Grinder

Members
  • Posts

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Grinder

Profile Information

  • Location
    Eastern US

Grinder's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. I think Jolie will do fine, assuming she ultimately does get the role. However, I was more than a tad startled to find out that the favorite book of the man picked as director/adapter of Atlas Shrugged, the movie, is errm, Mere Christianity, by CS Lewis. If I'm going to worry about anything, I think I'll settle on that.
  2. If you start then, that would leave out somebody like Isabel Paterson, though, wouldn't it? Maybe she belongs, maybe she doesn't, (I'll leave that to wiser heads than mine) but I'm a bit surprised nobody else even seems to think her worthy of consideration for inclusion. Patrick
  3. n00b questions for the community: (1) What was that babbling Penelope was doing about "integration?" At this point I must admit I'm unclear on the concept as presented in O'ism...but it didn't seem to have much to do with anything related to the specific claims and counterclaims from where I'm sitting. Or did it? It just seemed to be so straight out of cloud-cuckoo land that I'm now wondering if I'm the one missing something (2) Was what Victor Pross quoted re: Integration plagiarism in your eyes or not? He didn't source it when he posted it, and when called on it just said he didn't claim it as his own. The feeling I get is that others would have been crucified had they pulled something like that, but as a good member of the SOLO P wolf pack he gets a free pass. Is that really how that place works? (3) Has anyone yet even attempted a point by point refutation of the original post? The author's motives are impugned, he's called names, and all sorts of weird unverifiable nonsense is dumped into the thread. Yet nobody seems willing to bow their necks and take the charges on point by point. I grant that posturing like you're a WWF wrestler may have a certain amusement factor, but on that thread its starting to get really, really old. Or am I missing something here, too? Patrick
  4. Silly question: In the brief "About the Author" biography of Barbara Branden for Who is Ayn Rand? it says she is (or was, at this point) planning a career as a novelist. I'm 99.999% sure nothing ever came of this, but when I saw that I was curious about how close she actually came to publishing. Okay, perhaps its more nosy than silly...but if she ever did write a novel I'd buy it. 8-[
  5. SF/Horror - Jacob's Ladder Comedy - The Princess Bride Drama - Ironweed Western - For a Few Dollars More Shoot 'em Up - Heat Movie I'm embarassed to admit I like (but still do) - The Omega Man (Not sure if "shoot 'em up" qualifies as a category, but I had to find a way to get my favorite movie that has "no plot to get in the way of the action," to quote Joe Bob Briggs, onto the list. )
  6. Thanks for the clarification, though I'm still a bit confused whether what you're calling "slant" by Peikoff equals intent or sloppiness, though it sounds like you're saying you think it was more in the way of sloppiness. The sad part is, I admit that I don't really know my stuff. Most of my reading to this point has been surveys of philosophy, rather than original sources, and my lack of background in something like formal logic is just about complete as well. I guess I can get by in most message board discussions, but the lack of real understanding on my part of, well, a whole lot of things is just too depressing for me to spend much time pondering. Just warning you in advance that I can and do come out with some bone-headed things from time to time. And Nick, I'm no fan of The Ominous Parallels, though I must admit I would need to re-read it before I make any direct criticisms. In a general way I just wasn't convinced of his main point that a "mixed" economy will move inevitably to a "statist" one. (Note that I'm not saying it couldn't happen that way, simply that I don't think he proved his point.) Doubtless that would be rank heresy on an discussion board with an ARI orientation, but hopefully the gang here will allow me to slide on that point. Especially as I am not prepared to argue it at the moment, though I'd certainly read with interest anything anyone else has to say on it, pro or con.
  7. Nick, do you have some direct quotes from Sartre you could put up that would contradict Peikoff? I think your central thesis that Peikoff has garbled the thought of Existentialism as a school and Sartre in particular as a philosopher would be much stronger for it. You also seem to be skating around saying directly whether or not you think this garbling by Peikoff is intentional. Do you have any thoughts on that? Beyond that: This is really Plato repeaing via Socrates an inscription at Delphi, correct? Do you mean Singer's short story the Spinoza of Market Street, or maybe that Freddy Krueger spent time reading Spinoza? 8-[ If this is what you think, you should probably make this a whole separate thread, with examples, where Objectivism faile Ayn Rand, or vice versa, perhaps. Simply because you're fighting against one form totalitarianism is no guarantee that you stand for freedom, or that you don't support another kind of totalitarianism. Besides, my understanding is that his total contribution to the resistance consisted of newspaper columns in a banned publication. Certainly he was no collaborationist with the Nazis, but it is hardly the sort of thing I would describe as having "fought" against them.
  8. Wow, I know that that's dishonest, but somehow it seems more bizarre than anything else. What's next? Perhaps they'll establish an account named "Ayn Rand" and claim they're channeling her from the Great Beyond? (Oops, I hope I'm not giving them any ideas. :-# )
  9. Would this passage from "Objectivism and Psychology" by Nathaniel Branden in Who is Ayn Rand? also qualify as "scripture?" I'm afraid the passage stuck out with me largely because I'd been nodding my head reading along with most of the rest of the article. Perhaps he was simply expressing the prejudices of the time? Though to class homosexuals with "murderers and psychotics" seems a little harsh, even by the standards of 1962, doesn't it?
  10. I'm currently doing some reading on Objectivism, and am hoping I can pester the more knowledgeable here with questions as they occur to me. And as to "more knowledgeable" I can't imagine that that wouldn't include just about, oh, 100% of the posters here. 8) I have very little in the way of a technical background in philosophy, just a few courses in my undergraduate days. I've read all of Rand's novels and several of her other works. What I have NOT done is come up with any sort of a systematic approach to her work, and that is what I am fumbling around with at the moment. The weakness of being an auto-didact I suppose. In any event, I joined a few weeks ago, and have lurked off and on since that time. In general I like the atmosphere here, though I am curious why so much of people's time and energy is spent discussing the chicanery going on on other forums and blogs. It doesn't seem like a very productive use of your time from where I'm sitting, though perhaps if somebody could give me a "Reader's Digest" of the history here maybe this would start making a bit more sense. In any event, I can certainly skip over those threads, since they're usually marked as such. Other than that, this seems like a great place with great people. As to the rest of it, I'm a CPA living in CT, age 42 with a nine month old little boy. For the moment I'd rather not share my real name or picture. Patrick