Free Capitalist

Oh, simply to say that I think the 'recede' option has loomed large, and I think still does. Atlas is a powerful influence in that regard; I know that when I was reading it and for some time after, I took the 'strike' possibility extremely seriously. Over the years I've seen a lot of people on various Objectivist forums openly advocate or deliberate over the possibilty of striking, while, I don't know I personally have not seen the opposite possibility be as persuasive, to the effect of powerfully making ideas felt in the larger culture, discussing what would be needed for that. I may be wrong but I think AR would have loved to have seen some sort of a Titan for right ideas, traveling the country, with a booming voice and irrefutable points, as Statesmen used to be like in the old days.

I don't think I need to deign your views with a response. It's a private matter, and feel free to address any future comments to PMs instead, where they'll be summarily ignored.

What's legal about it? Personally, I'd love to just pay for shows like this. Every truly great movie that's come out today, I make my best effort to buy.

Which by the way wasn't meant to impugn Cometmaker's capacity or ability in any way. Whether we recede or actively engage in the world depends on intensely personal and precious reasons; and has nothing to do with the efficacy we'd display were we to actively participate in the world.

ewv, the decision to withdraw or fight belongs in the spirit of each person who has to decide it. It's not a moral duty, and many people have chosen withdrawal from the world long prior to Atlas Shrugged, and many people will (hopefully) still choose to fight after it's been published. I do agree with a point of yours, that most people don't put in the effort to influence the world above and beyond their normal course of life. Acting on rational values is defending them, but only in a very vague and roundabout way. Defending rational values by persuasively and powerfully fighting for them, is really what's meant by defending them. It's not Cometmaker's duty to fight and make an exertion when she believes she's not capable of it; but for others that choice is still open, and not enough people are making it. It's not enough to be an 'average person' with good values. You need to lead the country in a certain way, learn to write exceptionally, understand the political process exceptionally, have substantial money which you can use and spend on important causes, understand history and underlying causes exceptionally, in short be an exceptional person generally. A titan of an industry, a captain of publishing, some person of great energy and influence. Too many people have taken the 'average road' even right when Atlas was published; I seem to remember reading how unhappy AR was that no great men approached her or came about as a result of her work.

Duke, sorry to get back to this after some time. If your opponent believes in the 'tiny little guy' operating inside of his mind, then this here is a problem of definitions, not of introspection. So let me follow along your hypothetical responses from the devil's advocate side, and explain how I'd respond to them. This of course is what I was referring to as making this the case of sloppy definitions, rather than some problem of introspection. You don't need to defend the introspective sense of I, but the definition of I, the definition of your mind. For -- "i" and "my mind" are one and the same thing. Your mind is either determined or it is not. There is no other 'little guy' inside that mind, just as there's no little guy inside your consciousness. You are the little guy, your mind is the little guy, inside the brain. So you either are determined or not. If you're determined to say and believe things, forced to provide proofs not of your own choosing, then you actually haven't proven a single thing, because you put forth those proofs or thoughts not of your own volition, not necessarily because they bear on the truth, but having been forced to do so. So you actually proved nothing, merely put forth some arguments, which only a person with free will could determine if they had bearing on the truth. That's why I say that rejecting free will leaves your opponent powerless to put forth a defense for his rejection of free will.

bborg, where'd you find the audio file of (perhaps) that very encounter? The article was very good.

Yes I've read this, an excellent article: global warming "stopped a decade ago".

No but then you take it further. "Ok, you didn't choose to disprove free will. Did you choose to select the evidence to support the argument? Oh it was chosen for you? Well how do you know it's right, or applies to your argument? Did you choose to validate that the evidence actually supports the argument? You didn't choose to validate that evidence? How do you know it's right."

Very good point.

That's not how you defend free will; you can't say you just introspect it, because what if you were 'determined' to misperceive the facts about yourself? The way to defend free will is to say that you can't disprove it. That you must choose to disprove it, thus contradicting your very argument. You can't be determined to disprove free will.

Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups. He pushes the Earth down.

Paul, Happy Birthday!

I know this thread is old, but it seemed especially fitting to have this the place to post the following images (made by the Olympic Committee):

In a review of the play "The Burgomaster of Stilmonde" by Maeterelinck (here), Cometmaker made an interesting observation: There is no doubt about decline of strong male portrayal in the 20th century, it is nothing short of catastrophic. Even in the assertive 1940's, men are quite often portrayed as silly and ridiculous rather than serious and noble, while women increasingly take on the role of the respectable and mature members of the family. The Honeymooners is a perfect example of this sad phenomenon. But going back to Cometmaker's quote, I haven't seen this be quite as troubling prior to the 20th century, so I wanted to ask: Where do you see traces of that? I haven't been much in keeping with early plays, so maybe that's what you're specifically referring to? Surely in other forms of art men remained very strong characters:

...how one could describe...

...And yet I can't resist posting another counter to her argument, which I just came across today: With images of statues like that, it's hard for me to imagine how describe Renaissance Italy as lacking heroic male imagery. Nor is it an exception; it seems like heroic men were built to stand on every corner in Renaissance Rome.

The sense of life of this movie is an easy ten. It's a story about a princess from a great old-fashioned Disney cartoon, who comes into the real world, and rather than being converted by the real world, converts it. Themes like this are all the more surprising given Disney's ambivalent (to be kind) work in recent years, but they completely redeem themselves with this one, in a strange, and surprising, and completely endearing movie. It is one of the tropes of recent years, that amazing Walt Disney characters like the Little Mermaid, the Sleeping Beauty, are outdated characters and outdated women, fit only for little girls and not for the overgrown and mature years of 7 and over. This movie entirely reverses that worldview, and completely redeems Walt Disney's amazing vision, by bringing one of those wonderful enchanting princesses out into the real world, and pitting her against it. It is not a spoiler to say that she wins, and will allow to enjoy the movie that much more knowing so, knowing also that the movie is not building her up just to tear her down. She's completely for real, and it's the cynical real world around her that is not. I envy all of those who are going to see this delight of a movie for the first time. Amazing movie for couples, I might add.

Could this movie be added please. Link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0461770/

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitge...,537517,00.html

Just thought I'd point out that from what I understand Harry is not actually deployed with an SAS unit but with a Ghurkas unit, a group of fanatically devoted British-trained Indian soldiers that have been renowned since at least their wars with Britain in the last century. Overall, I don't know enough on the subject of Harry's life, but I do find it odd that his younger shenanigans are taken seriously and his current serious task is not, instead of taking his current task seriously and the earlier shenanigans not.

This happens to me too. Sometimes I have to re-login in a number of times per day (while checking 'remember me', of course).

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monit...rticle10866.htm

It's not the warmth but the relation to human activity that is the question here. Temperature we can measure.

I don't disagree with Cometmaker on the notion that there have been periods when man-worship was at a height. Today's predominance of depiction of beautiful women has only in part to do with male appreciation for female form. It also has to do with the fact that masculinity is nigh-collapsed today as a concept of importance. So that masculine features, and idealization, are almost always the last thing on anybody's mind. That's what makes movies like 300, and the 80s era movies, strikingly unique, focus as they did on masculinity with a certain intensity. When Stallone made Rocky and Rambo movies, that did not mean that women were found to be less attractive in that 80s era; quite the contrary! It merely meant that masculine stylization was thought to be very important.