Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Inspector

Regulars
  • Posts

    4032
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Inspector

  1. Okay. *cracks knuckles*

    I learned Objectivism two years ago, but I had been exposed to it briefly in high school. However, I had long before that held many of the right ideas. Since I was a small child, I held deeply the conviction that *ideas matter.* I would get into very long and drawn out arguments with many teachers, students, and relatives because I simply would not sit down and accept a half-answer or a non-answer. I could never motivate myself to participate or learn something unless I could understand it on a fundamental, conceptual level, which is exactly the opposite of how most things were taught.

    When I finally grasped Objectivism, it was a breath of fresh air like nothing else. I cleaned my intellectual closets out of all the contradictory ideas that I weakly held for lack of better substitutes. If I was good before, then this was a metamorphosis into something truly great. Every aspect of my life imporved from the added clarity. I felt like Neo at the end of the matrix when he began to "see" the code behind everything (shame those movies turned out to be crap).

    Fast forward to now, where I work in a menial help desk position for a fortune 500 company to save money while I study for applying to law school in persuit of my ultimate career goal of becoming a judge. I live in the west suburbs of Chicago with my lovely wife, who is applying to medical school. My hobbies include bodybuilding, cars, and ceaseless rational discussion of ideas. My methods/venues are, respectively, Mike Mentzer's HIT, my '99 Firebird Formula, and Objectivist forums.

    And I bloody hate environmentalists and "ethical" vegetarians.

  2. Perhaps you two could clarify: You seem to accept that Aesthetic skills are used in the construction of fashion items, cars, etc. But being "utilitarian" in nature, they are not Art proper.

    I will clarify myself as perhaps I was improper with my terms. Artistry is used in those fields and I didn't want to let that artistry go uncredited. I remember the article you refer to in TRM (though that is one of the few books I don't own). So while it is not "art" by that (proper) definition, it is most certainly artistic. Well, unless it's total junk.

  3. I was talking about the "Online Articles" in the "Reading List" section of the web site you referenced in your own post on your forum. He is the author of one of those articles.

    I have some 800 or so posts on that forum, so it would've helped if you had been more specific. But I've cleared that up for now. It looks like this board has a wiki, which should be a much better resource to link to, so I will do that from now on. There is nothing wrong with the specific articles that I posted and now with the disclaimers I added, it should be fine.

    As Invictus said, the author links both ARI and TOC and does not take a side. That's cowardly as far as I am concerned, but I didn't think he was actually in the Kelly camp. As I said, I will be wary of that author's material.

  4. Why do you accuse me of apathy rather than take me at my word? I simply cannot make sense out of what you had to say. Do you not see the difference between that, and apathy?

    Well, you said, "I can't make sense of what you said and I don't care to." Unless you had some reason to claim that the deficiency is mine and that I am some kind of babbling idiot, then yes, you are being apathetic. Unless you can present a third alternative...

  5. I know for a fact that, aside from Kelley, they contain articles by at least one really gross distorter of Objectivism.

    Really? What? Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but I seriously would not want to be giving out distorted material.

    Edit: Actually I find it highly amusing that I would be mistaken for a Kelly-ite, as I am in fact quite the opposite. I'm about the least tolerant person I've ever seen. Of course, Ursus and I compete for the title quite a bit.

  6. Hello all.

    I don't know why I never noticed this site before. I'm a regular at CapMag's forum and I administrate here: http://s7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparadise/ You know, swatting trolls, correcting contradictions, and all that.

    I'm an objectivist, of course. (Though looking around, I see that's not as much of an "of course" as one might think...) I've read and own just about everything that Ayn Rand wrote and I am an advocate of full Laissez-Faire Capitalism and unwavering reason. Of course, my ideas are my own, but I do not differ from Rand on any point that I can think of.

    Is there anything special I should be aware of... rules or anything?

  7. Okay, then. Maybe we should just leave it at that.

    Nah, this is fun.

    I just don't follow this at all. A "loop-shaped structure of thoughts" would seem to imply integration to me, the opposite result of a contradiction. If I were forced to choose an analogy here I would liken a contradiction to a discontinuity, not continuity.

    The basic idea is that the loop would occur when the contradiction is pointed out and a rational suggestion is being integrated. Basically the mind of the fool would be going: "but communism causes slavery... but I have to help the poor... but slavery is bad... but I can't just ignore the poor... but slavery..." and the result is that they just "reset" at some point and yell out something to the effect of "well, it's not that simple."

    If it seems like integration, that's because it is... but it's a failed attempt at integration.

  8. The analogy is very loose at the moment. The resemblance is only inasmuch as they are both logical structures that follow algorithms and can only "focus" on one thing at a time. You shouldn't read into that to mean that I am implying some sort of determinism.

    And a contradiction would cause a loop-shaped structure of thoughts: it would be infinite in this case because most people will not check their premises, so they just keep going in circles until they "overload" and "reset."

    But it isn't meant to be any deeper than that.

  9. Kill Bill was NOT a good movie. It was a brutal, shocking-for-the-sake-of-shocking style tantrum. It was Tarantino smearing his metaphorical feces on the wall and quivering with glee as he gets people to like it. Everything that could be construed as "good" about it is simple rip-offs from older, better films. Do not sanction that lunatic.

  10. AMERICONORMAN,

    Clothing is most certainly art. Anything that can be judged on an aesthetic level is art. Buildings are art. Cars are art. Just because something can be used or worn out does not make it non-art.

    Going by what you've said already, I'd say you're pretty close to this conclusion, yourself.

    Ursus,

    Excellant thoughts on the matter. Clothes are all about context and functionality. I wonder if the baggy/whore division falls along the lines of any other known dicotomy...

  11. In case anyone was still wondering, I can say with certainty that Rand HATED mind-altering drugs and was very strong in her opinion that they do NOT improve art or artistry. The last chapter in The Anti-Industrial Revolution is a good example; there are plenty of others.

  12. A friend of mine calls this a "Runtime Error"  In order to keep the person from freezing up and falling over the brain must dump out the train of thought that led them to the brink of the abyss.

    That would be me. I have a bit of a computer science background. For those who don't, a runtime error is a safety mechanism built into programs to prevent an infinite loop: once a sequence has been running too long, it shuts down. If it didn't have this mechanism, the loop would just keep running forever.

    I have seen a decent enough amount of anecdotal evidence that the human mind works on a logical structure not unlike C++ and that contradictions would have to cause an infinite loop. I recall an episode of the original Star Trek where they defeated some robots with a logical contradiction. In order for that not to work on humans, we would have to have a "reset." (assuming that the person did not reject one of the premises, which sadly most people do not)

  13. He has made claims on capitalistparadise that

    "He didn't actually know what Objectivism was but it didn't stop him from inventing an ideology called "ex contrari Objectivism". After plagiarising a few articles by a 60 year old Marxist, he now thinks he is an expert on the subject.

    Even more odd was that, about a week after professing to be totally ignorant of Objectivism, he claimed to have read both the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged (in addition to all of Aristotle's books and the Wealth of Nations). "

    Those words are from Invictus, who is the main admin at capitalistparadise.

    The point is, ComradeRed is an open liar on many levels.

  14. They are the same person. ComradeRed is Norri and Norri was asking for copies of the new intellecual's table of contents so that he could create this travesty:

    http://www.capitalistparadise.uni.cc/

    If I.Kant is asking the same questions, I would conclude that he is the same person or at least a close associate.

    On a side note, does anyone else find it hilarious that Immanuel Kant's name, when his first name is initialized, bears a striking resemblance to "I cannot?"

×
×
  • Create New...