Bold Standard
-
Posts
839 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Bold Standard
-
-
In "The Romantic Manifesto", Ayn Rand uses the terms "Naturalistic" and "Romantic" to describe works of art. I suppose some art could be mixed as well. I want to make the concept of "naturalism" more concrete for myself.
To that end, I am looking for examples of naturalistic movies, plays or books. Ideally, the examples would be fairly well-known and would not be repetitions of some that Rand herself mentioned.
Ideally, the examples would be well-executed: in other words I'm not so interested in examples of sloppy art. I'd like to know about examples of well-executed naturalistic art. I think that will make it easier to focus on the single attribute of how naturalistic it is.
For any example, I'd also appreciate a brief explanation of why it was naturalistic.
Ideally, I'd like any discussion about examples to focus on whether not the term naturalism applies, not to whether the art is good or bad, etc.
But I think most of the best examples of good naturalistic art were mentioned by Ayn Rand in TRM and also in The Art of Fiction (probably more in depth analysis in the latter). Tolstoy and Shakespeare come to mind as among the most vivid examples. The problem is, one would probably have to pick examples since the time of Ayn Rands death in order to identify something that is well known and well done that she wouldn't have mentioned. But the amount of art that is well done since then is pretty sparse. Most of it is naturalistic, though, I'd say.
-
Suppose you are taking the buss, and in the middle of nowhere-you-know you see in the street what you think might be the man/woman of your dreams (judging by the way they walk, their look in the eyes and expression).
Would you attempt to get off the buss and chase them, or just keep on riding and tell yourselves it was probably not as good as it looked?
I am quite confident almost all people would choose option B, and I wondered why.
Anyone's got an answer?
This is an interesting question. Personally, I think that even if I were in a position in which it would be easy to approach the woman of my dreams, I would be reluctant to do so. I'm not sure if I'm ready to meet her. But, then.. that depends on which specific dreams you're talking about.
For instance, I could conceive of meeting someone who is so much more my ideal than anyone I've seen before, that I wouldn't be able to resist throwing caution to the wind and getting off the bus to chase her down. But, I would think that would be a more intense experience than "think she might be" the woman of my dreams. It still wouldn't be a certainty, but maybe more of a probability. A mere possibility-- well, that's relatively common, and not worth being late for my meeting, or whatever.
-
Howdy Everybody!
I have been taking a good look at Objectivism for over a year and I feel now I can call myself an Objectivist. It has taken me a while because I used to be a pretty Conservative kid, and I had a hard time with the question of Abortion and the existence of God, but I have come out on the Objectivist side on both those issues and now here I am.
Welcome to the forum, and congratulations-- a year isn't really that long to make so much progress. Those are pretty big questions that lots of honest and intelligent people take a lot longer with.
-
Last but not least is Felt. Felt is a great band. The were around from 1980 to 1989, and "Forever Breathes the Lonely Word" is their greatest album. Listen to it. IT IS POP PERFECTION. One of my favorite lyrics is from the song Dark Hours Have Changed My Mind:
Wow, another FELT fan here?? They're one of my top favorites too. : ) Some of the best guitar playing ever-- arpeggios on telecaster with effects you can't beat it. And the lyrics are so often genius.. "Sunlight Bathed the Golden Glow" is my favorite song I think, "Stop sitting around and thinking you're gonna do no good, I thought your poetry was.. ah ahh... sometimes good." lol great.
Well, in this case I'll say some other bands I like.
Cocteau Twins.. Fav songs include "Aikea-Guinea" and "Millimillenary." Fav albums.. um, for starters (not in a particular order) "Milk and Kisses," "The Pink Opaque," "Heaven or Las Vegas," "Blue Bell Knoll," umm, and everything else they did.. (my least favorite albums on the whole are "Garlands," "Treasure," and "Head Over Heels," but those still have some good songs). : )
Lush.. Fav songs are "Olympia," "Monochrome," and "Lovelines." Fav album is "Spooky."
My Bloody Valentine.. Fav songs include "Swallow," and "Don't Ask Why." Fav album is "Loveless."
Swallow.. Fav song, "Follow Me Down." Fav albums.. "Blow" and "Blowback" (unfortunately, the only one's they released).
I also like "light concert classics," ie, Viennese Operettas, Rachmaninoff, etc. And I like ragtime, esp. guitar ragtime (Blind Blake, Nick Drake, etc). And Hawaiian jazz (Sol Hoopii).. And music with steel guitars, ukuleles, pianos, horns, drum machines, (especially vintage) synthesizers, effects pedals and processors... And then, music that I make (I don't have anything released yet though).
If anyone actually likes this stuff, I can list a lot more bands and artists I love (that are too often overlooked, imo).
-
Sorry, when I said 3 I was referring to spatial only. Sure, time as a 4th is valid I think, but I'm don't think that it also in any way implies a 5th.
What about graphs and charts? And replacing scalar quantities with vectors? Does that add "dimensions" (I don't mean spacial dimensions because I'm pretty sure there are only 3)? But I'm still not exactly sure what "dimension" means.
Well, here's what m-w.com says.. Maybe it will help y'all more than it helped me. : ) I don't know which of these meanings, if any, we're using in the context of this thread.
Main Entry: 1di·men·sionPronunciation: d&-'men(t)-sh&n also dI-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin dimension-, dimensio, from dimetiri to measure out, from dis- + metiri to measure -- more at MEASURE
1 a (1) : measure in one direction; specifically : one of three coordinates determining a position in space or four coordinates determining a position in space and time (2) : one of a group of properties whose number is necessary and sufficient to determine uniquely each element of a system of usually mathematical entities (as an aggregate of points in real or abstract space) <the surface of a sphere has two dimensions>; also : a parameter or coordinate variable assigned to such a property <the three dimensions of momentum> (3) : the number of elements in a basis of a vector space b : the quality of spatial extension : MAGNITUDE, SIZE c : a lifelike or realistic quality d : the range over which or the degree to which something extends : SCOPE -- usually used in plural e : one of the elements or factors making up a complete personality or entity : ASPECT
2 obsolete : bodily form or proportions
3 : any of the fundamental units (as of mass, length, or time) on which a derived unit is based; also : the power of such a unit
4 : wood or stone cut to pieces of specified size
5 : a level of existence or consciousness
-
Basically what I want to know is if I want to study epistemology, what would I learn about? This would be helpful to me just so I have an accurate definition of what it is in case I need to talk about it with, say, my older brother who's into philosophy. I've read "Intro to O'ist Epistemology" and read up to the point where it goes into the Ayn Rand interviews. Actually I threw it away because I didn't earn the book from my own hard work, but I plan to buy it once I start working. Anyway some of what I read is about concept formation, and mainly things that deal with concepts although my memory is slightly fuzzy on what exactly I read. So aside from concept formation what would I learn in an Objectivist Epistemology class.
I really recommend reading those Q&A's.. They are really excellent, and help to clarify many important points in the main text, after you've had a chance to "chew" on them. For one thing, you get to see how some smart guys who were already professional intellectuals-- philosophers, mathematicians, etc, responded to the work the first time they read it. What questions did they ask? What aspects of the text came to their attention, and gave them ideas and made them ask questions? How does this compare to your own experience in reading it?
But most of all, it's her answers that blow me away. This was the first book I ever read by Ayn Rand.. But her responses in that Q&A still blow me away today. I still usually learn something new when I go back and re-read it. She has a way of combining such a large scope of knowledge into such concise and neat little statements, it's really impressive.
(Ah, sorry just can't resist this...) Also, reading The Virtue of Selfishness might help you to think twice before you throw any more great books you own in the trash-- if you stole this book (which I doubt, from your description, you would have done, at least intentionally), the proper thing to do would be to find a way to pay the person back who you stole it from. Not to punish yourself by throwing away something valuable to you. But ..well, here I am giving unsolicited advice... : ) At least now, when you buy it, you'll know you earned it, 100%.
-
Ideas cannot be property and cannot be inherited.
Do you mean this to imply that there can be no intellectual property?
If there are minor disagreements in the philosophy, at what point do you call someone an Objectivist.If you do a search, there are some interesting threads on this topic. I think there's one called "At what point should someone be considered an Objectivist," or something very close to that. I think the gist of it is that someone is an Objectivist when, in the context of his knowledge, he honestly agrees with all of the fundamental philosophic views presented by Ayn Rand, as he understands them, and is working to integrate those ideas into the wider context of his life. That doesn't mean he has to agree with Ayn Rand on every statement she ever made (such as her preference of the symphonic compositions of Rachmaninoff over those of Beethoven, or her views on a woman President), but only those issues which she thought were essential to her philosophy (such as the primacy of existence, the idea of man as a heroic being with reason as his only absolute and productive achievement as his noblest activity, laissez-fair capitalism as the only moral form of government ever conceived, etc). But the moment that he realizes he no longer agrees with her on a fundamental philosophic principle (for instance, if he comes to the conclusion that consciousness might sometimes or always have primacy over existence, or that altruism and duty are really the best code of morality and that egoism is evil or mistaken) then it is dishonest for him to continue to call himself an Objectivist. It's pointless to say that he wasn't a "real" Objectivist up to that point-- maybe he was, in his context of knowledge, but it's false and misleading to describe him as an Objectivist after he rejects some fundamental aspect of Objectivism. It's just not an accurate description anymore. It's like the faction of "Christians" in the latter part of the 20th century who declared they didn't believe in God-- it's just absurd. It's dishonest. It's confusing. The least they can do is make up another name to describe their ideas.
I know all that might sound kind of tentative, like I'm avoiding the issue of what the competing factions of "Objectivists" really believe, and how it differs from what I believe. But to be honest, I don't know of any uniting philosophical positions that the anti-ARI groups hold-- besides 1) the fact that they disagree with some fundamental point or points of Ayn Rand (ie, the "open system"), 2) An apparent personal dislike for Ayn Rand and/or Leonard Peikoff in a way that's highly personal, often making the most heinous and unverifiable remarks about their personal psychologies and/or business practices, and/or 3) A desire to "get along" with people who hold ideas that are explicitly contrary to Objectivism and to make public appearances at their functions (Libertarians and Nazis are two groups I remember specifically mentioned by David Kelly in his articles), in order to allegedly achieve pragmatic goals, and "maybe even learn something" from them. I believe that all three of these elements are present in David Kelley's The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand, and (somewhat) in Nathaniel Branden's "The Benefits and Hazards of Objectivism" and Barbara Branden's The Passion of Ayn Rand, if you want some references for the other side's point of view, so to speak.
Of course, it's up to you to judge whether you think these differences are significant or not. I know I didn't come to my conclusions overnight. Diana Hsieh is an especially good reference for learning about David Kelly, the Brandens, and The Objectivist Center specifically, because she used to be affiliated with them, but eventually broke her ties with them and became more involved with circles who are more supportive of ARI.
I agree with David (Odden) that not everything said by every affiliate of ARI is necessarily true-- David Kelly was once affiliated with ARI, and he said some (IMO) kooky things even then. Every once in a while someone associated with ARI will come out with an article or Op Ed that I consider to be pretty poor quality in terms of scholarship and style. But there are some precious gems as well-- frequent ones, that I would never expect to be published by anyone else in the world. And I think they are doing more to promote, defend, and develop Objectivism than anyone else. But these are just some of my opinions and observations-- I don't know if it will end up saving you any time, because there is a lot of information to wade through. If you want to hear all the exact points of difference that the Kellyists etc raise with Objectivism, it's better to hear it from their mouths, because they are a lot more prolific about it than the ARI crowd. They're largely ignored by ARI, because, I think you might find.. their actual positions, as much as they have any, are pretty vacuous. They are more "anti-Rand" or "anti-ARI" than they are FOR anything.. So that's another reason we could never work with them to achieve anything good. (I hope I'm saying something helpful.. I remember how confusing this stuff was to me when I was first interested in Objectivism).
-
The only reason it has some frame of reference for us, is that for a 2 dimensional cross to have position in our 3 dimensional world, it must be in 3 dimensions. But that is sort of circular, because a 2 dimensional cross in our dimension isn't really a two dimensional cross. So the phrase "to have real meaning" just defines in a third dimension.
What about the idea of time being a 4th dimension.. not a spacial dimension, but a spatiotemporal dimension. Is that valid? Is it applicable to this question, or is it just a totally different context? What exactly does "dimension" mean, here?
-
This section, though, is a little wonky:God help us all if the Splashin' Safari shuts its doors! That'll be a Planet of the Apes Heston moment, for sure ...
Hey, easy there.. This is a sensitive subject, because Astroworld, a theme park here in Houston, recently got torn down, and I still get a little sad when I drive by the spot it used to be, and see an empty lot where there used to be rollercoasters and rides. : ( I imagine if all the theme parks in the world started shutting down.. that would make me notice "something's going wrong here"! [edit: Also, if they were not shut down and replaced by something else productive, but shut down and replaced by nothing].
-
I am sorry, I though Quantum Physics was the whole deal with the Quantum foam, and that you cannot be sure what is going to happen next, even if it has happenned 100 out of 100 times in the past.
I'm not sure what Quantum foam is (I'm not denying that it is something, I'm just not familiar with it, probably because I don't know a lot about quantum physics, besides just some introductory texts on the subject that I've read). But the idea that you can't be sure what is going to happen next, even if it has happened 100 out of 100 times in the past, is a denial of "induction". Specifically, a denial of "induction by enumeration." Induction is the formation of a general principle drawn from observations of particular concretes.
Induction by simple enumeration was one of the earliest theories of induction, which claims that you can form a general principle after you see something happen a certain amount of times-- for example, you see one person die, then another, and another, and eventually you can form the principle, "all men are mortal."
But this version of induction does have limitations, because-- how do you know you're not simply observing a coincidence, or that you're not interpreting the data incorrectly? Aristotle (who is credited with first outlining the theory of induction) wasn't sure how to answer this, but suggested that induction must be tempered with deductive reasoning in order to validate a principle. Francis Bacon later helped to establish the scientific method as a means of better validating induction.
David Hume is known for a famous "refutation" of induction, on skeptical grounds. Hence, the rejection of induction by the logical positivists, who were influenced by Hume (though they were less consistent). Hence, the probable surfacing of the idea that induction is impossible by modern spokesmen of quantum physics, who are possibly influenced by logical positivism.
Of course, Objectivists do not reject induction, but consider it an indispensable tool for gaining knowledge of reality. Ayn Rand wrote only tentatively on the subject, but many Objectivists now are attempting to elaborate on it, as well as better define and validate it and the proper principles for obtaining it (Leonard Peikoff has been working on a book on induction with physicist David Harriman, but it's not finished yet).
If you want to understand some critical differences between the conclusions drawn by logical positivists, and those drawn by Objectivists, study the works of an influential group of logical positivists called "The Vienna Circle." This group published lots of wacky stuff, including an "index of forbidden words," such as "mind", "entity", "essence", "matter", "reality", and "thing" (that index was specifically the work of a member of the Vienna Circle named Otto Neurath, I believe).Now I have a question regarding Logical Positivists. For all practical purposes, doesn't have the same results as an Objectivist approach to science? Because in the end you are accepting the truth, and working with that, even if you don't call it the truth, but you call it "the most probable."Here's another statement from Ayn Rand, regarding the logical positivists, from a letter to philosopher John Hospers in 1961:
It is in their concept of what constitutes "verifiability," in their basic premise and approach (which is implicit in their specific, individual theories) that logical positivists become most mystical. You say: "One must be careful not to condemn it (the Verifiability Principle), en masse in all its forms'—because there have been many different formulations of it. Your statement implies that the Verifiability Principle is sound in essence, qua principle, and that it is only with its various formulations that one can legitimately quarrel. But what I challenge, oppose and condemn is the essence of that principle and of the method it proposes, in all and any of its variations. (I do not believe that "propositions" have to be "verified"; I believe that they have to be "validated"—it is a night-and-day difference.)If you keep that in mind when researching logical positivism (assuming you're still interested and plan on looking into it further), I think it will help you to understand (it's helped clarify things for me-- but not so much that I can clearly elaborate on it here without looking over some old notes I've taken and articles I've read on logical positivism and the tortuous, chimeric development of the verifiability principle).
-
And David, you are correct. She was referring to Logical Positivists. That reference can be found a few sentences before tobyk100's quote in the essay.
YESSS, two points! lol.
Tieing back to the original posters question, I wonder if there isn't some significant influences of something like Logical positivism on Quantum Mechanics. Specifically stemming from the articulation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and from subsequent description of particle characteristics as probability distributions. If you take the particle distribution as an actual metaphysical reality. The Schroedinger's cat argument comes to mind.I think that it certainly has had an influence on QM and many other sciences. Mr. Speicher at 4aynrandfans would probably be able to articulate specific influence of logical positivism on Heisenberg and Schroedinger specifically, with references to their works, and maybe someone on this forum (not me!) could do so as well.. But I share your suspicion of a connection being there.
I just want to emphasize that there's nothing inherent in quantum physics or any other legitimate science (and I do consider it to be legitimate, based on the evidence I've seen), which makes it dependent on logical positivism, skepticism, Kantianism, or any of the other corrupt ideas it's modern proponents might have employed/still employ-- and these usually surface mainly in the interpretations given to certain phenomena.. On the experimentation side, from what I understand, QM has a good reputation.
-
Could be wrong.
Ah, I was only teasing you. The thought crossed my mind-- maybe he only phrased this question as what is Objectivist epistemology because of the statement you made in the metaphysics thread. Not because I think it's very likely, but just because I thought it would be ironic and funny if that's what happened, since you replied the way you did. Sorry, maybe I just have a strange sense of humor.
-
What are the different Objectivist factions? What are their differences?
It has always been my opinion that there will ALWAYS be political and philosophical debate, meaning that even if the entire world accepted Objectivism there would still be debate on the specifics, but why must we argue on the specifics, now?
I can't help but blame forums like these. I understand that we Objectivists need a place to talk, and sharpen our philosophical ideals, but there is a lot more work do be done out in the world, with all the Communists and Socialists.
Unless there is a glaring difference between the factions, I don't understand how Objectivists wouldn't unite against the vastly more evils philosophies.
Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. It is a "closed system," which means that only people who agree with the fundamental philosophic positions that Ayn Rand espoused should legitimately be considered "Objectivists." For example, people who hold that Ayn Rand was correct on some points, but who nonetheless subscribe to the idea of a mind-body dichotomy, or promote some form of political statism, or some other idea fundamentally opposed to what Ayn Rand believed, are not Objectivists, although there are some who claim to be (every kind of philosophy faces that as a challenge as it gains in popularity, even ones opposite from Objectivism-- for example, Karl Marx made a famous statement once, referring to a particular group who were claiming to be proponents of his theories, "If that's what Marxism is, then I'm not a Marxist!").
So there are several factions claiming to be Objectivists, which are not in fact Objectivist, because they do not agree with Ayn Rand on fundamental points, which they often admit in the form of claiming to subscribe to Objectivism as an "open system," which translates to saying, basically, "it can mean whatever you want it to mean." Followers of David Kelly, such as those at The Atlas Society, are one example of this (in terms of the example I gave above, Kelly is not a statist as far as I can tell, but does subscribe to a variation on the mind-body dichotomy, as well as other points which diverge from Ayn Rand's philosophy, and have been described in other threads on Kelly, The Atlas Society, and The Objectivist Center, as well as in Diana Hsieh's blog, NoodleFood (that's just the main page, you'll have to do a search).
There are often disagreements between actual Objectivists, however. But they do not typically result in "factions" being formed (at least, as far as I'm aware). For example, Leonard Peikoff was adamantly against Bush in the last election-- he was pushing for people to vote for Kerry. He thought Bush was too big of a threat, because of the rise of religious fundamentalism in America, and for other reasons. And a lot of Objectivists agreed with him on that. But Harry Binswanger supported Bush, on the grounds that terrorism in the Middle East is too big of a threat to mess around with, and he didn't think Kerry would do enough about it. And a lot of Objectivists agreed with him.
The issue of who should be President of the United States is no small concern. But Peikoff and Binswanger have a mutual respect for each other-- they've been friends and colleagues for years and they share the fundamental premises that make them both Objectivists. So many Objectivists engaged in debates over this issue-- sometimes heated ones, but nobody formed any "factions" over it.
I'm aware of some diverse opinions on certain points held by Objectivists, but I'm not aware of any multiple factions within Objectivism. Does that help answer your question at all?
-
Will you rephrase the question to be more specific? I am not sure what you are asking. What is the definition of epistomology? what are the basics of obj. epsitomology???>>Hazmatac @ Aug 18 2006, 06:58 PM
...what are metaphysics?>>
Are you looking for a general definition or do you wish to know specifically what objectivist metaphysics are?
Ha- aequalsa, he asks, "What are metaphysics," and you say, "What do you mean, Objectivist metaphysics?" Then he asks, "What is Objectivist epistemology," and you say, "What do you mean, epistemology?" Goodness, just what do you want from the poor guy..
-
I was on another board and the answer I received was basically metaphysics deals with: existents, consciousness, and identity. Then comes physics which measure the particular aspects of the existent.
There are different variations on the idea of metaphysics, depending on what theory of reality you subscribe to.. But in general it deals with the most fundamental nature of the universe as a whole.
Existence is fundamental to metaphysics. It asks "IS there an existence"? That's really the proper starting place of metaphysics (that's where Ayn Rand starts it-- with the axiom "Existence exists.")
The question of identity is also fundamental to any theory of metaphysics-- it essentially asks: "Are things what they are? Or not." And then proceeds based on the answer you get from that. If they are what they are (if they have "identity"), can they change, or are they eternal. If they can change, is that change a causal or inexplicable process? Etc. If things are not what they are, then what does that mean? Are they an illusion? Is reality riddled with contradictions? Is it possible for some things to be what they are, and other things to be what they're not? Is it possible for a thing to be what it is at one time, or in one respect, but to be what it's not at a different time, or in a different respect?
All those are metaphysical questions. Physics, biology, chemistry, psychology, paleontology, and all such sciences are concrete applications of some accepted form of metaphysics (although some philosophers have attempted to divorce science from metaphysics and to make it dependent solely on epistemology, and these people talk about "metaphysics" as if it meant "superstition" ...but don't let them confuse you, they're confused-- or worse).
And the question of consciousness could be put-- does a faculty for perceiving existence exist? Or-- do I exist, depending on how you approach it.
-
What is objectivist epistemology? What does it cover?
Objectivist epistemology is Ayn Rand's theory of knowledge. It covers the means by which man is able to obtain and validate knowledge of objective reality, and provides an insightful and revolutionary analysis of "concepts," and their relationship to reality and man's mind. (See Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology for details)...
-
Aristotle only stated the law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle. The law of identity was a reformulation of these statements made by medieval scholars who were students of Aristotle (I have the name of the guy they think was the first to name it in the form A=A somewhere, but it's not really important, because the law of identity is fairly clearly implied in the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, although it is stated in a more essential form as the law of identity. (If anyone is still interested in this, I can look up references, but I don't have any handy right now...)
-
The following quote is found on page 35 of For the New Intellectual Centennial Edition.
I am not new to objectivism, but I am new to the more technical questions regarding epistomology, so please forgive my ignorance.
Is Ayn Rand attacking "Quantum Physics"? If so, what is "Quantum Physics" and why is it so widely accepted if it is wrong?
No, I think she's attacking "Logical Positivism," which was/is a popular misinterpretation of Hume that averts complete skepticism by adding the footnote, even though you can't know that any proposition is true for sure, you can know that it's less likely to be impossible or false than other things. For example, you can never know for sure that you exist (that's a common claim from the Logical Positivists), but since it's the simplest non-contradictory explanation for the phenomena you're experiencing at the time, it has a higher probability of being true (in your context of knowledge) than any other alternative (such as, that you don't exist, or that existence isn't really a valid concept, etc).
Some quantum physicists subscribe to this point of view, but not all of them. I'm not a physicist, so I might be a little off, but from what I understand, quantum physics is simply the branch of physics that deals with really small stuff (light photons, gravity, electromagnetic particles, etc) as opposed to relatively big stuff (orbits of planets, or velocity of bullets or airplanes or whatever). There's nothing inherently corrupt about the field of study, but many specialists within the field are (evidently) mistaken (someone must be mistaken, since they all disagree, for one thing), just as there is nothing inherently corrupt about medicine, but many specialists in the field were mistaken when they thought draining a person of blood could cure all sorts of ailments-- it's because they've accepted some false premises (borrowed from bad philosophy).
But I'll read that particular section again to be sure that's what she's talking about-- is it from the title essay, "For the New Intellectual"?
-
But she also likes Hemmingway, *vomits a little in my mouth*... Whatever.
Oh, hm.. I haven't read tons of Hemmingway, and what I read isn't totally profound or anything, but I don't know if he deserves a vomit, either. He's nowhere near the level of Dostoevsky or even Lewis Carol, but there is an eloquence to his style. He's got that stark machismo thing going for him (I think he got that from Nietzsche). Now, if she likes Jack Kerouac or Charles Bukowski or something, then you might vomit a little (if you're like me). James Joice or Gertrude Stein are grounds for a breakup. : )
I'll tell you who gets me.. Anais Nin. Girls tend to like her, I notice. Everything I've read by her.. Well, it doesn't make me vomit, but it's kind of scary! Lots of violent imagery. What's the appeal? I dunno... (seems kinda trashy to me)...
-
Isnt selfishness different from rational self-interest? Selfishness is essentially "concern with ones own interests". Meaning, if an interest of his was life-after-death(Heaven) and all his acts were based on altruism, then that would be a selfish act- not something that fits into rational self-interest though. Or if he acted on random pleasures because he valued hedonism, then it would be selfishness but not rational self-interest.
In the context of self-interest, "interest" means what's good for the person (m-w.com says "advantage, benefit"), not subjective "interest" as in when you say something is "interesting" (m-w.com says "a feeling that accompanies or causes special attention to an object or class of objects : CONCERN b : something that arouses such attention").
You can be concerned with the afterlife rather than being concerned with what's in your own interests, but preoccupation with the afterlife can't be in your interests (assuming the alternative of rationality is open to you), since there is no afterlife in reality.
Note that if you use the second definition I mentioned of "interest," which is "concern," then "concern with what is in your own interests" would be a tautology, because it would mean "concern with what concerns you," and everyone would be selfish.
-
Also, would that amount of people(70 bil.)cause any severe problems such as overcrowdedness, lack of job opportunities, lack of resources, etc?
I found these comments from Dr. Binswanger's article, Open Immigration, interesting and somewhat relevant to this topic.
Contrary to widespread beliefs, high population density is a value not a disvalue. High population density intensifies the division of labor, which makes possible a wider variety of jobs and specialized consumer products. For instance, in Manhattan, there is a "doll hospital"--a store specializing in the repair of children's dolls. Such a specialized, niche business requires a high population density in order to have a market. Try finding a doll hospital in Poughkeepsie. In Manhattan, one can find a job as a Pilates Method teacher or as a "Secret Shopper" (two jobs actually listed on Craig's List). Not in Paducah.People want to live near other people, in cities. One-seventh of England's population lives in London. If population density is a bad thing, why are Manhattan real-estate prices so high?
-
Here are some definitions of metaphysics from Ayn Rand and Dr. Peikoff.
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of the universe as a whole.Metaphysics—the science that deals with the fundamental nature of reality...[M]etaphysics—the study of existence as such or, in Aristotle's words, of "being qua being"—the basic branch of philosophy.And here is a list of some of the types of questions that metaphysics deals with:
Are you in a universe which is ruled by natural laws and, therefore, is stable, firm, absolute—and knowable? Or are you in an incomprehensible chaos, a realm of inexplicable miracles, an unpredictable, unknowable flux, which your mind is impotent to grasp? Are the things you see around you real—or are they only an illusion? Do they exist independent of any observer—or are they created by the observer? Are they the object or the subject of man's consciousness? Are they what they are—or can they be changed by a mere act of your consciousness, such as a wish? -
But since I'm so thoroughly uninterested in the story, I just don't have the will to go to the library and compare other translations.
There are probably a few translations on the net, since it's in public domain. I don't remember what translation i had though, because my book ended up getting torn to shreds in the wind (because I'd always read it in the car, when my friends' car didn't have air conditioning, and we'd always have the windows down).
-
But the writing style is terribly dry, unsatisfying, and uninteresting; the characterization is strong in some ways but weak in most; the plot is, so far, fairly unappealing (though I should really reserve this judgment until finishing the book); the same goes for the theme, though I can't help but think it's quite ugly and wrong.
So why did Ayn think so much of his writing?
Hm.. I'm not sure why someone would think of it as dry, unsatisfying, or uninteresting, but all three I really don't know. I mean, there are no opium smoking caterpillars, but.. Maybe you'd like his Notes from Underground. That was a huge influence on later philosophy (existentialism), and probably a better portrait of moral depravity than Crime and Punishment, but almost everything he wrote is a classic, IMO. He wrote romantic stories about ideas and people who exercise their free will. He, Hugo, and Ayn Rand are my three favorites. But I enjoyed Alice in Wonderland, too (although I was an adolescent when I read it-- I'd probably get a lot more out of it now).. I haven't read Through the Looking Glass yet; which one's better?
Explotation under Capitalism
in Political Philosophy
Posted · Edited by Bold Standard
To emphasize the point made by RI1138, think of it this way.. Why don't they ask you, "How can you ethically justify capitalism when there are scenarios where businesses use and exploit children or other people in general in a capitalist nation [by under-paying them...]"?
The reason is-- because that doesn't happen in capitalist countries. Capitalist countries are always the wealthiest, safest, most stable countries. It is only the countries operating with Marxist or otherwise anti-capitalist principles that are third world. And one reason you can justify capitalist "exploitation" in these countries is that it is actually improving the lives of the people there. But you don't really need to justify it, because there's nothing inherently immoral about it anyway. Nobody's forcing those people to work (besides maybe the children's parents, which might be immoral in some cases but it's not the businesses' fault), and people should be free to choose whether they work or starve, if those are their options (they shouldn't be forced to choose starvation).