Delta

Please notice I said it garners MY full support, not the United States of America. The US Government has two moral obligations on which it should spend its tax revenue: Defending itself from all other foreign nations. Defending each citizen from every other citizen. If Tsunami relief efforts can be proved to fit into one of those categories, so be it; otherwise, I would like my tax dollars back, just as you would.

Perhaps due to Rand's aversion to groups, committees and "collective minds"? Perchane it involved a speech in anthem wherein she said "The word 'We' . . . crushes all beneath it . . ." It might have had something to do with that quote from Kent Lansing as well. Rand understood that regardless of how rational and intelligent men are, they do not function as a collective. She made that pretty clear on multiple occasions . . . Would you care to dispute that? If so, I'd say it'd be an interesting debate, but probably worthy of its own thread. Yes, that is confusing, thanks for pointing it out; you are correct regarding both your inferences as to my meaning.

Perhaps I should have mentioned that my discovery changed naught in my opinion of the ARI, for better or worse. I support the ARI as a group promoting Objectivist principles. I generally like to be extremely well versed on something before I pass opinion on it, rather than just casually acquainted. Directly comparing what? Your parenthetical remark does not subsitute for a noun. Assuming you mean the ARI's board of directors - I shall repeat myself: I did not mean to attribute them as a great empty vacuum; how could I pass judgement on something I am not knowledgable of? I simply found the coincidence that the institution which bears Rand's name and promotes her ideas would be run by a board of directors which Rand wasn't altogether fond of. The fact that this is required for non-profit organizations serves as a secondary form of irony which I hadn't anticipated. EDIT: Cleared up possibly confusing language.

I certainly hope not. Because if that's true, there are a whole lot of people over at the ARI who are wasting their time.

I never intended to compare the board of directors at the ARI to a "great big empty nothing." I never stated such explicitly, and although it might be alleged that I made such a comparison implicitly, I trusted that since I was posting on these Objectivist forums that no such implication would be drawn. It appears I was wrong. For the record, the ARI, as I understand it, is an organization which promotes Rand's ideals to the world through a myriad of channels. In doing so, they have always had, and always will have, my full support. That of course, doesn't detract from the inherent irony of the situation. The fact that a board of directors is a requirement of the legal structure actually serves to accentuate the irony in a manner I hadn't seen at first. Honestly, it was intended only as an ironic musing, not a condemning attack on the ARI. I fail to see why you've become so defensive at such an innocuous remark. I would tell you all to lighten up a little, but I'm afraid that would only meet with further defensiveness. The fact that I find something humorous or ironic does not imply I dissaprove of it. Apparently my idea of irony and humor does not coincide with all of yours, and I shall remember it in the future.

Ah, I was unaware. Pardon my ignorance.

Someone's reading my post too seriously. 'Twas only intended for a chuckle, not a condemnation.

If but one Objectivist's life is saved or made easier by the tsunami relief effort, it garners my full support. And to anyone else the aid benefits, it serves as my belief in his/her potential value as a member of the human race.

The campaign must be working, my AP English class will begin discussing the Fountainhead in February.

I would probably say the fundamental root of "irony" is: an expectation differing from a reality. As to the seperate question of my evaluation of ARI: I'm not farmiliar enough with the ARI to have a firm and well reasoned opinion of it yet, but I would say that this fact certainly hasn't helped improve my opinion.

Yep, anytime.

There are three principle types of irony (Socratic Irony might be considered a fourth): Verbal Irony: This is the irony you mentioned in your post, which arises from "an expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning" (Source) Dramatic Irony: This type of irony is specific to literature and theater, it happens "when the meaning of the situation is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play" (Source) Situational Irony: "Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs." (Source) This is the type of irony present in my original post. You wouldn't expect the foundation that espouses Ayn Rand's ideas to have a board of directors when Rand directly attacked that very institution in The Fountainhead.

Didn't say they were exclusively concerned with philosophy. I think it's quite obvious that plenty of other groups were persecuted for non-philosophical reasons (probably an overwhelming majority). But since our discussion pertained to a philosophy and those who ascribe to it, I thought I would confine my response to that matter. I by no means meant to imply that persecution was tied to philosophy.

"I'll have a chapter on boards of directors. You see, they don't exist . . . The causes of illusions are not pretty to discover. They're either vicious or tragic. This one is both. Mainly vicious. . . All I mean is that a board of directors is one or two ambious men - and a whole lot of ballast . . . Great big empty nothings. They say we can't visualize a total nothing. Hell, sit at any committee meeting." -Kent Lansing (The Founainhead, Ayn Rand) ARI Ahh, the irony

That's a winner! My profound thanks.

And what if they're sitting down? I suppose you'll tell me they sit erect as well. Suppose they're tired? What if they're lying down? I'm tempted to think this is a joke. The point, however, is that the average persecutor cannot spot an objectivist with anywhere near the ease that one can spot an orthodox Chrisitan, an African-American, a foreign immigrant from Asia, etc. An interesting, and valid counterpoint. Perhaps it would be prudent to add to the point that Objectivist philosophy is only available to the "free world," seeing that countries like China filter their media. Even so, I'm still not sure that stands fully; I'll have to give it some thought. I think you misinterpreted my meaning. In order to direct persecution, there must be some symbol, some concrete presence to persecute. People need something tangible and concrete to throw their hate at. Without some kind of symbol or consistant reminder, it is difficult to inspire that type of persecution. The average person does not feel the concreteness of an Objectivist as he walks by. I by no means imply that Objectivism is not palpable, I do imply that its existence is not palpable to the average person. Those who persecute are unconcerned with philosophy, but the leaders who start such persecutions are concerned with it. (i.e. Toohey) And just as Toohey chose to ignore Roark and attack him by keeping his name out of print until he became a sufficient threat, so it is with Objectivism. It poses no serious threats to the leaders of alternate schools of thought, as yet, and to bring its existence into widespread knowledge by attacking it may actually attract more people (The effect of hightened book sales when some retailer chooses to ban it from its shelves) to its ranks and be detrimental to their positions. Sometimes the most effective form of attack is to ignore something completely.

Try this I just searched on CNET, didn't actually download it - but according to its description, should do the job.

There are a couple of reason why Objectivists haven't been persecuted (to any appreciable extent): 1. There is no physical symobl that distinguishes an Objectivist. Christians wore crosses, Jews wore Stars of David, African-Americans have a darker skin color, immigrants have an accent or markedly different physical features. Objectivism has no distinguishing feature. Rand wore a dollar sign, but so do hoodlums and gangsters in today's culture. The naked human body may also be an appropriate symbol, but alas, there are quite a few of those as well It is difficult to persecute those who cannot be distinguished easily. 2. Objectivism started in the 1930-40's with Rand's books and essays (Although many ideas which fit into Objectivist philosophy existed long before). Since it's rise is so recent in history, it was recieved by a world that is wholly more rational, secular and capitalist than any other time in the past. There is no established tradition involved with despising Objectivists, and tradition is an extremely important thing to have on your side for persecution, because tradition requires no logic or reason behind it. 3. Palpableness. To direct hate and persecution at a group, masses need something palpable to hate. Just as Roark, Mallory and Cameron find it impossible to fight a nothingness, so too is it difficult for masses to hate a nothingness. Tying in with point one, there is no physically apparent way to distinguish an Objectivist. The lack of palpableness can also be attributed to the relatively small number of Objectivists who are actually living. 4. Threat. Due to the small ranks of Objectivism as well as its core message, it poses little threat to other philosophy. It espouses that a man should be concerned primarily with himself - if others wish to worship malefic and supernatural beings, let them do so; they are of no concern to the self-sufficient man. Such a philosophy with an apparent live and let live attitude (I'm hesitant to use that cliche) poses a small threat especially with so small a following.

There are a great many quotes from Rand's novels and essays that count among my favorites; generally, when I recall one I can paraphrase the quote pretty well, but alas, my owr words fall short of Rand's. I cau usually find them within minutes - but this one's been troubling me for days Anyone have any ideas? Below a paraphrasal of the quote: It is impossible to kill a man's self-respect, because it is self-contained. But there is no more cruel thing on the planet than to kill a man's pretension at self-respect. Ask anything of a man, but do not ask him to respect himself, he will hate you for it. My thanks and appreciation in advance - Delta.