brianleepainter

HollowApollo, Perhaps you will find it helpful, in understanding selfishness, to also consider the antithesis of selfishness: altruism You're new to understanding Objectivism, your definitions need to be updated, and this takes time to integrate ideas. The Ayn Rand Lexicon is wealth of information at your fingertips as you gain more understanding.

HollowApollo, there is only one fundamental right: the right to life. Liberty, property and happiness are corollaries of this right. I think it may help you to understand as to why man has this fundamental right to life, while other animals do not. One way to start learning about man's right to life is to read these passages: Individual Rights "A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)" -Ayn Rand It is only after you have this understanding of why man, the rational animal, has the right to life while other animals do not, that one can see trying to uphold animals with a right to life, will as a consequence, lower the life of man. Have you asked yourself what would follow if the government, rather than upholding individual rights, would instead push legislation to prevent the harming,killing and "inhumane acts" used of animals? The only way to do this, be it by environmental groups or a PETA member is through the use of force.

"As far as metaphysical reality is concerned (omitting human actions from consideration, for the moment), there are no “facts which happen to be but could have been otherwise” as against “facts which must be.” There are only: facts which are. . . . Since things are what they are, since everything that exists possesses a specific identity, nothing in reality can occur causelessly or by chance. The nature of an entity determines what it can do and, in any given set of circumstances, dictates what it will do. The Law of Causality is entailed by the Law of Identity. Entities follow certain laws of action in consequence of their identity, and have no alternative to doing so. Metaphysically, all facts are inherent in the identities of the entities that exist; i.e., all facts are “necessary.” In this sense, to be is to be “necessary.” The concept of “necessity,” in a metaphysical context, is superfluous." Leonard Peikoff, “The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy,” Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 108–109

You may find Dr.Hurd's "Daily Dose of Reason" to be helpful. He has addressed issues on the topic of drug use, such as addiction Dr. Hurd

Well done, simple video illustrating the Broken Window Fallacy showing how and why damaged products or property do not lead to economic growth:

You use the word "permissible" when addressing sexual orientation, in this case homosexuality. Why? Permissible by whom? By what standard? If heterosexuality is permissible then why not relations with animals?-or machines?-or plastic yard flamingos? Why does the difference between the definitions of homosexuality and heterosexuality somehow lead you to follow with bestial relations?

Ah, yes: "For what it’s worth—and it won’t be worth much to many of you—I understand the ethical and economic concerns about taxation. I agree that everyone should be entitled to the fruits of his or her labors and that taxation, in the State of Nature, is a form of theft. But it appears to be a form of theft that we require, given how selfish and shortsighted most of us are. " - Sam Harris

This passage shows Sam Harris' total lack of regard to principles. Speak for yourself, Sam Harris, to further show the readers how much of an unprincipled "progressive" you really are. After understanding his stance on the individual, I would only assume Harris to say that principles are ever changing, such as a living constitution, and can be modified at will to better suit the "greater good"(yes, he even uses that floating abstraction.) "It was disconcerting how many people felt the need to lecture me about the failure of Socialism. To worry about the current level of wealth inequality is not to endorse Socialism, or to claim that the equal distribution of goods should be an economic goal. I think a certain level of wealth inequality is probably a very good thing—being both reflective and encouraging of differences between people that should be recognized and rewarded. There are people who can be motivated to work 100 hours a week by the prospect of getting rich, and they often accomplish goals that are very beneficial. And there are people who are simply incapable of making similar contributions to society. But do you really think that Steve Jobs would have retired earlier if he knew that all the wealth he acquired beyond $5 billion would be taxed at 90 percent? Many of people apparently do. However, I think they are being far too cynical about the motivations of smart, creative people." - Sam Harris How disgustingly progressive: "Given the current condition of the human mind, we seem to need a State to set and enforce certain priorities. I share everyone’s concern that our political process is broken, that it can select for precisely the sorts of people one wouldn’t want in charge, and that fantastic sums of money get squandered. But no one has profited more from our current system, with all its flaws, than the ultra rich. They should be the last to take their money off the table. And they should be the first to realize when more resources are necessary to secure the common good." Wow. Sam Harris is full on for the initiation of force. Mitigate such problems? Problems to whom? He is treating the state as if the state has NOT seized a collection of money from private citizens... "If private citizens cannot be motivated to allocate the necessary funds to mitigate such problems—as it seems we cannot—the State must do it. The State, however, is broke." Sam Harris lost a following of readers for good reason!

"ExxonMobil, the world’s largest energy company, filed a lawsuit against the federal government for canceling an oil-drilling lease in the Gulf of Mexico that held “billions of barrels of oil,” according to the company." ExxonMobil Sues Obama Administration

So sad to read about this raid on Gibson. "Henry Juszkiewicz, Chairman and CEO of Gibson Guitar Corp., has responded to the August 24 raid of Gibson facilities in Nashville and Memphis by the Federal Government. In a press release, Juszkiewicz said: “Gibson is innocent and will fight to protect its rights. Gibson has complied with foreign laws and believes it is innocent of ANY wrong doing. We will fight aggressively to prove our innocence.”" Here is a video with more info about the Gibson Guitar raid:Gibson Guitar Company under attack

I think these few words I've quoted from Ms. Townsend in the audio interview with Onkar Ghate show how anti-individual she really is: "I think that what you said is so clear, in that what Ayn Rand was fighting was the communists. This is not what is going on in the U.S. What we are trying to do is create a fair and just country, in which people can produce, in which people's talents can be recognized and that means each of us gives something up so that we can have a public transportation, an army, police force, and people that are healthy. If you don't do that then you don't create a fair and just society and therefore everyone's best talents aren't realized and that's what we are trying to do here in the U.S. and that's what's so special about this nation. We are not the communists and we're not Ayn Rand." "I believe in capitalism, I just think it should be fair and just."- Kathleen Kennedy Townsend (italics mine)

David Letterman wasn't silenced by a death threat, and instead stood up to jihadists by continuing to air his opinions on his next show: "Last week, the U.S.-based SITE intelligence monitoring group said a death threat against Letterman was posted on a website used by militants. The militant who made the threat, and was apparently angered by a joke Letterman made about the death of a leading member of al Qaeda killed in an air strike in Pakistan, called on Muslims in the United States to "cut the tongue" of the comedian and "shut it forever." - Reuters David Letterman poking fun at Jihadists David Letterman's response to his death threat: Top Ten Thoughts on Death Threat Amy Peikoff, wrote a great "thank you" to Letterman, on her blog "don't let it go unheard" Amy Peikoff's Thank You to David Letterman

"(Reuters) - Two Americans held in Iran for more than two years have been convicted as spies and sentenced to eight years' jail, Iranian TV reported Saturday, a verdict that will further strain already very poor relations with Washington." U.S. Hikers Sentenced to Jail for 8 years in Iran

I think I had misspoken, by qualifying "questions" with "inductive" which would then follow that there are "deductive" questions that differ from "simple" questions. It would have been better had I simply said to use induction and deduction to better understand the proponent of Norwegian government and what contradictions he holds. To try and know when in the conversation it is necessary to move onto more advanced topics such as helthcare and taxation, or go back to more basic concepts such as rights and principles. I think it would be difficult to debate a proponent of socialism in Norway if their understanding of rights is incorrect, if they hold floating abstractions such as "greater good", etc. I would first have to know what knowledge they held by asking for definitions and referents and ask the proponent to show me why man needs rights(in this case), such as for the concept "taxation" (since this thread is on norwegian government I'll use that as an example) Then I could reduce back to taxation is the initition of force, which is anti-reason, man needs reason to survive,etc. At the same time I'd have to know the proponents understanding of the use of principles. If there was an error in the understanding of the the concepts "rights" and "force" I would have difficulty in talking about advanced concepts such as"taxation" , "obamacare" and other things that are subsumed under the concept force, such as government programs in Norway.

Odd Nerdrum, a well known painter in Norway, was sentenced to two years in jail for failure to declare millions in taxable income from the selling of his oil paintings: Artist Odd Nerdrum Sentenced to Jail Norwegian artist Nerdrum faces jail for tax fraud Read more: http://acn.liveauctioneers.com/index.php/features/crime-and-litigation/5299-norwegian-artist-nerdrum-faces-jail-for-tax-fraud edit:grammar

Perhaps you may find this excerpt helpful, from Ayn Rand's "Philosophy:Who Needs it" in regards to "Responsibility/Obligation": "Causality Versus Duty" I think in this hypothetical the mother had chosen a long range goal of having a child, and that goal subsumes necessary action of taking care of her value, her child.

You're welcome, and I too have been frustrated at times when speaking with liberals, who try and bombard me with data and statistics independent of principles. I've learned that it is effective to ask a series of inductive questions to better understand what contradictions they hold.

Socialized countries require unprincipled action which includes force to try and sustain the government. Anythings created in this manner cannot be good, because it is not good for the individual. I recommend listening to Peikoff's lecture, "Why One Should Act on Principle", which is available on the registered user page of The Ayn Rand Institute

"The Ant and the Grasshopper" (Modern Version)

Transcription of "Banishment of Beauty"

Eiuol, I think that a painting should speak for itself, in that the artist should strive to make his value judgments clear to the viewer. I think Clarity is key then. I was reminded of Victor Hugo's novel, "The Man Who Laughs", when I read your response. In this novel the protagonist named Gwynplaine was purposefully disfigured by a band of "child buyers". Despite his deformity(his face was carved into looking as a permanent grin) he was virtuous and fell in love with and pursued one of his highest values, Dea. I would love to see a painting of these two characters portrayed beautifully. I think the artist could make a beautiful painting by focusing on Gwynplaine's good qualities while still including the important deformity. He would be in the context of his love, Dea, the gorgeous woman and possibly with his other companions such as Homo, the wolf, and Ursus, the philosopher. This painting would require the artist to set out from the beginning with the goal of creating a well done, beautiful painting with the purpose of trying to portray a virtuous individual with his love, Dea. Back to the painting, "Branded", by Saville. If she had tried to convey a deformity/disfigurement as something that can be overcome, while trying to make the painting beautiful, well then I think she failed in her attempt. I think she would have needed to portray this idea in the right context. I see the painting, "Branded", as Saville's way to purposefully shock the audience and create ugliness. edit:spelling

Agreed. Jonathan13 had linked a site to the artist Micheal Newberry. On the front page is a beautiful painting because it is representational and the standards according to the identity of the subject matter are set, can be achieved, and were achieved by Monet. Since the painting is objectively beautiful, the life affirming value an individual can gain from it, and emotions that follow can be felt. Jonathan13, the emotions you had listed are perhaps felt because the artist had created a representational painting, and in doing so some standards of the identity of the landscape had to be followed in the painting of the twilight sky. As an example in Monet's painting, the sun shining from the top left of the painting adds the yellow-green to the sky, which perhaps an individual may interpret through an emotion. The receding land mass in the distance is cool because of the truth of aerial perspective, and the blue-green color may be then interpreted as an emotion as well. Each color that can be appreciated doesn't exist independent of an entity, but can be represented by an attribute of reality, in the painting. edit:replaced "you" with "individual". Composition

My response, which is posted earlier in this thread was that two individuals observing an artwork could both agree that it is objectively beautiful, yet they both had different preferences as to what they favor most in a painting. Examples:Paint handling, truths,etc. I responded: (bold mine) Sure, I'll link several paintings down below. Now each painting stands alone, as it should, but after viewing several paintings an observer can see how the figures are purposefully depicted as mangled,distended,bloodied,deformed... I may be wrong but, are those beautiful to the observer who holds the standard as the ideal of man? I find them to be ugly. Can you tell me if there is beauty in them? Beautiful to whom? Beautiful to the viewer who understands what the ideal harmony is of the identity of man. The paintings are of human figures. Do you think these paintings of human figures are created to be purposefully beautiful, or ugly? Pause Untitled Witness Branded Untitled Gallery image For what it's worth, here is an interview where she explains a bit about her paintings: Jenny Saville Interviewed

I think that beauty, unlike sadness which is an emotion (and being an emotion an effect of an individuals value judgments), is a sense that man has when viewing an object that is seen or created in an ideal, harmonious way according to the identity of the represented object. As an example regarding a painting from the artist, Jenny Saville: The Fulcrum I think she skillfully handled paint, but it is not representative of the ideal object's identity, which sets the standard. I think Saville used skill, and and knowledge in paint handling, but she purposefully had chosen to take the subject matter of man and then include negatives to create a painting. Negatives to whom? To the ideal identity of man. I do think Saville is more concerned with creating a painting that shocks the viewer, rather than one that is intended to be beautiful. A painting does not have to be beautiful, and I think this painting is an example of just that. If an artist knows what subject matter he is choosing, he also knows what the ideal standard to create harmony is according to what he is representing. If you know this, you can purposefully aim to make something objectively ugly. Ugly to whom? Ugly to the viewer who understands what the ideal harmony is of the represented subject.

I understand what is objectively good for man; that which promotes his life. In saying that I also understand what is bad for man; that which destroys mans life. I think the good, the bad, the ugly, and the beautiful are objective as well. Having said this, I think that if an individual argues that beauty is subjective he is also consistent in going along with the good being subjective, and that morality cannot be based on objectivity. I do not know of any other means to explicitly show what is beautiful and what is ugly, in the from of an artwork made to be perceived with sight, other than a painting, drawing or sculpture. If an observer is to simply see the world throughout their every day life they may encounter both beauty and ugliness. If a man is out on a photography trip, he may encounter both beauty and ugliness on his trip. If an observer goes to a gallery to view a painting or sculpture, he may only see beauty. The negative could be omitted in the relationship of a viewer observing a painting. I think this difference is very important. In reality, going about every day and viewing the world the negative and positive, the ugly and beautiful, the good and bad all exist and may very well be seen. But, in a painting, since the painter has already made a selective recreation based on his value judgments, he may have filtered out the ugly, so that only the beauty may be seen to the observer at a gallery. Now, the observer can have his value judgments act on the painting, but if the painting is already filtered one step from an existent towards being ugly, then the observer is viewing something that is already created towards being ugly. In my earlier posts I had written about viewing paintings to become aware of similarities and also differences. Each painting has been filtered by the artist to either show beauty or ugliness. I think there is an important distinction between an individual living life and seeing beauty and ugliness throughout his life and then purposely perceiving something to be beautiful that has already been filtered by an artist in the form of an artwork.