A Wonder of the World. Gone. To witness the obliteration of those glowing, lithe twins was a shock beyond comprehension. They were so playful; light danced on them as they stretched up towards the sky. They were so free; you could not say that they stood tall with pride because they were so unselfconscious of their beauty and height. They were so innocent; they believed in friendship, progress, creation, and joy. They were. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article(29 messages)
Excellent stance on Post-Modernism. I have but one quote for readers:
Because we cannot altogether attain perfection, do we therefore wholly cease from our learning? This bestial thought we do not accept- For evil and good lie before men, wherefore it behooves a rational man to choose the better. -Albrecht Durer, 1513
Perhaps the group that should be questioned is the society that readily embraced the anti-aesthetic art. Artists tend to react to the culture that they live in so you cannot blame the artists for your dislike of postmodernism it is merely a product of the world that we live in. Also the twin towers represented the banal duplication of the postmodern era rather that beauty or any other modernist ideal. They were functional rectangular towers practically identical. Which represented the power of our society to duplicate and mass produce. So the towers falling was actually an attack on postmodernism. The fact this occured at all is tragic end of story. Don't blame art for this.
Newberry, I agree. Good post modernism, in art, is the anti-artist. I witnessed post modernist music on the weekend. No, as bad as some of you may think punk rock is, it wasn't punk. The "set", at first, looked like two guys tuning their instruments. But, it got worse as it went along. Feed-back and a constant hum came from the speakers. It was truly horrible. It actually made me angry. This was explicit nihilism, not musicians attempting to expand the bounds of music. Here they were mocking the intentions of instruments and they had the gull to want the recognition of being serious musicians. Sadly, they got it from some. They deserved to be booed for wasting peoples time.
Yes, I agree that post-modernism is nihilistic. However, the pre-modernism of Islam is also nihilistic. They both share the same hatred. Itís not accidental that Stockhausen spontaneously blurted out his admiration for 9/11 as an act of art. They share the same soul.
While I have considered myself a libertarian all of my adult life and a devoted fan of many of Ayn Rand's writing I have always been reluctant to carry the Objectivist flag as I have detected a hint (if not a flowing torrent) of elitism in the Objectivist movement. The least of which is Ayn being the only one allowed to call herself and "Objectivist" whilst everyone else are merely "students of Objectivism." I was for many years a card carrying member of both the State and National Libertarian party, even having the honor of serving as State Chair for a term. I had always wondered how it could be that Objectivists and Libertarians were not allies in the causes of limited government, individual rights, free enterprise, and Constitutional original intent. It seems we are virtually identical in these key aspects, but then I remember that libertarians don't hold bow down to Ayn Rand as the inventor of Individualism. We recall that in spite of herself, she to is just another student of Individualism whose infant roots can be traced back to the likes of Plato, Aristotle, and the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius.
I don't mean to offend, maybe I just don't get it. Perhaps "True" Objectivism is a philosophical concept that eludes me. Maybe I'm to intellectually inferior to grasp the Grand Ideal in its Purest form. I just think that if I have to spend that much time trying to think exactly like Ayn Rand believed I should, isn't that just an intellectual form of altruism? In my rustic way of thinking, it reminds me of those bumper stickers that say "Celebrate Diversity!" Which if we are all celebrating diversity, isn't that Uniformity?
This would be a good forum for answering your questions since there are both Libertarians of different types and Objectivists that post here. I refer to my self as either Libertarian or Objectivist, as best suits the context. I consider most Libertarians to be allies of mine on the political level (as long as they are supporting a constitutionally limited government - not anarchy or one of the strange forms of libertarianism like Socialist Libertarian).
But, Ted is correct, you gain no respect when your avatar insults those you are addressing. ------------------------
Only a small, perhaps tiny portion of those who are Objectivists adhere to the idea that only Rand could call herself that and the others were doomed to be "students of Objectivism." I think that is a complete non-starter.
You say, "I don't mean to offend...." Well, it would be reasonable to suspect that you do mean to offend since you chose an avatar that is flipping the bird at those in front of their monitors, and because you make these statements about Objectivism, and about Rand, that are negative yet you say you are a devoted fan of her writings. It seems more likely that you are trolling for a negative reaction - based upon those two observations.
If you are not, then we'll see the avatar change to something that isn't insulting, and you will give thought to the these simple facts: Objectivism is a set of principles and a person understands them or doesn't, agrees with them or doesn't, and thinks independently or doesn't. Those who understand these principles and agrees with them and thinks independently would never believe that they must think just like someone else - including Rand, and would not look to others to determine what they will call themselves, and would never bow down to anyone else. But we will also hold her in much greater esteem than to call her "just another student."
Maybe in a different forum your avatar would be OK, but this place is more for friendly interaction. This is a place for people who agree with most of Objectivism and want to improve their lives with like minded, or are here to learn about it. Dissenting discussions are held in the Dissent forum.
I would agree that ARI has or once had tended towards elitism. Or say, they are a closed school of thought who cherishes and holds to heart every perfect (sarcasm) thing that Ayn Rand has said; think that there is nothing left to learn and no mistakes have been made; and all that disagree are lesser intellectual beings, no matter the reasoning behind the disagreement.
Where did you get this story that only Rand could be called an Objectivist? Perhaps it's a garbling of Nathaniel Branden's statement in The Objectivist Newsletter in 1965. He said that the term applies to professional intellectuals engaged in expanding and applying the theory, not just to people who buy into it; as of that time, he said, it applied only to Rand and himself (not to Rand alone, and I don't see why it excluded the other NBI lecturers even then), though this would in time cease to be true. Peikoff, the arch-dogmatist, cancelled the advice shortly after Rand's death in 1982. The less orthodox had abandoned it long before. You're beating dead horses.
The debate over whether or not Objectivists ought to ally with Libertarians has been going on for more than 40 years. A search of the printed and online literature will amply answer your question as to why some think this is a bad idea. I hope it won't be coming up again here.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]