Presty7
-
Posts
17 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Presty7
-
-
What about determining the sanity of the mind observing reality?
For example, homeless guys walking down to the street talking to someone who's not there. To them, it's reality. They see someone. Obviously we know it's not real.
But what's to prevent someone from making the argument that things we percieve as reality could also be manifestations of our mind?
Also, when he said that we would need to step outside of ourselves, wouldn't a simpler way to confirm reality be to ask the person next to you if they are observing the same reality?
I'm interested in the answer to this question as well.
-
So, they're taking out the US in the game?
I still believe Modern Warfare 1 as the best Call of Duty game.
I agree completely, that game was a masterpiece.
-
There are no communist nations, my friend. Learn your communizms. The game looks really really good though.
My apologies, I meant nations that have adopted communism as their "official" philosophy, so to speak. I didn't really think I'd need to explain it that well.
-
The seventh installment of Call of Duty. It has you taking down communist nations and military leaders across the globe!
Gamertag - Presty7
-
-
I personally loved the movie, I saw it all as a stuggle between those who wish to be alive and Human, versus those who wish for death.
-
Hello everyone! I recently purchased a book that is part of the "Pop Culture and Philosophy" series, this one being "Metallica and Philosophy."
Now, I am a huge Metallica fan, they are almost definitely my favorite band, however, many of the people on this board mistakenly view them as nihilistic and macabre.
The book is actually a collection of essays, each dissecting some of Metallica's work and relating it to philosophy. While it obviously did not reveal Metallica to be a completely objectivist band, topics that were frequently mentioned that are supported in Metallica's music are very consistent with objectivism, such as individualism, truth, justice, defense against one's enemies, freedom, the irrationality of drug and alcohol abuse, and even the immorality of file sharing.
I urge anyone who is a fan of or wishes to better understand Metallica's music to read this book. Several of the essays are absolutely ridiculous and simple with simple critical thinking it is easy to see their falseness. Others regard them as an existentialist band, which I do not believe, however, Metallica does indeed display many virtues shared by Objectivism and Existentialism.
It definitely sheds light upon many of the common misconceptions about Metallica, and it a very good read.
-
I always thought the universe was cyclical. There is only so much matter/energy and that is recycled through a sequence as follows.
*NB I am not a scientist but this makes sense to me...
Singularity ->Becomes unstable -> Big Bang ("creation" of the universe) -> expansion (the stage we are in right now) -> entropy -> collapse (Matter is drawn together by gravity) -> Singularity... Lather-rinse-repeat...
If I'm not right off my rocker with this it seems to me that it is a closed system but one which has a life cycle. The saying is that nature abhors a vacuum, I think it also hates stagnation.
And with a limited amount of matter, could it be possible to one day see the return of this universe?
I also have entertained the thought of a cyclic universe.
-
Has anyone else heard their music?
They are an American instrumentalist "post-rock" band.
Their music generally is very beautiful and has a great sense of life.
Is anybody else a fan?
-
For me it's between Fahrenheit 451 and 1984
-
I went to Earthfest in Boston in May of 2008, and Cake played there. It was my first concert, and so far my only concert. They put on a great show.
-
Is that why they're called that?
Yes
-
How can you go so far as to call a band evil? Tyranny is evil. Murder is evil. Stealing is evil. Making music is not evil, no matter how incompatible you view it as.
The views of the members of Tool are almost definitely a spiritual one, but they do not want that to matter when people hear their music.
The singer, Maynard Keynes, has stated on numerous occasions, and written in his music, that he wishes his listeners to not blindly follow what he says, but to form their own views, and to views his music in the way that suits them.
So, in this sense, Tool preaches an aspect of individualism, think for yourself, no matter what others think.
And the singer had been thinking about many people's fascination with violence in entertainment when he wrote Vicarious. However, not even that matters, he writes his lyrics in a way so that you can interpret them to suit yourself.
The singer's moral standpoints may not be consistent with objective morality, but the band wants that to be irrelevant. They want you to interpret their music and use it as a "tool" (in a very light sense of the word) to your personal development. Hence the band's name.
Am I preaching subjectivism where I should not be? Or can matters like this be left to subjective interpretation?
-
Boy, that's awfully dogmatic.
Form following function does not preclude ornamentation or demand brutalism. It simply means that in Roark's esthetic views function has PRIMACY over form and if there is a choice between them, he'd choose function. But in reality, this is not an either/or alternative, and a functional design is often superior in beauty to an intentionally ornamental one.
As for utilizing elements from existing styles--no, there's nothing wrong with doing so if it is your rational, independent judgment that THESE ELEMENTS ARE SUPERIOR. If you're mimicking Art Deco in order be a.) conventional and accepted and b.) avoid having to make your own esthetic judgments and decisions, you're being immoral. If you're using some elements that are present in Art Deco because you find those elements esthetically appealing and appropriate for a given work, you're being rational. There's nothing wrong with learning from the masters who have gone before. There is something wrong with plagiarizing them.
As for websites and literature, I think you've had more than enough of that already. You need to stop looking for someone else to TELL you what the Objectivist view "should" be and try figuring it out from base principles on your own. Maybe it'll take you a while, but you'll be a LOT better off. If you just read what someone else thinks, you'll have been told, you won't *know*. But if you figure it out yourself, then you'll *know*.
Haha, not trying to sound dogmatic, I was just curious about how to apply the things I've learned in The Fountainhead to real life in architecture (which i hope to be involved in one day) and philosophically.
I definitely agree with you on reaching conclusions on my own through the basic principles of objectivism. I have a lot to learn, and I'm glad of it. Thank you for your help!
-
How exactly does an objectivist go about applying the idea of "form follows function," as was seen in The Fountainhead, to architecture and to the critique of architecture? For example, take the Chrysler Building, decorations and ornamentation are present on the building. An example of which is the sunburst pattern on the seven arches at the crown of the building. What is the objectivist stance on decorations such as this. Does it break the rule of "form follows function?"
What was Ayn Rand's stance on the Art Deco style? Is it considered unethical for an architect to model buildings after a certain style if he finds it aesthetically pleasing?
Also, if anyone can give me guidance toward reading material, websites, ect. that can help explain the objectivist view of architecture and questions relevant to architecture as stated above is possible, please do!
Chrysler Building:
-
I'm 15 and have recently subscribed to objectivism. I have found it to be the most fulfilling of any other philosophy I have looked into, and I am in the process of reading Ayn Rand's fiction, after which I plan to move on to her non-fictional works. I look forward to discussing objectivism with you all in order to gain a better understanding of it's principles.
-Steve
Movie Critic R. Ebert Gives Atlas Shrugged 1 Star
in Movies, Shows, and Theatre
Posted
From what I've seen it doesn't look too appealing. I definitely won't go out of my way to see it.