Ninth Doctor
-
Posts
1015 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Posts posted by Ninth Doctor
-
-
You can watch it here:Later on he was at a round table with both Brandons and as I recall they shot him down fairly well when he went there again. I might have that on mp3 so I'll hunt for it.
-
The first 20 seconds are for you:I haven't gotten to it yet. That's what I want to ask you.
-
How about you demonstrate that there is a philosophical principle/observation in Marxism that is true and yet is denied/contradicted by Objectivism? And please don't skimp on the citations.
Meaning you agree with Marx's theory of history. Now, what is the Objectivist theory of history? Please demonstrate that you have some idea of what you're talking about.Ninth Doctor:
The Marxist dialectical materialism in its general entirety is true.
-
How about you demonstrate that there is a philosophical principle/observation in Marxism that is true and yet is denied/contradicted by Objectivism? And please don't skimp on the citations.Dear Objectivists, I challenge you to find a way to integrate your ideology with that of Marxism. Otherwise, please provide your reasons for avoiding any sort of integration/synthesis.
-
The cast for Part 3 was just announced. Below is the press release, I can't imagine anyone objecting to simply copying and posting it here:
http://blog.atlasshruggedmovie.com/2014/01/atlas-shrugged-part-iii-goes-into.html
Atlas Distribution Company announced today that "Atlas Shrugged: Who is John Galt?" went into production on Monday, January 20th. The movie's release is slated for September 2014.
The movie trilogy follows the three-part structure of Ayn Rand's 1957 novel, "Atlas Shrugged." The dystopian story takes place in a not-so-distant future with the nation's economy approaching collapse. While overreaching government regulations persist in strangling the country's few remaining entrepreneurs, society's most productive have mysteriously disappeared.
At the helm of Part 3 will be seasoned award-winning Director Jim Manera who will be accompanied by Cinematographer, Gale Tattersal who previously worked as Director of Photography on Hugh Lowry's House M.D. as well as Tom Hank's From Earth to the Moon.
"It's very fulfilling for all us to be finishing the trilogy. Atlas Shrugged has impacted so many lives and we’re extremely proud to be bringing the final installment to the screen. The team we've assembled is nothing short of stellar. Part 3 is without question going to be the best of the trilogy." said Producer John Aglialoro.
Atlas Distribution Company also announced today that the much anticipated role of John Galt will go to Kristoffer Polaha, an accomplished actor who, prior to working on Atlas, was profoundly influenced by Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead." Kris has been in a variety of television shows including Ringer (CW), alongside Sarah Michelle Gellar, and Life Unexpected (CW). He will next be seen in a regular role alongside Rainn Wilson in Fox's new show, Backstrom. His feature credits include a supporting role in Devil's Knot, opposite Reese Witherspoon and Colin Firth.
The role of Dagny Taggart, heroine COO of Taggart Transcontinental, will be played by Laura Regan who has appeared in the AMC hit Mad Men as well as the movie Unbreakable with Bruce Willis.
Producer Harmon Kaslow said, "We've always known that finding the right actor to play John Galt was going to be a huge challenge, but as soon as Kris walked in the room and said 'Hello', we knew we found him. Kris is John Galt. We couldn't be more pleased. Laura and Kris already have great chemistry together. Atlas fans everywhere are going to be blown away."
Rounding out the cast of "Atlas Shrugged" heroes are acclaimed actors Joaquim de Almedia as Francisco d'Anconia, Eric Allen Kramer as Ragnar Danneskjöld, and Rob Morrow as Hank Rearden, as well as a host of other veteran actors.
-
I presented an abbreviated version of the facts only to rebut the claim that Branden used fraud to get sex. Actually, he lied to avoid sex, and the (attempted) fraud, if any, was in trying to hide the truth long enough for his book to come out with her introductory essay and endorsement.There are also a few other points to keep in mind:
I think for purposes of this thread, the topic being the slapping incident, it suffices that Rand was at her emotional limit, whether she was right to be or not, and the farthest she went in the actual use of violence was a few slaps. If challenged on it she may very well have explained herself on terms like "this far but no further", and even referenced the Rearden/Francisco scene. I'm not going to try defending this as a principle, however.
-
I don't mean to derail the thread or change the subject, but do please share what kind of people you regard as "much worse" than Nazis!!As someone who has debated White Nationalists and Nazis, and much worse people, I don't think I have done anything wrong in doing so.
-
Alan Dershowitz did a good job with Chomsky here:
I recall he kept referring to disputed factual assertions as coming from "Planet Chomsky".
Chomsky was of course wrong about Cambodia, but I don't believe he's a denier of it now, he only cast doubt on it at the time. I believe, and I might be getting myself in trouble here because this memory is pretty vague, but didn't Rand cast doubt on the bad business that was going on in Chile after Allende's ouster? It would have been in an interview, sorry I have no reference. So no one's perfect, certainly not about live conflicts abroad filtered through propaganda and rumor.
Anyway, a serious debate with Chomsky? Wow, that might be something. Hate to say it, but that would be no job for Yaron Brook. Chomsky would bury him up to his neck in references, then decapitate him.
-
I think she addressed the question in the Ford Hall Forum talk called Global Balkanization.Do you have a reference? Perhaps it was a Q&A somewhere?
-
Sorry if someone else has already clarified the facts, I've only skimmed the thread. Someone wrote that Branden committed fraud by lying to get sex. Read the biography, here's the timeline: Rand and Branden had a sexual affair between 1955 and 1958, it ended because of the depression she went into following the publication of Atlas Shrugged. Around 1967 she started pressuring him to resume the affair. By then he was divorced from his first wife and was in a secret relationship with his soon-to-be second wife. At this point Branden lied to Rand, denying the relationship he was in and claiming that he had all kinds of other issues that were preventing him from resuming the affair. He denied that her age was one of the issues. This went on for a year or so, during which, no doubt, he put her through hell. Finally he told her (in writing) that her age was the issue. Then Barbara told Rand the truth. Then came the slapping incident.
Tangentially, I'd like to point out that in Atlas Shrugged Rearden slaps Francisco over Dagny. I only bring this up in that it reflects Rand's attitude towards face slapping in high voltage emotional contexts.
FWIW I give Rand credit for not trying to scratch his eyes out or going after him with a kitchen knife.
-
Sure, it's a multi-variable problem; I was simply prompting Crow to tell us what he thinks. There isn't much to Laffer's linked comments, he's now admitting a prediction he made in 2009 was wrong, one made while the egg on his face was still fresh...who cares?It isn't only the quantity of money; it's also the velocity of money.
-
There are people who still listen to Art Laffer?
Hate to use ad hominem, but really...
To the OP, do I gather you disagree that inflation is driven by monetary policy? Is there an alternate theory that you subscribe to?
-
BTW, as far as reading order what you ought to do is start with David Kelley's A Question of Sanction, particularly its final paragraph, which is what touched off the open/closed debate. Since that's now an appendix to The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand I'm reproducing it here for your convenience:Here's a great site with links to all the relevant material from both sides:
Ayn Rand left us a magnificent system of ideas. But it is not a closed system. It is a powerful engine of integration. Let us not starve it of fuel by shutting our minds to what is good in other approaches. Let us test our ideas in open debate. If we are right, we have nothing to fear; if we are wrong, we have something to learn. Above all, let us encourage independent thought among ourselves. Let us welcome dissent, and the restless ways of the explorers among us. Nine out of ten new ideas will be mistakes, but the tenth will let in the light.
Now move on to Leonard Peikoff's Fact and Value:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_fv
(scroll to near the bottom, find the paragraph starting with the bolded words IN HIS LAST PARAGRAPH)
Then Contested Legacy:
http://www.atlassociety.org/sites/default/files/The_Contested_Legacy_of_Ayn_Rand.pdf
Chapter 5 is where you'll find the relevant material.
-
To the OP: you haven't demonstrated any familiarity with the topic, and there's a lot of reading you'll need to do if you want to take it on. Here's a great site with links to all the relevant material from both sides:
http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/ari-toc.html
Take your time.
-
I participate on both sites, and several other people do too. Some OLers have been banned from OO (and vice versa, no doubt) so you'll easily find some harsh words written about the one on the other forum if you make a research project out of it. Big deal.
If you want to debate open/closed system this is probably not a good way to start the discussion.
-
User Actions
Following
If you've not heard, Barbara Branden has died. Not exactly sad news. -
She was always a pleasure to interact with online. I almost met her in person a couple times, but alas it was not to be. It's sad that she won't get to see the 3rd Atlas movie installment, she obviously loved what she saw so far.
http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10200&hl=
-
You are context-dropping.
Under an objectivist government, the trend in society must be objectivist for it to work.
Say what? Are you saying Objectivist principles only apply in the context of an Objectivist society? Is this true for reason, egoism, and rights? Or is it only the case when we run into serious difficulties, then we get to invoke this floating abstraction of an unprecedented and dare one say Utopian Objectivist society?
In a society where the trend and dominant viewpoint is capitalist (morally and politically), donations will not be an issue. There are no historical examples because there was no such society has ever existed. But, if you listen to Objectivist viewpoint: Government is good and in man's self-interest, then it won't be hard to see why funding will be there.
-
The OP joined an Objectivist discussion board to ask about this?
Here's where I suggest he try next:
-
Here's the thread from when the shift took place:I know Rand's and ARI's old view on libertarianism, but what is the current line in the wake of ARI's outreach over the last few years.
http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=23555&page=1
I feel that the topic has been pretty well beaten to death.
Here's a recent upload that's worth the 2 hour investment. It dates from 1981, thus 5 years prior to Peter Schwartz's sad effort to portray libertarianism as something it's not. It's from a Libertarian Party conference. If Schwartz was right, could it have even taken place?
Too bad there wasn't a pre-debate, then post-debate vote to determine which side this audience of libertarians felt had 'won', like they do with Intelligence Squared debates. There's no question in my mind that Smith utterly demolished Friedman here.
-
I'm not a moderator, but one is bound to come along and tell you that you shouldn't copy/paste an entire article in full like this. I was reading it thinking that (maybe) you were expressing your own view, and was probably going to let you have it until I saw the last line, which I now see is your commentary on this crap piece.Straight out of Atlas Shrugged. A true testament to the insanity and hatred of the modern left.
Anyway, here's a great lecture by George Smith that I think you'll find to be a real eye-opener.
Hopefully no one will feel the need to comment on the wardrobe. Yeah, wtf.
-
Kantian? You lost me there, I don't know what that would have to do with Kant, and I don't think that's Eco's position in any event.Eco is taking the position that arriving at a "right" interpretation is a social exercise. Which is very Kantian.
Heh. No. Note that I don't think my claims apply to all music, or in fact, to much music at all. Nor do I believe that those few works which can be 'objectively' interpreted (and perhaps 'decoded' would be a better term) are necessarily superior to those that can't. The fact is that some musical works do fit into Rand's Procrustean Bed, I'm not taking it any further than that.Ninth, you seem to be searching for a way to determine if your own personal esthetic interpretations are "objective" or not.
-
Dammit it's my hypothetical, and I'm saying that interpretation is utterly wrong! As bad (albeit in a different way) as the guy who calls the Purcell piece 'sprightly'.Or it might be an indication that listeners who concluded that the music was a retelling of Robinson Crusoe are the better critics
Eco gives a knockout contrary example. An interpreter of Joyce's Finnegans Wake, a work which is as open to interpretation as any can be, hypothesized that a particular passage referred to Lavrentiy Beria, a leader of the secret police in the Soviet Union. Eco showed that at the time the passage was written Beria was completely unknown in the West, and hadn't even achieved any prominence in the Soviet Union yet (Finnegans Wake was written over an extended period, but published in installments). Thus this interpretation was wrong, demonstrably wrong.When one considers the existence of all of the aesthetic tools that an artist can and might use -- including irony, sarcasm, etc. -- one cannot conclude that any given interpretation is blatantly wrong.
Following Eco, I agree with you that, as he puts it, "books always speak of other books, and every story tells a story that has already been told." Except maybe Gilgamesh, I mean it all had to start somewhere!
-
Sure, try Disney’s Fantasia. The segment in Fantasia 2000 using the Shostakovich Piano Concerto #2 comes to mind as a particularly good example, since the piece isn’t programmatic.Does anyone have any opinion regarding art forms combining pure music with accompanying material which causes the entire work to be unambiguous?
Harry Binswanger
Questions on the history of altruism
in Ethics
Posted
I haven't studied Fichte.