Grames

But you just did. In acting or refraining you have provided exactly the same kind of demonstation of volition as foot-stomping does of existence.

No thats not right. Two-Face blames Gordon for Rachel's death because Gordon has corrupt subordinates who kidnapped her. Gordon is working within the system and accepts compromises on minor or less important principles and goals in order to go after the mob. Gordon actually has dialog early in his first meeting with Dent to the effect that "he does the best he can with what he has." Dent doesn't ever accept compromise. You get a glimpse of Dent's rigidity when he shouts after Batman "You can't give in!" when Batman decided to turn himself in. The double-headed coin (before it is damaged) is emblematic of Dent's world: there is only one way. Dent vs. Gordon is an interesting conflict. Dent attacks Gordon's family because he sees that Gordon had done exactly the same to Dent's family (Rachel, whom he would have married.) Symmetry still appeals to Dent/Two-Face at the end.

The best summary of the history and context of this event is here: The Russo-Georgian War and the Balance of Power What the article doesn't say, but I will, is that Kosovo should never have been separated from Serbia, this was pure altruism. We should not be expanding NATO in such an aggressive manner when NATO members do not contribute to their own defense in any significant way, it makes the NATO member countries militarily indefensible the moment the US turns its attention elsewhere. This is also altruism.

Cherly's sense of helplessness led to her letting herself be overcome by her emotions, a combination of despair and defiance. Galt is not helpless.

Edge of space? Is that like when you sail over the horizon and fall over the edge of the world?

Yes it is, but its the only way to get where you and I want to go given the wording of the second amendment. It would be better if the 2nd didn't try to justify why the right exists, or seem to subordinate an individual right to a need of the State. But it does, so the 2nd will always be in jeopardy of being practically vitiated by a hostile Supreme Court. Only rewriting it will settle the matter.

This is just logic. It is not even specially Objectivist, just Aristotelian. Aristotle said that all that exists has a particular form in which it exists. It has a place, a time, various attributes and a boundary which separates this from that or from everything. Everything that exists is particular, delimited and finite. The existence of an actual infinite is a contradiction not because it is uncountably large but because it is indefinite. As a means of knowledge or an amount of knowledge, omniscience is a kind of infinity. Therefore omniscience doesn't exist and an omniscient God doesn't exist.

Those most active in society were the same individuals subject to militia duty. After subtracting every free and able-bodied white male citizen from the population, who is left? Women, children, slaves, the elderly, and sickly. With the exception of some of the old men, this is not the group of people that owned property, transacted business, voted or debated politics in 1792. They didn't put themselves in a position to need protection from the state, or to exercise their rights even though they had some. Not my position, their position. And its not even a properly justified formal argument, just custom and prejudice against women and slaves. How often did women commit treason? How many women peacably assembled to protest the whiskey excise tax of 1794? The laws and constitution were crafted with white male citizens in mind, and the protection of the the law was fully extended to other persons and 'second class citizens' over time as those prejudices were overcome by rationality. Since the Constitution let the several states have differing definitions of 'free person', it is appropriate to look to the the states for an in-context definition of 'the people'. The three-fifths compromise came about because none of the slave states would give slaves the right to vote, or permit them to self organize in militias, yet they wanted the proportional representation in the House from counting the slave population. It is an obvious contradiction. Yes they were referred to as person, but only 3/5 of a person. I would say that in principle to be 3/5 of a person is to be no person at all. With regard to the second amendment, with my hypothetical B term added: A: A well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, B: A militia is comprised of the people of a free state, C: Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia is the linking term in the argument. If we dispense with that and extend the definition of 'the people' to the modern context of 'everyone but children and felons' we get a broad and strong right to keep and bear arms. Others would argue that dispensing with the militia obviates the entire amendment. To defeat that objection I want to equate the people with the militia. In the 1792 context it is possible to make that argument by appealing to the common understanding of the laws including their customs and prejudices of the time. Eliminating those prejudices for the modern context then extends the right. I interpret the second amendment as follows: An armed people is necessary for the security of a free state, Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The same individuals comprise both groups. Those persons who were not eligible for service in the militia (women, children, slaves) did not have the right to vote and in some states had obstacles to owning property, so were excluded from "the people".

I think your interpretation is clearly wrong, and here's why: in 1792 the militia and the people are the same. To assume that they are at odds is a modern premise. In 1769 the occupying British army troops were not a militia, but a professional standing army. A: A well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, B: A militia is comprised of the people of a free state, C: Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,

Don't think I'll be going at all. Too bizarre. Never heard of this Spirit character either.

I give two answers, first within the context of the movie and then with benefit of Objectivist ethical theory. First, the movie seems to give these answers: Because it would be wrong to give so little weight to the value of the lives on the other boat. (supported by what the Joker wants to prove, people are not moral) Because it would be wrong to mistrust the people on the other boat as to expect them to explode this boat. (supported by dialogue) Because it would be wrong to become the Joker's accomplice and a mass murderer. (supported by action of throwing out one of the triggers) As an Objectivist considering the situation, the two priniciples that are relevant are the Emergency Ethics and the distinction between the metaphysical versus the manmade. I reason that the principles of emergency ethics do not apply because this particular situation is artificially rigged by the Joker. It is not to be accepted but to be rebelled against. Since the Joker can, and probably would kill everyone anyway afterward there is no point to giving him amusement and proving his point. If one boat did blow up the other, I would expect the Joker to complete the moral inversion by posturing as the defender of morality and blowing up the remaining boat himself as an act of justice.

Note the precedent: Its the long drug war that set up this long slide down the slippery slope to statism. In rational and just society, only stolen goods and those used in a criminal act could be considered contraband.

Good post, Starling. Rand specifically praised artworks and artists philosopically much worse off than we see in The Dark Knight (Dostoevsky and others). She did so because they were Romantic as she defined the term, whatever their other flaws. Naturalism and cynicism do go together.

There was time to partially deploy the cape during the long fall, slowing them down. The shorter fall was head first.

Right on, city. This whole thread has struck me from the beginning as nothing but a creepy attempt to rationalize adult-child sex a.k.a. pedophilia.

Changing the premise breaks continuity for the audience, in that the new work will not be about the same thing as the earlier work. Recycling the premise was the entire point, it saves time to get on with the new story. A change of the premise is a mark of incompetence. And here you demonstrate that you still do not understand what a literary premise is, or even how to read. The "individual mind as the wellspring of creativity and achievement" is the theme, not the premise. The premise of the Fountainhead is "two young architects begin their careers at the same time from the same school, but have radically different careers because one is fiercely independent and creative with a true passion for architecture, while the other is a well-connected social climber with no talent who passes other's work off as his own to get by. And here again you mix in too much of the plot with the premise. And the final refutation of your last sentence and this entire post, is that the single biggest fundamental reason this movie is so much better than any previous incarnation is precisely its fidelity to the original premise of the source material.

I will explain what a literary premise is, and examine the literary premises behind several superhero characters. Batman is singled out for analysis, and contrasted with Ironman. In general, a premise is a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn. In literature, a literary premise is idea of the story's setup and the identities of the major characters. The premise is distinguished from the plot, which is what happens, and the theme, which is the abstract meaning illustrated by the characters in their actions and fates. In episodic genre fiction (a comic book series, an action movie franchise) the same literary premises are recycled into new plots and potentially new themes. The premise of Superman is that he has incredible powers and is practically indestructible because he comes from another planet, but his true greatness is his moral code imparted to him by his adoptive parents in Kansas who raised him from an infant. The premise of Spiderman is that college age young man is bitten by a radioactive spider causing him to have certain spider-like superpowers; he then struggles inwardy and outwardly with the responsibilities such power imparts. Various X-men characters are born with mutations granting specific, mixed-blessing super powers which isolate the characters from society. Batman is actually Bruce Wayne, a fabulously wealthy but otherwise ordinary man who secretly chooses to prowl Gotham City dressed up as a bat, terrifying and beating up criminals, in order to save a city on the verge of hopeless resignation to corruption and chaos. The literary premise of the Batman is unique in several ways. All of the other characters described above have superpowers that are birthrights or the product of accidents, but Batman chooses to put on his Batsuit. It is crucial that Bruce Wayne keep his Batman identity a secret because it protects his immediate circle from retribution, gives him freedom to leverage his wealth for Batgear, and keeps the cops and tort lawyers off his back. Gotham City uniquely justifies the existence of Batman. In an ordinary city with a more law and order Batman would not be needed; his personal childhood trauma is no justification for vigilantism and if he insisted on suiting up anyway the character would be narcissistic. But in Gotham, where so many citizens and even policemen are corrupt or cowardly but not irredeemably so, Batman makes the difference between a city with or without hope for justice and morality. Of the superheroes described above, Batman stands out as the most consistently Romantic. Bruce Wayne chooses of his own volition to create and become the Batman character. Ironman is also a self-made character. Ironman is genius Tony Stark, a wealthy industrialist and arms manufacturer who's integrity is offended when he discovers his company's products and his life's work are sold around the world to good and evil men alike; the suit is the means and symbol of his freedom from the system which had duped him. In so far as Ironman is all about Tony Stark, the scope of its theme parallel's The Fountainhead. To the extent that The Dark Knight is about Batman's relationship to society, it is as ambitious as Atlas Shrugged.

You haven't taken the "God thing" seriously and so don't yet see the contradiction. According to the "God thing", your time, property, and mind all come from God and will be taken by God because they belong to God. Everything that exists is a part of God. Good premises to you in your search for the truth.

Literary premises, the necessary background to understand the story, are repeated with every iteration.

The start of the movie? The people of Gotham have been corrupt and cowardly since Detective Comics #1 was first published back in 1914 (or whenever). Otherwise, there is nothing for Batman to do. Premise, as in literary premise. A literal mentality is the opposite of what is needed to appreciate literature.

1) The people of Gotham are corrupt or cowards. This is a necessary premise to make possible any Batman story, not just this one. 2) Ok. Your preference. 3) Paraphrasing from the IMDB.com Dark Knight FAQ: "After the events of The Dark Knight, Batman can no longer allow himself to be affiliated with Gotham Police without risking more deaths. By "rebranding" himself, he not only severs all ties to authority, he is also "becoming the villain." As Dent is allowed to die a hero, Batman must accept the opposite responsibility. (i.e.- Dent's phrase, "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.") Batman's reputation with the criminals is that he is now a more dangerous person. Several people in this film showed disdain for Batman, secure in the knowledge that he lived by a set of rules that seemingly included a taboo on killing anyone. Now, he's got the deaths of at least 5 people - including cops - being attributed to him. The criminals of Gotham City are losing just a little more sleep over the whole Batman phenomenon now! Harvey Dent is a leading prosecutor. If word was to get out that he's a crazy killer, all the crime bosses in prison would have sufficient grounds for appeal. All the convictions of all the cases Dent has ever tried could be overturned, and all the crime bosses would be back on the street. The movie mentions this a few times. In their first meeting, the mayor cautioned Dent that he had better watch himself, because all they need is a little dirt on him and all the cases would crumble. During the scene where Dent threatens the fake honor guard who was actually a paranoid schizophrenic, Batman warns Dent that killing him would put all the cases in jeopardy. Batman reiterates this to Gordon at the end."

The primary problem with software patents was documenting the prior art. Software is almost all a trade secret, written in a obscure programming language, compiled into machine code, with features that are not documented in a systematic way which can be searched and cited by patent examiners. The patent office changed its philosophy during the Clinton-Gore administration to grant patent applications that for which specific bars to patentability could not be found (an inappropriate customer service standard that is heedless of the conflicting property claims created by bad patents). After the supreme court ruled that 'anything crafted by the hand of man' was patentable subject matter, the software patent applications flooded in and the examiners had very little documentary evidence of the prior art. Nearly everything got approved. This shifted the burden of sorting out conflicting property claims to the courts, a slow and expensive process where at least the interested parties had the time and motivation to acquire examples of the prior art. Algorithms have never been patentable subject matter in US patent law. The USPTO appears moving toward ruling that an algorithm that "runs on a general purpose computing device" is not a specific rendering, thus algorithm plus machine isn't patentable. In my opinion an algorithm plus machine thats creates a novel and useful output ought to be patentable.

But take note of the visual context displayed while these sentences are spoken. While the "truth isn't good enough" line is being spoken, we see Alfred destroying the note Rachel left for Bruce Wayne informing him of her love for another man. Was this a classic example of a white lie, which is never justified? Since Rachel was dead, was there a point to twisting the knife in the wound of Bruce Wayne's grief? Rachel did represent Bruce's hope for a normal life, so her rejection of him because of his double life as Batman is a far more serious blow to that hope than even the fact of Rachel's death. It would put Bruce's values at odds with each other, forcing him to give up all he could achieve as Batman for the possibility of romance, or to give up romance for what Batman could do. With Rachel dead and her rejection concealed, Bruce can proceed unconflicted as Batman and still be open to the possibility of another romance. Considered as plausible characterization, Alfred has raised Bruce from boyhood and been his protector for decades, of course he is going to want to withhold the note. When someone tells a lie someone has to pay the price of supporting that lie. I don't see a victim here. The scene presented while the line "Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded" is spoken is Lucius Fox witnessing the destruction of the surveillance device Wayne had arrange to be constructed, and walking away with satisfaction evident on his face. He had trusted Bruce Wayne and been rewarded. Clearly the meaning of the word 'faith' here is the trust people have in each other, not the religious version of believing in something with no evidence. The line also refers to preserving the public memory of Harvey Dent as an incorruptable man.

'Student' works well also.