The Thinkers' Club Message Board › ...RE: Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum...

...RE: Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum...

A former member
Post #: 39
...it is very telling that the selfish, uncompassionate, ego(t)istical, right-wing, fascist, nazi, teabagger, 'libertarian', "republicant" , 'Reason'-reading, politically-clueless idolize a rapist...(...albeit­, fictional...)...how do the feminists in the forum feel about that?...

**************************************­****************************************­******

..."Rand aims to depict the ideal man - the perfect embodyment of her Objectivist philosophy"...

...the ideal man...is a rapist?...

..."If you've been waiting for some "sexy philosophy," "

...the "sexy" part is the rape scene, correct?...
Brian
brian_t
Cuyahoga Falls, OH
Post #: 37
Is this the level of intellect that is to be expected at this meetup?

I'm very curious how one who advocates that the government's only purpose is to uphold and protect individual rights can be considered a National Socialist (i.e. Nazi) or a Fascist. You do realize words have specific meanings, and can't simply be tossed around wherever you like, correct?

I take it you have not actually read the sex scene. What about it makes you believe rape is occurring? The fact that Dominique is partially resistant? More interpretation, including the author's response are on Wikipedia.

As for the other labels - "Reason-reading", "libertarian", "republican", etc. - I can only recommend that you do not confuse people who selectively reference Rand when it is convenient to their motives with actual proponents of Rand's philosophy. Rand had a lot to say about libertarians - none of it good.
A former member
Post #: 40
Ah, an 'ad hominem'. The last resort of the ethically-bankrupt. (Touche!)

One can add capitalist, objectivist, (neo/paleo/ultra)conservative, reactionary, minarchist, and 'nightwatchman' to the list. The point being, all who advocate the dismantling of the mixed economy are looking for budget cuts in precisely the budget columns which don't affect them. Until they're unemployed. Or they turn 65. Do you include corporations as individuals? - because that's the direction the country's heading... Witness the Supreme's "Citizens United" ruling, and the recent FCC "Net Neutrality" ruling. Welcome to the Corpo-fascist State. It's just 27 years later than Blair predicted it. Now, there's a precient tome everyone should assimilate.
phlick.84

I do know the meanings of words. In three (or more) languages. Of course, everyone knows that Wikipedia is the final arbiter of the multiverse. (Furp!)

Own the book. Read it. Twice. You assume much. What's up next? Hayek? Friedman? von Mises?...(I hate those von Mises to pieces!)

Libertarian, in the recent, 'stealth', far/ultraright-wing, reactionary, 'teabagger', Koch-funded sense. Not the center-right, as all over the rest of the world. I'll grant you that anarchism stands outside of both the standard and the Nolan political spectrum. Neo-cons are still economically antipathetic, but they like to do their coke while they're crashing their hedge funds. And their Hummers.

Excuse me, I have to go listen to Alex Jones now. cool

Mark R. O.
MROrel
Cleveland, OH
Post #: 81
Skeptikos:

Though not a fan of Ms. Rand's personal life, and I
do believe her to have been hypocritical and she did
have a big ego. I find a great deal of agreement and
joy in her fiction. The concept of Howard Roark is some-
thing to aspire.

You seem to think the terms: Libertarians, Right Wing,
Republican, Capitalist, Objectivist, Conservative and
Reactionary, are derogatory. I do not. They are nothing
more than philosophical labels. I believe this country
would be better if more people embraced the concept
of personal responsibility.

As for the Sex scene, The Fountainhead is a book of fiction.
Ms. Rand's characters are her ideals. The foreshadowing
is very clear, as is the scene's conclusion "...But the act of
a master taking shameful, contemptuous possession of her
was the kind of rapture she had wanted."


M. Orel



A former member
Post #: 41
"The concept of Howard Roark is some-
thing to aspire (sic). "

...yes, being a rapist and a bomber are certainly worthy goals...

"You seem to think the terms: Libertarians, Right Wing,
Republican, Capitalist, Objectivist, Conservative and
Reactionary, are derogatory."

...these "terms" are the political "fruit" ("by their fruits ye shall know them") of this mindset...
(also: "...you have been weighed in...balances and have been found wanting..."
"..truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me..."
...while i'm not 'religious', i feel that those on the right hypocritically pay lip-service to these admirable moral sentiments, so the language should be familiar...)


...these terms and the "concept" roark, are nothing but the manifestation of simple, primal, childish selfishness...the "personal responsibility" retort is driven by personal avarice... ("all my 'marbles' for me!"...it's all about me!...I!...me!...mine!...)...here are some songs by some classic artists who have observed this "phenomenon" -- imemine & piggies & pigs
... as i stated earlier in the thread, until they (or their grandmother) needs help...
...altruism...(yes, that hated word - by these types)...has been scientifically-proven to be evolutionarily selected for since at least the paleolithic...
...philosophized greed only dates back to smith (1776)...

"The foreshadowing
is very clear, as is the scene's conclusion "...But the act of
a master taking shameful, contemptuous possession of her
was the kind of rapture she had wanted."

He broke in. This wasn't even a drunken date-rape. So, add breaking and entering to the list of prosecutable crimes. (ALERT: allegorical "heroes" don't commit crimes...)...How do those on the right feel about roark's crime against property? (the most 'sacriligious' type of crime in this moral outlook...)...didn't the person paying for the building have the right to have it the way he wanted? ...he was the owner, protected by the 'constitution', wasn't he?

...no one should ever recognize a "master", nor want to be "possessed", let alone "shame"(fully) and "comtemptuous"(ly)...this is the definition of a person with low self-esteem behaving dysfuntionally...rosenbaum was very clever; she pandered to this mindset's most patriarchal, base and prurient interests. A failed screenplay, expanded into an over-lengthy book to make money. By a person who had a dollar sign floral arrangement at their funeral. I rest my case.


















Mark R. O.
MROrel
Cleveland, OH
Post #: 82
One more time, The Fountainhead is a book of fiction.
And in my opinion one of the best. Roark did not
break into the room, he "Came in. He wore his work
clothes..."

Skeptikos, you seem to think all Conservatives,
Libertarians, Republicans, etc., are the same.
They are not. No one can be defined by a single label.
Atheist does not define me. A postmodernist, freethinking
atheist is closer to the mark but this still says nothing of
my character, background or my political bent.

...no one should ever recognize a "master", nor want to be
"posessed [sic]"


Personally, I would love to find a woman to possess me.

You seem to have a definite opinion regarding this book
and Ms. Rand. I hope to see you and Brian at the
Meet-Up, 2011 January 05, Wednesday.


M. Orel

A former member
Post #: 42
...touche!...cool
Ian Y.
user 11837236
Cleveland, OH
Post #: 7
My undergraduate major was Philosophy but i took a historical track so i started with the Classical Greek philosophers and stopped at the 19th Century so i didn't get to Ayn Rand. She is quite a polarizing figure and i suppose that is interesting to me.

I realize that "The Fountainhead" is her earliest work, a work of fiction, and Objectivism wasn't fully developed at that time. It's also the only work i've read so if some of my questions are answered in later works, i suppose it'll motivate me to read more.

1. I touched on this at the meeting, but am still not quite sure what the answer is. Is Roark considered an ideal personification of an Objectivist? In the climax of the book, Roark destroys the Corlandt building using a bomb which also inadvertently seriously injured Dominique. If i understand correctly, this is ok since the building was his property for which he was never paid for by the Government and he had no recourse through normal legal channels since he can't find a responsible individual. These seems like a false premise, even though this is a work of fiction, the city is called New York and seems to take place in some sort of United States, individuals have successfully sued and won cases files against the government. I also am not sure how this would be much different from suing a corporation as there would also be no single individual to sue. In fact if it is a foreign corporation, it would be even more difficult. A lot of emphasis is placed on the individual, but it is quite possible for say two people to work on the same project. Let's say Roark and Mr. X are equal partners in a project which ends up not being paid for, how would this work out if Roark built the first floor, and Mr. X built the second floor. Could Roark still destroy the first floor (which would also destroy the second floor) and still be a correct Objectivist? Even though Roark did not intend to injure Dominque, i still find it disturbing that this seems to be glossed over. It seems to elevate property rights above the rights of certain individuals.

2. For an Objectivist, how would property rights work in the case of inheritance, if it is even possible to inherit something? Let's say that my parent(s) created a house, it is sold to someone who ends up defaulting on the mortgage, then i inherit it, can i destroy it even though i personally had no hand in the creation of that house?

3. In Objectivism, how would "intellectual property" work, if at all? Let's say the government commissions the Roark of music to score a new national anthem and then does not pay. It would be possible to destroy the existing copies of the score, but the musicians who play it would still know it. Even if the exact score is never used, it would seem to be practically impossible to erase it entirely out of existence.
Brian
brian_t
Cuyahoga Falls, OH
Post #: 43
Ian:

Your 1st and 3rd questions would be handled by the courts. It is not necessary, if someone's intellectual property rights are violated, that all the misuses of their property - whether physical or intellectual - must be obliterated out of existence. Rather, the property owner should receive some compensation for the thought that went into that work. The amount and extent of compensation would be determined by the courts.

Regarding inheritance - if it is the will of the creator that the property be given to you, then it would be given to you. And it would be up to you to decide what happens to the property.

For more discussion, you may want to check out the upcoming Ohio Objectivist Society meetups.

Also, I would note that your lessons in philosophy would likely never have touched on Rand, as she is disregarded by most academic philosophers. The closest I've heard to a mention occurs when the topic of ethical egoism is covered. There are still very few serious academic philosophers writing journal articles, who call themselves Objectivists. Many of them are listed on this page, others here­, with the most notable being Tara Smith at UT Austin. (And since I'm linking to Wikipedia, I'll also note that Wikipedia's founder, Jimmy Wales, is an Objectivist tongue).
A former member
Post #: 1
Rand said that if Dominique was raped, it was rape by engraved invitation.
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy