Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Bold Standard

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bold Standard

  1. Hey Joe, Welcome to the forum. I'm an ex-"club kid" too. -David Marsilia
  2. If you click on a member's name, a page will come up that lets you look at all their posts.
  3. Here's a question. Why didn't Rand call her philosophy "Existentialism"? Symantically, it would fit great with her philosophy. But the name was taken, by people who put forth ideas she disagreed with. She might have agreed with some things Neitche said, and other Existentialists, but she diverged on major points [edit: for the integrity of a philosophy, I would argue, any *point* is major]. What would have been the motivation for her to try to call herself an Existentialist anyway and simply try to steer the name towards the direction of her ideas, the way people do with Objectivism? Maybe she would do this if she was uncertain in her convictions, or if she wanted to ride on the coattails of other famous philosophers before her, the way the Branden's or David Kelly's of the world do with her philosophy. "Objectivism," like "Existentialism," is a great name for a philosophy. Maybe you want to base your ideas on objective reality.. objective existential reality, even, but you disagree with the way Ayn Rand did it. But if you're brilliant enough to top Ayn Rand, you should certainly be brilliant enough to come up with a name for your philosophy. Otherwise you're just a stowaway trying to profit off of Rand's enduring popularity.
  4. Betsy, that is a brilliant answer. It was a total surprize but it would have been nice for someone to have told me that when I was going through a similar situation. It takes courage to be brave, sometimes. Lots of it! It's extremely difficult to be moral and practical. Don't give up, Rohan. I'm working a meaningless manual labour job myself right now. I don't notice it.
  5. Hello Scott, I'm from Houston also (and also new to this list). There is an active Objectivist group here called the Houston Objectivist Society. You should check them out if you haven't yet. From what I've heard you kind of have to keep e-mailing them. I have been trying for a couple of weeks and still haven't met up with them yet I'll try more when I move downtown in a few weeks.
  6. In the documentary "Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life," someone (I think it's Harry Binswanger) says that Ayn Rand described *herself* as a "male-chauvanist." Although he adds that she loved femininity and enjoyed being a woman. I can't substantiate that statement, but I laughed when I heard it. Seems to be consistent with what you're saying, etymologically.
  7. Oh, okay.. This is interesting. See, this is where I think I might have something new to add. The number and variety of smears is immense. But I think an Objectivist is in a better position to identify what are the fundamental premises of this kind of smearing qua smearing... EDIT [i think that includes the whining too, that can all be lumped into one catagory.. maybe Envy, Hatred of the good for being the good...] another edit-- [so what I'm saying is I don't think you'd have to compile a list of slanders. You could just say "Why do people attack Ayn Rand? Here's why:" etc. Cause it's always the same reasons! That's what I think anyway.] And, Ayn Rand *did* devote several brilliant essays to this topic, each one coming at the issue from a different angle. I haven't seen many Objectivists since Ayn Rand attempt this, and I'm not sure why. I guess that's the bottom line to my posting this. Rand identified Argument by Intimidation, and many other basic premises of smearing in general. I think smearing fallacies belong in a different catagory or subgenre from plain logical fallacies. Maybe a special compilation of smearing fallacies would be helpfull. Edit: [but you can still delete this if you want.]
  8. The more I think about this, the more it seems like a bad idea. If you want to deleat this thread, I won't be offended. Now that I've thought it over, I think my plan could only pan out to be a *parody* of those who attack Objectivism. But it's like Rand said about Kant.. it's IMPOSSIBLE to make a caricature of him, because he already did it himself. But it's so frustrating seeing the same weak criticisms of Objectivism over and over.. and each time the critic seems to sinceerly believe he's the first person ever to try it. Injustice fatigues me!..
  9. I'm talking about philisophical attacks against Objectivism-- which, being a difficult thing to acheive, are usually reduced to personal attacks against Rand, Peikoff, ARI, or whatever proponant of Objectivism happens to be closest. Another technique is for someone to take a false dichotomy that's been defined by Objectivism, and use the Objectivist arguments against one half of the dichotomy.. against Objectivism! The unstated premise being that the dichotomy is true, and an argument _against_ one half of the dichotomy is an argument _for_ the other. Probably all the ideas I have are defined in that link to common logical fallacies.. what I'm proposing is to outline in concretes how those fallacies are often put to use against Objectivism. Just for those who wonder.. "If Objectivism is true, why doesn't everyone believe it?" It's true to say that 200 years of philosophy can't be overturned over night.. but what might not be clear is _why_ is that true.. what is it in the psychology of the worlds most famous philosophers that allows them to ignore and defame Objectivism?
  10. I had an idea on a way to possibly reduce the amount of trolls comming in, while still allowing those new to Objectivism (even to philosophy in general) to feel comfortable to ask questions and learn and not be in fear of wasting our time, or of being rejected etc. Those new to Ayn Rand and just for the first time trying to sort through the massive amount of information and missinformation about her and her ideas are sure to run into a massive amount of "Rand slandered." The reasons behind this are painfully familiar to us, but to a newbie, I think it could reasonably be baffeling. My theory is that most criticisms of Ayn Rand can be reduced to a few simple and relatively consistent principles. The thought occurred to me that if those of us who are interested were to compose a few simple, non emotionally-charged essays outlining those principles, their philisophical roots, and allude to the myriad of ways they're often used as an attempt to discredit Rand-- then we might be able to give them a place on the website, to which we can direct newcommers or those who seem like they're not sure whether to be hostile or not.. or who seem like they're not sure they know the difference. Basically.. like a kind of detox room for those who've been sabatoged by Kantian society, and want to escape quickly but don't know how to get started. I think it can be done without giving too much "sanction by acknowledgement" to the antics of our enemies. What do you think? If anybody's interested, I'll tell you some of my ideas on how to approach it. But those of you with a lot more experience than I have with Objectivism and _Anti-Objectivism_ might be able to see if I'm headed towards a dead end that I'm not able to grasp.. Or maybe the idea's ultimately a waste of time.. Anyway, I thought I'd bounce it off of you, since there seems to be some aggitation with trolls lately. -DRM
  11. My AIM is: phifltrigy Everyone on here is welcome to message me anytime.
  12. Again, I don't think it's fair to blame the market. The market gets blamed often enough.. but I simply don't believe that a truely superior product, marketed appropriately, would ultimately be defeated in a relatively free environment-- not even one as morally and emotionally starved as contemporary society.. one might agrue *especially* not then. This does open the issue of FCC, which I hold somewhat to blame for the state of music in America anyway, but that's a whole other issue. It's interesting how you say the good players have "gone to metal".. as if it were a tortuous last resort where defeated musicians go-- as if to a purgatory for the sad duration of their careers. Well, maybe you didn't mean it that way, but the idea of benevolent Sense of Life progressive metal is hard for me to envision (I won't say impossible). If it could be, I'd like to hear it. When done correctly, a distorted guitar can sound very much like a horn section, and with the crazy time signatures associated with prog.. I could imagine a certain kind of slapstick style music to come out of it. Hm.. but I still don't know if I'd be able to tolerate it. You could maybe make a new kind of surf music out of it.. sometimes those bands sound a lot like crashing waves on the beach to me. Maybe add some maracas.. steel drums? Ultimately, music is still a subjective art form.. [lol, oops i just reread your post you said gone *into* metal. sorry..]
  13. I'm familiar with them, but I prefer the original swing-era groups. I don't find the techniques of rock music, specifically 90's era punk-ska, to be an improvement on the original idea, so the way I look at it, why do it? But I sympathise with the desire to see quality art-- quality ANYTHING-- from recent times. With the *amazing* milestone acheivements in technology and music making equipment, it's baffeling to wonder why modern music isn't better. My theory is that it doesn't have to do with the "evil" recording industry, marketing, or any of that-- but with the minds of the people who are playing music.. as a subsect of the minds of people in society in general. THAT'S why I'm optomistic about music of the future.. especially with intellectual networks like this one springing up everywhere. And all over the world! And the technology keeps getting better!.. But I'll tell you a couple of recent (since the 80's at least) groups I like.. although they're maybe a little too influenced by rock also. Cocteau Twins -- this group pioneered a lot of great techniques in composition and performance.. their singer, Elizabeth Fraser, who's since gone on to do some notable solo stuff such as contributing to the recent Lord of the Rings soundtracks.. is one of the best popular singers of the later 20th century. Their sense of life reminds me at times of the French Operettas Rand liked... An album I would recommend is Milk and Kisses, their final one from 1996. Felt -- A British pop group from the 80's. The press always compares them to Velvet Underground or Bob Dylan but to me they're better than that. The guitar work is often lavishly brilliant, and the singer has a kind of mischievous quirkiness that's not self-depricating. Sometimes they sound too much 60's for me, but I think overall their sense of life displays a rare ornate kind of beauty you simply can't find elsewhere, even in old (pre-60's) music. So that's my advertisement for to-day.
  14. My name is David R Marsilia. I'm 22, and I first discovered Ayn Rand when the movie version of The Fountainhead was shown in my senior English class at the public school I attended (the one good thing I got from school!). I'm now a devoted fan of Ayn Rand and student of Objectivism. I'm a musician- I play amplifiers, guitars, effects, drum machines and other instruments. I do what I can to portray my "benevolent universe", and I'd so much like to see a new kind of Tiddly Wink emerge in popular music! (can it even be imagined??) I love all kinds of art and science. Lately I'm interested in learning a lot more about personal finance, and business practices. I'm interested in politics ("until I don't have to be anymore") and in being a radical for Capitalism. Very enthusiastic about meeting other Objectivists, and in discussing ideas!
  • Create New...