Leaderboard

I'm not following you. Agreement about bring back the boons, as in, the hero ought to do something that benefits society when he returns from the adventure? Usually he does, that's how it came to be part of the monomyth structure. Do you see this as inherently collectivist or altruistic? I don't. It would depend on the nature of the boon. It could very well be a "Gospel" of individualism and reason.

Campbell produced a large body of work, which I’ve studied quite a great deal. Be careful to distinguish between when he’s being descriptive and prescriptive. You’ll find that he was indeed an individualist in his prescriptive mode. Are you just now dipping into his work for the first time? Only Hero with a Thousand Faces so far? The Masks of God series is a good place to go next. Though the video series Transformations of Myth Through Time is also excellent, and easier going. Unfortunately it has never been made available on DVD; I taped it (VHS) off the air decades ago. In the last chapter of Occidental Mythology he spells out the functions of myth. You (maybe) should make a beeline for that chapter, it has important material (important for understanding him) stated in an accessible and succinct manner.

As I said above, your argument is: People who are overly cruel to animals (e.g. actual irrational torture for no gain other than some sick emotion), are a potential threat to other human beings. Therefore, such cruelty is beyond being immoral: it should be criminal. I'm not troubled at any of the semantics or style of your argument, but I am troubled by your fact-lacking approach. Do you have evidence of your premise? My impression is that you have no evidence that such people are a real threat -- at least any more a threat than many others; instead, you're simply assuming this. Frankly, without any evidence to back it up, it seems like you're purposely grasping at this assumption because it helps your argument, rather than because it is true. If someone is very drunk, we have ample evidence that they lose control, and -- in the right context -- we have no problem using force to restrain them from some anticipated dangerous action. If someone is dangerously psychotic where they're having hallucinations and can act dangerously toward others, the law allows them to be held -- and, if the kinks could be removed from the system, it is fine in principle to do so. The point is this: if your premise is true, then you might be able to make a case. Imagine you have a neighbor who starves his pet, or kicks it, or abandons it is some area it will probably die... etc. do you actually live in fear this person will assault you? I don't ask this as an argument: I ask that you introspect about this.... make it real, and see what evidence you really have, and what fears you really and legitimately feel .. then, argue forward from that, to your conclusion.

Please note that under the label “Objectivism” you will find in internet, including on this forum, a lot of claims which in fact have nothing to do with it. As you are new to Objectivism, you still cannot judge about what is what, so be very careful. It is quite easy to misunderstand a philosophy… OK. And what did she mean? Do you have a reference? I mean a primary reference. As I explained –and you did not address it - the appeal to the concept of a dept toward the victim is useless for your purpose. It is also dangerous, as I have mentionned. So no, sorry, I still do not think this is the Objectivism stand… unless you have a reference. PS: If you are interested, I can recommend you some sources, including in Bucharest. You may write me a Personal Message: put the cursor on my name, select "Message".

Technically, a story in which you as the reader/listener/viewer are intended to identify with the protagonist because of his virtuous and exemplary conduct is a hero, but in a 'negative example' story the reader/listener/viewer is to learn what not to do, and what path not to follow because the protagonist is lacking virtue and is classified as an "anti-hero". Campbell is centered around finding similarities in the mythic heroes only, not similarities among all mythic protagonists and so anti-heroes are excluded from consideration. It has been many years since I read Campbell so I do not recall if he ever did comment more in depth on the anti-hero.

Yes I know. But the character was likely a composite, since the "real" Leo (Lev Bekkerman) didn't have the war hero father. Which the person from Rand's school, that Shostakovich knew, did. In any event, there's really not much to see here, no great revelation. Maybe they (Rand and Shostakovich) were acquainted, maybe not. Here's the photo of Bekkerman:

We already know who Leo was. I don't remember the last name, but the ARI people published an illustrated Rand biography several years ago with a photo of him; no need to conjecture. He went the way of Leo in the book and was executed in the 1930s, long after Rand emigrated.

Stuff I forgot: Shostakovich was acquainted with Zamyatin (though Rand probably wasn't), he had a school friend who sounds like a model for Leo in We the Living and who was executed, and Rand's middle sister attended the Leningrad Conservatory a year behind Shostakovich. I checked Anne Heller's Rand bio and found she claims that the Stoyunina Gymnasium was for girls only. Maybe the sexes were kept segregated. Or maybe Volkov has it wrong. I lean toward the former. I was pretty surprised late in the book that Shostakovich is documented (privately) saying/writing antisemitic things in the 1920's. Obviously he completely changed his tune later (e.g. the Babi-Yar symphony).

Perceptual Ontology appears to be a "solution" looking for a "problem". This post is just degenerating into a game of definitions. What concrete problem does Perceptual Ontology solve? Why is it necessary to form the new concept. Rand's Razor: The requirements of cognition determine the objective criteria of conceptualization. They can be summed up best in the form of an epistemological “razor”: concepts are not to be multiplied beyond necessity—the corollary of which is: nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity.