Sea Wasp wrote:
> Tetsubo wrote:
>
>> Sea Wasp wrote:
>>
>>> Kaos wrote:
>>>
>>>> on Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:14:45 GMT, Sea Wasp wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Kaos wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> on Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:10:03 -0400, Invid Fan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> <1157905323.254724.95550@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Bill
>>>>>>> Wayne <HWayne@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No different then getting it from a book. Suppose Ayn Rand had
>>>>>>> skipped
>>>>>>> the book and done The Fountainhead as a movie. Would the ideas
>>>>>>> in it
>>>>>>> have less meaning?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it possible for it to have less meaning in the first place?
>>>>>> (Outside of an objectivist "our groupthink isn't groupthink at all"
>>>>>> camp, that is...)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Your above comment shows you have either not read, or have
>>>>> not understood, Rand's philosophy. It is easily possible to show
>>>>> that her philosophy has FLAWS -- basically the same flaws pure
>>>>> Communism has, in a dark mirror -- but dismissing it so casually
>>>>> indicates a failure to grasp it at all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Her philosophy, in a nutshell, is that groups of people are
inherently
>>>> evil and anyone who can't stand on their own is a waste of oxygen.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, actually, it's not. Once more, you do not understand it.
>>>
>>> FORCED groups are inherently evil. Voluntary associations are
>>> just fine -- Galt's Gulch in Atlas Shrugged is a demonstration of
>>> just such a relation****p between equals.
>>>
>>>
>> I always wondered who was going to do all of the grunt work in
>> Galt's Gulch.
>
>
> The people who were willing to do so. People like Eddie Williers
> (the one truly great injustice of AS was that (at least as of the
> ending of the book) they hadn't brought him in. Rand never said there
> was no worth in people who weren't supergenii, and in fact
> specifically addresses that people like Dagny and Hank Rearden did
> much of their work expecting to work with such people, and have them
> benefit from the work, as the world benefits from the presence of
> those people.
It's been my experience that when dealing with supergenii (or just
plain old people with knowledge and positions) that many are NOT willing
to get their hands dirty. Heck, there have been times when I have been
in charge of people and I've had them doing unpleasant tasks just so I
wouldn't have to.
Like many works of fiction and non-fiction (often Utopian in flavor)
the authors seem to ignore human nature. Even Rand seems guilty of this.
Humans tend to do the minimum required to achieve the maximum gain. If
this means letting someone else do the work, all the better.
Now I enjoyed both Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead. But many of the
characters and concept were far from realistic. And even the basic
premise might be considered flawed. But if nothing else they both were
interesting reads. That mostly taught you a lot about Rand and her
internal landscape...
>
>> And how did they plan on keeping out the "riff-raff"?
>
>
> That engine-killing invisibility screen seemed to be a real good
> start.
But that isn't going to stop people on foot. And once one person
discovers the Gulch and its functioning (possibly functioning...) social
structure they are going to start heading there... if you build it, they
will come... and there are a WHOLE lot more people that would want to
"use" the Gulch than those that would want to join in and help...
--
Tetsubo
My page: http://home.comcast.net/~tetsubo/
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on uniformity
of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <)
/_|_\
|
