Progressive Music as Objective Music

^ Moving Pictures07 , don't try to play the fool on me ok??

Edited by Alberto Muñoz - November 06 2009 at 17:16

MovingPictures07 wrote: Alberto Muñoz wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: keiser willhelm wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: People on this forum are so misinformed about Rand's ideology. You should have never posted this thread; you'll mainly get sh*t responses. Most people around here take any chance they get to bash it; I've since stopped even mentioning it. have you studied it at all? il grant you enjoying her books but her philosophy is LOGICALLY wrong - objectively flawed.  I've read all 4 of her books 5+ times, and also many of her other writings. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it's objectively flawed. Don't insult other people simply because you disagree with something, thanks. It makes you look like a jackass.   So, Moving Pictures07 enlight us, if you think that we are misinformend about Rand, or you going to do what Roark done, saving his ego for the best. Don't patronize me; it's degrading on your part.   I do not patronize you, you are feeling like that Don't you think it's disrespectful for an individual (or individuals) to come in here and totally imply that anyone who finds any sort of logical value in Rand's writings and what she valued in her life as incorrect or stupid?   I haven't said that  in the first place, would you mind if you read what i say? In reality, it takes a certain type of mindset to be able to relate with Rand's ideals (I hesitate to use the word Objectivism, as I personally dislike restrictive labels). If anyone has actually given her books a chance and honestly came to them with an open mind and thereafter concluded that the idealistic system doesn't make sense to them, then that's great. Simply don't advocate it then, but don't go around implying that Rand or anyone who does find value in her writings is of substandard intelligence simply because they don't make sense to you. I'm sure you (and others) wouldn't like the same treatment.   I haven't said that she was or have substandard intelligence, i say that is a good writer but i didn't say that she was stupid or sor of. Rand wouldn't have asked for anyone to follow her ideals; they were simply how she saw the world. I'm the first person to admit that I do not follow anyone else's views and that I do not 100% agree with everything that Rand advocated.   Agree The main tenants of what has become the Objectivist philosophy, however, are ideals in which I've found value and a sense of logical order in reality and specifically in my life's journey. The clear fact is... every individual looks at reality through his or her own individualistic lens. It makes reality itself no different, but simply the perception is different living through the eyes of any particular person. It does not change anything that may be self-evident in actuality. The four basic summaries that were provided at the beginning of the thread are particularly indicative of this Objectivist philosophy; and they are points that I find to be invaluable and logical in every sense of both words. If you're closed-minded, there's nothing I can do to convince you otherwise that they make sense. Besides, it doesn't hurt me if you don't find value in a certain ideal; you are free to live your life however you wish so long as you do not violate anyone else's same right. I simply find it ridiculous when people come into a thread like this and proclaim that something that is rationally founded as illogical; it's almost like a bunch of religious zealots complaining about people having beliefs that are different than theirs.   So, being in disagree with Rand ideas convert me in a close minded person?? that sounds like  you are an intolerant person, and i think you are not that kind....   Your freedom that you praise in your last paragraph, vanish when people don't agree with your ideas.   Shame on you.   And don't mind to answer i will not read your post, not interest for me

Toaster Mantis wrote:   I think you're overstating Ayn Rand's influence. I'm a philosophy student at the University of Copenhagen and can say that while Ayn Rand is studied as the main popularizer of ethical egoism, there are many much more popular philosophers who make similar practical political recommendations for example Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek. Rand is pretty obscure outside the United States so it is not very likely that Pinochet and Thatcher took their cues from her. Hell, I'm not sure even Milton Friedman was anywhere as influenced by Rand as by Hayek, going by the biographies and interviews I've read Hayek pops up as an inspiration much more than Rand does.

Besides, i read Naomi Klein Book, (Shock Doctrine), and i agree with Toaster, Rand have little or no influence outside U.S.

Edited by Alberto Muñoz - November 06 2009 at 14:12

[QUOTE keiser willhelm [/QUOTE]

Everyone fall into the same trap of putting subjectivism over objectivism. There's someting like inter subjectivism or super subjectivism that describe the energy that operate in music or any work of art. Something that brings everyone together despite everyone taste and opinions. It's true that expression "Good, better or best" doesn't explain the essence of music, because not only you loose any objectivity but you stay confine in your own subjectivity.  Music is not more subjective than objective.


Edited by rdtprog - November 06 2009 at 14:05

keiser willhelm wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: People on this forum are so misinformed about Rand's ideology. You should have never posted this thread; you'll mainly get sh*t responses. Most people around here take any chance they get to bash it; I've since stopped even mentioning it. have you studied it at all? il grant you enjoying her books but her philosophy is LOGICALLY wrong - objectively flawed.

I've read all 4 of her books 5+ times, and also many of her other writings.

Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it's objectively flawed. Don't insult other people simply because you disagree with something, thanks. It makes you look like a jackass.

questionsneverknown wrote: The only figure who has put Rand's radical economic vision into place is Milton Friedman (who, and here comes my value system a-singing, is a name people should be more aware of and couple with Hitler and Stalin).  Friedman's radical free-market capitalism was put into place in Pinochet's reign, was the ground for Reagan and Thatcher's gutting of help for the poor but not the rich, and part of the thinking behind the invasion of Iraq.  In case, this sounds conspiratorial and nutty, read Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine and David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism.  Rand's economic vision has been tested again and again and what has been shown is that a true free-market capitalism only exists under dictatorship, and usually one that employs torture.

I think you're overstating Ayn Rand's influence.

I'm a philosophy student at the University of Copenhagen and can say that while Ayn Rand is studied as the main popularizer of ethical egoism, there are many much more popular philosophers who make similar practical political recommendations for example Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek.

Rand is pretty obscure outside the United States so it is not very likely that Pinochet and Thatcher took their cues from her. Hell, I'm not sure even Milton Friedman was anywhere as influenced by Rand as by Hayek, going by the biographies and interviews I've read Hayek pops up as an inspiration much more than Rand does.

first off, if you've read Rand's philosophy in any sort of depth you'll see that its rife with internal contradictions, let alone fallacies of logic. not much of a fan of her writing either, though ive read all 2000 pages of atlas shrugged.

People on this forum are so misinformed about Rand's ideology.

You should have never posted this thread; you'll mainly get sh*t responses. Most people around here take any chance they get to bash it; I've since stopped even mentioning it.

Just gimme Mike Angelo's SEVENteenth chapter, any day!
I'm sorry but this popular (?) thinker's theories just don't make any sense.

"Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival."

This is simply untrue.

We perceive most of reality through our (limited) senses.
We try to make sense of it by using reason.
Perception and reason (or logic) are two different things.
Furthermore, we are not only guided by reason but also by our instincts and emotions.

"The pursuit of [man's] own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."

This is a contradiction in terms. Moralism is concerned with the way human beings interact. How could your own SELF-interest ever be "the highest moral purpose of your life"? And even if Ayn Rand were not contradicting herself, what gives her the authority to pontificate on our highest moral purpose?


"Most pop music has no lyrical message or musical depth to be rationally enjoyed."

This is plain silly. ANY old lyric can be studied, analysed or, erm, "rationally enjoyed", from 'Singin' in the Rain' and 'Billy Jean' to 'The Revealing Science of God'. This doesn't mean, of course. that all lyrics are equally beautiful, but they all are a form of human communication and therefore, to some extent, rational.

Finally, I'm a classic rock/prog/jazz/and classical music nut, and I'm aware that Mozart's operas (to give just one example) are technically more sophisticated than any rock opera you can think of. I also happen to think they're great fun and deeply moving. But who's to say that they've got more "musical depth" than Abba's greatest hits?

First of all, what does "musical depth" actually mean? And secondly, it's well known that Abba's melodies, vocal harmonies, lyrics and instrumental arrangements are sophisticated. They certainly were good enough for the Swedish mezzo Anne Sofie von Otter, who devoted an entire album to them - and not to any other rock band! Von Otter made her name singing Mozart, Handel, Gluck, Richard Strauss, Schumann, Grieg and many other greats. She wouldn't touch Abba with a bargepole if there were nothing in it.

In other words: what may seem shallow to you, will be more than deep enough for plenty of other people.


Edited by fuxi - November 06 2009 at 09:32