I've read Shrugged 3x.

[syrakusos]

... not to brag or to augment his authority on the subject of AS's quality, but to asserts its value by directly crediting it with his success.

Thanks! Reading this thread I had to go back and make sure that I did not post in tongues or something.

[Rich Engle]

I built an entire Phil Shrine here when he got all Old Testament Angry God on us and departed (well, lurked, more likely).

And that is the hell of it with Phil--he brings out the best of you when you are thinking the worst things. Or maybe I got that backwards. Or both (which is even more proof of his raw power).

Phil has, at the very least, achieved a basic level on forums (oh, wait, I mean "lists") in that he has morphed from person to personality.

And that is where all the trouble and fun starts.

Still, we have to give him that, and, in so doing, accept the guilty pleasure that is writing about (or, preferably, like buying a good steak) in response to Phil Himself<--bad grammar if you analyze it.

I think part of it is that more than one of us sense the unrealized Phil Potential (let us call it for purposes of brevity Philtential<tm> or something along that line). He has these shining moments of glory. Oh, they might come but, say, 3 times per year (I have never set a Vegas Line but I think this fair). But when they do, you suddenly get sucked up into the Hoping. But then, he is back, and it feels like Miss Grundy is back.

Our finest attacks (and there have been many, done by Great Warriors) have not repelled him, nor even changed That Which Is Phil. Many traps have been set.

All this being said, there are only a few conclusions available. One is that we are all masochists. The other is that we are so base as to toy with him. As to the latter, there is criteria to support this. For one, he really never quits, and his last Exodus proved it. If you trace his posts back (post-Exodus), you will see that he was spare, but wasted little time getting back Into The Mode.

Questions, brothers. Many questions. Even atheists might give pause to consider the bleak truth that after all of this is looked at, he is here, and we still comment upon His Presence.

And I must say this: Phil is not, repeat NOT a troll. I have run across many trolls, and have never met one that could swing a hammer like Our Phil.

rde

There are no more words now.

[Kimmler]

I read it once and that was enough. It was sillier than the Fountainhead and not as good. Though the first 100 pages were ok-ish but then it became obvious what was going on. I still am confused as to how the looters, incompetent to a man, managed to get into power in the first place and as for the Winston Tunnel scene...sheesh that had me lobbing the book at the wall. Though objectivists might enjoy that part of the book the best. I wonder how many of you here would be allowed into Galt's Gulch?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Do you folks know that there's a poker game called "Kill Phil"?

Google it. There really is...

Michael

[PDS]

Do you folks know that there's a poker game called "Kill Phil"?

Google it. There really is...

Michael

MSK: "Kill Phil" is actually a poker strategy, as opposed to a game, and it basically is this: your best bet, when up against one of the famous poker "Phils", is to simply go All In. The name comes from the idea that many of the top poker pros are named Phil, and they are hard to beat with conventional means/techniques.

Now, I ask you the obvious: how ironic is that?

[Philip Coates]

We Love Ya Phil . . .

. . . You Ignorant Slut

[Brant Gaede]

I read it once and that was enough. It was sillier than the Fountainhead and not as good. Though the first 100 pages were ok-ish but then it became obvious what was going on. I still am confused as to how the looters, incompetent to a man, managed to get into power in the first place and as for the Winston Tunnel scene...sheesh that had me lobbing the book at the wall. Though objectivists might enjoy that part of the book the best. I wonder how many of you here would be allowed into Galt's Gulch?

Too much for you.

--Brant

[Kimmler]

I read it once and that was enough. It was sillier than the Fountainhead and not as good. Though the first 100 pages were ok-ish but then it became obvious what was going on. I still am confused as to how the looters, incompetent to a man, managed to get into power in the first place and as for the Winston Tunnel scene...sheesh that had me lobbing the book at the wall. Though objectivists might enjoy that part of the book the best. I wonder how many of you here would be allowed into Galt's Gulch?

Too much for you.

--Brant

That doesn't make me a bad person.

[Brant Gaede]

I read it once and that was enough. It was sillier than the Fountainhead and not as good. Though the first 100 pages were ok-ish but then it became obvious what was going on. I still am confused as to how the looters, incompetent to a man, managed to get into power in the first place and as for the Winston Tunnel scene...sheesh that had me lobbing the book at the wall. Though objectivists might enjoy that part of the book the best. I wonder how many of you here would be allowed into Galt's Gulch?

Too much for you.

--Brant

That doesn't make me a bad person.

Don't worry; I'm sure there is compensation for that in you.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

We Love Ya Phil . . .

. . . You Ignorant Slut

Phil,

There's a stock character in Hollywood movies called the hooker with a heart of gold.

(Man are the inner connections on metaphors are firing all over the place in my head! )

Michael

[syrakusos]

I concur. And my bet is that Phil is far more likable than he lets on.

Makes you want to get him in a head lock and give him a dutch rub.

Philip Coates, on 30 December 2010 - 12:29 AM, said:

We Love Ya Phil . . . . . . You Ignorant Slut

The original reference

not the first instance, but perhaps the best.

Back in the 70s, 60 Minutes used to have a "Point/Counterpoint" with conservative James J. Kilpatrick and liberal Shayna Alexander. Saturday Night Live spun that off with Dan Aykroyd and Jane Curtain. Jane would reasonably deliver an opinion everyone in the audience agreed with and Dan would open with "Jane, you ignorant slut!" My wife worked with some clericals who shared a computer network and one of them figured out how to set her process name to "Iggy." When asked why, she explained, to which one of the girls replied, "I am not ignorant."

Edited December 30, 2010 by Michael E. Marotta

[syrakusos]

... and that makes the reader miss some important points.

Which important points did you miss?

[Jerry Biggers]

Often heard complaints about Rand is that her novels (particularly) Atlas Shrugged) are too long, too many characters, too many sub-plots, too "preachy," etc. Usually, I dismiss those critics who, after enumerating all her literary faults, proceed to demonstrate their ignorance (or their real intentions) by misrepresenting or caricaturing what her ideas were.

Branden has a classic commentary on this (which I never tire of repeating):

It is hard to say which is the more eloquent proof of its signal relevance to the crucial issues of our age: the widespread admiration and enthusiasm it has inspired – or the hysteria of the attacks unleashed against it. The nature of those attacks is an instructive index of the current intellectual condition of our culture.

Rand’s antagonists have unfailingly elected to pay her what is, perhaps, the greatest tribute one can offer to a thinker whom one opposes: they have all felt obliged to misrepresent her ideas in order to attack them.

No one has dared publicly to name the essential ideas of Atlas Shrugged and to attempt to refute them. No one has been willing to declare: “Ayn Rand holds that man must choose his own values and actions exclusively by reason, that man has the right to exist for his own sake, that no one has the right to seek values from others by physical force – and I consider such ideas wrong, evil, and socially dangerous.”

Rand’s opponents have found it preferable to debate with strawmen, to equate her philosophy with that of Spencer or Nietzsche or Spinoza or Hobbes and thus expose themselves to the charge of philosophic illiteracy – rather than identify and publicly argue against that for which Rand actually stands.

Were they discussing the ideas of an author whose work was not known to the general public, their motive would appear obvious. But it is a rather grotesque spectacle to witness men seemingly going through the motions of concealing from the public the ideas of an author whose readers number in the millions.

When one considers the careful precision with which Rand defines her terms and presents her ideas, and the painstaking manner in which each concept is concretized and illustrated – one will search in vain for a non-psychiatric explanation of the way in which her philosophy has been reported by antagonists. Allegedly describing her concept of rational self-interest, they report that Ayn Rand extols disregard for the rights of others, brutality, rapacity, doing whatever one feels like doing and general animal self-indulgence. This, evidently, is the only meaning they are able to give to the concept of self-interest. One can only conclude that this is how they conceive their own self-interest, which they altruistically and self-sacrificially renounce. Such a viewpoint tells one a great deal about the man who holds it – but nothing about the philosophy of Rand.(from "The Literary Method of Ayn Rand" (first published in Who Is Ayn Rand? in 1962, and later in the collection edited by William Thomas, The Literary Art of Ayn Rand in 2005

But I digress. If Rand had only published collections of her non-fiction essays, her influence would most likely be considerably less than it currently is. One need only examine the relatively low book sales (and citations in the media referring to them) of other advocates of individualism/libertarianism who refrained from demonstrating their ideas in fictional form.

For example, what if Rand had decided to present her ideas only in academia and had obtained a post as a philosphy professor at some university? Assuming that she would have been able to get her ideas published in professional journals (or more widely circulated "journals of opinion") at all, it is quite likely that any resultant Objectivist movement would have been much smaller, with much less influence. At least, in the popular culture.

Conversely, if she had stuck to being only a novelist, her influence would likely have also been much smaller than it is now (although it probably would have exceeded an academic-only Rand). Despite the many criticisms that have been made of her using the novel to present philosophical ideas, "we" (Randians, of whatever stripe) would not be anywhere as numerous as "we" are now.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Jerry Biggers

[Selene]

Often heard complaints about Rand is that her novels (particularly) Atlas Shrugged) are too long, too many characters, too many sub-plots, too "preachy," etc. Usually, I dismiss those critics who, after enumerating all her literary faults, proceed to demonstrate their ignorance (or their real intentions) by misrepresenting or caricaturing what her ideas were.

Branden has a classic commentary on this (which I never tire of repeating):

But I digress. If Rand had only published collections of her non-fiction essays, her influence would most likely be considerably less than it currently is. One need only examine the relatively low book sales (and citations in the media referring to them) of other advocates of individualism/libertarianism who refrained from demonstrating their ideas in fictional form.

For example, what if Rand had decided to present her ideas only in academia and had obtained a post as a philosphy professor at some university? Assuming that she would have been able to get her ideas published in professional journals (or more widely circulated "journals of opinion") at all, it is quite likely that any resultant Objectivist movement would have been much smaller, with much less influence. At least, in the popular culture.

Conversely, if she had stuck to being only a novelist, her influence would likely have also been much smaller than it is now (although it probably would have exceeded an academic-only Rand. Despite the many criticisms that have been made of her using the novel to present philosophical ideas, "we" would not be anywhere as numerous as "we" are now.

Jerry:

You are quite correct.

Her novels were the point of the spear. My critique of the movement which I voiced in the '60's is still valid today. The aversion to politics hurt the spread of Ayn's ideas precisely because it created a paucity of objective proofs that the ideas work in the real world.

It is a correctable issue. I just hope it is not too late to deflect the juggernaut of this centralizing state that is metastasizing before our eyes.

Adam

[pippi]

The aversion to politics hurt the spread of Ayn's ideas precisely because it created a paucity of objective proofs that the ideas work in the real world.

It is a correctable issue. I just hope it is not too late to deflect the juggernaut of this centralizing state that is metastasizing before our eyes.

Adam

wow I am sorry i missed this-i completely agree - so what next-I cant see it being correctable...

this is why I (i) waiver so much with Oism-it doesnt give a workable model of how to sincerely proceed in day to day life-it is grand to look at but hard to implement

Edited January 7, 2011 by pippi

[anthony]

this is why I (i) waiver so much with Oism-it doesnt give a workable model of how to sincerely proceed in day to day life-it is grand to look at but hard to implement

pippi,

I'm with you there. I mean sometimes I think I'm signed on to Objectivist Theorizing, rather than Objectivist Living.

I love the theory, and taking and giving of it as much as my own intellect limits me (which, btw, is one marvellous aspect about O'ism - hierarchically, you can make it as simple or as complex as you choose), BUT I require two things from my philosophy.

1. To satisfy my own craving for truth and reality;

2. To have a system to live by.

There are many great minds here, so academically I have no complaint. However, where is the nitty-gritty, the day-to-day...the APPLICATION of Objectivism to personal life?

(One theory I have is that O'ists are super-cautious about exhibiting any prescriptive tendencies for fear of that stupid ogre - the cultist label.)

I'm a bit skeptical regarding its chances, but why not start a thread, "Day to day Objectivism", or the like? Let's hear those anecdotes about minor and major decisions, setbacks, and triumphs, where O'ist methodology has been implemented in our 'ordinary' lives.

Go for it!

Tony

[pippi]

this is why I (i) waiver so much with Oism-it doesnt give a workable model of how to sincerely proceed in day to day life-it is grand to look at but hard to implement

pippi,

I'm with you there. I mean sometimes I think I'm signed on to Objectivist Theorizing, rather than Objectivist Living.

I love the theory, and taking and giving of it as much as my own intellect limits me (which, btw, is one marvellous aspect about O'ism - hierarchically, you can make it as simple or as complex as you choose), BUT I require two things from my philosophy.

1. To satisfy my own craving for truth and reality;

2. To have a system to live by.

There are many great minds here, so academically I have no complaint. However, where is the nitty-gritty, the day-to-day...the APPLICATION of Objectivism to personal life?

(One theory I have is that O'ists are super-cautious about exhibiting any prescriptive tendencies for fear of that stupid ogre - the cultist label.)

I'm a bit skeptical regarding its chances, but why not start a thread, "Day to day Objectivism", or the like? Let's hear those anecdotes about minor and major decisions, setbacks, and triumphs, where O'ist methodology has been implemented in our 'ordinary' lives.

Go for it!

Tony

That sounds exactly like what I was looking for when I came here! i.e. how can I use objectivism in my work when I basically have to lie to the customers when they call? (i understand i am providing a service to my employer but it sure is a sloppy lousy service)

If someone else doesnt start a thread like that I sure will. Thanks so much Tony for putting in words what I have been wanting to say.

Edited January 7, 2011 by pippi

[Xray]

Ayn could easily have said the same thing in 1/4 as many pages. It REALLY drags, and that makes the reader miss some important points. Her non-fiction, by contrast,is much, much better, some of the very best writing ever put on paper or screen.

Imo Rand's non-fiction is worse than her fiction. I've always had the impression that she had devoted more attention to carefully plotting her novels than she devoted to her non-fiction, which contains inconsistencies and contradictions.

Imo without Rand's novels, a work like e. g. ITOE would never have gotten off the ground.

It REALLY drags, and that makes the reader miss some important points.

It is impossible to miss the important points in Rand novels. They are even over-present.

Subject: Bragging

> I sold a lot of writing

...[have] gotten..literary awards

...my summa cum laude.

....[i have a] master's...A grades.

..I really have my facts and values integrated. I do superior work... [Michael M]

I realize this list has gone downhill in terms of relevance and focus of material, but I wish it would attract fewer posts that try to impress us, in which the writer tries to smuggle in references to how accomplished or what a big shot he or she is.

Don't be so harsh in your judgement, Phil. Keep in mind that "pride" is among the Objectivist virtues, therefore MEM is perfcectly in sync with the Objejcivist philosophy in being proud of his accomplishments.

My own take on pride is a bit different. I consider it more as a psychological drive which is hardwired in us humans. I'm dealing with this all the time in my job as a teacher: "Look, Mrs. G., what I can do!"

I like it when people have a positive self-image (which does include pride of what one has accomcplished), and constantly encourage my pupils to dig into their own potential.

So when MEM conveys to us that he feels good about his acomplishments, why would this upset you in any way?

Edited January 7, 2011 by Xray

[sjw]

That sounds exactly like what I was looking for when I came here! i.e. how can I use objectivism in my work when I basically have to lie to the customers when they call? (i understand i am providing a service to my employer but it sure is a sloppy lousy service)

If someone else doesnt start a thread like that I sure will. Thanks so much Tony for putting in words what I have been wanting to say.

No one can apply good philosophy for you, but they can suggest things like maybe you should consider a new job, or learning a new skill, etc. for you to evaluate in the context of your own life. Most of your learning has to be done on your own, silently reading and thinking.

Shayne

[anthony]

That sounds exactly like what I was looking for when I came here! i.e. how can I use objectivism in my work when I basically have to lie to the customers when they call? (i understand i am providing a service to my employer but it sure is a sloppy lousy service)

If someone else doesnt start a thread like that I sure will. Thanks so much Tony for putting in words what I have been wanting to say.

No one can apply good philosophy for you, but they can suggest things like maybe you should consider a new job, or learning a new skill, etc. for you to evaluate in the context of your own life. Most of your learning has to be done on your own, silently reading and thinking.

Shayne

Shayne,

Beyond debate; each of us (I imagine) retires to his or her own place to lick wounds, think, and grow. That won't change.

As one who remained silent for a good part of his life, and when began to open up, found I was out of step with most people around me - just a little 'fellowship' of similar-minded people has gone a long way.

This is not so much about advice and suggestions that I have in mind, it entails opening up, overcoming natural reticence, and relating those small encounters that we experience each day - what we think (and feel) and do, about them.

As a guy called G.Wharton explained: "Judge, and be judged, does not require that we condemn, and be condemned, or sanction and be sanctioned. Rather, it requires that we know, and be known."

A pretty good O'ist battle-cry.

Tony