Mike11

Not entirely. There is the definition of "Objectivism" being used, the way in which the ARI LULZ factory keeps the drama threads growing and worthy to partake in, as well as Libertarian overlap.

\

Do you think that Jackie's work did not represent human potential and achievement? It's pretty clear from this passage that Rand doesn't. The contrast is deliberate. I think Mike's right. I think Rand should have approached it like he says. I would be a lot friendlier to Rand if she meant it that way.

Stares of Death. Toohey put them there. The nurse? I disagree and Daniel to some extent does as well, with the context Rand so clearly attempted to paint around the genderless freak with the stare of death in the house of Hell built by Satan but the fact that you don't see it... or wait, you do.... 1) Please show me the suffering in the Verses pertaining to Jackie's drawing of the dog. 2) If it is not to be celebrated than what is the appropriate emotional response? 3) Why do you feel Rand had her one dimensional moral monster build the care center? The reason why we cry "Contempt" is likely the reason you will answer the way you will.

Yes, Roark is an odd fellow. He seems to have few typical human personality characteristics. Yet Rand referred to Roark as the only truly human character in the book. This is a key point you touch on here Mike. Unravelling it leads in several directions. For example, it helps at least improve Peikoff's mystical non-explanation in OPAR of why some individuals make the critical choice to use their minds rationally (Peikoff:"There is no such 'why'"). We can of course see why Peikoff might fudge the issue so - for the genetic explanation for rationality does indeed tilt the philosophy towards eugenics. Despite Rand's explicit disavowal of racism, we do see this rather crude eugenic flavour coming through in her work as you've noted - rational people are good looking, irrationalists ugly, irrational American Indians deserved what they got, handicapped children are contemptible etc. It's yet another of those tangled threads in her thought. This was about one of my favorite books. Sigh. Okay, good points. There are legit holes about the causation of the fundamental choice of "focusing the mind" but I always thought it had more to do with a God of the Gaps dodge of determinism than this issue, though I see the relationship you draw. The ironic thing is that in the story of the handicapped children I find the ultimate vindication of what I see as the ideals of her art, though she seems to disagree. I don't have the book on hand but, quoted from the blog - Even though she is put there by Toohey through the destruction of the temple, even though mentally she is the lowest of the low we have the creative nature of the will. Even in such a decrepid vessel there is the power of human growth, the opposition between the Temple and its replacement is artificial. Maybe. I dunno.

WSe never see any crises in the mind of Howard Roark. No crises, Ever. Peter Keating however is described as being someone who could not be first handed, and never could be. That is what I meant be genetic, that is also what Rand did in her Journals. Notice the physical flaws described in her heroes and the good looks of her villains.

Actually, it goes a bit deeper than that - right into the most unpleasant aspects of Rand's (admittedly confused) ethics. You need to consider the symbolism Rand employs in designing the Stoddard Temple's fate, and the options she had available. Do you think the aesthetic choice she made was only about individualism vs collectivism? I don't think anyone can deny Rand's Nietzschean Nazilike cold blooded opinion of genetic greatness that pervades her way of thinking but on the other hand I think she used the enshrinement of mediocrity as a theme in the book. Good point though.

The Fountainhead is one of my favorite books and one I often come back to, however something has always bugged me about it thematically. The fundamental conflict between Roark and Toohey was best seen in the Stoddard Temple, its theme being Human potential, its enemy an ascetic delusional old man yet the ending conflict was about ..... public housing decorations? The theme of the novel was summed up by the Temple perfectly, its enemies summed up the theme perfectly. The apartment building's theme was .... um .... something about welfare? The enemy was Peter Keating's enemies? The great crime was having a building you never admitted to designing being altered? The penalty for the crime was arson? Arson that was found legal? What?? Would the novel had been better if it had been based around the Temple and its fate? PS - I get the conflict about the apartment building, and why Roark did it, and what Rand was trying to prove.

Sigh. I have a greater chance of being struck by lightning than being killed by Muslime "Sleeper Agents", being knocked back to the stone age by "Viros", learning NewSpeak from a "Liberal Fascist" or getting blown up by Tim Robbins on a bombing spree. Maybe it was an Objectivist mad at our Altruist attempts to enshrine Mysticism and Evasion through a Kantian conspiracy around the world?

Wrong. I am correct on the physics. You can also look it up. Ba'al Chatzaf What can you say, he's a selective reductionist. Might be usefull for him psychologically when it comes to ethics.

Well put.

I read his blog entries, here. At least the Revisionists knew they did not hold the moral high ground, this guy is incredibly myopic.

Well then. Ahem. Um.

Free and open trade is not "mucking about". They refer to 2 different things. "treaties, alliances, trade agreements and commercial enterprises of this great nation" are not "mucking about" and is not want Ron Paul is speaking of. Here's a good example of "mucking about": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naima...we_b_86035.html Now the typical Objectivist reaction to this is gonna be wrong, but I've addressed that elsewhere in this forum. Shayne Where?

The central problem I have with Objectivism is not so much I disagree with it but, even after reading most of the big Oist books, I still have no idea what its about. The word games that go on are incredible. This thread is a symptom of that problem. I tried rereading "Fact and Value" 2 nights ago. Wow, just Wow. 10$ to anyone who can tell me what the heck Lenny was talking about.

I'd say that, to be "guided by nothing but one's emotions" just means lack of foresight, lack of tactical thinking. In the end, everything in our "interest" as I understand it is to maximize our happiness/pleasure, and taking the logical steps to get there. So, I don't think it's far off.. just that hedonism is associated with blind pursuit, with impulse, when it isn't necessarily so. From my reading of Rand she would often identify "whim" as something random, shiftless, or inherently wrong. The only definition I read from her though was simply any impulse whose cause is not consciously known which is something different entirely. If you want to get an idea of Objectivist ethics you need to understand the idea of "Man Qua Man". I'm not going to comment on it though as it seems fairly specious. Eventually this question will have to go there.

I largely agree. When I look at the problem of fanaticism by trying to step inside a belief, let's say Islamic Suicide Bombing, then I'm tempted to simply see it as a philosophical thing, a product of the chain of Islamic thought. When I think sociologically though it is more clear that it is about alienation than "Philosophy". This review of Firefly you may like as it talks about the philosophy of a fanatic as well. I have to say, that after 5 attempted replies to this, I'm no longer able to rationally respond to this kind of right thinkingness. Crimestop is a useful cognitive skill for too many Objectivists.

Read it a few times actually. :-)

He did not date it, but it was signed October 6, 2007 at TAS’s 50th Anniversary Celebration of Atlas Shrugged in Washington DC. (I just now wrote that in my copy so I won't have to look it up in the future if I ever need to.) Michael I should have given more of the context there I guess. He was referring to the ARI/TOC split, just spelled David's name wrong.

No offense, but I give Michael E. Marotta 3 posts, 4 tops before being banned for the religious reference in his signature on OO.net and the `sanction` it implies.

Speaking of these guys, MSK is featured, he has his own thread - http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=10305 Looks like one of the Roids just posted to - "Now I know why I shouldn't add Objectivistliving to my bookmarks, but, originally, what caused the split between Kelly and Peikoff? I never heard of this man until after the separation and only in the context of the split. Was is just due to his inability to learn, or unwillingness to understand?" Love these guys. Has no idea what the split was about but assures us of his ideological conformity nonetheless. Typical post in that regard.

Thanks for the pointer. I went over there and registered. It looks sort of amateurish, not a lot of thought, mostly chatty people, but I did not spend a lot of time digging, either. Mike M. Its a hive of "Yes Men", fanaticism and "I'm more of a cultist than you" contests. "Philosophical Detection" runs rampant, even in the most trivial issues. Actual conversation in the OO.net chat: Me: Just be yourself Kane. Kane: I hate how I'm so nervous around girls, I'll ask her out tonight though. Me: Just Roark her then. Kane: You think I should? Me: ... Me: You think someone could actually say "Roark her" with a straight face? Kane: Yes, I do believe the proper romantic relationship, found beautifully in the relationship between Howard and Dominique, is one I would be proud to conform to. Why do you spread your Rand hating vitriol? The posters only go downhill from there. I read it for the laughs every week or so now.

I need to write this. Its done in one shot so again, sorry for the scatter braininess. From what I recall it was Winter 2003, myself and 2 close friends went pot hunting through the streets of Sydney, Nova Scoita. We would have scored it around 8, lit up around 10 behind the library to avoid the cops. The high would have begun 15 minutes later. That's when I knew something was wrong. Like a piano chord in my mind being pulled at both ends. I panicked. I asked for more. We walked through the streets of Sydney and I knew this was going to be a trip I did not want to remember. I asked for more. I went back home, slept through the night and woke up. Just the typical morning after, nothing to worry about. Some disorientation maybe, and I was tired. My parents were watching the news. Maybe it was something about Islam, maybe evolution in schools. My mind was forming its line of arguments, different wheels turning different tricks; metaphysics, ethics, history, all the wheels turning, sending the information to some central point, some locus in my mind. And it wasn't catching. Something occurred to me over the days that passed. There is some part of the mind that deals with memory, tracking arguments over the long haul, seeing the big picture - the metaphors the emotions the images that at one point were the stuff of my mind were no longer possible. Rat poison in the pot? Some idiot Caper's idea of a joke? What the hell happened that night? How did I let it happen? Its been 5 years. I look around and the world that had depth now looks like its paper thin. Books that entered into my mind and created images and inspired thoughts are now far, far reduced. Things are a blur, its even gotten hard to make out the shrubs on the highway. Even the perception of my own body has changed, it too feels thinner, harder to know somehow. Memory. Chess games whose beginnings I can not reconstruct even only 10 moves in. Movies beginning's whose symbolism was so important is lost to mind by the end. Like living at 4 am. I destroyed the only thing I valued in myself. I want anyone who reads this to take this as a warning.

Mike11, I read a long time ago that no man is without value. At the very least, he is a good example of what not to be. I think your breakthrough entails starting to learn when to accept a person as an example of what not to be and when to engage his intelligence on a subject (if there is any). Michael Actually I think Ba'al cured me of a debilitating illness. The troll in me is dead, gone, buried. Like Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction I think I'll just walk the interwebs and stop doing other people's dirty laundry.

You aren't worth replying to. Wow, I just had a breakthrough, the troll in me is dying out.