Strangelove

I don't think anyone can go see the movie with the expectation that they will see a masterpiece, its entertainment first and moral/philosopic message second. Seeing a movie like this in my opinion, is like having an alcoholic drink, you will enjoy it for all the wrong reasons and as long as you are concious that in the end it is not a "great" movie, you can still enjoy it without becoming misled by the bad logic of the movie. As a poster said above, there are ways to take out a positive Objectivist message from the movie, but in the end the plot has some weaknesses which cause serious problems. The biological science in the movie is completely and utterly incorrect. There can be no rational explanation for one of the main plot points in the movie, biologic or economic. But, I thought the presentation of the movie was actually very good, with good set designs, good action scenes, and acting that actually fit what was needed (they talked as I expected 15 year olds to talk). I enjoyed it, fully aware that there were massive plot weaknesses, but I was able to have fun with it none the less.

I will re-state was someone above posted earlier, but the "His Dark Materials" series is excellent, and has a good strong moral framework which would be rationally approved of. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/store...7376827-2516931

It would be true to say that the "slant" of the BBC is in a direction that most Objectivists would prefer it did not lean. However, ironically, being supported by taxes has been a good thing for the BBC, because it means that unlike its American coutnerparts (CNN, Fox, etc.) it is not concerned about the "bottom line" and more concerned about the quality of its reporting. So its news tends to cover more international news, do more indepth documentaries, and in general, do much better reporting then most other news institutions. While it is not perfect (especially when it comes to Israel-Palestine) the news from the BBC is more often then not, of high quality.

I was talking about reading the novel, less for getting a better appreciation the message about the story (no need to plug it), more about the appreciation of the technique of how the story was told in novel form as opposed to movie form.

If you have not done so already, it is possible to go read the book to judge which is the prefered telling of the story.

Felipe, I should have been more direct and just said "19th Century Imperialism". I do believe H.G. Wells was making similarities to the situation in Africa particularly, which was being divided among the European powers.

I am sure we are familier with the need to end states which sponsor terrorism, that is not even something worthy of debate. The recent attacks in London provide for a moment to consider what the response should be as the most recent attack may not have recieved any sort of state backing. There are many radical cells which are not part of the Al-Qaeda money chain which just attach the name "Al-Qaeda" to their own for marketing. If that is the case, with the most recent attack, and if that means that no state was directly responsible (not that state sponsorers in the middle east should not be dealt with ASAP anyway) what does this mean for the proper evolution of the strategy to deal with terrorism? Or alternatively, how does one deal with home grown terrorism?

Thats the point, humanity is completely and unterly unable to stop intelligences greater then our own and we could never fully understand their intentions, or for that matter, stop them ourselves (hence the ending) The novel was written as somewhat of a critique of European Colonialism/Imperialism during the late 19th century. The novel portrays for the Europeans, what it would be like if invaders were to come suddenly that they could not stop. Now some Objectivists may say that is anti-life/anti-progress message and that it is a pessimistic view of Humanity. Others may say that in such a situation, it becomes obvious that one must root for the aliens.

Well I didn't think I would get around to making a proper introduction because I generally don't stay on most web forums for long, but I am glad that was not the case with this forum. I am a High School student living in Japan (American and Caucasian, not Japanese), and I will be graduating in just a few weeks before starting my college education at the University of Chicago in the fall. I read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged very recently, and can say that while I may have the occasional minor concern or disagreement with Objectivism, that overall its been positive, helpful, and correct. I am generally a bit of a History and Political Science fan, and I am a bit surprised that there is very little Objectivist literature for either fields (I have not yet been able to procure a copy of "The Ominious Parallels). Otherwise, glad to join this intelligent and thought provoking forum.

With regards to a quote that was made in another thread which I have a question about it which I want to ask: I want to know how Objectivism holds and views elements of "Biological Determinism". Such determinism though ideas such as "Pheromones determine who are you are initially attracted to" or "facial symetry determines how popular you are". I would assume that since there is a lot of scientific evidence to back up other similar statements, that an Objectivist would take that view that Biological "Determism" does exist, but not to such an extent that it could not be overcome by an individual with enough will power (or proper nurture). Is that view, correct?

If it is a phenomenon which a portion of the population claims to "suffer" from, and if their is a biological explanation for reaching such an irrational conclusion, then it would probably be the same biological reason for those people. If it was possible to say "You are not actually 'feeling' any presence of a divine being, this CAT Scan shows that this portion of your brain is just acting up" then I would be very happy.

A lot of mystics (especially evangelicals, though this does not only apply to them) often use language about having "conversations" with God, and other such claims of "communication". I am interested, has their been any scientific research done which shows how this illusionary effect is achieved? I would imagine it would require some sort of control to be established over certain parts of the brain hemispheres, possibly triggering some sort of hormonal response to give such a sensation a feeling of "pleasure". But I have only a High-School level of basic biology education so would like any links to articles or web pages which may explain this phenomenon.

Lucas has always been open about the fact that he is more of a visul person then a dialogue person. His inspiration for Star Wars, and the basis for many of the aspects of them, were the saturday morning serials of the 1950's, with bad acting and melodrama galore. Its a matter of personal taste. The Star Wars DVD box set (for the original trilogy) does have the very good documentary about the Star Wars saga, "An Empire of Dreams", Objectivists should be very happy about the part were Lucas commited himself not to using Union labor for Return of the Jedi after they gave him hell for the way the credits were done in Empire Strikes Back.

Thank you very much for this clarification.

Lucas also wrote his story from an archetype angle, making sure every character would have unversal appeal by being based on age old concepts of "good" and "evil". He was apparantly inspired by "The hero with a thousand faces".

The benefit of "What went wrong" is that it was written pre-9/11 so is free of any political correctness and post 9/11 obsesison with Terrorism without a focus. As stated above, "Guns Germs and Steel" will tell you a lot about Geography and how some areas of the world are more fertile then others. It will then give suggestions on how some areas naturally lend to allow for civilization to come easier then others. I am not yet fully integrated with Objectivism in order to tell you what the exact flaws with the book are, some other members on this board may be more capable of that. Just browsing the article of it on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns%2C_Germs..._Steel#Synopsis (it has been ages since I actually read the book) the major criticisms I can predict is that it is apologetic of tribal culture, and does not attempt to suggest that hunter-gatherers are backwards.

You are correct that I have only recently come across Objectivism. My appologies if you explaining concepts to me from an Objectivist standpoint would be "elementary" from your perspecive. Makes sense, but philosophy does not simply come from a vacum. How people form their value systems I suspect, would be determined by the environment that people find themselves in, and through darwinian evolution, the philosophies that best "fit" the environment for the survival of the species are the ones that survive. (I am not saying that it makes those philisophical choices ethical, just my assumptions on their origins)

Y'know, you pretty much just asked "why is the Middle East messed up" which is a question I am not nearly qualified to answer. I far as I can tell, its due to backwards political systems interacting with modern ones, keeping 50% of the population held back, and lack of technological progress, all of which is due to many many factors, some of which are discussed in "Guns Germs and Steel" as well as "What went wrong?"

Religion of course, can always allow for the potential for fanaticism, that is the nature of all religious faiths, the inherent value of knowing a believed "truth". With no evdence except "faith". But in the end what the Koran actualy says, is irelevent except in te context of the society it is read in. For example, the Torah (Old Testament) has many passages on stoning of children at the city gates and killing people for working on the Sabath. Yet Jewish society simply does not do that any more (even the Jewish Orthodox in Israel don't stone people). The same would be the case for Islam, put it in the right context, and it just becomes silly mysticism.

If statist institutions by their very fact that they are statist, tend to be inefficient and difficult to adapt to change, what then, are the reasons why the US Army (which does get some income for selling equipment but the majority of its funds come from taxes) has remained the force with the greatest reach in the world, the greatest strength, and the greatest flexibility?

I have no problem with military solutions to the problem. I had very few actual resevations about the underlying objective to invading Iraq. (I had objections to its run up and aspects of is execution, but the actual idea was and still is, sound) Its when Koran desecrating must be defended on the basis of the need to fight the war on terrorism that I find problems. Especially since no one in the US itself would actually think there was any benefit an Objectivist cause, to desecrating the Koran outside a mosque, or the Bible outside a church. My point being, that defending the right of American soldiers to desecrate the Koran should not be our priority. But the important thing is, that no one at Guantanomo desecrated the Koran anyway, and that this is only further reason why the terrorists who spread these falsehoods need to be elliminated. Democratization is not one of the very best western ideals? While I have many personal problems with the concept of Democracy and voting, it is sure a better alternative then Islamofacism.

The avereage 16 or 15 year old Muslim boy who never read the Koran in his life, is not the same as the cleric in the city who runs the local madrassas. So long as that wayward teen does not need a reason to join Al-Qaeda by unecessairly bad media reports of US actions, I am safe. I am not safe when the local cleric uses the news to turn those wayward teens away form simply being teens and twoards being terrorists. The religious fundementalists are at fault, and they are a threat to the world, but they need to be elliminated by the wonders and technical joys of democratization which facilitates secularization. We don't need to go out of the way making more terrorists then we need to due to stunts like this. Yes, Islamic extremists, the clerics who either run the mosques, the politicians who support madrassas or the terrorists leaders themselves. Not the average muslim man in the street who is simply being pushed around by public opinion and probably likes MTV at home anyway if he could get it. The only problem, is that the savages are not a majority of the population. The savages are a minority who wield more influence then they should. Not every single Muslim in the Middle East supports their governments which do barbaric crimes against women. Islamofacism is a tyranny of a minority. A minority that must be destroyed, not inflamed.

I am not interested in "pacifying" the average Muslim man in the street. Such would be an impossible task. Nor do I think that every individual Muslim in the world needs to be "pacified". I am interested in globalizing the Muslim nations of the world to turn their youth and population away from Al-Qaeda. Islam does not equal terrorism. The UAE, Qatar, Jordan, and other Muslim nations of similar mindset show this to be true. Overwhelming military superiority needs to be applied to the terrorist networks, their cells, and dictators who stand firmly against the globalization and democratization trend. What would you suggest she do instead? Given the circumstances, I would understand why a "no comment" would make sense.

Its not in anyones interest to unnecessarily agrevate the Arab population or the Muslim population as a whole. It does not make me safer when you use your right to throw the Koran down a toilet because you are only unecessarily inciting more Muslims to go join Al-Qaeda. I don't care how correct you are in knowing that no one has a right to force you to avoid desecrating the Koran. I know you have a right to do it, but to expect the US Government to take the position that "nothing is wrong with it" with regards to the rest of the world, is ridiculous. It gives more terrorists then its worth. Condi Rice is not being genuinely multi-cultural, she is just being diplomatic and giving the bull shit that the rest of the world needs to smooth over all this. Fortunately, since Newsweek is at fault here, she does not need to do to much. Of course, feel free to desecrate the Koran in your own homes and with friends.

My appologies for putting the critism in this thread, such would have been more apporpriate for the "Member Writing" forum, I was not aware that a proper forum for peer review existed.