at George's(Kevin Bacon in a terrifically funny role... the name is pronounced "hor-hay) so she quits and starts her own business. Despite government regulations which threaten to shut her down, her shop prospers. And despite the best efforts of George, she stands on her own two feet. there are several instances in this movie that are remarkeably pro-life. The youngest daughter is seen as a young music prodigy, who has a fine appreciation for art, and is resistant of the more irrational aspects of black culture. The older step-daughter initially is all in the scene as somewhat of a spoiled brat. However, the movie is a real coming of age for her, as by the end she sheds her irrational path and becomes a virtuous employee of Gina's. The sole white beautician is initially ostracized by the other black females, as she is white. The issue of race is a huge issue within the black community, but for anyone not involved it is one of those non-existent issues. Anyway, Gina, fights to break down the barriers between the two races, to the point where she fires two unruly and racist black beauticians. By the end of the movie, the white girl is an accepted member of the team. I heartily reccommend this movie. The philosophy is great and the humor is fantastic. Well worth the time.
  3. I always felt that what evolution did for us was tear down on of the final bastions of traditional religious thinking, and paved the way for Nietzsche's famous "God is dead" aphorism. I've heard religion refered to as "the god of the gaps" in that there are gaps in our knowledge where there is simply information we do not know. It is still there, I mean, scientists just discovered dark energy, which is an even bigger enigma than dark matter, which is still largly an unknown. What religion did (and still does) was fill in those gaps. When the first thinkers asked "from whence did we come from?" he had no way of observing any rational scientific explaination, so the theologians jumped on it and said "we came from God!" When science catches up to theology, there is friction, as it saps the legitimacy of God. Just like when Galileo, Kepler, and Newton proved heliocentricism, evolution is yet another keystone of Christian religion that science has torn down. Traditional Platonist Christianity seems to be in a bit of a flux right now, as the only serious theologians are downright approaching deism. Platonist christianity seems to be taken seriously only on a lower level, as modern philosophers would hardly consider the likes of Jerry Falwell or John Haggie legitimate thinkers. Don Cupitt, for example, professes to be a "christian humanist" and he directs his arguements specifically against Aristotilean and Nietzschean thinking. Getting back on target, I feel that evolution will do more for secularism than heliocentricism ever did. The only thing that heliocentricism did was destroy the legitimacy of the traditional church and a few scant verses in the Bible. What evolution is doing is tearing down the very foundation of the first and very critical book in the Bible. Without creation, there was no fall, and without a fall, there is no reason for Jesus. The Catholics have already cut their losses and come out and supported evolution (I guess they learned their lesson with that whole Galileo thing.) Creationism is going to be more damaging against protestantism, upon which they rest all of their authority on the bible. Evolution will ultimately be remembered as the first legitimate secular explaination for our origin, and yet another step towards turning Christianity into Greek and Roman paganism.
  4. "The Japanese are very aware that animation isn't just for kids to the point of making pornography." - Robin Williams I have an interesting like of anime. On one hand, the Japs treat it as a serious medium of entertainment (as opposed to the american stereotype that cartoons are for kids) and therefor create some very stylized animation. On the otherhand, there are a lot of stereotypes that I don't like. I'm not a real big fan of giant mecha anime because it militarily doesn't make sense to me. I also don't like that male figures are typically effeminate and full of angst (which in my eyes turns the protagonist from hero to whiny teenager.) I prefer masculine heroes, so there are few animes that pique my interest. I liked Dragon Ball Z, Naruto, and Ninja Scroll. In particular I liked Princess Mononoke, it was a refreshing change to see man and nature as competing elements, not as an exploiter/victim dictomy that modern art loves to paint up as man in relation to nature. I sort of liked Evangelion, but the main character (Shinji) absolutely drove me up a wall. I liked FLCL for the same reason I like british humor; because Japanese humor tends to be just as arbitrary and random. In the end, it's just like anything else: it has it's legends, it's great ones, it's semi-decent ones, and of course, an extra serving of crap. So I take it as it is.
  5. Any government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul. I mean, if they throw enough money at the situation, I am sure at least some of it goes to help people. It doesn't change the fact that how the government obtained the money was immoral. as for arguing against the person with emotional ties, ask them why their mother was poor in the first place. Find out what happened. Ask them why their mother couldn't get a job to earn a living. More often than not, it's government interference that stifles growth and destroys jobs. Explain that in addition to the 25% that was stolen from her every year, explain to her that things like minimum wage laws and regulatory jobs typically have the opposite desired effect. I find people who were helped by the government tend to be it's most ardent supporters.
  6. Tortured One, there's a huge flaw in your statement, "actually, the Bible is rather explicitly against Capitalism. Allow me to demonstrate": None of your demonstrations prove anything, since you aren't the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church interprets the Bible, not you. Address your demonstrations to Protestants, not Catholics. Wait a minute... the Catholic ministry overrides the very book it's faith is based upon? I thought the Bible was supposed to be the perfect book, written by God himself? What make's the Church's interpretation (which has been known to contradict itself on more than one occasion) intrinsically superior to anyone elses? I mean, if the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill" what gives the Catholic church (which has broken this rule plenty of times) intrinsic superiority over a Christian pacifist? it sounds like you are A: defaulting to an authority, and B: avoiding the question. If there is a flaw in the logic of any of the conclusions I came too, by all means enlighten me. I mean, I could say to you "you don't know enough about Objectivism to refute anything, because you have not read enough Ayn Rand scholars like Leonard Peikoff and Harry Binswanger to come to such a conclusion" is the same thing you told me to do. Forget reading Ayn Rand herself, you haven't read enough Peikoff and Binswanger, so you can't speak for Objectivists. It's a rediculous presupposition, one none of the Objectivists have resorted too. I am going to the very base of Christian ethics (we haven't even started with Christian Metaphysics) which is the Bible, the book which Catholic doctrines are based off of. There is no reason going after the intricacies of the church when I can question the foundation of the entire thing and bring the whole thing down in a fraction of the effort.
  7. also, consider the nature of demolition. When you use dynamite, what is left over? A huge pile of debris, which takes a lot of effort to clean up. When a Building is taken apart by a controlled measure, the pieces can be removed in an orderly manner, and there is less chaos after the building has finally come down. In the same way, we could blow up every public school in America, and that would be a step in the right direction. But it would leave a huge gap in the system, a gigantic mess which would take some time to clean up. On the other hand, we can gradually pick the system apart, so that after the edifice has been demolished, there is no mess left. Ayn Rand demonstrated such far-sightedness by endorsing school vouchers as a stepping stone in the right direction.
  8. Though I did not see it before, I happened to notice this statement: I do admit that the Church condemns the Objectivist notion of capitalism. It is quite supportive of other forms---and yes, I am referring here to the term "capitalism" as understood by the rest of the world. actually, the Bible is rather explicitly against Capitalism. Allow me to demonstrate. True Christians should be paying double the amount of money if they lose a lawsuit True Christians can not ask for a raise. True Christians can not hold depts, nor can they file charges if someone steals from them. If I were to walk into your house and just start taking stuff that appealed to me, It would be a sin for you to do anything to stop me. I wonder what kind of society could exist without respect to property laws... oh I know, let's ask the people who lived in Soviet Russia. Jesus never condemns slavery, in fact he seems to be endorsing it! I mean, if Jesus hated slavery, why would he use such an example? And no, this is not part of the parable Jesus was giving in Luke 12:41-48, this is an explanation Jesus was giving in response to a question by Peter. This is one of many verses in the Bible which proclaims that slaves need to be unquestionably obedient. by the way, in the hebrew bible, the term used is Doulos, which is used to mean both slave and servant. The idea of slavery is in every way anti-capitalist. That is collectivism, in every essence of the word, and completely incompatible with ANY hybrid form of Capitalism one can come up with. These are but a few of the good ones. I could go into the old testament, which is filled with so many inane laws that it would simply be too easy for me to bring up. Modern historians doubt the ancient Isrealites could have abided by them, because it would have meant the economic suicide of ancient Israel. Don't think that being Christian excuses you from the old testament either
  9. Allow the eloquent Dr. Binswanger to Elaborate. And yes, I was a devout Catholic at one point in time. I am well aware of the various dogmas of the church. I think the worst (or best, depending on how you look at it) thing I ever did for my faith was read the Bible cover to cover. [www.CapMag.com] Now that the Supreme Court is going to hear two cases about government displays of the Ten Commandments, we can expect a continuation of the loud debate about the legal and constitutional issues. But this debate needs to go deeper than that. We need to ask more challenging questions, questions of a fundamental nature. We need to ask: What “are” the Ten Commandments? What is their philosophic meaning and what kind of society do they imply? Religious conservatives claim that the Ten Commandments supplied the moral grounding for the establishment of America. But is that even possible? Let’s put aside the historical question of what sources the Founding Fathers, mostly Deists, drew upon. The deeper question is: can a nation of freedom, individualism and the pursuit of happiness be based on the Ten Commandments? Let's look at the commandments. The wording differs among the Catholic, Protestant and Hebrew versions, but the content is the same. The first commandment is: “I am the Lord thy God.” As first, it is the fundamental. Its point is the assertion that the individual is not an independent being with a right to live his own life but the vassal of an invisible Lord. It says, in effect, “I own you; you must obey me.” Could America be based on this? Is such a servile idea even consistent with what America represents: the land of the free, independent, sovereign individual who exists for his own sake? The question is rhetorical. The second commandment is an elaboration of the above, with material about not serving any other god and not worshipping “graven images” (idols). The Hebrew and Protestant versions threaten heretics with reprisals against their descendants--inherited sin--“visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation . . .” This primitive conception of law and morality flatly contradicts American values. Inherited guilt is an impossible and degrading concept. How can you be guilty for something you didn’t do? In philosophic terms, it represents the doctrine of determinism, the idea that your choices count for nothing, that factors beyond your control govern your “destiny.” This is the denial of free will and therefore of self-responsibility. The nation of the self-made man cannot be squared with the ugly notion that you are to be punished for the “sin” of your great-grandfather. The numbering differs among the various versions, but the next two or three commandments proscribe taking the Lord’s name “in vain” and spending a special day, the Sabbath, in propitiating Him. In sum, the first set of commandments orders you to bow, fawn, grovel and obey. This is impossible to reconcile with the American concept of a self-reliant, self-owning individual. The middle commandment, “Honor thy father and mother,” is manifestly unjust. Justice demands that you honor those who deserve honor, who have earned it by their choices and actions. Your particular father and mother may or may not deserve your honor--that is for you to judge on the basis of how they have treated you and of a rational evaluation of their moral character. To demand that Stalin’s daughter honor Stalin is not only obscene, but also demonstrates the demand for mindlessness implicit in the first set of commandments. You are commanded not to think or judge, but to jettison your reason and simply obey. The second set of commandments is unobjectionable but common to virtually every organized society--the commandments against murder, theft, perjury and the like. But what is objectionable is the notion that there is no rational, earthly basis for refraining from criminal behavior, that it is only the not-to-be-questioned decree of a supernatural Punisher that makes acts like theft and murder wrong. The basic philosophy of the Ten Commandments is the polar opposite of the philosophy underlying the American ideal of a free society. Freedom requires: -- a metaphysics of the natural, not the supernatural; of free will, not determinism; of the primary reality of the individual, not the tribe or the family; -- an epistemology of individual thought, applying strict logic, based on individual perception of reality, not obedience and dogma; -- an ethics of rational self-interest, to achieve chosen values, for the purpose of individual happiness on this earth, not fearful, dutiful appeasement of “a jealous God” who issues “commandments.” Rather than the Ten Commandments, the actual grounding for American values is that captured by Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged: “If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man’s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a ‘moral commandment’ is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.”
  10. I thought Boortz had a falling out with the Libertarian party, I am not positive but I heard him mention something about not willing to toe the line of any group's opinion. That was about 2 weeks ago. I think Boortz now catagorizes himself as a "Republitarian" in the same vein as Larry Eldar. I see Mr Eldar's Op-Eds on Capmag.com and have read his book, and think very highly of the sage from south central.
  11. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050321_big_bang.html who doesn't love this kind of stuff? I can't help but marvel at our own advanced scientific achievement. We can measure events that occur in a hundredth of a billionth of a trillionth of a second. This kind of stuff always makes me optimistic about humanity and progress.
  12. My opinion of black holes is that, obviously something exists, since we have observed something's existence. But they deal with advanced physics that are beyond our current comprehensions. Something like ancient men trying to integrate the movements of celestial bodies into their geocentric theory. There is nothing wrong with being incorrect, so long as we are using our reason as our only absolute.
  13. heh, the Dune movie... I couldn't watch it... the actor they cast to play Paul was a total lamer, definatly not my envisionment of god-emperor of an entire galaxy. I saw the remade mini-series a few years ago, and at the time thought they were fantastic. Of course, I have a flaw in that I enjoy Sci-fi pulp, I enjoy learning science and even more so, I love to see science applied within the context of a story. Though I saw the mini-series before I read Atlas Shrugged (Or at least had a grasp of the concept of Objectivism) so I can't comment on Dune's philosophical foundation.
  14. My opinion of the Bible is that it is a book of tall tales. I believe that it is possible that at one point in time a man named Johnie Appleseed existed. However, I doubt he planted every apple tree in America. I believe that a man named George Washington existed, however, I doubt that he chopped down the cherry tree or skipped a silver dollar across the potomac (forgive me if my knowledge of tall tales are a bit rusty) In the same way, I believe that at one point in time, there was a massive flooding of the ancient land of canaan (there have been geological studies to suggest it happened) but I doubt that it covered the entire world and the only man and animals that survived were Noah and the animals in his boat. In the same way, I feel that there had to be an originator of the idea of Jesus, son of Josef, but I doubt he went around healing lepers and turning water into wine. In other words, take what the Bible says with a pinch of salt
  15. I wouls consider Toohey to be far more villainous as Moore. Moore at least has lots of people who hate him and expose his web of lies (I never met a Republican who liked Moore.) Toohey was the kind of person who was charismatic enough to be able to not have any popular enemies. That makes him far more of a snake than Moore. As far as other Toohey's in the media go, someone else beat me to Noam Chomsky.
  16. In communism government is involved with business, religion, etc. Although laisser faire capitalism looks ideal on paper, what is to stop business, religion, etc., from gaining to much power and getting involved in government. Every where Capitalism has been attempted, it has given prosperity and growth to it's people. Everywhere Communism was attempted, brought decay and death. I realize that if everything were ideal, and mankind was 100% rational all of the time then laisser faire capitalism would work, however, it must be made apparent that humans are not allways 100% rational. which is why such a state would retain it's police and judiciary systems. Don't mistake true Laissez-faire Capitalism with Anarcho-capitalism. Capitalism does not REQUIRE everyone to be rational (though it does require rationality to be a virtue in order to be successful) and it prevents people from becoming successful irrationally (I.E moochers and looters) IF a company, or a religion were to gain to much control in a laisser faire society, what would stop them from overtaking government and inflicting their altruist ideals on everyone else. the government retains a monopoly on force. Remember that a single jet fighter can cost billions of dollars. Not even Microsoft could dream about financing a military overthrow against the government. Even if these organizations were to try to infiltrate the government via subterfuge, they would be unable to alter the government in their favor due to a solid constitution which does not allow rights to be vioated, period. None of this living document crap that most leftists trumpet, my rights will never be subjected to mob rule. Do we simple have a large millitary? and if that is the case, what is to stop a rich businessman from using his money to bribe the millitary to be under his control? what stops them from doing that now? If, and once, we achieve lassier faire capitalism, how do we maintain it ? Though a court of laws that maintains and interprets the natural rights of man, a domestic security that protects it's citizens against it's irrational members, and a foreign security force to repel foreign threats. And more importantly, an underlying philosophy of reason, rationality, and self-interest.
  17. yeah, you'd be like those kids who kill themself to make a statement. Sure it's sad when it happens, but 6 months later no one remembers them, except their family, which is the ones they hurt. If you want to make a statement, you would do a much better job living than dead
  18. his English is at least better than 90% of the rest of the internet's writings. One of the great things about this forum is that I never have to worry about some kid using Leet or other stupid internet speak
  19. he was probably refering to the three minor characters that I mentioned, all three of which shared Eddie's predicament and ultimately, his fate: The Wet Nurse: a good man who was able to transcend the boundaries of his indoctrination and realize the nobility of Hank Rearden. He however, tries to use the system against itself, and ultimately ends up getting shot during the assault on Hank's mills. Cheryl Taggart: a rational woman who succumbs to hero worship. James Taggart is (at least appears to be) a success, and Cheryl rationalizes that he must have value. She realizes her mistake when she realizes that it was Dagny all along who was running the show, and James was in fact a wicked, evil man (after he admits to sleeping with Lillian Rearden, then beats her for being better than him.) If I remember correctly, she commits suicide, due to the fact that she is left with nothing in a world that is falling apart. Eddie Willers is the third, but I feel his situation has been sufficiently covered.
  20. Eddie is one of the minor characters. Along with Chreryl Taggart and the Wet Nurse, they were, as DS said, the first victims of the state. That is what make's Eddie's breakdown so tragic, in an era where businessmen are always portrayed as big evil vampires, we see a compassionate and very likeable person. There are people who would think nothing of the person they are stealing from, and Eddie is there to demostrate that. Also, you can draw parallels between Eddie Willers and Ayn Rand's own father, who stayed behind in the Soviet Union, an honest man who eventually had his life taken by the state.
  21. I love Uematsu's work. His compositions are so full of life, such powerful conveyers of emotion, he is one of my favorite musicians. There have been times when I will be playing a FF game and I will put the controller down and just listen to the music. My favorites include Final Fantasy 7 overworld theme Final Fantasy 6 world of balance overworld theme Final Fantasy 4 Celtic moon and Cecil's theme Final Fantasy 10 Jecht's theme, especially the version that is heard as you are travelling on the path through Zanarkand.
  22. Nietzsche's will to power theorem is remarkably similar to Ayn Rand's theorem about happiness as a virtue. His highest form of happinesss was self-actualization, which is achieving for your own sake. What we call self-actualization, Ayn Rand called selfishness. In THE GAY SCIENCE Nietzsche specifically puts down the ideas that Altruism is a virtue and the idea that nobility is anything but selfishness. Being an Objectivist, I find that I have much in common with Nietzsche. After studying his Will to Power theorem, I confronted my professor about it, and she liked the parallel I drew between that and this quote by Ayn Rand: "A creative mind is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others." A popular example that is consistent with both Nietzsche and Rand is the Mozart/Beethoven contribution to music. Both men created wonderful music, not out of a desire to beat the other or to attain wealth or fame, but out of a sense of self-actualization. As a result, music as a whole has been inexortably enriched due to the contributions of the two men. Sure we can argue about which was the better musician, but that would be trivial.
  23. If the universe were finite, wouldn't that mean that it would have a definite beginning and definite end? If that were the case, wouldn't that conflict with the conservation of matter theorem, that states that matter can not be created or destroyed, only converted? perhaps the universe as we know it, with stars and black holes and planets and stuff has a finite beginning and end, but wouldn't existence be eternal?
  24. I feel that, as a person who loves philosophy, I have to be my own worst critic. So I was doing some thinking about this and decided to get some second hand opinions. ok, so our natural rights to life, liberty, and estate are derived from our ability to reason. The reason animals do not have rights is because they lack the ability to reason. The reason children do not have full access to the natural rights of man is because their ability to reason is still developing. It is also the reason that guardians have the rights to people in a coma, or mentally handicapped. So my hypothetical situation is this: is it possibe for a man to be completely devoid of reason? The only instance I can think of would be a person in a coma, or perhaps cases of extreme mental retardation. Assuming that the man does not have reason but is still living, does that mean he has the same rights, more or less, than an animal? This brings me to my next point, one most difficult to grasp: nominally, under a purely capitalist system, one would able to beat their animals. It isn't an objectivist thing to do, but neither is doing hard drugs (yet those would also be free in a Capitalistic society.) The reason that man may subject his animals to pain is because the animal does not possess rights, due to their lack of reason. So the next point is, since that mentally handicapped man who lacks reason would have the intellect more or less like an animal, does that mean he is someone else's property, and thus subject to the owner's whims, even if they involved beatings?
  25. Jeez, talk about your hyper-inflated ego (and this is coming from an egoist!) If someone ever used my name as a comic book villian, I'd be flattered. then again, we were always cordial with their family, and after Mr. Moench (the writer's name) had met my uncle, he asked him if he could use his name (since it is kind of a catchy name... Johnny LaMonica... got a nice twist to it) and was quite gracious at his acceptance. As a gesture of courtesy, he mailed a copy of the entire black spider series to him.
×
×
  • Create New...