brianleepainter

Sarcasm?

tothemax, As others have said, there is plenty of information before you to draw the correct conclusion as to why property rights are important. If the woman does not own the fetus, who does? If I follow your premise to its ultimate conclusion, will you be one to hold the state responsible for the woman's body? Do you feel highly of yourself for wanting to control others? If it is not the state on your side, then what is it, God?(This presupposes that you don't understand the primary right to life and the corollaries; liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.) An aethiest who therefore does not think the fetus is holy, is no better off by thinking that it, a collection of cells, holds the actual(the woman) tethered to live a life of hell simply because you prefer the potential(a fetus).

tothemax, You're going to have to take the time to read what the primary right is: the right to life, and its corollaries; liberty,property and the pursuit of happiness. When this is fresh in your mind, reread the articles that were linked to you. No, property rights are not arbitrary, they are absolutely necessary and protect the mother(an actual) from being fucked over by "the good",individuals bent on controlling others, from holding the fetus(a potential) as a holy being, placing it above the actual. Your anaology, which is an attempt to equate a car to a fetus, employee to a doctor and the boss to the mother(who owns the factory), has failed. The boss who owns the factory(womb) can do away with said property if need be, not the other way around, having the employee(doctor) deem what is best for the company(mother) and do away with the potential without consent. edit:clarity

For what it's worth, Roark was inspired by Cameron.

Interesting, what is the difference between my first response which was, "Which posts specifically, have "convinced" you that homosexuality is immoral? " and this newly updated response, which is " Which posts specifically, have "convinced" you that homosexuality is immoral according to Objectivism?" Objectivism is in accordance with reality correct? If homosexuality is immoral according to Objectivism, but in reality homosexuality is moral, then does Objectivism fail as an integrated system? But, isn't Objectivism, being a philosophy, exempt from matters of sexual orientation, since this requires the specialized sciences for further understanding and knowledge to be gained? I think so. If so, then excuse my previous question. I mean...if one doesn't arrive at morality through "God", then what's the alternative? Reality? Which is in what way different than Objectivism? There is a problem that may result from categories, in that an individual labeled as homosexual is in a way subsumed as immoral or moral simply off of this category, which is not the case. Again, a straight man's categorization of heterosexuality does not lead to the necessity of being moral based off of said sexual orientation, and likewise, a gay man's categorization of homosexualty does not lead to the necessity of immorality based of off this different sexual orientation. Actually, I'm curious as to the prerequisite particulars necessary in the categorization of sexual orientation to deem ones morality. What premise(s) is first required, through an early age to arrive at ones sexuality? I'm assuming, that sexual orientation does not necessarily equal morality and that there are true premises that lead to homosexuality that are in accordance to living life as a rational man. So, there can be experiences in ones life that are absolutely moral that lead to homosexuality, just as there are events in ones life that lead to heterosexuality. Can there be false premises in a man's life that lead to heterosexuality? Sure. So, what's the point of painting with a broad brush? Superman123, I would ask you to perhaps write to Dr. Peikoff in a podcast question, but I assume he is tired of responding to the topic, given his initial opening statement: http://www.peikoff.c...uality-immoral/

What is the state? What is public funding? Are those two entities, that use their mind to invent new technology? I thought an individual had to create the internet, computers and telecommunication. Do these capitalists, who run companies such as mircosoft, owe the public or does the public owe them?

Which posts specifically, have "convinced" you that homosexuality is immoral? No, an individual being homosexual does not necessarily follow that he is immoral. In this context, the likewise is true, simply being heterosexual does not imply that he is moral, necessarily. An individual is an integrated being, how can you just "analyze" one detail of their life and determine if they are "broken" or "unbroken", not looking at their whole self, in the context of their life? Are you implying that a philosophy such as Objectivism and a sexual orientation are mutually exclusive? I'm talking about a philosophy to guide your life, not a religion to enslave it. Why do you think other individuals would consider you a second hander? Why would they not consider you a friend? Simply because of your sexual orientation? I'm not sure why more questions of sexual orientation were not brought up to Miss Rand, but from what I understand she did have some friends that were gay.

Not to sidetrack this discussion, but I do have a question addressed to the initial topic starter: QueerCapitalist, you use the term "homophobia" instead of simply "dislike". I'm wondering as to why? Homophobia-irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against If, an individual dislikes another simply because of their sexual orientation then this can be irrational, and if so, can be dismissed as such. A man being a sum of all the parts has his sexual orientation as simply a detail, integrated in the whole composition. Phobia-an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation But, if your use of homophobia implies discrimination then I would ask discrimination how? Infringing of rights? Do these "Objectivisits" discriminate by using force on a gay man, such as poisoning? Then they cannot be an Objectivist and use force in a non retaliatory way, the two are mutually exclusive. How about in terms of property rights, if in a small Texas town a business man displays a sign with the text: "no gays allowed" the property owner can do this, and should be allowed to. So what? But, if that property owner then drags the gay man behind his pickup truck one night, then that is a problem. Also, why do you qualify rights with "gay"? As opposed to, straight rights, woman rights, men(gender) rights, black rights? I don't understand the distinction. Not obvious to everyone, creating a concept when none is needed can do more harm than good. If a man is gay is he subsumed under some sort of "movement", simply because of his existence? I should hope not. If so, then choosing not to be identified as gay is maybe, behooving. Interesting, that if a man is gay, other individuals(perhaps straight) will try to label him into a category that was created by other gay individuals who were none other than trying to do "the good". Perhaps gay rights is a necessary concept in order to combat, in a war of ideology, irrationality, but only in that context.

I see how I may have "muddied the waters" by writing about "objective" outside the context of "For" and "OF". What if an individual had pleasant memories accompanied by a fireplace, like reading books, that another individual who has never had a fireplace doesn't? So there are memories that go together with perception that are a packaged deal, experienced only by those with certain knowledge. Is this an "objective fact"/personal preference?(For the sake of discussion, sure.) All the while the other guy may have knowledge of repairing heaters, and marvels at their usefulness. This is why he has a different personal preference. Can an individual say, "my preference is better than yours?" Nope. For clarity,the actual sensation I was mentioning was "muscle fatigue"(when lactic acid builds up). So this sensation can be had at differing locations, gym,outdoors,home,etc. but the differing environments all add to the experience. Since context is so important some individuals go to a gym for socializing, while others want to be left alone to concentrate, while some others prefer the environment outdoors. These differing areas have differing meanings to each individual, as personal preferences.("objective facts" for the sake of this discussion,sure.) Correct, that's not the picture that I will be drawing.

I think it would be correct to rephrase my initial statement to, “I’m in disagreement with personal preferences, such as the preference of heat from a fireplace as opposed to heat from a furnace, being ascribed as “subjective” when they’re none other than “objective”(In this rephrasing I have removed “personal preferences at the sensory level)". It can be an objective fact that I prefer to have the sensation of heat generated from a fireplace rather than a furnace, but the actual sensation of heat at the sensory level is not even subject to being “objective”. The sensation of heat is not subject to “Hey, this is warm. But is it right or wrong, etc.” But the object that produced the heat fireplace, furnace can be appraised. There is no standard to the sensation, but there is a standard to what object was required to have the sensation in the relationship between perceiver and the object that is acted upon. Correct? As another example, a person can prefer to workout outdoors rather than, say, the gym, but since the actual sensation occurs before the conceptual level it cannot be considered as either “subjective” or “objective”. Walking on a treadmill indoors and hiking outdoors can both produce the same sensation(muscle burn,etc.) but in introspecting about a preference, there can be reasons as to the preference in the two activities, which is then dealing with the conceptual, which would then be an objective fact. Would you agree? In regards to the example of ice cream, when I taste ice cream the sensation is outside the bounds of even being considered “objective” or “subjective”, but when discussing my personal preference for vanilla, it is “objective”. It is an objective fact that I enjoy vanilla over apricote icecream. By inability I mean a lack of knowledge by the individuals who spread ideas(intellectuals,gallery owners,etc.) and by hell I mean individuals setting the context for a state of "what is"(art considered as "subjective") as opposed to "what ought to be."(art considered as objective) If an individual thinks that the “good” or the “beautiful is “subjective”, without defining their terms, then I think it’s logical that the individual may act in a way to hinder and or harm the ones that are actually objectively “good” or objectively “beautiful”, and here is the kicker, all the while the individual does not have knowledge that they are hindering or harming the good, or they aren’t interested while thinking well of themselves in relation to others. As an example, a leader of an organization asking an artist to donate one of his/her paintings to the organization thinks they are doing the “good” If this individual starts to try and persuade the artist by using terms such as “greater good” or “the moral thing to do” “to give is better to receive”(floating abstractions) then they can certainly go ahead and achieve the donation if the artist did not understand what is actually objectively good, that making a profit and a living is the moral thing to do. All the while the individual didn’t have to define their terms, because in their authority and pressure it is possible to do so without explicitly defining terms or setting standards. But all the while this authority figure does not actually know that they are doing the bad, or they don’t realize it, and it is possible that they are not concerned. But this insult only occurs one way depending on the knowledge of the artist, all the while the artist knows what is the good, and knows objectively, but this knowledge can only be seen by the one on the other end, while the initiator is blind. I think the whole state of the “art world” is created in part because of a lack of defining terms, the critics, collectors, etc. do not have to define terms to make an impact on others but it does not interest them, or they are too busy thinking well of themselves in relation to others. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” Nope, it isn’t, but perhaps that doesn’t interest even the Important authorities, i.e. some gallery owners, business men, critics, intellectuals, etc. and I think it is this bromide, among others, that substitute for knowledge in order to continue a war of ideology that has real consequences. “Art is subjective”, I often read. "Define your terms?", should be the response. The ones with this onus of proof do not have to define their terms in order to disarm the others who have not taken the time to study philosophy. There are honest workers of different paths of life influenced by intellectuals who are just interested in impressing others, and then these workers of differing fields who go to a gallery are then baffled and are not confident when voicing themselves and saying what they really like, “well I don’t know much about art but..”

I’m also in disagreement with personal preferences at the sensory level being ascribed as “subjective” when I do think they’re none other than “objective.” This important area of disagreement is the crux of the argument. This inability to decide on “objective” and “subjective” can make the world a living hell for some. If a painter, were to view a mountain scene and have an impression at the time of the setting sun, and if it is only possible to ascribe beauty to the metaphysical by perceiving with infallible sense organs, why would this experience be anything other than objective? An individual's sense organs are the first step to bringing beauty into the world, correct? (What is an impression anyways?) “The hard part is how to plan a picture so as to give to others what has happened to you. To render in paint an experience, to suggest the sense of light and color, of air and space.” -Maxfield Parrish The painter is fallible when trying to recreate in paint what he sees in reality. This painting, this representation of a “time in place”, can be judged and reduced back to the represented entities in existence. Visual concepts, such as Mr. Parrish’s application of paint can be reduced back to the perceptual. It can be beautiful or ugly. "Trash" or "treasure". It can be objective to the individual calling it a treasure, and that is just fine and objective. But, for others that do not know the standards and how “treasure” is defined and reduced back to the perceptual, without this knowledge, they don’t know that it’s objectively “treasure” or “trash”. What do you think of the bromide, “One persons trash is another persons treasure”? Define “trash” and “treasure”. Once defined, how can an entity be both trash and treasure objectively? A contradiction? No. Is it the case that an individual sees something as trash, but with more knowledge they then see that they were wrong, that it is in fact, objectively treasure? So, some object’s beauty in relation to man, or “trash” or “treasure”-ness depends on the viewers values and level of knowledge applied to perception? This then is objective. How can a painter, one that seeks truth and beauty, attain a profit from his creation if what he creates as beautiful is actually only beautiful to himself and to no customers? I can judge, say, a landscape painting, scrutinize it and say perhaps “look here at this near mountain how it was painted with less contrast than this furthest mountain in the background, and why is it that yellow being the first color to fade through the “veils of atmosphere”was applied to the farthest mountain, while blue, the last color to fade is applied to this one in the foreground? With this knowledge I can then say that I don’t like the painting, due to this lack of “truth”. What is the concept “veils of atmosphere”, what is “truth”? Without defining my terms my assessments are baseless to others, no matter how real it is to me, in order for others to understand then standards must be explicitly defined. If an individual wants others to understand then clarity is key correct? By clarity I mean simply stating terms, giving definitions, examples. How I would have loved to listen to Miss Rand and Mr. Parrish have a discussion. Or how about this, if I see a landscape painting that is executed with bold brushstrokes, has captured a scene that is representative of the "time and place", then I can call this painting a “little gem”, a small, perhaps 10”x8” painting. But what does this mean? What does a “little gem” mean? If I had stated my terms, and explained myself then I would have given you the context, the standards and definitions, a means to reducing the painting back to the perceptual level, and therefore being objective. Again, what does a “little gem” mean? What is “treasure” when judging an artwork? How about “truth”, as opposed to “lies”? What is “veils of atmosphere”? What is “time and place”? My judgments of a painting can all be objective because I can state my terms, my standards, I do have knowledge and on this basis so too can something be called “trash” or “treasure” and be an objective appraisal. You can only judge something based on your current level of knowledge correct? I don’t know what knowledge Miss Rand had in regards to her assessment of Mr. Parrish’s painting, nor do I know the definition of "trash" in the context of Miss Rand judging Mr. Parrish's paintings, as has already been stated in this thread. I do very much enjoy Mr. Parrish’s paintings and find them to be beautiful. I love how he would create miniature landscapes in his studio, and use mirrors underneath miniature landscape setups to act similar to reflecting water. Fascinating use of context.

VoltageControl, It's not too late to pursue your career in the field of music, or in any other pursuit you're interested in. I think it's important to remember that when an individual starts a new skill, they are not starting as a blank slate as they were when a beginner in life. What I mean is that previous knowledge of all that has been integrated in ones life will help to speed up a new career and/or interest. (I think Steve Jobs had said something along the lines of "You can only connect the dots looking backwards") You may be surprised in what can be done in a short amount of time, if you have the passion for it. Have fun while learning the essentials, the principles and elements of the chosen skill. When you can see yourself making errors and are conscious of them, then you're on a good path in that you can improve faster. Videotape/record yourself to speed up the process of learning. Read a lot, reflect. Keep coming back to the same activity because you'll do it better than before and take advantage of that spiral theory of knowledge. Anyways, I don't think one should live life thinking as if the past has a debt on them, or that they should try to be consistent with previous choices, when a new context has opened up which was closed earlier in life. For instance, "I shouldn't do action x because if I do that then what could I have done when I was younger, etc." I think that since an individual can only make decisions based on the knowledge they have, if new opportunities open up later in life in combination with all they can see with their 20/20 hindsight, then go for it. Interesting that a young individual starting a skill only has the advantage of a potential in that they potentially have more time to master a skill since they may live longer. The older individual has the advantage of an actual, in that they actually start a new skill with more knowledge(from a different field and walk of life. (While age is not necessarily a prerequisite for knowledge, I assume that the older an individual is, with integration, the more knowledge they may have.) Use what you've learned at your given age to your advantage. I assume that an older individual would waste less time the older they are, knowing that they may have less time, compared to a wild youth unsure of what they want to pursue. The wild ones figure out what they want though and can pursue it when older.

Wow, what an achievement! It's really neat that he lives so inexpensively to travel around wherever he pleases to climb full-time. Here is another great video of him free climbing a 700ft wall: National Geographic:Alex Honnold

(Bold, mine) I don't think that one requires, or can even attain, a certain "level of knowledge" in regards to seeing what is and what is not art, that is somehow above an individual of any field. Contrast this to the prerequisite knowledge required to make use of a utilitarian object by the user. In both artworks and utilitarian objects, specific knowledge is required of the creator but in regards to the viewer or user only in a utilitarian object is knowledge required to make use of it. Art is after all a universal language, correct? I could understand an individual telling me that I must study Spanish before I'm to read a novel in Spanish, but if that individual were telling me that I must study "art" in order to view art, and have that function of, that is incorrect. I already have the conceptual faculty required to view art, as does every other individual. Yet some intellectuals, thinking highly of themselves in relation to society try to disarm the others, who have not devoted time to studying "art". On occasion I've heard individuals starting a conversation about what they like by stating, "well, I don't know much about art but...". There is no prerequisite knowledge required to view an artwork. (Each individual, based on their values and experience will interpret a painting differently, each one may have different preferences, yet each individual already has the faculty to know what is and what is not representational.The more knowledge that an individual has when seeing an artwork, such as history of the represented characters, historical facts, etc. will only be of that much interest to the individual vs. one that does not have the historic backgrounds, but this is not required to know what is and what is not art.) To be more specific, an architect requires knowledge to create a home, and knowledge of creating a heroic sculpture in the courtyard, perhaps being a focal point of the whole, but what previous knowledge is required to have a guest take in that sense of life when he walks around and in the artwork, and into the courtyard to view the sculpture? So, this guest then goes inside to warm up by the fireplace, and above the mantle is this. The owner tells the guest about how he has "more knowledge", and is now "more sensitive" to interpreting works, so he removed "Joan of Arc" from view and into the closet to be replaced with a more "meaningful" work. One that is more "intelligible".

Can you give examples?

Before writing more about the affects of Kant* and other individual's ideas, I'd like to address my initial post of this thread: I think dismissing abstract painting as arbitrary, not to be considered art, is a response to the attempts of others trying to rewrite reality. Isn't accepting both abstract works and representational works as art ignoring the Law of identity? Jonathan13 had questioned: It is important to me, because I"m concerned with what I don't understand,with my own thinking, and also, how I'm supposed to live in society. I think had I been alive as a primitive man, trying to represent reality by painting on a cave wall, perhaps projecting values of a good hunt or want of rain for tomorrow, non objective "art" would be unimportant. I'm here today though, and seeing non objective "art" as a consequence of disintegration is important. "In presenting the fundamentals of esthetics, is the subject of nonobjective "art" important?" "No. Fundamentals are important. The connection between art and epistemology is important. That applies to all art. But nonobjective "art" is unimportant. It's important today, as a symptom of cultural disintegration. But it would not have been important a hundred years ago, and I hope it will not be important a hundred years from now." -from "Ayn Rand Answers"(pg. 187 Esthetics, Art, and Artists) *Kant-"It is highly doubtful that the practitioners and admirers of modern art have the intellectual capacity to understand its philosophical meaning; all they need to do is indulge the worst of their subconscious premises. But their leaders do understand the issue consciously: the father of modern art is Immanuel Kant (see his Critique of Judgment)." “Art and Cognition,” The Romantic Manfesto, 76"

Hillary Adams discusses the release of the abuse tape along with her response to Judge William Adams' statement : Hillary Adams

Ayn Rand was asked, "What do you mean by "selfishness""? "I mean the pursuit of one's rational self-interest. I mean that the central purpose of one's life is to achieve one's own happiness, not to sacrifice oneself to others or others to oneself. "Selfishness" means to live by the judgement of one's own mind and to live by one's own productive effort, without forcing anything on others." - From "Ayn Rand Answers" (pg. 109 Selfishness and Self-Sacrifice) Mundane Roland, I think the introduction of "Virtue of Selfishness", may be a good way to help start a spark in a curious readers mind, seeing how Rand addresses the audience's question in regard to explaining what the name actually means: "The title of this book may evoke the kind of question that I hear once in a while: "Why do you use the word 'selfishness' to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people to whom it does not mean the things you mean?" To those who ask it, my answer is: "For the reason that makes you afraid of it." But there are others, who would not ask that question, sensing the moral cowardice it implies, yet who are unable to formulate my actual reason or to identify the profound moral issue involved. It is to them that I will give a more explicit answer." - Ayn Rand (Introduction to "Virtue of Selfishness")

A few more comments : "I agree with the judge to do in his power to straighten her up, I was beaten up because I was out of control, and I was thankful for that otherwise I will be end up in jail or dead. What she does is disrespectful to you father, you should honor your parents when all they try to do is for your own good, what we got now is children lack of discipline and spoiled brats thanks for the liberalism." "That was so far from a beating, good grief people. My granddad used a razor strap, on my mother, and I got a belt & a switch used on me. I did not get very many because I did not like spankings. If the kids of today had gotten spankings like we all did they would not be wanting hand outs from tax paying people, and be causing the problems like today. They all need to be gathered up and sent to China or Russia. If they hate this place so bad why don't they just leave." "I'm glad I got spankings as a child and they were far worse than that."

Mundane Roland, I assume you've suggested "The Virtue of Selfishness" to the others you're conversing with?

Samuel, out of curiosity, do you think there is a better way to "persuade socialists to understand economics, capitalism and rights..." other than referring curious and impressionable, young individuals to the artwork(her novels) of Ayn Rand and later her non-fiction? If these individuals are really eager to learn about ideas, but they are just misguided(socialism,liberal,nihilism,etc.), then acting in a benevolent way and referring them to one of her novels can really leave a lasting impression on an individual. Later on, if they have questions then they are already interested in what she had to say.

Good to see Peter Schiff down there. Thanks for posting this video.

Any designers out there want to help out Obama by creating a poster to support the President's American Jobs Act? The designer won't be paid, but as compensation Obama will personally sign a print of the winning designer's work! http://www.barackoba.../creative-brief "President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign is asking artists to design promotional posters that convey a message: “support American jobs.” The brutal irony for artists, however, is that they will receive no payment for their work. Read more: http://dailycaller.c.../#ixzz1bNaH7XqM" What was that quote again? "From each according to his abilities to..."

Yup, I drive a 01' Hyundai Tiburon. Very enjoyable. It's a two door hatchback(spacious enough for me to sleep in the back).

Moammar Gadhafi dead: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/10/20/nr-gadhafi-cell-video.cnn