spaceplayer

I personally don't think you can "shed" fear as an emotion; it's there for a reason, an "early warning system" to let you know that you're values are in trouble. Perhaps you should think of the matter as one of "rational fear" and "irrational fear?" If you're thinking of Rand's attitude via her characters (Roark to Toohey: "But I don't think of you" or Dagny: "We never had to take any of it seriously, did we?"), consider Rand's own response to this question: Look, I have written repeatedly that one of the troubles with Americans is that they don’t believe in the reality of evil, they do not really believe how evil evil is. Therefore, you better take evil and, evil or irrationality seriously. It has to be taken seriously. Not in the sense of regarding it as important. Not in the sense of letting it determine the course of your life or your choice of career or your choice of values. But in the sense that you must not evade its existence, and you must do everything within your power—not at the price of self-sacrifice, but as you have the power and the means—to counteract evil...But to do that, you have to take the issue seriously.

I haven't seen it yet, but from what I've seen, trailer-wise, it seems like they're bringing the influence of Sherlock Holmes on HOUSE, M.D. back home. If you haven't noticed, House is Holmes and Wilson is Watson. The influence is intentional, with the added interpretation of House as a jackass whose intellect, as someone noted on this thread about the new Holmes, is as detrimental as it is beneficial. So interesting to see that dynamic come full circle, for better or worse...

Yes, and yes.

A Farewell, indeed. Can't we raise our eyes and make a start?

Best way to make up one's mind. I'm not the kind of person to say "DON'T SEE IT." I heard the debates, and wanted to make up my own mind as well. As for the debate: no contest.

(Wish I hadn't seen the movie the movie, I mean.)

Ed Hudgins wrote a good critical review of AVATAR, check it out. Having seen it, I wish I hadn't.

Objectivists do not need to be "optimistic." They need to be pro-active.

I've seen this angle of attack before, in a book called LISTENING TO THE FUTURE by Bill Martin, a Marxist professer who writes about progressive rock music. In his book, he attacks the band Rush and Ayn Rand: "One of the incoherencies of Rand's philosophy is well-captured by Roarke's line, "I do not build in order to have clients, I have clients in order to build." No real capitalist could stand by such a statement; imagine the CEO of General Motors saying, 'We do not build cars in order to have car buyers, we have car buyers in order to build cars.' Of course, this CEO could SAY this, just as corporations constantly flood the airwaves with advertisements about how much they 'care'; the point is, this idealistic outlook, more befitting an artist, could not be the guiding philosophy of a capitalist, who must pursue profit first of all, and only 'build' that which might lead to the generation of profit." In his other book on Yes, he makes a similar comment as to why Bruce Springsteen COULDN'T be a capitalist: "...when offered a large sum for the use of his 'Born in the U.S.A.' song in Chrysler advertisements, Springsteen could say no, says something both about a subject and about a structure. That is, this fact says something about art and artists, that there is a space there for resistance to the complete commodification of every aspect of human life. (One way to bring these two points together is to say that Springsteen, while quite wealthy, is not a capitalist; if he were a capitalist, he literally could not choose to not sell his song-unless he had a more lucrative offer or had a way of making more money with it himself-without at the same time deciding not to be a capitalist....Capitalism does not fundamentally have to do with intentions, but rather with the invisible hand of profit."

Jeff Perren, who wrote the review, has already stated that he's not an Objectivist: " One note, in the spirit of full disclosure, however. I'm not an Objectivist. My views are sufficiently at variance from Objectivism, libertarianism, conservatism, and - it goes without saying - modern liberalism or Progressivism, that I can't honestly place myself within any of the popular categories with any accuracy. (Yes, I know that Objectivism is much more than a political philosophy. So, I claim, are those others.)"

EARTH AND EXILE by Spaceplayer.

"The Spirit of Radio" by Rush. It's a musician's anthem.

No worries.

"That another blogger felt that a written statement made at a young age was an indication of the life lived is still beside the point. He doesn’t like the music. You may feel he is wrong, but what he finds in the music is what he finds. Your arguments do not touch that point." C.W., in case you're referring to me, I never gave an opinion about the music per se, which I happen to like to an extent.

You're welcome, my pleasure, and thank you.

Hi, Sean, and thanks for sharing. Just a few quick comments, and I'll leave the grammatical suggestions to others: overall, I like where you're going with this in its theme, and ending on a question (where are we going as a culture?) is a great idea, leaving it open-ended for further discussion for the audience. The Superman-Batman comparison is, for the most part, right; you may encounter nit-pickers who will go into nuances, and perhaps not unjustifiably, given that there have been many writers and many variations over the years. Batman is also depicted as "Rorshach-like" at time (i.e., psychotic), but usually to counter his selfish motives in fighting crime as a positive thing. And if you haven't yet read it, I'd highly recommend Andrew Bernstein's THE PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF HEROISM: http://www.andrewbernstein.net/heroes/2_heroism.htm. You may also be interested in my blog, Superhero Babylon, where I and Landon Erp discuss these themes in depth. If you need further clarifications on the Batman-Superman characters, I'd recommend two entries: "Batman Unmasked: What Makes Batman A Hero?" and "The Epic Song of Superman in Five Parts" The Superman essay especially touches on your theme of how a hero mirrors a culture, tracking how Superman has changed with the times from his first appearance to today (and especially touches on the whiny heroes of today.) And if you'd like, once you get your speech finalized, we'd be happy to host it there. Good luck with your speech, keep us posted!

Oh, and for the record, I don't admit to a mistake, but it's not about that. Again, it was the tone of voice (which I don't have to tolerate on my blog.) I didn't come here to start any fights, nor am I interested in participating in one; hence, the "moving on."

Steve, Kainscalia and I have dropped it. Please do the same.

Your tone of voice leaves me not wishing to discuss further with you, that's how it's different. I didn't come for a personal attack. Moving on.

You've crossed a line in speculating about me. I'm dropping the issue, not worth it.

Kainscalia, "please" yourself. Your lengthy response here ignores the crucial part of Beethoven's own words: "With joy I hasten to meet
death. Despite my hard fate ... I shall wish that it had come later;
but I am content, for he shall free me of constant suffering. Come
then, Death, and I shall face thee with courage." THIS alone is enough, to get back to the original point of the original question, is enough to qualify Rand's identifying Beethoven as a "Byronic" tragic composer (within the context of her philosophy and sense of life) and rebuke your snarky comment about 10 year olds and cartoons. Great or not, let's not pretend the tragic wasn't there.

"Honestly, Ellison, one should do one's research. The image of Beethoven as a brooding, dark and misanthropic cankered old man can be forgiven when you're 10 and all you've seen is "Eternal Beloved" and the Animaniacs' spoof on Beethoven. But really, one would expect more from an adult." Now, to be fair to Jake, it't not just 10 year old cartoon watchers who make that claim; Beethoven himself had to answer such claims from his contemporaries: "O ye men who accuse me of being malevolent, stubborn and
misanthropical, how ye wrong me! Ye know not the secret
cause. Ever since childhood my heart and mind were disposed
toward feelings of gentleness and goodwill, and I was eager
to accomplish great deeds; but consider this: for six years
I have been hopelessly ill, aggravated and cheated by quacks in
the hope of improvement but finally compelled to face a lasting
malady ... I was forced to isolate myself. I was misunderstood
and rudely repulsed because I was as yet unable to say to people,
"Speak louder, shout, for I am deaf" ... With joy I hasten to meet
death. Despite my hard fate ... I shall wish that it had come later;
but I am content, for he shall free me of constant suffering. Come
then, Death, and I shall face thee with courage." Heiglnstadt (sic)
6 October, 1802. Whether or not the charge is justified, when the composer himself has to answer this common charge, well...he may be right, but then one has to ask WHY the consistent charge from then to now? Was Beethoven simply passionate, or was he blind about his excess? By his own admission, he did exhibit traits of malevolence. He doesn't deny the effect, only the judgement of its cause.

Jake, really? REALLY? You've never heard about Rand re Beethoven? I almost envy you for not dealing with the resulting nonsense. But here are a few posts dealing with the issue in depth at my blog, Orpheus Remembered, a site dedictated to the Objectivist-music debates. http://orpheusremembered.blogspot.com/sear...and%20beethoven

All I need to know about this movie is summed up by a soundbite from the commercial: "There has to be a revolution in this country between those who have nothing and those who have everything."

Were the aliens clearly rational? (I've heard arguments on this board saying it was ok to kill Indians and such for not being "fully rational.") Actually, I can't clarify, because it's not clear whether the aliens were fully rational, the movie was too lazy to present such a case.