Durandal
-
Posts
69 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Durandal
-
-
-
Since my last posting I have read up on more of Sherlock's statements -- and they tend to be just that -- on the issue, and I no longer consider his/her contributions to be of value, or even value-seeking.
In that sense, I would retract my last post's sentiments with regard to Sherlock's comments on this matter.
-
If we are to accept everything Ayn Rand said without subjecting it to analysis and discussion then there's little point in having this forum. Sherlock's questions are fine as long as he (she?) is willing to listen to the reasons for the answer.
I agree.
One must bear in mind that it is often -- not always -- possible to disagree with another Objectivist on a given subject without necessarily abandoning reason. Because of the contextual complexity of actual reality, the process of discussion can be long and tricky, as logic does not always navigate an immediately obvious path.
Personally, I don't think anyone can unilaterally condemn abortion whilst upholding rationality. However, I do think there is certainly reasonable conversation to be had concerning the threshold of human life, and the philisophical definition thereof. Hell, if the matter was already entirely decided, there wouldn't be a thread on it
[Edited to fix grammatical mistake]
-
Sherlock, your problem rests with your method of definition. Embryos are indeed not simply another group of humans, comparable to Jews, Blacks, or Engineers. They are potential human beings. Using your logic, one could argue that I am murdering dozens of potential humans every week by not impregnating every female I meet.
-
I voted Jim and Lillian-- this relationship demonstrated that even when joining forces, evil is nonetheless reduced to sputtering impotence in the face of greatness (Dagny and Rearden).
And I find it funny that so many people voted for Francisco -- but I'm not surprised. He's just got that "cool" factor going on; he was far and away my favorite character in AS.
-
There was one thing that seemed odd to me. I never read the book so I don't know which is more accurate. In the London musical, the chandelier comes down and later the stagehand is hung to death. In the movie the events were reversed. Anyone know why this change was made?
Because in the stage version there are two acts, and the falling chandelier is the climax of the first. However, the movie is one continuous show, and the falling chandelier in the middle of the movie would have screwed with the story's momentum.
-
I'm not saying this is AR's opinion of folk music, it is mine and could have been one of AR's, but I wouldn't know and frankly I don't think it is all that important a topic to do any indepth research. Folk music was and still is a haven of untalented (Woody Guthrie, Bob Dylan) "singers" of idiotic lyrics, not unlike rap music. Now the original post did mention Jim Croche, his songs are primarily about love and things like that, as opposed to statements on social issues or socialist diatribes, and he had the ability to sing unlike many more famous folk singers. I like Jim Croche songs primarily for this distinction but Jim Croche isn't whom most rock and rollers say is the greatest artist ever, most of them point to Bob Dylan, a man who cannot sing and who has been a complete idiot his entire artisitic life. And his disciples are all over the place, Springsteen, Tom Petty, Sheryl Crow, etc.
I perceive the glorification of this type of mediocrity to be the main problem with all modern music, but most notably with folk and rap music, though I fail to see any redeeming qualities in the latter.
Hey hey, ease up on the Dylan bashing. If we're going to get into unbridled opinionation here, I feel obligated to voice my admiration for the man. He doesn't have a great voice to be sure, but he was a helluva songwriter and furthermore, his collaborations with "The Band" are some of the best musical performances I've ever heard.
On that note, is anybody else here a fan of The Band? They were the group that performed that great song "The Weight" (y'know, "Take a load off Annie, take a load for free..."). The famous The Last Waltz is a four-star movie-documentary about The Band's final performance, and includes such musical greats as Dylan, Van Morrison, Eric Clapton, and Ringo Starr -- all in the same concert, and directed by Martin Scorcese! Awesome film for anyone who appreciates that genre of music.
I wouldn't call myself a fan of folk music (for the record I hate Country and Rap, and Woodie Guthrie). I am, however, a pretty good musician myself, with a wide variety of musical tastes. I take pleasure from different kinds of music because I like it, not because it falls under the genre of "primitive folk music" or "sophisticated tasteful classical music." Mozart was dull (and lest somebody call me a moron, I can play the trombone solo from his piece "Requiem" from memory...but I just don't like to).
And Bob Dylan is anything but an idiot. Also remember, in the vast virtuous pursuit of money, Montesquieu, I'm guessing Bob's got a helluva lot more than you
-
My opinion of Trump is that he's one helluva lucky man. That he plays God of the world of business on that "Apprentice" show cracks me up.
Compare him to people like Richard Branson and Steve Jobs...Trump doesn't look quite so impressive.
-
I have not studied how to form definations, and untill now I didn't think there was a science behind it. I generally look in the dictionary, and use the defination provided to answer my question. Unless the word has several possible uses, in which case I would pick the defination that has the strongest relationship to whatever question I am asking.
I'd wager that half of the discourse on this entire forum revolves around the way stuff is defined. Clear definition is fundamentally, hugely, incredibly important -- it is the aspect of the discussion which references the basic axiom of identity.
I'm not speaking of definition in the lexicographic sense -- it's a deeper, more influential kind of definition. Burgess put it quite well when he made the distinction between real philosophical definition, and simple common word usage. The dictionary is frequently inadequate when discussing things to such depth as is seen on this forum.
I used to gloss over definition and identity in my head until it hit me one day -- I can't really describe it, other than to say it "clicked" -- and I finally grasped fully the concept of true definition. If this all seems stupid to you right now, I guarantee that with further study, it will become more clear.
-
Never drop the context! Keep in mind that real-life situations are often complex, varied, and unique -- and fellas, keep in mind that I didn't say nuanced
Environmentalism can be defined as a broad range of things ranging from common sense to downright evil. Always be specific in the discussion of such ambiguous topics.
Environmentalism is typically bad because its proponents frequently claim that nature has some sort of intrinsic value; they use this assertion to springboard a bunch of junk science into the media.
Common-sense environmentalism, to me, is no different than respecting individual rights. Because things like air, water, and ozone are necessarily dynamic factors on Earth, they affect everybody -- often regardless of choice.
-
The greatest form of treason for someone who claims to want to be happy is to abandon love for "comfort."
Awesome quote Burgess
-
Why do you think that the methods of the specialized sciences are part of a philosophy? Perhaps I don't know what you mean by "philosophy."
Perhaps Publius meant to say that philosophy is a necessary underpinning of any method, and as such the Scientific Method could be viewed as a very precise and accurate application of Objectivism. Now I realize that Ayn Rand's philosophy did not give rise to science, but Objectivism and the Scientific Method hold similar characteristics in high regard: perception, reason, logic, proof.
-
Just saw the movie last night. I liked it a lot. It's not exactly the same Phantom that I know and love, but the film is nonetheless, lovable.
Having seen it on Broadway twice, the camera work in the movie was a real treat. Zooming, panning, and especially the closeups, created a new unique presentation not possible on the stage. The sets and costumes were indeed beautifully done, and the special effects occupied that sweet spot in between "flat" and "ridiculous".
I didn't really like Butler's singing -- it sounds like he doesn't quite have the range for the score -- but Emmy, conversely, was fanstastic. Great, wonderful tone on those high notes. Gorgeous...and not just her voice
To all who have seen the movie, I would urge you to see the stage version. To my senses it is still superior, for nothing compares to hearing 'The Music of the Night' live from the pipes of a Julliard tenor. And, to those who have seen only the stage version, I would urge you to see the movie, because it is a wonderful, artistic, fun film in its own right, and also a very respectable version of this Webber classic. I'm going to see it again this week
-
I don't see why everybody here thinks we have the right to continually deny the right to nuclear arms to other legitimate sovereign nations. It is a country's right to own and develop whatever they damn well please-- we can't dictate terms to other nations and simultaneously hold them sovereign and independent. Now I'm not saying that the United States can't act in its self-interest...what I mean to say is that this half-assed approach is philosophically uncertain and rather hypocritical.
I for one don't think Japan is a threat. To say that nukes are "out of the question" is simply absurd; we must decide if they are friend or foe-- I think evidence overwhelmingly points to 'friend'-- and act accordingly.
I would like to see some principled grounding of this in-between dickery.
-
Haha, I've seen Phantom on Broadway twice, memorized every word of every song, and played it all on my trombone for kicks (and for a Valentine's Day present in the snow
). I love it! It is, in my opinion, the very best musical ever written-- overall, a real cut above. I cannot wait to see the film version...I'm pleased that everyone here likes it so much. Glad to see such excellent artwork getting mainstream attention! -
Good god, I just researched Nel Noddings on google briefly-- I was curious about what awful ideas were keeping her at the bottom of everyone's lists. Well, I found out
argh, I'll spare the details for those weak of stomach...but it's all about a philosophy of 'caring', whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. -
Wait, here you've got another country boy among you
I love the city, and I really enjoy life in Philadelphia. Nonetheless, I hope to ultimately live in the country, in my own house, situated back in the woods at the end of a long driveway. I'm all for human achievement, and city architecture is a love of mine...but for me, nothing beats hanging in a hammock between two old oaks with your favorite girl, a glass of wine, and not another soul for half a mile in any direction 
-
Keep in mind that in the ideal capitalistic state-- and this has been suggested by Rand, or Peikoff, I can't remember-- taxation would be optional. And I apologize, for I won't go into the logistical details because my vague memory would only serve to butcher them. The basic idea is that the government itself would not violate any basic human rights (those acknowledged by Objectivism). The creation of an ideal state would not put any new demands on an individual who is already 1) acting selfishly, and 2) not initiating force.
Honestly, if you could invent a way of guaranteeing individual rights without any need for government, I'm sure everyone here would be with you. Unfortunately, nobody has yet come up with such an idea
Government is the only device currently available that is capable of securing those basic rights put forth by Objectivism. -
Is Emaar a subsidiary of an American company? I know that they work mainly in the emirates, and are listed on the Dubai Financial Market. From the Emaar website:
Ex_Banana-Eater, I was speaking of the architectural firm which actually designed the building. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP is the architect; they're based out of Chicago.
-
That's a gorgeous building...and at $300 million, it sounds like a bargain. I would love to see a structure like that go up in one of our cities. Haha, especially considering that the firm that designed the Burj Tower is American!
what would the world's nations do, without America to design their skyscrapers, run their networks and build their airplanes?
-
I'd like to buy a nice bottle of wine for someone for christmas. However, I don't know a damn thing about wine, so I'd really appreciate if one of you could give me a pointer or two
I'd like some suggestions for a good red wine, preferably no more than $40, and typically available at an average spirits shop. I'm really utterly clueless, so I can't specify any further parameters.
thanks in advance if anyone can point me in the right direction
-
Kudos to Godless Capitalist. I think too many people are ingoring contextual complexities in this discussion. Remeber what Albert Einstein said: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
-
I've been utterly confused as of late. I am 19, currently attending Drexel University in Philadelphia; I'm a business major, and right now I'm interning at Merck. I don't really know if I'm choosing the right career path, and I've been seriously considering Architecture lately. Business can just be so damn uncreative...it's hard to really throw myself into it.
I'm great at math, I like engineering, and I love design, so I think architecture makes sense. I've always had a fascination with it...I just can't tell for sure if it's a passion. It's always been on my top-3 list of things i want to do. Unfortunately, I won't be able to complete the degree until I'm 26!
As you guys are the brightest, most logical thinkers I know, I'd like to get your opinion/advice on architecture, as a career. Yes, I do indeed know that it's really not like The Fountainhead. But seriously here, what's the scene like out there? Any architects/designers/contractors/engineers on here to comment? I mean, if i stick w/ a business degree and really work at it, by the time I'm thirty I'll be making twice an architect's salary...but maybe, having only half the fun.
i'd really appreciate some input. thanks!
-
I think you've fundamentally missed the idea of "I". It doesn't matter if one person is identical to another...the whole point is that they are still two distinct persons. "I" doesn't come from one person's uniqueness-- It follows from the fact that they independently exist and are conscious of it. Similarity to others simply doesn't enter into it.
Your thoughts on this article on Ayn Rand?
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted
I think satire does indeed have a place within Objectivism -- or, more appropriately, its appreciation would not be counterintuitive to Objectivist philosophy.
Satire is acceptable humor because it mocks evil or undesirable practices and ideas. Good satire does, anyway. Satire that mocks the good is typically just bad satire
I've found South Park, The Simpsons, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and Catch-22 to all be examples of good satire. At least, I should say that they all contain more good humor than bad humor.
[Edited to add italicization]