Can someone be against Objectivism and with you?
What are you implying with the question? Whether or not Mr. Provenzo’s review implied “with me or against Objectivism”, your question amounts to a sanction of a stand like that.
The question is not “can someone be against Objectivism and with you”, but “can someone be against you (Mr. Provenzo-namely, his opinion of the movie) and with Objectivism”. That is the question.
Or are you saying that disagreement with Mr. Provenzo equals disagreement with Objectivism?
If this is not your stance, then your question entirely irrelevant.
Since Provenzo never made the statement “And if you are an Objectivist, you would have reached the exact same conclusion I did,” the alleged argument from intimidation is a phantom, and Provenzo’s critics are attacking a strawman.
It is not a phantom, you did make the statement, and it was argument from intimidation.
Anyone familiar with Mr. Provenzo’s dedication to reason and the advancement of Objectivism will recognize the charge as the art of smearing at its worst.
I did not get that impression from Mr. Provenzo’s review. Then again I let my own eyes and ears and mind be the judge. I do think that he should leave movie reviews to someone else, as I almost never agree with him in this department, and this particular review tanked big time.
No, this is not about Mr. Provenzo specefically being “cultish”. Its about similarily worded comments from other Objectivists which don’t make sense to me (despite the overwhelming logic of everything else) and hold me back really being able to support Objectivism.
Why let other people determine your support for Objectivism? Why let the interpretations and/or distortions of others determine what you think of the philosophy? Objectivism is a set of principles, not a population of followers. If all the Objectivists you know (the good, the bad and the ugly) died tomorrow, it would reflect not a drop on the philosophy nor change a principle in it, nor its ability to help you think and live. It is your mind and reality.
I noticed several posts ago that someone criticized a movie you like, Dr. Strangelove (I haven’t seen it) by explaining its message or meaning. He did it in complete imitation of exactly the way you said someone (a “hard-liner”) would. This is very illustrative of the way some people digest Objectivism. Notice how a description of the “message” was equated with its value as a work of art as if there was no distinction. Does that sound like the Objectivist aesthetics? It certainly does not to me. And I am right. :sorcerer:
“Ah, this depicts the victory of the Christians over the Pagans! Bad!”
“Arg, this movie’s message is how man is defeated if he tries to reach too high. Awful!”
“Yew, this is a story of unrequited love, and is tragic. Disgusting!”
Were you asked why you liked this movie? You were not. Were you asked if you understood the meaning of the movie and if you agreed with that? You were not. Were you then asked do you like it despite its message? You were not. Were you asked of any context of your own self at all? You were not. You were given a one line synopsis, and you are supposed to reject it on those grounds alone. It does not agree to Objectivist principles-BAD ART. Suppress yourself, deny what you like for the abstraction.
I implore you not to consider that an application of Objectivism. That is Objectivism as ingested through a Rationalist Cheese-Cloth.
The author’s criticisms were primarily political, not aesthetic: that V’s “revolution” was not based on basic principles and that it constituted an implicit endorsement of anarchism. These points follow from fundamental Objectivist ethics. That Mr. Provenzo chose to address such moral weaknesses in the movie is not evidence of “cultish” behavior but of the highest personal integrity.
So… despite the things that suggest that V was not an anarchist, his lack of an explicit denunciation of anarchism qualifies as an “implicit” endorsement??
Would someone charging that Dominique, or any other Rand character, didn’t specifically speak against anarchism require we reread the respective novel to evaluate it - or would criticizing her silence on the matter be offbase?
And, by the way, Dr. Strangelove is a vile movie that engages in moral equation between Soviet aggression and American military defense. Its malicious twisting of reality and disgusting dismissal of American vigilance and patriotism sparked a sea change in American opinion that led to the defeat of Ayn Rand’s candidate, Barry Goldwater, in 1964.
Your blinders are causing you to miss out on a good movie.