Apres Moi Le Deluge

Members
  • Content count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Apres Moi Le Deluge

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 03/15/1989

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://lai-fai.blogspot.com/
  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location Derbyshire, England
  • Interests Literature, Philosophy, Politics, Economics.<br /><br />Musc:<br />John Mills-Cockells, Isaac Stern, John Philip Sousa, Rachmaninoff, Chopin, Franz Lehar, Tchaikovsky, Schubert.<br />Todd Lerner, The Circadian Rythms, The Postal Service, Ed Harcourt, Of Montreal, The Kinks, Oingo Boingo, Rush, Regina Spektor.<br /><br />Films:<br />Working Girl, Doctor Zhivago, Gone With the Wind, Chocolat, The Shawshank Redemption, Gossip, Stardust, Sleepy Hollow, V for Vendetta, Edward Scizzorhands, But I'm a Cheerleader.<br /><br />Books:<br />Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, Anthem, Red Dust, The Road to Serfdom, The Nicomachean Ethics, Parliament of Whores, All the Trouble in the World, The God Delusion, The Caged Virgin.
  1. As Brits we are forced to pay for this

    I get annoyed when I see people wearing 'Che' shirts too, because, the person wearing it is either terribly ignorant and just thinks its a fashion thing, or else supports what 'Che' did, and his ideology. Though, beyond making sure they know the truth about what 'Che' did, I'm not going to waste too much time on these idiots. Because, if they know the truth of what he was like (Not the BBC version) and still wear shirts supporting him, then I think they are on the same level as neo-nazis. I had to laugh when I saw someone wearing a shirt with an image of Hitler in a similar pose, and a caption saying something like "Sorry, my Che shirt was in the wash". I don't think I'd wear it myself, as I'd rather not have Hitler in my wardrobe. But, I'm sure the person wearing it caused a few che-shirt-wearers too do a double take.
  2. Rights and Responsibilities

    I laughed too.
  3. What is 'Rationalism'

    Would that mean his faults were faults in his knowledge, not his morality? Or was their a point where the mistake of knowledge became a mistake of morality? If so, I would think that its at the point where he realises what his research has created (the sound weapon) and instead of doing the proper thing - and removing his sanction from it immediately by denouncing it - he turns in the reporter (who was urging him to be moral) to Dr Ferris's men, and gives a speech supporting it. Or would it be at an earlier point, when he first endorsed the State Science Institute?
  4. Problems with plot-theme

    I guess I just restated it in different words
  5. Rights and Responsibilities

    Betsy said: They could be saying "We're going to do the best we can in the circumstances, but if we didn't have to work under a constant threat of arbritrary force we could do a lot better." I think that while most people beleive the government should look after them, most of them do not see - or don't want to see - the gun that is pointed at people by a government that 'looks after' people. If the gun were made completely obvious to people they would have to choose between supporting or opposing those holding the gun, and I think most people would be appaled to see what their beleif in a 'helpful' government had led to, and would decide they were against the gun. (Of course, this would depend on the culture of the country in question)
  6. What is 'Rationalism'

    Thanks . I read all your posts, and links, and I think I understand it now. If I'm right, a Rationalist is person who; deducts from an idea that hasn't been proven through induction (Floating abstractions?) because they think that ideas don't need to relate to the real world. Would Dr Floyd Ferris be an example of an Empiricist, and Professor Robert Stadler an example of a Rationalist? Because Dr Ferris always says things like 'Ideas are irrelevant' and Professor Stadler thinks that he can continue to value the individual mind in an ivory-tower manner, while abandoning it in practice?
  7. Problems with plot-theme

    I thought something like that when I was reading The Fountainhead, I thought that they were both like Roark, but each with their own fault or weakness that made them vulnerable. I'm not sure exactly how to summarise what I think their faults/weaknesses are, but I think they are something like: Dominique: Thinks that because some people are bad, the whole world (and everyone in it) must be bad, so she avoids people. Wynnand: Thinks that everyones a hypocrite and so enjoys proving this (ie, by paying an individualist to write collectivist articles for his paper, and vice versa), as it makes him feel justified in printing things he himself disagrees with in the Banner so that it stays popular. I'm probably not exactly right with my analysis of them though.
  8. Floating Abstractions

    Does that mean a concept can be a floating abraction for one person but not another? Because one person could use it and understand it, then another could use it and not understand it. Also, are their some ideas which are always floating abstractions, whether you understand it or not? For example: god.
  9. What is 'Rationalism'

    I've heard a lot of Objectivists denounce 'Rationalism' but I've never understood what they mean by it. From the name I'd guess that its a philosophy based on being rational, which I would have thought to be a good thing. Is it one of those things where the name is wildly inapropriate to the thing? (ie, like 'fair trade', which is not fair) And, what are the basics of the philosophy? How is it similar, and how does it differ from, Objectivism?
  10. Bad, bad, bad writing

    Almost anything by Carol Ann Duffy. In particular, this 'poem': The worst thing is, I had to try to analyse that in an English Literature lesson.
  11. Rights and Responsibilities

    Of course each adult makes his own decisions. My question wasn't "who decides what values should an adult protect?" it was about how you would go about not letting the responsibilty, or blame, be shifted to you for the consequences of an action that was took by others, or the consequences of you not taking an action that you were prevented from taking by the use of force.
  12. Rights and Responsibilities

    I agree with the first paragraph of what you say, in my original post I was talking about the opinion of people who think otherwise, not my own opininion. Though, I think that you can take on responsibilities without a written, or even spoken, contract. For example, if you choose to talk to someone who is not threatening you with force, then its your responsibilty to talk so as to make yourself understood and to be truthful. Of course this wouldn't be the sort of 'responsibility' that could, or should, be enforcable by law. Not being an American, I only have a limited knowledge of the constitution, but I suppose it is similar to the English Magna Carta, which while it protected individual rights in some places, also violated them in others, and has since been completely disregarded by the MPs and judiciary anyway. I know no one owes responsibility to any government that they don't choose out of their own self interest, I was talking about the opinions of people that think we do, and how best to counteract them. Again, sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough.
  13. Problems with plot-theme

    I had no idea that the plot-theme for The Fountainhead would be compelling reading in its own right. And, I think I understand now that I was trying to avoid concretes in my plot-theme, when in fact your meant to put the essential concretes of the plot - down to a certain level - but not all the inessential details. Is that right?
  14. Rights and Responsibilities

    I'm not sure if I'm posting this in the right place, forgive me if not. * "with rights come responsibilites", If that sentence means anything other than the respnsibility not to violate other peoples right not to have force initiated against them, I disagree. (Though, you could say people have a responsibility to treat other moral people in a moral way, (honesty etc) maybe..) The people who say that sentence tend to be people who violate other peoples rights by taking over their lives (ie, people trying to justify the draft), but these people are in fact taking away a persons rights, but leaving the responsibility, if things go wrong, with that person. So they have infact seperated rights and "responsibilities" themselfs. But, I think they view 'rights' as more as privileges the government sells to people at the price of those people having responsibilities to do what said government says. Could one method of trying to stop government violating peoples rights more in future be for the peoples whos rights the government violates to refuse to take any responsibility when things go wrong, meaning that people will see that it is the governments fault? I think this is a small part of what the strikers were doing in Atlas Shrugged. Though, how would it work on a smaller scale, with only one business, or just one individual?
  15. Problems with plot-theme

    A lot of the time, when I write, the conflict is actualy between two conflicting values that a person holds, eg, the desire to be a good, honest, reporter, and the desire to keep your family safe, when reporting the truth in a particular situation would put your family in danger. (btw, would that be a good plot-theme for "honesty", or is it to concretised?) If the primary conflict is within a person, and between their values, does the theme, plot-theme and plot work any different? And, is it a good idea to have characters (other than the main character) who symbolise the parts of his mind in conflict, as a way of further dramatising the conflict? (Also, I don't know if, or what, this changes, but so far I've only wrote short stories, because if I think they're a lot better to practice on than longer forms of fiction, but also because I enjoy short stories)