Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

emanon

Regulars
  • Posts

    82
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by emanon

  1. I would post a nice, succinct answer, but I believe the question you have asked is pretty much identical in ethic to the "Life Boat Scenario". Paul McKeever gave a very well thought out answer on youtube if you are curious: To hit on a few key points: Objectivism defines man as the rational thinking human being. What you are proposing is the following: To remain a human, rational, thinking man or to become nothing but an irrational brute or animal. A real Man does not simply cast off his code of Morality and Value when he meets a challenge or personal threat. You cannot have values and cast them aside when they don't suit you. Or as Rand would say, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. ***SPOILER From ATLAS SHRUGGED*** Think of John Galt from Atlas Shrugged. When he was captured he didn't just throw his hands up and say "Okay, you got me. Now that you are threatening me with death, I'll just do whatever the hell you want." No way. He held his highest values like a RATIONAL, Volitional MAN not an animal, right until the very end. ***END SPOILER* If you maintain rationality in this situation, you would thus realise the following: 1. The man within the fence has a right to his property 2. You have no right whatsoever to initiate the use of physical force against him. 3. To consider using physical force is to accept that your mind, the only tool you ever really have, is invaluable in this situation (which is obviously false) Etc.
  2. I don't know exactly, but look at all the revolutionary ideas in science throughout the years. I mean the real game-changers... They were generally one-man/mind affairs.
  3. Objectively the answer is NO, this is NOT a proper use of the law. The question Rand would have, and did pose in the "Virtue of Selfishness", is "At whose expense?" Who is paying for this law? Is every single one of those people who are paying for it doing it voluntarily, or are some of them doing it simple because the Government has legally disarmed them, and then used the threat of prosecution (effectively, a Gun) to any who would otherwise have refused to partake? I'm fairly certain the answer is that the Government, in this case, will be funding this new law with the payment (taxes) of persons who would, if not for the Governments power (threat of force), chosen not to partake. Thus this law is actually a breach of the fundamental rights of humanity. And that Broadband internet is a "right" is ridiculous. What next, everyone has "the right to eat and pay for everyone else to eat chocolate pudding... Even those who don't like it."
  4. Thanks both for the suggestions. The truth as I see it is that you are both right. The composer idea could work, and I do very much like the idea of the Soprano for quit due to the degradation of music by composers. At the same time, it has several substantial challenges that one would have to face... I an 2 hours of music and singing, that one piece of music sung by the soprano (for example) would have to be so incredibly tremendous compared to what has proceeded it, otherwise the effect would potentially be lost. But I can also see potential ways to dramatize the performance which would help in this regard. I can think of ways to make that moment heart-wrenchingly beautiful, but damn it will be hard to do well. Colorado? I was in Denver in February! I didn't get to see much of the place besides the Airport though. I was on my way to Steamboat. Anyway, I wont make any guarantees just yet. I am committed to this project, but to do it right could potentially take me years. A lot can happen in a few years. That said, I will keep your suggestion firmly in mind and discuss it further with you when I have started to compose the work. Thanks for the idea, I appreciate the consideration. While I'm on the topic, what is your venue like? I'm currently trying to work out how I will go about containing the story within a limited number of sets. Honestly, I can't say I would have thought of it without the Goodkind. I'm not sure. I conceived of the philosophical gesture that I wanted to mark the climax, and what Goodkind did with the sculpture was identical in gesture. While the advantages are obvious, I think I would rather find my own gesture that is, if possible, even more poetic. My curiosity is perked. Are you still a musician? That was my original conception, but there are advantages to both it being a standalone or a collaborative work. A = A. If it works, it works. So standalone is not really the criteria I'm using for my decision. Like you said though, they will require different approaches. Thanks again to both of you, some great ideas in your posts. Chris
  5. I enjoyed the producers, albeit on a whimsical level. It's an interesting suggestion. I consiered having the character being a composer, but then the resulting composition would be difficult to demonstrate in the way I wanted. The Opera about the writing of an Opera is a little less complicated. My first reaction is that I like the idea, and the 'cleverness' of it. It seems to, when I think about it, remind me of a picture within a picture within a picture... (continued to infinity). I'll have to give it serious consideration. My first concern with having the person's occupation be the same as mine is that people will automatically connect the two, where as I would rather that didn't happen. The reason for this is that I want the opera to inspire the audience to life in someway, but for that to happen, the hero must be both sufficiently abstract and sufficiently relateble. That is to say that it can't be of a real, definable person because otherwise an audience would instinctively feel that the hero was not representative of themselves and their own potential. There needs to be the bond which makes the audience grow with the hero. Thank you for the suggestion, I shall give it hard consideration. Chris
  6. Hi, I'm a young composer in Australia, and I am just beginning work on what I hope will culminate into an opera. An opera built around the Objectivist ideal (among other Obj. principals) that a man's highest value and his ultimate joy is his own life and love of it. The biggest trouble I am having is determining a workable occupation for the Hero. The idea of a sculpture appeals to me greatly but what I'd want to do with it has already been done by Terry Goodkind in one of the later "Sword of Truth" novels. I envision the opera culminating in the revealing of some grand achievement of the hero after immense persecution and oppression; a piece of art perhaps which reawakens in some other of the oppressed (those who value life, but may have forgotten it) the desire to live, fully and with dedication to the essence of life. But like I said, this is exactly what Goodkind did and as much as I love the poetics of it, I will not steal the work of another man and call it my own. Alas, what then can be the triumph of my hero that will have the necessarily accessible but dramatic effect on stage? Can you think of any triumphant, artistic endeavor/occupation that would allow for such poetics, even if in a different way? Thanks, Chris
×
×
  • Create New...