PKD
-
Posts
38 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by PKD
-
-
Care to elaborate? Bashed in a skull yourself?
No.
Anyway, I found the actual movie boring. It opened with an amazingly well-written opening scene (stolen somewhat from Angel Eyes' visit to the farm in the beginning of "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly") and never went back to the level of quality that this opening had you expect. I disagree that the movie was "two and a half hours of mindless violence". There was mindless violence. But for the most part the movie dwelt in boring stretches of nothing much interesting going on. The characters were not very interesting, I couldn't care about them at all. The americans were ignorant brutes, the Nazis were one-dimensional, except for the Jew Hunter, he was very well acted. The sniper hero was interesting but he was a Nazi so we're not supposed to care...I did, because he seemed realistic to me, more so than the bland caricatures of the Nazi high command...Mike Myers played a British officer, a move more distracting than enhancing. I spent my time trying to figure out what got stolen from which movie, recognised Ennio Morricone themes, themes from "Un Dollaro Bucato" (great Giuliano Gemma film), "Companeros", "A Professional Gun" (both Franco Nero flicks), etc...
I don't know why but I just can't get into his characters. Kill Bill was good, but I can't say I was that interested in Kiddo. The only character I cared about in Pulp Fiction was Bruce Willis. I loved Reservoir Dogs and Deathproof was a lot of fun...so sometimes I like his work. I just wish the characters would mean something to me.
-
*Sigh*
You hint at having sympathy (even admiration) for Nazis and indifference to their atrocities while sanctimoniously lecturing us over a movie and questioning our fidelity to your perception of Objectivism.
Not saying you're a racist or anything but this is typical troll behavior.
I don't know that the guy who got his head bashed in was really an ardent nazi. I know that the guy who did it was a psycho. I'm also not a troll, but I have a personal context in this subject which gives me an insight others don't have.
Atrocities are atrocities no matter who performs them or why.
-
None of them include a secret desire in our heads to stirr up controversy with sadism, or a secret hatred of people, you're just psychologizing. You are mistaken.
I can't answer you anymore because you keep changing the context of what I say. I'm more interested in clarification than confrontation, but I'm also getting tired of saying "blue is blue" and getting asked why I'm saying that "blue is green".
-PKD
-
Some advice: If you're going to speculate on the sinister motivations that resides in anybody's subconscious, you should at least avoid writing relativistic stuff like the above quote.
Explain, please.
-
You said it's easy and obvious. Doing something easy and obvious to become a millionaire is ludicrous?
Don't even. I never said that he caused controversy to become a millionaire. He was already a millionaire when he made this movie. I am not inside his head and can't tell you the exact motive for his desire to create controversy. But I can tell that he did desire it because the movie makes you feel sorry for at the least some of the bastards' victims and raises questions as to when sadism is "allowable". Being an Objectivist doesn't destroy basic empathy. If it did, there would be no difference between Objectivists and Nazis when it came to dealing with undesirables.
The easy way was to use Nazis. They are universally hated by people who like to make broad generalisations about an entire nation that was mesmerised into a horrible collectivist way of thinking. Buying into this hate may have its roots in good reasons, but falling for mob enticement is not my thing.
I'm more and more seeing people who just plain hate other PEOPLE and the fact that those others may be socially considered distasteful or criminal is just an excuse for the collectivists to show their true side.
Anyway... not every member of the Wehrmacht was an ardent Nazi. I didn't catch that guy's rank, the one who gets his head bashed in by that jewish sociopath with the baseball bat, but he might actually have been against nazism. We'd never know. Ironically, it seems he died for what he believed in, and that's actually commendable so QT succeeded in making a Nazi character heroic. His death reminded me of the death of that mother in "Saviour", an amazing Dennis Quaid movie about revenge that is miles above "Ignoble Bashers".
We need a movie of "We, the Living". I hear "Noi Vivvi" is hard to find on DVD.
-
You have not made your point. Make a comparable movie, and then you can say: there you go, it's that easy and obvious. Commenting on how something you have not done, and obviously could not do, is easy and obvious, is ridiculous.
LMAO! No, the comment above is ridiculous. It states that to have an opinion on a movie one needs to go out and make a movie. That's ludicrous.
PKD
-
This makes me think that Tarantino wasn't really just reveling in violence. He wanted controversy and from the looks of it he got it. For cheap. The easiest most obvious way.
PKD
-
I really could have done better to explain how Objectivism views "use of force"... Anyway, this is actually pretty hilarious now that it's over. We were talking about a guy we know who kept threatening to use violence on people.
PKD says (3:06 PM):then he's narrow minded because he believes in the use of force to impose his views unto others
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:06 PM):
nope
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:22 PM):
because if you're talking about that "giving them the power because you're using violence" then that's simple opinion
PKD says (3:22 PM):
it's an oversimplification, i would need to look up the exact wording
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:23 PM):
no no no, you misunderstand
PKD says (3:23 PM):
but that wasn't what i was thinking about
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:23 PM):
literally, that's an opinion
it doesn't become true because you dig up a different wording that rand wrote or something
PKD says (3:23 PM):
it's an analysis of dynamics
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:23 PM):
it's just a view
PKD says (3:24 PM):
it's a rational objective fact, in the way it was originally writen
written
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:24 PM):
HAHAHA
or not at all
rational objective fact... LOL
biggest pile of bullshit today
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:25 PM):
so I guess every army that ever won a war gave power away?
PKD says (3:25 PM):
everything in the actual Objectivist epistemology is [based on] rational objective fact
no, that's a deturpation of view
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:25 PM):
okay, a question for you
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:26 PM):
is it just your opinion that "everything in the actual objectivist epistemology is [based on] rational objective fact" or is that a pervasive view among all/most objectivists, started by rand?
PKD says (3:27 PM):
it's generally agreed by Objectivists
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:27 PM):
alright, then it's a cult
PKD says (3:28 PM):
Wars are the second greatest evil that human societies can perpetrate. (The first is dictatorship, the enslavement of their own citizens, which is the cause of wars.)
it's not
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:28 PM):
only explanation why a group of people could get so brainwashed
ffs
it doesn't matter if it's evil
we're talking power here
regardless of good/evil
an army has power
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:29 PM):
and army attacking someone is never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever
ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever
ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever
giving power to the opponents
the whole concept is fucking asinine
PKD says (3:29 PM):
you are talking about the army
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:30 PM):
and the fact that most objectivists sees that concept as a rational, objective truth or whatever just speaks more about how brainwashed they are
PKD says (3:30 PM):
not an individual
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:30 PM):
FFS
THE ARMY IS MADE UP OF INDIVIDUALS AND MOSTLY LEAD BY AN INDIVIDUAL
PKD says (3:31 PM):
they give up that individuality to become like ants
they surrender the individuality to the control of the state
the major wars of history were started by the more controlled economies of the time against the freer ones.
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:31 PM):
objectivists saying that their OPINION is the rational objective truth is just them catering to their own ego, convincing themselves that they're right, even though it's most definitely a gray area
okay, we're done with this
I'm dropping this conversation right now because it's getting retarded
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:32 PM):
please don't bring up objectivism again
PKD says (3:32 PM):
i'm answering what they think
ok
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:32 PM):
it riles me up like nothing else because it's, quite frankly, retarded
it's so disconnected from actual reality
PKD says (3:32 PM):
i thought you wanted to know the Objectivist take on it
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:32 PM):
I don't anymore
because it's all stupid
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:33 PM):
it's all been completely fucking stupid
and self-serving
PKD says (3:33 PM):
just one quote which I think might help you understand:
"If men want to oppose war, it is statism that they must oppose. So long as they hold the tribal notion that the individual is sacrificial fodder for the collective, that some men have the right to rule others by force, and that some (any) alleged “good” can justify it—there can be no peace within a nation and no peace among nations."
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:33 PM):
look
it's not about me not understanding
I understand perfectly
I just plain disagree
PKD says (3:34 PM):
how can you disagree which objective, rational views??
i would have thought you'd completely agree
with objective rationality
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:34 PM):
and I can't stand the self-aggrandizing that comes with stating that your own OPINION (not even close to being a truth) is the rational and objective truth
IT FUCKING ISN'T OBJECTIVE RATIONALITY!!!
IT'S FUCKING OPINION!
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:35 PM):
jesus fucking christ
PKD says (3:35 PM):
so to you all this is just as "real" as Ian's theories?
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:36 PM):
no
ian's theories are stupid
this is horribly disingenious
and dishonest
and the thing is
that it's a non-starter
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:37 PM):
if you declare something that is quite clearly opinion as objective, rational fact, then you've lost before the discussion even began
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:38 PM):
so I never again want to talk about ayn rand, objectivism, john galt, the fountainhead, atlas shrugged, or anyting related to that. it leads nowhere and I just can't stand it. I don't want to become frustrated and angry when I talk to you
PKD says (3:39 PM):
is there a way of talking about it that doesn't make you frustrated and angry?
PKD says (3:40 PM):
because it's a part of life for me and it would be nice to have intelligent constructive discussions
i'll try to not make it a central theme anymore
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:42 PM):
I just know that every time we've talked about over the last few months, I've become agitated or sometimes angry because it's such a fucking arrogant philosophy, that is completely fucking meaningless
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:43 PM):
it's disingenious, it's dishonest, it's arrogant, it's cult-like (although a lot of philosophies/religions are), it's plain wrong
the straw that broke the camel's back was the objective rational fact thing
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:44 PM):
that is literally the biggest load of bullshit I've heard all damn year
if not longer
PKD says (3:44 PM):
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:44 PM):
because it is NOT N-O-T objective rational fact
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:45 PM):
in fact, the whole damn philosophy has sullied the word objective
at least to me
because objective means objective
objective doesn't mean "the opinion of ayn rand"
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:46 PM):
and a philosophy that tries to arrogantly mask simple opinion as something grandiose as "rational objective fact" is just complete horse manure
that shows a big flaw, a big weakness
PKD says (3:47 PM):
i think if you actually READ Objectivism you might not think it was that inflexible.
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:47 PM):
besides, why the need to get your life hung up on something like this, as if it has all the right answers? just live for christ's sake
has nothing to do with inflexibility
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:48 PM):
it's flawed faaaar before inflexibility even comes into the picture
PKD says (3:48 PM):
it's actually quite hard to live solely by objective rationality
PKD says (3:50 PM):
i think the real idea is that Objectivism is built upon objective, rational ideas
PKD says (3:51 PM):
not that Ayn Rand has the ultimate word on everything
because that would be worship, which is against Objectivism
PKD says (3:55 PM):
i'm actually very surprised you don't agree with Objectivism, since it pushes so much for using rationality
thought it would be right up your alley
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:57 PM):
again
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:58 PM):
it's like ian
it doesn't matter how much logic and rationality you use
if the base is flawed, it's all bullshit
and besides
objectivism claims that some of its opinions (or the opinions held by objectivists) to be rational, objective fact
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:59 PM):
as I said, that's a non-starter, because there already the objectivists have shot themselves in the foot
and lose any argument before it even starts
for example
my opinion is that it's VERY rational to help my fellow man
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:00 PM):
there is nothing - NOTHING - that anyone can say that is going to change that
PKD says (4:00 PM):
it is rational, it doesn't say ANYWHERE that it isn't, unless it will cause you to lose your life
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:01 PM):
and just because some old lady equates altruism with suicide (retarded analogy btw), it doesn't mean that it's irrational for me to help my fellow man
PKD says (4:01 PM):
or, more to the point, if you'll be giving up one great value for a lesser one
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:01 PM):
see, I completely disagree
it is not, not once ever, a fact
PKD says (4:01 PM):
you disagree because you are dealing in an extreme
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:01 PM):
no
I disagree with the concept
it is NOT a fucking fact, end of fucking story
PKD says (4:02 PM):
there's a whole chapter in "the virtue of selfishness" exactly about that
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:02 PM):
I
PKD says (4:02 PM):
because some people took that notion
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:02 PM):
DON'T
FUCKING
CARE
PKD says (4:02 PM):
ok
no more
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:02 PM):
it's retarded
and it's wrong
and it doesn't matter how much any idiot twists the words
it doesn't make it a
FUCKING
RATIONAL
OBJECTIVE
FACT
idiocy
complete and utter idiocy
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:03 PM):
arrogant fucking bullshit and I hate it with all of my being to tell you the truth
PKD says (4:03 PM):
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:03 PM):
seriously
it's so fucking stupid that I want to throw my keyboard out my window
PKD says (4:03 PM):
ok, i will try to not frustrate you with this anymore
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:04 PM):
ayn rand: it's the self-sacrificing person who is an altruist
phil donahue: yeah, what's wrong with that?
ayn rand: what's wrong with committing suicide
PKD says (4:04 PM):
LOL you are watching it now?
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:05 PM):
that has got to be, in all of my life, seeing it being spoken by a supposed intelligent person, the most stupid argument I have ever heard
I am not joking
that is the most asinine comeback in all of my life
PKD says (4:05 PM):
she means the original literal meaning of altruism
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:05 PM):
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD
I KNOW WHAT SHE IS FUCKING SAYING
PKD says (4:05 PM):
ok
sorry
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:06 PM):
SHE SAYS THAT ANYONE SACRIFICING HIM OR HERSELF - EVEN A LITTLE - TO HELP OTHERS IS AN ALTRUIST
PKD says (4:06 PM):
i want to say "she means the original literal meaning of sacrifice" but i don't want you to be mad
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:07 PM):
AND THEN SHE - SHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HERSELF WHO CAME UP WITH THE BULLSHIT AND CLAIMS TO BE SO SUPREMELY FUCKING INTELLIGENT - PULLS OUT OF HER ASS THE MOST ASININE AND EXTREME ANALOGY IN THE HISTORY OF DEBATE
PKD says (4:07 PM):
which is?
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:07 PM):
0poäh8iwlsdgsfdh
are you retarded?
seriously
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy säger (01:05):
ayn rand: it's the self-sacrificing person who is an altruist
phil donahue: yeah, what's wrong with that?
ayn rand: what's wrong with committing suicide
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy säger (01:05):
ayn rand: it's the self-sacrificing person who is an altruist
phil donahue: yeah, what's wrong with that?
ayn rand: what's wrong with committing suicide
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy säger (01:05):
ayn rand: it's the self-sacrificing person who is an altruist
phil donahue: yeah, what's wrong with that?
ayn rand: what's wrong with committing suicide
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy säger (01:05):
ayn rand: it's the self-sacrificing person who is an altruist
phil donahue: yeah, what's wrong with that?
ayn rand: what's wrong with committing suicide
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy säger (01:05):
ayn rand: it's the self-sacrificing person who is an altruist
phil donahue: yeah, what's wrong with that?
ayn rand: what's wrong with committing suicide
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy säger (01:05):
ayn rand: it's the self-sacrificing person who is an altruist
phil donahue: yeah, what's wrong with that?
ayn rand: what's wrong with committing suicide
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy säger (01:05):
ayn rand: it's the self-sacrificing person who is an altruist
phil donahue: yeah, what's wrong with that?
ayn rand: what's wrong with committing suicide
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy säger (01:05):
ayn rand: it's the self-sacrificing person who is an altruist
phil donahue: yeah, what's wrong with that?
ayn rand: what's wrong with committing suicide
PKD says (4:07 PM):
LOL
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:08 PM):
THE FUCKING SUICIDE ANALOGY
PKD says (4:08 PM):
ok
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:08 PM):
she's saying
that if you sacrifice something of yourself to help someone
why not just kill yourself?
that is exactly what she's saying and that's the stupidest fucking argument ever
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:09 PM):
ALSO
she claims to be rational
and objectivist
an objective person does not place value on anything
so how can she place value on life, your own or anyone else's?
objectivity doesn't value anything
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:10 PM):
it just sees things as they are
objectivism is the stupidest, most retarded fucking idea ever
I won't read that brick of shit atlas shrugged
that would be the biggest fucking waste of time in my life
I'm burning that fucker
PKD says (4:10 PM):
LOL
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:11 PM):
mostly because it's bad writing
PKD says (4:11 PM):
you can't judge a book you haven't read
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:11 PM):
60 page monologues is atrocious authorship
get a fucking editor, you fucking cunt...1200 pages my ass
idiot
I hate that bitch
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:12 PM):
I know enough about it to judge it
PKD says (4:12 PM):
you forgot Francisco's [Money Speech]
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:13 PM):
even more absurd
seriously
if you read that out loud as if you were talking
how long would that speech take?
it's completely insipid and retarded
PKD says (4:13 PM):
i don't know but it would sound like Ayn Rand speaking
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:14 PM):
a giant snoozefest
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:15 PM):
so there
Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:16 PM):
I now consider the subject dropped
-
Mozart existed. Darth Vader was made up.
Put it this way, if you watched some movie where George Washington or Ayn Rand was depicted as a dipsomaniac lightweight, you'd probably find the movie pretty hard to take.
Even looking at it as the "Impotence of Mediocrity...." as West put it (which is *certainly* a worthwhile message)-- did they have to insult the great man as much as they did while doing it?
I think I don't have the expectation that a Hollywood screenwriter would get the facts right. My grandfather is a pretty famous historical figure and they never got him right so I don't bother. I sit back and enjoy the ride, knowing that the version of historical figures Hollywood can offer are about as real as Darth Vader.
And since you brought up Ayn Rand, what did you guys think of that "The Passion of Ayn Rand" movie?
-PKD
-
Mozart was portrayed as a horselaughing idiot savant, he was not--he was very capable and not just as a musician. Apparently (according to music historians) Salieri was unjustly maligned as well. There are also a number of other historical problems (again according to the historians), alas I cannot remember what they are.
And there's no such thing as the Force or Darth Vader, yet Star Wars managed to be entertaining. ;-) If the historical inaccuracy bothers you, that's fine. But it doesn't make the plot retarded. While it's true they portrayed historical figures inaccurately, well, it's still a very well written movie with memorable characters and riveting performances.
Plot wasn't bad either. ;-)
-PKD
-
Amadeus--good music, retarded plot.
Excellent music and movie. I'm curious, what about the plot did you not enjoy? I found it pretty engaging.
-PKD
-
My favourite tv show growing up was Irwin Allen's "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea". Impossibly illogical absurd science in several of the episodes. I still watch it now that the whole thing is out on DVD and I think I still enjoy it just as much, no matter how absurd the science in it. My only issue is with the constant re-use of stock footage and props, sometimes two episodes in a row.
On the other hand I HATED HATED HATED the movie Transformers, yet my friend Thomas who is the most rational person I know loved it (while not liking Amadeus, one of my favourites).
-PKD
-
Re-read the second sentence of his first paragraph.
Personally I think Ayn Rand nailed it.
Even if you use THAT definition, which isn't the commonly used definition, I'd say that anyone who claims that photography is not art is simply ignorant enough not to know all the intricacies that goes into photography. Lighting, exposure, shadows, angles, sharpness, etc. But I'll go ahead and let Jonathan13 say it better since I don't have the energy. ;-)
-PKD
-
Yeah sorry, Bri, as interesting as the stuff you have shown us here is, it definetly does not qualify as art. That is because they are not selective recreations of reality according to your value judgements (at least they are not intelligible as such, so still dont count).
Photographs are definetly not art either. Let me provide a quote to explain this:
"A certain type of confusion about the relationship between scientific discoveries and art, leads to a frequently asked question: Is photography an art? The answer is: No. It is a technical, not a creative, skill. Art requires a selective re-creation. A camera cannot perform the basic task of painting: a visual conceptualization, i.e., the creation of a concrete in terms of abstract essentials. The selection of camera angles, lighting or lenses is merely a selection of the means to reproduce various aspects of the given, i.e., of an existing concrete. There is an artistic element in some photographs, which is the result of such selectivity as the photographer can exercise, and some of them can be very beautiful- but the same artistic element (purposeful selectivity) is present in many utilitarian products: in the better kinds of furniture, dress design, automobiles, packaging, etc. The commercial art work in ads (or posters or postage stamps) is frequently done by real artists and has greater esthetic value than many paintings, but utilitarian objects cannot be classified as works of art." - Ayn Rand, The Romantic Manifesto
I don't agree with her on this. The camera doesn't need to perform the basic task of painting anymore than a brush can perform it by itself. It is an instrument. Without the photographer it is nothing. It is what and how the photographer chooses to use the instrument that dictates that finished product. That finished product can be anything, and it can be art. If you take the definition of art to be "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance" you can see that photography can qualify as art. You may think it is BAD art and that is an opinion, but it is art according to that definition. I went to dictionary.com and found quite a few definitions for art. One was "The application of skill to the production of the beautiful by imitation or design, or an occupation in which skill is so employed, as in painting and sculpture; one of the fine arts; as, he prefers art to literature." You might not find someone's photograph beautiful but if you say it isn't art then I would like to know under what definition of the word art are you using. "Beautiful" becomes the domain of subjectivity when it is an opinion.
"Beautiful" according to the dictionary is "having beauty; having qualities that give great pleasure or satisfaction to see, hear, think about, etc.; delighting the senses or mind: a beautiful dress; a beautiful speech. " Who decides this? When the individual reacts to the work of art with his own impression of it, who is going to tell him "sorry that's not beautiful because I don't think it's beautiful, in fact it's not art because it's not what I think art is"?
-PKD
-
And then there's that thing Officer Barbrady says in South Park. "After reading every page of this garbage i have decided to never read again"
Now here's something I personally found rather confusing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B4pgo9Db6w
Why did they do that?
-PKD
-
I think he didn't know it was an inside job or he'd have painted zionists sticking dynamite into the rears of those two guys.
-PKD
-
While they might look nice, bookshelves and photographs are not art. Just thought I'd point that out.
Photographs are not art?
-PKD
-
Ayn Rand (as played by Helen Mirren) says at one point in "The Passion of Ayn Rand" that her favourite show is Charlie's Angels. I watched an interview with the real Rand on youtube where this is repeated. Was she serious?? I watched it when it was out in the 70s and found the girls beautiful but the show itself wasn't that captivating.
Was she being sarcastic, or did the show have something I missed?
-PKD
-
Thanks for the replies. Would the romantic manifesto also be useful in this particular endeavor?
-PKD
-
Found this in there and laughed.
"This book is an insult to not only Theodor Seuss Geisel & Ayn Rand, but to any intelligent human being. I have read both authors extensively. My two favorite books in fact being "Oh the places you'll go" and "Anthem"
Ayn Rand, as intelligent and perceptive as she was, lived in a very different time than now. Indeed, with all the proof discovered over the last generation of the effects of Global warming and an unchecked financial system, there can be little doubt (and fools often need little more than little doubt) that she would have changed her opinions as to certain aspects of her stated views.
There are those die hard Randians who hold fast to every word she wrote 4 decades ago and older as if it were a gospel and just like someone who takes the bible as literal they only show themselves to be little more than Lemmings. NOTHING like the adaptive and ever observant Rand herself.
Avoid the embarassment of having someone find this book on your family bookself several years hence, and just go out and buy an actual Dr. Suess book. It will undoubtedly contain more proven facts that this travesty of literature."
That review was hilarious in its sheer stupidity. I laughed too.
-PKD
-
I have just picked up that big myself, and I have yet to do more skim through large parts of it. However based on what I do know about fiction writing, and what I know of its contents I will say: Most definetely so. I would think the fundamentals discussed within the book apply equally to any sort of fiction writing.
I have not read that book, who is it by and what is the theme etc? And why do you think Ayn Rand would have approved?
Hi! The book is about...well, here's the Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/097661600...ASIN=0976616009
It actually mentions Rand in the promotional material. The author is Joseph Specht, and it talks about liberty, overtaxation, free markets, etc.
-PKD
-
I've just received "The Art of Fiction". I haven't started to read it yet, but any chance it's applicable to children's literature? I am a writer of children's books, still unpublished, and my protagonists tend to be individualists. I was thinking there might be a market for Objectivist children's books. So, will The Art of Fiction guide me towards better Objectivist writing?
On a separate note, has anyone read "An Island called Liberty"? Love that book, I think Ayn Rand might have approved.
-PKD
-
I'm guessing I'm the only Philip K. Dick fan here??
-
I don't want to try to imagine the consequences of 300 million people not paying their income taxes, and the US then either defaulting on its debt or printing up fiat money. It would be a disaster. The trouble would be far worse than the cost of the taxes.
The US existed and managed long before there was income tax. Printing fiat money is already happening.
I didn't know my post had been moved. Just found out.
-PKD
What would you say to my socialist friend?
in The Critics of Objectivism
Posted
So my socialist friend from Sweden continues to badmouth Ayn Rand and Objectivism.
http://theferrett.livejournal.com/1465285.html?thread=72334789#t72334789
I don't really know what to say to that. In which way would a philosophy of individualism turn people into robots? He also seems to think Objectivists are devoid of empathy.
Would welcome participation in that discussion.
PKD