Mel Gibsons sense of life according to ARI
Jan Janssen
Gibson has shrewdly cashed in and that's his right. Actors have always
used celebrity to promote their principles. Redford's environmentalism
Cruise's Scientology animal-loving starlets (Bardot, Hedren, Novak)
what's the point of fame if you can't use it to apply your ideals?
In Gibson's case, that means spreading religion in its fundamental sense.
The Passion of the Christ's theme is that suffering, not joy, is man's
proper fate.
A Mel Gibson movie about pain as man's highest purpose is practically
redundant; pain is at the core of the bloody Braveheart, the gruesome The
Patriot, the tortured Mad Max and nearly every picture Gibson has made.
His movies -- Ransom, Conspiracy, * Lethal Weapon* show that torment
is his stock in trade.
======================
They may be right about tPOtC, I have not seen it yet.
But most of the other movies they name do not have pain and suffering or
torture at their core. Most of these movies are about sticking to your
principles. And the Lethal Weapon movies are uplifting, funny and
hilarious!
Seems like another bunch of sweeping statements from the dear ol' ARI
folks.
I am getting to old for this shit!!!!
Betsy Speicher
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Jan Janssen wrote:
> ARI comment today at http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3544
Correction: Neither the webmaster of Capitalism Magazine nor the author of
that article works for, speaks for, or is endorsed by the Ayn Rand
Institute. (AFAIK, they are supporters of ARI.)
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/
Mike Walton
Jan Janssen
> A great review here:
>
> http://skakel.tripod.com/mel.htm
The pro's or con's of the latest Gibson movie
were not the point of my post. I sought to
illustrate the irrational sweeping statements
made by Scott Holleran.
Ralph Hertle
> Seems like another bunch of sweeping statements from the dear ol' ARI
> folks.
>
> I am getting to old for this [ text omitted ]!!!!
>
[ text omitted ]
Jan:
Either you don't have your facts right or you are intentionally lying in
order to whitewash the editors that you speak of.
ARI ( http://www.aynrand.org/ ) is not the same as Capitalism Magazine (
http://www.CapitalismMagazine.com ).
ARI is an excellent primary source of information on Objectivism, and
both sites have interesting articles. That doesn't mean that the writers
of their respective articles necessarily agree with each other on every
point. The approach to facts and logic in the articles on both sites is
of high quality. Read them and decide for yourself. The followers of
Objectivism do not advocate a monolith of agreement on all applications
or on hypotheses, although the writings of Ayn Rand are, by her
definition, what Objectivism is.
There is no possible way for you to generalize based on your own first
hand information that they have made sweeping statements if YOU HAVE NOT
seen the movie. You are lying.
You should get rid of your "[ text omitted ] !!!!". That isn't too
strong of an argument - especially in that it seems to be an auto-ad
hominem argument. Is that a new form of fallacy that you are rolling out
for the world to see?
Ralph Hertle
Jim Klein
news:40425373...@verizon.net...
>The followers of Objectivism
This can't be overlooked. Anyone who couches the referent here with such a
phrase...automatically ain't.
> do not advocate a monolith of agreement on all applications
> or on hypotheses,
How about with their robotic speech?
> although the writings of Ayn Rand are, by her
> definition, what Objectivism is.
Damn, and all this time I thought it was a philosophy.
Maybe I should follow your path---never mind.
jk
Tom S.
"Jan Janssen" <janja...@demon.net> wrote in message
news:4041c9b6$0$557$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> They may be right about tPOtC, I have not seen it yet.
>
> But most of the other movies they name do not have pain and suffering or
> torture at their core. Most of these movies are about sticking to your
> principles. And the Lethal Weapon movies are uplifting, funny and
> hilarious!
>
> Seems like another bunch of sweeping statements from the dear ol' ARI
> folks.
Wow...talk about a bunch of sweeping statements...
>
> I am getting to old for this shit!!!!
Are you too old to actually expound on your claims? And, as Betsy said,
Holleran is not a spokesman for ARI.
So far you're 0 for 3.
Tom
Ralph Hertle
> "Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:40425373...@verizon.net...
>
>>The followers of Objectivism
>
> This can't be overlooked. Anyone who couches the referent here with such a
> phrase...automatically ain't.
>
>>do not advocate a monolith of agreement on all applications
>>or on hypotheses,
>
> How about with their robotic speech?
[ text omitted ]
Jim:
Robotic? What do you mean? Do you mean machine-like? Or do you mean
factual and logical? Or do you mean using correct logic and English grammar?
Regarding Objectivists, recall that individualism, a volitional
intellect, and inductive reasoning are some of the mainstays of
Objectivism. Every student of Objectivism and advanced theorist will
evaluate every point made in Objectivism. Every premise and conclusion
will be rigorously tested. They all have their own lives, and the
knowledge that they bring to evaluations of ideas is unique. I have
known quite a number of Objectivists since I first became interested in
the philosophy in 1961, and I have never found two Objectivists who will
exactly agree in the same way or to express abstract ideas, or upon the
best definitions for selected contexts, or upon the best applications of
ideas. Some who accepted Ayn Rand's ideas uncritically and without
evaluation, that is, on faith in the absence of its opposite concept,
reason, eventually gave up the philosophy. They didn't believe it any
more. They never understood that they should have used their own thought
and evaluated every idea. Uncritical acceptance of ideas is the opposite
of what Objectivism is.
That's one reason why you can almost never speak with an advocate of
Objectivism about faith. They use reason and facts, and the anti-concept
of uncritical acceptance is foreign to them. Faith never occurs to them.
Only the facts of existence exist, and for them the only way to pursue
life is to use volition, reason and logic. Not too robotic, to say the
least.
Ralph Hertle
Jim Klein
> > How about with their robotic speech?
>
> [ text omitted ]
>
>
> Jim:
>
> Robotic? What do you mean? Do you mean machine-like?
Basically, with a heavy repetition of a limited vocabulary.
> Or do you mean factual and logical?
Nah, not hardly. Followers, generally, tend to be light on that.
>Or do you mean using correct logic and English grammar?
Oh no, not at all...I'm a fan of that myself.
In moderation, that is.
> Regarding Objectivists, recall that individualism, a volitional
> intellect, and inductive reasoning are some of the mainstays of
> Objectivism.
Indeed; that's why things like the "excommunications" (call them what you
will) are so anti-Objectivist.
> Every student of Objectivism and advanced theorist will
> evaluate every point made in Objectivism. Every premise and conclusion
> will be rigorously tested. They all have their own lives, and the
> knowledge that they bring to evaluations of ideas is unique. I have
> known quite a number of Objectivists since I first became interested in
> the philosophy in 1961, and I have never found two Objectivists who will
> exactly agree in the same way or to express abstract ideas, or upon the
> best definitions for selected contexts, or upon the best applications of
> ideas. Some who accepted Ayn Rand's ideas uncritically and without
> evaluation, that is, on faith in the absence of its opposite concept,
> reason, eventually gave up the philosophy. They didn't believe it any
> more. They never understood that they should have used their own thought
> and evaluated every idea. Uncritical acceptance of ideas is the opposite
> of what Objectivism is.
>
> That's one reason why you can almost never speak with an advocate of
> Objectivism about faith. They use reason and facts, and the anti-concept
> of uncritical acceptance is foreign to them. Faith never occurs to them.
> Only the facts of existence exist, and for them the only way to pursue
> life is to use volition, reason and logic. Not too robotic, to say the
> least.
FWIW, IMO that was pretty good. Problem is, every time I come across an
ARIan for whom there seems hope, it turns out the lingering symptoms are
just too overwhelming.
Still, life is nothing if not hope. Good reply, Ralph.
jk
Robert J. Kolker
> torture at their core. Most of these movies are about sticking to your
> principles. And the Lethal Weapon movies are uplifting, funny and
> hilarious!
>
The political cartoonist Olphant had a very funny (but anti-Catholic)
cartoon in the Boston Globe. It shows little Mel Gibson as a child in
Catholic school beaten bloody by Sister Delorosa Excrucia, using her ruler
(Nuns get a ruler along with a wedding ring from Jesus). As bleeding whipped
little Mel leaves the classroom he gets a Bright Idea (indicated by a light
bulb in the bubble above his head). And now you know how the motion
picture -The Passion of the Christ- was conceived.
Bob Kolker
Floyd M. Hunt
>An Insipid Diatribe.
Ralph Hertle reponded:
>>With an elegant, concise and rational argument.
Somewhere in the Universe - Mr. Spock reads riposte and as a faint
smile only a Bene Gesserit reverend mother could detect, inside he
cheers: 'You go girl'!
FMH
cant...@dieznet.com
68$Xp.497492@attbi_s54>...
I have already seen some elderly but devout Catholics speaking up
almost a little not exactly against but very nearly against this
movie.
the movie is canaille.
I have seen only one picture. the intention is obvious. you can´t call
that Catholic, though of course the appeal goes that way.
of course I am very sorry. If you were a bit more lucid yourself,
you´d see that it is a real problem to be a Catholic; it is not funny
at all.
Floyd M. Hunt
>>On the contrary, Hertles' vocabulary seems in comparision to yours
rich and varied.
> Nah, not hardly. Followers, generally, tend to be light on that.
>>Did you even read his reply? He tried to explain to you why those
that call themselves Objectivists in no way consider themselves
followers.
> Oh no, not at all...I'm a fan of that myself.
>>Which is it? Do you seek to communicate with a mutally aggreed upon
form of communication, i.e. grammar, logic... Or, are you soley a fan
of ad hominem obscurantism?
> FWIW, IMO that was pretty good. Problem is, every time I come across an
> ARIan for whom there seems hope, it turns out the lingering symptoms are
> just too overwhelming.
>>By the use of the term ARIan you hope to call him a Nazi without
accepting the responsiblity of your own statements. How sad / ironic
that you could equate someone who argues via reason with someone who
believes in national tribalism.
> Still, life is nothing if not hope. Good reply, Ralph.
> jk
>>Actually life is what a rational person is doing while a mysticists
is hoping his lottery ticket wins.
Regards,
FMH
Jim Klein
news:c52a6548.04030...@posting.google.com...
> > Basically, with a heavy repetition of a limited vocabulary.
>
> >>On the contrary, Hertles' vocabulary seems in comparision to yours
> rich and varied.
I wasn't referring to Hertle; I was referring to robotic language. Just
like he asked, IIRC.
> > Nah, not hardly. Followers, generally, tend to be light on that.
>
> >>Did you even read his reply?
Yes. Did you read mine?
> He tried to explain to you why those
> that call themselves Objectivists in no way consider themselves
> followers.
And what was my closing and summarizing comment?
If you forget, you can see it below.
> > Oh no, not at all...I'm a fan of that myself.
>
> >>Which is it? Do you seek to communicate with a mutally aggreed upon
> form of communication, i.e. grammar, logic... Or, are you soley a fan
> of ad hominem obscurantism?
Great...another one who doesn't know what "ad hominem" means. Join the
club, pal. What's funny is that rather than complaining about something
justly--like maybe my _insulting_ tone--you choose to misidentify it as an
ad hominem.
That's very common in the ARIan philosophy BTW, taking a truth and turning
it into a falsehood. Come to think of it, that's a pretty good description
overall, of what was done to Rand's philosophy.
> > FWIW, IMO that was pretty good. Problem is, every time I come across an
> > ARIan for whom there seems hope, it turns out the lingering symptoms are
> > just too overwhelming.
>
> >>By the use of the term ARIan you hope to call him a Nazi without
> accepting the responsiblity of your own statements.
I accept the responsibility of each and every one of my statements, without
exception. If I write a wrong one, or one that carries meaning I didn't
intend, I try to clarify ASAP.
With regard to your charge, I use the term "ARIan" to help express some of
the attitudes that the philosophy _does_ share with Naziism, or any number
of other faith-based and Subjectivist philosophies.
Don't shoot the messenger. FWIW, over the years I've been fairly specific
in the details and specifics of these charges.
> How sad / ironic
> that you could equate someone who argues via reason with someone who
> believes in national tribalism.
How sad that you don't see the similarities. What, you think other
faith-based Subjectivists--whether Naziists or Stalinists or others--never
thought of calling _their_ philosophies the "rational" ones? A denotation
does not a fact make, and the fact of the matter is that many ARIans do have
a mindset very, very similar to those other assholes.
That's why they come to so many of the same conclusions, especially about
how right it must be to kill so many other people.
And no, I'm not saying that presently about Hertle, or you, or (at the
moment) any particular ARIan. I still stand by the claim that many ARIans
do.
I doubt you'll find any benefit in going any further with this. Check the
archives if you're really interested in my position.
> > Still, life is nothing if not hope. Good reply, Ralph.
> > jk
>
> >>Actually life is what a rational person is doing while a mysticists
> is hoping his lottery ticket wins.
If I thought you had the slightest knowledge of what you're yapping about, I
might take it up with you. Right now I don't, but feel free to show me
wrong.
jk