MarkusH

I'm taking the risk of jumping in here because for years I considered myself a libertarian. Extrapolating from Ex_banana-eater's last sentence in his 2:34 AM post, in my view, illustrates the core of the division between most libertarians and Objectivists. Most libertarians, Edward_j_williamson aside, seem to be focused on political economy and seldom, if ever, "check their premises" to evaluate whether their entire philosophy is consistent with reason. In fact, it's safe to say most self-described libertarians don't even have a complete philosophy as such. But they *think* they do, which is probably why so many react so irrationally when confronted with Objectivism. In my own case, I read Atlas fifteen years ago and liked it because it meshed well with the laissez-faire economics I'd come to believe in. I called myself a "libertarian" because I accepted it as an appropriate label for the views expressed by economists like Hayek and Friedman. It wasn't until I had the good fortune of running into Andrew Lewis prior to talk he was about to give at University of Iowa in 2000 that I'd even considered how limited "libertarianism" is.

TwoSixTwo, what a nice surprise to read your Rene Barjavel recommendation. Back in eighth grade, I was nearly mesmerized by an English translation of his "The Ice People," a short novel about the discovery of the ruins of an advanced civilization buried in Antarctica. (Considering reactions to my comments on the earlier sci-fi thread, I should point out that my positive recollection of "The Ice People" in this context does not constitute an endorsement of the ancient societies portrayed therein, Barjavel's other works, metaphysics, ethics, or politics.) Ran across a tattered copy of "The Ice People" at a booksale recently, so I had Barjavel on the mind. I'm curious what you like about "La nuit des temps," and if you've read any other of his works. Unfortunately my French is so rusty I'd probably never get through a Barjavel original! But I know through recent Internet research that at least a few Barjavel novels have been translated into English.

My offerings would better be described as speculative fiction as opposed to hard science fiction. Nonetheless, I enjoyed them. L. Neil Smith's "The Probability Broach" recently entertained me. Set in the late 70's/early 80's, it's about a Denver police detective who accidentally gets himself transferred into a parallel reality where the Articles of Confederation were never superceded by the Constitution. Very memorable characters -- Smith has written at least two other books with the same characters, but I haven't read them yet. Although I suspect I might disagree with his politics, I've also been hugely entertained by all the works of Robert *Charles* Wilson. "Mysterium" and "The Harvest" were my personal favorites. Also Paul Park's "Celestis" earlier this summer. The setting is a planet colonized by American and British explorers where the natives have been made more human-like, often against their will, through pharmaceuticals.

Sorry, AshRyan, and anybody else. Former Heinlein groupie here -- wrote that rather late at night, even for me. Essentially means "to absorb" but with a positive emotional connotation; it's from Stranger In A Strange Land. What it distills to in context is that I really, really liked the positive aspects of Grand Canyon, which made my eventual disappointment all the more acute.

When it comes to movies with irrational premises, 1991's Grand Canyon is near the top of my list. It actually had positive moments: I grokked on how it demonstrated the delight in making new friends, and the sense of satisfaction in discovering (or rediscovering) one's core values; both experiences were shared by nearly all the major characters. But the premise behind the title was that Kevin Kline's character, the focal point in a web of new relationships, believed they all needed to visit the Grand Canyon in order to realize how small and insignificant their lives were! This, he believed, was consistent with spurring them all on to new heights of personal accomplishment. But gawd-almighty, the last thing any of those characters needed was to start believing themselves to be small and insignificant again! It ruined what otherwise, with a few tweaks here and there, might have been a life-affirming movie.

Neurosophist, is what you're really after the impact that the existence of antecedent factors has on the concept of free will? While antecedent events (from the "outside") certainly affect what actions are available at any given point in time, an individual may 1) focus and rationally choose between those options, or 2) let loose the autopilot. As I see it, the ability to make that choice is the essence of free will. Of course, I await correction if required.