OismForever

I actually bid on the item, it was a day from closing...and he cancelled all the bids and relisted it the next day. So, I am done with him. But, look at some of the stuff he is selling...first printings of Atlas and the Fountainhead. I wonder why he deals in Ayn Rand material when he seems so dishonest? It would be like a satan worshipper selling bibles! O.

Well you can either believe what Rand said or not. This is an area where many people have disagreed with Rand. But, Peikoff to my knowledge has never openly contradicted Rand. So I would love to know the context etc... Just do your homework, Rand was never ambiguous about the epistemological significance of one's interpretation of art. O.

I just found a couple of more Rand quotes that seem pertinent to this discussion. "That which is not worth contemplating in life, is not worth recreating in art” OPAR Pg. 443. “A slob portrayed by the technical means of a genius is an esthetic crime.” Objectivist Newsletter 10/1963

How does Gavin look like a Nordic type?

Remember we are talking about a fetus in the third trimester. There is no serious debate that a fetus has a consciousness and is viable at this state of a pregnancy. Under normal circumstances it is fully capable of surviving without the mother. So being "physically seperated" is just a matter of semantics with no real ethical distinction. Since seperation is possible instead of destruction. Ayn Rand said: Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a "right to life." A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. ARL 12/1975 Notice she qualifies her abortion rights views as being limited to an "embryo", "protoplasm" and a pregnancy in "the first three months". A fetus in the final trimester is a light year from this definition.

If a person has an abortion in the third trimester, then one could make a case to call it murder even by Objectvist standards. Because, in the third trimester a fetus is a viable entity with a self sustaining heartbeat and a consciousness. O

Well there certainly is a distinction between a Horror movie and a Thriller. Just look at the definition of the word "horror"; An intense, painful feeling of repugnance and fear. Why someone would seek that out as entertainment I will never understand. I am not sure the movie that this thread is named after is a horror movie or not. It seems to me that it may have some facets that are redeeming and have a broader message. But, I just wanted to point out to the man who said he was a "huge horror movie fan" that he may want to examine his reasons for beaing a "fan" of such movies, since we are taught in Objectivism that art says much about our psycho-epistemology. O.

I think my definition would be. A movie where a portrayal of evil is not means to an end, but an end in itself. Where the gruesome is made to titilate. Where one is expected to derive some sort of pleasure by watching people die and be butchered. i.e. Friday the 13th..Texas Chainsaw Massacre..Nightmare on Elm St. Etc.

I think Rand's quote speaks for itself. Art is a metaphysical mirror. I do not believe that a person who claims to enjoy horror movies is fully familiar with Rand's view of art and the psycho-epistemological meanings one can find in their own reactions to art. It would be of value to that person to fully examine why and what he enjoys about horror movies which are far FAR removed from the romantic school of things as they could and ought to be.

Looks pretty darn close. But, the seller has zero credibility. I might bid $10 on it, because what do I have to lose? I notice he just sold a first edition of Atlas Shrugged for WAY below market value. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...AMESO%3AIT&rd=1

Interesting. Makes me not want to risk it. Can anyone comment about the Autograph itself? Are there any links to some known samples of her signature?

I am considering bidding on this item. Is anyone here an expert on her signature that can verify this item's authenticity? Ebay Item

It was definately personal. If it is permissable I will post the article here. Is that allowed?

My personal opinion is that The Passion of Ayn Rand is much less accurate than Judgement Day Judgement day rings true in a lot of ways. In the book Branden takes responsibility for the mistakes he made and for his role in the breakup. Barbara portrays herself as the perfect person. I believe the breakup was caused purely and wholly by the fact that he ended the relationship with Rand and then she learned he was carrying on an affair with one of his students. She felt rejected and betrayed. I do not believe that he was guilty of any financial misdealings. It just doesnt add up when you know the facts. Ayn Rand was a great great human being. But, she was not a god and not perfect. She deserves some criticism for what happened between them. However, her philosophy and her work stand on their own. I do not throw out her teachings simply because she made some wrong choices in her life and fell in love with a man who could not return her love. Judgement Day is a fascinating look at the early days of Objectivism. Its a must read for those who are interested in Rand's life. The Passion of Ayn Rand is just a self serving and biased account that omits entirely too much. Also, they knew each other for 20 years, not 4 years.

Ayn Rand used several pages of The Objectivist to blast and criticize Branden.

I will do my best. And I am not endorsing or sanctioning anything he says. Some of it I tend to agree with it, others parts not at all. Ayn Rand was a just a human being. A towering genius who had a profound impact on him and his life. But, her flaws became an obstacle to her own continued growth and her work following Atlas Shrugged. She was never interested in the "pathology" involved with a person who thinks in error. Therefore she never considered "curing" anyone. Her work mostly just described these men as they were instead of the cause and possible cure of their flawed epistemology. The relationship between them started out as a mutual and positive thing in their lives. As she grew older he wanted to return the relationship to the previous status of "best friends". She took that as a rejection and saw him as another "Leo" the man who had deserted her back in Russia. She felt if he could not look past their 25yr age difference that he was evil and nothing like her ideal man. Dominique and Dagny were beautiful, Ayn Rand was not. He felt her lack of self esteem about her appearance and age caused her to react the way she did when he tried to end the relationship. She just could not accept that the man she had dedicated Atlas Shrugged to would be incapable of romantic love for her. He believes completely that capitalism, reason and rational self interests are paramount. He is very bitter about the way it all ended.

He said that he is still an Objectivist in the fundamentals. He differs from Ayn Rand mainly on the issues of psychology. Man worship (said she could never produce any evidence on why the is the role of a rational woman) Benevolent Universe (he said "try telling that to a kid with cancer" and her hatred of those who did not share her views. He said that none of her charachters ever dealt with a person who underwent a transistion from irrationality to reason. Only of people who were already that way and always had been. He said she believed people either were automatically born that way and it could never really be taught. He said that in the 1950's, after Atlas Shrugged she becamse very depressed because of the reaction to the book. Not the negative reviews, she expected those. But, the fact that none of the industrialist and men of the mind whom she championed and fought for in the book ever stepped up to defend her. He said she became very mean-spirited and intolerant at that point and almost hypocritical. He said the movie The Passion of Ayn Rand bears absolutely no resemblance to reality. It said it was a complete and total hatchet job of him and Ayn Rand. There was a lot more. But, I am just giving you the main things he said.

Dr. Branden does phone therapy for $200 per 45 minute call. I emailed and asked if I could just have a discussion with him about Rand and Objectivism for 45mins for the same $200, they agreed. We discussed a variety of topics, but, there is one thing he said that really surprised me. I asked him about Cryonics. The premise of freezing the dead indefinately until such time as medical science can bring them back to life and cure whatever it was that killed them. Dr. Branden said "I would not want to live forever, I think that at some point I deserve a rest and want to die". Do many other people feel this way? I just can't understand that at all.

Has anyone noticed the uproar that has been caused by discovery that there are secret sex scenses hidden inside of the video game "Grand Theft Auto". This is a game where the object is to drive around and steal and kill people who get in your way. This was acceptable for parents. But, now that is has been discovered that there is sex in it, Congress is investigating and lawsuits have been filed. Isn't it bizarre that in America sex is legal but illegal to depict. But, Murder is illegal and perfectly legal to depict. --M