HPO=soc.culture.jewish?
Popescu Lucian
you think it's Politically Incorrect to have a newsgroup with Jews all
over? I won't start to list all the regular posters in here, but the
issue remains that clearly over 50% are Jews. Am i wrong, or this is a
colony of soc.culture.jewish?
dave odden
> Am i wrong, or this is a
> colony of soc.culture.jewish?
Totally wrong AFAICT. You might argue for
"alt.the.state.of.israel.is.perfect", but almost nobody here (and you do
know what "almost" means, right") supports or advocates jewish culture or
religion.
HPO JURY = Malenor
>"Popescu Lucian" wrote:
He wasn't pointing to the zionists in the group, just Jews in general.
(I find the term "Jew" to be so... retro.)
---------------
"I want you to know that this will go down on your permanent record!"
"Oh yeahhhh? Well don't get so distressed. Did I happen to mention
that I am impressed?"
Violent Femmes
Kosh
> >> Am i wrong, or this is a
> >> colony of soc.culture.jewish?
>
> >Totally wrong AFAICT. You might argue for
> >"alt.the.state.of.israel.is.perfect", but almost nobody here (and you do
> >know what "almost" means, right") supports or advocates jewish culture or
> >religion.
>
> He wasn't pointing to the zionists in the group, just Jews in general.
>
But he wrote of "soc.culture.jewish". Did he meant, than, that all Jews
support or advocate jewish culture?
I certainly do not.
dave odden
> He wasn't pointing to the zionists in the group, just Jews in general.
So what I'm saying is that if you delete the rabid pro-Israeli rhetoric, and
really pressed these people on what they think they "are", there would be
very few self-professed Jews. Just because someone has ancestors who are
Jewish doesn't mean that you are. It's not a genetic condition.
>> I find the term "Jew" to be so... retro.)
What's the correct contemporary term?
Spartacus
> issue remains that clearly over 50% are Jews. Am i wrong, or this is a
> colony of soc.culture.jewish?
Once again, the law of identity is clear . . .
A=A
Asshole=Asshole
you can not escape the law of identity sir . . . sorry!
Spartacus
Fred Weiss
"dave odden" <od...@ling.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:ba0hda$ovc$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>Just because someone has ancestors who are
> Jewish doesn't mean that you are. It's not a genetic condition.
It's a culinary condition.
You have to like Chinese food.
Fred Weiss
HPO JURY = Malenor
wrote:
I wouldn't take his usenet reference too seriously. At least he didn't
reference alt.humor.jewish.anti-goy.
..
..
..
...
..
HPO JURY = Malenor
<od...@ling.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>"HPO JURY = Malenor" wrote:
>
>> He wasn't pointing to the zionists in the group, just Jews in general.
>
>So what I'm saying is that if you delete the rabid pro-Israeli rhetoric, and
>really pressed these people on what they think they "are", there would be
>very few self-professed Jews. Just because someone has ancestors who are
>Jewish doesn't mean that you are. It's not a genetic condition.
You're referring to non-practicing "Jews," like Rand. This great
melting pot we live in tends to detract from old traditions and
literally cuts people off from their "cultural heritage" in favor of
pursuing the almighty dollar. That has good and bad consequences.
A sense of identity is important to humans, and capitalism causes this
to deteriorate. On the other hand, there is a dark side to this
racial/cultural identity, such as racism and static tradition.
But the people you are referring to, almost like hypocrites, I think
tend to hide behind an identity they no longer feel fits them. That
goes along well with the extreme Intellectualism which they also hide
behind, and which they try to use to fill an emptiness left behind by
the capitalism they support. The intellectualism is only a symptom of
a deeper identity crisis. An example of this intellectualism would be
the Randroid who proudly professes allegiance to Rand, and then when
challenged on the hypocrisy of his anti-individualism, asserts that it
cannot be hypocrisy because Objectivism is against it.
This intellectualism is a thinly veiled facade behind which you will
literally find nothing. The harder you press against the facade, the
greater will be the resistance and rebellious reactions. You will find
that all reason will leave this person -- because there never was any
to begin with -- and he will be reduced to mere assertions of faith,
and flaming.
The circularity of the defense mechanisms is interesting because it is
so illogical but professes to be absolutely logical. But then,
Objectivism itself is a circular system without any support in
reality. The illogic is this: Just because the Randroid professes
Objectivism, that doesn't make him an Objectivist in terms of being
true to individualism. The individual self is the first thing the
fledgling Randroid renounces. The system becomes a substitute for a
self, so when he argues that he is not a hypocrite because Rand said
he wasn't a hypocrite, it is almost understandable.
I know this seems to have branched off-topic, but what I am describing
is characteristic of Objectivist Jew who have lost his sense of
cultural identity in the very society he professes to support, and
then tries to regain a sense of identity, circularly, by professing
allegiance to that very system. The very source of the problem is used
as a "cure," but at the cost of the individual's soul. Occasional
feelings of inner weakness, despair, and emptiness are blamed on "bad
premises," the cure for which is more of the hair of the dog that bit
him, more Objectivism, more studying of epistemology, perhaps visits
to the resident Objectivist psychotherapist who hasn't a clue to the
dilemma because he is suffering from and blinded by the same problem.
>>> I find the term "Jew" to be so... retro.)
>
>What's the correct contemporary term?
In my opinion, "human." (And that goes for every other "race.")
You know, it just occurred to me that the term "human race" is a
misnomer. Humanity is not a race, it's a species.
Peeps O'Donnell
01.20...@posting.google.com>...
> Am i wrong, or this is a
> colony of soc.culture.jewish?
http://www.monmouth.com/~adamreed/Ayn_Rands_jewish_years/
Ayn Rand's Jewish Years
This part of my Web site is solely my own, even though I got the idea
from Ron Merrill. Before Ron became a chemist, his main interests had
been anthropology and history. Ayn Rand was a thinker in universal
ideas, but Ron insisted that to understand her ideas in full, one had
to consider her cultural and historical context. Before we had met,
Ron knew little about Jewish culture; Jews had been as foreign to him
Koreans were before he met and married his wife Yoon. When Ron got
into anthropologist mode, I was his native informant. Often I could
not answer his questions and had to study more of my own culture. The
benefits of that study are among the many things I remain grateful
for.
Rand did not identify with her Jewish origins until after the end of
her Nitzchean period. In her youth she identified not with Jews, but
with Russian aristocrats, with their Dionysian exuberance before the
Revolution and their tragic sense of life after. In "We The Living",
Kira's family could pass for Ayn's own - except for the fictional
family's Russian Orthodox Christian mysticism. Ayn Rand's fantasies of
aristocracy played a major part in her attraction to Frank O'Connor.
And then, at some point between 1938 and 1949, Ayn Rand gradually
remembered that she was Jewish.
It will take several separate articles to examine Ayn Rand's slow re-
identification with Jewish culture, a process that began at about the
time she finished "We the Living", and was still in progress up to her
1968 break with Nathaniel Branden. There was a definite, if still
largely implicit, influence of Jewish ideas in "The Fountainhead". By
the time of Atlas Shrugged, influence changed to a central source,
still hidden so as not to distract the non-Jewish reader from Ayn
Rand's universal ideas, yet so pervasive that Atlas was in a way two
books, one to Jews and another to others. Through the 1960, Rand was
discovering, and promoting through NBI, Jewish women intellectuals who
were much more conscious of their Jewish heritage than Ayn Rand had
been: Hannah Arendt, Jane Jacobs, Betty Friedan.
When Alissa Rosenbaum first came to America, she first stayed briefly
with her relatives in Chicago, and then moved to heavily Jewish
Hollywood. From then until her death she lived only there and in New
York City, two of the three most Jewish settlements in North America.
The only other place where she felt she could have lived was the
third, the "physicists' village" at Los Alamos, which became the
social model (just as Ouray was the physical model) for Galt's Gulch.
When Ayn Rand gathered around her a coterie of disciples, jokingly
known as "The Collective", it was composed almost exclusively (and
perhaps in fact exclusively - I'm missing some data) of Jews.
Ayn Rand's Jewish heritage figured strongly in her relationships with
Nathaniel Branden. Being Jewish was something the two of them had in
common. Even their sexual relationship may have seemed prefigured by
that of Beruriah and a much younger student, who loved Beruriah with
the sanction of his teacher, her husband.
A creator's work is seldom entirely in the conscious part of her mind.
Rand's treatment of symbols in her work is so systematic and logical,
that this fact is sometimes difficult to remember. It is easier to
write about Ayn Rand's symbols and their development as though they
had been logically planned and designed throughout. This is what I do
in the attached essays, even though I have no way of knowing how much
of her creative use of Jewish symbols was known to Ayn Rand herself. I
ask the reader to remain aware that some, much, or even all of it may
have been hidden from her consciousness. I prefer to think of these
hidden symbols as a deliberate Randian gimmick, one of many. But which
they were, unconscious or planned, we may never know.
After her break with Nathaniel Branden in 1968, Ayn Rand repudiated
everything that she had shared with her former collaborator and lover,
including their shared identity as Jews. She discarded everything that
had separated her from Frank O'Connor. She returned to her earlier
self-definition as a universal hero without particular roots.
Popescu Lucian
.net>...
> But he wrote of "soc.culture.jewish". Did he meant, than, that all Jews
> support or advocate jewish culture?
No Sir, I wasn't at any sort implying all Jews act in accordance,
following a single political line. The difference of attitude between
Jewish Leftists and Rightists in Israel are so substantial, I think
the problem is settled without anymore wasted words.
I was just observing something obvious. Most contributors of HPO are
of Jewish ethnic origin.
To deny Jews have a particular ethnic identity, following the
rabbinical acceptance of the term "Jew", it's childish and stupid.
Jews are by all means an ethnic group, INCLUDING a set of racial
features more or less generalized with which a Jew, in general, can
easily be differentiated from an European. Of course, because Jews
around the world are per capita the most secularized group, few of the
ancient Jewish customs are anymore practiced, but if you'd argue this
stops them from being Jewish, that means I'm no longer a Romanian :-)
Popescu Lucian
charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
> Totally wrong AFAICT. You might argue for
> "alt.the.state.of.israel.is.perfect", but almost nobody here (and you do
> know what "almost" means, right") supports or advocates jewish culture or
> religion.
What is your ethnicity? Are you in ANY sort practicing the religion
and culture specific to your ethnic group? I bet you are NOT.
Consequently, read your comment and a contradiction will immediately
emerge.
John Alway
01.20...@posting.google.com>...
Objectivists are atheists and individualists, so what you say
doesn't apply.
You're stuck in the old collectivist/religious paradigm that is an
anathema to Objectivists. We don't live in your conceptual universe.
You are as an alien to us the way you think.
Our brothers are the men of reason in the world.
...John
dave odden
> > But he wrote of "soc.culture.jewish". Did he meant, than, that all Jews
> > support or advocate jewish culture?
> I was just observing something obvious. Most contributors of HPO are
> of Jewish ethnic origin.
That's not what you said, though that might be what you wished you had said.
It's also not at all obvious that your innocuous claim is true. To say that
it is obvious that most contributors to HPO have Jewish ancestory is to cast
serious doubt on the claim. What are the numbers that you computed? On what
basis do you assign ethnicity -- if someone has what sounds like a Jewish
name? You didn't do anything stupid like include "Michael Bernstein" in the
count, did you? There is no such person. What about "Acar"?
> INCLUDING a set of racial
> features more or less generalized with which a Jew, in general, can
> easily be differentiated from an European.
That's rather amusing. What about a Jew who is also European? You should
probably take a trip outside whatever small inbred village you live in. You
may be surprised to learn that Dutch guys and French guys often look
different, so there really isn't any such "look" as a European look. And if
you can see the unity-in-appearance of the Falashim and a Transylvanian Jew,
you've got a mighty refined race-detector.
dave odden
> You're referring to non-practicing "Jews," like Rand.
Indeed; and AFAICT she would be typical, in this context (i.e. the hpo
context).
I hate to say it ('cuz I'm a nice guy), but your comments are about 90
degrees off target. You can argue that it's a terrible shame to reject your
ancestoral traditions etc. and to some extent that's true, but it's
irrelevant to the implicit question of whether there is an inordinately high
proportion of advocates of Jewish culture and religion here. The answer to
that question is not just "no" but "no, and it's stupid to think so".
> A sense of identity is important to humans, and capitalism causes this
> to deteriorate.
Say what? I've got a strong sense of identity. I know who I am, and what I
believe, and I'm as much a capitalist as the next guy (and probably more,
depending on who he is). I totally don't see the presumed conflict between
capitalism and having a sense of identity.
> what I am describing
> is characteristic of Objectivist Jew who have lost his sense of
> cultural identity in the very society he professes to support
So are you claiming that most Objectivists have Jewish ancestors, and that
they know this fact and consciously reject that collective identification?
Which then causes them psychological trauma? Or are you only speaking of the
rabid hate-filled variant? Since that kind of correlation hadn't occurred to
me, the evidence certainly isn't obvious; so what's your basis for this
belief?
> >>> I find the term "Jew" to be so... retro.)
> >What's the correct contemporary term?
> In my opinion, "human." (And that goes for every other "race.")
Fine with me. I'm not the one supporting collective identifications in the
first place.
dave odden
> What is your ethnicity?
I don't know: it depends on how you define it. I'm a US citizen, my
ancestors migrated at various times from Western Europe. The paternal side
is Norwegian, the maternal side English.
> Are you in ANY sort practicing the religion
> and culture specific to your ethnic group?
We don't know what the ancestoral maternal religion would have been since
they've been atheists for a number of generations. On the paternal side, it
would be Lutheranism and my father resoundingly rejected that nonsense when
he was a kid. I eat røket laks when can get it and it's not because it's
ethnic, it's because it's good. The good which is Norwegian I embrace
because it is good, not because it is Norwegian. The same goes with the good
of Arab, Tuvan, various African cultures and so on.
> Consequently, read your comment and a contradiction will immediately
> emerge.
Nope. No contradiction. Maybe you can point it out.
J. Hall
Just like your arguments against Objectivism.
So where's the critique ? Or are you just going to give us "Hellenisms" ?
Popescu Lucian
.547e...@posting.google.com>...
> Objectivists are atheists and individualists, so what you say
> doesn't apply.
Tell me by which miraculous process have your objectivist comrades
stopped having an ethnic origin? Are they born through immacullate
conception as hardcopies of Goddess Rand*?
> You're stuck in the old collectivist/religious paradigm that is an
> anathema to Objectivists. We don't live in your conceptual universe.
> You are as an alien to us the way you think. Our brothers are the men of
> > reason in the world.
COMRADE, you offered me an empty, simplistic, manicheistic, thoroughly
collectivist answer, typical to Communist Newspeak back in the early
fifties. I could advice you all postmodern abominations stop deluding
yourselves how unique you are, because reality is right the OPPOSITE.
You are like products of a copying machine.
Note (*): maybe they are, after all...
Michael Bernstein
charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
> You didn't do anything stupid like include "Michael Bernstein" in the
> count, did you? There is no such person.
No, I declare that there is no such person as you. You are a
non-person. You do not exist. And therefore your words do not exist.
Thus, have I defined your argument out of existence.
_____________
Michael Bernstein, M.A. candidate in philosophy, recently read the
complete works of Ayn Rand on CD-ROM and also recently attended a
campus seminar sponsored by the Ayn Rand Institute.
____
___
__
_
__
___
____
HPO JURY = Malenor
<od...@ling.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>"HPO JURY = Malenor" wrote:
>
>> You're referring to non-practicing "Jews," like Rand.
>
>Indeed; and AFAICT she would be typical, in this context (i.e. the hpo
>context).
>
>I hate to say it ('cuz I'm a nice guy), but your comments are about 90
>degrees off target. You can argue that it's a terrible shame to reject your
>ancestoral traditions etc. and to some extent that's true, but it's
>irrelevant to the implicit question of whether there is an inordinately high
>proportion of advocates of Jewish culture and religion here. The answer to
>that question is not just "no" but "no, and it's stupid to think so".
I was exploring the reasons why if you 'really pressed these people on
what they think they "are", there would be very few self-professed
Jews.' So yes, I diverged from your point into one that suited me
better.
>> A sense of identity is important to humans, and capitalism causes this
>> to deteriorate.
>Say what? I've got a strong sense of identity. I know who I am, and what I
>believe, and I'm as much a capitalist as the next guy (and probably more,
>depending on who he is). I totally don't see the presumed conflict between
>capitalism and having a sense of identity.
I don't know that you have a strong sense of identity. You seem to.
But you asked me if I was referring to the rabid Objectivist
Randroids, and the answer is: Yes, my entire post was about them. I
connected their loss of Jewish identity caused by the melting-pot
society to a desire to recapture it in an intellectual theory (created
by a fellow Jew) which serves as a substitute for a self-identity.
>> what I am describing
>> is characteristic of Objectivist Jew who have lost his sense of
>> cultural identity in the very society he professes to support
>So are you claiming that most Objectivists have Jewish ancestors, and that
>they know this fact and consciously reject that collective identification?
>Which then causes them psychological trauma? Or are you only speaking of the
>rabid hate-filled variant? Since that kind of correlation hadn't occurred to
>me, the evidence certainly isn't obvious; so what's your basis for this
>belief?
>> >>> I find the term "Jew" to be so... retro.)
>> >What's the correct contemporary term?
>> In my opinion, "human." (And that goes for every other "race.")
>Fine with me. I'm not the one supporting collective identifications in the
>first place.
I didn't say you were. I myself would never have started a thread
about all the "Jews" on this forum.
But there was an interesting post here recently, based on Ronald
Merrill's investigations, about Rand surrounding herself with Jews
during the 60s movement. Or did they just flock to her? That the cult
was almost entirely consisting in Jews is not a question. I read an
article from, I believe, Time magazine back in the late 60s which
pointed out that fact.
HPO JURY = Malenor
<jif...@supanet.com> wrote:
>> a thinly veiled facade behind which you will literally find nothing.
>Just like your arguments against Objectivism.
Would you like to debate Objectivism with me? Perhaps you need some
first-hand experience with my techniques.
>So where's the critique ? Or are you just going to give us "Hellenisms" ?
That depends on you.
Spartacus
> I don't know that you have a strong sense of identity. You seem to.
> But you asked me if I was referring to the rabid Objectivist
> Randroids, and the answer is: Yes, my entire post was about them. I
> connected their loss of Jewish identity caused by the melting-pot
> society to a desire to recapture it in an intellectual theory (created
> by a fellow Jew) which serves as a substitute for a self-identity.
>
Objectivism is a "substitute for a self identity"?
explain please . . .
Spartacus
dave odden
> But you asked me if I was referring to the rabid Objectivist
> Randroids, and the answer is: Yes, my entire post was about them.
> But there was an interesting post here recently, based on Ronald
> Merrill's investigations, about Rand surrounding herself with Jews
> during the 60s movement. Or did they just flock to her? That the cult
> was almost entirely consisting in Jews is not a question. I read an
> article from, I believe, Time magazine back in the late 60s which
> pointed out that fact.
Well, I missed that post, so I don't have any comment on it. There really is
a question about this cult of the 60's, and I possess the question. I never
met any Rand cultists in the 60's ('cuz I read Fountainhead in 1970, and I
can't say I've ever encountered a breathing Objectivist). So let's just say,
you may be in possession of the evidence but I'm not.
There is an alternative explanation, if what you say were true, that has
nothing to do with psychological twisting or any cultural rejection
theories. It's the Yeshiva-theory, which also explains the documented
"higher than proportion of the general population" Jewish presence in
academics, especially mathematics. Reasoned argumentation matters
tremendously in a religion where there is no pope, and just a set of rules.
Popescu Lucian
charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
> I don't know: it depends on how you define it. I'm a US citizen, my
> ancestors migrated at various times from Western Europe. The paternal side
> is Norwegian, the maternal side English.
You must be right, Odden is indeed a Scandinavian name.
> Nope. No contradiction. Maybe you can point it out.
Contradiction: you said if someone stops practicing Judaism, it's not
Jewish anymore. It's just as saying: if I'm no longer an Orthodox and
no longer practicing Romanian folk traditions, I'm no longer Romanian!
J. Hall
One thing's for certain; you haven't got a clue what "post-modernism" is.
John Alway
05.2a...@posting.google.com>...
> John Alway <jwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<dbb7370e.0305152106
> .547e...@posting.google.com>...
> > Objectivists are atheists and individualists, so what you say
> > doesn't apply.
> Tell me by which miraculous process have your objectivist comrades
> stopped having an ethnic origin? Are they born through immacullate
> conception as hardcopies of Goddess Rand*?
The point made is that there are non-essential differences among
people. What is important among people is not race, or place of
origin, but how rational and rights respecting they are. How moral
they are. This is what counts in living life day-to-day.
I may be attracted to a girl because she has pretty blue eyes or
gentle brown eyes, but that's a purely esthetic thing.
And, at the deepest level, man is "the rational animal", as
Aristotle noted. We all have the same basic nature.
> > All humans come from star stuff. We all come from the primordial ooze
> > . We
> > You're stuck in the old collectivist/religious paradigm that is an
> > anathema to Objectivists. We don't live in your conceptual universe.
> > You are as an alien to us the way you think. Our brothers are the men of
> > > reason in the world.
> COMRADE, you offered me an empty, simplistic, manicheistic, thoroughly
> collectivist answer, typical to Communist Newspeak back in the early
> fifties. I could advice you all postmodern abominations stop deluding
> yourselves how unique you are, because reality is right the OPPOSITE.
> You are like products of a copying machine.
I'm not saying I live for others, or that others are above me, as a
collectivist would say. I'm saying that I respect at a fundamental
level men of reason. I respect them because they are worthy of
respect. Men who are rational and respect the rights of others are
men who make the world a better place. There is a basic respect among
such people that causes a sort of brotherhood of spirit.
You have to make more of an effort to understand that which you
criticize.
...John
dave odden
> Contradiction: you said if someone stops practicing Judaism, it's not
> Jewish anymore. It's just as saying: if I'm no longer an Orthodox and
> no longer practicing Romanian folk traditions, I'm no longer Romanian!
No, I didn't say that. My comments were broader, covering religion and
non-religious aspects of Jewish culture. The religious aspects are obviously
what should be rejected first. I don't recall seeing anyone here ever
advocate the religion. I'm still very skeptical that you'd find many
religiously non-observant culture-advocating Jews here, in particular the
type who go through the motions of "being Jewish" because it's tradition.
Suppose you move away from Romania, say to Canada, and no longer practice
Romanian traditions. Then I'd say at that point, when you start singing "Oh
Canada", you would no longer be Romanian, you'd be Canadian. Any children
you fathered in Canada wouldn't have any concept at all of "being Romanian",
unless you tried to indoctrinate them.
Being Romanian is a state of mind.
Ralph Hertle
Post-Modernism is the current Social-Metaphysical variant of Kantianism,
specifically Pragmatism. It denies universals, induction, contextual
logic, facts, Objective reality, and individualism. It is based closely
upon Platonism in that ideals are impractical and unknowable, and it
poses popular conventions and social agreement as the primary arbiter of
facts.
Like Pragmatism it claims the action-rules of tradition whenever
experiment doesn't work, and the ideals of the traditions the
Post-Modernists appeal to are the infinite quasi-ideal approximations of
Plato.
The keywords are, "whatever", and "whatever you and they say", is reality.
Ralph Hertle
...................................
Tom S.
> > Tell me by which miraculous process have your objectivist comrades
> > stopped having an ethnic origin? Are they born through immacullate
> > conception as hardcopies of Goddess Rand*?
>
> The point made is that there are non-essential differences among
> people. What is important among people is not race, or place of
> origin, but how rational and rights respecting they are. How moral
> they are. This is what counts in living life day-to-day.
>
> I may be attracted to a girl because she has pretty blue eyes or
> gentle brown eyes, but that's a purely esthetic thing.
What about if she has big hooties?
Tom
**
For my de-spammed address, send me an email.
HPO JURY = Malenor
A real explanation? Or just something for you to flame? Ah well, no
matter, either way I'll do my best.
If man is a being of self-made soul (as per Objectivist theory), then
it should not be necessary to generate a sense of self, however
strong, on the basis of external influences. One's heritage should not
matter, whether racial, or economic (such as an inheritance). Our
sense of self should originate from within, as with Howard Roark as
Rand's example of the ideal man. There is something innate to this
origin, as Roark himself stated somewhere in Fountainhead that he was
just born with his basic sense of self, e.g., architect.
But we cannot all be Roarks. In fact, such individuals are a rarity,
with regard to his genius, his passion for his work, and his
integrity. If man is a being of self-made soul, it is only an ideal
that is not usually actualized, and not a definition of "man" at all
(not that anybody claimed it was). Since it isn't even a definition,
then it cannot be applied universally, but stands, as I said, as an
ideal, moral universal to be somehow attained. But if innate, perhaps
Rand is claiming that we are all born with something unique in us, a
special talent, a sense of integrity, and so forth, that somehow
becomes lost in most of us. The idea is to retain or regain this
special sense of self-identity. (How to accomplish this is another
question entirely.) We are all capable of it, but only a few achieve
it.
For the rest of the world, this sense of self is gained from an
external source, for whatever reason. Otherwise they are left feeling
lost, hopeless, and alienated "in a world they never made." But an
externally-acquired sense of identity is better than none at all.
If I had learned, many years ago in my Randroid days, that Rand had
tried to acquire a Jewish sense of identity (or any other external
identity), I would have been severely disappointed because then she
obviously didn't come even close to the level of her heroes such as
Roark in being a person of self-made soul.
I'm not equating "self-made" with "innate," however. One starts with a
basic sense of self, and then builds on that from within, by doing
one's own thinking and relying on one's own judgment. The basic seed
from which this process begins may or may not be innate, but it comes
from a place so close to the beginning of one's life that it may as
well be.
Intellectualization is the particular method of acquiring a sense of
self that is the topic of your question to me. It often goes along
with powerful feelings of attachment to the originator of the
intellectual ideas which serve as a substitute for a unique identity.
I'm not just referring to Randroids, but many millions of people who
have undergone this exact experience, whether they follow the
Maharishi Mahesh and his system, or merely the author of some
intellectual-sounding books. But it is the psychological attachment,
like a baby to its mother's nipple, that gains the attention of those
who call Objectivism "cultish" or "cult-like." Such individuals,
Randroids, are basically feeding off of an intellectual system, and
living in the shadow of its originator in hopes, perhaps, of gaining
an even stronger sense of identity from basking in her glory.
None of this is very Roark-like, just the opposite. And so much for
Rand's ideal man. He has been subjugated to the psychological needs of
a few outspoken sycophants.
John Alway
.uswest.net>...[...]
> > I may be attracted to a girl because she has pretty blue eyes or
> > gentle brown eyes, but that's a purely esthetic thing.
> What about if she has big hooties?
That's when I lose focus on the eyes.
...John
HPO JURY = Malenor
<od...@ling.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>"HPO JURY = Malenor" wrote:
>
>> But you asked me if I was referring to the rabid Objectivist
>> Randroids, and the answer is: Yes, my entire post was about them.
>
>> But there was an interesting post here recently, based on Ronald
>> Merrill's investigations, about Rand surrounding herself with Jews
>> during the 60s movement. Or did they just flock to her? That the cult
>> was almost entirely consisting in Jews is not a question. I read an
>> article from, I believe, Time magazine back in the late 60s which
>> pointed out that fact.
>
>Well, I missed that post, so I don't have any comment on it. There really is
>a question about this cult of the 60's, and I possess the question. I never
>met any Rand cultists in the 60's ('cuz I read Fountainhead in 1970, and I
>can't say I've ever encountered a breathing Objectivist). So let's just say,
>you may be in possession of the evidence but I'm not.
Not even a non-breathing Objectivist? I have encountered one that was
breathing (besides myself). At the time I was feeling a grave
uncertainty concerning Objectivism because of its take on Kant. But a
college English teacher asked the class to give our greatest literary
influences, and I answer "Ayn Rand." That doesn't mean that I liked
her, because I was quickly falling away from her, but she was very
influential on me, there's no doubt about that.
After class, another student walked up to me and shook my hand saying
he was very pleased to meet another Objectivist (or words to that
effect). I merely shook his hand and frowned curiously at him, and
that was it.
My impression of him was that he was very much alone in the world even
with Rand by his side, as it were, and I think he mistook my frown for
a personal rejection. No matter, because I took no personal interest
anyway. Perhaps if he had said that I had just won a million dollars
and had a big sweepstakes sign and a ton of balloons...
Anyway, back to the present.
>There is an alternative explanation, if what you say were true, that has
>nothing to do with psychological twisting or any cultural rejection
>theories. It's the Yeshiva-theory, which also explains the documented
>"higher than proportion of the general population" Jewish presence in
>academics, especially mathematics. Reasoned argumentation matters
>tremendously in a religion where there is no pope, and just a set of rules.
Interesting. So you gave it your own ideological spin. Why was that
required? Why is it better than my "psychological twisting"?
HPO JURY = Malenor
<jwa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Popescu Lucian <ahe...@p16.pub.ro> wrote in message news:<6c5953dc.03051603
>05.2a...@posting.google.com>...
>> John Alway <jwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<dbb7370e.0305152106
>> .547e...@posting.google.com>...
>> > Objectivists are atheists and individualists, so what you say
>> > doesn't apply.
>
>> Tell me by which miraculous process have your objectivist comrades
>> stopped having an ethnic origin? Are they born through immacullate
>> conception as hardcopies of Goddess Rand*?
>
> The point made is that there are non-essential differences among
>people. What is important among people is not race, or place of
>origin, but how rational and rights respecting they are. How moral
>they are. This is what counts in living life day-to-day.
>
> I may be attracted to a girl because she has pretty blue eyes or
>gentle brown eyes, but that's a purely esthetic thing.
>
> And, at the deepest level, man is "the rational animal", as
>Aristotle noted. We all have the same basic nature.
And yet you said earlier, " We don't live in your conceptual universe.
You are as an alien to us the way you think." Statements about the
general definition of man mean nothing when in actual fact you are
divisive concerning what you believe to be the reality of men in
particular. This is what I call the fallacy of "loving mankind but
hating people," or at least some of them.
If your metaphysical definitions are more than mere hot air, then what
counts is the fact that we are all human, not our race, place of
origin, OR how rational, rights-respecting and moral we are.
It's not that I don't make certain distinctions in moral terms,
because I do. But they are not *absolute* distinctions which create
unbridgable divisions that are not warranted on the metaphysical level
of our basic, common humanity, and thus should not be warranted in
reality. They are not distinctions which declare that certain people
are like aliens simply because they think differently than I do, while
at the same time paying lip-service to some metaphysical definitions
which, practically speaking, mean nothing in the long run because they
play no role in such moral judgments. What is therefore metaphysical,
absolutely essential, in your view, is not man's definition, but his
way of thinking, his "pre-moral" choices, and his sense-of-life. That,
to me, is not unlike racism, it is a form of prejudice based on your
moral reductionism, those black-and-white, static formulas by means of
which you judge other people to be human or "as an alien."
> > You are as an alien to us the way you think.
>
> I'm not saying I live for others, or that others are above me, as a
>collectivist would say. I'm saying that I respect at a fundamental
>level men of reason. I respect them because they are worthy of
>respect. Men who are rational and respect the rights of others are
>men who make the world a better place. There is a basic respect among
>such people that causes a sort of brotherhood of spirit.
>
> You have to make more of an effort to understand that which you
>criticize.
Perhaps he doesn't understand them, but I do. That is why I reject
your hidden metaphysical distinctions, along with your methodology of
hiding them behind a definition ("rational animal") which serves as
only a facade of reasonableness.
Lon
imagine it being posed in a stupider way. Why should it be
politically
incorrect? Whoever wants is free to post here, if such people
disproportionately share some characteristic then that might be an
ibteresting fact, but what does it have to do with political
correctness?
Political correctness is a vacuous enough charge even without this
kind of usage.
But the response below is equally odd in its a prioricity. Many
people
take themselves to be individualistic while parrotong a line that they
heard from someone else and which their upbringing made them more
likely
to accept. It is not surprising that there are comparatively few
Libertarians from impoverished backgrounds. It is much easier to
believe that the government should not make up for past injustices
when you are not the one who suffers from them. Ideally one should
decide on ones political, social, and ethical views on purely rational
grounds. But it is an interesting empirical question whether people
actually do. That people claim they do is hardly compelling evidence.
I don't know what percentage of posters here are jewish, but the
fact that the claim that most of them are is not outlandish suggests
it is significantly higher than in the general public. Is this
significant? Probably less for understanding Objectivism than for
understanding jewish culture. For one thing I don't see any reason
to think that being jewish is more common among the objectivists
than among the non-objectivists. Nor is it clear that it is more
prevalemt among the supporters of Sharon-like policies than the
opponents (although the opponents of Sharon are small enough in
numbers that
percentages may not be significant.)
But this is a good example of an interest question being raised,
but nothing interesting being said about it.
Lon
John Alway <jwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<dbb7370e.0305152106
.547e...@posting.google.com>...
Spartacus
then I am the one who is attracted to her :-)
Spartacus
Spartacus
> imagine it being posed in a stupider way.
read some of his other posts, you'll see a definite pattern to that effect.
Spartacus
Popescu Lucian
.23ac...@posting.google.com>...
> I may be attracted to a girl because she has pretty blue eyes or
> gentle brown eyes, but that's a purely esthetic thing.
Beauty, as it comes from an esthetic system of values, is (more or
less)objective. Only by reason someone is capable of admiring beauty
for its esthetical value solely.
> I'm not saying I live for others, or that others are above me, as a
> collectivist would say. I'm saying that I respect at a fundamental
> level men of reason. I respect them because they are worthy of
> respect. Men who are rational and respect the rights of others are
> men who make the world a better place. There is a basic respect among
> such people that causes a sort of brotherhood of spirit.
I aggree with your conclusion, but are your premises correct? Are your
people men of reason? Which men of reason would even THINK about
joining a GROUP or a MOVEMENT of some sort?
Popescu Lucian
charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
> Being Romanian is a state of mind.
Being "Romanian" means:
1. Speaking Romanian as first language
2. Being of Romanian ancestry
Thus is hardly a state of mind, but an assessment of facts.
P.S.: Since I've been quite little, I observed there is something upon
which you can determine someone's origin just by analysing his facial
characteristics. I can tell a Jew apart of an European Gentile with a
PROVEN 75% accuracy (with the notable exception of Polish and
Hungarian Jews, which have mixed with locals to greater extent).
Spartacus
> people men of reason? Which men of reason would even THINK about
> joining a GROUP or a MOVEMENT of some sort?
one can feel a "brotherhood of spirit" with fellow rational humans without
having to "join" anything.
is this the time where you again tell me you are certain I am Jewish?
Spartacus
J. Hall
> first-hand experience with my techniques.
I thought that was the whole idea of you posting here, or do you have
some other ulterior motive. Do you oppose capitalism ?
Popescu Lucian
37rq0tj3m4s...@4ax.com>...
You proved my point. Randites are in fact collectivists taking shelter
under the facade of allegiance to an individualist sect. Their robotic
answers have set this issue beyond doubt...
Popescu Lucian
a4.75...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> Asshole=Asshole
I like you, Spartakist. You are just THE way a good effective
revolutionary should be: simplistic, commited. However, I kindly
advice you to change your name, because according to last Party
Congress, Spartakism is classical case of leftist-deviationism, marred
by remnants of petty bourgeois mentalities and elements that later
emerged into the treasonous Fascist-Trotskyst-Bukharinist
deviationism. Also I've been observing some OFFENSIVE elements of
cosmopolitanism and even a sort of non-marxist elitism among much of
Spartakist politbureau. These must be purged for the sake of
revolution and worldwide communism. Let us bring the fight of
proletarian justice into ONE front.
Popescu Lucian
08...@verizon.net>...
I wasn't discussing your ideology, I was analysing the ways of your
MOVEMENT, which is effectively a post-modern cult group.
P.S.: Why doncha cum witme an smell some of dat SUPER-STRONG SHIT weed
I have? See you in Woodstock. Peace, maaaaaaaaaaaan...
dave odden
> > Being Romanian is a state of mind.
> Being "Romanian" means:
> 1. Speaking Romanian as first language
> 2. Being of Romanian ancestry
By your first criterion, those children we were speaking of, after your
emigration to Canada, are no longer Romanian. By that same criterion, there
are also few Romanians in Transylvania; similarly the Vlax Romany would not
be Romanian. This underscores the murkiness of the notion which you're
appealing to.
Your second criterion is based on nonsensical ideas of racial purity.
So-called "ethnic Romanians" have earlier ancestory rooted in all sorts of
tribes -- Slavic, Greek, Roman, Albanian and various other long-lost Central
Asian tribes, plus later medieval and later ad-ons like the Romani, Turks,
Hungarians and Jews. The "state of mind" is where you suppress these facts
as being irrelevant to your own identity. Your decision that
Hungarian-speaking Romanians are not Romanians is a state of mind. Every
(all eight) Hungarian-speaking Romanians (Romanian nationals, born there)
whom I know identify themselves as Romanian. It's a state of mind.
Trying to analogise this to your belief about Jews. Jews do not speak
"Jewish" as their first language: there is no "first language" for Jews. And
then we return to this bizarre notion you have that there is Jewish race, or
something like that. Does Sammy Davis "look Jewish" to you? How about Henry
Kissinger, Barry Goldwater or Madelyn Albright.
> P.S.: Since I've been quite little, I observed there is something upon
> which you can determine someone's origin just by analysing his facial
> characteristics. I can tell a Jew apart of an European Gentile with a
> PROVEN 75% accuracy (with the notable exception of Polish and
> Hungarian Jews, which have mixed with locals to greater extent).
Feh. With the notable exception... This smells of bullshit.
Ralph Hertle
You've got it all wrong. Objectivism isn't a cult. There are no rules to
follow, and there is no mysticism in Objectivism.
In fact the thousands of Objectivists are spread pretty thin. The
collegiate style Objectivist conferences are magnets for the few who
have a week to spare now and then.
Objectivists are not followers of ideas, and they do not parrot others
words. They think for themselves, and they stand for their own ideas.
If Ayn Rand's ideas make it, then Objectivism will be of interest. if
not, not.
Cults are religious. If there is one thing that is hardly ever spoken of
at Objectivist gatherings it is the incredibly boring convolutions of
religion.
Nor does the philosophy of Objectivism have anything to do with the
philosophy of Post Modernism. They are moral opposites in our current
society.
Ralph Hertle
dave odden
Nothing is required. It is prefered, however, because it has greater
explanatory power. It generalizes to other facts also in need of
explanation, and reduces a wide range of "numerically disproportionate
representation" facts to a fairly simple principle. It is in the nature of
Objectivism that you should reject religious beliefs, and you should not
blindly accept cultural values of no value to you simply because they are
traditional. Hence your explanation and my explanation don't differ. But
your explanation is predicated on an assumption about a human need to accept
tradition for tradition's sake, which Objectivism denies. That's a fact
about Objectivism, but not about mathematics, law, linguistics or what-not.
Under your psychological theory, you'd expect there to be higher than
proportional representation only in the sphere of Objectivism.
HPO JURY = Malenor
Ah, no. Objectivism, as I stated in another reply, definitely denies
the assumption of tradition for its own sake. However, it does not
deny that this need exists. It is an anthropological observation
which is upheld in the examples of the lives of billions of people.
But I agree that it is a factor which Objectivism was designed to
obviate.
And as surmised by Peeps O'Donnell in
<5ddf9711.03051...@posting.google.com>
who based his idea on Ron Merrill's work, Ayn Rand had the same desire
to explore and re-identify with cultural roots:
~It will take several separate articles to examine Ayn Rand's slow re-
identification with Jewish culture, a process that began at about the
time she finished "We the Living", and was still in progress up to her
1968 break with Nathaniel Branden. There was a definite, if still
largely implicit, influence of Jewish ideas in "The Fountainhead". By
the time of Atlas Shrugged, influence changed to a central source,
still hidden so as not to distract the non-Jewish reader from Ayn
Rand's universal ideas, yet so pervasive that Atlas was in a way two
books, one to Jews and another to others. Through the 1960, Rand was
discovering, and promoting through NBI, Jewish women intellectuals who
were much more conscious of their Jewish heritage than Ayn Rand had
been: Hannah Arendt, Jane Jacobs, Betty Friedan.~
HPO JURY = Malenor
Hmm, here come the hot lights. I'm not opposed to people buying and
selling things freely, and I agree that government interference can
have dramatically negative effects on markets. However, I am against
the deification of the capitalist system by libertarians and
Objectivists. I am against their tendency to judge all things
political against capitalist standards of right and wrong. Capitalism
is not perfect enough for the task, and in fact, I find that it only
brings out certain positive aspects of humanity to the detriment of
others. Where it improves, capitalism can also detract.
What then is the perfect politico-economic system? There isn't one,
therefore, there is no reason to deify any, be it capitalism,
communism, or socialism.
Rand believed that human potential could best be attained within the
context of freedom and free markets. Is that true? Or will humans
merely sink back into an even greater whim-worshipping lifestyle?
Haven't great men of mind been produced out of very unfortunate
economic and political conditions? If the latter is true, and if
producing the Ideal Man was Rand's goal (which was more true of her
Fountainhead years than later on in her life where the focus was on
the best politico-economic system), then the best social system would
have to be autocratic. You will find that in the system of European
aristocracies, where there was a large gap between the rich and the
poor, the greatest works of art were produced, especially among the
very poorest elements of the society -- even if you were to consider
their themes to be malevolent. And you will find that in 20th-century
capitalism, by contrast, most of the decadent works of art were
produced, art that could not be considered great even by the wildest
rationalization. Even a quick observation indicates that capitalism
influences immorality, whim-worship, and moral decadence, not only in
the art world, but overall. But the standard of living generally
increases under capitalism, and that is all I can really say in its
favor -- while the standard of morality drops dramatically, as
indicated by the slow but obvious collapse of culture in America.
But later in life, Rand's focus went from art (if one considers
architecture an artform and not a technology) to science. It seems
natural, with her greater focus on politics and capitalism, to focus
on that which could more readily be a product of capitalism, higher
technology and the form of genius which goes into it. New
architectural styles don't do much to enhance an economy, nor do great
works of art. So the focus of The Fountainhead was non-political, it
merely took for granted the economic context of the times. Atlas
Shrugged, however, was oriented around political activism (among other
things), and the achievements of non-artistic industrialists or
scientists. However, there is little or nothing in Atlas concerning
greater artistic products or geniuses.
So you see, even Rand tends to imply in her novels what I am arguing
concerning the benefits and hazards of capitalism. If a culture is
manifested through its artforms, and not merely its technology,
ingenuity, and scientific theories, then capitalism is of great
detriment to this culture, and even in Atlas Shrugged culture had to
go by the wayside in order to make room for mere innovation of the
type that keeps a capitalist system alive and kicking. And so the
Roark paradigm of Man eventually had to make room for industrialists
with their railroad tracks and smokestacks.
HPO JURY = Malenor
You mean Randroids, not Randites. The latter is a far more general
term which could include any mere Rand fan. Randroids however are
those, hopefully a small minority, who have sacrificed their very
individuality -- ironically, those who harp loudest about
individualism.
Spartacus
> advice you to change your name, because according to last Party
> Congress, Spartakism is classical case of leftist-deviationism, marred
> by remnants of petty bourgeois mentalities and elements that later
> emerged into the treasonous Fascist-Trotskyst-Bukharinist
> deviationism.
I aint changing my name for anyone . . . I took my name from the Slave who
became a GLADIATOR, who amassed an army of slaves and nearly defeated the
Roman empire in 2,000 B.C.
(according to Hollywood anyway :-)
that other stuff you mentioned is all a bunch of alphabet soup to me.
SPARTACUS
Spartacus
> under the facade of allegiance to an individualist sect. Their robotic
> answers have set this issue beyond doubt...
he proved nothing . . .
you think you know me so well
SPARTACUS
Spartacus
> You mean Randroids, not Randites. The latter is a far more general
> term which could include any mere Rand fan. Randroids however are
> those, hopefully a small minority, who have sacrificed their very
> individuality -- ironically, those who harp loudest about
> individualism.
now THAT statement I do agree with!
Spartacus
Charles Novins
By the time of Atlas Shrugged, influence changed to a central source, still
hidden so as not to distract the non-Jewish reader from Ayn Rand's universal
ideas, yet so pervasive that Atlas was in a way two books, one to Jews and
another to others.
CHARLES NOVINS:
I doubt I'll ever buy such a thesis, but I think your reasons supporting it
might be interesting. Let's hear 'em.
MALENOR:
Through the 1960, Rand was discovering, and promoting through NBI, Jewish
women intellectuals who were much more conscious of their Jewish heritage
than Ayn Rand had been: Hannah Arendt, Jane Jacobs, Betty Friedan.~
CHARLES NOVINS:
In summing up in a major murder case, I started out saying, "The greatest
philosopher that ever lived said, 'There are no contradictions' (the
prosecution case was strong but had one, irrefutable contradicting fact.) I
went on, "Here's what she meant and why it matters in this case..."
This set off a round of speculation among the many lawyers who were
spectators in the galley, triggered by my use of the female pronoun. I was
surprised to find the leading speculation was Arendt. Perhaps you could say
I threw them a curve, since Rand considered herself a novelist first. Oh,
sorry Mal, I meant to say "Miss Rand."
At any rate, my client prevailed, certainly by the skin of his teeth, since
I've seen many juries openly accept contradictions.
I don't know much about Arendt; perhaps someone could get me up to speed.
Fred Weiss
"Popescu Lucian" <ahe...@p16.pub.ro> wrote in message
news:6c5953dc.03051...@posting.google.com...
>... Which men of reason would even THINK about
> joining a GROUP or a MOVEMENT of some sort?
Lez see. How about the Founding Fathers?
Fred Weiss
HPO JURY = Malenor
<taxs...@free-market.net> wrote:
>"HPO JURY = Malenor" <Mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:iogccvgs3dumt12n4...@4ax.com...
>By the time of Atlas Shrugged, influence changed to a central source, still
>hidden so as not to distract the non-Jewish reader from Ayn Rand's universal
>ideas, yet so pervasive that Atlas was in a way two books, one to Jews and
>another to others.
>CHARLES NOVINS:
>I doubt I'll ever buy such a thesis, but I think your reasons supporting it
>might be interesting. Let's hear 'em.
You mistook the quoted material for my own stuff. Read the original
post at <5ddf9711.03051...@posting.google.com>.
>MALENOR:
>Through the 1960, Rand was discovering, and promoting through NBI, Jewish
>women intellectuals who were much more conscious of their Jewish heritage
>than Ayn Rand had been: Hannah Arendt, Jane Jacobs, Betty Friedan.~
>CHARLES NOVINS:
>In summing up in a major murder case, I started out saying, "The greatest
>philosopher that ever lived said, 'There are no contradictions' (the
>prosecution case was strong but had one, irrefutable contradicting fact.) I
>went on, "Here's what she meant and why it matters in this case..."
>This set off a round of speculation among the many lawyers who were
>spectators in the galley, triggered by my use of the female pronoun. I was
>surprised to find the leading speculation was Arendt. Perhaps you could say
>I threw them a curve, since Rand considered herself a novelist first.
Nice little invented story. Do you consider yourself a novelist first,
too?
> Oh, sorry Mal, I meant to say "Miss Rand."
You are not forgiven: "Miss Frank O'Connor."
>At any rate, my client prevailed, certainly by the skin of his teeth, since
>I've seen many juries openly accept contradictions.
>I don't know much about Arendt; perhaps someone could get me up to speed.
Never met her.
Charles Novins
> You mistook the quoted material for my own stuff. Read the original post
at <5ddf9711.03051...@posting.google.com>.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Thanks, that leads to nothing.
I see that I did mistake the quoted material. My fault? Perhaps, but I say
just more evidence that people ought to post with such things explicitly
clarified, as I do. Oh, well... I will continue to teach by example.
>
> >MALENOR:
> Nice little invented story. Do you consider yourself a novelist first,
too?
CHARLES NOVINS:
LOL. The idea that anyone had a life outside HPO seems fictional to you.
Wotta pisser.
> >I don't know much about Arendt; perhaps someone could get me up to speed.
MALENOR:
> Never met her.
CHARLES NOVINS:
How would that matter? You can never be certain about the existence of
anything, right?
Charles Novins
> > The question posed here is an interesting one, although it is hard to
imagine it being posed in a stupider way.
"Spartacus" <MIKEM...@heavyduty.com> wrote in message
news:sejxa.86518$cO3.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> read some of his other posts, you'll see a definite pattern to that
effect.
CHARLES NOVINS:
I think he's just a troll. The effect Lon highlights was intentional.
Charles Novins
> Hmm, here come the hot lights. I'm not opposed to people buying and
selling things freely, and I agree that government interference can have
dramatically negative effects on markets. However, I am against the
deification of the capitalist system by libertarians and Objectivists. I am
against their tendency to judge all things political against capitalist
standards of right and wrong. Capitalism is not perfect enough for the task,
and in fact, I find that it only brings out certain positive aspects of
humanity to the detriment of others. Where it improves, capitalism can also
detract.
>
> What then is the perfect politico-economic system? There isn't one,
therefore, there is no reason to deify any, be it capitalism, communism, or
socialism.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Well, thanks for clearing that up (NOT). Could it be people shine hot
lights at you in their futile attempt to get a straight answer out of you?
Oh, and thanks for the straw man (capitalism=god) not to mention the failure
to understand the topic in the first place (capitalism is lack of economic
central planning, not an alternate form of it.)
MALENOR:
But the standard of living generally increases under capitalism, and that is
all I can really say in its favor...
CHARLES NOVINS:
That's all, eh? So let me re-phrase. Economic systems are designed to
improve wealth, and that's what capitalism does. But Malenor is sad because
all we can really conclude is that it DOES PRECISELY WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO
DO.
MALENOR:
-- while the standard of morality drops dramatically, as indicated by the
slow but obvious collapse of culture in America.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Oh, my, where do I start? Anyone else want to address this howler? I have
time limitations, such as the rest of my life.
MALENOR:
> But later in life, Rand's focus went from art (if one considers
architecture an artform and not a technology) to science. It seems natural,
with her greater focus on politics and capitalism, to focus on that which
could more readily be a product of capitalism, higher technology and the
form of genius which goes into it. New architectural styles don't do much to
enhance an economy, nor do great works of art.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Plenty of artistic pursuits lack economic justification. Thanks for
choosing a specific example wherein you're completely wrong.
MALENOR
So the focus of The Fountainhead was non-political, it merely took for
granted the economic context of the times. Atlas Shrugged, however, was
oriented around political activism (among other things), and the
achievements of non-artistic industrialists or scientists. However, there is
little or nothing in Atlas concerning
greater artistic products or geniuses.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Do symphonies or surgeons ring even the slightest bell?
MALENOR
> So you see, even Rand tends to imply in her novels what I am arguing
concerning the benefits and hazards of capitalism.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Oh, sure, why didn't I see it? (Thwack! Thwack! Sounds of Rand, spinning
in her grave at such an accelerated rate that pieces are flying off,
striking the sides of the casket.)
MALENOR
If a culture is manifested through its artforms, and not merely its
technology, ingenuity, and scientific theories, then capitalism is of great
detriment to this culture, and even in Atlas Shrugged culture had to go by
the wayside in order to make room for mere innovation of the type that keeps
a capitalist system alive and kicking. And so the Roark paradigm of Man
eventually had to make room for industrialists with their railroad tracks
and smokestacks.
CHARLES NOVINS:
I will invite you to explain all of this incomprehensible stuff, but only on
the condition you make it concise and not further increase the rate of
Rand-rotation.
Popescu Lucian
charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
> By your first criterion, those children we were speaking of, after your
> emigration to Canada, are no longer Romanian. By that same criterion, there
> are also few Romanians in Transylvania; similarly the Vlax Romany would not
> be Romanian. This underscores the murkiness of the notion which you're
> appealing to.
Your line is 101% post-modern: "Romanian is anybody who identifies
itself as such". "There is NO OBJECTIVE criterion to tell apart a
Romanian from an Hungarian, for instance". In philosophical terms:
"there is no truth except a particular non-replicable one, found in
every mind of this planet".
Obviously, you can't make a difference between ETHNICITY and
CITIZENSHIP. Also, calling Gypsies "Romanians" proves an extraordinary
almost malevolent ignorance of our countrie's realities. Gypsies are
an ethnic group VERY different from Romanians in ALL aspects: culture,
language, RACE and way of living. Also, I can PROVE you ANYTIME I'm
able to show with decent acuracy which one is Serbian, which one is
Romanian or which one is Russian or Hungarian! If we would be so
multicultural as you think of, such thing would have been impossible.
> So-called "ethnic Romanians" have earlier ancestory rooted in all sorts of
> tribes -- Slavic, Greek, Roman, Albanian and various other long-lost Central
> Asian tribes, plus later medieval and later ad-ons like the Romani, Turks,
> Hungarians and Jews.
Romanians descend from Dacian Romanized tribes, with a sizable Slavic
admixture. They aren't multicultural AT ALL. Check your data from
sources EARLIER the age of multicultural revisionism.
How could Romanians have "Hungarian blood" since Hungarians themselves
have genetically only 15% old-Hungarian admixture? Also, how could
Romanians have Jewish influence, when there were practically no Jews
in the country before 19th century. This is pure multicultural garbage
and I shall take this no further...
> The "state of mind" is where you suppress these facts
> as being irrelevant to your own identity. Your decision that
> Hungarian-speaking Romanians are not Romanians is a state of mind. Every
> (all eight) Hungarian-speaking Romanians (Romanian nationals, born there)
> whom I know identify themselves as Romanian. It's a state of mind.
Hm... I've seen hundreds of Hungarians. NONE felt himself Romanian.
Hungarians are a very well organized minority, voting always with
their ethnic party, advocating larger autonomy, Hungarian language
universities a.s.o. They are hardly the assimilationists you are
picturing them as!
> Trying to analogise this to your belief about Jews. Jews do not speak
> "Jewish" as their first language: there is no "first language" for Jews.
False. It is and it's called Hebrew. Hebrew is the official language
of Israel, an offshot of Rabbinical Hebrew, a SEMITIC language
distantly related to Arabic. It's spoken as first language by 5
million out of the 14 million Jews worldwide. Since most European
Jewish communities (except in France) tend to dissapear due to massive
migration to Israel, after a decade or two there will be more than 50%
of World Jews having Hebrew as first language.
Even before reemergence of Hebrew as vernacular, European Jews had
their own languages: Ashkenazy Jews spoke Yiddish (German-based),
while Sephards spoke Ladino (Spanish-based). None except the Jews used
it.
> And
> then we return to this bizarre notion you have that there is Jewish race, or
> something like that. Does Sammy Davis "look Jewish" to you? How about Henry
> Kissinger, Barry Goldwater or Madelyn Albright.
Sammy Davis is a mullato converted to Judaism, thus he has nothing to
do with Ethnic Jews. Henry Kissinger is EXTREMELY Jewish
(Arabic-looking) type. If he would move in Saudi Arabia, he would go
ABSOLUTELY unnoticed (unlike me). I remember I saw his face when I was
fairly little and both I and my mother INSTANTLY noticed that man
being a Jew (prior to hearing his name, which is also EXTREMELY
Jewish). Barry Goldwater is so-so, but the nose is betraying him as a
JEW JEW JEW. Same thing with Madelyn "Albright" (i wonder how she got
that name, for it isn't Jewish).
Gee, I thought you will try fooling me around with Paul Newman type of
Jews (who don't look that Jewish), but you gave me CLASSICAL Jewish
faces. The most typically Jewish actor I've EVER seen on TV is Jeff
Goldblum: Arabic-looking 100% Semite. Further refference? Check
Barbara Streisand, Aaron Spelling, Dustin Hoffman, Steven Spielberg...
Also, you recommend you to check http://www.racearchives.com, where
you can find a WEALTH of information on Jews as a racially alien group
compared to any European people (except Maltese, who are Arabic
speakers). After 2,000 years of dispersal, they 95% Y-chromozome
identical with Arabs compared with 75% for ANY European population.
Popescu Lucian
n5iffp2hj6e...@4ax.com>...
> You mean Randroids, not Randites. The latter is a far more general
> term which could include any mere Rand fan. Randroids however are
> those, hopefully a small minority, who have sacrificed their very
> individuality -- ironically, those who harp loudest about
> individualism.
So noted. Yet "fan" comes from "fanatical"...
HPO JURY = Malenor
Lucian was responding to me responding to dave odden. How do you fit
into this sub-thread?
HPO JURY = Malenor
---------------
HPO JURY = Malenor
<ahe...@p16.pub.ro> wrote:
>HPO JURY = Malenor <Mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<l1jccv483o2
>n5iffp2hj6e...@4ax.com>...
>> ironically, those who harp loudest about
>> individualism.
>So noted. Yet "fan" comes from "fanatical"...
*Probably*. But it denotes an enthusiast of varying degrees of
enthusiasm.
HPO JURY = Malenor
<taxs...@free-market.net> wrote:
Searching through your not-very-well-thought-out response to my
response to another poster, I did find this:
>CHARLES NOVINS:
>Do symphonies or surgeons ring even the slightest bell?
Yes, that Richard fellow was a composer. However, I don't see a
surgeon as producing any forms of art whatsoever. While I realize that
many talents can be misconstrued as "an art," if it doesn't produce
art in some form, then it's not an art.
Despite the fact that there was a composer in the strike, AS is still
not the same type of novel as FH, as I explained in some detail. The
focus on politics is much more -- striking -- in AS. The main heroes
of AS are industrialists. The composer played no major function in the
plot. I thought the way Rand used his symphony was brilliant; but
still, the composer himself was a minor character.
The focus of AS was away from the creative individualism of FH, and
more toward the politico-economic. There is no hero in AS that I can
say was anything remotely like Roark.
HPO JURY = Malenor
<taxs...@free-market.net> wrote:
>"HPO JURY = Malenor" <Mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:h10dcvcmf6ba4efu0...@4ax.com...
>> You mistook the quoted material for my own stuff. Read the original post
>at <5ddf9711.03051...@posting.google.com>.
>CHARLES NOVINS:
>Thanks, that leads to nothing.
>I see that I did mistake the quoted material. My fault? Perhaps, but I say
>just more evidence that people ought to post with such things explicitly
>clarified, as I do. Oh, well... I will continue to teach by example.
It was explicit. Perhaps my use of the ~ tilde symbol instead of
quotes was confusing.
~~And as surmised by Peeps O'Donnell in
<5ddf9711.03051...@posting.google.com>
who based his idea on Ron Merrill's work, Ayn Rand had the same desire
to explore and re-identify with cultural roots: [followed by long
quote].~~
Double clicking on the usenet link I provided jumps me right to the
correct post. But then, I use forte agent, not Outshit Depress.
>> >MALENOR:
>> Nice little invented story. Do you consider yourself a novelist first,
>too?
>
>CHARLES NOVINS:
>LOL. The idea that anyone had a life outside HPO seems fictional to you.
>Wotta pisser.
That's not it. I'm coming to the conclusion that 'most every major
contributor to HPO has been Chris Cathcart in disguise, who uses
special software to fake his email and other message properties, and
who, after all, did win "honorable mention" in an ARI essay contest on
Anthem, along with about a hundred other students. This no doubt
explains why he seeks his revenge here on this forum.
>> >I don't know much about Arendt; perhaps someone could get me up to speed.
>
>MALENOR:
>> Never met her.
>
>CHARLES NOVINS:
>How would that matter? You can never be certain about the existence of
>anything, right?
I don't know of any philosopher, thinker, or even drooling religious
fanatic who ever claimed that.
Charles Novins
> >> >MALENOR:
> That's not it. I'm coming to the conclusion that 'most every major
> contributor to HPO has been Chris Cathcart in disguise, who uses
> special software to fake his email and other message properties, and
> who, after all, did win "honorable mention" in an ARI essay contest on
> Anthem, along with about a hundred other students. This no doubt
> explains why he seeks his revenge here on this forum.
>
I would give you a pass on this one normally - after all, I am one of the
foremost whiners about what a nuisance Chris has become on HPO. But it just
IS a little weird to think Chris is every major character here. Worse, I am
one of the few characters here that can be easily confirmed as real without
doing any serious legwork at all. I've got my office address, my photo, my
phone number and more - all available with a couple of clicks, and easy to
cross-check against any number of official databanks. If I was a hoax, it
would be the most elaborate HPO had ever seen.
I've checked out a number of HPO'ers to see if they're real, and I do
believe you are an actual guy named Ron. But if it came down to who's a
phony, there'd be a damn sight more doubt about you than me.
And, BTW, I use both Outhouse Distress and Agent, but I think the former is
better for text groups.
HPO JURY = Malenor
<taxs...@free-market.net> wrote:
>And, BTW, I use both Outhouse Distress and Agent, but I think the former is
>better for text groups.
Bleck. By the way, I am really Chris Chathouse. Cathcart was a made-up
name.
Spartacus
> into this sub-thread?
seems to me the term "Randite" was used quite broadly.
my mistake
Spartacus
HPO JURY = Malenor
<MIKEM...@heavyduty.com> wrote:
>> Lucian was responding to me responding to dave odden. How do you fit
>> into this sub-thread?
>seems to me the term "Randite" was used quite broadly.
It was.
>my mistake
I see.
Popescu Lucian
3.atl.mindspring.net>...
> Lez see. How about the Founding Fathers?
You might be right, but the Founding Fathers I'm sure they made a
distinction between "group" and "alliance". They allied against
collonialism that is right, but were people whose thinking was
independent (or at least autonomous) one from another, unlike here
where much of the posters seem to put an extreme value on ideological
conformity.
This comparison doesn't serve your cause.
Popescu Lucian
ad...@posting.google.com>...
Come on, Lon... How many years of indoctrination someone needs in
order to understand the "sensitiveness" of the Jewish problem. Don't
you know saying Jews are racially different from European Gentiles is
"offensive" and even "fascist"? This thread is a brilliant
demonstration of my hidden point: aside of their ideological truths
INEPTLY forced to mold upon everything imaginable, Objectivists
express oppinions of rigurous post-modernity. This is consistent with
the general picture of ill-developed rationality: TAKING views instead
of MAKING views. Consequently, their feedback on this
"potentially-offensive" issue has been consistent and 100% similar
with the one soc.culture.feminism.
Don't you find this interesting this post-modern fancy to impose
magical solves-everything solutions on one hand and advocating
"diversity" on the other? Psychology, Sociology, Theology, Philosophy
and Social Sciences in general have greatly suffered from these
cretinous manicheisms.
In order to make myself understood, I'll offer you an example.
Objectivists and Post-Modern people in general have rigurously the
same view on Religion: it's a system of obscurantist oppression, used
to enslave mankind, integrally coming from the instinctive fear of
unknown. They all deny any contribution religion made in modern or
earlier civilization and consider it even THE major impediment against
the Progress. I'll skip the obvious that belief in Progress itself
betrays a mystical-inclined mind, and carry on...
Here I'll thoughtfully separate the argumentation into two sections:
1. Is this true?
No BY DEFAULT. There is nothing except a few generalities that ALL
religions and cults in this world share. Yet, are these the most
important aspects? Absolutely not. Religion was the first philosophy
ever to exist, marking the beginning of humans as different from
irresponsible animalism. It evolved and offered a system of
world-view, with the methods available at that time to the primitive
man (always EMPIRICAL methods). Religion is also "guilty" of
generating art. Music, painting, all descend from earlier artistic
forms which had a precise religious utility. Also, morality, although
of course socially-generated, has gained a sort of universality
THROUGH religion. Monotheisms are EXTREMELY rigurous with this. It is
BEYOND doubt the fanatical rationalism of 18th century's philosophers
had at least parts of Christian ancestry.
2. Then, why such a complicated issue is addressed in such a pittiful
way?
Because people want instead of REAL answers magical pills which helps
them escape from the perilous waters of responsibility to oneself (and
others). Since the beginnings of time, mankind has perpetuated a
nostalgia for its previous pure-animal status and as society grew more
civilized, so did this inescapable nostalgia, which might very well be
biologically motivated. The modern strive for monosylabic answers is
BUT ONE its forms. How about the fathers that tell their sons with
such enthusiasm of their childhood/adolescence? How about the
brilliant biblical Archtype of Adam/Eve being evicted of Paradise
because of having eaten from the "Tree of Knowledge"? I shall take
this no further. You will find both in mythological and profane
sources a wealth of examples, 99% of whom unintentional. It's world's
greatest and most basic myth and will continue to exist as long as
humans exist.
Popescu Lucian
3.59...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> I aint changing my name for anyone . . . I took my name from the Slave who
> became a GLADIATOR, who amassed an army of slaves and nearly defeated the
> Roman empire in 2,000 B.C. (according to Hollywood anyway :-)
2,000 B.C.? Why not, actually! This would be the least important
aspect out of the historical revisionism practiced today. Have you
seen Amistad? It's the most sovietiform American movie i've ever had
the unluck seing. Spielberg holds a mastery in propaganda, with many
devious masterpieces in his pocket, yet falling far of the
groundbreaking classic of Joseph Goebells: "The Jew", which is not
only a mastepiece of the gender, but also it can be the first artistic
movie intended solely for totalitarian propaganda.
Spartacus
> >explain please . . .
> A real explanation? Or just something for you to flame? Ah well, no
> matter, either way I'll do my best.
no flames, but a few replies . . .
> Since it isn't even a definition, then it cannot be applied universally,
but stands, as I said, as an
> ideal, moral universal to be somehow attained.
yes, as Rand herself put it: "Man as he can and Ought to be"
> But if innate, perhaps
> Rand is claiming that we are all born with something unique in us, a
> special talent, a sense of integrity, and so forth, that somehow
> becomes lost in most of us.
that is precisely what she says . . . "It is not the nature of man to start
out by giving up by spitting in one's own face and daming existence"
(apologies for my constant quoting of Rand but she said it so much more
eloquently than i can)
> For the rest of the world, this sense of self is gained from an
> external source, for whatever reason. Otherwise they are left feeling
> lost, hopeless, and alienated "in a world they never made." But an
> externally-acquired sense of identity is better than none at all.
I think everyman experiences those types of feelings at some point in his
life . . . how he deals with them is one of the things that defines him as a
"Rourke" type in the first place, no?
> Intellectualization is the particular method of acquiring a sense of
> self that is the topic of your question to me. It often goes along
> with powerful feelings of attachment to the originator of the
> intellectual ideas which serve as a substitute for a unique identity.
> I'm not just referring to Randroids, but many millions of people who
> have undergone this exact experience, whether they follow the
> Maharishi Mahesh and his system, or merely the author of some
> intellectual-sounding books.
a few Un-intellectual examples . . .
A pot-smoking, heroine-shooting garage band with legions of followers . . .
"Deadheads", possibly the most inane example of this kind of "substitute
identity"
(as well as collectivism)
or the way a major League baseball team wins a game and the fans say "WE
WON, WE WON" as if THEY are part of the team . . .
> Such individuals, Randroids, are basically feeding off of an intellectual
system, and
> living in the shadow of its originator in hopes, perhaps, of gaining
> an even stronger sense of identity from basking in her glory.
I have never known any "Randroids" personally, but in the few weeks I have
been lurking here I have seen much evidence to support your thoughts on
that.
I have also seen much evidence to support the claim that many people have
read her words but FEW have truly grasped the meaning(s).
I think I get the gist of your earlier message and perhaps I mistakenly took
it as a "blanket" statement about objectivism in general . . .
if I now understand it correctly you were commenting, not on objectivism
itself, but on some of its more "misguided" followers, yes?
> And so much for Rand's ideal man. He has been subjugated to the
psychological needs of
> a few outspoken sycophants.
Rand's ideal man can not be subjugated to anyone or anything, is that not
the whole idea?
he would not even give those "outspoken sycophants" a second thought.
this is as much as my (so far) limited understanding of objectivism can give
for a reply. You have certainly given me "food for thought" as they say, and
I thank you for your comments.
see? no flames :-)
Spartacus
dave odden
> Your line is 101% post-modern: "Romanian is anybody who identifies
> itself as such". "There is NO OBJECTIVE criterion to tell apart a
> Romanian from an Hungarian, for instance".
There's a really good way to tell, objectively: ask, if you care. The only
marginally rational basis for collective identification is citizenship, as a
statement of what political system you consider to be of value.
> Romanians descend from Dacian Romanized tribes, with a sizable Slavic
> admixture. They aren't multicultural AT ALL. Check your data from
> sources EARLIER the age of multicultural revisionism.
I'm going back to 2000 BC. There's no revisionism here at all. It has long
been known by archaeologists that Romanian is a mixture of all sorts of
different tribes passing through. It's not my problem if you can't handle
the fact that Romanians aren't a "pure" race.
> How could Romanians have "Hungarian blood" since Hungarians themselves
> have genetically only 15% old-Hungarian admixture?
Well, the way it works is this. A Romanian woman meets a Hungarian man. They
have unprotected sex, and 9 months later, a half "Romanian", half
"Hungarian" child is born. That child is later inseminated by a visiting
Albanian, and so on and so on.
So your new tack is to say that there aren't any pure-race Hungarians, eh?
Interestingly, that's what I've been saying about Romanians and Jews, inter
alia. Get with the program: pay attention.
> Hm... I've seen hundreds of Hungarians. NONE felt himself Romanian.
Certainly not in your presence. Probably because they want to disassociate
themselves from the likes of you.
> > Trying to analogise this to your belief about Jews. Jews do not speak
> > "Jewish" as their first language: there is no "first language" for Jews.
> False. It is and it's called Hebrew.
What an idiot. By that criterion, there are almost no Jews anywhere in the
world, except in Israel. You would have been better off claiming that
Yiddish is the first language of Jews.
You have a totally incoherent view of ethnicity. It's a state of mind.
That's why a mongrel like you can delude himself with the meaningless
concept of being racially pure.
I think your problems are all rooted in a complete lack of self-esteem which
creates a self-loathing that you have only been able to marginally overcome
by imagining that you are part of a mighty tribe of Pure Romanians. Having
seen your picture, I can understand why you'd have those feelings of
self-loathing.
Fred Weiss
"HPO JURY = Malenor" <Mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jmfdcvg23b8rjpthj...@4ax.com...
> The focus of AS was away from the creative individualism of FH, and
> more toward the politico-economic. There is no hero in AS that I can
> say was anything remotely like Roark.
Maybe because in AS she decided to focus on the men who make possible the
kind of society in which a Roark flourishes.
Incidentally, it also makes possible the kind of society in which a moron
like you can endlessly whine and blather about it, not to mention hold up
the banner of the philosopher most antagonist to it.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
"Popescu Lucian" <ahe...@p16.pub.ro> wrote in message
news:6c5953dc.03051...@posting.google.com...
You're switching the criteria. What you asked was:
"Which men of reason would even THINK about joining a GROUP or a MOVEMENT of
some sort?"
Now you are asking whether rational men can ever agree enough amongst
themselves to join in a common cause. That you would regard such an effort
as an indication of "conformity" is absurd on its face.
The Founding Fathers were in fact autonomous and independent thinkers who,
whatever their other differences, also profoundly agreed on basic political
principles, including the philosophical ideas of The Enlightenment
underlying them, so much so that they were able to take up arms together and
in the process risking their "very lives and fortunes" in its name.
Fred Weiss
euphany
01.20...@posting.google.com>...
> I don't want to sound "offensive" to "oppressed" minorities, but don't
> you think it's Politically Incorrect to have a newsgroup with Jews all
> over? I won't start to list all the regular posters in here, but the
> issue remains that clearly over 50% are Jews. Am i wrong, or this is a
> colony of soc.culture.jewish?
I find it strange that such a large discussion is being held about
such a subject in an Objectivist forum. It's odd enough that people
who obviously have little knowledge of Objectivism, come here to
belittle it and call it illogical and post-modern. It's even odder
that Objectivists respond to such garbage, and create large threads
strewn with insults. This is a place where ideally people interested
in Objectivism come to intelligently discuss philosophy. It is
disgusting that there are so many Anti-Objectivists who are here
trying to sabotage intelligent, civilized discussion, and so many
Objectivists willing to give it up.
HPO JURY = Malenor
<pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>"HPO JURY = Malenor" <Mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:jmfdcvg23b8rjpthj...@4ax.com...
>> The focus of AS was away from the creative individualism of FH, and
>> more toward the politico-economic. There is no hero in AS that I can
>> say was anything remotely like Roark.
>Maybe because in AS she decided to focus on the men who make possible the
>kind of society in which a Roark flourishes.
That does not contradict what I said.
>Incidentally, it also makes possible the kind of society in which a moron
>like you can endlessly whine and blather about it, not to mention hold up
>the banner of the philosopher most antagonist to it.
Whine whine whine...
J. Hall
> disgusting that there are so many Anti-Objectivists who are here
> trying to sabotage intelligent, civilized discussion, and so many
> Objectivists willing to give it up.
I stopped yesterday when I realised that I wasn't getting anywhere. It
would be somewhat concrete-bound to waste anymore time arguing with
this troll, whoever he is.
HPO JURY = Malenor
<MIKEM...@heavyduty.com> wrote:
>> >Objectivism is a "substitute for a self identity"?
>> >explain please . . .
>> A real explanation? Or just something for you to flame? Ah well, no
>> matter, either way I'll do my best.
>no flames, but a few replies . . .
>> Since it isn't even a definition, then it cannot be applied universally,
>but stands, as I said, as an
>> ideal, moral universal to be somehow attained.
>yes, as Rand herself put it: "Man as he can and Ought to be"
A theme from FH which is not supported elsewhere in her works nor in
her philosophy.
>> But if innate, perhaps
>> Rand is claiming that we are all born with something unique in us, a
>> special talent, a sense of integrity, and so forth, that somehow
>> becomes lost in most of us.
>that is precisely what she says . . . "It is not the nature of man to start
>out by giving up by spitting in one's own face and daming existence"
>(apologies for my constant quoting of Rand but she said it so much more
>eloquently than i can)
Quoting is at least more honest and scholarly. Randroids want to
emulate her style because it seems to be so powerful. But what they
don't realize is that whatever it was in her writing that had the
power to affect them does not necessarily apply to anybody else.
>> For the rest of the world, this sense of self is gained from an
>> external source, for whatever reason. Otherwise they are left feeling
>> lost, hopeless, and alienated "in a world they never made." But an
>> externally-acquired sense of identity is better than none at all.
>I think everyman experiences those types of feelings at some point in his
>life . . . how he deals with them is one of the things that defines him as a
>"Rourke" type in the first place, no?
Roark never had those kinds of feelings. He is somehow superior to
everyman in that sense.
>> Intellectualization is the particular method of acquiring a sense of
>> self that is the topic of your question to me. It often goes along
>> with powerful feelings of attachment to the originator of the
>> intellectual ideas which serve as a substitute for a unique identity.
>> I'm not just referring to Randroids, but many millions of people who
>> have undergone this exact experience, whether they follow the
>> Maharishi Mahesh and his system, or merely the author of some
>> intellectual-sounding books.
>a few Un-intellectual examples . . .
>A pot-smoking, heroine-shooting garage band with legions of followers . . .
>"Deadheads", possibly the most inane example of this kind of "substitute
>identity"
>(as well as collectivism)
>or the way a major League baseball team wins a game and the fans say "WE
>WON, WE WON" as if THEY are part of the team . . .
Some of those examples are perfectly normal.
>> Such individuals, Randroids, are basically feeding off of an intellectual
>system, and
>> living in the shadow of its originator in hopes, perhaps, of gaining
>> an even stronger sense of identity from basking in her glory.
>I have never known any "Randroids" personally, but in the few weeks I have
>been lurking here I have seen much evidence to support your thoughts on
>that.
>I have also seen much evidence to support the claim that many people have
>read her words but FEW have truly grasped the meaning(s).
Some Objectivists have referred those curious about it to the fiction
rather than to the non-fiction. But even then, there are differences
between her various novels such that one cannot get a steady grasp on
the ideas being conveyed. The reason for this is simple: Rand changed
as she went through life. She gradually lost her Nietzschean
beginnings, reclaimed and then lost a Jewish heritage, and altered her
views quite a few times. But then, hers was no different from anybody
else's life in that respect. So one can't get a consistent view of
Rand's philosophy from the novels either.
>I think I get the gist of your earlier message and perhaps I mistakenly took
>it as a "blanket" statement about objectivism in general . . .
>if I now understand it correctly you were commenting, not on objectivism
>itself, but on some of its more "misguided" followers, yes?
I always make it obvious enough when I write on that topic. At least
it should be obvious to those who are already aware of the Randroid
syndrome. I'm not writing on any introductory topics such that I feel
I have to start explaining from the ground up. Most people know what
I'm talking about.
>> And so much for Rand's ideal man. He has been subjugated to the
>psychological needs of
>> a few outspoken sycophants.
>Rand's ideal man can not be subjugated to anyone or anything, is that not
>the whole idea?
>he would not even give those "outspoken sycophants" a second thought.
The idea of it was subjugated, anyway.
>this is as much as my (so far) limited understanding of objectivism can give
>for a reply. You have certainly given me "food for thought" as they say, and
>I thank you for your comments.
Yw.
>see? no flames :-)
Thanks.
J. Hall
08...@verizon.net>...
> J Hall:
>
> Post-Modernism is the current Social-Metaphysical variant of Kantianism,
> specifically Pragmatism. It denies universals, induction, contextual
> logic, facts, Objective reality, and individualism. It is based closely
> upon Platonism in that ideals are impractical and unknowable, and it
> poses popular conventions and social agreement as the primary arbiter of
> facts.
>
> Like Pragmatism it claims the action-rules of tradition whenever
> experiment doesn't work, and the ideals of the traditions the
> Post-Modernists appeal to are the infinite quasi-ideal approximations of
> Plato.
>
> The keywords are, "whatever", and "whatever you and they say", is reality.
>
> Ralph Hertle
Thanks, but I already knew that. If you wrote it for the benefit of
our anti-objectivist friend here, then I think the words "waste of
time" spring to mind.
Spartacus
> >yes, as Rand herself put it: "Man as he can and Ought to be"
>
> A theme from FH which is not supported elsewhere in her works nor in
> her philosophy.
i toally disagree . . .her Philosophy of using a conscious rational
disciplined process of thought IS "man as he can and Ought to be"
the concept of Man having the right to live for HIMSELF, to acheive for
HIMSELF, to THINK for HIMSELF is apparent in everything of hers i have read
so far.
> Quoting is at least more honest and scholarly. Randroids want to
> emulate her style because it seems to be so powerful. But what they
> don't realize is that whatever it was in her writing that had the
> power to affect them does not necessarily apply to anybody else.
her style IS powerful . . . that is why her fiction and non-fiction are so
compelling, inspiring, and enlightening and the reason her works endure to
this day.
>
> >> For the rest of the world, this sense of self is gained from an
> >> external source, for whatever reason. Otherwise they are left feeling
> >> lost, hopeless, and alienated "in a world they never made." But an
> >> externally-acquired sense of identity is better than none at all.
>
> >I think everyman experiences those types of feelings at some point in his
> >life . . . how he deals with them is one of the things that defines him
as a
> >"Rourke" type in the first place, no?
>
> Roark never had those kinds of feelings. He is somehow superior to
> everyman in that sense.
disagree again . . . Big time!
> >a few Un-intellectual examples . . .
> >A pot-smoking, heroine-shooting garage band with legions of followers . .
..
> >"Deadheads", possibly the most inane example of this kind of "substitute
> >identity"
> >(as well as collectivism)
> >or the way a major League baseball team wins a game and the fans say "WE
> >WON, WE WON" as if THEY are part of the team . . .
> Some of those examples are perfectly normal.
how do define "normal" here?
> Some Objectivists have referred those curious about it to the fiction
> rather than to the non-fiction. But even then, there are differences
> between her various novels such that one cannot get a steady grasp on
> the ideas being conveyed. The reason for this is simple: Rand changed
> as she went through life. She gradually lost her Nietzschean
> beginnings, reclaimed and then lost a Jewish heritage, and altered her
> views quite a few times. But then, hers was no different from anybody
> else's life in that respect. So one can't get a consistent view of
> Rand's philosophy from the novels either.
disagree disagree disagree . . . and as for your statement about Rand
"losing her Nietzschean beginnings and recliaming her lost jewish heritgae"
you will have to show me some major proof before i even begin to spend the
time to contemplate the validity of it.
> I always make it obvious enough when I write on that topic. At least
> it should be obvious to those who are already aware of the Randroid
> syndrome. I'm not writing on any introductory topics such that I feel
> I have to start explaining from the ground up. Most people know what
> I'm talking about.
hmmmmmmm . . . i am not sure but have i just been called an idiot?
> >Rand's ideal man can not be subjugated to anyone or anything, is that not
> >the whole idea?
> >he would not even give those "outspoken sycophants" a second thought.
>
> The idea of it was subjugated, anyway.
to those who would attempt to subjugate the idea, the idea is meaningless
anyway.
Spartacus
Popescu Lucian
2.atl.mindspring.net>...
> You're switching the criteria. What you asked was:
>
> "Which men of reason would even THINK about joining a GROUP or a MOVEMENT of
> some sort?"
You are right. Mea culpa! When I said these words I had the present in
mind. In our age, belonging to a group/movement means the same. Back
then, situation was different. Ages were different and intellectuals
were CERTAINLY different.
dave odden
> I stopped yesterday when I realised that I wasn't getting anywhere. It
> would be somewhat concrete-bound to waste anymore time arguing with
> this troll, whoever he is.
Unfortunately, I don't think he's a troll, I think he's a for-real white
supremacist. He also posts under the name "Lord of Terror" and "Niggbrotha",
and has claimed to have slaves for sale.
Eudaimonus
> Also, I can PROVE you ANYTIME I'm
> able to show with decent acuracy which one is Serbian, which one is
> Romanian or which one is Russian or Hungarian! If we would be so
> multicultural as you think of, such thing would have been impossible.
Now, you will however, on your notion of "ethnicity", only be able to tell
this by telling that the parantage of the one is Serbian and of the other is
Romanian - for that is what it _is_ to be Serbian, or Romanian. Any other
inference (such as what one looks like) would have to be improper - for only
parantage, on your view, defines race. But this presupposes that you have a
way of telling if their parents are Serbian or Romanian. But to presuppose
that Serbian, defined as "descendants of Serbians" and Romanian, defined as
"descendants of Romanians" distinquishes two distinct classes of people,
ignores that if one goes back far enough, say, 1000 generations, one will
find that the earlier "Serbians" and the earlier "Romanians" are in fact the
same exact people, but to be Serbian is just to be descentant from these
people, and to be Romanian is to be descendant from these people, ergo to be
Serbian is logically equivelent to being Romanian.
Which, if Serbian and Romanian are words used properly as they are used in
common usage, is clearly an absurd consequence.
Ergo, your premise, - that ethnicity is just parantage, or even that such
is what you in fact really _mean_ by "ethnicity", must be in error.
HPO JURY = Malenor
<MIKEM...@heavyduty.com> wrote:
>more replies . . .
>
>> >yes, as Rand herself put it: "Man as he can and Ought to be"
>>
>> A theme from FH which is not supported elsewhere in her works nor in
>> her philosophy.
>
>i toally disagree . . .her Philosophy of using a conscious rational
>disciplined process of thought IS "man as he can and Ought to be"
>the concept of Man having the right to live for HIMSELF, to acheive for
>HIMSELF, to THINK for HIMSELF is apparent in everything of hers i have read
>so far.
To the extent that the heroes in AS are inspirational, I can give you
that one. It is most particularly true in the case of Dagny, the
strong, independent, self-willed female -- who would melt in helpless
submission at the slightest touch of the man she loved. Willers more
likely represented the ideal Everyman than did Roark, although I don't
consider worshipping, and even dying for, the unattainable, in Dagny,
who flew off to Galt's Gulch and left Willers to his fate without even
a question about it, to be very ideal.
There is no foreword to AS informing the reader about Rand's goal for
writing that novel. There is, however, an "About the Author" in which
she lied claiming she was born and educated in Europe. She also says
that her philosophy consists of "the concept of man as a heroic being,
with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with
productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only
absolute." Unfortunately, there is nothing in that about "man as he
can be and ought to be." In the intro. to FH Rand stated that the goal
of her writing was "the projection of the ideal man" as "an end in
himself": meaning, a perfect human being. In fact, she states that in
writing FH one of her questions was, "How will imperfect people in the
novel react to the presence of a perfect man?" Then, after repudiating
Nietzsche as a "mystic" and an "irrationalist," she actually quotes
him positively concerning the *fundamental certainty* of the ideal man
such as Roark: "The noble soul has reverence for itself." There is no
question that Roark, as representing the ideal, never suffered a
single self-doubt in his entire life. While AS consisted of at least
one ideal man, Galt, the emphasis was not on his ideality, but on the
goal of his life after the factory: to bring down and rebuild western
civilization by means of a new philosophical paradigm. The focus of
FH, on the other hand, was definitely "the ideal man," period.
>> Quoting is at least more honest and scholarly. Randroids want to
>> emulate her style because it seems to be so powerful. But what they
>> don't realize is that whatever it was in her writing that had the
>> power to affect them does not necessarily apply to anybody else.
>
>her style IS powerful . . . that is why her fiction and non-fiction are so
>compelling, inspiring, and enlightening and the reason her works endure to
>this day.
How do you prove that it's powerful? I know someone, naive to Ayn
Rand, who read a few lines of Atlas and tossed it in the trash.
>>
>> >> For the rest of the world, this sense of self is gained from an
>> >> external source, for whatever reason. Otherwise they are left feeling
>> >> lost, hopeless, and alienated "in a world they never made." But an
>> >> externally-acquired sense of identity is better than none at all.
>>
>> >I think everyman experiences those types of feelings at some point in his
>> >life . . . how he deals with them is one of the things that defines him
>as a
>> >"Rourke" type in the first place, no?
>>
>> Roark never had those kinds of feelings. He is somehow superior to
>> everyman in that sense.
>
>disagree again . . . Big time!
If necessary, I can dig up the Roark quotes to that effect. And other
characters described him too, or tried to. Remember, we're talking
about feeling lost, hopeless, and alienated. Do you really believe
that Roark ever felt those things? No, he didn't even evince these
emotions after being expelled -- and that may be why his
characterization is unrealistic. His characterization is, on the other
hand, idealistic. Roark never had average everyman feelings. He is
characterized as an extra-ordinary human being who doesn't have
average feelings about things or doubts about himself. He has
questions about the world, his knowledge grows as he experiences
more life, and this shows in the novel in the speech at the end. But
doubts about himself? Never.
>> >a few Un-intellectual examples . . .
>> >A pot-smoking, heroine-shooting garage band with legions of followers . .
>..
>> >"Deadheads", possibly the most inane example of this kind of "substitute
>> >identity"
>> >(as well as collectivism)
>> >or the way a major League baseball team wins a game and the fans say "WE
>> >WON, WE WON" as if THEY are part of the team . . .
>
>> Some of those examples are perfectly normal.
>
>how do define "normal" here?
As a "quasi-psychiatrist" in a western civilized country. Identifying
with a favorite ball team is quite normal. But not doing so is not
therefore abnormal. It is normal to find people rooting for their
favorite sports club. I don't happen to engage in this behavior.
However, if I were born and raised in Brazil where soccer is a
national obsession, I would seem bizarre to people there for not
taking any interest in that sport.
As for the Deadheads, I don't know what that is. But being enthralled
by some indecent garage band is normal teenaged behavior. If I were to
do that however it would seem quite idiosyncratic, because I am well
out of my teen years.
>> Some Objectivists have referred those curious about it to the fiction
>> rather than to the non-fiction. But even then, there are differences
>> between her various novels such that one cannot get a steady grasp on
>> the ideas being conveyed. The reason for this is simple: Rand changed
>> as she went through life. She gradually lost her Nietzschean
>> beginnings, reclaimed and then lost a Jewish heritage, and altered her
>> views quite a few times. But then, hers was no different from anybody
>> else's life in that respect. So one can't get a consistent view of
>> Rand's philosophy from the novels either.
>
>disagree disagree disagree . . . and as for your statement about Rand
>"losing her Nietzschean beginnings and recliaming her lost jewish heritgae"
>you will have to show me some major proof before i even begin to spend the
>time to contemplate the validity of it.
Ok. Well what matters to me is that you accept the fact that Rand, as
with everybody else, changed as she grew older, whether or not you
agree on the specifics of this. But that Rand had a Nietzschean period
is a well-known fact. And even though she outgrew it after college,
that it had a major influence on her penning of FH is also a
well-known and really obvious fact. And Nietzsche influenced her
throughout her life, just as Rand will always be an influence with me
even after we have parted company.
The part about her Jewish heritage is a major thesis of Ronald Merrill
in "The Ideas of Ayn Rand." A recent post to this thread on 5-15, by
one "Peeps O'Donnell," built on this thesis.
The Merrill book is interesting in that at one point it draws
parallels between the events in AS and Biblical and Jewish symbolism.
Since I doubt you have that book, allow me to paraphrase that bit for
you:
Rearden's gift of a ruby necklace to Dagny is compared to the famous
biblical quotation "Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is
far above rubies" [Proverbs 31:10].
There were exactly 36 strikers specified in AS, conforming to the
Talmudic doctrine of the 36 Just Men in Sodom and Gomorrah. The fall
of Sodom and Gomorrah is analogous to the destruction of western
civilization in AS.
According to Merrill, the ultimate crime for which the Sodomites were
destroyed was "placing envy and equality above benevolence and
justice."
Remember the vivid scene in AS in which Dagny, Galt, and others were
flying over New York City just as the lights went out? Galt orders
Dagny, "Don't look down!" This is strange behavior for the man who
said, "Nobody stays in this valley by faking reality in any manner
whatsoever." According to Merrill's analysis, Galt is saving Dagny
from being turned into a pillar of salt.
Merrill also draws the Nietzschean parallel (47). He argues that Gail
Wynand represents Rand's full intellectual departure from Nietzsche.
Wynand is Rand's idea of a Nietzschean ubermensch; his suicide
represented Rand's final break with that subjectivist, mystic
philosophy. "One might well interpret [FH] as an allegorical struggle
between Roark -- representing, in primitive form, Objectivist morality
-- and Wynand, representing Nietzschean morality -- for the soul of
Dominique -- Rand's alter ego." And, I will add, remember that Rand
herself called Dominique "herself in a bad mood."
>> I always make it obvious enough when I write on that topic. At least
>> it should be obvious to those who are already aware of the Randroid
>> syndrome. I'm not writing on any introductory topics such that I feel
>> I have to start explaining from the ground up. Most people know what
>> I'm talking about.
>
>hmmmmmmm . . . i am not sure but have i just been called an idiot?
I am sometimes very dry in my writing. I don't see you as an idiot,
but you do seem to be a newbie to ideas which myself and others have
been studying for years. However, I think talking down to you by
spelling everything out in great detail would be closer to calling you
an idiot. But since you have asked for more details, I am now doling
them out. And there is much, much more I am omitting because this
forum just doesn't pay me enough to put forth the great effort it
would require to convince you. But, as you indicated previously, I can
give you food for thought.
>> >Rand's ideal man can not be subjugated to anyone or anything, is that not
>> >the whole idea?
>> >he would not even give those "outspoken sycophants" a second thought.
>>
>> The idea of it was subjugated, anyway.
>
>to those who would attempt to subjugate the idea, the idea is meaningless
>anyway.
It means something to them, as I said, faking their sense of identity,
which can be written thusly: "I am an individualist, and an
independent thinker and valuer, because Rand said so."
Betsy Speicher
On Sun, 18 May 2003, euphany wrote:
> It's odd enough that people
> who obviously have little knowledge of Objectivism, come here to
> belittle it and call it illogical and post-modern. It's even odder
> that Objectivists respond to such garbage, and create large threads
> strewn with insults.
There are lots of valid reasons why a real Objectivist would participate
in h.p.o. I'm here to meet people who value Objectivism and are attracted
by the newsgroup name. Others want to hone their debating skills.
> This is a place where ideally people interested in Objectivism come to
> intelligently discuss philosophy.
h.p.o.? No way! If that's what you want, try Harry Binswanger's List.
<www.hblist.com>. I hang out there too and so do several other people who
also post to h.p.o.
> It is disgusting that there are so many Anti-Objectivists who are here
> trying to sabotage intelligent, civilized discussion, and so many
> Objectivists willing to give it up.
Relax! It is a good sign. As the influence of Objectivism grows, there
will not only be more Objectivists, but there will be more
anti-Objectivists and wannabe-Objectivists too. Someday large family
gatherings, talk radio, and lunch table discussions will seem very much
like h.p.o., so this is a good place for a rational person to practice and
prepare for that day.
Betsy Speicher
You'll know Objectivism is winning when ... you read the CyberNet -- the
most complete and comprehensive e-mail news source about Objectivists,
their activities, and their victories. Request a sample issue at
cybe...@speicher.com or visit http://www.4cybernet.com/
Fred Weiss
"Betsy Speicher" <Be...@NOSPAMspeicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.21.03051823...@worldwind.verizon.net...
>...As the influence of Objectivism grows, there
> will not only be more Objectivists, but there will be more
> anti-Objectivists and wannabe-Objectivists too. Someday large family
> gatherings, talk radio, and lunch table discussions will seem very much
> like h.p.o., so this is a good place for a rational person to practice and
> prepare for that day.
I agree with you although it is not "someday". I think it is here already. I
can't tell you how widespread it is but I believe that the increasing, often
somewhat gratuitous -whether positive, negative, or neutral - mentions of
AR, Atlas, Roark, etc. is a result of the fact that I think virtually all
prominent people these days know somebody - friend, relative, student,
teacher - who is interested in AR. and who brings it up at family
gatherings, parties, classrooms, etc. sometimes to the amusement, other
times to the annoyance of these people but in either case which prompts them
to re-read AR and leads them to mention it in one form or another in their
book reviews, op-eds, talk shows, tv scripts, etc. Just as an example it is
quite common now to find "AR mentions" in the NY Times Sunday Book Review
section or on op-ed pages.
The various ARI programs, including the essay contests and op-ed program,
I'm sure are contributing to the phenomenon.
And of course don't overlook the increasing number of prominent people who
openly mention AR as an influence on their lives, even if they are not
necessarily in full agreement. Condelezza Rice, Gale Norton, and Rudi
Guillani immediately come to mind.
Fred Weiss
Tom S.
> And of course don't overlook the increasing number of prominent people who
> openly mention AR as an influence on their lives, even if they are not
> necessarily in full agreement. Condelezza Rice, Gale Norton, and Rudi
> Guillani immediately come to mind.
>
> Fred Weiss
The same Rudolph Guilliani that went after Michael Milken? Was AR's
influence AFTER he went after Milken like the Gestapo?
I'd also heard the founder of doubleclick.com was a AR supporter. That's the
company that tries surreptitiously to read information from your computer
while you surf the internet.
I wish their influence was more than enjoying _Atlas_ as a "neat fiction".
Tom Scheeler
--
"Appealing to the moral principles of those who lack them is an
exercise in futility." -- Pytor Filipivich
Charles Novins
> "Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:bae2pn$8vg$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
> > And of course don't overlook the increasing number of prominent people
who
> > openly mention AR as an influence on their lives, even if they are not
> > necessarily in full agreement. Condelezza Rice, Gale Norton, and Rudi
> > Guillani immediately come to mind.
> >
"Tom S." <tms...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:1gwya.524$XH2....@news.uswest.net...
>
> The same Rudolph Guilliani that went after Michael Milken? Was AR's
influence AFTER he went after Milken like the Gestapo?
CHARLES NOVINS:
Add Justice Clarence Thomas to the list of Rand-mentioners who nevertheless
can't seem to really understand her. Fred poses an interesting question;
does the phrase, "There's no such thing as bad publicity" apply to a
philosophy which is beneficial? I'm not sure. On the one hand, it reminds
me of Rand's condemnation of "conservatives'" embrace of capitalism (based,
as it was, on religion), but on the other hand, there really DOESN'T appear
to be any such thing as bad publicity.
John Alway
.uswest.net>...
> "Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:bae2pn$8vg$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
> > And of course don't overlook the increasing number of prominent people who
> > openly mention AR as an influence on their lives, even if they are not
> > necessarily in full agreement. Condelezza Rice, Gale Norton, and Rudi
> > Guillani immediately come to mind.
> > Fred Weiss
> The same Rudolph Guilliani that went after Michael Milken? Was AR's
> influence AFTER he went after Milken like the Gestapo?
> I'd also heard the founder of doubleclick.com was a AR supporter. That's the
> company that tries surreptitiously to read information from your computer
> while you surf the internet.
> I wish their influence was more than enjoying _Atlas_ as a "neat fiction".
I hear Steven Spielberg's favoite move is The Fountainhead, but
clearly he's far from an Objectivist.
The way I see it, a philosophy filters through society in bits and
pieces. The ideas are getting out there and with time they should
solidify into a more and more powerful influence.
You can't expect people to become full fledged capitalists or
Objectivists over night.
Also, one thing I've come to realize is that just because someone
says they agree with an idea, doesn't mean that they have integrated
it logically throughout their thinking. It's very easy to hold
contradictory positions even when you're trying hard not to. But, at
least that leverage is out there more than ever before.
...John
Tom S.
"John Alway" <jwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dbb7370e.03052...@posting.google.com...
> > influence AFTER he went after Milken like the Gestapo?
>
> > I'd also heard the founder of doubleclick.com was a AR supporter. That's
the
> > company that tries surreptitiously to read information from your
computer
> > while you surf the internet.
>
> > I wish their influence was more than enjoying _Atlas_ as a "neat
fiction".
>
> I hear Steven Spielberg's favoite move is The Fountainhead, but
> clearly he's far from an Objectivist.
Quite so. Another is Jim Carrey ("Liar, Liar", "The Mask"), who says
Fountainhead is his favorite novel, but...
>
> The way I see it, a philosophy filters through society in bits and
> pieces. The ideas are getting out there and with time they should
> solidify into a more and more powerful influence.
> You can't expect people to become full fledged capitalists or
> Objectivists over night.
I don't. But it puzzles me that someone who touts Rand's influence could be
so diaposed.
As I mentioned above, I think people that tout _Fountainhaed_ and _Atlas_
are enjoying it as a straight novel and miss all the underlying points, and
talking about it to the media for the noteriety.
>
> Also, one thing I've come to realize is that just because someone
> says they agree with an idea, doesn't mean that they have integrated
> it logically throughout their thinking. It's very easy to hold
> contradictory positions even when you're trying hard not to. But, at
> least that leverage is out there more than ever before.
As I said, they see these things as straight forward novels.
Perhaps the most positive celebrity I've heard talk about _Atlas_ (at least)
was Bob Metcalfe, inventor of ethernet and original founder of 3Com. He
claimed to have read the book six times and seemed to know what it was
_really_ about.
Tom Scheeler
--
For my de-spammed address, send me an email.
John Alway
vuVVej...@comcast.com>...
[...]
> "Tom S." <tms...@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:1gwya.524$XH2....@news.uswest.net...
> > The same Rudolph Guilliani that went after Michael Milken? Was AR's
> influence AFTER he went after Milken like the Gestapo?
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> Add Justice Clarence Thomas to the list of Rand-mentioners who nevertheless
> can't seem to really understand her.
Why do you say that? He never claimed to be an Objectivist.
However, the influence on him by Ayn Rand is evident in his heroism in
the face of a smutty and mindless opposition, e.g. the George
University faculty. He's a very big proponent of individualism and
independent thought, and the best judge on the Supreme Court.
...John
J. Hall
> says they agree with an idea, doesn't mean that they have integrated
> it logically throughout their thinking.
Conservatives, for instance.
Charles Novins
the influence on him by Ayn Rand is evident in his heroism in the face of a
smutty and mindless opposition, e.g. the George University faculty. He's a
very big proponent of individualism and independent thought, and the best
judge on the Supreme Court.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Words and actions are two very different things. Justice Thomas talks the
Objectivist talk quite well. See, for example:
http://reason.com/cthomasint.shtml
But I know his Supreme Court opinions to be often dreadful, having followed
them for many years. I was thinking of researching a couple of them for you
but then realized I didn't have to, because the very latest Supreme Court
case is one of them (unsurprising, since many of his opinions are
reprehensible.)
Perhaps you're aware of the state of Maine's attempt to control prescription
drug prices. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of this most naked move
toward socialized medicine yet. That isn't surprising. What is surprising
is that it was 6 to 3, and Thomas was on the wrong side of that equation.
Worse: from the New York Times summary.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/20/politics/20DRUG.html
While Kennedy, O'Connor, and Rehnquist dissented, "Justices Antonin Scalia
and Clarence Thomas each wrote separately and were the strongest in
upholding the program."
Betsy Speicher
On Tue, 20 May 2003, Fred Weiss wrote:
> And of course don't overlook the increasing number of prominent people
> who openly mention AR as an influence on their lives, even if they are
> not necessarily in full agreement. Condelezza Rice, Gale Norton, and
> Rudi Guillani immediately come to mind.
Condi Rice and Gale Norton I know about, but Guilliani? Sounds like a
good item for my CyberNet.
Betsy Speicher
On Wed, 21 May 2003, Tom S. wrote:
> Perhaps the most positive celebrity I've heard talk about _Atlas_ (at least)
> was Bob Metcalfe, inventor of ethernet and original founder of 3Com. He
> claimed to have read the book six times and seemed to know what it was
> _really_ about.
Got a reference for that -- hopefully a web site. Another great CyberNet
item.
Tom S.
"Betsy Speicher" <Be...@NOSPAMspeicher.com> wrote in message
>
>
> On Wed, 21 May 2003, Tom S. wrote:
>
> > Perhaps the most positive celebrity I've heard talk about _Atlas_ (at
least)
> > was Bob Metcalfe, inventor of ethernet and original founder of 3Com. He
> > claimed to have read the book six times and seemed to know what it was
> > _really_ about.
>
> Got a reference for that -- hopefully a web site. Another great CyberNet
> item.
>
censoring/regulating the internet.
I clipped the article, so I'll see if I can dig it up if I have it anymore.
I could scan and email it to you.
John Alway
ws.uswest.net>...
[...]
> > I hear Steven Spielberg's favoite move is The Fountainhead, but
> > clearly he's far from an Objectivist.
> Quite so. Another is Jim Carrey ("Liar, Liar", "The Mask"), who says
> Fountainhead is his favorite novel, but...
I don't know anything about Jim Carrey's life philosphy.
This one is really mind bending ... Woody Harrelson loved The
Fountainhead. Go figure.
Cardinals third baseman, Scott Roland, will be someone to keep an
eye on.
> >
> > The way I see it, a philosophy filters through society in bits and
> > pieces. The ideas are getting out there and with time they should
> > solidify into a more and more powerful influence.
> > You can't expect people to become full fledged capitalists or
> > Objectivists over night.
> I don't. But it puzzles me that someone who touts Rand's influence could be
> so diaposed.
I suppose it's compartmentalization. They truly don't understand
the ideas a fundamental level, but agree with some of it, just the way
they likely think about everything.
> As I mentioned above, I think people that tout _Fountainhaed_ and _Atlas_
> are enjoying it as a straight novel and miss all the underlying points, and
> talking about it to the media for the noteriety.
You could be right, however I'm thinking they may have absorbed
some of the ideas.
> > Also, one thing I've come to realize is that just because someone
> > says they agree with an idea, doesn't mean that they have integrated
> > it logically throughout their thinking. It's very easy to hold
> > contradictory positions even when you're trying hard not to. But, at
> > least that leverage is out there more than ever before.
> As I said, they see these things as straight forward novels.
> Perhaps the most positive celebrity I've heard talk about _Atlas_ (at least)
> was Bob Metcalfe, inventor of ethernet and original founder of 3Com. He
> claimed to have read the book six times and seemed to know what it was
> _really_ about.
Great reference. What about T.J. Rodgers of Cypress
Semiconductor?
...John