Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Howard Roark

Regulars
  • Posts

    107
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Howard Roark

  1. song gives a nice message, and the video is adorable, except for the way the giant is depicted, but that's not important.
  2. Axioms are not concepts detached from reality; they conform to the facts of reality. You begin by looking at the world and grasp them as a consequence. What you're doing is to invert this procedure, and that is why it doesn’t make sense to you. Human concepts do not pertain to your mind alone; they have a metaphysical basis. Remember that existence precedes consciousness, and since existence has primacy, it sets the terms. Facts are not changeable, and contradictions cannot be "imposed" on reality. Axiomatic concepts exist in your mind because they’re self evident and they work. A person who denies the axioms is not even worth paying attention to. Nobody can attempt to deny an axiomatic concept without reaffirming it.
  3. Salar Abdul-Jabar, Iraq, Outline of geography, Exploration, List of maritime explorers, Ship, Submarine, List of submarine classes, Han class (Type 091) Well, this was the best I could do.
  4. I’m currently working on this poster for a play adaptation of Alice in Wonderland:
  5. Howard Roark

    Torture

    What is the context?
  6. I think you might find this a little helpful.
  7. What answer are you expecting to get? Do you really think that raising these points is going to make any difference? The idea of God being the source of all existence is a contradiction of every essential of a rational metaphysics. Existence exists, an only existence exists. Any form of existence beyond existence is not only a contradiction in terms, but a violation of the basic axioms of philosophy.
  8. This is what Ayn Rand called the Reification of the Zero. You’re basically asking: “How do Objectivists deal with nothing?” The statements you mention are impossible to think about, as they’re detached from any existents. Why would anybody deal with a total blank? You cannot start from a void in order to evaluate that which is disconnected from man’s means of knowledge. Also, to say “I don’t know I don’t know” is a stupid superficiality, when “I don’t know” is all you need to say. Nothing is nothing, and it can't be discussed. Your question doesn’t mean anything, so I don’t know what kind of answer you are after.
  9. Here are some of the largest stars known to man. This really blows me away.
  10. If man knew everything about reality, logic would be needless. There is no way to consider any idea in the absence of evidence. By definition, God contradicts the facts of reality, so you can throw out the proposition on that grounds alone. Not to mention that any arbitrary assertion detached from the realm of evidence is automatically invalidated. Refutation must start with that which exists. You do not need know everything in order to know what you know. What do you mean by “proof of absence”? There is no such thing as the proof of absence. What do you mean by “proof”? How would anybody be more receptive to new ideas, evidence and concepts, by rejecting ideas, evidence and concepts? The arbitrary is neither true nor false, but zero. God has no relation to evidence whatsoever, and therefore it must be treated as if nothing had been said. You cannot establish the false by reference to a nothing. “Possibility” applies only to what has some evidence in its favor, and nothing known that contradicts it. You’re using “possible” as a stolen concept. What do you mean by “fear”? Faith and force entail each other, just as reason and freedom. That is why they seek to protect themselves from any attacks on their rational faculty, and it's perfectly legitimate. The concept of “God” clashes with the facts of reality, and therefore it threatens man’s life. Whose energy is being wasted? What is the context of that claim? If you’re attempting to be taken any seriously, at least provide some examples.
  11. This is one of Pixar's best efforts yet. I haven’t enjoyed much of what Disney has done lately, but this one is truly captivating and uplifting. It seems like they’re operating on an entirely different level. The opening montage got everyone teary-eyed, which I think is rare, as it normally takes the entire movie to get into the story and relate to a character. You could actually hear some people blowing their noses in the theater. Others were laughing at it, but I think that’s just because they’re afraid of showing their emotions. If you can relate to the first ten minutes on a personal level, it‘s sort of devastating. I didn’t cry, but still I think it was a great emotional scene. The movie has a very profound and mature theme, which is so unusual for anything put out by Pixar. The score was pretty good, and the voice acting was just perfect. The plot was nearly flawless, with some minor problems and factual errors, but the overall was marvelous. You can’t get all nitpicky, the movie is too good. I think some kids might not be able to grasp the genuinely mature elements of the story. There is a large extent to which they just wouldn’t get what's really important. Kevin and all these talking dogs flying airplanes seem to be merely stealth elements to trick them into watching a movie that they wouldn’t otherwise be interest in. At least you won’t find any horrible pop culture jokes in it. The whole look of the movie is fantastic. I didn't watch it in 3D, but it works just as well. The animation was wonderfully executed, and the colors were so lively and exuberant. I was very pleased, and I am already looking forward to seeing it again. Has anybody seen it in 3D? I hope it’s not one of those movies that throw something at your face every two minutes, just to make sure you know that you’re watching a 3D movie.
  12. Fortunately. English is not my first language, but you can use "suggesting" or "proposing" instead.
  13. The act of spreading ideas is not a crime. He is not violating the rights of others, and you are not being forced to agree with him. You’re basically advocating the total absence of intellectual freedom.
  14. You’re not being clear enough. Are you a deist? Evidence is something based on observation that you can integrate without contradiction into the rest of your knowledge. A greater force is a mystical concept and a denial of the basic axioms. Philosophy invalidates any scientific claim if it violates principles established philosophically. To consider God is to reject the validity of reason, the need of objectivity, the processes of conceptual knowledge, the method of logic, the law of identity, the absolutism of reality, and so on. You cannot go from “There is no evidence of the possible.” to say “Therefore it is impossible.” If there is no evidence, the answer is zero. It cannot be judged neither as true nor false, but arbitrary. An arbitrary claim has no relation to man’s means of knowledge, and therefore it is inadmissible. “Possible” and “impossible” are both concepts within the scale of evidence. If there is no evidence for God, then he is outside that scale. Any discussion, consideration or argument of the question is an error. Every argument for God leads to a contradiction. If the existence of a greater force can be somehow demonstrated in the future, then God is not beyond nature. He would be a limited and finite entity, susceptible to proof, and therefore bound to identity and causality. You would have to integrate it without contradiction into your knowledge, which means that miracles and revelations would be totally incompatible. An existent apart from its identity cannot exist. I’m sorry, but the only rational answer to your question is to dismiss it out of hand.
  15. Well, maybe you’re just not using the right brush. Some of them will allow you to accomplish more natural strokes than others. I am not familiar with the Graphire4, but I think you can buy around eight intuos3 tablets for the same price as a touchscreen. Unless you want to throw your money away, you should probably get an Intuos3, because that is all you need.
  16. This was analyzed here by Leonard Peikoff and his discussion group.
  17. I have met a few people who apply this kind of mentality. Some of them can keep up to a certain point within the limits of a group of the same kind, but they fear outsiders. This is why they need to attach themselves to some gang, because they are constantly seeking protection. Another thing is that they usually accept some philosophy in abstract terms, but their actions have no relation with what they’re saying. That is how they get through the day, because it is practically impossible to apply their thinking to real cases. They don’t look beyond the immediate moment. Of course, the consequences of not being consistent will show up when it comes to happiness, i.e., a state of non-contradictory joy.
  18. Why do you say that? Who says it is O.K.? What is the context? Can you give an example of this? Are you referring to a direct kind of insult? What are they being insulted about?
  19. I am not convinced by your definition. Whose ears? Well, I would say the song I showed you before is full of melody. Those sequences of notes sound great to my ears, as contrasted with noise. I think this conversation belongs to a whole different topic. I hope the moderators do something about it. I am referring to esthetics. I like the structure of the song and the way it is presented. It has a very unique sound, which makes it refreshing and new. I like the harmony and the way all instruments blend together. The execution is precise and flawless, which is one of the highest priorities in this genre. No matter how many times I listen to it, there is still something new to discover. I would compare this song to a Rubik’s cube, because it demands you to stay focused in order to follow the structure. I get excitement and astonishment from it, so I can say I do enjoy it emotionally. Everything is so cleverly put together and performed with such precision, that I can’t help but marvel at the ability and theoretical knowledge that was put into this song. But more importantly, it inspires me. This song encourages me to push myself as a musician. I did enjoy this piece and appreciated it in almost the same way I do now, even before having any understanding of music theory. So I would say some formal training is necessary if you want to know what is going on, but that is not an impediment for you to enjoy the great work. This song was a medley, by the way. Well, I just showed you an example of what would be an exception to that. What do you think of it? Did you listen to the whole song? I do get what you are saying, but Mozart’s music demands a much more different approach. The song I showed you is processed in a different way. It is layered and derived from different textures, and has its elements arranged in order to keep them minimal. Any complexity is in the production. Mozart’s music is entirely sourced and perceived from an acoustic instrument with a single sharp sound. It has also a greater number of notes per bar, which makes it easier to notice and to be annoyed by these repetitions. I don’t find them unpleasant in the song I showed you at all. I feel how they evolve and envelope the space. You know? Like just let the sound breath and fill the room. It’s totally different. Well, I think these examples speak for themselves.
  20. Well, that is why I would like to hear your definition of “melody”. The video shows the song separated into sections, but the original version certainly holds together as a piece of music. What is to find value in a song as music? I think it is impossible to appreciate a song for a component divorced from its means. I need you to be more specific on that. I am finding value in it for its complexity, because that is my purpose in this particular case. Just as you may find value in a song for its rhythm, I am finding it for some other aspect of the music. You won’t find a song that integrates all of your purposes and mixes every aspect of every genre into one, unless it’s some kind of mongrel piece of music with no consistency at all. Some of these are opposites, and that is why you need to define your context in order to make any evaluations. I find value in this song as music, serving to the purpose I’m seeking. I’m sorry. You may try it here if you like. You said that a song demands more cleverness if it is longer. Well, I’m showing you that this isn’t the case. You will find little variation in this song, and that the music is also pretty much the same throughout the piece. However, I’m not aiming for complexity or clever variations here. What do you mean by “clever”? This is a very simple piece of music, and still I find it to be very interesting and captivating.
  21. What do you mean by “melody”? song has no melody, and I can assure you it sounds great to my ears. That is because I’m focusing on the technical aspects of the writing and playing. I appreciate the complexity of the structure, and the great amounts of theory and skill needed to come up with that song. As I said before, this is a matter of purpose. Well, I don’t think this is true. Let me give you an example of this. Here is one of my favorite songs. This is a thirty minute long piece, and it has the same melody and patterns repeated all over it. It certainly doesn’t bore me at all, and I wouldn’t like it to be any shorter. This is a great example of music appreciation being a matter of purpose.
  22. There was already a short discussion here on this topic.
  23. Well, your goal should be to achieve something rational and worth doing. Why this person enjoys doing wrong sums? You won’t find happiness acting irrationally. If he thinks an emotion is more important than the truth, then he is an evader. Doing sums is not creative work, you’re mixing categories. Why can’t you do any maths? You’re not mentally retarded. It takes effort, there is no other way around. These examples you give, are acts of evasion. You cannot expect to achieve some value without taking any actions to gain it. Is this person seeking admiration? If a man wants certain effect, it is his responsibility to discover and enact the necessary cause. He cannot sit and wait for this to happen “somehow”. This principle applies to the desire for wealth, happiness, freedom, or any other value.
×
×
  • Create New...