Kimmler

That's right. Adam is not correct in his opinion that Rand's views on art were "hers and hers alone," or that there is "absolutely no connection with being a believer in her philosophy, as far as she developed the philosophy, and the kind of art, music and other aesthetic choices." Rand believed that she had established an objective aesthetics, and that her tastes, interpretations and judgments of art were objective. Her Esthetics is as much a part of Objectivism as her views on the other branches. If fact, her view of mankind begins with an aesthetic vision. In some respects Objectivism involves the aesthetic tail wagging the dog. "Man qua man," and all that. J But what if you enjoyed a work of art that was considered, by objectivist ethics, immoral? If you were an objectivist, would you feel guilt and/or unhappiness because of this?

Oh my dear, you are far too kind. But seriously, have you ever said to one of your fellow objectivists "you really shouldn't be reading or watching that"? Not once in 47 Objectivism years. --Brant Well that is good to know, but is there a reason for that? You realised that hey, that just would not work in the real world or you felt that an objectivist should be free to watch/read/listen to whatever they want?

We've been there done that. If you’re looking to have fun at the expense of cultists, you’ve come to the wrong place. BTW, I asked before, Kimmler=Himmler? Why is Steve Johnston trolling an Ayn Rand discussion group under the name Kimmler? I could explain Ninth Doctor to you pretty easily. We had another troll using the name “Herb Sewell”, which is the name of a fictional child molester. I’m sure he thought it was oh so clever, but he wore out his welcome fast. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himmler I can assure you I am not Himmler as he is dead…really dead. Even if I was him and faked my own death in 1945 I’d be a very old man by now. As for trolling under that name, well what name would you prefer I use. As for coming here to poke fun at the expense of Objectivists, I can assure you that is not my intention. You guys do a great job of that anyway…but seriously I have some friends who are objectivists and enjoy debating with them. I’m not one myself but felt I would be welcome here as this is a saner board than others I’ll had a look at. As for thinking myself clever…my friends I’ll leave that up for you to decide. I guess I’ve worn out my welcome with you and others here already but do enjoy reading, for all the right reasons, the response of some of the posters here. Particularly Selene. If you have been here and done that with Herb, then there is no need to do that with me.

Oh my dear, you are far too kind. But seriously, have you ever said to one of your fellow objectivists "you really shouldn't be reading or watching that"?

I understand from my reading of Romantic Manifesto that the type of art a man enjoys betrays his soul. As in Wikipedia entry on the Romantic Manifesto it states that “Rand asserts that one cannot create art without infusing a given work with one's own value judgments and personal philosophy… the audience of any particular work cannot help but come away with some sense of a philosophical message, colored by his or her own personal values, ingrained into their psyche by whatever degree of emotional impact the work holds for them.” I have read that book and do know that Rand gives some examples of books that she is dismissive of. Such as The Tin Drum, Dracula & Frankenstein. For works of art she does not like, read modern art and photography. Neither of which she considered art at all. For music she hated jazz. What I’m asking is…do other objectivists agree with her. What if you read and enjoyed say, Dracula? Are there any books, films etc that you are forbidden from watching and if you did watch/read/enjoy them would you be unable to call yourself an objectivist or receive finger-wagging from other card-carrying members?

Please accept my apalogies for my poor spelling and grammar. This link does a great job of debunking the theory of 'economic calculation' and how it means that socialism is impossible. http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/why_we_dont_need.php All that remains to be said is read it...very slowly if you wish.

I'd agree too, if it weren't such a load of rubbish. Indians feeling sorry for themselves? Go down to a reservation and say that to them face to face. I have friends in AIM[American Indian Movement] and they, like Malcom X believe that victim hood never works. It is a different type of slavery. That "pity me" was rejected by Malcom and it worked. Adam You're a fan of Malcom X? I am a Yankee "fan". I was one of the few white people who were allowed near Malcom X in Harlem in the 60's. This was when his message was black capitalism amongst his other messages. I respected him and thought it was a great loss when he was assassinated. My uncle did the investigation of his assassination, my uncle was, at that time, the first Latino to be appointed Inspector in NY Police Department history. This was in the Lindsay administration. Lindsay was a liberal Republican who we got elected as a fusion mayor. Good looking, but one of the dumbest and worst administrators in NY City history which is saying something! Adam Thank you for the reply Adam...you have certainly lived through interesting times.

Surely it should be Objectivism saved the Miners. Hello Kimmler, How did you come to be an Ayn Rand fan? (May I guess: disgust at seeing the once proudly independent people of GB reduced to a snidely self-satisfied collective sludge.) ? Tony Thank you for the question, believe me I'm no fan. If Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead aren't the worst books ever written, then the worst books never get written. Your guess is wide of the mark...by several miles. I must have missed seeing that happen, can you give me a timeline for the sludging?

Just tell anyone that asks this question that he/she is a 'looter' and you refuse to sanction their question. Steve: Out of curiosity, your objections to Ayn's philosophy are precisely what? Might you provide me with your top three (3) constructive criticisms? Thanks. Adam That it isn't a philosophy.

How about this one by me? Atlas Shrugged is the worst novel ever written, don't buy it. Go to the library instead, see if it's there and borrow something else.

From my reading of Atlas Shrugged my observations on the lifestyle of the prime movers are as follows: - They smoke a lot of cigarettes and don't take any exercise, apart from the occasional dance at a social function. They smoke even more cigarettes and eat nothing but foods that are rich in cholesterol. They smoke even more cigarettes and get roughly two hours sleep a night. They refuse to eat soya. Then smoke some more. Is this a healthy lifestlye or does it even correspond with reality?

Surely it should be Objectivism saved the Miners. What? Ba'al Chatzaf Sorry...I saw the head of the rescue on the TV last night and he was humble...telling us he is no hero, just a professional.

Surely it should be Objectivism saved the Miners.

I heard that the miners are poor...yet that is odd, as don't people that take risks under capitalism reap the rewards? Yet, even though they are paid a wage that none of us here would get out of bed for they still get paid too much. You don't believe me? Then why do those who run the mines try to resist the miners wage claims?

P.S. Because I have read it and I now entitled to "sling around the term ignorant"? Great. Now read Atlas Shrugged. P.S. If you have read it, read it again. And this time, don't speed. Read. First insults and now this! Really this is terribly infradig. As a lover of literature I'll skip re-reading Atlas Shrugged. I read it a few years ago and it was ridiculous, when it wasn't being boring. Why don't you read it again and this time don't speed.

Adam ...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions. —UN Convention Against Torture

Because it's never ever going to happen and the people that are planning it aren't really going to be part of it, even if it did happen, which it isn't.

As it says in the reply from the WSM "If FT does not wish to learn, the WSM can teach him nothing", the same applies to you Roger and yep I've read Von Mises and his economic calculation nonsense. The WSM debukned that critique in the 20's and 30's. NEXT! P.S. Because I have read it and I now entitled to "sling around the term ignorant"?

RIP - Norman You made us all laugh and Ayn Rand was a fan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Wisdom

I thought the main problem these days was the American military torturing and humiliating POW's into confessing. But, to interrupt Ted's points about torturing a terrorist to defuse the 'bomb', lets pause here. Scenarios like this are found in fiction...but never, ever in real life. So we can dispense with that scenario. If it is moral to use torture at all, how could you limit the government to only using this power in an emergency situation? Ted writes : "There is no need to legalize "torture" (and, to be careful with our language, the true issue is forcible interrogation, not the intentional infliction of pain for pain's sake) so long as rational men have consciences." So, provided you have been trained and passed various tests and show you are rational then you are free to torture! Just like they used to have in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and other totalitarian regimes. So, the question is, does torture work? Presumably objectivists will answer yes! Provided objectivists are doing the torture.

Just tell anyone that asks this question that he/she is a 'looter' and you refuse to sanction their question.

I doubt you'll find an actor to say the line "I swear by the love of my life..." with a straight face!

Which book(s) is/was better The Foundation trilogy or Atlas Shrugged?

heh - definitely a moonbeam site... Hey, the bit where you back up that dogmatic asserstion is missing, what came after the ellipsis?

"Casting would be difficult. Harrison Ford as Hank Rearden with Barbara Branden as Lillian Rearden seem like good casting. I still like Jodie Foster as the main character of the novel, Dagny Taggart." Well...presumably they were busy so they had to hire a cast of drama school rejects instead. But don't worry if the film is rubbish as has been said elsewhere, what % of great novels end up making great films and erm...times have changed so the great film this could have been could no longer be made because...erm...times have changed and they don't make 'em like they used to!