Zeus

There's a longer review on NoumenalSelf.

I think it's fair to suggest that this thread, at 25 pages now, be renamed "Sexuality."

Aha! This is precisely why I'll have no truck with these "fact-and-value" Christians. Ultimately, they are not loyal to structure, to logic, to ideas. They are not at all rational, no matter how nice they might sound on the radio or over a dinner table.

I saw it on Friday. It looks nice, and the beautiful Angelina Jolie made an impression, and that's about all I'm prepared to say. "Cellular", however, was quite good.

I was aware of the printing press and gunpowder. The question I have for you is: When you say the "rise of...Confucian philosophy", what time period are you talking about? Confucianism became state philosophy before the birth of Jesus Christ. The gunpowder and printing press came after the death of Jesus Christ. Please see the following [search for 'printing press' and 'gunpowder']: http://www.chinese-forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=2522 http://sln.fi.edu/tfi/info/current/inventions.html http://www.cacbc.org/Culture/inventions.htm Or perhaps you are talking about "modern" China? that Confucius' body of ideas (or some derivative of them) were re-introduced to the detriment of the country. Perhaps that is the case. But remember that some people would say that also about Aristotle and the scholastics. I don't know enough to contest this claim. But, you haven't provided anything to corroborate it. I cannot disprove negatives. Please see above.

Confucius lived around 550 B.C., which is right about the time of Pythagoras. These were rather primitive times anywhere, so I don't know what "rapid technological advancements" could have been had before him. Why do I think he was possibly the Aristotle of the East? Simply because of what function I know Aristotle's philosophy served in the West: the focus on this world. Confucius' ethics could be described as "self-interested altruism," the first part of which saves it from being placed squarely in Kant's corner. Am I certain he was the Aristotle of the East? No - because I don't know too much about Eastern philosophy. But, just from reading about Eastern history on the web, one is led in that direction. If you have more facts about that part of the world and who led it into any kind of enlightenment, please be sure to impart this knowledge. I await your thesis eagerly. On this site, we are told:

I thought this might be relevant: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5819171/

Actually, neither of these applies to me, perhaps because I'm a foreigner. I was a "weak" atheist with a subjectivist ethics and a capitalist politics when I read my first paragraphs of Miss Rand's work. My brother first sent me excerpts from "The Fountainhead" but since I preferred reading essays to novels, I went to my school library and borrowed "For the New Intellectual." OPAR was next. Then "The Fountainhead" and "Voice of Reason" simultaneously; and history was written. My family background? Father, an agnostic with a mixed politics; mother, a liberal Christian.

All points well-stated and taken, NS. Oops, I didn't see that post. I flew right by it and began typing mine. My mistake. Well, now we're at this point, does anyone else have any reason(s) why this couple (Objectivists and the ballot-box marked "Kerry") oughtn't be joined in holy matrimony?

While sympathetic to your conscientious attempt to integrate your knowledge of Objectivism with Dr. Peikoff's DIM hypothesis, I want to point out the objection that will be raised here: Bush has, at least, gone after one major state sponsor of terrorism (Iraq) and seems poised to do more if necessary while Kerry will definitelyappease the enemy on all counts going forward. Especially if he is elected - a clear signal that Bush's foreign policy has been rejected by the American people. No Democrat president has taken up arms in defence of America - for any reason - in about 50 years. We might not get what we want from Bush, but at least we don't get what we don't deserve, if I may be permitted to use those words. There is another factor that needs integrating here. With which side has Objectivism been more successful? What I mean is, how many Objectivists are former liberals, as opposed to former conservatives? If success is higher with conservatives (or their children) then one can hedge one's bets with a conservative nation. Yes, we'll be trying to move people from one Identity type to another but, remember, man has free-will and time is a crucial factor. People are not born D, M or I. If success is lower with conservatives, then it may be prudent to take Dr. Peikoff's advice. Whichever decision is taken, one thing is certain. It would be immensely helpful were Dr. P to actually hold some kind of open forum where we could actually present our questions to him and have him answer them. His statement is not enough for an epistemologically- thorough decision - and might even be unfair in the full context. Many people have not taken the DIM Hypothesis courses and do not have the contextual breadth available to him at this time. Now, please bear in mind that Dr. Peikoff is my top living hero as I write this, so I do not mean any disrespect whatsoever.

************* SPOILER-ESQUE *************************** I agree with the general thrust of FreeCapitalist's post. His review is in line with my overall assessment. The "unity" thread running through "Hero" is contextual, and the details of the context aren't explicit. Soon after I saw "Hero," I also watched another take on the "same" story of the King of Qin's desire to unite the seven kingdoms under a One China banner. This is Chen Kaige's "The Emperor and the Assassin," which is - or should be - available at your local video store. I got it from "Movie Gallery." ******* SPOILERS FOR "EMPEROR" *************** Now, the "unity" thread in "Hero" is fleshed out into a complete theme in this story and the results are way different. If "Hero" reminds one of Hugo, "Emperor" reminds one, ultimately, of Shakespeare. In the latter case, the context left vague and undefined in "Hero" is fully circumscribed. Maggie Cheung's [whom I now have a mild crush on ] superheroic character gives way to another type of woman, played by Gong Li. Still, it's an engrossing film.

Aww, c'mon Ash, you mean even after reading my other posts, you hoped I wasn't one of these "tommyedison"-type guys? In any case, good looking out...

Dr. Speicher, I believe my sarcasm is obvious...but even it weren't, there is no need to attempt to police me. Not on this board; not ever. You don't know me, and I don't know you. I think we can keep it civil. I know enough about the basic principles of Objectivism (just to mention one subject of study), and the facts of reality which support them, to take on anyone on this board; of that I am certain. I just don't go around trying to prove that this is the case. I told what I think is a well-integrated joke. Let's just leave it at that. Have a good evening. P.S. For anyone who would like to have the background to my last post, please see G.E.R. Lloyd's "Greek Science After Aristotle," pgs. 21-24.

Absolutely! The philosopher Epicurus solved this problem way back in history. Only, sadly, many of us don't read history, so we don't know better. In fact, if you watch the recently-released movie, I, Robot, you'll notice that free-will is fully explained there. For the robots in the movie, free-will arose from the random collision of protocols. But, in man, it's caused by the random collision of electric signals. Which is really saying the same thing. Any questions?

Thank you very much for this recommendation. I'll get to work immediately.

My evidence for #1: Most of the village lads pulling sentry work (in the high-up guard post) were alternately curious and fearful [psychological conflict] of what lay beyond the village with some of them even pulling pranks (like when three boys once had one of them stand on a tree stump to taunt TWDSO) in this connection. Another instance is the time when TWDSO was on night patrol and Lucius was outside Ivy's house and she dared the circumstances, insisting on waiting for him to come in. He grabs her hand at the last minute and they both run into the house and into the underground trap-door with some of the other children. Shyamalan makes a big show, with rapturous music, of how terrified everyone is of TWDSO here. This conflict is political because the TWDSO were more like the Catholic Church than God, i.e., they were real. Are you saying that these incidents did not take place? This is precisely my point: why is such a feeble-minded character the fulcrum of action? Lucius wants to leave the village. Why? Ostensibly to get medicine for the feeble-minded character. Why isn't he able to go? Because the feeble-minded character stabs him. Why does Ivy go into the forest? Because the feeble-minded character has stabbed her Lucius. Aside of one naturally-occuring pit in the forest, what else stands in Ivy's way and threatens to kill her? This feeble-minded character. So, with all this major, life-altering action by and for the feeble-minded character, how then can he be minor? And how, in the idyllic circumstances of the village did he figure out the nature of TWDSO and also know where to get the costume, to kill the village animals, etc? A writer cannot insert such a glaring anomaly into a story and expect not to face the fire. As Dr. Michael Hurd has pointed out, a person may have a mental illness but this does not make him incapable of choice. A mentally-ill person is not necessarily a psychopath. Adrian Brody's character made the choice to stab Lucius, and seeing that Ivy was in love with Lucius and not him, decided that no-one would have her, hence his decision to kill her. Q.E.D.

I wouldn't exactly call it a follow-up, but yes, I think the OTI lectures were the basis for the material he uses in the IPP lectures. He first demonstrates induction in physics, using particular examples; then, he demonstrates induction in philosophy (i.e., Objectivism) using a few examples; then, he makes the case for induction being common to both fields. That's why I bought the IPP course first, thinking that it would be a cost-effective way of getting some elements of OTI in one package. However, if the OTI lectures help illuminate Objectivism significantly - even for above-average, non-ARI students - I might buy it.

Bowzer, In what specific way did those particular lectures change your views on philosophy? I'm thinking of getting either the "Objectivism by Induction" lectures or the "Understanding Objectivism" lectures. I am also toying with the idea of buying "The Art of Thinking." It's got to be one of those three for right now. Which, in your opinion, is the most valuable? I already have a good number of courses: both histories of philosophy; the introduction to logic; "Induction in Physics and Philosophy"; "Integration as the Essence of Personal Identity"; and quite a few others. Thanks.

I saw this movie yesterday night, and I want to say that it is tightly integrated. Yes, there is altruism; yes, there is mysticism; yes, there is malevolence; and yes, it is reminiscent of other films in its genre; but, overall, it is a very good example of the integration of art and philosophy. The fact that concepts are the basis of any objective view of the use of force is competently dramatized but open to ambiguous interpretation. As such, this is not the movie's strongest point. Its strongest point is its portrayal of the importance of fighting for values. "Hero" might remind you in places of "Crouching Tiger" and in other places, might be just too "cultural," i.e., expecting the viewer to be able to project the meaning of certain scenes, not in English but in Chinese. An implicit understanding of Confucius (possibly the Aristotle of the East) is advised. Notwithstanding, this seasoned and hard-to-impress viewer recommends this as a movie worth your hard-earned dollar. I guessed the first twist but was riveted the rest of the time. See it when you can. In the cultural desert, one oasis is worth celebrating.

By Comcast! I am restored!! ***** SPOILERS GALORE ************** Mrs. Speicher, I hope you had a nice week. I have, of course, given the film and your evaluation some thought over the past week of "downtime." At one point, I even considered re-reading Miss Rand's "Art of Fiction" just to be sure I knew what I was saying. But I decided against that and so, might commit errors in this post. Instead of a re-reading, I thought to rather first list all instances of conflict in the movie in order to establish which conflict qualifies as a "clash." 1. The psychological and political conflict that all the non-elder villagers had arising from "Those we don't speak of." [TWDSO] I say 'psychological' because their fear of the forest owed to a justifiably malevolent view of TWDSO and 'political' because the TWDSO were real. 2. The political conflict between Lucius and the psychopath who turned TWDSO. 3. The political conflict between Ivy and the psychopath who turned TWDSO. 4. The political conflict between the elders and Lucius, who wanted to go beyond the village. 5. The psychological conflict in the psychopath who was purportedly "in love" with Ivy. Now, if I remember correctly, all psychological conflicts are dramatic (conflicts occurring in consciousness) while all political conflicts are melodramatic (conflicts occurring in the physical world). The most intense conflicts in "Village" are the psychopath vs. Lucius (the stabbing), the psychopath vs. Ivy (his end), and the psychopath's supposed (although we're not really supposed to understand him) motivation by some warped love of Ivy - or, if you like, a fear of losing her to Lucius. Ivy does not show any real indignation when she's told that TWDSO are a hoax, so that conflict is inessential. The conflict between Lucius and the elders is also inconsequential as Lucius is out of action for a good chunk of the film. So, I hold that the real clash is not between those conscious actors motivated by political and/or psychological fear versus those motivated by love per se, but a clash between one actor motivated by a psychological fear and the heroes who are motivated by love. Lucius and Ivy are never really in conflict with the elders; their beef is with the psychopath, the only person who was able to discover what TWDSO were, the one who broke out of the village boundaries early on. In other words, the clash you speak of is between the active seeker who went mad or was mad and who let fear blind him into attempted murder of other active seekers on one hand; and between the active seeker who went mad or was mad and the politically-passive, blind lover who braved the unknown (only because of love) on the other. The message here, I submit, is that man's reason will drive him fearfully mad (as it had done in the city outside the village and with the psychopath) while man's blind faith (thiswordly or otherwordly) would engender brotherly and romantic love in the fullest. In other words, what you don't know won't kill you - ignorance is bliss. After all, isn't love blind?

I'm glad you understand. However, in this case, it's not for lack of interest or money or ready supporting arguments that I'm being delayed. The COMCAST service in my county is experiencing problems. There's even a recorded message on their helpline to that effect. Thanks.

Mrs. Speicher, Please do not take my late response as agreement with your position. I'm experiencing some problems with my internet connection at home, and it's not comfortable to respond from work. All in good time.

Argive99: I want to add to what Mrs. Speicher wrote and advise that you get a copy of Leonard Peikoff's "Judging, Feeling, and Not Being Moralistic." I had avoided getting this set for years now, thinking that I was more an empiricistic Objectivist, as opposed to the rationalistic Objectivist, which is more commonly the case. I've found though that many mistakes I've made in my fours years in Objectivism could've been avoided had I bought this set much earlier.

True, this is a possibility. But I don't think it's the intention of the filmmaker. You might be projecting your own view of what should happen onto Shyamalan's work. In fact, in Shyamalan's cameo, the newspaper he was reading had nothing but bad news on the page we could see. Is that truly how the real world is? In America? Gimme a break. Having lived under dictatorships where you are so oppressed that you begin to believe that freedom is an aspect of the afterlife or exists only in an alternate reality, it is really disheartening to see people like Shyamalan who should know better - I've read that his parents are immigrants from India and he himself was born there - salute this mystic-altruist view of life. I mean, what was the village if not a communist-environmentalist enclave? And, in that respect, we have Shyamalan to thank for one thing: he's shown us where the today's philosophy professors will take us if we listen to them.

***** SPOILER POST ***************** The lines on the porch weren't special, and I'm talking about those I could make out. They gave each other meaningful looks and it was an emotional scene, but the dialogue made execution much more difficult for the actors. In the final scene with his fellow elders, William Hurt's character (who, if I remember correctly, was a university professor in the real world) summarizes Shyamalan's philosophy with his observation that, if Ivy returns, it'll mean the village was worth protecting and preserving. If not, not. She returns; ergo, the terrible village is worth preserving. I don't understand how anyone can fail to see the malevolence of the universe Shyamalan painted. These village adults were aware of the full context, knowing that any of them could have gone to the city to get medicine for the dying Phoenix (and still retained the secret of the village if that was the big concern). Yet, knowing fully well the physical danger of the forest and that there was a psychopath on the loose, they let a blind girl risk her life.