draken12

Hej, Hi Thank you very much, I didn´t expect any replies so soon I am almost completely self-taught and put down a lot of time to learn the ways of the masters such as Vermeer, Bouguereau, Sargent and also some contemporary artist. I will add more personal work, but I first have to learn how to draw and paint correctly so that I can create what I want. The girl in the portrait is my red headed friend, Susanna, and I consider that to be a very personal painting. I look at her everyday, standing on my shelf in my small atelier and her look is so honest and so innocent and happy that is fills me with joy, and it makes me even more joyful knowing that I have created it. If I get in, I will be attending Florence Academy of Art here in Gothenburg next fall, so wish me luck

Hi, I have now started my own website with galleries containing some of my artwork. I have not drawn or painted professionally a long time, so there is not very much to look at yet , but my collection will grow with every month. The website is in swedish, but Gallery in swedish is Galleri, so it won´t be too hard to find your way. Enjoy //Alexandra My website

Thank you for your replies. Reason may not be an axiom, but nevertheless (as JayR stated) one must use Reason in any attempt to deny it

I don´t know if this is the right place to post this, if not, my bad. Anyway, if the validity of the senses is an axiom, can´t the validity of reason be an axiom as well?

Hi, I´m very interested in the main reason as to why we choose different careers. I know that intelligence has a lot to do with it; one doesn´t want a job that is too complicated nor too easy. Can the actual value (product or service) one produces be of crucial importance, or is it less important than the process of production or at the same level? Does anyone know?

I´ve just listened to the audiobook "The psychology of Self-Esteem" by Nathaniel Branden (a book which I can recommend) and here is a quote; "Self-Confidence is confidence in one´s mind, in it´s reliability as a tool of cognition. Such confidence is not the conviction that one can never make an error, rather it is a conviction that one is competent to think, to judge, to know. It is the confidence of knowing that one places no value or consideration higher than reality". The self-confidence that comes with self-esteem is not the conviction that one´s mind can grasp everything and never be wrong, it is the conviction that one has chosen the right method of dealing with reality.

You might not be good at math, but anyone can learn even if it takes a lifetime, right?

I guess, so an entity capable of grasping concepts can grasp all concepts (eventually)?

Yes, this seems logical, because I can´t think of any phenomenon I wouldn´t be able to grasp. But how do we know that a living organism, who is able to grasp some concepts, can grasp all? As far as I know, gorillas and perhaps other species of monkeys can grasp some concepts, but yet their intellectual capacity is not on our level. Can´t that be the case with humans as well?

Self-Esteem is described by Ayn rand as man´s "inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living". I understand the second part - that he has achieved the virtues required to be happy; he has earned it, but the first one is a little tricky for me. Man is a living organism with the ability to reason, but our intellectual capacities are different. Can one achieve self-esteem no matter how low one´s intellectual capacity is? And does one, in that case, attain self-esteem from the concepts one is able to grasp (even if there are important concepts one doesn´t understand)?

Just like with any other aspect of life, the wrong outlook can be damaging. Most movies hold self-sacrifice as the ideal, or following the whim of the moment... Some movies even tell you not to try so hard, just chill and everything will be alright as if great achievements were "unnatural" and only make you miss out on your real life. I try to stay away from those, actually I´ve been watching a lot less movies now than I did before discovering Objectivism, instead I listen to music and read books (where the good is stronger and lasts longer). One movie, which I think portrays love in the right way, is Mel Gibson´s Braveheart. It´s like this: "I love you, you love me, let´s be together and share our happiness". There is no rational consideration, but you understand that they share the same viewpoints and hold similar values, and it´s so beautifully filmed that it almost makes me cry.

You are trying to explain to me the nature of values and the objectivist standard of good, but I already know it. what I was confused about was the meaning of the concept "Good", kind of like being told that life is the ultimate value without knowing the concept "value"; that which one acts to gain and or keep, or like being told that something is sad without knowing the concept "sadness". The concept "Good" is a philosophic term which means; the standard of how to live. The term itself doesn´t mention the purpose of a life (although it only has one purpose) or how to act to achieve that purpose; that is up to each philosophy. The philosophy of objectivism holds self-preservation as the ultimate purpose of a living organism, while other philosophies hold self-sacrifice and serving the Gods as the ultimate purpose. They all have different views on what is good, but the concept stays the same. Philosophy is the doctrine of life and the Good is the standard of how to live.

Trebor, you definitely didn´t mock me, I know that. My question and how I stated it was almost impossible to understand, and I suppose the answer I wanted was too self-evident to even cross your mind.

Thank you for your replies, my mind is a bit clearer. What I was looking for was the meaning of the word "Good" and that is: "the standard of how to live", which obviously makes the objectivist definition of the "Good" the right one to live by.

I feel as if you´re mocking me... that´s not the answer I was looking for. But I figure this might be one of those cases where I´ve complicated things that should be self-evident...

Not so long ago I went through a minor depression that shattered my view of existance, life, the good and everything I ever knew, the reason is irrelevant. Today I have recovered tremendously, all because of my strong will to live and be happy. And in a way, the stages I had to go through in order to recover gave me a greater understanding of the whole system of objectivism. But (with an emphasis on but) I still feel confused about some major concepts. My main question is: who decides what the concept "good" stands for, and what exactly is the objectivist definition of "good"? I know, from previous studies that the good is that which is proper for life, or rather that which contributes to your gaining and/or keeping the values which are in consistent with your achieving your ultimate goal (life). My confusion seems to lie solely in the name of the concept "good", which has before stood for so many other things (self-sacrifice etc.). How can we claim that our definition of the good is the right one? I´m not saying that man is anything else than what he is, or that he will achieve life (if that is what he wants) in any other way than by the philosophy of objectivism OR that it is wrong of him to want to live, this is simply a question about concepts. That the objectivist definition of the concept "existance", "identity", "consciousness", "life" or "man" is right is self-evident, but the concept "good" is not as easy to define. My reasoning hardly makes sense to myself, but maybe you understand wherein my confusion lies?

Thank you for your reply, I knew the nature of values not so long ago, but for some reason I always complicate things when I try to examine them closer. Mental integration is not always easy, but it should be easier.

But if you can hold irrational values, since the only criteria of something being a value is that you act to gain and/or keep it, why can´t the immortal robot hold values?

A value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep, but is the pursuit of something that is not good for you still a value? For example; if I was addicted to cigarettes and I acted to pursue a pack, would that pack be a value to me?

I was wondering how it would be to live in Singapore, has anyone been there?

Which country today has the best culture and would be the best country to live in?

I just wanted to tip everyone who hasn´t yet listened to the greatest composer of our time; the fantastic Joe hisaishi (japaneese), who has, for instance, composed the music to all studio Ghibli movies. Every piece of music I´ve heard never failed to enchant me; the melodies are clear and radiates an indescribable feeling of the joy of being alive. Everytime I listen to his music I feel; this is what the world should be like, this is my sense of life. Maybe you share my sense of life, or maybe you don´t. Many of his records are however available on iTunes and ,according to me, they´re worth every cent. My favourite pieces are; Sonatine (works I) The dragon boy/the bottomless pit (Hisaishi meets Miyazaki films) The sixth station (Hisaishi meets Miyazaki films) Madness (Hisaishi meets Miyazaki films) Kids return (The Tokyo concert (live)) summer (Joe hisaishi meets Kitano fims) Sea of blue (Hana-bi) The ledgend of Ashitaka theme (Princesse Mononoke) Asian XTC (Asian XTC) A chinese tall story (Asian XTC) view of silence (The best collection Joe Hisaishi) 794BDH (Shoot the violist) Enjoy! Another fabulous composer is the french Yann Tiersen (composed the music to Amelie de Montmartre)

Thank you both for your replies, especially you Trebor. I´ve heard about "Why should one act on principle?" before, but I´ve never actually listened to it... anyway it made a lot of things clearer to me - I´m discovering new and vital parts of objectivism all the time, even though I´ve been studying it for about a year now

if a man were to enslave another man, or a group of men, would he be evil because: a. His way of living was irrational - by enslaving and therefore destroying the producers who create his wealth he would also be killing himself. b. he didn´t respect the life of others, who were of no threat to him Do you measure morality simply by judging what´s best for you, or do respecting other peoples lives have a certain value to you even though you don´t necessarily benefit from it?

I´m having a hard time trying to figure this out... I´ve watched tons and tons of you-tube clips that violates the copyright laws, and I´m sure - so have you. What I´m talking about is movie-clips, music-videos and conserts etc. Is this immoral?