HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: amck@rowdy.mcc.com (Alan McKendree)
Subject: Re: Fountainhead: The Motion Picture
Organization: MCC, Austin, Texas
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:29:17 GMT

In article <107414@bu.edu> ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
>In article <1993Jan16.210500.5960@zip.eecs.umich.edu> positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan Haas) writes:
>>Someone recently informed me that there was a movie based on The Fountainhead...
>>1) Is it a good movie?
>>2) How true is it to the book (which is one of my favorites)?
>
>I can't tell you how true it is to the book, but Rand did write the
>screenplay herself (and it shows).
>
>I found the film moderately enjoyable. It does feature some very spiffy
>photography. The dialogue is unnatural and wooden, the characters
>are totally unbelievable, and the situations creakingly artificial,
>but I imagine fans of Rand would see things differently.

I'm a "fan of Rand", and I agree with your assessment of the movie.
While I like the book very much, it did not translate well to the
screen.  In addition to your remarks, I also found it choppy to watch;
many short scenes jumping to other short scenes.  It _is_ "true to the
book", in the sense that it follows the events of the book closely.

I guess the best pocket review of the movie is that, 4 years after
having seen it, I remember almost nothing of it.

BTW, in response to another posting in this thread, a production
company _has_ bought the movie rights to _Atlas_ and is actively
planning a production.

And in a final point, the best adaptation of a book to film _I_ have
ever seen is "Manhunter," the film adaptation of _Red Dragon_, which
is Thomas Harris's book immediately preceding _The Silence of the
Lambs_.  A brilliant job of screenwriting, done by Harris himself,
although he tried to get his name dropped from the film when they
wrewrote the ending.  I highly recommend both the book _and_ the
movie, each of which are IMHO better than _Silence_.


-- 
Alan McKendree          Opinions posted by me are mine, only.
amck@rowdy.mcc.com         Who/Little Feat/racquetball/Rand
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: cole@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Sandra Stewart-Cole)
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:24:06 GMT

You seem to be undermining your own argument. Either the Bible is a set of true
statements of fact, or it is not. To wiggle out of the problems in Literalism,
you take on the classic argument of translation and interprative errors as an 
out. That is a fine argument as used in ordinary religious discussion, but it 
makes pretty useless any attempt to use it to provide a base for a logical 
proof. 
In addition, to justify this you apologize for God being locked in time and 
unable to either write the Bible in every language that would ever be, or to 
establish a static language to write it in. So: God is not omnipotent. That 
makes a proof of his existence pretty useless. He can't tell the future, nor 
guide the progress of langauges, nor even inspire translators and theologians 
to always get it right. What a wimp you are proving God to be. NO THANKS!
From: 5g72wheelerj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John C. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: RE: GOD
Date: 26 Jan 1993 12:24:12 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 5g72wheelerj@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsd.csd.mu.edu

Well, my first inclination is to wonder how you're going to navigate 
morality in a deterministic conception of the universe (reaction, not
action, etc.)  Perhaps I'm not interpreting you correctly, but at
first you seem to be asserting a rather Skinnerian position, and then
shifting.  At any rate, if everything is purely material, andM{ humans
only react, there can be no such thing as a "moral choice," since
actions are all determined; morality only exists in any meaningful
way when agents are able to choose freely between alternatives . . .
This is just my first impression, and correct me if I've read you
wrong thus far.

John WHeeler, Milwaukee, Wisconsinn
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Deliberate Ignorance
Date: 28 Jan 93 17:20:32 GMT
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <C1JEup.5yK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> czeller@ih-nxt05.cso.uiuc.edu
 (Christopher M Zeller) writes:

   >We encourage challenges,  
   >but if certain statements are logically derived, assuming that their  
   >premisis upon which their logic is based is correct, only by overturning  
   >those premisis, can they be proven untrue.

  Judging by these comments, you believe in the existence of Objectivist
statements logically derived from Objectivist premisses. I have a special
interest in this, and I wonder if you could give an example of such a
derivation?

   >(i.e. it is unlikely that  
   >Newton's laws will be overturned, however they were ammended whith the  
   >discovery of quantum mechanics.)

  I don't see that any sense can be made of this, but I don't suppose it
is essential to any explanation of Objectivist logical derivations.
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Ignoring the  Unknown
Date: 26 Jan 93 02:09:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <TORKEL.93Jan25182022@anhur.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes...
>In article <1993Jan25.162340.11111@fcom.cc.utah.edu> leon@cs.weber.edu 
>(Leon D. Atkinson) writes:
> 
> >In other words, since you tried to understand reality, failed and gave up,
> >you find it insulting that anyone else would be successful.  This is the same
> >thing as congressional 'Soak the Rich.'  Punish those that are successful
> >BECAUSE they are successful.
> 
>  I submit that the Scientologists are a lot more successful than the
>Objectivists. Not only do they thoroughly understand reality, but they make
>a lot of money out of it.


	The Scientologists are a lot more successful at conning people
out of their money.  That aspect of reality they do understand.


Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Clinton & Kant
Date: 28 Jan 93 05:31:14 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <C1H4M9.I8M@umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:
>... _Critique of Pure Reason_ ...
>and to sum up the preceding, President Slickwillie's Inaugural Address ..

An interesting recitation of Randian boogerbears. I defy you, however,
to cite the slightest connection whatsoever between the Critique of
Pure Reason (which I assume you have never read) and Clinton's address.
Is it that both deny that A=A???
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Reason Magazine
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 12:22:50 GMT

In article <1jejn8INN505@pandora.sdsu.edu> misselt@trapper.sdsu.edu.sdsu.edu (Karl &) writes:
}	I haven't subscribed to 'Reason' in a while (not due to divergence 
}	in ideas, just haven't gotten around to renewing my subscribtion).
}	It's essentially a magazine for the Libertarian party.

You mean libertarian movement, not party.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: LAST POST!
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:37:20 GMT

In article <C1E6sn.I6n@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Richard Lamb) writes:
>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>
>>well, thanks for putting something interesting in the newsgroup,
>>but frankly, i was quite disappointed with your arguments. your position
>>has many serious holes in it, and i can't seriously believe that
>>you actually think you have answered them sufficiently.
>>...
>>if you can actually make an argument like this, and still think
>>after reading all the counter-arguments that your "proof" is valid,
>>well, that must be the best way i could think of of demonstrating
>>that belief in God requires faith -- because that is the only way
>>an intelligent person could stand by your arguments.
>
>>thanks for your efforts though.
>
>Couldn't let me get away without taking a cheap shot? Ok. I'll let you
>get away with it this time. :-) Remember it's all in good humor.

well, Jeff, i wasn't trying to take a cheap shot (i thought i was
reasonably polite..) 
you started this thread with a supposed proof and (i thought) a promise
to respond to serious challenges to it. i made one, to which you didn't
respond, because you were flooded with responses--fine, it's your time,
not mine. i just wanted to state that i was disappointed with how the
debate turned out, and that my points were not addressed.
you also claimed that you addressed successfully the points to which you
responded, and i claim you did no such thing.

as for the last paragraph i wrote--i stand by it. i think you would
have to turn off your mind in order to still believe that proof of yours
even after all the holes have been pointed out. just my opinion, no hard
feelings intended, but you show the classic behavior of unshakable faith--
refusal to be disproven.

-=-
charles
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: gambit@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Private Roads in an Objectivist Society
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 04:42:03 GMT
Keywords: Private Roads

In article <1993Jan22.120645.17892@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <C10Fo2.M5A@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>}starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>}>frankp@galena.bellcore.com (Frank Perez) writes:
>}
>}>}This might sound a little ridiculous, but what if I own a house and the local
>}>}road is owned by someone else and that person does not let me use his road.
>}>}I now have a house but I cannot enter it because all the local streets
>}>}surrounding the house are owned by this person who will not let me use his
>}>}road. Do you see a possible problem ?
>}
>}>First, this market failure would be rare.  Second, few juries would convict
>}>you of tresspassing unless you did much damage as a result.
>}
>}The question is how rare it would be, and what level of failure
>}would be tolerable in such a society.  People do get into feuds,
>}and bear grudges.  As far as damage goes, the road owner could
>}do something like put a streetlight right in front of the driveway
>}of the houseowner, so getting a car in and out would knock it down.
>
>The rarity would be great that any homeowner would sell away their property
>right in the road leading away from their driveway.
>
>}If this ever gets to the jury stage, does it not seem like a
>}ridiculous waste of resources?
>
>Yep.
>
This question was discussed by a friend (who is a city planner in Pennsylvania)
and I.  We were attempting to figure out the optimal way for people living
in residential areas to deal with the problem of roads, as well as other
things such as fire departments and emergency services.

We finally realized that the best way to deal with such a situation would be
to have a "Homeowner's Association" in which all residents of the neighborhood
would own a share (included in the cost of a house).  This takes care of the
road problem.  Emergency services would be handled by payments made to the
HA.  (And if someone didn't pay, they could be sued, lose their right to the
services, etc.)

Definitely would be cheaper than property taxes!


------------------------------------------------

Benjamin W. Lagow
Grad Res Asst, Dept. of Materials Science and Engineering
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Richard Lamb)
Subject: LAST POST!
Summary: Last post of Jeff R. Lamb
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 05:39:29 GMT

Unfortunately, (or as some would say, fortunately), I can't keep up with
all these posts. I have college work to do after all. Because of this I
am going to have to exit stage left. I have a couple more comebacks, but
after those get posted I will be finished.
I'd like to thank everyone who answered my post. It made me think. Some
things made me want to do a little more research.
As to changing my mind, I didn't see much encouragement in my views from
you all, but I didn't expect any so that's no big deal. I have always
held that truth isn't a matter of math. (Ayn Rand). Though I stand alone
I still stand. I doubt I have convinced anyone to adopt my view, but
again that wasn't my purpose. I wanted to put my idea up against some
really sharp minds (consider yourselves complimented). I was able to
answer all your attacks (sufficent for me if not for you), and I guess
what I wanted from the whole thing. Thanks again. Be forewarned, I will
be working and I will return some time when I can devote a week to answering
all these challenges with the time they demand. Until that time I shall
wish you all a great life, and after if you believe in such things. :-)
Later all.

-- 
H. Ross Perot | "How do you always manage to    | Jeff R. Lamb
for President | decide?" 			| Midnight Arrow
of the United | "How do you let others decide   | Champion of Reality
States in '96 | for you?"	   -Ayn Rand 	| (jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: svanegmo@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Stephen Van Egmond)
Subject: Re: Evidence for the market
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:49:59 GMT

What I meant by "public good" is not "a good used by the public at large".  The
textbook I was referring to was a good that would not be provided by the public at
large, because the marginal cost of adding one extra customer is virually zero.
This means constantly decreasing average total costs (which, for normal goods,
increases beyond a given point).  The upshot of all this is that nobody will
subscribe to this, because they anticipate that their neighbour will do so.

This is not meaningless socialist dribble.  It is human nature.  I think
that laissez-faire is the best system on earth for allowing (man|woman)kind
to reach their goals and realize their dreams by exercising their intellect
and drive.  I don't especially _like_ the notion that there are some services
that must be provided by the government because the free market cannot (or will
not, in the long run).  However, I find the justification for such government-
provided services logical, and therefore I accept it.

                                                                  ,,,
                                                                 (o o)
+------------------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo---+
| Stephen Van Egmond (Power Station)        svanegmond@descartes.uwaterloo.ca
| "Let's make sure history never forgets the name 'Enterprise'."
|                                           - Picard, "Yesterday's Enterprise"

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Ignoring the  Unknown
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 04:17:25 GMT

    I marvel that there are so many philosophers with so little to
say. This obviously can't mean that things aren't being said, a great
deluge of verbiage does weigh this news_group down, but rather what is
being said isn't useful in any fundamental way.
   Consider the etymology of the term, philosophy. In its most literal
sense it means a love of wisdom, in its current usage, however, it means
the appearence of wisdom, which is not the same thing. What I have
observed here is not a search for Truth, which search is the very
essence of wisdom, but rather the establishment of conclusions. Since
some apparently are convinced they already are in full possession of
the Truth, there is no search and therefore wisdom is not their goal.
   Having found the Truth, their efforts are now focused on convincing
everyone else. This cannot be philosophy then, but is rather ideology,
something very different. Objectivists (or any other "ist" for that
matter) have abandoned any -search- for Truth since they possess it
already and cannot therefore call their calling, philosophy.
   The problem though, is that everyone else is also convinced that
their understanding is based on their possession of the Truth. Either
there is only one Truth, or Truth is an abstraction having no
corresponding existence in reality. Since all philosophy assumes, a
priori, the existence of Truth (the quintessence of wisdom), and since
all ideologies pretend to be philosophies, it seems obvious that
everyone agrees that Truth is real.
   It is also obvious that we can't all be right. But here is the very
point that causes all the trouble. To those holding to some ideology,
the basic premise must be that they have sufficient knowledge (data)
to reach a conclusion. Following that is the premise that their
conclusions are correct. Of all the possiblities in this universe,
there are two that must be excluded at the outset if an ideology is to
flourish: the first is that the ideologist does not have perfect knowledge 
(omniscience) and the second that he/she does not perfectly understand that 
knowledge (omnipotence).
   Sorry, but that seems a little much. I will accept that people can
differ on what they think they know and that they can misunderstand
what they do know; this is after all what makes conversation interesting.
What I can't accept is any claim to certainty; there's just something
so arrogant about it that it has the opposite of the intended affect;
I refuse to even consider the point argued.

Bill


Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: abell@netcom.com (Steven T. Abell)
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 09:18:59 GMT

zell@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Joseph Zell) writes:
>robm@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Rob McCool) writes:

>>This example is not a good one. The THEORY of Relativity is just that: a
>>  theory. It has not been proven, even though the tests we are currently
>>  able to use show that it is true. However, there are a lot of holes in
>>  the theory which are unknown, and they remain precisely that. Unknown.
>>  To say that these holes must act how we expect them to is speculation
>>  and inference, not fact or logic. If one of these holes is disproven, 
>>  another theory will come along. And it will be just that. A theory.

>Science and Religion are treated very differently in that respect.  Look
>at the THEORY of Evolution.  Yet many atheists out there cite it as 
>FACT. School board can teach the THEORY of Evolution, but not the THEORY
>of Creation.  Well, if it's only a Theory, then they should examine other
>theories as well.  I don't want to start a seperation of church and state
>argument :) but my point is that many (most?) people will use an unproven
>theory put forth by science as absolute, irrefutable, can't be any other
>way FACT, while a religious theory is judged by the fact that not everything
>is there, so it's false. At least, that is the mindset I see a lot.  Nothing
>will be accomplished in these discussions until the bias as gone.

Nothing will be accomplished by this particular argument *ever*.
It demonstrates an incredible ignorance on the part of the speaker.
(You're posting from an *edu* site???!!?)

A theory is a model of reality, or some part of it. While many people
use the word "theory" when they mean anything from "hypothesis" to
"wild-ass guess", the theories of evolution and relativity are not in
this category. They are based on verifiable observation (not unverifiable
revelation), and can be used to predict or relate observations that will
be made in the future. These further observations may allow refinements
in an existing theory, or force the formation of others, but in all cases,
observation drives the process, while inspiration integrates it. In the
case of so-called "creation theory", inspiration drives the process, and
observation is forced to conform, even when it doesn't.

In legitimate discussions, the word "theory" isn't used casually.
Human beings live by forming accurate theories and using them. They die
or live in misery and squalor when they undercut their means of survival by
saying ridiculous things like "It's just a theory." How many newspaper
and magazine articles have you read that talk about some wretched corner
of the earth that is described as "...one of the poorest, but most religious
parts of this country..." It's almost a cliche'. There's enough evidence
that one might be able to construct a theory based on these observations.

Unless, of course, one is blind and deaf and has an IQ expressed in
strongly negative numbers.

Steve abell@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: godel theorem and godel theorem ....(Re: Where's
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:21:35 GMT

In article <C19vEv.FqC@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cole@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu 
(Sandra Stewart-Cole) writes:

  >It [Godel's theorem] shows that logical deduction is insufficient
  >to explain anything complex no matter how many starting axioms you take.

  How would you say that Godel's theorem shows this?

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: bishai@dvs.com (Sam Bishai)
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown (FLAME)
Organization: Digital Video Systems
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:13:25 GMT

Well, I haven't read all the posts regarding this subject, but the ones I have
looked at seem to have a bit of a warped view of Objectivism Ethics.

Objectivism Ethics, as I understand it, is based on the life of a human being
as a human being.  The virtue of selfishness arises from that, because to live
as a human being, you must be free to make your own choices, without society
infringing on your rights.  The most basic of these rights, is the right to
live, and it is from this right that all others are based on. 

Now, in the case presented of Howard Roark being able to save a drowning man,
with no threat to his life; Roark would save that person, without any doubt
in my mind.  As an aside, the picture of Roark, idily basking in his glory is
not an image I would associate with that character.  That sort of idleness
is not commensurate with a person portrayed to be one who uses his mind,
actively, for creating and producing.  But this is beside the point.  Even
if he was designing the most impressive structure he ever built, I think
he would save this person.  He is trading the value of a moment of his time,
to give life back to a person.  I think that every moment of his time has
value, but it would be by no means a real sacrifice to use whatever time it
takes to save this man's life.  This would be the ethical thing to do.  The
basis of Objectivism ethics IS the life of a human being as a human being.

Now, if the situation was life threatening to Roark, that would be a different
question.  First of all, what would the risk to his own life be?  Is it a
dear friend in trouble, or a complete stranger?  It WOULD be immoral for him
to sacrifice his life to save a complete stranger.  This is not to say, that
an objectivist would not give up his/her life in a situation.  Ayn Rand has
stated in one of her lectures (I forget at this time, which one), that she
would stand in the path of a speeding bullet to save her husband.  It is not
immoral to save the life of someone whom you value as much as life itself.



Baldwyn Chieh

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism