Howard Roark
-
Posts
107 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Howard Roark
-
-
As a matter of fact, most people (both sexes) who sleep around a lot a NOT happy or comfortable with their sexuality.
Excuse me, but that is a hasty generalization. How do you know this? Would you mind explaining in detail?
-
I have never understood how people can ask for answers for concretes in their lives.
Why?
-
, but, in very, very few cases is that actually the case. That perception, common to depression is almost always factually untrue or based on incorrect premises and values, which if resolved remove the impetus for self-destruction.
Yes, but I am responding to his case. If achieving values becomes impossible, as he said, then that should be more than enough to close this case.
-
-
Ivan Raszl, this topic has been covered to death in this forum. You should look for other threads first, like this one, for example, and try to ask your question there.
-
Ayn Rand was asked on her views on Austrian economics and her reply was "I think they are a school that has a great deal of truth and proper arguments to offer about capitalism...but I certainly don't agree with them in every detail, and particularly not in their alleged philosophical premises. They don't have any, actually. They attempt - von Mises particularly - to substitute economics for philosophy. That cannot be done."
My question is: which particular details of Austrian economics did Ayn Rand disagree with? And so, how legitimate is the Austrian school?
-
One maestro violinist can be a great listen when playing a great piece. Two maestro violinists is off the charts.
The sheer quality of play is amazing ...
Itzhak Perlman and Isaac Stern play Bach Double Concerto:
Have you heard of Maxim Vengerov? He is really fun to watch. I started saving for a violin when I first saw one of his interpretations of "Caprice Basque." Here is a fragment from that performance. I also like his interpretation of "La Ronde des Lutins," which has been done by Itzhak Perlman, but I like
one better. He also made a very moving video in Auschwitz for one of Bach's chaconnes. You can watch it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DRdxT7XE1E, if you like. -
Do you have a question?
-
Ask him how he defined "justice". Ask him why he thinks his definition of "justice" is objective and axiomatic.
Are you still beating your wife?
-
They may be seeking any of the above.
Assuming they are Objectivists or budding Objectivists, any number of the above may be true.
Remember that it is only natural for us to seek the acceptance and approval of those who's values we share and respect. Someone reading these articles may even be seeking some sense of comfort from those with whom they share philosophies. Comfort is a form of acceptance and approval. Reading an article like this, one who is still coming to terms with understanding Objectivism may feel their sense of reality being upset, and are looking for validation that they are right, that the article is wrong, etc.
I see no reason why we, as Objectivists, cannot offer such comfort to our like minded comrades, when its appropriate - and we feel so inclined to give it of course.
Well, this may be true, but you are just speculating about their own motives. If they are looking for a validation, there is a proper way to obtain it, and that is asking for it, instead of simply dumping an article, without stating any particular purpose, and waiting for something to happen. Let them ask specific questions about specific issues, and try to comfort them when you have confirmed that this is what they had in mind in the first place. In any case, I know that Sabre at least asked some questions.
I posted that article for the benefit of the the thread. I felt that the more anti-Rand articles are brought to attention, the more we understand what we're up against.Were there any questions I had about the article? No, none in particular. I have noticed that the writer of this article says "Instead of bailing the companies out, break them up" as if the two are somehow mutually exclusive, or as if the former is somehow something Ayn Rand was in favor of.
Okay, that is fine, but if you want to benefit his thread, you should start by staying on his topic, and analyze his article, or at least answer his questions. We could throw out offensive articles about Ayn Rand all day long. What is the point? Nobody likes to read them. If you think that your article stands out from the rest, because you noticed something unusual that deserves consideration, or something, then say it. A link is not an argument. Also, you should preferably do this in a separate thread, so that we can focus on your specific observation, since this thread is about his article. Just bear in mind that people need motivation to follow a link, and that reading an article requires time and effort. You have to specify what makes yours any different from the others, and why anyone should invest his time reading something filled with offensive comments. Otherwise, you are wasting your time, and probably also the time of someone else. No one needs to read a pile of insults to know what he is up against. If anyone is interested, he can simply grab a book and figure it out himself. There is no reason to go through an unnecessary bad experience, which can only result in frustration, anger and indignation for you. Let alone if you knew this beforehand. Anyway, we are making a big fuss about this.
How long have you been reading Rand? How long ago was it when you decided you were going to be a student of Objectivism?A year and a half ago, approximately.
-
Well, that is your loss, but do as you please. I doubt that anyone, apart from your family and your friends, is interested in trying to convince you of staying, if that is what you were aiming for. Also, are you threatening someone? Because you sound as if you were giving an ultimatum, or something like that. Anyway, if you are uncomfortable with the current state of your country, and think that you could be happier somewhere else, then you should leave as soon as possible. Absolutely. That is exactly what I am planning to do. As soon as I get my degree, I am leaving my country for good, and I will never come back. I figured out that the situation is not going to improve during my lifetime, and I am wasting my entire youth in this place. Your position is not so bad though. By the way, if you are keeping the name of the country to yourself, why do you even bother in giving us hints? Do you want to make this a guessing game or something? Probably no one even cares. In any case, let me try. Is it Iceland? I always hear great things about Iceland.
-
Because it cuts deep. Some people don't know how to deal with that. You don't wake up one day, stare at the ceiling and become a calm & impartial man. Emotions have a tendency to influence you. Especially when someone or something insults you deeply. Any "Objectivist" takes Objectivism very seriously, down to the fiber of their being. Insulting that rattles those fibers. Which turns to anger. Which needs an outlet. Which means you take your anger and spill it out amongst people who would also feel that anger. Which, hopefully, alleviates one of the anger.
Not everyone can say "I don't think of you."
It takes time.
I think some people just alleviate their emotions in different ways than you do. some people can just ignore them or rationalize them, some people (myself included) do physical activities or violent sports to alleviate pent up frustration, and some people post on forums with like minded people in order to alleviate their anger.. there's nothing wrong with any way of alleviating anger and long as it is not self destructive or immoral. I say let people do what makes them feel better, and if you disapprove, simply dont participateYes, I understand that, but I am asking about their specific reason for bringing the articles to the forum in the first place. What are they expecting to achieve? What makes these two articles in particular stand out from the rest? Are they accurate criticisms? Do they need clarification on some of the issues that were raised by them? Is there a particular question that they want to ask? Are they trying to point out something that deserves consideration? Otherwise, why should anyone care? Throwing out articles filled with insults, without stating any particular purpose, is most certainly against the forum rules. Moreover, if you feel irritated by defamatory articles, coming up with another one, just to indulge in your joint resentment, is completely inappropriate and irrational, Black Wolf.
-
If it was permitted, it wouldn't be smuggling. No, it's not moral for someone to sign up to do a job, and then intentionally break the rules of a job. It's a form of fraud, and the guy should lose his job as soon as he's caught.
English is not my first language, so I am not familiar with the word. I just assumed its meaning, because I am in a hurry. In that case, yes, I agree with you.
-
Offhand, I would say that there is nothing wrong with it. Smuggling illegal substances is obviously inappropriate, but if we are speaking of trivial things, such as toothbrushes or magazines, that depends on his own rational judgment, assuming that it is permitted. What do you mean by "basic things"?
-
I will have to agree with those who think that trying to come up with a symbol to represent Objectivism is an idle pursuit. However, if anyone wants to carry on with this idea, there are some aspects that should be firstly considered. In order to be functional, a symbol requires simplicity. It has to be easily readable and reproducible. The black and yellow image above has too many elements in it. Some of them are still incomprehensible to me, and nobody is going to stand in front of your symbol, staring at it and examining all of its little details. If you want it to be recognizable, the elements included have to be understandable at a quick glance. Otherwise, nobody is going to pay attention to it, and they will probably forget it a few minutes later. Take a look at some of the most well-known symbols, or famous logos from big brands. They all share simplicity. No one uses the Sistine Chapel ceiling as a symbol, when a red cross or a Nike Swoosh does the job. The last image is fine as it is. The other one looks like a ribbon awarded in a competition, or a text bubble from a comic book. Gradients are nice, but they are usually not advisable. Unless you want to invest all your money in full color impressions of a symbol with hundreds of inks, rather than just one or two, using gradients is probably not the best idea. The same applies to photographs. You must take into account its reproduction. There is no room for much detail or color when using certain physical formats, at least without suffering some type of distortion. The symbol should have a good size ratio, so that it can be still easily recognizable when it is reduced in size for smaller applications. I am curious about how far you are planning to take this, but the symbol has to be simple enough to fit in a pencil or in a golf ball. Also, you might like to add the word "Objectivism" to the illustration, so that people can start associating it with the symbol. The drawing by itself is not going to take you very far. You can drop the name when the symbol acquires enough recognition, but it is always necessary to include it at the beginning. Anyway, there is a lot more to take into consideration, but this should be enough for now.
-
Thank you, but what is your point? What are you all expecting to achieve with this? I could come up with thousands of defamatory articles against Ayn Rand. What makes this one in particular any different from the others? Why do you even care about them?
-
There is a chapter from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal called "The Effects of the Industrial Revolution on Women and Children," written by Robert Hessen. You should try to read it. Also, I think that the term is spelled "laissez-faire," as I understand.
-
I wonder if Obama thinks capitalism is inherently racist, like some people I know (A.K.A my debate teacher).
So Obama may have a malevolent universe premise
Why would he think that?
-
It's really sad that he gathered the courage to come out of the closet when he turned 85.. it really is.
Why? How long has he been gay?
-
Quo Vadis, you may find this quote useful:
The socialist movement takes great pains to circulate frequently new labels for its ideally constructed state. Each worn-out label is replaced by another which raises hopes of an ultimate solution of the insoluble basic problem of Socialism—until it becomes obvious that nothing has been changed but the name. The most recent slogan is "State Capitalism." It is not commonly realized that this covers nothing more than what used to be called Planned Economy and State Socialism, and that State Capitalism, Planned Economy, and State Socialism diverge only in non-essentials from the "classic" ideal of egalitarian Socialism. -
He will not be scarred for life, merely repelled and slowed in the process of his understanding. Its true, you have absolutely no obligation to help anyone, but how does it benefit you to take a mans ignorance out of context?
You have every right to expect the best in man, the fully conscious Objective adult. Why do you invest your energy talking to people who are yet unable to understand you?
I have only known about Ayn Rand for 4 years, I may well be considered a child or an immature adult, yet I am conscious enough to argue for the benevolence that Objectivism is capable of fostering.
This is why I brought up the quote about the intelligent child in post#59
I am going to answer for the last time, because this is something that I wanted to clarify in my last comment, but by the time I realized, it was too late to edit my post. The reason why I invested my time and effort in you, is simply because I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, even though most of my answers were not even addressed to you, until you started to bring me up in your comments. In part, I wanted to clarify your misconceptions about me, because I wanted my words to be properly understood by the members of this board that I know or respect. This was never about you. By the way, I learned about Ayn Rand one year ago, and I did it all by myself. When I was repelled and slowed in the process of my understanding, I never put the blame on somebody else. Instead, I ignored the aggressive comments, corrected my approach, and dealt with their hostility by making use of the positive aspects of their arguments, rejecting the rest. Anyway, I just wanted to make that clear. From now on, please stop asking me questions when I say that I am not interested in participating anymore. Thank you, and goodbye.
-
If Howard wanted to make a rational argument for his cognitive understanding it would be to his benefit to take into account that I did not understand how my work was 'bad'. To tell me that my work is bad is out of context. No one with self esteem would accept that her work is bad. I fight for the investment of my self esteem into my work because it will guide me to make better art. Ayn Rand wrote a 196 page book (The Romantic Manifesto) defending her assertion of what good art ought to be. She knew that simply stating that someones art is bad would not be enough.
An individual has the right to not take the time to read the entire thread, or to not invest energy into a proper critique, but how does a half formed argument affect the mind of the novice Artist or Objectivist that comes to these forums looking for a clarification of what he is beginning to understand? If you don't care to be aware of how your words affect him then why do you bother to talk to him at all? Is this what life ought to be?
As I said before, I was starting to lose my interest, and a full criticism requires motivation. I gave an indication of the negative aspects of your work, because the peculiarity of your question caught my attention. I never said that I was interested in your career as an artist, or the development of your mind. There is no connection between us, and you are of no value to me. Therefore, you cannot expect that I invest my time and effort teaching you what has been explicitly treated in Ayn Rand's books. You are responsible for your own acquirement of knowledge, which requires that you do your own research, thinking and integration. When you finish reading The Romantic Manifesto, and distinguish the Objectivist aesthetic principles from yours, come back and ask specific questions about the issues pertaining to your work that need clarification. If you want a short analysis about the flaws of your paintings, read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. There is a whole chapter devoted to art, which condenses the Objectivist position, and briefly explains what the negative characteristics of your paintings are, and why they are incongruous with Objectivism. You cannot simply come to this forum without having read anything about Ayn Rand's aesthetic theory, and demand detailed criticisms, which involve extensive explanations of a subject that you are not familiar with. There are probably other members that would attempt to do this, but I am certainly not one of them. Therefore, take the indication from my fourth answer as my concluding criticism, or half-formed answer, as you like to call it, because I am done with this discussion for good. How does this affect the mind of the novice artist or Objectivist? Well, if we are speaking of a rational human being, he will simply analyze the indication, and decide if he wants to study the subject further, and accept it, reject it or evade it. You were probably expecting me to say that it would scar him for life, or something along those lines, but that is not the case. If we are speaking of a child, or an immature adult who is guided by his emotions, that may be so. In any case, it was nice to meet you. Goodbye.
-
I personally think that he hasn't been funny in more than ten years.
-
I don't think its my loss, I think it makes me a more effective creator. "you will have to..." is coercive. It could be in my self interest to communicate more effectively with my art. No free person simply deals with anything, in this line of 'reasoning' you would have to simply deal with the fact that people misunderstand your intentions.
Well, that is your choice. In my opinion, it is your loss, since you are mixing two different categories, resulting occasionally in a difficult situation for you, like the one we had. When I say that you have to act in a certain manner, I am obviously not trying to impose any behavior on you. You can do as you please. I was assuming that you wanted to do something about it, rather than keep suffering on the inside every time you receive a hard criticism. If you want to take the negative opinions of your work as a direct attack to your person, you are going to keep getting your heart broken, claiming injustices, feeling insulted, pleading for compassion and responding in a defensive manner to your critics for doing their job. Learning from a rational criticism can certainly make you a more effective creator, but taking it as personal offense will do nothing but harm to you.
I can understand and agree with most of this, except that your argument would have been more effective had you chosen one of my works, and described the aspects of its formlessness that were objectionable to you, rather than bringing in a third parties work that I find objectionable.If I had the time, I would attempt to do this with some of your paintings, but I am leaving this thread for good. If you want to, you can choose one of your works from my second comment, and apply what I said in my fourth one. In essence, that would have been my answer.
I was assuming that you want me to take your argument the way you intend it. Did you respond to my art for my benefit, your benefit, or for the benefit of those who already agree with you? I may wholeheartedly agree with what you are defending when I eventually understand it, but when that day comes, I believe I will still disagree with your method of delivering your argument. You are free to not be concerned with how your words are taken, but you may want to rethink that premise.Also I would like those who did say that they agree with you to clarify if they agreed with how you presented your argument. I believe they would do better to present their own arguments rather than riding on yours.
At first, that is what I wanted, until your fifty-ninth comment. I responded for everyone's benefit, except for those who already agreed with me, because I had no way of finding out who they were before responding. That is the purpose of the forum. When you finish reading The Romantic Manifesto, I am sure that you will understand what I am defending. I am confused about why you would write your last answer in that unnecessary and pompous manner, but I am glad that you finally found the book. There is nothing to rethink about my premise. I am not going to change what I think is true simply because of others not taking me seriously, if that is what you are suggesting. You are free to ask anyone if they agree or not with the way I put my arguments. Probably no one will, but I am not looking for their approval. The fundamental message behind my arguments is not going to be more true or false because of the presentation. If you want to, you can ask them to write their arguments in the way that you please. I am not forcing anyone to agree with me, nor to hold on to my arguments.
Life and Free Will
in Metaphysics and Epistemology
Posted
The Postmodernism Generator.