Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Michael Caution

Regulars
  • Posts

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Michael Caution

  • Birthday 01/03/1984

Profile Information

  • Location
    Columbus, Ohio
  • Gender
    Male

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0
  • Website URL
    http://abandoncaution.blogspot.com

Previous Fields

  • State (US/Canadian)
    Ohio
  • Country
    United States
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Michael Caution's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. I plan on attending as well. Since Brian is attending I take it he will be leading the group/discussion?
  2. I think this is a brilliant idea. I went ahead and mentioned it on my blog.
  3. I actually found this to be one of the more redeeming qualities of the movie. Staying true to the genre of comic book heroes, figures like Superman and Captain America and Spiderman illustrate how great America is and aren't afraid to show it. They know that it is exactly because of values America stands for and fights to defend that makes it worth celebrating. And to show Spiderman next to the American flag right before he rushes into action to fight for the values he defends adds to the overall message of the film.
  4. I think it had to do with the fact that they tried to do too many plot lines at one time and weave them together. The Sandman, Venom, and Harry. I think the conflict, i.e., struggle for values, was spread too thin that there wasn't much substance left to go around.
  5. I think you hit the crux of the argument with that point. It is not that you define a system of philosophy at the point of birth but that you define your system based on the fullest extent possible to man. Just as you don't define psychology using the mentally retarted as the norm, the same goes for philosophy. If children's mental capacity and mode of rationality were the basis for a system of philosophy how could you explain the vast superiority of adults? It wouldn't make sense.
  6. Let's see if I can breath some life into this topic, since its been a while. About a month ago I finally decided to get my hands on this piece of scholarship. I've been meaning to reread all of Ayn Rand's fiction and I knew my comprehension of all the dense philosophical gems hidden inside were a bit lacking. I thought the best way to get a fresh perspective was to purchase Essays on Ayn Rand's We The Living. Also by this time, Mayhew had come out with Essays on Anthem and The Fountainhead; I purchased these as well. I can agree with ragnerhedin's enthusiasm and say that this collection of essays is top notch. It is very encouraging to see worthwhile scholarly attention being done on Rand's fictional novels. Rand's novels may not be intended for didactic purposes as she made clear, but that doesn't mean that one can't obtain a wealth of knowledge from their literary critique. Each essay approached the novel from a specific angle and follows Rand fleshing out the philosophical implications of specific passages, plot structure, characterization, and the nature of the novel as a whole. Because it was Rand's first published novel it was only natural that she use Russia as its backdrop and because of this she stated that "We The Living is as near to an autobiography as I will ever write. It is not an autobiography in the literal, but only the intellectual sense. The plot is invented, the background is not". Because there is so much of We The Living related to Ayn Rand's life it is only natural that a good portion of the book is devoted to its history. (The book is divided into two sections, History of WTL - WTL as Literature and Philosophy) Maybe one of the more contentious portions of this book is the discussion on Ayn Rand's method of revision of We The Living from the '36 edition to the '59 edition. This essay is handle by Dr. Mayhew himself. I've seen criticism of Mayhew's article (namely from other forums) saying that Mayhew attempts to paint Rand in the best light while disregarding certain philosophical implications in her '36 edition. But I think such criticism is baseless as Mayhew shows when he makes clear by referencing Rand herself on her revision saying: Using Rand's words as a frame of reference, Mayhew then goes on to analyze the revisions separating them into specific grammatical types. I was wondering, if anyone else has read this essay, what do you think about it? Does Mayhew's argument justify Rand's claims about her revisions? In closing, ragnarhedin is definitely right as he points out a lot of good topics discussed inside Mayhew's "Essays". Although not as philosophically probing as his subsequent "Essays" there are still some good subject matter to be had. For me personally, I enjoyed Dr. John Lewis' essay, "Kira's Family". Lewis never disappoints when it comes to his work and I found this essay very engaging; just the way he talks as he gives lectures (as I recently had to privilege when I listened to the one on The Objective Standard events page). So if you haven't given much thought about this book, I say go out and pick it up as soon as you can. It's a delight to read and hopefully will inspire you to reread Rand's novels again as I plan on doing.
  7. Via Abandon Caution: Dr. John Lewis' lecture at GMU, "'No Substitute for Victory:' The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism" is now available for listening on the events page at The Objective Standard. Follow here to listen to Lewis' lecture.
  8. I haven't purchased either, but I will say that Brook's lecture "The Rise of Totalitarian Islam" has been on my wish list for a while now. It's just a matter of finances that I haven't got it yet. I've definitely heard good things about it. The other doesn't interest me as much. That's just a matter of personal taste.
  9. Since by now I have read the Torres/Kamhi book, I wanted to at this time update my understanding/opinion of this book as it pertains to an honest scholarly approach to Ayn Rand's theory of aesthetics. I probably should have done this immediately after I had read it but because it has been a while I can't really get into specifics about what the book says as I can't remember all the exact points it makes. I will say that most of it is essentially a rehash of The Romantic Manifesto only applying it to the evaluation of specific artists. Even there they don't go much into detail as that would just make the book even that much longer. Speaking of which, a good portion (over a third if I remember correctly) of the book length is devoted to endnotes that relate little to the book discussion and make several mention of themselves in the notes. Where they do make criticism of Rand's ideas it is mainly on contradictory premises than what Rand actually stated. This happened severely times while I was reading the book and made me realize that this book should not be taken seriously as a scholarly work. It came more off as a pair of self-important hacks trying to inflate their own ideas, incoherent as they may be. I wouldn't recommend What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand by Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi. Best stick with scholars who know what they're talking about like Dr. Peikoff, Dianne Durante, Tore Boeckmann, Shoshana Milgram, etc.
  10. I recently emailed Diana Hsieh via NoodleFood about a question regarding Ayn Rand's aesthetic theory. Her is my email in full: So my question to anyone able to respond, is the Torres/Kamhi book a good scholarly analysis of Rand's aesthetics? Are there any inconsistencies in their philosophical approach?
  11. I was wondering what people's thoughts were on the issue of gambling. Is gambling a moral or immoral activity?
×
×
  • Create New...