Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

  1. And before someone jumps all over me Re Libertarianism, I have read their most recent political platform, and it isn't all that bad. The Libertarian Party Platform isn't all that bad, and makes a lot of great points regarding individual rights and freedom. Unfortunately, it makes no references to essays on the foundations of individual rights and just gives a short list of what they consider such rights to be. But my contention is that the actual politicians -- Ron Paul or Gary Johnson -- do not seem to stand by some of these great proclamations, they speak more in terms of individual liberties as opposed to individual rights and do not articulate what they are referring to. As far as voting or not voting. I do think this election is crucial in that Obama is a strict Marxist nihilist out to destroy freedom in this country and he must be booted out. If the Libertarians were more consistent and more articulate about freedom and why it is necessary and what the proper role of government is, then I would vote for them if I thought they could win. But if Obama gets a second term, there will be no stopping of his nihilist agenda and freedom of speech in favor of government restrictions may well come to pass, giving us no time to make the cultural changes we seek to make. http://www.lp.org/platform
  2. http://www.appliedphilosophyonline.com/articulating_freedom.htm Articulating Freedom by Thomas M. Miovas, Jr. 10/06/2012 Since we are near a major election cycle and since statism – the idea that the State ought to control everything – is being taken up by the Marxist / Nihilist Left and has all but destroyed freedom in the United States, more and more rational people seem to be turning towards the Libertarian candidate (Ron Paul or Gary Johnson). Their argument against the Conservative / Religious Right is that this, too, has been given a chance and we have not secured more freedom and the Right does not speak in terms of freedoms for the most part, so we need an alternative. The problem with this line of reasoning is that the term “freedom” is not a magical incantation that will bring it about just because it has been spoken by this, that, or the other candidate. In order to secure freedom in the United States it is necessary to clearly articulate what freedom means and why a proper government is necessary – and the Libertarians, throughout their history, have failed to do this in terms of principles and broad guidelines that will set the proper course for government. It is not enough to be anti-government, one must be pro-freedom. Cutting a few government programs is quite insufficient. Fundamentally, freedom means the freedom to live one’s own life without the interference of force against oneself integrated with the idea that man can only live by reason (an understanding of existence). It is only reason that is a proper guide because it is only by the use of reason that one can grasp the necessities of having proper values in order to sustain one’s life. If one understands the terms correctly, this means the morality of pursuing one’s rational happiness and the freedom to do so. The means of being free to pursue one’s rational happiness in a social context is the idea of individual rights, best articulated by Ayn Rand in her essay “Man’s Rights.” But this is not the same thing as doing whatever one pleases so long as one does not initiate force, which is the mainline argument of Libertarians. Whim-worshipping – doing whatever one feels like doing – has no grounding in reason since emotions are not tools of cognition and just because one feels like doing it does not mean that doing it is in fact good for oneself. The proper role of government is to make it possible for one to live one’s life by banning the initiation of force in a social context as a hard-line principle backed by reason and a rational understanding of man based upon man’s factual nature. And, by and large, Libertarians drop this entire context and simply appeal to the anti-government sentiment that is out there after many failed policies of the past hundred years. One does not hear an argument for freedom by the Libertarians. They typically speak against this, that, or the other government program and state that it is not the role of government to be involved in these areas of life, but they give no reasoned argument in favor of their position. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are no exception to this identification of the Libertarian mind-set. It is claimed that these two actually do understand the issue of individual rights, they just don’t articulate it because it is too long and involved an argument, and we live in a world of sound bites and the American people are just not ready to hear it (as presented in their speeches and on their websites intended for a large audience). But this means that they have explicitly given up reason in favor of appealing to the emotions of the American public, leaving the argument from reason on someone else’s side and not on the side of freedom. I see this as the primary reason Libertarians only get a small percentage of the vote when they run for major political offices, like the President of the United States. I have made an appeal to the Gary Johnson candidacy to become more articulate regarding the rational foundations of freedom several months ago, and have heard no reply and have not seen any articulation of freedom on his official website. This most definitely comes across to me as a man who has given up on reason and makes only appeals to emotions, something one of his long-term supporters actually came out and told me on FaceBook. So, I’m sorry, but this is not the way to bring back freedom in the United States, and I will not vote for a candidate who is not for freedom in terms of principles that are based upon reason. This particular election is a referendum on Marxist Nihilism, best expressed by President Obama’s, “You didn’t build that!” statement against individual initiatives and the pursuit of rational values. What we need is someone to beat him – get him out of office – so this country can recover from his nihilistic and destructive policies. I would love to have an actual pro-freedom and pro-individual rights candidate to vote for, but as I have explained above, this is not to be found in candidates who give up reason in the name of whim-worshipping and anti-government appeal. A vote for the Libertarian candidate – either Ron Paul or Gary Johnson – is not a vote for freedom properly understood. At a minimum, the Conservatives at least understand sound economic principles and argue in favor of economic freedom or the free markets. Hence, I think the only viable candidate to vote for who can actually win and states some explicit pro-freedom principles (even if only limited to economic activity) is the Romney / Ryan ticket. Also see: Governments and Individual Rights On Civil Society
  3. Just added to my Pittsburgh Objectivism Society message board: Morally Evaluating an Idea or a Philosophy I think something important needs to be pointed out in terms of the Muslim uprising in the Middle East. As far as I can tell from my understanding of Islam the way Mohammed meant it to be, those seeking to kill us because we are infidels and mock Islam are the true followers of that religion. But one has to judge the philosophy -- the teachings of Mohammed -- apart from those who claim to practice it (completely or incompletely). As Dr. Peikoff explained in "Fact and Value" one ought to get to the point where one is morally evaluating an idea -- not the followers and not those claiming to be this that or the other -- but morally evaluating the idea or system of ideas they are proposing to follow. In other words, using man's life as the proper standard, one has to evaluate the set of ideas as they related to human life and whether or not following those ideas will lead to a life proper to a human being or one that will erase his life as a consequence. In other words, the value of the set of ideas is dependent on the facts of the ideas and not its followers. In this regard, Islam is evil. It rejects man's independent mind (blind obedience) and upholds Faith over reason as an ideal. It also says that a man ought to be in total submission to the interpreters of Islam, leaving the individual no moral grounds on which to morally judge the philosophy on its own merits. One is forbidden to think for oneself, least one suffer eternal damnation, and cannot take the ideas of Mohammed and compare them to man's life as the standard in any manner whatsoever. So, quite apart from the followers killing the infidel and waging every type of war and stratagem against the infidel and the apostate, a man's mind is cut off from existence, which is itself evil and not subject to a better moral evaluation. That many of them choose to follow the further edict that those who disagree with Islam ought to be killed just goes along with the idea that one cannot question Islam by any other standard. It is part and parcel to Islam to kill anyone who disagrees with it. They are ordered to do so by Mohammed, because questioning Islam brings a death penalty. For those who say they do not choose to follow Islam that thoroughly, I suggest you get a better philosophy, because it is high past time when we in the West ought to go through any effort to differentiate those of you who are true Muslims from those of you who want it both ways. We will be judging you by the ideas you claim to accept. Choose wisely. http://www.aynrand.or... Fact and Value by Dr.Leonard Peikoff
  4. Posted my replies to the National Catholic Register regarding Ryan, Rand, and What's a Catholic to Think onto my Pittsburgh Objectivism Society message board. I'm still looking to meet with and to converse with local Objectivists, though it not getting much interest right now. Perhaps my reputation as a no-holds-barred Objectivist style is making people nervous or they just don't want to take on controversial topics in the open like I do on my website and on my POS forum. At any rate, the invitation to join (mostly for locals) is still open. http://www.meetup.co...tivism-Society/
  5. I think the grim, brooding Batman is a modern invention. I don't remember him being that way when I was growing up in the comic books, and the Batman of the 70's TV series had a really good sense of life and come-backs to the master criminals, which I certainly miss in the Nolan movies. So, part of my context in evaluating Nolan's work in Batman Rises and the others is how well did he convey a masterful projection of the dedicated man of justice when compared to the earlier versions. I definitely preferred the earlier version, which had more joy in the crusader for justice. But this is partially a sense of life reaction and is the same response some Objectivists have towards Gary Cooper's portrayal of Howard Roark as being too grim for their tastes.
  6. Right, I was not trying to identify the specific philosophy of management at the shop I work at, which is mixed. They do try to reward strong good, productive work when they can with a bonus system, but some of us are concerned that since the boss is not permitted to write down notes on our performance (because we are paid by a temp agency), that he is overlooking things that ought to be rewarded because he forgets them three months down the road. I do think Objectivism when it gets to the point of being applied at the work place will mean more justice and more of a focus on rewarding good work that aims at making the company more profit. Trouble is, the company I work for is not making a profit, and I don't run the place. And sometimes I think their production desires are a bit high for the work, because I think I'm a good worker, but I have to really struggle to meet the goals on a daily basis. And working that quickly gunning all day long can lead to errors because there is just too much to try to get done and one gets in a hurry. I remember back when I first started integrating Objectivism about five years after reading Atlas Shrugged. I worked for a major chemical company and we had to fill and stack a certain amount of bagged pigment onto a pallet coming out of a machine. Some of us were really good at it and could get nearly twice as much as was required, but we got no reward for it. So, I suggested that they pay us a small bonus for exceeding the production schedule and you should have heard the howls they would make. Eventually, those of us who could do better deliberately only did the minimum. Being paid by the hour has its benefits and its hazards, because one winds up only doing what has to be done, and maybe a bit more out of personal pride, but the smart ones don't burn themselves out trying to prove a point.
  7. Added some clarification points to my original essay on my website, build on the idea that it was Ancient Athens respect for reason in applications -- i.e. basket weaving, spear making, statue making,pottery making, etc. -- versus what was going on with the barbarians outside of Athens, that made it possible for more broadly thinking individuals to bring about philosophy, which was an integration of what they observed in the culture of Athens, especially with philosophers like Aristotle.
  8. My co-workers are curious about what philosophy has to do with everyday working, and I even get flack from some of you on this forum for being an applied philosopher, so I wrote the following essay to briefly touch upon the subject: Applied Philosophy in the Workplace Applied Philosophy in the Workplace by Thomas M. Miovas, Jr. 08/19/2012 A co-worker of mine has been bugging me about applied philosophy and what does it have to do with working for a living. He keeps saying, “What does applied philosophy have to do with cutting insulation panels for buildings?” and “What does applied philosophy tell you about how to do your job?” While many people these days can see that electronic equipment (computers and machinery) and mechanical devices are the result of engineering (applied physics), they do not see what philosophy has anything to do with working for a living. My first response would be that the mere fact that you have chosen to work for a living and earning a paycheck is itself an application of philosophy. You could decide to become a welfare bum and live off the State and not do a damned thing in favor of your own life. What makes that difference? It is the philosophy that you accept and live by. Do you consider the ability to earn a living to be a good thing or a nuisance? Do you think others ought to support you, no matter how much you screw up your own life? Do you think those earning more money than you owe you anything from their paycheck, whether you have anything to do with their lives or not? These are all philosophical questions. But more specifically, if you decide to work for a living, rather than being a parasite off the State, applied philosophy is everywhere. If you think about how to do a specific task based upon the specific nature of the job you are doing – i.e. cutting insulation panels, for example – your ability to think that way comes from a philosophy that says that thinking ought to be applied to real physical facts. And this philosophy, historically, came from one philosopher, Aristotle, who lived in Ancient Greece and taught his students how to think about real-world events and practices. Prior to Aristotle, there were practical thinkers (they called it Practical Wisdom), but only because Ancient Athens was geared towards a rational life for the Polis (the City State). Most others around Ancient Greece used rituals and incantations to try to get what they wanted out of life – and I don’t think casting a spell or citing an incantation on those insulation panels will cause it to do anything, let alone cutting them to size and cutting out sections for practical use. And it was Aristotle who formulated the principles of causality (a thing acting the way it does based upon what it is) in many applications in his writings. So, the fact that the Styrofoam of an insulation panel has to be handled a certain way or it will break, or the fact that one must use a powerful saw to cut the panels down to size (due to the steel struts running down their length), all comes from the formulation of philosophers, who taught man how to think in terms of the facts, as opposed to merely fantasizing about having things without taking the facts into account. And this is an application of logic, which methodology did not exist before the philosophers. If you look at a drawing and cut a panel to the right size and shape, this comes about due to applied logic, which says that a panel cannot be five feet long and thirty feet long at the same time and in the same respect. This is Aristotle’s Law of Non-Contradiction. Even issues of morality and justice come up in the workplace. Should a man who does more work and more accurately get paid more than the man who slacks off, expecting others to do his work for him? How to treat others in a social context or at the work place is an issue of justice, which is logic applied to human interactions. And how one treats them depends on the philosophy one has accepted. Should good, accurate, and productive work be encouraged or should it be resented and fought? This goes back to the working man versus the welfare bum. Which type of man should you encourage and which type of man ought you to keep out of your life? These are philosophical issues. In short, philosophy really comes down to mental methodology – of what use are you going to use your own mind for? If you sit around and fantasize all day and don’t get anything done, how can you expect to achieve anything out of life? Should you use your mind for dealing with practical reality or spin things out of thin air that have nothing to do with the facts at hand? These are very broad questions (they cover a lot of ground), and it is the job of the philosopher to answer them so they apply to all areas of life. Without the rational philosopher such as Aristotle, you might know how to do a particular task (if you were taught it), but you wouldn’t know what to do with your own mind and would be like a child wishing for things instead of acting in reality to accomplish your goals.
  9. One thing the new Batman movie demonstrates is that the idea of competing governments cannot work in the same geographical area. A government enacts a specific code of justice, based upon certain standards, and two or more different codes of justice necessarily means that the police forces or the enforcers of those codes of justice will be seen as a threat to one another. In Batman Rises, Bane's code of justice contradicts the cities code of justice, so the first thing he does is to disable the police force of the city. And it couldn't happen any other way. So, it is a blow to anarcho-capitalism, the idea that competing governments could work things out peaceably. Not in a cat's eye they can't.
  10. Well, the thing is that art is much more than symbolism if done correctly. Art is about concretizing an abstraction -- not merely symbolizing the abstraction. Yes, Batman symbolizes justice and Bane symbolizes injustice, but in a fully developed concretization of those abstractions, each character would *be* the abstraction in a concrete form. In other words, their characters would be developed in the movie of being those abstractions as presented in a particular individual. This would require a fuller development of Bruce Wayne as an industrialist and his understanding that earning a living by offering his customers values is moral; whereas those who would seek to throttle him or to take what is his away from him is immoral, and that , perhaps, the police don't fully understand this and therefore there is a need for a super hero to take care of the major criminals, hence Batman. I'm not saying Batman as presented in Nolan's movies is not a man of justice, because he is, but the fuller understanding of the relationship between Bruce Wayne and Batman are not developed enough to make it crystal clear qua character and qua concretization of production and self-defense.
  11. Sometimes, when it comes to modern movies, I cannot thoroughly enjoy them without re-writing them in my own mind, using the same presented elements, but stressing them better by making them more explicit. It's as if the original version was only a sketch (and maybe even a good one), but it lacks details I would need to consider it to be great art. Nolan's Batman series was like this for me, especially TDKR (Batman Rises). There are two codes of justice at conflict in TDKR: Bane, who represents Marxist justice (wealth is stolen and the rich had to steal from the people, so justice is restoring the balance) versus Batman (the idea that wealth is created, is owned by the producer, and should be protected from criminals). In this context Catwoman is a transitionary figure, not quite having decided to go fully with Bane, but resisting Batman due to her not being able to be successful and concluding the only way to get ahead is to steal from the rich. The story is how these elements play out. And I don't think it would have taken much to make the conflict much more intellectual versus physical warfare, thus making TDKR a great movie, rather than a good movie that was a sketch of a major conflict going on today in our culture. I'm glad Nolan sided with Batman, so the sketch is there; but filling in more details explicitly makes it possible for me to have a better grasp of what was achieved in only symbolism in TDKR. One might say that I can only enjoy some movies if I imagine them as they might be and ought to be.
  12. Sure, the ending implied that everything worked out for the best and that Batman and Catwoman would live happily ever after. The problem is that there are two different codes of justice represented in the movie: Bane versus Batman, or egalitarianism versus earning one's way. Bane's is made explicit, Batman's is not. While we are shown and told that no man can be permitted to rise above another in Bane, we are not shown nor told that a man can achieve what is best for him by earning his keep and enacting proper justice in Batman (except symbolically and via physical recovery). It would have been great to make that conflict much more explicit -- and to show that despite the fact that Bruce Wayne lost everything via Bane and Catwoman stealing his identity and making a bad investment call, that Bruce Wayne had the capacity to recover economically -- to rise again -- just as Batman did physically. Given this implicit conflict, Catwoman could have been shown as not sure which one she wanted to follow -- egalitarianism or rational justice. If Catwoman's motivations were made more clear (which would have required Bruce Wayne's and Batman's motivations to be made more clear), then we could have witnessed a great movie dealing with fundamentals. As it is presented, one is not sure why Catwoman chose Batman over Bane. Presumably, while they were dealing with the bomb, Catwoman fell in love with Batman (remember that kiss?), but it is not really made clear. She witnesses Bane beating up Batman and leaving him for dead in the pit, and she is possibly amazed that he recovered and came back to fight the good fight; but is that just falling in love with a man who won't give up? Is it just because he physically recuperated? Would she have been in love with him if he recouped his financial loses as well, or did she love him because he had nothing left and was still willing to save Gotham? And what did Gotham mean to her anyhow? Just a place she could steal from? All of this and more makes the ending unbelievable to me, because these issues were touched upon but not resolved.
  13. Yeah, well, I do think some businesses would operate better if they did have an applied philosophy department to keep their procedures rational in their long-term best interests. Nonetheless, all we know about Catwoman is that she wanted to erase her past, we don't know why. She made no statements that she wanted to go legit. It was Batman who suggested to her to go legit. But, even by the end of the movie, we don't know if she did that or not,since no scenes were shown with her having a real job -- even as a private detective or a burglary proofing company (like some real criminals working with the police have done). She is not shown having any remorse for living a life of crime whatsoever.
  14. There was absolutely no evidence presented that Catwoman was seeking to get out of a life of crime....no depiction of her as herself trying to get a job or building her skills and not having any other choice aside from crime. I also saw no evidence that she would fall in love with a man like Bruce Wayne or Batman -- NONE. So, yes, I saw the same movie, but I didn't read things into her character that were not presented in the movie.
  15. I do think Batman's relationship with Catwoman was rather disappointing; I, too, would have thought he would have had higher standards. While there is an admiration for Batman on Catwoman's part, I didn't see anything in her character that would make her redeemable in Batman's code of justice (given that I grew up with Batman in the comics). I can see where there might be an attraction to a beautiful, graceful, and athletic woman, but beyond that the movie did not show her changing her mind and becoming a woman of justice. The ending conflict with Bane, where Catwoman kills him to save Batman was out of character. And I was highly disappointed that neither Bruce Wayne nor Batman did not have any scolding words for her as she claimed she was only stealing to have something to eat. That is just another aspect of me being let down by the movie.
  16. Here's the link to the Special Report interview of Ryan where he says he rejects Objectivism due to it being an atheistic philosophy, though he was inspired by Rand's novels, including Atlas Shrugged. Now, if Ryan and the Republicans were going to be a consistent or even semi-consistent supporter of Ayn Rand and Objectivism, then I wouldn't mind a half-way acceptance of Rand on their part. But it looks like they are going to continue to reject it on the grounds that it is atheistic, preferring Faith over reason in public policy applications -- i.e. Compassionate Conservatives. While it would have been better if they accepted it and endorsed it, it is good that they reject it to help alleviate confusions as to what the Republicans actually support -- which is not Objectivism. Conservatives just cannot get past the idea that we have freedom because God gave us free will and a choice to accept Him or reject Him, and that any politics based on atheism therefore cannot bring freedom and capitalism -- to them, witness the Godless Soviet Union and what it did to people without God's guidance. Many false premises therein.
  17. Just saw an interview of Paul Ryan on Fox News Channel, and I don't think his position will be a threat to Objectivism in any way whatsoever. He says he was inspired by Ayn Rand's novels and the politics presented in there, and acknowledged that Ayn Rand came from the Soviet Union and that he doesn't want us to sink that far into State control, but he says he is not for Objectivism on the grounds that it is atheistic and claims that Objectivism contradicts what she presents in her novels -- which leads me to believe that he doesn't understand either the novels or Objectivism, so it is good that he is distancing himself from Objectivism. Besides, his policies are not full capitalism, he only wants to tinker around the edges, so I'm glad he is stating publicly that he is against Objectivism.
  18. By the way, even though I think Nolan was aiming at egalitarianism (re the Rabble) and somewhat in Bane (throwing Batman into the pit, to the lowest level, and telling him he cannot rise above that), I do think the message was mixed egalitarianism and nihilism. I certainly would not say the movie was a great drama (though it could have been if we were let in on Bruce Wayne's struggle explicitly), but there was definitely a lot of good to it, just not enough to turn the tide of anti-man sentiments in our culture. I still think to do that one needs and explicit pro-man philosophy and an explicit rational morality. It was unclear to me what Batman's motivation was. We are not shown any scenes with Bruce or Batman looking out over the city and taking delight in the wonderful aspects of living in civilization; and he doesn't seem to have any ties to the city, not even regarding the operations of his business based there, by the time he decides to get back in the game. I'm glad he didn't give up,and yes, that was inspiring, but I was left longing for more ideology on Batman's side.
  19. I think we are arguing over not much of a difference. When you come right down to it, egalitarianism is a type of nihilism -- the destruction of the better man by reducing everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Look at the Soviet Union and look at Starnesville in Atlas Shrugged. Symbolically, the thorough application of egalitarianism -- from each according to his ability to each according to his need -- is like an atom bomb going off in the economy: It destroys everything. But the Rabble putting their betters on trial is definitely egalitarianism, even if Bane himself might be a nihilist. But someone on FaceBook reminded me that it was The Joker who was the real nihilist -- someone who wanted to destroy for the sake of destruction. Bane did not want Batman to rise, which is why he threw him into the unescapable pit prison; and remember, his cellmates asked him why bother to build yourself up? Why bother to rise when it won't get you anywhere? So, I do think the bad guys represented egalitarianism in this story.
  20. By the way, there is a principle that I mentioned on FaceBook before writing my more thorough essay, and that is that implicit good cannot win over explicit evil. That is, if the enemy of man has a clear ideology for motivation, and the good guys don't, then the good guys are not going to win the battle and may very well lose the war. As Miss Rand clearly demonstrated in Part Two of Atlas Shrugged, a man's moral premises / his ideology is his motive power, and in any given battle, he who has the most motive power based on ideology will win. So, because neither Bruce Wayne nor Batman made their intentions clear and didn't have a clearly defined ideology to promote justice, then I didn't fully believe the rise of Batman as presented in the movie. The scenes were set up well, but Batman gave no response aside from overcoming obstacles, which isn't enough to have a moral crusade.
  21. I think it was rather clear that Bane and the Rabble represented egalitarianism and how can anyone dare to rise above another? That's why Bane wanted to destroy Gotham and why the Rabble put the businessmen on trial. But it wasn't an ideological movie, sad to say, and so much more could have been done with the set-up than was done with just a few sharp words from Bruce Wayne or Batman at the appropriate times. Not that he would have had to address Bane or the Rabble, but there were times he could have taken a clear position with his own team and especially Alfred who wanted him to give up the battle.
  22. It almost doesn't matter if the Ryan plan is a good one or not, as the Marxist Left is already lying through their teeth about what he proposes to do. No, he's certainly not a man I would fully support, and I long for the day when we get a real capitalist candidate who won't backtrack on every issue, but I do think Romney /Ryan is the best chance we have of getting the Obamanation out of office. Gary Johnson has some good ideas, but I don't think he has a chance of winning and voting for him will only provide more Republican splits and the Obamanation will get his second term.
  23. Wow...hatred of the good for being the good is all over the place, not only in the articles cited, but also in the article referenced. Just think of the howl there would be had Bruce Wayne stood up for his earned wealth because he knew how to run a business and was proud of it! But it does bring up a relevant point -- is Bruce Wayne permitted to have his wealth morally because he defends the weak during the night from human predators? It is possible, given the original conception of a businessman becoming a masked avenger, that had Bruce stood up for his wealth, the creator of Batman would have seen that as a contradiction to Batman's stance on justice?
  24. In case you were referring to me and my post Re Aquinas,no, I don't think we can spin this into a good move on Ryan's part. I simply take the position that Ryan could have made a much, much worse choice than siding with Aquinas in matters of epistemology and public policy. Of course, I think Ryan did this because Aquinas does not reject Faith as Miss Rand does, so there is a certain amount of cowardice to the dismissal of Rand; but I don't think Ryan will be able to ignore or vilify Rand entirely.
  25. Without hearing it from Nolan himself, I am not going to try to second-guess why he didn't have either Bruce Wayne or Batman take a more outspoken stance against the bad guy's ideology. However, when you consider that Atlas Shrugged is one of the most philosophical novels ever written and that it has sold over 1.5 million copies since the Obamanation has taken office, then I think it belies the notion that challenging the Left on ideology will ruin one's bottom line. Of course, Nolan has to deal with the Hollywood Left, who have all but taken over, but if he was really worried about that, then he would not have challenged environmentalism, nihilism, and egalitarianism via Batman in the first place.
  • Create New...