Pages: 1 2

 

2009-01-03 19:54:02
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6822|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Defensive? Eh wot? Perhaps I was a bit blunt...I think you mistake me though?

what you think > what everyone else thinks^nth

It seems very simple, but it is seen so rarely in application it's downright saddening.
I'm not following you here...  explain.
Firstly I'm not going to say that this is not necessarily objectivism, because so far I respect Ayn Rand's opinions enough to separate mine from hers. I will say that my independent views seem to largely coincide with hers, and that this is what I get from her work.

What you believe is infinitely more important than what anyone else believes. As stated in the excerpt in the OP there is often a corruption of this idea very quickly, and people are squashed into groupthink. The individual as defined by a conscious with a unique identity, not just a bag of mostly water, is of great value.
But since groupthink is inevitable (and frankly, necessary for societal cohesion), doesn't it make sense to believe less in the worth of your own ideas and more in the value of coming up with a suitable compromise?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


True power doesn't come from a piece of paper. I'm not really sure how else to say that, it seems obvious to me. Formal authority may follow power, but you aren't powerful because you are given formal authority. I think that's one of the good things about the system the U.S. has set up, because it emphasizes this fact. I also think the worst aspect of it is the part in direct contradiction to this fact, the part where power follows informal authority, and this is what is currently biting us in the ass.

It's a parasitic relationship, the best taking advantage of everyone else.
Define "best."  It's only parasitic when the "best" are too shortsighted to see that the interests of the common man are the same as their own.
It's exactly parasitic when the interests of the common and the uncommon man align. When they don't the uncommon has little to do with the common at all. When they have matching goals the uncommon takes advantage of anyone and everyone he can to make things as he sees them.
Well, the connotations of what you're saying seem to contradict the notion of common interest.  While it is true that the uncommon (or ruling elite as I like to call them) take advantage of others with their power, when they truly "take advantage" of them, they typically steer away from the common interest.  It's when they act truly in the interests of the common man that taking advantage of others is not so much parasitic as it is symbiotic.
2009-01-03 20:03:36
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7123|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

But since groupthink is inevitable (and frankly, necessary for societal cohesion), doesn't it make sense to believe less in the worth of your own ideas and more in the value of coming up with a suitable compromise?
I thoroughly disagree. I'll quote something I recently wrote to a special someone in a private message.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You only compromise when you can't get what you want outright.

Turquoise wrote:

Well, the connotations of what you're saying seem to contradict the notion of common interest.  While it is true that the uncommon (or ruling elite as I like to call them) take advantage of others with their power, when they truly "take advantage" of them, they typically steer away from the common interest.  It's when they act truly in the interests of the common man that taking advantage of others is not so much parasitic as it is symbiotic.
No two people are the same. No two people have the same lives, the same ideas, the same interests.

I would hesitate to call anything done out of utter selfishness symbiotic.
2009-01-03 21:23:12
rdx-fx
...
+955|7008

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

For Ayn (pronounced like pine), read The Fountainhead up until the author turns Roark into a rapist, and no further.
He's not a rapist.
"He did it as an act of scorn. Not as love, but as defilement." - The Fountainhead, Part 2 (Toohey), chapter 2.
Generally, forcing sex on a woman to convince her she wants you is..  not the best approach to take.
(The usual approach is quite reversed.  Convince her, THEN sexytime -- otherwise really real women get more than a little pissy/irritable/homicidal.)
Doesn't even work in other fiction novels. Only works in that one novel.
If he had misjudged her, and she had NOT been ready to "understand him" afterwards - what would she have called it?


Flaming_Maniac wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

understand the ideas, don't follow the institution

...

"A man has an idea. The idea attracts others, like-minded. The idea expands. The idea becomes an institution. The idea has become the institution, boys. Time to move on."
If the point of the idea is to not follow the institution, then how can that uncorrupted ideal become the institution? If you truly understand the ideas then you know that you shouldn't follow the ideas.
The key point is for a person to understand the ideas.  On their own.  With no 'gatekeeprs' to spoon-feed them predigested conclusions.
The danger is that people will hijack the ideas, and subsume them into service towards an institution.
You can get all kinds of people mindlessly chanting nearly any empty pablum you want, regardless of what those words were intended to mean, regardless of how steep a cliff you're marching them off of.
Ask Hitler, ask Osama, ask Stalin, ...

Too often, an institution forgets the ideas it started from - and simply becomes a self-perpetuating beast in service to nothing more than it's own existence.  This is the usual case, not the exception.

" If you truly understand the ideas then you know that you shouldn't follow the ideas institution" would make sense.  Typo?

Great men have Ideas - mediocre men run institutions - idiots get confused as to which category they fall into.

Last edited by rdx-fx (2009-01-03 21:48:53)

2009-01-03 22:03:39
The#1Spot
Member
+105|6956|byah
Read the first sentence and it has already bored me.
2009-01-03 22:37:14
rdx-fx
...
+955|7008

The#1Spot wrote:

Read the first sentence and it has already bored me.
You got through "Howard Roark laughed." and got bored?

Wow.

I'll admit, the second sentence is a little rough, with "He stood naked at the edge of a cliff".

Give it a little time, and you might like it.
Sex, violence, explosions, legal drama, torrid affairs,..  and an interesting mix of combinations thereof
2009-01-03 22:56:21
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|7101|United States of America
I just want to say this is one of the better topics I've seen in recent months. It's a mostly civil comparison of ideas, which is increasingly rare. I wish I could participate, too, but I understand little to jack about this subject (and Wikipedia isn't making it any clearer).
2009-01-03 23:55:24
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7123|67.222.138.85

rdx-fx wrote:

"He did it as an act of scorn. Not as love, but as defilement." - The Fountainhead, Part 2 (Toohey), chapter 2.
Generally, forcing sex on a woman to convince her she wants you is..  not the best approach to take.
(The usual approach is quite reversed.  Convince her, THEN sexytime -- otherwise really real women get more than a little pissy/irritable/homicidal.)
Doesn't even work in other fiction novels. Only works in that one novel.
If he had misjudged her, and she had NOT been ready to "understand him" afterwards - what would she have called it?
Why, I think you have mistaken Howard Roark for a human.

Roark is the personification of everything man should be, but is not. No one could ever achieve the perfection that is Roark, and in the same way no one could have done what he did to Dominique. He does exactly what both of them want. He intuitively knows exactly what her motivations are. He cannot make a mistake, because it's impossible to make a mistake when you know all the cards. Your hand, everyone else's hand, and the order of every card left in the deck.

rdx-fx wrote:

The key point is for a person to understand the ideas.  On their own.  With no 'gatekeeprs' to spoon-feed them predigested conclusions.
The danger is that people will hijack the ideas, and subsume them into service towards an institution.
You can get all kinds of people mindlessly chanting nearly any empty pablum you want, regardless of what those words were intended to mean, regardless of how steep a cliff you're marching them off of.
Ask Hitler, ask Osama, ask Stalin, ...

Too often, an institution forgets the ideas it started from - and simply becomes a self-perpetuating beast in service to nothing more than it's own existence.  This is the usual case, not the exception.
“Don’t worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you’ll have to ram them down people’s throats.” - Howard Aiken

Maybe we aren't talking about stealing ideas, but you aren't going to have too much problem with people jumping all over the bandwagon if you're starting something truly great.

Common people are going to do whatever they want, for whatever reason they want. If they can pervert some great author's work to give them justification, great. If they can work up a perfectly good rationalization on their own, awesome. It doesn't really make a difference who people point to to justify their actions, they will do them anyways. The results of a corrupted ideal should not be the measure of the pure form.

rdx-fx wrote:

" If you truly understand the ideas then you know that you shouldn't follow the ideas institution" would make sense.  Typo?
Not a typo. If you believe it, you shouldn't believe it. If the idea is to only trust yourself, you can't trust other people to tell you to trust yourself. If you didn't start out believing it then I doubt you can bend your mind against the current by the time you get to read those ideas to really believe it. If you don't already believe it it's too late, so it's nothing more than an affirmation. Not very useful necessarily, but there is no way an uncorrupted version of that idea could become the institution.

Time for the rest of that intro:

Ayn Rand wrote:

blah blah Nietzche sucks but out of context this quote rocks "blah blah blah  - The noble soul has reverence for itself."

This view of man has rarely been expressed in human history. Today, it is virtually non-existent. Yet this is the view with which...<rest of OP quote>

..seek a noble vision of man's nature and of life's potential.

There are very few guideposts to find. The Fountainhead is one of them.

This is one of the cardinal reasons of The Fountainhead's lasting appeal; it is a confirmation of the spirit of youth, proclaiming man's glory, showing how much is possible.

It does not matter that only a few in each generation will grasp and achieve that full reality of man's proper stature- and that the rest will betray it. It is those few that move the world and give life its meaning-and it is those few that I have always sought to address. The rest are no concern of mine; it is not me or The Fountainhead that they will betray: it is their own souls.
It is a confirmation, not a declaration. If you look at it as new knowledge or as an alternate point of view, it's not really for you. You can read it an enjoy it sure, learn from it even. Still, it wasn't really meant to be read that way.

Again, not to be presumptuous, that is just my view and what I believe her views were.

rdx-fx wrote:

Great men have Ideas - mediocre men run institutions - idiots get confused as to which category they fall into.
Brilliant men run institutions that foster ideas towards their own ends. There is no reason to avoid using institutions as a tool, just make sure you recognize who is using and who is being used.

Oh, and I just got past the rape scene, like, last night. I would appreciate a lack of spoilers.
2009-01-04 00:30:32
rdx-fx
...
+955|7008

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Brilliant men run institutions that foster ideas towards their own ends. There is no reason to avoid using institutions as a tool, just make sure you recognize who is using and who is being used.

Oh, and I just got past the rape scene, like, last night. I would appreciate a lack of spoilers.
The former is well addressed in the rest of the book, in the character of Gail Wynand.

The latter is easy enough.


The Fountainhead is well worth reading closely.
15-20 years ago, I'd read it enough times to actually wear out at least one copy of that book.

Considering that I have more than a few books that are over 100 years old, and take fairly good care of my book collection - I think that says something regarding just how much time I'd spent reading that particular book.
(Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm expected at the library in 26 minutes...  /kidding.)
2009-01-04 01:23:12
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|7081|NT, like Mick Dundee

Sounds like a decent collection RDX, any chance you could recommend some of the more common ones to read?
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2009-01-04 02:15:24
rdx-fx
...
+955|7008

Flecco wrote:

Sounds like a decent collection RDX, any chance you could recommend some of the more common ones to read?
That are complimentary to The Fountainhead?

Dostoevsky - Crime and Punishment, The Brothers Karamazov, The Idiot
Albert Camus - The Stranger, The Plague, The Rebel
James Joyce - Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, Dubliners
Joseph Heller - Catch 22
Ivan Turgenev - Fathers & Sons, First Love
William Gibson - Count Zero, Burning Chrome, Neuromancer
Neal Stephenson - Snow Crash, The Diamond Age
Frank Herbert - Dune
George Orwell - Animal Farm, 1984

All of them have a youthful perspective.
Nihilism, youthful exuberant idealism, existential angst, and plenty of misunderstood youth taking on the big bad world -- and winning sometimes.

oh. and plenty of dark, gritty worlds for the heroes to point out the irony, banality, and sheer stupidity of.

In particular,
Dostoevsky - Crime and Punishment, Camus - The Stranger, Joyce - Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, and Turgenev - Fathers & Sons,
are thematically closely related to The Fountainhead.
Different perspectives and answers to similar questions

Last edited by rdx-fx (2009-01-04 02:22:31)

2009-01-04 10:30:57
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6822|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

But since groupthink is inevitable (and frankly, necessary for societal cohesion), doesn't it make sense to believe less in the worth of your own ideas and more in the value of coming up with a suitable compromise?
I thoroughly disagree. I'll quote something I recently wrote to a special someone in a private message.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You only compromise when you can't get what you want outright.
Of course, but a lot of the time, this is the case.  Sure, we always strive for what we want, but in the end, compromise is more commonly implemented.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, the connotations of what you're saying seem to contradict the notion of common interest.  While it is true that the uncommon (or ruling elite as I like to call them) take advantage of others with their power, when they truly "take advantage" of them, they typically steer away from the common interest.  It's when they act truly in the interests of the common man that taking advantage of others is not so much parasitic as it is symbiotic.
No two people are the same. No two people have the same lives, the same ideas, the same interests.

I would hesitate to call anything done out of utter selfishness symbiotic.
I suppose the question I have then is...  If it's all parasitic, then how do you bother with teamwork without feeling disgusted by the experience?  I mean, if you view it all as parasitic, then that must really dim your view of humanity in general.  As a cynic, I can relate, but even I'm not THAT cynical.
2009-01-04 11:33:33
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7123|67.222.138.85

rdx-fx wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Brilliant men run institutions that foster ideas towards their own ends. There is no reason to avoid using institutions as a tool, just make sure you recognize who is using and who is being used.

Oh, and I just got past the rape scene, like, last night. I would appreciate a lack of spoilers.
The former is well addressed in the rest of the book, in the character of Gail Wynand.
Not a big surprise.

Unless for some godawful reason Wynand turns out to be some kind of hero or a Cameron, I think a distinction has to be made between the social skills of Roark and the social skills of Roark if he was anything but an architect. Architecture is a profession where you can work all by yourself, you only need to attract a few big-ish clients a year, and since you're the only one who knows how the hell to put a up a building you have a lot of freedom with the client. Those aspects make it perfect for the book. If Roark had a similar personality but had a different line of work, he would have most likely had to develop social skills in an anti-social sort of way. He might be as indifferent to them as ever, but he still would need to manipulate them to get what he wanted. An institution with a strong leader is little more than a scaling-up of that idea.

What do you think of her writing style? I am interested considering you have studied it so much.

Of the books you named, I have to say I've only read Crime and Punishment (and that only as a school assignment) with Dune lined up. Isn't C+P exactly the opposite of The Fountainhead though? Pessimism in place of optimism, where the only middle ground is the question "is the glass half empty or half full" itself?

Turquoise wrote:

Of course, but a lot of the time, this is the case.  Sure, we always strive for what we want, but in the end, compromise is more commonly implemented.
Not to Roark.

For the rest of us...to some degree. You should be smart enough to realize the situation at hand, and how to get the most of what you want. For example I would like this room to be filled with a million dollars in the next 5 minutes, but that's just not going to happen. Sometimes you will run into people or situations where you just aren't going to get precisely what you want from them, but your goal should seamlessly become finding the most ideal situation that is realistic and go for it. Compromise usually implies that both parties get about equal shares of what they want however, and if you are splitting the difference with an inferior person (damn don't take that the wrong way, and inb4hitler) you have lost.

Just for the hell of it I looked up compromise on wiki, and this was really funny:

Wikipedia wrote:

Cultural background and influences, the meaning and perception of the word "compromise" may be different: In the UK, Ireland and Commonwealth countries the word "compromise" has a positive meaning (as a consent, an agreement where both parties win something); in the USA it may rather have negative connotations (as both parties lose something).

Turquoise wrote:

I suppose the question I have then is...  If it's all parasitic, then how do you bother with teamwork without feeling disgusted by the experience?  I mean, if you view it all as parasitic, then that must really dim your view of humanity in general.  As a cynic, I can relate, but even I'm not THAT cynical.
I'm disgusted more by the once-able people who submit themselves so readily and so blindly to manipulation far more than the manipulators themselves...

"a foggy, groping, undefined sense made of raw pain and incommunicable happiness. It is a sense of enormous expectation"

That is the only real redeeming aspect to life. Screwing with people is fun, molding your situation is enjoyable, hobbies are engaging, but at the end of the day it's all absurdly shallow. Without the expectation that people can do better than this...it's not worth it.
2009-01-04 11:40:15
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6887
I'm going to be honest, I disagree with Rdx's recommendations for Joyce and Orwell on the grounds of "nihilism, "exuberance" and "misunderstood youth". All great books on their own merit and all must-reads, but I don't really see where he's going with his train of thought there.

I read the passage a few times as well and I don't 'get' the beauty. Just read any half-rate philosophy text and it's crammed full of the same erudition.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2009-01-04 12:13:58
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7123|67.222.138.85

Uzique wrote:

I read the passage a few times as well and I don't 'get' the beauty. Just read any half-rate philosophy text and it's crammed full of the same erudition.
read the rest in #32.
2009-01-04 12:19:52
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6822|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Of course, but a lot of the time, this is the case.  Sure, we always strive for what we want, but in the end, compromise is more commonly implemented.
Not to Roark.

For the rest of us...to some degree. You should be smart enough to realize the situation at hand, and how to get the most of what you want. For example I would like this room to be filled with a million dollars in the next 5 minutes, but that's just not going to happen. Sometimes you will run into people or situations where you just aren't going to get precisely what you want from them, but your goal should seamlessly become finding the most ideal situation that is realistic and go for it. Compromise usually implies that both parties get about equal shares of what they want however, and if you are splitting the difference with an inferior person (damn don't take that the wrong way, and inb4hitler) you have lost.

Just for the hell of it I looked up compromise on wiki, and this was really funny:

Wikipedia wrote:

Cultural background and influences, the meaning and perception of the word "compromise" may be different: In the UK, Ireland and Commonwealth countries the word "compromise" has a positive meaning (as a consent, an agreement where both parties win something); in the USA it may rather have negative connotations (as both parties lose something).
Well, in cases where "superiority" is in dispute, the criteria that should be used is logic.  Whatever logically results in a better outcome for the majority of a society should be favored over any exceptionally selfish pursuits being made by a small interest group.

Compromise is not always a matter of evenly split favoritism.  It all depends on the situation.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I suppose the question I have then is...  If it's all parasitic, then how do you bother with teamwork without feeling disgusted by the experience?  I mean, if you view it all as parasitic, then that must really dim your view of humanity in general.  As a cynic, I can relate, but even I'm not THAT cynical.
I'm disgusted more by the once-able people who submit themselves so readily and so blindly to manipulation far more than the manipulators themselves...

"a foggy, groping, undefined sense made of raw pain and incommunicable happiness. It is a sense of enormous expectation"

That is the only real redeeming aspect to life. Screwing with people is fun, molding your situation is enjoyable, hobbies are engaging, but at the end of the day it's all absurdly shallow. Without the expectation that people can do better than this...it's not worth it.
I agree to an extent.  However, one's expectations should be realistic.
2009-01-04 12:47:20
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7123|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Well, in cases where "superiority" is in dispute, the criteria that should be used is logic.  Whatever logically results in a better outcome for the majority of a society should be favored over any exceptionally selfish pursuits being made by a small interest group.

Compromise is not always a matter of evenly split favoritism.  It all depends on the situation.
Who is talking about theories with no application now? Who the hell is going to champion "the better outcome for the majority of a society"?

Turquoise wrote:

I agree to an extent.  However, one's expectations should be realistic.
It's kinda the whole point that the expectations should be grand. Whether they are realistic is a question of individual competence.
2009-01-04 13:00:09
rdx-fx
...
+955|7008

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

What do you think of her writing style? I am interested considering you have studied it so much.
Ayn Rand definitely has a very unique writing style.  Distinct and takes a little getting used to, but overall easy enough to read.
Once you get used to her style, it's consistent and doesn't distract from the narrative.

.. except for her use of the word "Bromide", which quickly becomes it's own distracting "bromide". She could've just used the words "Banal" or "Cliche".

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Isn't C+P exactly the opposite of The Fountainhead though? Pessimism in place of optimism, where the only middle ground is the question "is the glass half empty or half full" itself?
To me, The Fountainhead just feels like a good 19th century Russian book (Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Turgenev, etc).  The characterization, the pacing, the plot development.

Like the author is directing his characters with "You!  You're Nietzschean philosophy as understood by a 20-something!...  You! You're Machiavellian old man!.. and you! You're classical Aristotle!..  Mix! Mingle! Interact!"

In other words, the characters are the personification of particular philosophical perspectives.

The Fountainhead is the upside of the Nietzschean 'overman' -  Crime and Punishment is the downside.  Both have much more to them than that, but that's their common point of reference.

Uzique wrote:

I read the passage a few times as well and I don't 'get' the beauty. Just read any half-rate philosophy text and it's crammed full of the same erudition.
Exactly.

Which is easier to read;  A novel with particular philosophies personified by the characters, put into conflicts and situations to test the limits of those philosophies -- or a philosophy textbook?

Most people wouldn't bother to waste the time to "what if" real life scenarios while reading a philosophy textbook.  The authors I listed did so, and made some heavy issues more accessible to their readers.

Contrasted against each other, the books I listed were intended to inspire and provoke.
Read one of them, and the author might sell you on their particular perspective.
Read two of them, and the conflicting perspectives & opinions make you decide for yourself.

Like The Fountainhead versus Crime and Punishment with Nietzsche as referee, in a 'Ubermensch versus Proletariat' cage match

Like Ayn Rand versus George Orwell, in a discussion of Political systems.
(Roark:Classical Democracy, Dominique:Classical Republic, Wynand:Dictatorship, Keating:Monarchy, Toohey:Soviet Communism)

...

Now, 'easy' Joyce versus Rand...
is more of a contrast between 'heady ideals & larger than life heroes' of Rand
and the 'youth coming of age & observations of the human condition' of Joyce.
Much like the contrast between the overwrought hand-wringing intensity of Dostoevsky, versus the more measured 'life as it comes at you' Turgenev
(Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man and Dubliners being the easy to read, accessible James Joyce. 
Not to be confused with, say, Ulysses..  thar be deep blue waters an' beware of dog an' here be dragons an' Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter)

Last edited by rdx-fx (2009-01-04 13:04:07)

2009-01-04 14:05:47
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6822|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, in cases where "superiority" is in dispute, the criteria that should be used is logic.  Whatever logically results in a better outcome for the majority of a society should be favored over any exceptionally selfish pursuits being made by a small interest group.

Compromise is not always a matter of evenly split favoritism.  It all depends on the situation.
Who is talking about theories with no application now? Who the hell is going to champion "the better outcome for the majority of a society"?
Some people try to do that at least...  It's kind of the point of having a society...  a free society at least...

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I agree to an extent.  However, one's expectations should be realistic.
It's kinda the whole point that the expectations should be grand. Whether they are realistic is a question of individual competence.
Having a grand goal is good, but expectations should always be appropriately grounded and modest.
2009-01-04 17:30:22
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7123|67.222.138.85

rdx-fx wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

What do you think of her writing style? I am interested considering you have studied it so much.
Ayn Rand definitely has a very unique writing style.  Distinct and takes a little getting used to, but overall easy enough to read.
Once you get used to her style, it's consistent and doesn't distract from the narrative.
It seems awfully blunt to me, excessively so. Like she wrote it, then came back to it and added 10x the emphasis on everything. Not very subtle.

rdx-fx wrote:

To me, The Fountainhead just feels like a good 19th century Russian book (Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Turgenev, etc).  The characterization, the pacing, the plot development.
Like the author is directing his characters with "You!  You're Nietzschean philosophy as understood by a 20-something!...  You! You're Machiavellian old man!.. and you! You're classical Aristotle!..  Mix! Mingle! Interact!"
I agree, but I think starting at the same point and then running as fast as possible in opposite directions is still pretty different.

Turquoise wrote:

Some people try to do that at least...  It's kind of the point of having a society...  a free society at least...
I would pay good money to see a freak show of these people put on. Oh I do hope there are enough of them to get my dime's worth.

Turquoise wrote:

Having a grand goal is good, but expectations should always be appropriately grounded and modest.
I think you're kind of missing the point. If it's grounded and modest it's mundane.
2009-01-04 17:52:59
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6822|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Some people try to do that at least...  It's kind of the point of having a society...  a free society at least...
I would pay good money to see a freak show of these people put on. Oh I do hope there are enough of them to get my dime's worth.
Your sense of humor is interesting to say the least...

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Having a grand goal is good, but expectations should always be appropriately grounded and modest.
I think you're kind of missing the point. If it's grounded and modest it's mundane.
The mundane generally get more done than the grandiose.
2009-01-04 17:59:39
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7123|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

The mundane generally get more done than the grandiose.
They struggle in the muck a lot more, I will give you that. I don't know about "get more done".
2009-01-04 21:22:20
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6822|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

The mundane generally get more done than the grandiose.
They struggle in the muck a lot more, I will give you that. I don't know about "get more done".
Define muck...
2009-01-04 21:30:34
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7188|PNW

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Profanity is a level of corruption...
The only profanity I used in the OP is really blasphemy, which I don't think she would have had any problems with, and otherwise it only counts as profanity if you view it as profanity yourself.
It's a level of bitterness borne by your years that was at first not present. In a way, you display the same qualities rallied against by that very quote.

But then again, I couldn't stand a lot of literature classes, because more was made of the books than needed to be. There was always the ubiquitous question of 'what did author x mean in passage y of book z?' My answer was usually that 'a) he was drunk; b) he was penniless and needed money; c) couldn't we just read the book for itself rather than try to work an obscure political statement about the 60's into the 90's?' The genres I read and enjoyed frequently saw upturned professor noses and snide remarks about pulp.

And if someone drops Great Expectations in front of my face again, I'll snap.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2009-01-04 21:39:28)

2009-01-04 22:18:54
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7123|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

The mundane generally get more done than the grandiose.
They struggle in the muck a lot more, I will give you that. I don't know about "get more done".
Define muck...
Take a look around your room, open a window and stick your head outside, that's muck. Not to insult you personally, I would say the same to anyone on this forum, including myself.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Profanity is a level of corruption...
The only profanity I used in the OP is really blasphemy, which I don't think she would have had any problems with, and otherwise it only counts as profanity if you view it as profanity yourself.
It's a level of bitterness borne by your years that was at first not present. In a way, you display the same qualities rallied against by that very quote.
I don't know about you, but I didn't know how to speak English straight out of the womb. You could consider that in itself a level of social conformity.

If you are whoring out your words to do anything but communicate, you have problems. If you use words that are there for their own sake, or are specifically meant for nothing more than to garner a reaction, then you have been corrupted. That can apply to any words, profane ones, sophisticated ones, even simple ones.

I think the first two of your answers apply to Crime and Punishment, and I wholeheartedly share your opinion of GE.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard