Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I hate to have to educate somebody on internet forums, but the words are "penis" and "seimen". I'd have hoped that most objectivists would be able to express themselves clearly in the language that Ayn Rand chose to shape her literature.

It's spelled semen, Mr. Smart Guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Theyre 8 year old children. If anything, cartman is comparable to gail wynand, the man with no integrity, seeking to destroy those who remind of the fact.

He's a typical manipulator. Asserting that he was clearly influenced by Wynand is far fetched, however.

Watch all of the episodes where butters makes appearances like I have, and then comment on my assertion please. He is the man who stands up to all opposition, the man who says no. He is young and gets taken advantage of by people like cartman, as did henry rearden. He frequently is given the role of the moral compass by which all the other characters are judged.

I've seen every episode of South Park before season 12 (I wait for the DVDs to come out). Butters is a quirky guy. There are parellels between Butters and Rearden, just as there are parellels between Rearden and my Dad, who has never read anything of Rand's and knows nothing about her philosophy. Many characters in South Park parallel characters in other novels and even characters in real life. You're finding a few similarities and focusing on those, without focusing on those attributes that are dissimilar: The fact that Butters' alter ego "Dr Chaos" is trying to to destroy the world*, that he's overall not very smart, and that he really DOESN'T have spine, is obvious that he's just a fun, cute, quirky character. If you could provide some hard examples, I've be glad to rewatch certain episodes to attempt to validate your claims.

How can you support the war in iraq? Its not even a war, so much as a hostile takeover. Ron Paul isnt a pacifist, he just doesnt believe in starting wars in order to make profit for the arms industry. Anyone who reads Ayn Rands books should be able to detect the kind of political corruption that is currently destroying the country.

This is a thread about South Park, not Ron Paul (relevant thread), the Iraq War (relevant thread), or Objectivism's overall objections to Libertarianism (relevant thread). Let's try to stay on topic, please.

They are realists, and if you think file sharing can be controlled without reverting to a police state, you have clearly never ventured outside the realm of pure philosophy.

I can't seem to find a relevant thread to direct you to, so perhaps this is something you can posit in another thread. But it's certainly NOT relevant in this thread.

And as to Howard Roark and Dominique, I mentioned already that it was satire. The creators are nearly universally irreverant, the fact that they bothered to conceal these references to Rand's work in their show is a compliment, morphed by their twisted black sense of humor.

I simply don't see a resemblance. Beyond the fact that the chickenlover has red hair and has sex, I don't see a similarity at all between Roark and Dominique. As per your request, I watched that particular episode last night, and then rewatched relevant parts.

Overall, the only parallel of any substance whatsoever is the brief mention of the "self-sustaining generator in Colorado," (I also watched that episode yesterday) which, if truly inspired by AS is a very clever little bit. The other claims, though, are simply too thin to garnish any support from me.

...but the words are "penis" and "seimen". I'd have hoped that most objectivists...

If you're going to be a grammar nazi, I'm going to do the same and request that Objectivism be written properly, as a proper noun (that is with a capital O). There is a difference between "objectivism" and "Objectivism", just as there is a difference between "liberterianism" and "Libertarianism". I hope you can respect that difference. It might seem small to you, but you felt the need to correct the spelling of penis and incorrectly correct the spelling of semen.

* Before you jump all over that one claiming "Galt tried to stop the motor of the world, there's a clear parallel" remember that Galt is trying to fix the problems. Butters tried flooding the world (with a garden hose, mind you). In that regard Galt has about as much in common with Butters as he does with Zorg from the Fifth Element.

Edit: brief fixes and added the footnote.

Edited by Chops

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He's a typical manipulator. Asserting that he was clearly influenced by Wynand is far fetched, however.

I've seen every episode of South Park before season 12 (I wait for the DVDs to come out). Butters is a quirky guy. There are parellels between Butters and Rearden, just as there are parellels between Rearden and my Dad, who has never read anything of Rand's and knows nothing about her philosophy. Many characters in South Park parallel characters in other novels and even characters in real life. You're finding a few similarities and focusing on those, without focusing on those attributes that are dissimilar: The fact that Butters' alter ego "Dr Chaos" is trying to to destroy the world*, that he's overall not very smart, and that he really DOESN'T have spine, is obvious that he's just a fun, cute, quirky character. If you could provide some hard examples, I've be glad to rewatch certain episodes to attempt to validate your claims.

This is a thread about South Park, not Ron Paul (relevant thread), the Iraq War (relevant thread), or Objectivism's overall objections to Libertarianism (relevant thread). Let's try to stay on topic, please.

I can't seem to find a relevant thread to direct you to, so perhaps this is something you can posit in another thread. But it's certainly NOT relevant in this thread.

I simply don't see a resemblance. Beyond the fact that the chickenlover has red hair and has sex, I don't see a similarity at all between Roark and Dominique. As per your request, I watched that particular episode last night, and then rewatched relevant parts.

Overall, the only parallel of any substance whatsoever is the brief mention of the "self-sustaining generator in Colorado," (I also watched that episode yesterday) which, if truly inspired by AS is a very clever little bit. The other claims, though, are simply too thin to garnish any support from me.

If you're going to be a grammar nazi, I'm going to do the same and request that Objectivism be written properly, as a proper noun (that is with a capital O). There is a difference between "objectivism" and "Objectivism", just as there is a difference between "liberterianism" and "Libertarianism". I hope you can respect that difference. It might seem small to you, but you felt the need to correct the spelling of penis and incorrectly correct the spelling of semen.

* Before you jump all over that one claiming "Galt tried to stop the motor of the world, there's a clear parallel" remember that Galt is trying to fix the problems. Butters tried flooding the world (with a garden hose, mind you). In that regard Galt has about as much in common with Butters as he does with Zorg from the Fifth Element.

Edit: brief fixes and added the footnote.

I appreciate the debate from a regular south park viewer.

I agree, nothing specifically links Cartman to Gail Wynand, but his character is nearly identical. Incidently, the newest episode (aired yesterday) is hilarious, and features Cartman in the role of a soulless assimilator once again.

The majority of the similarities are very vague traits such as butter's similarities to two of Rand's characters

Dominique being "raped" by Roark, yet enjoying it all the while. Roark taught her to love, by forcing himself upon her; this is suspiciously close to a comment near the end of that episode about BookMobile Guy raping a bunch of chickens in order to teach Barbrady to read.

-In the episode "stupid spoiled whore", Butters go off to follow his grandfather's (maternal) footsteps, to make his fortune as a coal miner. Sound familiar?

-Butters makes a very compelling stand in 1203-Cartman Sucks, this fortitude not being particular to any Rand hero, but common to them all.

-In the "Raisins" episode, he maintains his composure after being crushed by a girl that he thought was in love with him. On that same subject, Butters has the quality of being so innocent that he cannot concieve of dishonesty, much like Henry Rearden.

-He is essentially the model of a Randian hero: The world hates him for his indifference, yet he doesnt pay them any heed, and continues on in his own fashion. At times he reverts into his Professor Chaos alter-ego, which is similar to Galt's personna, that of a scorned angel, turned to distrust of human nature, and the urge to end what he sees as evil.

The generator is very concrete, and bears a very close resemblance to Galt's masterpiece, as was stated. How many sparsely populated Colorado mountain towns have self sustaining generators?

On another note, I have wondered if the premise of south park was that John Galt failed in his attempt to stop the world, and the Gulch was infiltrated by the dishonest, weak communists who formed the collective evil in AS. Butters remains alone in a town of idiots.

As for the other comments, I was merely trying to establish the fact that I am a supporter of Ayn Rand's message, and my interest in this subject is not intended as an attempt to slander Ms. Rand in any way.

Edited by WarIs4Profit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate to have to educate somebody on internet forums, but the words are "penis" and "seimen". I'd have hoped that most objectivists would be able to express themselves clearly in the language that Ayn Rand chose to shape her literature.

If you find a natural part of the human body disgusting and vulgar then that is your fault for being a Nihilist not mine. I for one don't take shame in being honest and strait to the point, hence the term "penis".

They are realists, and if you think file sharing can be controlled without reverting to a police state, you have clearly never ventured outside the realm of pure philosophy.

What type of pure philosophy are you talking about? I've never herd of anything about intellectual property rights devolving into totalitarianism under Objectivist philosophy. Another thing to keep in mind here, is the fact that the ends don't justify the means. Just because it's a little difficult for the government to punish people who steal property over the internet shouldn't give the government the right to legalize theft, otherwise you could justify taxation under that argument as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole recent discussion is more than a little odd...!

But South Park in general is great! :D It's basically funny, thoughtful, spirited, and rebellious. All things considered, it's fairly simpatico with Objectivism. At the least, it effectively skewers much of the political and philosophical pretensions of the right and left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the more concrete examples. Unquestionably, I'll rewatch every episode again (most likely in order when season 11 and 12 come on DVD), and I'll keep my eyes and ears open to try to validate the claims myself to see if I can find any similarities beyond coincidence (Think of Sol's monologue in the movie pi: "Hold on. You have to slow down. You're losing it. You have to take a breath. Listen to yourself. You're connecting a computer bug I had with a computer bug you might have had and some religious hogwash. You want to find the number 216 in the world, you will be able to find it everywhere. 216 steps from a mere street corner to your front door. 216 seconds you spend riding on the elevator. When your mind becomes obsessed with anything, you will filter everything else out and find that thing everywhere.")

I'm still very skeptical that the coincidences you've presented are more than just coincidences and are orchestrated as a (subtle) inside joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I appreciate the more concrete examples. Unquestionably, I'll rewatch every episode again (most likely in order when season 11 and 12 come on DVD), and I'll keep my eyes and ears open to try to validate the claims myself to see if I can find any similarities beyond coincidence (Think of Sol's monologue in the movie pi: "Hold on. You have to slow down. You're losing it. You have to take a breath. Listen to yourself. You're connecting a computer bug I had with a computer bug you might have had and some religious hogwash. You want to find the number 216 in the world, you will be able to find it everywhere. 216 steps from a mere street corner to your front door. 216 seconds you spend riding on the elevator. When your mind becomes obsessed with anything, you will filter everything else out and find that thing everywhere.")

I'm still very skeptical that the coincidences you've presented are more than just coincidences and are orchestrated as a (subtle) inside joke.

FYI, although you are most likely aware, south park is easily available via web stream. The creators/writers are pioneers among artists, embracing the internet for its accessability and have negotiated a system whereby they retain a percentage of profits earned by internet sites broadcasting their work.

generally, i use southparkzone.com, since I am canadian, and comedy central does not allow persons outside the US to view recent episodes on their site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FYI, although you are most likely aware, south park is easily available via web stream. The creators/writers are pioneers among artists, embracing the internet for its accessability and have negotiated a system whereby they retain a percentage of profits earned by internet sites broadcasting their work.

I am well aware (I posted that announcement early in this thread, actually), and while I may hit southparkstudios.com for some episodes, I prefer the DVD format and to watch on my TV. But thank you.

Your comments about southparkzone.com, though, as you are probably aware are in advocacy of piracy. Whether or not it's legal in the Netherlands or not (where it is hosted) is irrelevant to it's morality. There are plenty of piracy threads around the forum, if you wish to discuss a particular aspect of it, but generally speaking, piracy is immoral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am well aware (I posted that announcement early in this thread, actually), and while I may hit southparkstudios.com for some episodes, I prefer the DVD format and to watch on my TV. But thank you.

Your comments about southparkzone.com, though, as you are probably aware are in advocacy of piracy. Whether or not it's legal in the Netherlands or not (where it is hosted) is irrelevant to it's morality. There are plenty of piracy threads around the forum, if you wish to discuss a particular aspect of it, but generally speaking, piracy is immoral.

I wont go into my complicated view on piracy, but I will restate that Parker and Stone support media sharing, and have even figured out how to make money via agreements with the websites that host their shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wont go into my complicated view on piracy, but I will restate that Parker and Stone support media sharing, and have even figured out how to make money via agreements with the websites that host their shows.

And that is their right to do with what is theirs. But if southparkzone.com has the approval of Matt and Trey (or Comedy Central, depending on who actually has the rights), then I retract my previous comment. If, however, that is an unauthorized redistribution, then it is indeed wrong (within the context of Objectivism).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

South Park is not an objectivist show, duh. Nor is any piesce of humor I've come to encounter.

I have seen Butters as somewhat the heroic figure of the show, but in the rather christian principled punchbag sense.

The true heroes are Matt and Trey, not only for their Danish Cartoons defiance, but for their ongoing defence of Free Speech. Not just that, I consider South Park, like King of the Hill, a value-oriented show. Perhaps the outspoken conclusion of each episode is that everything's relative and anything goes (particularly when Cartman wins), but in each episode theirs a struggle between the good and the bad, regardless of the result of the battle.

If you want a show where the good usually wins watch King of the Hill, but I doubt they'll mock muhamed anytime soon.

Edited by volco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

King of the hill is somewhat of a wild card, I've found. Sometimes I find the episodes hilarious, but sometimes I can't bear to watch it due to the childishness of the dialogue. My interpretation of this is that the some of the writers are very good, while others have comedic deficiencies. I find that in particular, the Peggy oriented episodes are unappreciable, at least for someone with my dark sense of humor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps the outspoken conclusion of each episode is that everything's relative and anything goes (particularly when Cartman wins), but in each episode theirs a struggle between the good and the bad, regardless of the result of the battle.

Cartman is typically representative of the weak and the corrupt, and while there are episodes where he is defeated by his lack of integrity, he does frequently appear victorious in the sense that he gets away with whichever scheme he has concocted. This is synonymous with Gail Wynand's change of heart near the end of the Fountainhead, where although he succeeds in restoring his prestige (by smearing Roark's name), he loses his personal struggle for his self respect.

The one instance where Cartman is truly the heroic figure (in my eyes anyhow), is the episode where he infiltrates the hippie drum circle and blasts them out of the town with Raining Blood (Slayer).

I'm not sure how to explain this peculiarity in the show's premise, except perhaps that Trey and Matt loath hippies more than corruption in the government, the media, and all of the other evils which Cartman represents. Then again, it's possible that they wish to portray Cartman as a necessary evil, in order to balance out the problems of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to like South Park a lot, but in recent seasons, clever dialogue and lighthearted messages have been replaced with more toilet humor and full on preachy-ness. There are quite a few episodes where I agree with the message, but there are to that stick out in my memory that give the complete wrong message. I might be remembering these incorrectly, so let me know if I'm wrong.

The first is one that talks about how rich musicians complain about when people steal their material, and South Park sides with the idea that its OK to steal from people who have money.

The second is one where they attack Speilberg and Lucas for remaking their movies with added effects, changes in dialogue etc. Saying that once they release the movies initially, they become somewhat owned by the public because the public attaches to them. And as I recall, they almost say the directors should not be allowed to do so.

Both of these arguments are ridiculous and flawed and obviously NOT in accordance to Objectivism, But on a lighter note, it IS a comedy show, and seen as such, can be pretty funny B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I used to like South Park a lot, but in recent seasons, clever dialogue and lighthearted messages have been replaced with more toilet humor and full on preachy-ness. There are quite a few episodes where I agree with the message, but there are to that stick out in my memory that give the complete wrong message. I might be remembering these incorrectly, so let me know if I'm wrong.

The first is one that talks about how rich musicians complain about when people steal their material, and South Park sides with the idea that its OK to steal from people who have money.

The second is one where they attack Speilberg and Lucas for remaking their movies with added effects, changes in dialogue etc. Saying that once they release the movies initially, they become somewhat owned by the public because the public attaches to them. And as I recall, they almost say the directors should not be allowed to do so.

Both of these arguments are ridiculous and flawed and obviously NOT in accordance to Objectivism, But on a lighter note, it IS a comedy show, and seen as such, can be pretty funny B)

They never attack industrialists, or people making their money in an honest fashion. Ayn Rand herself fully depicted the ways in which people can achieve wealth without earning it, such as musicians producing terrible, radio friendly (or in this day and age, MTV friendly) crap, and then complaining about technology and file sharing.

I used to respect Metallica, because their music used to be well thought out and not rely on an image to make sales. I am an amateur musician, yet I could (and have) written better music than the current output of the majority of media chart topping "musicians". I have no sympathy for these people, since their art is hackneyed and unworthy of the respect of hard working individuals such as myself. Peter Keating was not a heroic character, yet he was wealthy and successful in the sense of media attention and hype. There are far greater injustices in the artistic world, and South Park holds no punches in their analysis of societal values. They (the creators) understand the difference between earning wealth and taking advantage of the stupidity of the media obsessed, intellectually deficient majority.

When I listen to music, I enjoy it because it is good, not because it is popular and I would like to belong to the cult of media worshipping damned souls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They never attack industrialists, or people making their money in an honest fashion. Ayn Rand herself fully depicted the ways in which people can achieve wealth without earning it, such as musicians producing terrible, radio friendly (or in this day and age, MTV friendly) crap, and then complaining about technology and file sharing.

I used to respect Metallica, because their music used to be well thought out and not rely on an image to make sales. I am an amateur musician, yet I could (and have) written better music than the current output of the majority of media chart topping "musicians". I have no sympathy for these people, since their art is hackneyed and unworthy of the respect of hard working individuals such as myself. Peter Keating was not a heroic character, yet he was wealthy and successful in the sense of media attention and hype. There are far greater injustices in the artistic world, and South Park holds no punches in their analysis of societal values. They (the creators) understand the difference between earning wealth and taking advantage of the stupidity of the media obsessed, intellectually deficient majority.

When I listen to music, I enjoy it because it is good, not because it is popular and I would like to belong to the cult of media worshipping damned souls.

Well ok,

First, I don't understand how you can say Ayn Rand didn't deserve her money.

Secondly, it seems to me that you are saying that the only people producing music that deserve money are artistic musicians. What about entertainers? I seriously doubt N'SYNC considered their music art, but does that mean its OK to steal it? What is the difference of Metallica selling their image instead of their music? If people are still buying their albums, regardless of what you think of them artistically, it proves that are still valued. Furthermore, the fact that people steal their albums proves they have value. Let's say I write a song only to entertain, and work incredibly hard doing it. This song sounds a lot like the Beach Boys-it does not follow any of their chord progressions or melodies, but it is in the same style. Now, let's say I make 10 million dollars of this song. Is it now OK people to steal it? Besides, who says Metallica are not hard working? They might have tried really hard to make an image that would sell well. In fact, they might have tried harder to make that image than they tried to make their older songs you enjoyed. Since (in this theory) they put more hard, honest work into the image than the music that you enjoy does that make it (the image) more valuable? Music is a product no matter how you look at it and just because you personally don't think Metallica's new music isn't art does not make it OK to take it. I think all (including their old stuff) is terrible but does that mean it is ok to steal? No, because no matter what it sounds like, they created so they should have ALL rights to it, saying they shouldn't based on your view of their artistic merit can be interpreted as people only deserve things if YOU say they earned them. Also, I don't think its fair of you to speak for Metallica, they might really, really enjoy their new material. Since they are the ones that created it, they decide the value, they will set a price and if you agree with their set price, you buy it. If you don't, move along. Someone might think the music you make is horrible, does that give them the right to steal it?

To summarize, what I gather you are saying is that if YOU feel something lacks meaning, than its creator lacks the right of private property of the given material.

Regardless of who created or for what purpose, THEY created it and should be the ONLY ones to say how it is distributed, if you get it any other way, you are stealing, it is wrong, this is not a gray issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well ok,

First, I don't understand how you can say Ayn Rand didn't deserve her money.

Secondly, it seems to me that you are saying that the only people producing music that deserve money are artistic musicians. What about entertainers? I seriously doubt N'SYNC considered their music art, but does that mean its OK to steal it? What is the difference of Metallica selling their image instead of their music? If people are still buying their albums, regardless of what you think of them artistically, it proves that are still valued. Furthermore, the fact that people steal their albums proves they have value. Let's say I write a song only to entertain, and work incredibly hard doing it. This song sounds a lot like the Beach Boys-it does not follow any of their chord progressions or melodies, but it is in the same style. Now, let's say I make 10 million dollars of this song. Is it now OK people to steal it? Besides, who says Metallica are not hard working? They might have tried really hard to make an image that would sell well. In fact, they might have tried harder to make that image than they tried to make their older songs you enjoyed. Since (in this theory) they put more hard, honest work into the image than the music that you enjoy does that make it (the image) more valuable? Music is a product no matter how you look at it and just because you personally don't think Metallica's new music isn't art does not make it OK to take it. I think all (including their old stuff) is terrible but does that mean it is ok to steal? No, because no matter what it sounds like, they created so they should have ALL rights to it, saying they shouldn't based on your view of their artistic merit can be interpreted as people only deserve things if YOU say they earned them. Also, I don't think its fair of you to speak for Metallica, they might really, really enjoy their new material. Since they are the ones that created it, they decide the value, they will set a price and if you agree with their set price, you buy it. If you don't, move along. Someone might think the music you make is horrible, does that give them the right to steal it?

To summarize, what I gather you are saying is that if YOU feel something lacks meaning, than its creator lacks the right of private property of the given material.

Regardless of who created or for what purpose, THEY created it and should be the ONLY ones to say how it is distributed, if you get it any other way, you are stealing, it is wrong, this is not a gray issue.

When did I say that Ayn Rand didnt deserve her money? It seems every time I post something on this forum, somebody misinterprets what I write and then begins an argument based on their misinterpretation.

To depict : To represent in words

I will reiterate what I have said on the subject of media flavored "art". The whole bunch of drug bloated pop artists that have no artistic integrity or talent should stop whining about the fact that people are now capable of exchanging files through the internet. True art is not motivated by profit, and good musicians everywhere have been struggling for decades to achieve financial independance due to the overwhelming influence that the media seems to have on public taste.

I ask this question of anyone who cares to answer me in their own words: Does the media reflect the views of the majority in order to increase ratings, or are they "behind the scenes" kingmakers who manipulate their audience into supporting whichever talentless shill they happen to view as a potential flavor of the month sensation.

A good test (in my eyes) of whether you truly appreciate the music you listen to is thus: If you enjoy listening to the music ten years down the road as much as you did when it was first produced, you legitimately respect and appreciate it for its artistic merits, not for the sense of belonging to a group of like-minded people (the illusion being that these people are making their own decisions, and not simply following the media frenzy surrounding the art in question).

PS

I would never steal music, and on the occasion when I come across free recordings that I like, I purchase the albums at a later date. File sharing is not exclusive to thieves of art, it is a wonderful medium of advertising for those artists who do not get the representation in the media which they deserve. The only people hurt by this technological revolution are the artists who are not held in high regards by their fan base, who rely on the media to carry them. I could care less about their prosperity, and I would love to see these people eliminated naturally from the human gene pool. The only way to control file sharing is to enable an inordinate level of personal surveillance, which would more likely than not spark a bloody revolution, something which I believe should be avoided at all costs.

Peace!

edit: If you ask a muscian (somebody who loves music and would write music for its own sake, even if they had no opportunity to make a profit on it) what they thought was most important to them, pertaining to their work, they will reply that knowing that people appreciate their work is the most meaningful form of praise they could ever ask for.

For example, in Atlas Shrugged, Richard Halley achieves media renown, yet discovers that this form of success was hollow, as the people who flocked to his concert in droves were merely following a trend, and their praise was meaningless. He chose to forsake financial prosperity in order to live with those who loved his music by their own judgements, and not by the hand of compulsion.

Ayn Rand's views on this subject are quite synonymous with my own, regardless of the interpretation chosen by many of her followers. One can only guess at what she would have written about the modern world's issues, yet her philosophy clearly indicates that the artistic and industrial worlds coincide in the way that compromise in order to achieve wealth is the mark of someone who did not earn what they have reaped.

I stand by my views.

Edited by WarIs4Profit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard Halley never sacrificed financial prosperity, quiet on the contrary he moved to a place where he got payed in gold. See that's the beauty of Atlas Shrugged, its consistency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Richard Halley never sacrificed financial prosperity, quiet on the contrary he moved to a place where he got payed in gold. See that's the beauty of Atlas Shrugged, its consistency.

My mistake; he sacrificed immediate prosperity, in the terms he had come to know through his life in the mainstream of society.

He had been anticipating satisfaction in knowing that his music was appreciated by a lot of people, however the looters' prosperity did not last since it was founded in the manner of a leech. B)

My point was that he chose self respect over money, the same way that all of Rand's heros do at some point, typically upon realizing that what they had respected was not genuine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...