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