Progressive Music as Objective Music

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.

MovingPictures07 wrote: People on this forum are so misinformed about Rand's ideology.

Henry Plainview wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: People on this forum are so misinformed about Rand's ideology. So is point number three true or not? Because a lot of people have said yes, but a lot of people say no and dilute the statement to "People have to look out for themselves", which has no meaning because everybody believes that.

Point number three is correct, yes.

A person simply has to understand the difference between being rightfully selfish and being "selfish" in a completely irrational and selfless sort of way. This dichotomy is presented perfectly in The Fountainead, where I'd say Roark is the Randian example of the former and Peter Keating the example of the latter.

Additionally, there's a difference between what is advocated in point number three and going out of your way to screw someone else, which is not advocated by implication.


Edited by MovingPictures07 - November 06 2009 at 13:45

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

questionsneverknown wrote: 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. Yes, I concede--I was overstating the case.  Nozick and Hayek were clearly much more directly influential on Friedman than Rand.  My point wasn't meant to be so much about direct influence, though; merely that Friedman's model of radical free marketism is the most concrete model in practice we have of Rand's economic ideals.  Poorly stated (and implied) on my part.   I think you are right about placing Rand in a line of thinkers of ethical egoism, a type of thinking which has found adherents in nineteenth-century anarchists and twentieth-century libertarians and beyond.  Rand's model is just, for me, not consistent or persuasive (and yes I have read her works).

That's fine by me, frankly. If you've read her works and find even absolutely nothing of any value whatsoever in them, I don't care. That's the wonders of everyone being different, unique individuals; you get differences in perspectives.

I also echo that Rand's influence was not in the right historic era nor popularized enough in Europe or many places outside of the U.S. to have that magnanimous of an impact. I'd agree that Thatcher and others probably were not directly influenced by Rand.

Alberto Muñoz wrote: 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

I never said anything about "Alberto Munoz" in there, did I? I never said you were closed-minded; I said "if you are closed-minded, then...". Additionally, it would be closed-minded of you to not even listen to the opposition argument but proclaim that it doesn't make any sense.

I find it hilariously ironic that you will not read any responses to your post and then call me intolerant.

MovingPictures07 wrote: 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.

fuxi wrote: 1. Moving Pictures, you react to rational criticism (of Rand's ideas etc.) in a highly emotional manner. .

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

Going back to the start with Progressive Attic to show some of the downfalls of objective thinking:

1. Reason is an objective absolute? Sorry, no. Facts are not facts... they are probabilities. Hypothetical situation: You grow seven identical sunflowers in seven identical boxes in identical sunlight. After they grow, you record how they grow, the speed of growth and various facts about the plants.

Here's the clincher: You still can't say you know for a fact how a sunflower grows.

You could do the exact same test a billion times and you still couldn't give any solid facts about the growth of the sunflowers. What you can give is probabilities, and that's all you can give. Law of Gravity? Probability. Thermodynamics? Probability. There is no such thing as facts, because to prove a fact would require an infinite number of identical tests, and I don't have that amount of sunflower seeds on me at this time.

2. 'Reason is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge...' Close, but not quite. Actually, perception is man's only means of perceiving reality. As proven above, reason is an empty idea. Man has no reason, save the reason he creates himself.

You talk as if reason was some universal force, sweeping across humanity to help rational people make good choices. That's the biggest load of bullocks I've ever heard.

3. Yeah, I got nothing. This is basically true on a biological scale, where self-preservation is only overpowered by the need to reproduce. However, sociologically, self preservation and happiness is not a higher purpose than anything else: there is no higher purpose, no reason for us to do one thing instead of the other.

Stick that in your objective pipe and smoke it.

4. Capitalism will never be the ideal political-economic system. I don't know what is, but laissez-faire or not, it's not the big C.

Unfortunately, now that we've started the capital rocking bull, it's not ever gonna stop. It's like someone who is immortal, but still gets older. It just keeps getting worse and worse, but you know it's never gonna die.

Why does everyone, even proggers, think that pretensiousness or elitism is a bad thing? It's no better or worse than being simplistic and base. It's just different. Christ, this pisses me off.

Honestly, you probably are really well-read and have excellent thinking, but this just sounds like me when I first read Alan Moore... just some guy who thinks the universe has opened up to them. Then again, i did to a very similar thread.

rdtprog wrote: Progressive music is "super subjective".

Precisely.

Proletariat wrote: Also i feel that it would be pop rather than prog that would dominate in your "perfect" capitalist world

Yeah. It would rely on tried and true methods, and that's not prog (no, not even prog-by-numbers bands)

Slartibartfast wrote:   Noam Chomsky or Orwell anyone?

Doesn't Chomsky hate subjectivity? He always came across as a real right-winger... maybe I'm just taking this off him getting angry at post-modernists.

The point about pop having less value objectively than prog... yes this is true completely. It is less.... everything!

rdtprog wrote: Everyone fall into the same trap of putting subjectivism over objectivism.

That's because it is over objectivism.

rdtprog wrote: Something that brings everyone together despite everyone taste and opinions.

No. That is called a 'super-cultural artifact' in post-modernism. It's something that pervades all cultural groups because it is an intregal part of their cultural construct. Everyone may love Stairway to Heaven or Bohemian Rahpsody, but all that shows is that they are pervading cultural boundaries(I could explain how but it would take me a long time), not that they are 'universally loved'. Ask if you really want this explained more.


In an objective world, we could think of ourselves as looking for 'heightened music' much in the vein of philosophers trying to define poetry (what is poetry? we can only say 'heightened language') than we can say that mainstream music is less heightened - musically, emotionally, mentally. It would then be easy to prove this to everyone, and we could overcome the pathetic attempt at music that we call 'The Top 40' and all would be good in the world.
Oh and the classic Genesis lineup would announce this kickass tour and then afterwards go into the studios and record seven albums simultaneously and destroy cities with their magnitude.

Sadly, we do not live in an objectivist world. If there's one point teenage pop-lovers have taken away from post-modernism (and they repeat it until you want to goddamn kill them) it's 'Well, that's just your opinion!'

And they're right. It is just my subjective opinion. We are all socially constructed by our environment, so how can we say our choices are subjectively better than anyone elses? We can't, not in a subjective world where there is no truth, no facts. Musical depth? Can't prove anything. All music, whether it's a 200-strong orchestral suite or a thirteen-year old stumming on an acoustic, all the figures in the world couldn't say one is better than the other.

So here's a new tact to take. If someone says to you (and they will) 'All music is equal, man!' Say back to them, 'You can say all music is equal, but then you have to say not all music is given equal chance.' Because prog isn't, and this is the only holding card we've got. Mainstream shies away from music with too much complexity or depth, and we must demand that this music is given equal publicity with all the cheap, cookie-cutter music.

P.S. Moving Pictures07 - Rage, man. Rage all you want. But it doesn't mean that Rand's philosophy is any less objective and therefore LOGICALLY and PHILOSOPHICALLY wrong. You brought it upon yourself with 'sh*t responses'. Yet again someone carried away in their own 'mystic snake oil'.

I can't prove subjectivity to anyone. But that's the whole goddamn point.