Free Thinker

I will keep that in mind. I think, however, that you should remember that this is a forum, where debate and intellectual banter is supposed to take place. I took a lot of what you said personally, because the way you worded your post made your points sound like very ad hominem. I agree. I agree.

Firstly, before I address you responses, I have two things to say. One, do not talk down to me - as if I read AR yesterday and jump at the sight of selfless. Two, my comments in the previous posts were only my first impression of the movie - like I said I had just returned from it. . I recognized a major flaw in the movie - the fact that Bruce's father, throughout the entire movie, was admired, not for is ingenuity or genius, but on how selfless and giving his was. To cite some examples - the scene at the party "the apple has fallen far from the tree", Nielson's dialouge with Bruce, describing how "a man who was giving in many respects was mugged by the very people he was trying to help" (paraphrased), the train, and many others. As an Objectivist (I presume), it is very reckless of you simply to overlook that theme. It wasn't subtle, it wasn't simply a passing remark, it was a critical aspect of the movie!! 1. You claim that because Nielson's character ended up being the villain, anything positive he might have initially said is negated. Does the truth of particular statements about principles and reality depend on the actions of the character who made those statements? Of course not. Nielson says one particularly good thing, essentially that "pity for the guilty is treason for the innocent." Does the fact that he acts in an evil manner later in the movie negate the truth of this statement? No. Yes, it does! The point of art is to display morality in action. If a character believes something, and later becomes a villian, the writers of the script are obviously trying to say something about his idea. I believe that, altough evil men can speak truth, the way the movie was made downcast and protrayed Nielson's ideas as Puritanical. Firstly, I concede to your analysis. I didn't understand that theme, but you shed some light onto it. Secondly, I am not a child. Do not treat me like one. ("Get it?") I concede on that point. Do not patronize me. I agree. Although you have been very demeaning and insulting through your post, you are right in a lot of what you said.

I just came from seeing "Batman Begins", and I have to say, although I wasn't suprised by what I say, I was disappointed (oddly enough). I disagree with the reviews put forth so far. I thought that Liam Nielson's part in the begininning got me excited for the movie, but later when he ends up being the villian, it negated anything good he might have said (in the eyes of the viewer, that is). The fact of the matter is that we are given a false alternative, a package deal in the movie - either we stand for moral absolutes (and become Puritanical zealots) or we show compassion for villany (thereby upholding a selfless idea of "innate good"). The movie, although stylistically done well, was philosophically very convoluted. The original Batman (the version that appeared in the "Detective Comics" series) was what I was hoping for, but instead we are given Wayne Enterprises - selfless philantropist and "tireless helper of the unfortuante". (Remember, the railway they bought?)

I perhaps have been misleading, but I want to understand the "basic tenets of his philosophy"...that have merit and value to them. (Emphasis added) Burgess, Hal has what I am looking for right on.

I stand corrected. I want to understand the parts of his philosophy that I feel have merit - his metaphysics, his epistemology, etc. I originally posted my question to ask of some advice as to which parts did in fact have merit to them. I don't know about that....I don't think one needs to invest 1000's of hours to understand and be certain about the fact that A is A. At least I don't. Understandably, the process of induction does take a very long time to complete, years upon years - if that is what you are referring to. I agree. I agree. I have never considered my choice of reading a crucial aspect of my goals in life, or CPL. I honestly don't understand where you are coming from. I do not intend to read Aristotle to level that, let's say, a graduate student, or (from what I can gather) you would read it at. I simply want to understand the basic tenets of Aristotle's philosophy - the philosophy that inspired the Renaissance and Enlightenment. That was a joke. The "fuss" I was referring to was all of the references to Aristotle I have read in AR and LP's work; and additionally on this website. Wow, I didn't know I had made such a commitment. I want to understand his work, that is all I am saying. I never said I want to make a career out of it, or write a book. Again, I don't understand where you are getting this! I didn't know that reading and grasping Aristotelian ideas was such an endeavor - to the extent you are making it out to be! Please clarify my thinking, if it is! I appreciate your thoughts; and I do as well.

Well put!

I'd like to second, third, and probably fourth recommendations for Goodkind. I have read through "Blood of the Fold", and I am in love with his writing. The villains in the stories are actually despicable and evil, and the hero (es) are courageous and wonderful.

Good point. That, in essence, is really the only way one can get 100% certainty, assuming you are able to translate in a perfectly objective and honest way. So, to summarize your response, you are saying that I can't reach full certainty through second hand information, or even reading the classical Greek itself, but that the only way I can is by making a livelihood out of it? To apply your example, I can't be sure that the I and F translation is 100% objective, but I can have a certain level of confidence that it is, based on other people's reviews of it? Reading and understanding Aristotle is a very, very important goal to me. I want to read his work, first hand, and see what "all the fuss is about". I am ready to invest as much time as necessary.

Sorry, I got it completely wrong. I meant "Terence Irwin and Gail Fine", or I and F

Are your items still for sale? I am interested in "Art of Thinking"

My favorite shows - Horatio Hornblower Buffy the Vampire Slayer Angel Seinfeld 24

I have heard about that series, but I am more seeking, like you suggested, a primary source on Aristotle with running commentary. I went to Barnes and Noble yesterday and couldn't find the F and W you suggested.

I still am confused. I can see, on one hand, the purpose of reading primary documents, and then supplementing that with secondhand information, but the idea that one can completely trust another person's interpretation, without having seen the full context of the material cited, strikes me as a bit ignorant. A person can take sections of Aristotle out of context, as with any philosopher, and make wild assertions. My question, restated, goes something like this. To a person that has had (for the sake of our example) no previous exposure to (again, for the sake of our example) Aristotle, how can one find a source of secondhand information is objective and true? Please tell me if that makes little sense.

I am actually 400 or so pages into Les Mis, and I am completely enthralled by it. I don't understand why you guys consider it boring. When I am reading it, I keep in mind Hugo is painting a majestic masterpiece - that is the style of his work and of romanticism. Hugo always develops his stories immensely, which makes the resolutions much more powerful.

But wouldn't reading the book be "second hand information"? Does he have substanative quotes, or just one liners? That brings up a good point. Can I ever comment on a philosopher without having read their works? Can second hand information suffice? For instance, a lot of Objectivists I have talked to claim Aristotle to be a genius, but have only read excerpts from his work. Is that correct?

Granted you said , but I wanted to say that I saw that on TV as well. So much for victomhood, huh!

I do have books that are just selections, but I have no idea what parts they cut out, which bugs me. Good point.

AR called him the greatest philosopher in history, and I want to know why. I was hoping causually, but I realize that that is near to impossible to do. I am aware of that. My parents bought me this ( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...20125?v=glance) Aristotle, and it has been rotting on my shelf for about a year now. No, I will check it out. Good suggestions. I essentially want to understand his ideas on metaphysics (A=A, which by the way, did he ever actually say that?) knowledge, and art. When I tried on reading metaphysics, it wasn't what I had hoped for. It was more a discussion on epistemology then reality. I gather that know. Sort of. But they are incredibly dry!

Any suggestions on sections of Aristotle to read? I struggled through is "Logical treaties", but I feel I haven't gotten much out of them. I am looking for some "gems", some good sections which illustrate his genius. I only have this summer for free time, so...., help!

I just rented the Aviator, I was pleasantly surprised...for the first 30 minutes of the movie. Here, I thought, was a man who was a true innovator, and capitalist who loves what he does and does it well. However, as mentioned in eariler posts, his ambition and drive was later attributed to his OCD, not of any heroic vision he had. I found the fixation on his OCD to be distracting, and missing of the crucial positive elements of his nature.

Wow, I have been away from this thread for a while...Thanks for all the input, I haven't had a chance to read all of the posts thoroughly, but I see it has sparked some controversy.

Interesting. Thanks for the input!

I would like to hear it. Could you send the link to my eMail please? Thanks!

I agree, that building looks ridiculous. What was it, and who designed it?

Thank you, I have seen the series. I am very excited for the movie as well!