Adrian

Members
  • Posts

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Adrian

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Adrian Fletcher

Adrian's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. This seems to me a very obvious suggestion. So much so that I'm a little embarrassed to put it forward. But then I see nobody else has done so yet. So maybe it's not as obvious as I'd thought. Kipling's If? http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_if.htm Best regards Adrian
  2. (Belatedly) this was Diogenes the Cynic of Sinope - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_of_Sinope .
  3. Cooper does indeed come across as rather markedly self-controlled and undemonstrative (except when he wants to be). But isn't that in keeping with Roark's character?
  4. Sorry - my original post was an enquiry about this revocation - I now see the matter has been explained elsewhere on OL.
  5. Hi Ed Thank you for your detailed discussion of the Perigo issue. Could I perhaps ask you to comment on another point? One contributor to this forum has reported having a potential session at the Summer Seminar turned down partly because he was not a "professional philosopher". Another (distinguished) contributor to OL has pointed out that, on conventional definitions, Rand wassn't a "professional philosopher" either. I for one would like to know more about TAS's thinking and policy on this issue. Best regards Adrian
  6. If you like Gary Cooper's movies, I'd recommend one called "The Fountainhead". It's an adaptation of a novel by some Russian woman. Best regards Adrian
  7. Brant, I think Britain and the US apply, though not knowing enough about how Britain codifies their judicial branch I couldn't say for certain. Jim Respectfully, as a Brit, I don't think we do qualify. Firstly, we are still technically a monarchy, and are individually "subjects" of the monarch, not "citizens" of anything. Secondly, despite intermittent debates, our "constitution" remains, as we like to say, largely "unwritten" (I believe a Frenchman said less kindly of the British Constitution "Elle n'existe pas".) It would be very hard for the courts to strike down any legislative act as unconstitutional. The closest they could get would be if it wasn't properly executed, or if it conflicted with certain European things like the Charter of Human Rights. I'm not expressing an opinion about whether any of this is a good thing, you understand - just saying that, if you're looking for a constitutional republic, I think you'd have a hard time counting Britain as one! Best regards Adrian
  8. Mike Thank you! If you choose to tell us in due course what you make of any of the suggested works, I for one will be interested to hear your thoughts. Best regards Adrian
  9. Hi Mike This is, you'll appreciate, a rather wide brief, a bit like asking if anyone knows any authors who have written about (say) music or philosophy or physics. Having said that, Robert Townsend's "Up The Organization" (written a while ago and recently re-issued) is an exceptionally fine book. See http://www.amazon.com/Up-Organization-Corp...7457&sr=8-1. Best regards Adrian
  10. Hi Chris A very late reply. Apologies. I think you can find the original recording (released for some reason by Brigham Young University) at http://www.screenarchives.com/title_detail.cfm?ID=4119. There's a later. more modern, re-recording of suites from this and other Steiner movie scores at http://www.amazon.com/Now-Voyager-Classic-...3030&sr=1-1. Hope that helps. Best regards Adrian
  11. Hi Seeker Thank you, that's kind of you. I'm very pleased that you found my post interesting. Chaplin's "Great Dictator" (moving off-topic a little) is a humorous treatment of a very unhumorous topic (the Nazis). I believe Chaplin later said that he couldn't have made it if he had really understood what was going on. Still. to my mind, the film is very sharp and really hits home. I'll be most interested to hear what you make of it. (We may need a new thread for that.) All good wishes Adrian
  12. This is indeed a good go at visualizing the speech and adding some modern references to it. It's interesting to compare it with the "trailer" that MSK posted some time ago - . Both seem to be the work of clever people working with available, limited, resources.One caveat about such exercises though. Galt's speech occurs towards the end of AS - perhaps 75-80% of the way in? Rand prefaced the speech with a whole lot of narrative and action which brought out and illustrated themes which the speech then summarises and brings together. Readers of this site are almost certainly familiar with that material. Perhaps we need to be a bit careful about unleashing the speech onto unprepared new readers who have not been through the earlier material. I guess it might then seem rather abstract and make less sense - a bit like playing the big tune from the finale of a symphony without going through the earlier movements first. A similar issue might arise with Roark's final courtroom speech in TF, also available on YouTube - - a pretty good performance if you ask me (some disagree), but will it make real sense to someone who doesn't know what went before?So perhaps the idea of a "trailer" - a teaser, a taster, something which may be intriguing if not fully comprehensible first time round - is a good one. Best regards Adrian
  13. Chris Thank you for this interesting question. I wonder what's prompted you to ask it. Is there anything in the General's behaviour or statements which suggests to you that he was or wasn't there, or that if he was he was or wasn't paying attention? Best regards Adrian
  14. Hi Wolf I thought you might be interested in this recent article by the conservative English philosopher Roger Scruton. It's about the need (in his view) to preserve and transmit some aspects of traditional culture, almost regardless of demand for them. I am not sure I wholly agree with him (I'm generally a bit sceptical about the idea of teaching people things they don't want to know, even if they're kids) but, as I say, I found it interesting. http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol...icle2072331.ece Best regards Adrian
  15. Hi Jeff May I play with this question a little? I do sort of see that there could be an issue here. One interpretation of the view that man is an end in himself might be that we could all make different choices, equally valid for each of us. Thus you might choose to be a captain of industry, and I might choose to be a contemplative hermit. Each of our choices would be our own and so equally valid. Our lives are our own. Another view (maybe connected with the objectivist virtue of "Productiveness", and the objectivist theory of aesthetics) might be that there are certain things that "objectively" (or in search of "man qua man") we all "ought" to be aiming at, and that individual choices not to aim at them would not be valid. (Does the contemplative and non-heroic and arguably non-productive hermit fit into the objectivist schema?) If we accept the requirement to earn one's own living and thus not to live on the efforts of others, is there then a further objectivist imperative to be (economically) "productive"? Or, if we each earn our own living, have we the right to do as we choose? This has puzzled me for some time. I'll be most grateful for thoughts. Best regards Adrian