Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

realitycheck44

Regulars
  • Posts

    292
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by realitycheck44

  1. Okay. I think I agree with everything you said. I think that's pretty much what I said, with the exception of what qualifies as "romantic". When I said "not especially good" I meant, "not great". This was, obviously, unclear. Thanks, that really did help with defining romantic art.
  2. Personally, while I'd really like to know, in her own words, what she thinks Objectivism is (because it's not about helping starving African children), I think I may have done the same thing in her position. As readers, we don't know the full context. As an Objectivist (or student of Objectivism), I certainly don't want to debate philosophy with every person who jumps down my throat for being a Capitalist. Sometimes, when a person is giving off certain vibes, I just say that I don't want to talk about it. It is a complicated issue, and if one doesn't cover all the bases, some people misinterpret or think of some way around the argument. And especially since she is speaking as a layperson, it really would look bad if she said something that was a little bit unclear, was attacked, and wasn't able to defend it. I'm not saying that I think she'll do a good job. I personally don't think she's right for the role at all, both philosophically and physically. I do, however, think this interview speaks in her favor. Thanks Charlotte.
  3. Mimpy brings up a point that I have also wondered about. Miss Rand does say that art should try to portray man as he "ought to be" - in fact, this is the whole backbone of romantic realism. But is it still in good taste to present a story about a character to serve as a warning? I think it is, but not on the same plane as portraying a hero. It is much more interesting and difficult to portray what man should be like than it is to portray what he should not be like. Besides, one of the best ways to show a character flaw is through juxtaposition with a hero. I can only come up with two good reasons why one would not portray a hero: (1) The author has no conception of what his hero would look like or (2) The author does not believe a hero is possible. The former is simply an author who is not fully developed philosophically, or perhaps doesn't think his writing can do his hero justice, in which case, he is not fully developed as an author (or he's a bad one). The latter is a philosophical error. While I don't think it is necessarily bad art to portray what man should not be like, to serve as a warning for generations to come, but I would not put it as especially good art either. A hero can serve as a great inspiration. A warning does not. (Certainly not on the same scale anyway.) Any thoughts?
  4. I'm sorry I missed this, Ifat. Hmm, I'll have to think about it some more. Some intial thoughts: the mocking expression is simply a reaction to being good. I often find I smile and laugh (mockingly I assume) more often by myself than with anybody else around because it's simply natural to laugh at how easy some things are for me, to smile because of who I am. I have been told by people that it is often a sort of mocking expression. I took the liberty of assuming it's kind of like Roark's mocking. (I cannot really observe myself, so I honestly don't know.) As far as expressions of happiness go, people often consider it those who are good at something and smile about it to be mocking those who aren't. The word "mocking" is not something one can say about themselves or their own expression, but rather about someone else. Which is another problem with the essay: you cannot really write in the tense I chose. But that's already been discussed elsewhere. Hopefully some of this makes sense to you. It does to me, but I can't seem to explain it very well. Zak
  5. No offense, but your "edits" didn't really do anything. In fact, I think they're worse. For instance, saying you want to be like a charcter from Grey's Anatomy... I don't watch it, but it sounds awfully superficial. There are a couple places that you say things you definitely don't want to let a college admissions office know about you. In fact, I might consider starting over. I always write my essays like this starting from the premise: what do I want to say? What point do I want to make? Everything else is centered around that. Everything. The diction, the syntax, etc - it's all developed to make a single point. You can think of it like Howard Roark constructs his buildings- find the theme, that one thing that will define the essay, and build everything around it to create a beautiful, fuctional, piece of art. (Though you might want more help from the writers on the forum since I'm not really that great of a writer. I just have good ideas once and a while.) In your case, the syntactical structure of the essay is fragmented, showing that you are rushing, frantic, stressed out... not exactly the impression you want to give. This, again, isn't a good thing to suggest. It kind of creates the idea that a day in your life is fairly trivial. I would go for the opposite impression: a day in my life might seem trivial, but it's really a grand adventure, one that leaves me excited to be alive. Show them how much you value your life. Personally, I don't think about history or English enough for it to merit even being mentioned in an essay about a day in my life: if you want someone to know you don't care about something, don't tell them that you blow it off, let them infer that from the fact that it wasn't important enough to be mentioned. (If you want to talk about english the way you do, you may want to say something to the effect of: Understanding why Conrad deliberately writes in horribly confusing syntax (or whatever) when the point of writing is to express one's ideas is as confusing as trying to figure out what he is trying to say. Anyway, these are just a few suggestions. If you need ideas for another essay, I suggest you decide what it is you want them to learn about you, or even better, about life or philosophy, and use your life to demonstrate that point implicitly. If this doesn't make sense and you need more help, let me know. It's always selfish to want more Objectivists in top universities. Zak
  6. I could have sworn that Berton Braley was mentioned more, but I can't seem to find my two favorite poems: The Thinker Back of the beating hammer By which the steel is wrought, Back of the workshop's clamor The seeker may find the Thought, The Thought that is ever master Of iron and steam and steel, That rises above disaster And tramples it under heel! The drudge may fret and tinker Or labor with lusty blows, But back of him stands the Thinker, The clear-eyed man who knows; For into each plow or saber, Each piece and part and whole, Must go the Brains of Labor, Which gives the work a soul! Back of the motors humming Back of the belts that sing, Back of the hammers drumming. Back of the cranes that swing, There is the eye which scans them Watching through stress and strain There is the Mind which plans them- Back of the brawn, the Brain! Might of the roaring boiler, Force of the engine's thrust, Strength of the sweating toiler- Greatly in these we trust. But back of them stands the Schemer, The Thinker who drives things through; Back of the Job-the Dreamer Who's making the dream come true! And: Just Anti-social We've loaded him with a lot of taxes And rules and codes but there's something funny; In spite of the way his burden waxes The son-of-a-gun is making money! Whenever he's given a boost to trade We've taken an extra tribute off it, But still the villain is undismayed, The son-of-a-gun has shown a Profit! We grind out daily a brand new grist Of regulations by Profs. And scholars, But the Rugged Individualist Is still producing some surplus dollars! We've frowned on personal, private gains, As most immoral, and due for censure, But the son-of-a-gun with Business Brains Continues risking some new adventure! In spite of Planners and New Deal sages With Communistical dreams and yearnings, This Capitalistic guy pays wages, And Some of his stocks and bonds show earnings! We've moved the bases, and changed the lines, And altered the rules for every inning, With added penalties, doubled fines, But the son-of-a-gun insists on winning! It's anti-social to fail to fail, It makes our wonderful schemes look funny; Rush the Traitor at once to jail, For the son-of-a-gun is making money!. Haha! I love it!
  7. I love the outdoors too. Skiing is probably my favorite sport, followed closely by rock climbing, backpacking, and kayaking. I agree with Inspector, I would hate to truly live in the wild. But I don't have to! I love pushing myself to the limit, even scaring myself occasionally, and coming home to a nice warm house (man, I wish I had a hot-tub) and clean bed. Personally, I've found that the same energy that drives my outdoor enthusiasm also drives my life as a (future) engineer. I wrote a short story, posted in the member writing section, where I try to describe the relationship between man and technology in the outdoors. It's kind of a response to the commonly held belief by climbers that technology is a bad thing.
  8. I'm not a huge fan of the name. It sounds too immature. But maybe that's just me.
  9. I cannot speak to the physical differences. I am, however, willing to concede (or assume, rather) that sex is more physically pleasurable. But so what? What is the point of this discussion? Masturbation is moral because, when done reasonably, it contributes to one's happiness. I would not consider it an evasion to fantasize about having sex with an ideal person while masturbating. I would consider it an evasion to do so while having sex with another person. The ultimate point is that having sex with another person who is not worthy of you - who is not ideal- leads to a deprication of self-esteem. With masturbation, there is no loss of self-esteem. So, again, the fact that sex is physically more pleasurable than sex is pointless.
  10. I posted this on The Forum a while ago, but somehow it never made it on here. It was written a year ago, just after my other essay The Fire Inside. Given the semi-recent thread on the outdoors, I thought it may be of some interest. Here's what I originally wrote about it:
  11. Sleeping On The Edge He edged his way over the sharp ridge, struggled over it… and was free. The crust of the snow broke when he stepped. He sunk in waist deep. Surprised, he looked around. What was happening? It took every ounce of strength left in his tired body to pull himself out, sucking at air as though he was drowning. He took another step. He sunk in again. Why was this happening? Thinking was too much of an effort. The next step was a challenge he would surely fail. The step after: inconceivable. The hard part was over. He needed to cross the snowfield. He needed a place to camp. The snowfield was flat. This was important. He set down his pack. The snowfield was flat. When was the last time he ate? He couldn’t remember. It didn’t matter. He needed a place to camp. The snowfield was flat… he would have to build a wall. What was happening? Finally, it hit him. He needed his oxygen mask. With his glorious oxygen mask on, he clearly and quickly assessed the situation. The blue slope he just scaled constituted the hardest section of the entire climb. He checked his multifunctional watch. It told him he went two miles and gained over six thousand vertical feet in eight hours. Except for two ice pitons he could not remove, his gear remained intact; it had held up perfectly. The miraculous equipment kept him completely safe nearly all of the time. Gazing over the mountains, he took a second to reflect on the day and eat a rock-hard power bar. The Arctic moonrise was in full flight, turning the brilliantly white snow a pale golden color. It was amazing. Civilization has advanced so far for him to do this as a living. His wasn’t all that different from any other career: like the rest of us, his intelligence understood and exploited technology to conquer and tame nature. The smell of cold permeated his sinuses and burned his lungs when he inhaled. He had better get to work before the snow falling in the distance moved his direction. Removing his ultralight crampons enabled him to walk around atop the snow nearly effortlessly. He took off the shovel and unzipped the front part of his Gregory pack to withdraw a metallic blue down parka. His thin waterproof shell came off to reveal a bright polar fleece, the kind that actually merits the use of the word “polar” before fleece, and donned the heavy parka. It always amazed him that the textile industry had advanced far enough that it took only 51 ounces of material to keep him warm in even the most vicious conditions- even when the temperature was past fifty degrees below zero. With his down jacket on, he could now turn to the enormous task of making camp. The wide, flat snowfield meant he would have to build a snow wall to protect his tent from the wind. His 6.8 ounce titanium saw cut through the snow amazingly quick, almost as if it was doing it by itself. What once took most of a day was now a matter of hours and minutes. As he cut blocks of snow, he placed them around the rim of the hole from which he was cutting. By the time he finished the wall, snow fell in sheets around him and the howl of the wind began to deafen his ears; by the time he finished cleaning out the hole, a full blown blizzard raged on around him. Hardly able to walk, he forced his way to his pack and scrambled back down into the hole. His hands freezing, he struggled with the side access zipper to the main stowage compartment, from which he was able to pull his tent out quickly without emptying the rest of his pack. He grabbed two stakes, drove them into the snow to keep the tent from completely blowing away, unzipped the front of the dismantled tent, and threw his pack in, diving in after it. After zipping up the fly before any more snow could blow in, he fumbled around in the yellowish half-light filtering through the tent walls. He found his headlamp where he always kept it. The tiny halogen bulb shot a piercing beam of light exactly where he needed it. He extracted the tent poles from his pack, laid flat on the floor, and, laughing at the thought of standing out in the cold, proceeded to erect the tent from the inside. Next, he hung a miniature candle from the tent roof and set up his sleeping pad and bag. Interestingly, his “expedition-weight” down sleeping bag was lighter than most textbooks, yet was able to keep him warm regardless of the temperature. Extending out the vestibule of his tent allowed him to cook his dinner without damaging his tent or surrendering his warmth. Tonight’s dinner was beef stew. He unpacked his stove and white gas. The stove could burn on three different fuels, but jet fuel was by far the lightest and most efficient. It took him less than five minutes to set up the stove and bring the water to a boil. When the water was hot enough, he simply poured it into the bag of freeze-dried stew, stirred it around, and zipped it shut. While he waited for the stew to cook, he scraped up and boiled snow, as he had used all of his water. For dessert, he selected raspberry crumble. Somehow, it sounded better than freeze-dried ice cream at the moment. Finally, the beef stew was done. It wasn’t quite as good as the real stuff, but better than some restaurants. And it would provide most of the nutrients needed for another hard climb tomorrow. As he finished his tea and raspberry crumble, he smiled at the thought of his wife worrying. The storm shook the tent violently. He crawled peacefully into his sleeping bag. Zak
  12. The answer is very simple. The right to life stems from the fact that we, as a species, need to survive. The only way to survive is to think. But thinking requires work, it requires the active choice to think. This is where the idea of volition comes from. Animals do not have a choice in whether they survive or not because their basic means of survival are their pre-programmed instincts. The same is not true of human beings. We have a choice to think, and we must be able to exercise that choice in order to survive and do so happily (refer to Rand's explaination of "man-qua-man"). Thus, the right to life- which translates as: the right to think. All of the other rights (liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness) stem from this right to think. To survive, the mind must be free, it cannot work under force- thus the right to liberty. To survive, one must be able to keep what he produces (with his mind)- thus the right to property. Hopefully I've at least partially answered your question. A much more interesting question is why the pursuit of happiness should be a right. It is not necessary for man's survival as a speicies. I have some thoughts, but they aren't defined very well yet.
  13. I'd love to see the story of Nat Taggart made into a movie. How he was poor, but it didn't matter because he had ability. How he eloped with beautiful, rich girl whose familiy disowned her because he was poor. How he struggled to build his railroad, including the story of using his wife as collateral (with her consent). I think it would be a great movie. Another book I'd like to see made into a movie is Calumet "K". It's a great book. Oh... I see it's already been made into a movie in 1912. http://imdb.com/title/tt0434478/ I can't find it on netflix though, so I'm going to guess it's hard to find. In that case, its probably the first time I'll say that I would like a remake made. I'm sure there's more, but I'll leave it here. PS: Galt leaves at the beginning.
  14. How did you guys deal with A-'s? For example, at my school 94-100 is an A and 90-93 is an A-. This makes a huge difference in calculating GPA because all A's is a 4.0 and all A-'s is a 3.7. Thanks for all the insight! Zak
  15. Do you realize how downright cruel that is? I mean, to advocate, in essence, tricking people into thinking they will profit from their own labor, and then not giving them what they earned is honestly one of the most profoundly evil ideas I've ever encountered. You talk about exploitation of the masses! What do you think this is? Also, what makes you think that people will continue to work for their own benefit? What if someone like John Galt comes up and says "I won't produce anymore until I'm given what I've earned." What will you do then? And what makes you think that forcing people into a "social society" (whatever the hell that is) is any better than letting them form it themselves. And if they don't want it, why should they be forced? What is it about forcing people to do what you think is right that you find so appealing? Do you routinely go around pointing guns at people's heads when they don't do what you want? Then why do you advocate the same thing on a larger scale? I'm sure there are other points to be made, but that's all I have to say right now. Zak
  16. One of my friends gave me a Mad Libs booklet for Christmas, and we had alot of fun playing that. Though I don't know how long you can play that with only two people. I think word games are alot of fun. Scrabble ranks high on my list also. Zak
  17. Yeah, I have the same problem. I have a "Who is John Galt" t-shirt and people ask me that whenever I wear it, and I never have a witty response. I usually just say "Read Atlas Shrugged". But I've never had anybody who knew who he is ask me.
  18. This seems like a good strategy for the younger ones, but it may prove to be a problem once they reach their teenage years. As they grow older, they'll make more money, and thus buy more of what they want. If you set an standard of not taking away "toys" that they bought for themselves, it will be very hard indeed to punish them once they are teenagers. Sure, you can ground them or something, but this doesn't work if they can sit in their room and listen to the iPod they just bought themselves, or chat online with their friends on the computer they bought with money from their summer job. I'm not saying it's a bad strategy, I'm just saying you should watch out for how much freedom it allows them to have. You don't want them to think that they don't need you as a parent. My brother, for instance, doesn't realize how much my mom provides for him, so he doesn't really understand how much he needs to respect her or why he needs to listen to her. As long as your kids understand why you as parents are important, everything else should be okay. Another thought that occurred to me is this strategy may breed a little hedonism. It depends on how far you take it. I do think that sharing is an important lesson for a child to learn, not for others' sake or to teach him how to get along with society, but because it helps teach him how much fun it can be to share something. Some things are better when only you know them, but it is really nice to be able to share things. It definitely increases the fun factor. One more thing, not targeted at anybody in particular. I think one of the problems with society today is the lack of adventure instilled in kids. I partially think this has to do with a decline in outdoor activity, such as hiking and camping, but it definitely applies to every area in live. An adventurous person takes risks and tries new things. Ultimately, somebody who is adventurous wants to move, he has to be doing something. He wants to take apart the old radio; he wants to go fishing, hiking, camping- especially if it's in the middle of nowhere. When he does something, he picks the hardest challenge and works for it. You know that great, driving energy that Rand is always talking about in her novels; that passion, and purpose, and sense of urgency her characters' feel for their work- that is the most fun type of adventure. The cool thing is being adventurous doesn't mean that one has to be a genius or that one has to be an Olympic potential. All it means is getting out there and trying something. Who wants to consistently (insert activity: ski, hike, walk, drive, etc) the longest? Who finds fun in taking the difficult way? Who wants to enter the hardest competition? These are the kinds of things that adventurous people do. As easy as it may seem, it's hard to find this kind of people. Anyway, just the two cents of a seventeen year old who happens to love his parents very much. Zak PS: As always, there was no intent to demean anyone. These are just my thoughts and observations, nothing more. I'm not a parent and won't be for quite some time.
  19. Brian Larsen is my favorite painter, but as enraptured as I am with Winter Evening, First Heat absolutely takes my breath away. It's been my background on my computer since I first saw it.
  20. I read Anthem in seventh grade and it was great. (Though it did require a re-reading). I had wanted to read Atlas Shrugged since I could remember. It was my mom's favorite book (still is), and it was so big! I regarded it like a treasure chest- but one that I couldn't open. My mom refused to let me read until the summer between ninth and tenth grade. It was actually better that way. It build up the anticipation and I was so excited that the first 100 pages or so that so many people think are boring were awesome. And it made me read extra carefully so I made sure I understand it as much as possible. I didn't want to let her down by not understanding it. I took it on a backpacking trip with my dad- she gave it to me as I was literally walking out the door. I finished it by the end of the weeklong trip. I thought of nothing else the entire time. I would hike faster just to read while my dad and brother caught up! When I couldn't read, I thought about it. The relationship between Dagny and Rearden was a special point of interest because I didn't quite understand it. The violently (for lack of a better word) passionate nature of their relationship was quite confusing at first. So I literally though about it for days. I think I learned more in that week than I did the entire school year. Since then I've read all of Ayn Rand's fiction and non-fiction (except the Ayn Rand lexicon), OPAR, and The Ominous Parallels. I still need to read The Capitalist Manifesto, but that'll have to wait until summer. So SNerd, you definitely should make you son wait for Atlas until high school, but build up the anticipation. Let him know that it's you favorite book, but he'll have to wait until he can understand it. It makes it even better! Zak
  21. Boy, I haven't looked at this thread in ages. Eudaemonian- I'm not crazy about The Fenwicks. I mean, I don't dislike them, but they just don't do it for me. I think I just don't like the lead singer voice. But thanks anyway. While I'm at it, I'd like to take a moment to update on bands that I'm into at the moment. Since I've gotten some good music from the people's suggestions, maybe some of you will find pleasure in mine. (Oh, and I've included songs if the band has some that really stand out but the others aren't that great.) In no particular order: Belle and Sebastian The Decemberists The Essex Green (esp Penny & Jack and Sin City) Of Montreal (esp Requiem to OMM2) Portastatic The Arcade Fire (esp Rebellion (Lies)) The New Pornographers (don't be fooled by the name ) The Libertines The Shins The Magnetic Fields Dolour (esp Can't Make New Old Friends) Neutral Milk Hotel Rilo Kiley All of these bands are on iTunes, so check 'em out at your leisure. Zak
  22. If I were A, I would certainly not turn in my friends. Here's why: We are assuming A is rational. So in order for him to be rational, his choice in friends must be somewhat rational also. That means if they were doing anything truly wrong, he wouldn't be friends with them anymore. If what they were doing really was wrong (and not just a violation of some stupid school rule), then, while he might feel disappointed in them and mad at himself for misjudging their character, he would have no problem turning them in. On the other hand, if they were just breaking a stupid school rule that shouldn't even be there in the first place, then he shouldn't turn in his friends. Though they in turn shouldn't expect him to sacrifice himself for their cause. Zak
  23. Oh, I didn't even notice that it said short stories and poems. For poems, I'd suggest Berton Braley. I loved his poems Anti-social and The Thinker, and there was one more, but I forgot the name of it. Anyway, a google search should point out you to an online "museum" where most of his works can be viewed for free. Zak
  24. For starters, Ed Cline's Sparrowhawk series (four books to date), Calumet "K" by Merwin and Webster, and Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter. Note that not all of these are necessarily Capitalistic, but they all endorse very Objectivist viewpoints. Zak
  25. You're quite welcome. One of the great things about this forum is the atmosphere. It's hard to find "strangers" who are more welcoming and friendly to those who have value to offer. I always have to laugh at the people who think Objectivists (in general) are mean. I don't think you could find a "nicer" group of people. On a side note, I think its quite ironic that most people think its okay to insult someone for something good that they do (ie studying, reading, trying hard, etc), but the moment you insult someone for something that they're bad at or that is (for lack of a better word) non life-affirming, it becomes some sort of atrocity and the person is instantly labeled "mean" or "cruel". So that was my little rant for the day. I'm going to bed now. Zak
×
×
  • Create New...