Atlas Shrugged movie opens
 

On Apr 17, 7:31*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 4/17/11 19:09 , Gary Forbis wrote:





On Apr 17, 4:30 pm, "D. Peter *wrote:
On 4/17/11 13:54 , Gary Forbis wrote:

On Apr 17, 8:52 am, "D. Peter * *wrote:
On 4/17/11 09:29 , Gary Forbis wrote:

On Apr 17, 6:13 am, "D. Peter * * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 23:44 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 11:02 pm, "D. Peter * * * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 22:37 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 10:26 pm, "D. Peter * * * * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 20:08 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 8:03 pm, "D. Peter * * * * * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 15:43 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 2:02 pm, "D. Peter * * * * * * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 10:55 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 9:55 am, Gary * * * * * * * *wrote:
On Apr 16, 6:29 am, Barack Hates * * * * * * * *wrote:

Obama and his band of liberal fools will dismiss this like they do
anything thats true

You realize it is a work of fiction don't you?

* * * * *and its a poor one at that. written by a drugged up sex maniac, that
worshiped serial killers. then ended up living on the socialist dole:)
its easy to start a cult in america, any demagogue can do it, look at
limpballs and beck. america has a lot of people will malformed brains,
lacking the gray matter necessary in the part of the brain that can
understand complex situations. so they flock to cranks, hoping for
some direction in life.

* * * * * And there you have it. No substance, only adhoms.

* * * * * No impact, here.

* * * * i cannot help what shape your brain is in, its a retardation, it
might be environmental, or genes, its hard to say. but its been quite
well reported what rand was. its just to complex for you to
understand.

snicker, i have always felt this was the case:
A new study shows liberals have more gray matter in a part of the
brain related to understanding complexity, while the conservative
brain is bigger in the section linked to fear:How Your Brain May Be
Different Than a Conservative's

* * * * *Try making an actual case, instead of simply making a personal
insult.

* * * *i did, and your response proves all of my points. none of what i said
were insults, it was all facts.

* * * * LOL!

* * * giggling is a sign you know:)

* * * *Giggling is a sign that you've done nothing but levelled personal
insults, and defended that as a rational argument.

* * * *Knowing that you're as empty as your handle is quite amusing.

* * * *Carry on.

* * *i posted lots of empirical evidence what rand was.

* * * All of it personal insults. What you do not do, is debate the
content, nor the ideas.

* * * You simply insult the person.

* * * The USENet equivalent of "So's your old man." You either have no
position of substance, or you're not willing to engage one for fear
of defeat in the arena of ideas.

In the case of Rand one has to debate philosophy becuase there
is no substance.

* * *Of course. Why am I not surprised. Deny the substance of the
argument, default to personal insult.

* * * Because there was no argument. Only a dismissal based on personalities.

* * * You've yet to address the substance of the work. You've only
dismissed the author.

What substance? *It's a work of fiction. *Tell me what substance you
see so we can discuss it.

* The work of fiction was written to

reenforce
the author's beliefs. *The beliefs themselves come from her life
experiences.
I have introduced her life experiences to explain her beliefs.

* *Which you have dismissed based on her upbringing.

It frames her beliefs. I haven't dismiss her philosophy based
upon her upbringing. I had used it to understand why she believes
what is obviously flawed philosophy. We can discuss the philosophy.
I've even suggested you start with it rather than a work of fiction
that
is used to support that philosophy.

Her upbringing
doesn't negate her writings. Nor does it negate her beliefs, nor the
validity of them. *If it did, you could dismiss every writing by anyone
who'd transcended their upbringing. Or anyone who hadn't. Or anyone
who'd ever written anything of fiction.

Part of understanding a work of fiction is understanding the author.

* *And yet, we revere Huxley for his vision, based on a work of fiction,
Orwell for his vision based on a work of fiction. Or any of a number of
writers throughout history who transcended their upbringing. Or writers
of fiction. Including Plato. *And Obama for his vision based on the
transcendence of his upbringing.

A philosophy isn't true or false based upon who believes it, but who
believes a philosophy is based upon their life's history. If a
philosophy
is false then its support by way of a work of fiction needs to be
understood
based upon the author's life. If you want a better author then
consider
Robert Anson Heinlein. You can still have similar themes but it's not
so bad. Wikipedia make the following statement:

Birth and childhoodHeinlein (pronounced Hine-line)[4][5] was
born on July 7, 1907, to Rex Ivar Heinlein (an accountant) and
Bam Lyle Heinlein, in Butler, Missouri. His childhood was spent
in Kansas City, Missouri.[6] The outlook and values of this time
and place (in his own words, "The Bible Belt") had a definite
influence on his fiction, especially his later works, as
experiences
from his childhood were heavily drawn upon both for setting and
for
cultural atmosphere in Time Enough for Love and To Sail Beyond
the Sunset, among others. However, he would later break with many
of its values and mores—especially those concerning morality as it
applies to issues such as religion and sexuality—both in his
writing
and in his personal life.

In general people will focus their energies on unresolved issues
because
they don't need to spend it on resolved issues. (Adage, "Why is it I
always
find things in the last place I look?")

* *Your dismissals are selective, and capricious based on what you do
and do not agree with, which you then attempt to validate by character
assassination.

Not so. The truth isn't character assassination. Further, since
you've
not tried to explain any of the "substance" you find and support it
you
don't present anything else to discuss. I like to understand why
people
hold false beliefs and poor philosophy. In this case her life's
situation
readily explains it. It doesn't make her beliefs false or philosophy
bad.

* *Your argument has no substance. Your dismissal is opinion. And though
your entitled to your opinion, you're also entitled to your asshole.

OK.

Neither of which do you have the right to inflict on anyone with a sense
of entitlement, without supporting fact.

What? Do others have this right, for instance Ayn Rand? Or you?

Or you may, and will, be
dismissed in your own right for your fictional writing. Even if it
transcends your upbringing.

You may dismiss what I write on any basis you want. Others will
judge for themselves.

A Vivid Self-Portrait of a Cultist . . . -was- Atlas Shrugged movie opens
 

On Apr 17, 7:15*pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Apr 17, 7:09*pm, Gary Forbis wrote:









On Apr 17, 4:30*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:

On 4/17/11 13:54 , Gary Forbis wrote:

On Apr 17, 8:52 am, "D. Peter *wrote:
On 4/17/11 09:29 , Gary Forbis wrote:

On Apr 17, 6:13 am, "D. Peter * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 23:44 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 11:02 pm, "D. Peter * * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 22:37 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 10:26 pm, "D. Peter * * * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 20:08 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 8:03 pm, "D. Peter * * * * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 15:43 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 2:02 pm, "D. Peter * * * * * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 10:55 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 9:55 am, Gary * * * * * * *wrote:
On Apr 16, 6:29 am, Barack Hates * * * * * * *wrote:

Obama and his band of liberal fools will dismiss this like they do
anything thats true

You realize it is a work of fiction don't you?

* * * * and its a poor one at that. written by a drugged up sex maniac, that
worshiped serial killers. then ended up living on the socialist dole:)
its easy to start a cult in america, any demagogue can do it, look at
limpballs and beck. america has a lot of people will malformed brains,
lacking the gray matter necessary in the part of the brain that can
understand complex situations. so they flock to cranks, hoping for
some direction in life.

* * * * *And there you have it. No substance, only adhoms.

* * * * *No impact, here.

* * * *i cannot help what shape your brain is in, its a retardation, it
might be environmental, or genes, its hard to say. but its been quite
well reported what rand was. its just to complex for you to
understand.

snicker, i have always felt this was the case:
A new study shows liberals have more gray matter in a part of the
brain related to understanding complexity, while the conservative
brain is bigger in the section linked to fear:How Your Brain May Be
Different Than a Conservative's

* * * * Try making an actual case, instead of simply making a personal
insult.

* * * i did, and your response proves all of my points. none of what i said
were insults, it was all facts.

* * * *LOL!

* * *giggling is a sign you know:)

* * * Giggling is a sign that you've done nothing but levelled personal
insults, and defended that as a rational argument.

* * * Knowing that you're as empty as your handle is quite amusing.

* * * Carry on.

* * i posted lots of empirical evidence what rand was.

* * *All of it personal insults. What you do not do, is debate the
content, nor the ideas.

* * *You simply insult the person.

* * *The USENet equivalent of "So's your old man." You either have no
position of substance, or you're not willing to engage one for fear
of defeat in the arena of ideas.

In the case of Rand one has to debate philosophy becuase there
is no substance.

* * Of course. Why am I not surprised. Deny the substance of the
argument, default to personal insult.

* * *Because there was no argument. Only a dismissal based on personalities.

* * *You've yet to address the substance of the work. You've only
dismissed the author.

What substance? *It's a work of fiction. *Tell me what substance you
see so we can discuss it. *The work of fiction was written to
reenforce
the author's beliefs. *The beliefs themselves come from her life
experiences.
I have introduced her life experiences to explain her beliefs.

Sci Fi has a tradition of using fiction as a setting to narrate a
comment
about reality. *That's all well and good but it isn't evendence of
anything.
One has to do the leg work of starting with reality then drawing
conclusions.
Do you really believe we're programming robots with the four laws of
robotics?
I would say that after that Killdozer experience we sure need to.

* * *Shoe on the other foot, you've decried such tactics as small
minded, unenlightened, and unfair. Interesting that you hide behind that
door.

Example? *Sure you can find me replying in kind to small mindedness
as an object lesson. *Have I started with that somewhere without a
history?

I've argued objectivism for decades now. *I don't need to start from
Ayn
Rand to show it of little value. *I've forgotten most of the arguments
now
but they will come back quickly if you want to start with one. *My
memory
isn't as good as it used to be.

- *remember, the cultist lives in a alternative reality, created by
the
- minds of cunning, manipulative and clever deranged minds. you can
- almost imagine randbots sitting quietly enthralled in a movie
theater,
- all of them shaking their heads up and down, or back and forth at
- exactly the same time.

NnUa - That's such a Vivid Self-Portrait You Paint
with so few words . . . ;;-}} ~ RHF

(OT) : Atlas Shrugged -versus- Your Own False Beliefs...
 

On Apr 17, 11:52*pm, Gary Forbis wrote:
On Apr 17, 7:31*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:









On 4/17/11 19:09 , Gary Forbis wrote:

On Apr 17, 4:30 pm, "D. Peter *wrote:
On 4/17/11 13:54 , Gary Forbis wrote:

On Apr 17, 8:52 am, "D. Peter * *wrote:
On 4/17/11 09:29 , Gary Forbis wrote:

On Apr 17, 6:13 am, "D. Peter * * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 23:44 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 11:02 pm, "D. Peter * * * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 22:37 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 10:26 pm, "D. Peter * * * * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 20:08 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 8:03 pm, "D. Peter * * * * * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 15:43 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 2:02 pm, "D. Peter * * * * * * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 10:55 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 9:55 am, Gary * * * * * * * *wrote:
On Apr 16, 6:29 am, Barack Hates * * * * * * * *wrote:

Obama and his band of liberal fools will dismiss this like they do
anything thats true

You realize it is a work of fiction don't you?

* * * * *and its a poor one at that. written by a drugged up sex maniac, that
worshiped serial killers. then ended up living on the socialist dole:)
its easy to start a cult in america, any demagogue can do it, look at
limpballs and beck. america has a lot of people will malformed brains,
lacking the gray matter necessary in the part of the brain that can
understand complex situations. so they flock to cranks, hoping for
some direction in life.

* * * * * And there you have it. No substance, only adhoms.

* * * * * No impact, here.

* * * * i cannot help what shape your brain is in, its a retardation, it
might be environmental, or genes, its hard to say. but its been quite
well reported what rand was. its just to complex for you to
understand.

snicker, i have always felt this was the case:
A new study shows liberals have more gray matter in a part of the
brain related to understanding complexity, while the conservative
brain is bigger in the section linked to fear:How Your Brain May Be
Different Than a Conservative's

* * * * *Try making an actual case, instead of simply making a personal
insult.

* * * *i did, and your response proves all of my points. none of what i said
were insults, it was all facts.

* * * * LOL!

* * * giggling is a sign you know:)

* * * *Giggling is a sign that you've done nothing but levelled personal
insults, and defended that as a rational argument.

* * * *Knowing that you're as empty as your handle is quite amusing.

* * * *Carry on.

* * *i posted lots of empirical evidence what rand was.

* * * All of it personal insults. What you do not do, is debate the
content, nor the ideas.

* * * You simply insult the person.

* * * The USENet equivalent of "So's your old man." You either have no
position of substance, or you're not willing to engage one for fear
of defeat in the arena of ideas.

In the case of Rand one has to debate philosophy becuase there
is no substance.

* * *Of course. Why am I not surprised. Deny the substance of the
argument, default to personal insult.

* * * Because there was no argument. Only a dismissal based on personalities.

* * * You've yet to address the substance of the work. You've only
dismissed the author.

What substance? *It's a work of fiction. *Tell me what substance you
see so we can discuss it.

* The work of fiction was written to

reenforce
the author's beliefs. *The beliefs themselves come from her life
experiences.
I have introduced her life experiences to explain her beliefs.

* *Which you have dismissed based on her upbringing.

It frames her beliefs. *I haven't dismiss her philosophy based
upon her upbringing. *I had used it to understand why she believes
what is obviously flawed philosophy. *We can discuss the philosophy.
I've even suggested you start with it rather than a work of fiction
that
is used to support that philosophy.

Her upbringing
doesn't negate her writings. Nor does it negate her beliefs, nor the
validity of them. *If it did, you could dismiss every writing by anyone
who'd transcended their upbringing. Or anyone who hadn't. Or anyone
who'd ever written anything of fiction.

Part of understanding a work of fiction is understanding the author.

* *And yet, we revere Huxley for his vision, based on a work of fiction,
Orwell for his vision based on a work of fiction. Or any of a number of
writers throughout history who transcended their upbringing. Or writers
of fiction. Including Plato. *And Obama for his vision based on the
transcendence of his upbringing.

A philosophy isn't true or false based upon who believes it, but who
believes a philosophy is based upon their life's history. *If a
philosophy
is false then its support by way of a work of fiction needs to be
understood
based upon the author's life. *If you want a better author then
consider
Robert Anson Heinlein. *You can still have similar themes but it's not
so bad. *Wikipedia make the following statement:

* * Birth and childhoodHeinlein (pronounced Hine-line)[4][5] was
* * born on July 7, 1907, to Rex Ivar Heinlein (an accountant) and
* * Bam Lyle Heinlein, in Butler, Missouri. His childhood was spent
* * in Kansas City, Missouri.[6] The outlook and values of this time
* * and place (in his own words, "The Bible Belt") had a definite
* * influence on his fiction, especially his later works, as
experiences
* * from his childhood were heavily drawn upon both for setting and
for
* * cultural atmosphere in Time Enough for Love and To Sail Beyond
* * the Sunset, among others. However, he would later break with many
* * of its values and mores—especially those concerning morality as it
* * applies to issues such as religion and sexuality—both in his
writing
* *and in his personal life.

In general people will focus their energies on unresolved issues
because
they don't need to spend it on resolved issues. *(Adage, "Why is it I
always
find things in the last place I look?")

* *Your dismissals are selective, and capricious based on what you do
and do not agree with, which you then attempt to validate by character
assassination.

Not so. *The truth isn't character assassination. *Further, since
you've
not tried to explain any of the "substance" you find and support it
you
don't present anything else to discuss. *I like to understand why
people
hold false beliefs and poor philosophy. *In this case her life's
situation
readily explains it. *It doesn't make her beliefs false or philosophy
bad.

* *Your argument has no substance. Your dismissal is opinion. And though
your entitled to your opinion, you're also entitled to your asshole.

OK.

Neither of which do you have the right to inflict on anyone with a sense
of entitlement, without supporting fact.

What? *Do others have this right, for instance Ayn Rand? *Or you?

Or you may, and will, be
dismissed in your own right for your fictional writing. Even if it
transcends your upbringing.

- You may dismiss what I write on any basis you want.
-*Others will judge for themselves.

Gary Forbis,

So then... Why Not Allow "Others To {Will} Judge
For Themselves" -wrt- Atlas Shrugged the Book;
Atlas Shrugged the Movie; and Ayn Rand the
person -versus- Tainting Their Minds with your
Disdain and Hate for all of the above . . .

'gf' - one wonders about... your own false beliefs
and your personal philosophy - one does ~ RHF

Atlas Shrugged movie opens
 

On Apr 16, 1:04*pm, Barry wrote:
On Apr 16, 8:37*pm, China Blue Nile wrote:

In article ,
*?baMa? Tse Dung wrote:

Part 1 of a three part trilogy opens in over 300 theatres across the
country:

- - Does part 3 conclude with Ayn Rand being thrown
- - into a volcano in Hawaii to propitiate the goddess Pele?

Or... Was that to propagate The-God 'Obama' in 1961 !
http://sadhillnews.com/wp-content/up...-hill-news.jpg

- I thought he was a Brazilian football player!

"Pelé" was one of 'The Greatest' to Play the
Game of Soccer - imho ~ RHF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pel%C3%A9
http://www.football-rumours.com/pele.html
http://www.football-rumours.com/images/pele2.jpg

(OT) : Atlas Shrugged -versus- Your Own False Beliefs...
 

On Apr 18, 1:04*am, RHF wrote:
On Apr 17, 11:52*pm, Gary Forbis wrote:





On Apr 17, 7:31*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:

On 4/17/11 19:09 , Gary Forbis wrote:

On Apr 17, 4:30 pm, "D. Peter *wrote:
On 4/17/11 13:54 , Gary Forbis wrote:

On Apr 17, 8:52 am, "D. Peter * *wrote:
On 4/17/11 09:29 , Gary Forbis wrote:

On Apr 17, 6:13 am, "D. Peter * * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 23:44 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 11:02 pm, "D. Peter * * * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 22:37 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 10:26 pm, "D. Peter * * * * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 20:08 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 8:03 pm, "D. Peter * * * * * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 15:43 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 2:02 pm, "D. Peter * * * * * * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 10:55 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 9:55 am, Gary * * * * * * * *wrote:
On Apr 16, 6:29 am, Barack Hates * * * * * * * *wrote:

Obama and his band of liberal fools will dismiss this like they do
anything thats true

You realize it is a work of fiction don't you?

* * * * *and its a poor one at that. written by a drugged up sex maniac, that
worshiped serial killers. then ended up living on the socialist dole:)
its easy to start a cult in america, any demagogue can do it, look at
limpballs and beck. america has a lot of people will malformed brains,
lacking the gray matter necessary in the part of the brain that can
understand complex situations. so they flock to cranks, hoping for
some direction in life.

* * * * * And there you have it. No substance, only adhoms.

* * * * * No impact, here.

* * * * i cannot help what shape your brain is in, its a retardation, it
might be environmental, or genes, its hard to say. but its been quite
well reported what rand was. its just to complex for you to
understand.

snicker, i have always felt this was the case:
A new study shows liberals have more gray matter in a part of the
brain related to understanding complexity, while the conservative
brain is bigger in the section linked to fear:How Your Brain May Be
Different Than a Conservative's

* * * * *Try making an actual case, instead of simply making a personal
insult.

* * * *i did, and your response proves all of my points. none of what i said
were insults, it was all facts.

* * * * LOL!

* * * giggling is a sign you know:)

* * * *Giggling is a sign that you've done nothing but levelled personal
insults, and defended that as a rational argument.

* * * *Knowing that you're as empty as your handle is quite amusing.

* * * *Carry on.

* * *i posted lots of empirical evidence what rand was.

* * * All of it personal insults. What you do not do, is debate the
content, nor the ideas.

* * * You simply insult the person.

* * * The USENet equivalent of "So's your old man." You either have no
position of substance, or you're not willing to engage one for fear
of defeat in the arena of ideas.

In the case of Rand one has to debate philosophy becuase there
is no substance.

* * *Of course. Why am I not surprised. Deny the substance of the
argument, default to personal insult.

* * * Because there was no argument. Only a dismissal based on personalities.

* * * You've yet to address the substance of the work. You've only
dismissed the author.

What substance? *It's a work of fiction. *Tell me what substance you
see so we can discuss it.

* The work of fiction was written to

reenforce
the author's beliefs. *The beliefs themselves come from her life
experiences.
I have introduced her life experiences to explain her beliefs.

* *Which you have dismissed based on her upbringing.

It frames her beliefs. *I haven't dismiss her philosophy based
upon her upbringing. *I had used it to understand why she believes
what is obviously flawed philosophy. *We can discuss the philosophy.
I've even suggested you start with it rather than a work of fiction
that
is used to support that philosophy.

Her upbringing
doesn't negate her writings. Nor does it negate her beliefs, nor the
validity of them. *If it did, you could dismiss every writing by anyone
who'd transcended their upbringing. Or anyone who hadn't. Or anyone
who'd ever written anything of fiction.

Part of understanding a work of fiction is understanding the author.

* *And yet, we revere Huxley for his vision, based on a work of fiction,
Orwell for his vision based on a work of fiction. Or any of a number of
writers throughout history who transcended their upbringing. Or writers
of fiction. Including Plato. *And Obama for his vision based on the
transcendence of his upbringing.

A philosophy isn't true or false based upon who believes it, but who
believes a philosophy is based upon their life's history. *If a
philosophy
is false then its support by way of a work of fiction needs to be
understood
based upon the author's life. *If you want a better author then
consider
Robert Anson Heinlein. *You can still have similar themes but it's not
so bad. *Wikipedia make the following statement:

* * Birth and childhoodHeinlein (pronounced Hine-line)[4][5] was
* * born on July 7, 1907, to Rex Ivar Heinlein (an accountant) and
* * Bam Lyle Heinlein, in Butler, Missouri. His childhood was spent
* * in Kansas City, Missouri.[6] The outlook and values of this time
* * and place (in his own words, "The Bible Belt") had a definite
* * influence on his fiction, especially his later works, as
experiences
* * from his childhood were heavily drawn upon both for setting and
for
* * cultural atmosphere in Time Enough for Love and To Sail Beyond
* * the Sunset, among others. However, he would later break with many
* * of its values and mores—especially those concerning morality as it
* * applies to issues such as religion and sexuality—both in his
writing
* *and in his personal life.

In general people will focus their energies on unresolved issues
because
they don't need to spend it on resolved issues. *(Adage, "Why is it I
always
find things in the last place I look?")

* *Your dismissals are selective, and capricious based on what you do
and do not agree with, which you then attempt to validate by character
assassination.

Not so. *The truth isn't character assassination. *Further, since
you've
not tried to explain any of the "substance" you find and support it
you
don't present anything else to discuss. *I like to understand why
people
hold false beliefs and poor philosophy. *In this case her life's
situation
readily explains it. *It doesn't make her beliefs false or philosophy
bad.

* *Your argument has no substance. Your dismissal is opinion. And though
your entitled to your opinion, you're also entitled to your asshole.

OK.

Neither of which do you have the right to inflict on anyone with a sense
of entitlement, without supporting fact.

What? *Do others have this right, for instance Ayn Rand? *Or you?

Or you may, and will, be
dismissed in your own right for your fictional writing. Even if it
transcends your upbringing.

- You may dismiss what I write on any basis you want.
-*Others will judge for themselves.

Gary Forbis,

So then... Why Not Allow "Others To {Will} Judge
For Themselves" -wrt- Atlas Shrugged the Book;
Atlas Shrugged the Movie; and Ayn Rand the
person -versus- Tainting Their Minds with your
Disdain and Hate for all of the above . . .

I have no issue with others doing what I have done
with reguards to Any Rand. I'm merely hoping to
make their travel quicker.

'gf' - one wonders about... your own false beliefs
and your personal philosophy - one does ~ RHF

Sure go ahead. I'm quite open to reasoned argument.
Many issues reduce to the irrational, that's just the
way of it. Withholding judgement is about allowing
for alternatives where no truths can be assuered.

On of my real eye openers was to learn that the
theory of integer arithmatic cannot be both complete
and consistent. Goedel then go on to map this onto
other domains. This certainly doesn't stop us from
using and building upon integer arithmatic.

Sure we know reality through our senses but this
limits our access to what actually exists. We
cannot know that we we do not sense or can derive
from our senses. Like our theories of integer arithmatic
our theories concerning what actually exist will be
incomplete or inconsistant. Our senses filter actuality.

Ayn skips to moral philosophy but provides no link
to it. She might as well conclude like Aleister Crowley,
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."

I happen to believe we make our own morality and
enforce through our societies. They lack any reality.
The approach I take is to review the stae of affairs as
I would like them and compare against the state of
affairs others would like. Where there is agreement
we can negotiate terms for abiding by them as if the
had a reality. I don't need to make up any transendental
reality behind my moral beliefs.

Atlas Shrugged movie opens
 

On Apr 18, 5:52*am, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 4/18/11 06:58 , Barry wrote:

* * And there you have it: A dismissal based on someone's upbringing. You
freely discuss her upbringing, and you argue that her upbringing frames
her beliefs.

Well, that is often the case. The theology of Karl Barth, for example,
can only really be understood within the context of Nazi Germany. His
distrust of 'systematic theology' was part and parcel of an attempt to
defend the Lutheran church against the corrupting influence of Nazi
ideology. It's clear that Marx's philosophy takes as its starting
point the Hegelianism and Pietism of his youth, imbibed at home and at
school /university.

* *Granted. But the context of upbringing, and indoctrination at
rearing does not preclude the debate of the writings, themselves on
their own merits. Context permits understanding of motivations,
perhaps. And even subtle nuances in the content under contest. But
it does not, perforce, allow for the abject dismissal on context alone.

* *Which is what is presented in this thread.

* *One can, one must, debate the merits of the content on the
content. Not on the personality of the author.





* But you do not argue the points she puts forward. You
gratuitously, *dismiss them as flawed. But you offer no reasoning as to
why. Which could produce a fruitful, and intersting, discussion.

* * But you do not argue her points. You argue the personality of the
author.

Fine. I will play ball (as you quaint colonials say)
instead.

(Matter snipped.)

"In epistemology, she considered all knowledge to be based on sense
perception, the validity of which she considered axiomatic,[86] and
reason, which she described as "the faculty that identifies and
integrates the material provided by man's senses."[87]"

86.^ Peikoff, Leonard (1991). Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.
New York: E. P. Dutton1991, pp. 38–39; Gotthelf, Allan (2000). On Ayn
Rand. Wadsworth Philosophers Series. Belmont, California: Wadsworth
Publishing, p. 54
87.^ Rand 1964, Rand, Ayn). The Virtue of Selfishness. New York:
Penguin.p. 22

I have to tell you that a European *first year philosophy student
would have problems with that. You do not have to be Derrida or
Foucault to realise that one cannot be absolutely objective.

* *Nor has anyone asserted that one must. *She as merely asserted
that the input is sensory, and that reason collates the
understanding. If there is objectivity, a theoretical possiblity,
but practically rare, so much the better. If there is not, then that
must be sussed at the time of discussion. But the lack of absolute
objectivity does not invalidate the text.

* *There is hardly objectivity in any of the postings here. And yet,
there is a distinct bias in one direction to many of those deemed
good and acceptable, vs those that are not.

* *The difference is the point of debate. Not cause for dismissal.

The

concepts of post-modernist discourse theory and social construct
suggest that the empirical evidence of our senses is mediated through
a social construct much influenced by a variety of mental baggage. The
later Wittgenstein and his followers realised that the 'verification
principle' at the heart of logical positivism was not universally
applicable. We are, in fact, in the realm of probability theory
here....everything has to be banced on a gamble, an assumption (though
some assumptions have better odds than others). I do not think that
Ayn Rand could accept that, for she wanted certainties where none
existed.

* *Again, reason for debate of her content. Not dismissal based on
her personality, upbringing, or influences.

Again, you didn't read what I wrote, truncated it and presented
nothing
of your own. Because it is a work of fiction we cannot debate its
content.
All we can do is argue the philosophy being presented. That's why
I've
asked you over and over to start the argument in support of the
pholosophy
and ignore the story. The truth of the philosophy cannot in any way
depend
upon the story. It is a work of fiction.

* *Put that another way, there is nothing in her background that
precludes her from presenting true, meaningful, correct, or
important observations and conclusion. The presentations must be
debated on their face value. Not evaluated by her background and
upbringing.

Yes, but "Atlas Shrugged" is a work of fiction. It rests upon her
philosophy but does not support it. There are several types of
fiction. Some are intended to just be a good read while others
are intended to present a truth about the world. Ayn intended
the latter. One must extract the philosophy then evaluate it
on its own merits. If it is found wanting then one is left explaining
why the author believed it. Even if the philosophy is true then
the author's life history can explain how she came to her position.

* *Or more simply...one may say a true statement, even if one's
background does not support the saying of true statements.

* *It is the statement, itself, that must be debated for it's truth
or falseness. Not the background of the speaker. Or else, we have to
dismiss nearly all writings by those who write fiction, or those who
have overcome their upbringing.

And again, we can't argue "Atlas Shurgged" because it is a work
of fiction. What we can argue is the philosophy presented. I've
asked you over and over to start doing so. I've even given you a
brief counter and you deleted it complaining that I didn't present
any.

* *Rand presented theses in Atlas Shrugged that are roundly
dismissed, here, by virtue of her upbringing and the context of the
formation of her values.

Not true. I have tried to explain how she came to hold her beliefs.
I dismiss her philosophy because it is unsound. I've given hints and
made some statements straight out wich you dismiss without reason
because I don't want to discuss the book but rather the philosophy
presented in the book. I doubt you can't argue the philosophy so are
reduced to misunderstanding what I've written. I actually presented
an argument similar to Barry's in response to RHF. It would have
been much easier had you just started arguing the philosophy rather
than complain about Ayn's life history being prejudicial to her
beliefs.

But no one is debating the content of the
writing, itself. Only her motivations inferred from the politics of
the work, against her background.

* *The debate about her background is a valid debate. But it is not,
in fact, about the work. And it's the work that has made the bold
statements, here.

The work isn't worth debating. The philosophy is minimally worth
it. Please start arguing the philosophy. The author stackes the
deck in favor of her philosophy; that's how these things work. The
philosophy has to stand on its own.

Atlas Shrugged movie opens
 

On 4/18/11 09:09 , Gary Forbis wrote:
Because it is a work of fiction we cannot debate its
content.



Nonsense.

All allegory is fiction. And it's debated every day. 2001 was a
work of fiction and it was debated at the college level. 'the
prisoner' was a work of fiction, and in some schools, there have
been courses dedicated to it since 1968.

Brave New World was fiction. It was debated in every school I
attended.

The Republic was a work of fiction, and it may, in fact be the
most debated work in history, beyond The Bible.


An Inconvenient Truth was a work of fiction. And yet....well, Gore
won't debate that topic, will he....sorry, bad example.



That a work of fiction can't be debated on its content is utter
rubbish.

Atlas Shrugged movie opens
 

On Apr 18, 1:52*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 4/18/11 06:58 , Barry wrote:

* * And there you have it: A dismissal based on someone's upbringing. You
freely discuss her upbringing, and you argue that her upbringing frames
her beliefs.

Well, that is often the case. The theology of Karl Barth, for example,
can only really be understood within the context of Nazi Germany. His
distrust of 'systematic theology' was part and parcel of an attempt to
defend the Lutheran church against the corrupting influence of Nazi
ideology. It's clear that Marx's philosophy takes as its starting
point the Hegelianism and Pietism of his youth, imbibed at home and at
school /university.

* *Granted. But the context of upbringing, and indoctrination at
rearing does not preclude the debate of the writings, themselves on
their own merits. Context permits understanding of motivations,
perhaps. And even subtle nuances in the content under contest. But
it does not, perforce, allow for the abject dismissal on context alone.

* *Which is what is presented in this thread.

* *One can, one must, debate the merits of the content on the
content. Not on the personality of the author.

You have just contradicted yourself. We are all chidren of our times.
How can you possibly divorce a person's upbringing from their
opinions?

* But you do not argue the points she puts forward. You
gratuitously, *dismiss them as flawed. But you offer no reasoning as to
why. Which could produce a fruitful, and intersting, discussion.

* * But you do not argue her points. You argue the personality of the
author.

Fine. I will play ball (as you quaint colonials say)
instead.

(Matter snipped.)

"In epistemology, she considered all knowledge to be based on sense
perception, the validity of which she considered axiomatic,[86] and
reason, which she described as "the faculty that identifies and
integrates the material provided by man's senses."[87]"

86.^ Peikoff, Leonard (1991). Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.
New York: E. P. Dutton1991, pp. 38–39; Gotthelf, Allan (2000). On Ayn
Rand. Wadsworth Philosophers Series. Belmont, California: Wadsworth
Publishing, p. 54
87.^ Rand 1964, Rand, Ayn). The Virtue of Selfishness. New York:
Penguin.p. 22

I have to tell you that a European *first year philosophy student
would have problems with that. You do not have to be Derrida or
Foucault to realise that one cannot be absolutely objective.

* *Nor has anyone asserted that one must. *She as merely asserted
that the input is sensory, and that reason collates the
understanding.

But her problem is that she leaves it at that. She is a bigger
materialist than Marx!



If there is objectivity, a theoretical possiblity,
but practically rare, so much the better. If there is not, then that
must be sussed at the time of discussion. But the lack of absolute
objectivity does not invalidate the text.

It does if your entire epistemology is rooted in absolute objectivity!


* *There is hardly objectivity in any of the postings here. And yet,
there is a distinct bias in one direction to many of those deemed
good and acceptable, vs those that are not.

I'm not talking about objectivity as a means of defining bias. It goes
deeper than that. this is a debate about the nature of reality itself!


* *The difference is the point of debate. Not cause for dismissal.

The

concepts of post-modernist discourse theory and social construct
suggest that the empirical evidence of our senses is mediated through
a social construct much influenced by a variety of mental baggage. The
later Wittgenstein and his followers realised that the 'verification
principle' at the heart of logical positivism was not universally
applicable. We are, in fact, in the realm of probability theory
here....everything has to be banced on a gamble, an assumption (though
some assumptions have better odds than others). I do not think that
Ayn Rand could accept that, for she wanted certainties where none
existed.

* *Again, reason for debate of her content. Not dismissal based on
her personality, upbringing, or influences.

We have moved on from the personality issue. I was raising a
fundamental objection to her concept of objectivity.


* *Put that another way, there is nothing in her background that
precludes her from presenting true, meaningful, correct, or
important observations and conclusion. The presentations must be
debated on their face value. Not evaluated by her background and
upbringing.

But in a discussion of social construct, how do we avoid our mental
baggage?


Or more simply...one may say a true statement, even if one's
background does not support the saying of true statements.

A true statement? Now that opens a conceptual can of worms!


*It is the statement, itself, that must be debated for it's truth
or falseness. Not the background of the speaker. Or else, we have to
dismiss nearly all writings by those who write fiction, or those who
have overcome their upbringing.

I'm sorry but you are still talking at cross purposes. I want to
debate 'objectivism' versus 'post-modernism'. You don't seem to
realise that.

* *Rand presented theses in Atlas Shrugged that are roundly
dismissed, here, by virtue of her upbringing and the context of the
formation of her values. But no one is debating the content of the
writing, itself. Only her motivations inferred from the politics of
the work, against her background.

I am trying to deabate the content. What did you think I was trying to
do?

Look, forget the first part of my posting and please re-read the
second, after the quote and citations. Then we might be both singing
from the same hymn sheet....

Do you have a view on the post-modernist critique of rationalism and
structuralism?

Dr. Barry Worthington

* *The debate about her background is a valid debate. But it is not,
in fact, about the work. And it's the work that has made the bold
statements, here.





I could say more, but I'll leave it at that.

Dr. Barry Worthington- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Atlas Shrugged movie opens
 

On 4/18/11 13:07 , Barry wrote:
On Apr 18, 1:52 pm, "D. Peter wrote:
On 4/18/11 06:58 , Barry wrote:

And there you have it: A dismissal based on someone's upbringing. You
freely discuss her upbringing, and you argue that her upbringing frames
her beliefs.

Well, that is often the case. The theology of Karl Barth, for example,
can only really be understood within the context of Nazi Germany. His
distrust of 'systematic theology' was part and parcel of an attempt to
defend the Lutheran church against the corrupting influence of Nazi
ideology. It's clear that Marx's philosophy takes as its starting
point the Hegelianism and Pietism of his youth, imbibed at home and at
school /university.

Granted. But the context of upbringing, and indoctrination at
rearing does not preclude the debate of the writings, themselves on
their own merits. Context permits understanding of motivations,
perhaps. And even subtle nuances in the content under contest. But
it does not, perforce, allow for the abject dismissal on context alone.

Which is what is presented in this thread.

One can, one must, debate the merits of the content on the
content. Not on the personality of the author.

You have just contradicted yourself. We are all chidren of our times.
How can you possibly divorce a person's upbringing from their
opinions?

But you do not argue the points she puts forward. You
gratuitously, dismiss them as flawed. But you offer no reasoning as to
why. Which could produce a fruitful, and intersting, discussion.

But you do not argue her points. You argue the personality of the
author.

Fine. I will play ball (as you quaint colonials say)
instead.

(Matter snipped.)

"In epistemology, she considered all knowledge to be based on sense
perception, the validity of which she considered axiomatic,[86] and
reason, which she described as "the faculty that identifies and
integrates the material provided by man's senses."[87]"

86.^ Peikoff, Leonard (1991). Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.
New York: E. P. Dutton1991, pp. 38–39; Gotthelf, Allan (2000). On Ayn
Rand. Wadsworth Philosophers Series. Belmont, California: Wadsworth
Publishing, p. 54
87.^ Rand 1964, Rand, Ayn). The Virtue of Selfishness. New York:
Penguin.p. 22

I have to tell you that a European first year philosophy student
would have problems with that. You do not have to be Derrida or
Foucault to realise that one cannot be absolutely objective.

Nor has anyone asserted that one must. She as merely asserted
that the input is sensory, and that reason collates the
understanding.

But her problem is that she leaves it at that. She is a bigger
materialist than Marx!



If there is objectivity, a theoretical possiblity,
but practically rare, so much the better. If there is not, then that
must be sussed at the time of discussion. But the lack of absolute
objectivity does not invalidate the text.

It does if your entire epistemology is rooted in absolute objectivity!


There is hardly objectivity in any of the postings here. And yet,
there is a distinct bias in one direction to many of those deemed
good and acceptable, vs those that are not.

I'm not talking about objectivity as a means of defining bias. It goes
deeper than that. this is a debate about the nature of reality itself!


The difference is the point of debate. Not cause for dismissal.

The

concepts of post-modernist discourse theory and social construct
suggest that the empirical evidence of our senses is mediated through
a social construct much influenced by a variety of mental baggage. The
later Wittgenstein and his followers realised that the 'verification
principle' at the heart of logical positivism was not universally
applicable. We are, in fact, in the realm of probability theory
here....everything has to be banced on a gamble, an assumption (though
some assumptions have better odds than others). I do not think that
Ayn Rand could accept that, for she wanted certainties where none
existed.

Again, reason for debate of her content. Not dismissal based on
her personality, upbringing, or influences.

We have moved on from the personality issue. I was raising a
fundamental objection to her concept of objectivity.


Put that another way, there is nothing in her background that
precludes her from presenting true, meaningful, correct, or
important observations and conclusion. The presentations must be
debated on their face value. Not evaluated by her background and
upbringing.

But in a discussion of social construct, how do we avoid our mental
baggage?


Or more simply...one may say a true statement, even if one's
background does not support the saying of true statements.

A true statement? Now that opens a conceptual can of worms!


It is the statement, itself, that must be debated for it's truth
or falseness. Not the background of the speaker. Or else, we have to
dismiss nearly all writings by those who write fiction, or those who
have overcome their upbringing.

I'm sorry but you are still talking at cross purposes. I want to
debate 'objectivism' versus 'post-modernism'. You don't seem to
realise that.

Yes, you do. But only in the context of the author's background.
That is only relevant if we are discussing the author.

I see perhaps I've not been clear.

My point in jumping into this thread is that the sum of the
discussion, your own position excluded, has been that the film's
release has been roundly dismissed, as has Rand's work based on her
background, the conflicts that would appear to have risen between
the work and her background, but not the work, itself.

In the context of this thread, the condemnation being of the
teller, not the tale. And using the condemnation of the teller to
dismiss the tale.

This is as absurd as dismissing the humor of Groucho Marx because
he was chronically depressed. Or dismissing the speeches of Ted
Kennedy about the need of the society to uplift the poor because he
was raised as a child of privilege.

The work stands on its own. Regardless of the author's past. Or
even her own philosophy. You seem willing to debate at least the
substance of the themes of the work. And kudos to you.

That would make, in all, two, who have participated in this
thread, so willing. The rest are just abject dismissals without
addressing the content.


Rand presented theses in Atlas Shrugged that are roundly
dismissed, here, by virtue of her upbringing and the context of the
formation of her values. But no one is debating the content of the
writing, itself. Only her motivations inferred from the politics of
the work, against her background.

I am trying to deabate the content. What did you think I was trying to
do?



Look, forget the first part of my posting and please re-read the
second, after the quote and citations. Then we might be both singing
from the same hymn sheet....


I see where you're coming from. And your points about
specifically Rand's thinking and the philosophies engaged, here.



Do you have a view on the post-modernist critique of rationalism and
structuralism?



Yes, I do. And thank you for asking. But my philosophies are not
at issue here.

What I have a problem in all of this, here, is this statement,
which is in fact at the core of this thread:


But in a discussion of social construct, how do we avoid our mental
baggage?


We, in fact, can. No one says it's easy. But it is possible. But
why must we? You have your baggage, I have mine, Rand had hers. And
from what I've read, quite a porter of it. So, what? In a practical
and honest discussion, the baggage cancels itself out so that facts
can be debated. But even that's not the issue that brought me into
this thread.

It's the tale, not the teller, that's been at issue in the
thread. Specifically, the dismissal of the work based on the
author's upbringing. My point in all of this is that there's been a
cheap sophistic attempt to dismiss the work, largely because it
doesn't suit the tastes of a political body. And the argument has
been couched in rhetoric that seeks to tie the baggage of the author
into the the merits of the work. This is not a valid disposition.
Else, we must dismiss everyone who's ever written, because of their
own conflicting baggage. Including Lenin, Plato, Nietzsche, or
Groucho Marx.

There you go again...
 

On 04/18/2011 04:58 AM, Barry wrote:


"In epistemology, she considered all knowledge to be based on sense
perception, the validity of which she considered axiomatic,[86] and
reason, which she described as "the faculty that identifies and
integrates the material provided by man's senses."[87]"

86.^ Peikoff, Leonard (1991). Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.
New York: E. P. Dutton1991, pp. 38–39; Gotthelf, Allan (2000). On Ayn
Rand. Wadsworth Philosophers Series. Belmont, California: Wadsworth
Publishing, p. 54
87.^ Rand 1964, Rand, Ayn). The Virtue of Selfishness. New York:
Penguin.p. 22

I have to tell you that a European first year philosophy student
would have problems with that. You do not have to be Derrida or
Foucault to realise that one cannot be absolutely objective. The
concepts of post-modernist discourse theory and social construct
suggest that the empirical evidence of our senses is mediated through
a social construct much influenced by a variety of mental baggage. The
later Wittgenstein and his followers realised that the 'verification
principle' at the heart of logical positivism was not universally
applicable. We are, in fact, in the realm of probability theory
here....everything has to be banced on a gamble, an assumption (though
some assumptions have better odds than others). I do not think that
Ayn Rand could accept that, for she wanted certainties where none
existed.

I could say more, but I'll leave it at that.

Dr. Barry Worthington

Thanks

Atlas Shrugged movie opens
 

On Apr 18, 7:55*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 4/18/11 13:07 , Barry wrote:





On Apr 18, 1:52 pm, "D. Peter *wrote:
On 4/18/11 06:58 , Barry wrote:

* * *And there you have it: A dismissal based on someone's upbringing. You
freely discuss her upbringing, and you argue that her upbringing frames
her beliefs.

Well, that is often the case. The theology of Karl Barth, for example,
can only really be understood within the context of Nazi Germany. His
distrust of 'systematic theology' was part and parcel of an attempt to
defend the Lutheran church against the corrupting influence of Nazi
ideology. It's clear that Marx's philosophy takes as its starting
point the Hegelianism and Pietism of his youth, imbibed at home and at
school /university.

* * Granted. But the context of upbringing, and indoctrination at
rearing does not preclude the debate of the writings, themselves on
their own merits. Context permits understanding of motivations,
perhaps. And even subtle nuances in the content under contest. But
it does not, perforce, allow for the abject dismissal on context alone..

* * Which is what is presented in this thread.

* * One can, one must, debate the merits of the content on the
content. Not on the personality of the author.

You have just contradicted yourself. We are all chidren of our times.
How can you possibly divorce a person's upbringing from their
opinions?

* *But you do not argue the points she puts forward. You
gratuitously, *dismiss them as flawed. But you offer no reasoning as to
why. Which could produce a fruitful, and intersting, discussion.

* * *But you do not argue her points. You argue the personality of the
author.

Fine. I will play ball (as you quaint colonials say)
instead.

(Matter snipped.)

"In epistemology, she considered all knowledge to be based on sense
perception, the validity of which she considered axiomatic,[86] and
reason, which she described as "the faculty that identifies and
integrates the material provided by man's senses."[87]"

86.^ Peikoff, Leonard (1991). Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand..
New York: E. P. Dutton1991, pp. 38–39; Gotthelf, Allan (2000). On Ayn
Rand. Wadsworth Philosophers Series. Belmont, California: Wadsworth
Publishing, p. 54
87.^ Rand 1964, Rand, Ayn). The Virtue of Selfishness. New York:
Penguin.p. 22

I have to tell you that a European *first year philosophy student
would have problems with that. You do not have to be Derrida or
Foucault to realise that one cannot be absolutely objective.

* * Nor has anyone asserted that one must. *She as merely asserted
that the input is sensory, and that reason collates the
understanding.

But her problem is that she leaves it at that. She is a bigger
materialist than Marx!

* If there is objectivity, a theoretical possiblity,
but practically rare, so much the better. If there is not, then that
must be sussed at the time of discussion. But the lack of absolute
objectivity does not invalidate the text.

It does if your entire epistemology is rooted in absolute objectivity!

* * There is hardly objectivity in any of the postings here. And yet,
there is a distinct bias in one direction to many of those deemed
good and acceptable, vs those that are not.

I'm not talking about objectivity as a means of defining bias. It goes
deeper than that. this is a debate about the nature of reality itself!

* * The difference is the point of debate. Not cause for dismissal..

The

concepts of post-modernist discourse theory and social construct
suggest that the empirical evidence of our senses is mediated through
a social construct much influenced by a variety of mental baggage. The
later Wittgenstein and his followers realised that the 'verification
principle' at the heart of logical positivism was not universally
applicable. We are, in fact, in the realm of probability theory
here....everything has to be banced on a gamble, an assumption (though
some assumptions have better odds than others). I do not think that
Ayn Rand could accept that, for she wanted certainties where none
existed.

* * Again, reason for debate of her content. Not dismissal based on
her personality, upbringing, or influences.

We have moved on from the personality issue. I was raising a
fundamental objection to her concept of objectivity.

* * Put that another way, there is nothing in her background that
precludes her from presenting true, meaningful, correct, or
important observations and conclusion. The presentations must be
debated on their face value. Not evaluated by her background and
upbringing.

But in a discussion of social construct, how do we avoid our mental
baggage?

Or more simply...one may say a true statement, even if one's
background does not support the saying of true statements.

A true statement? Now that opens a conceptual can of worms!

* It is the statement, itself, that must be debated for it's truth
or falseness. Not the background of the speaker. Or else, we have to
dismiss nearly all writings by those who write fiction, or those who
have overcome their upbringing.

I'm sorry but you are still talking at cross purposes. I want to
debate 'objectivism' versus 'post-modernism'. You don't seem to
realise that.

* *Yes, you do. But only in the context of the author's background.
That is only relevant if we are discussing the author.

I was discussing a point about the nature of reality in
general...nothing to do with her background in this case.


* *I see perhaps I've not been clear.

* *My point in jumping into this thread is that the sum of the
discussion, your own position excluded, has been that the film's
release has been roundly dismissed, as has Rand's work based on her
background, the conflicts that would appear to have risen between
the work and her background, but not the work, itself.

* *In the context of this thread, the condemnation being of the
teller, not the tale. And using the condemnation of the teller to
dismiss the tale.

Fine. Now I'd be obliged if you would deal with the points that I
made.


* *This is as absurd as dismissing the humor of Groucho Marx because
he was chronically depressed. Or dismissing the speeches of Ted
Kennedy about the need of the society to uplift the poor because he
was raised as a child of privilege.

* *The work stands on its own. Regardless of the author's past. Or
even her own philosophy. You seem willing to debate at least the
substance of the themes of the work. And kudos to you.

So debate it!


* *That would make, in all, two, who have participated in this
thread, so willing. The rest are just abject dismissals without
addressing the content.



* * Rand presented theses in Atlas Shrugged that are roundly
dismissed, here, by virtue of her upbringing and the context of the
formation of her values. But no one is debating the content of the
writing, itself. Only her motivations inferred from the politics of
the work, against her background.

I am trying to deabate the content. What did you think I was trying to
do?
Look, forget the first part of my posting and please re-read the
second, after the quote and citations. Then we might be both singing
from the same hymn sheet....

*I see where you're coming from. And your points about
specifically Rand's thinking and the philosophies engaged, here.

And?




Do you have a view on the post-modernist critique of rationalism and
structuralism?

* *Yes, I do. And thank you for asking. But my philosophies are not
at issue here.

Aren't they? I thought that you were a Randian (or whatever they are
called).

* *What I have a problem in all of this, here, is this statement,
which is in fact at the core of this thread:

What statement?


* * But in a discussion of social construct, how do we avoid our mental

baggage?

* *We, in fact, can. No one says it's easy. But it is possible.

How?

But
why must we? You have your baggage, I have mine, Rand had hers.

Yes, that's the problem.....but you don't seem to realise it....


And
from what I've read, quite a porter of it. So, what? In a practical
and honest discussion, the baggage cancels itself out so that facts
can be debated.

Do you really believe that?

But even that's not the issue that brought me into
this thread.

But you were complaining that no-one criticises Rand on the basis of
her philosophy alone! Now it seems that you don't want to discuss
that.


* *It's the tale, not the teller, that's been at issue in the
thread.

Sorry, but I couldn't give a toss! Do you want to discuss her
philosophy or not?

Specifically, the dismissal of the work based on the
author's upbringing. My point in all of this is that there's been a
cheap sophistic attempt to dismiss the work, largely because it
doesn't suit the tastes of a political body. And the argument has
been couched in rhetoric that seeks to tie the baggage of the author
into the the merits of the work.

That is a post-modernist position that relates to everyone. What makes
Rand any different?



This is not a valid disposition.
Else, we must dismiss everyone who's ever written, because of their
own conflicting baggage. Including Lenin, Plato, Nietzsche, or
Groucho Marx.

We don't dismiss them. We analyse them, we critique them, and we
interpret them. In the process, we find that some are probably more
credible than others.

You still aren't getting the point.

Dr. Barry Worthington


- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Atlas Shrugged movie opens
 

On 4/18/11 14:37 , Barry wrote:

You still aren't getting the point.



Apparently.

Neither are you.

Atlas Shrugged movie opens
 

On 4/18/11 14:37 , Barry wrote:

You still aren't getting the point.



Apparently.

Neither are you.

Atlas Shrugged movie opens
 

Tim Crowley wrote:

On Apr 16, 11:51*am, CB wrote:

LOL...you be talking about Andy Stern/SEIU and his peeps thinkging


Why do you stil refuse to take than English class. Do you enjoy the
ridicule you get as a ****ing illiterate racist ****?

why are all racists so ****ing illitarate.

"illitarate"

:)

Atlas Shrugged movie opens
 

Ayn Rand Shrugged, and then she wrote some books.Like the old saying
goes, That's all she wrote.
cuhulin, Shrugged

Atlas Shrugged movie opens
 

On Apr 18, 6:39*pm, "Slackjaw" wrote:
Tim Crowley wrote:
On Apr 16, 11:51*am, CB wrote:

LOL...you be talking about Andy Stern/SEIU and his peeps thinkging

Why do you stil refuse to take than English class. *Do you enjoy the
ridicule you get as a ****ing illiterate racist ****?

why are all racists so ****ing illitarate.

"illitarate"

:)

:-)

Reality is the only morality
 

On 04/18/2011 01:42 PM, Gary Forbis wrote:
On Apr 18, 7:47 am, "D. Peter wrote:
That a work of fiction can't be debated on its content is utter
rubbish.

OK, I've rethought this. I agree that it could be done. I'm not in
a position to do so. I was introduced to Ayn Rand with the film
"The Foundainhead" when as a kid I would stay up late and watch
movies. I bought several of her books and read them. When I started
thinking about her philosophy I realized just how bad it was.

Everything we know we know through our senses. So far so good.
Some people are blind and some are deaf. The blind person cannot
know the color red in the same way the sighted do nor can the deaf
know middle C the same way the hearing do. The lack of a sense
doesn't change what actaully exists only our realization of it.
Radiation
existed prior to our ability to detect it.

There is some stuff we do due to our evolutionary heritage. Many
animals survive mainly on inate response to stimulii. We think of
ourselves as thinking beings so when we act without thought we
will try to explain our actions as if rational even where there's
nothing rational going on--evolution selects behaviors based upon
survival; thoughtful action isn't necessarily the most efficient.

Reality has no morality. Even when we discuss morality we limit
it to human actions. This alone should put the lie to it. If
morality
had an objective existence then it would apply to all of reality not
just humans.

Reasoning can improve our survivability. While I'd like to say our
existence proves this I cannot do so directly because traits neither
selected for nor against will randomly drift. I must instead suggest
each look into himself or herself and look for situations where prior
thought has lead to survival. I believe all of us can find such
cases.

We are social animals. Social animals benefit from predicting
the behaviors of one's fellow societal members. This doesn't
make one behavior moral and another immoral. We can modify
our behavior based upon our predictions of others' responses
and we benefit from doing so.

The range of human behaviors is quite large. By restricting those
behaviors with the social context we reduce the complexity in
predicting others' behaviors and responses to our behaviors.
Myths, such as morality, serves to restrict the range of behaviors
we can expect and this aides our survival.

I suspect I've said enough for now and you can find stuff with which
to disagree. Hell, you'll probably discount it yet again becuase
I don't like Ayn Rand's characterization of her philosophy as
"Objectivism" when nothing could be further from the truth.

She wishes!
 

On 04/18/2011 02:22 PM, China Blue Nile wrote:
In ,
Gary wrote:

OK, I've rethought this. I agree that it could be done. I'm not in
a position to do so. I was introduced to Ayn Rand with the film
"The Foundainhead" when as a kid I would stay up late and watch
movies. I bought several of her books and read them. When I started
thinking about her philosophy I realized just how bad it was.

I'm a programmer and I've worked with programmers; it's a profession that
demands on rationality and creativity and objectivity. The reality is that
programmers don't work tirelessly to the great philosophical ideal. The reality
is programmers whine, bitch, hang out in each others office chatting about
televsion, and stare at walls. They are religious, non-religious, and
areligious. There is a software aesthetic but it's not tied to some great life
encompassing philosophy. Rand's idea of what creative people are like has little
to do with actual creative people.

Ayn and Disciple Alan Greenspan Wants Clinton Tax Rates
 

Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan is stepping up his call for Congress
to let the Bush-era tax cuts lapse.

In an appearance Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Mr. Greenspan used
his strongest words yet to urge lawmakers to let them expire. The risk
of a U.S. debt crisis, he said, is just too big. Mr. Greenspan, who
retired from the Federal Reserve in 2006, had endorsed the cuts back in
2001 championed by then-President George W. Bush.

“This crisis is so imminent and so difficult that I think we have to
allow the so-called Bush tax cuts all to expire. That is a very big
number,” he said, referring to how much the U.S. government could save
from letting income taxes go back up to levels last seen under former
President Bill Clinton.

Mr. Greenspan was talking about re-imposing the taxes for all

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/0...s/?mod=WSJBlog

Great Post!
 

On 04/18/2011 03:10 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Apr 18, 4:58 pm, Nickname wrote:
On Apr 18, 3:10 pm, "D. Peter wrote:



its really not hard to dismiss rand rants that tried to dress up a
pig. it can be done with as little as one short sentence such as
lincolns quote, or galbraiths quote. others maybe took a small
paragraph or to, to destroy her illusion, and put squarely on the
table what she was, and what she stood for.

"Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord
of
the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often
engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading
to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to
deal
with the real world. The other involves orcs."


"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the
growth of 
private power to a point where it becomes stronger than
their democratic 
state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism--
ownership of government by an 
individual, by a group, or by any
controlling private power."
-Franklin D. Roosevelt

show me a criminal that is for regulation



" For too many of us the political equality we once had won was
meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had
concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over
other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor —
other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free;
liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of
happiness.
Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could
appeal only to the organized power of government. The collapse of 1929
showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the
people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.
President Franklin Roosevelt "

"The perfect liberty they seek is the liberty of making slaves of
other people." -- Abraham Lincoln

We know now that Government by
organized money is just as dangerous
as Government by organized mob.
--Franklin D. Roosevelt

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest
exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a
superior moral justification for selfishness.--John Kenneth
Galbraith


"There is a great deal of psychological comfort to be found in a
fully
fledged ideology such as laissez faire because it removes the need
for
critical thought. The ideology is used as an algorithm. All the
individual has to do in any situation is to ask what the ideology
requires by way of action. The fact that the action may be harmful or
the ideology objectively at odds with reality is emotionally
unimportant for the individual. What matters is that an answer has
been
found which is compatible with the ideology. This is especially
appealing to the less intellectually curious.

Psychologically, political ideologies are akin to religion and their
practitioners behave in an essentially religious manner. For example,
in the case of laissez faire, its disciples chant "let the market
decide" in the manner of Christians saying "God will provide."

Those amongst the elite who are not true believers in laissez faire
will, in most cases, toe the ideological line because they deem it
prudent to do so for their own careers and security. The few who
speak
out against it are simply sidelined.
ROBERT HENDERSON"

ayn rand novels are not historically accurate, nor are they the
product of a stable mind.
what is the definition of a crank? one who gives out advise that
makes no sense at all.
what is the definition of a crank? one who accepts, or embraces
advise that makes no sense at all.

our state and nation have experienced major declines resulting from
contemporary conservative leaders and their simplistic ideas. their
dour polices regularly fail to connect the dots, let alone comprehend
the space between them.
richard a. swanson

definition of a cult:Confusing Doctrine Encouraging blind acceptance
and rejection of logic through complex lectures on an incomprehensible
doctrine, Chanting and Singing Eliminating non-cult ideas through
group repetition of mind-narrowing chants or phrases

While it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is
true that most stupid people are conservative. ... John Stuart Mill

"The game of Darwinian economics and the enshrinement of market-
miracle
theology is really the systematic looting of the pockets and purses of
the middle class"
Jerry M. Landay of Bristol

Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred
principles
of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not
be
restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.
- Bertrand
Russell

Taxes are not "punishment for success". Nor are they "theft". Taxes
are a royalty paid commensurate to the economic benefit obtained from
a shared socio-economic system.

"Those who gain the benefit should also bear the disadvantage."
- Common Law maxim

``Capitalism sowed the seeds of its own demise because the benefits of
a decade-long boom accrued to capital, with nothing flowing to labor.
Telling workers who hadn't had a decent pay raise for years to tighten
their belts once the good times ended proved disastrous.

The biggest political story of 2008 is getting little
coverage. It involves the collapse of assumptions that have dominated
our economic debate for three decades.
Since the Reagan years, free market cliches have passed for
sophisticated economic analysis. But in the current crisis, these
ideas are falling, one by one, as even conservatives recognize that
capitalism is ailing.
You know the talking points: Regulation is the problem and
deregulation is the solution. The distribution of income and wealth
doesn't matter. Providing incentives for the investors of capital to
"grow the pie" is the only policy that counts. Free trade produces
well-distributed economic growth, and any dissent from this orthodoxy
is "protectionism."
e.j. dionne


teddy roosevelt

We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things
good wages for the wage-workers and reasonable prices for the
consumers. Wherever in any business the prosperity of the businessman
is obtained by lowering the wages of his workmen and charging an
excessive price to the consumers we wish to interfere and stop such
practices. We will not submit to that kind of prosperity any more than
we will submit to prosperity obtained by swindling investors or
getting unfair advantages over business rivals.

Remember, when a Republican talks about "Free" Markets, they mean

Free of Regulation
Free of Oversight
Free of Competition
Free of Ethics
Free of Morality
Free of Common Sense
Free of Long Term Thinking'


"disinterest in good government has long been a principle of modern
conservatism."
paul krugman

Economist and author Henry Liu summed it up brilliantly in a recent
article in the Asia Times:
"The collapse of market fundamentalism in economies everywhere is
putting the Chicago School theology on trial. Its big lie has been
exposed by facts on two levels. The Chicago Boys' claim that helping
the rich will also help the poor is not only exposed as not true, it
turns out that market fundamentalism hurts not only the poor and the
powerless; it hurts everyone, rich and poor, albeit in different ways.
When wages are kept low to fight inflation, the low-wage regime causes
overcapacity through over investment from excess profit. And monetary
easing under such conditions produces hyperinflation that hurts also
the rich. The fruits of Friedman test are in - and they are all
rotten."


and we can go back to adam smith, who was really a socialist, not a
libertarian, who advocated for wealth redistribution, unions,
regulation, as well as taxation based on ones abilities to pay.

Atlas Shrugged movie opens
 

On 04/18/2011 06:39 PM, Slackjaw wrote:
Tim Crowley wrote:

On Apr 16, 11:51 am, wrote:

LOL...you be talking about Andy Stern/SEIU and his peeps thinkging


Why do you stil refuse to take than English class. Do you enjoy the
ridicule you get as a ****ing illiterate racist ****?

why are all racists so ****ing illitarate.

"illitarate"

:)

litera = letter

Great Post!
 

On Apr 19, 7:14*am, dave wrote:

thank you, and your one on greenspan i saw the other day. thanks for
posting it.