Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Xall

Regulars
  • Content Count

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Xall

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday May 20

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Romania
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • School or University
    Faculty of Political Sciences

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Romania
  • Interests
    Philosophy, Politics, Literature
  1. Salo, or the 100 days of Sodom is, I believe, the epitome of nihilism in both substance and art form. I just could not understand the critics' love of it (or anyone's for that matter). A similarly nihilistic film, but not as protruding, is The Holy Mountain (1973), which from the few moments of coherence I could gather is all about giving up your identity to become godlike. Or thereabouts.
  2. Comparing the issue to an analysis of slavery is a bad analogy. I might have spoken too fast when I said motives are irrelevant, but to further emphasize my point, when discussing the principle of an argument, you include the reasons made for or against that argument, and in this vein, they are similar. Without implying a generalization, the Federalists opposed the republic to the despotism as found in both monarchy and democracy, the latter identified by Hamilton with a number of qualities, among which was the unrestrained passions of the majority. Ayn Rand made the argument against democracy
  3. I'll try and address the first two objection together, and save the technical one for after. As I see it, both the Federalists and Ayn Rand argued against democracy on principle, and I contend that their differing motives are nonessential to the discussion. Thus, in that case as well as in mine, the distinction between republic and democracy is not one of form, as you assert, but one of essentials, that basically boils down to epistemology. That's why I chose to structure my dissertation in such a manner on that the conclusions hinge on epistemology, more than politics. Therefore, if y
  4. You have some valid points and I concede that I will need to correct the perspective regarding the Founding Fathers's decision, to make it clearer, but also keeping it relevant to my point. Furthermore, the concept of republic was introduced in an opaque manner and I intend to correct that by giving it and the relationship between it and individual rights and democracy more space, both in the introduction and the first section, dealing with conceptualization (where I will also argue the compatibility of the republic with individual rights). However, as far as contextualization for the pre-
  5. Such as I did with my BA thesis here, but this time prior to the actual defence of the paper, I submit here for peer review the introduction to my MA dissertation, titled The Analysis of a Flawed Concept: Democracy, or the Antithesis to Individual Rights. At the advice of my academic coordinator, I integrated the Objectivist theoretical framework into my analysis, considering that Europeans are not at all familiar with who Ayn Rand is or what she wrote, perhaps outside remarks from liberal publications that they happen to read every now and then. At her suggestion I was more than happy to
  6. In the meanwhile I have found the journals and have re-titled my dissertation "The Analysis of a Flawed Concept: Democracy, or the Antithesis to Individual Rights", which seeks an approach to democracy (both to the concept and its referents) starting from Ayn Rand's theory of concepts and ethics. As such I have decided to focus only on one piece of legislation that would allow me to represent the (probably, also) democratic adage of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and I was wondering if the recently passed bill concerning Obamacare would show such a violation of indi
  7. Because man possesses the faculty of reason which makes the concept of right possible.
  8. Same idea could be extended to [more] secular philosophies, Existentialism, Hedonism, Stoicism, Positivism, or cultural trends, Romanticism, Modernism, Dadaism, etc. I think this makes the point clear.
  9. I didn't know where else to post this since my original message got buried somewhere in the member-writing section. I was wondering if anyone knows a few important decisions based on the democratic principle (majority rules, or the largest minority, in some cases) that have had powerful and visible effects in violating individual rights and have been documented as such (news articles and research journals), in the past 20-30 years in the United States. Specifically, I'm looking for pieces of legislation because I don't suppose court decisions count as being democratic in the sense of unlimi
  10. Since I have switched universities, my new academic coordinator found my interest in Ayn Rand appealing and suggested I approached the subject of democracy/modern polity from her perspective since in Europe there aren't that many academics who have read her and even fewer that have written in regards to Objectivism. To this effect I was wondering if some of you, as native Americans, can help me by pointing out 2-3 major pieces of federal or state legislation in the past 20-30 years that have been passed by appealing to majority benefits while at the same time severely impacting negatively i
  11. Xall

    In Time

    Moreover, quite inconsistently lacking in quality, compared to other Andrew Niccol movies. If you expect the exploration of the subject Gattaca style, you will be surely disappointed.
  12. Perhaps not contrasting them directly, but a case for a republic, such as that made in The Federalist Papers would be more than welcome. I agree with your subsequent two paragraphs, however I do not intend to present them as in a dichotomy from where you have to "choose". And specifically the democratic discourse incorporating liberal concepts as well as others I wish to analyze, in contrast to the underlying democratic paradigm. That no matter how free you are, once you allow fundamentals to be ruled by the whim of the many, it all starts going bad pretty soon. Of course, there can be d
  13. I appreciate the listing of authors (I already had some peripheral knowledge of Chomsky) for the democratic perspective, but I am trying to find works on the merits of a republic vs. democracy, which are quite fewer of as I gather...the case for democracy has been thoroughly grounded in theories of democracy and new democratic tendencies in the scientific literature, of which I have more than enough sources to last me this research; what I am trying to provide is a case against "the rule by numbers" and using the republic as a political system that properly defends the rights of the individual
  14. Thank you, however it was my mistake that I hadn't made it clear originally I intend to use classical works (as in pre-20th century), and the Federalist Papers are most definitely on my list, but I was thinking of something more recent, because I also want to tackle the development of the republic - democracy relationship throughout the last century.
  15. I would like to ask if anyone has any knowledge of essays/articles/books on the distinction between Republic and Democracy. There are some entries on capitalismmagazine.com, but I'm looking for something more substantial on which to base a work arguing for a rights-respecting political system, rather than a whimsical, cliche-filed concept of democracy. Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...