Free Capitalist

Fred, isn't there a big difference between "laughing at" somebody, and "laughing with" somebody? In that scene you mentioned of Beatrix covered in dirt asking for a drink, does Tarantino want us to laugh at her, or with her (about the incongruity of a very simple and mundane request, with the very difficult and incredible event that preceded it)?

Here's another one, related to Pope John Paul II's passing: "Religious people don't die, they get promoted."

Two guys walk into a bar. Ouch!

It looks interesting, but Marty highlighted an important point - it does not provide simple direct access to a search result that is judged most closely resembling your search query. How much time do you have to spend in Google to find Grokker? And how much time will you have to spend in Grokker to find Google? Big difference between those two answers. I still think it has potential, but most likely only in areas where organization and classification, rather than quickness and ease of use, are important.

We may be going a bit off topic here, but can you explain how Aristotle's morality is not rationally absolute? And also, where did Dr. Peikoff say it wasn't so?

My original contention was that this Terri Schiavo case is not merely a case study of the religious right. Rather than being some interesting but ultimately not too important issue, it actually introduced some crucial and long-ranging political ramifications for this country, because the judiciary has come under tremendous assault from the executive and the legislative. The Founding Fathers did intend the balance of powers to be such that if two branches of government combined forces, that the third would not be able to stand up to them, but the problem here is that in this case, the two combined forces are pushing forward a theocratic agenda (again, as I said, because they are ruled by religious sentiment, not concern for due process or law), and the lonely overruled branch is not the "rogue" or "outlaw" judges that the Christians portray them as, but the only force of law in contrast. It was the judges who ruled consistently, regardless of their own political affiliations, in accordance with law, and it was the legislative who have created inane and anciently unconstitutional laws, and it was the executive branch that approved them. I disagree with Betsy's evaluation, and to me all of this is very ominous. By emphasizing this issue, I am trying to underline that it is this aspect of the Terri Schiavo case that is ultimately more important, not the more popular issue of whether she should have been left to live or not. Really, practically no one has commented on the constitutional ramifications of the cyclopean struggle that occurred within the government, and I think it is an important issue to understand and remember.

Betsy, I want to point out that I'm not trying to be overly dramatic in my claims, nor am I one of those doom-and-gloom types who are happy with every little thing that goes wrong and try to magnify it. Quite the contrary, actually. But I think that this case does merit very serious concern, and it bodes very very badly for the country, if not nipped in the bud. I am referring specifically to "Terri's Law", which is the linchpin of my first post in this thread; everything in the post before it is the "backstory", and everything after it is the "aftermath". I urge everyone to look into this law and see for themselves. Be aware, if you google for that phrase, that Jeb Bush' executive order back in 2003 was also known as Terri's Law, and that was stricken down by a Florida judge as unconstitutional (see the "backstory"). What should be looked for is the other "Terri's Law", the one passed by Congress on March 21, 2005, and by google for it online, one of the pages that comes up is the CNN page for the case, which describes "Terri's Law" in very mild and unconcerned terms: What the theocrats wanted to do was transfer the power over the case to a court which was run by Congress, and to thus extract a ruling favorable to their religious sentiments. They did succeed in taking the power out of the Supreme Court's hands. It's just that we got lucky that the judge presiding over the District Court which received the jurisdiction did not obey them. But the original law of Congress worked, it has still not been struck down as unconstitutional, and other such laws can now be passed, to achieve similar measures. This what I find to be so ominous.

Betsy I'm not sure I understand. I'll respond to your points individually. True, but that's when none of the branches of government could overpower any of the others. Terri Schiavo case is so important because it is the first example, that I know of, when two branches of government effectivelly passed a law temporarily outlawing the third branch, and were and still are ready to use the physical force at their disposal if all other means fail. FDR's "packing" the Supreme Court was absolutely not a violation of the division of powers, because he did nothing unconstitutional. He had to work within the system to achieve his ends. He did not, unlike Tom DeLay and the Bushes, pass a law that made Supreme Court's decisions irrelevant.

Okay right, I have heard about this. This is why people describe Mozart's music, or Brahms' music as "Classical", as in adhering to strict and predefined norms, while someone like Beethoven is only "Classical" in a loose sense of being a composer whom people still admire and imitate centuries after his death. Coming back to literary "Classicism" however, and risking to divert the discussion from the original subject, I'd like to ask what gave rise to those constricting norms? I'd be satisfied even with just a book or an online resource.

Yes I was puzzled by that. I am completely a layman in respect to literary studies, i.e. knowing modern authors and various literary styles and such, but in my limited experience I've never heard the term "Classicism" used in this purely literary context, denoting some kind of literary style. I assumed it had something to do with the other meaning of "the classics", and was kind of confused how a literary style and a historical tradition could be discussed on the same terms, and in the same context. Well I've heard the term used in the phrase like, "the literary classics of Western Literature", which means people who defined Western literature, i.e. Chaucher, Dante, Shakespeare, Hugo, etc; that about exhausts my understanding of what else the word could mean.

Hmm I just 'posted' a reply to Bill Bucko's post in the Essays subforum, but it didn't show up. Looks like the way it's set up, all seem to be under the supervision of the thread's author, so that he can allow or not allow them in the thread.

Writeby, could you elaborate on what this means:

Great essay! Not only was Paine a great advocate against both religious morality and deterministic nihilism (which is what "atheism" meant at the time), he was a great patriot too, as you said. If not for his Common Sense, a very strong argument can be made that the American Revolution never would have gathered enough supporters. And again, without him, during the horrible 1776/7 winter at Valley Forge, the hopeless American army would never have held enough spirit. "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot may, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.” Immortal words.

I would call George Washington as the Founding Father of the Founding Fathers, because on the subject of making America possible, he really is in a class all by himself. I certainly admire the rest (very much so), but I place my gratitude at his feet the most. Plus, of course, he did not come short of the other Founders in terms of moral stature, and we may attribute America's existence as much to his virtues as to his generalship and leadership skills. There were times when a man had to be extraordinarily virtuous and carry the rest of the country alone on his shoulders, which he could, and did.

Correction: turns out the Romans pronounced "ego" in exactly the same way as the Greeks. So there you have it

Yes the Greek "ego" is pronounced the way we'd expect, and it does mean "I". Latin is the same way, because they were both originally one language, or because the original Romans were Greek settlers, depending on how you want to look at it. So both languages have the great word, with exactly the same meaning, pronouncing in a very similar way, and spelling it in equivalent characters. The question comes down to, which do you like more? We have inherited the Roman language and alphabet, so the word written in that fashion will look easily recognizable, but maybe too routine. Greek word is exactly the same, but it's more exotic to a person used to Latin characters, and maybe thus more symbolic of "ego", which is an exotic concept. But then if you choose that you're risking elitism by implying that only the Chosen people know what the Word means. Etc it's a weight issue. Come to think of it, if you really want the word, try having it in both languages, on the flip sides, or next to one another. That'd be really cool too

I cannot speak for Dr. Peikoff (of course), and I strongly urge everyone to purchase that wonderful and inexpensive VHS, because it is very valuable stirring in its own right; Dr. Peikoff even gets quite emotional at some points. But if I try to reconstruct what he said from memory, I think he defined the Greek religion as secular in the sense that man was the measure of the gods. The gods may have done superhuman things, but they could not do supernatural things. Plutarch (the ancient Greek writer) tells us that Alexander the Great was born on July 21, 336 BC, the same day a certain Herostratus burned down the Temple of Artemis. If she was so powerful, then why did she let this happen, and why wasn't the criminal punished, or the fire extinguished? As the explanation goes, the reason that the goddess Artemis did nothing to stop the temple from burning was because she was too busy attending to Alexander's birth! Furthermore, as Dr. Peikoff supports from literary evidence, Greeks, at least during the Archaic and Classical eras, despised the concept of infinity, and equalled any kind of unknown and uncountable with evil; I think he made an example with the 6th century philosopher Anaximander, who equated the infinite with the evil and malevolent. I don't think secular should be defined by the absence of the spiritual, because one of the best parts of Objectivism, to me, is just how spiritual is; Atlas Shrugged especially, but other fiction works too. I would define secular as not believing in any kind of supernatural forces acting in unknowable ways. If that's the definition, then the Greco-Roman religion was secular, and was merely populated by superhumans who could run faster than men, lift a little more, sometimes even could set moral examples for men to admire and imitate, but they still had to obey the laws of nature, and could not deny reality. It's a kind of unusual secularism for us today, but Dr. Peikoff seems to believe that the Greeks worshipping Zeus were more secular than the modern, progressive and liberal culture; as for myself, I find it difficult to disagree with him.

I think Phil Oliver, by equating Greco-Roman pagan religion with secularism, meant something like what Dr. Peikoff meant when he said, "Greece was the only fully secular civilization in history" (a wonderful lecture, by the way, click here to find out more).

Originally I wanted to give this movie a 7, because after all it's just a "pretty good movie". The characters are interesting, the plot doesn't really make things tedious, there are some interesting things to learn about people from the movie etc. Yet there are some downers, such as a bit of lack of dramatizing Ray's moral stature. The end, the actual victory that the movie considers important enough to end the movie with, I thought was a bit underwhelming, as I'd expect every good person to be capable of achieving it. So, all in all, a pretty good movie. There was one thing, however, that simply made me choose to vote an 8 instead of a 7 - and that's the transcending acting performance of Jamie Foxx, which I thought was tremendous. I had to give the movie that one extra point because of him, his presence and his acting in the movie which really make it in a class of its own.

Inspector, what religious undertones in B5 did you have in mind?

Welcome, Mike!

I've got a question about bias. So far we've separated reporting from commentary, the former merely reporting the facts, and the latter explaining the causes for the facts, effects they may result in, and other evaluations (moral, etc). So then, would it be right to say that, in the context of reporting bias is improper, but in the context of commentary bias is present by default and therefore is proper and even essential? The definition of bias that I'm working with here is: emphasizing some facts over others, and letting one's own values influence the conclusions. Clearly, in the context of reporting this would mean non-objectivity, but in the context of commentary this would mean acting on one's values, which seems to clearly be the proper thing to do. I guess I'm reacting to Betsy's post on the first page. Is bias always wrong in any context whatsoever?

Warning: There are spoilers about this movie in this post. See, I'm not saying that I admire Vincent, or Kate (was that her name in Night of January 16th), or Thomas Crown, because they commit fraud. That's not exactly what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that this bad action highlights a certain depth of virtue, that would otherwise be lost or more difficult to spot. This is what I think what AR was saying, not that the criminal act was good, but the fact that the hero in that context did the criminal action was used to illustrate his goodness. Therefore, in that fictional context of fictional characters, that bad action loses its bad quality; it is still not an honorable action, but it is no longer a dishonorable one either. We simply look over it and use it as a flashlight to peer into the hero's soul, and detect what the author intended for us to see with its benefit. You say that, were there no fraud in Gattaca it would be even better. Certainly you could make the same argument for The Night of January 16th! But Ayn Rand did not think that the play would be better off if it were cleaner, and she does have her heroes be criminals, and do things she wouldn't recommend we do as well. The reason she had such things in the play at all was a kind of literary device through which to dramatize certain admirable qualities of character that would otherwise lay dormant and invisible to the viewer. You say that a story would be better off without such unsavory aspects, but Ayn Rand certainly didn't think anything else, something more agreeable perhaps, could work better at illustrating the heroes' virtues. You say Vicent's fraud is not important to his character. I agree, but I will say that it wasn't intended to be, and will again take a nod from AR by saying that I am glad that the fraud exists in that context of that plot and theme, for it was used by the creator to dramatize the dogged perseverence and intransigence of the hero. It was, in essence, his greatest moral achievement, to overcome the disapproval of the world and singlehandedly impose himself on the world that wouldn't have him any other way. Everything he does afterwards merely builds on his first achievement. You might say, "Surely other devices can be used, so we don't need this disagreeable one." Evidently we do need this device sometimes, as AR said. And based on my layman introspective thoughts on plot creation, I am inclined to agree. As long as there's an understanding between the author and the audience that not all actions are to be taken literally, then it'd be fine to have my hero do something that would normally be viewed as bad, but in that context would underline his virtues in a way that a more agreeable action would not be able to do. That's the whole point of using such devices, and if you watch the Thomas Crown Affair I am sure you will agree. Anyway, we can agree to disagree, and btw it is fun to argue with someone about how good something is .

Oh oops, you're right and I didn't think of that. Sorry, then, and please disregard that notice.

Viewer beware, all my future posts in this thread will most likely contain spoilers, and for the sake of readability I will not post warnings to warn of them, so this will have to do. Sarah, On the one hand you maintain that the act of fraud in Gattaca is bad, but on the other you say that it isn't really important, just something minor and inconsequential to the theme and the plot of the movie. Not only will I disagree, as before, that Vincent's fraud is up for reproach (when viewed in context), but I will also disagree with you disqualifying it as irrelevant. On the contrary, Vincent's fraud is at the very heart of the movie's theme and plot, the pivotal point through which our hero enters the world scene, and sets the stage for all of his future achivements. In our parallel discussion about The Night of January 16th, you seem to imply a similar analysis to that of Gattaca - the actions are bad, but something that can be disqualified as minor, irrelevant, and ultimately inconsequential. Not only will I again disagree on both of these accounts, but this time Ayn Rand herself will disagree too, in the very passage you've quoted. Far from them being accidental and merely tangental artifacts of the plot, Ayn Rand deliberately isolated those actions you may find disagreeable, and more than that, actually emphasized them. In other words, these criminal actions were an essential part of her theme. The criminal aspect did not introduce a negative aspect to an otherwise good theme; instead, the criminal aspect made the dramatization of the theme possible at ll. The play was not "mostly good except for a few blemishes", but "good" period. I hold that Gattaca can be viewed in exactly the same way. That's a shame! It's a wonderful movie, Romantic in the best sense of the word. I suppose in this discussion it can form a sort of trilogy with the play and Gattaca, of themes where the criminal element plays an essential part of a good theme, and is therefore itself not condemnable, when viewed in that context. I highly recommend you watch the movie, because it dramatized this element even better than Gattaca did, and it will be even harder for you to disqualify it or to maintain its negative status. I am referring, of course to the the ineffable Pierce Brosnan version made in 1999, which I consider to be superbly benevolent in comparison to the 60s Steve McQueen version (though Stephen will certainly disagree ).