The New Orleans Disaster and the Line on 'John Galt'

Box Office Mojo ^ | 9/2/2005 | Scott Holleran

[Colonel Kangaroo]

The New Orleans Disaster and the Line on 'John Galt' September 2, 2005

"...It was supposed to be a light column about this and that, with a brief update on a movie adaptation of my favorite novel, Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged..."

[steve-b]

"metrics of success," which can be defined many different ways

Like "alone," "sex," and "is."

[r9etb]

Your "consistent" definition is irrelevant. In the context of philosophical discussion, the distinction between "objective" and "subjective" is not merely the difference between reality as it actually is and reality as we are best able to apprehend it through our finite senses and knowledge -- it is, instead, the more fundamental difference between a fixed universe "out there" and a malleable universe inside your head. By invoking the former and implying the latter, you are (as a matter of objective fact) pulling a clintonesque switcheroo.

You're the one pulling the old switcheroo, steve. Moreover, you're doing it by providing your own, highly convenient, definition of "subjective."

As it happens, my use of the term "subjective" is uniformly consistent with the dictionary definition -- a highly relevant fact, in the sense that a) I did not make it up; and b) it is the definition that actually fits the scenario provided.

[steve-b]

Oh, puh-leeze. By your irrelevant definition, there is no such thing as "objective" analysis, because the facts available to humans are merely the best available approximation to the real situation (and therefore "subjective").

By this line of "reasoning", a surveyor who makes a 1/4" error in fixing the souther border of California is no less "subjective" than an Aztlan nut case who thinks the whole state rightfully belongs to Mexico.

[r9etb]

By your irrelevant definition, there is no such thing as "objective" analysis, because the facts available to humans are merely the best available approximation to the real situation (and therefore "subjective").

Well, that's a problem for you, steve, isn't it? You're the one who's making large claims about your ability to discern objective reality.

It's also amusing that you've achieved yet another objectivist stereotype by dismissing the dictionary definition of a word as "irrelevant," apparently because it is inconvenient to your position. That's not even a mistake on your part: it's plain old intellectual dishonesty.

But we're still talking about a particular scenario. It's a plain and simple "judgement call" as to whether a perceived threat is sufficient to violate the supposedly inviolabe "non-initiation" principle. It's a subjective judgement, according to the dictionary definition of the word. Thus, DC's absolute statement is still not correct.

By this line of "reasoning", a surveyor who makes a 1/4" error in fixing the souther border of California is no less "subjective" than an Aztlan nut case who thinks the whole state rightfully belongs to Mexico.

Well, first off you've got a problem, in that the southern border of California is not objective in the first place, but was in fact defined through a process of warfare and diplomacy, neither of which are particularly objective things.

Second, you're comparing apples and oranges -- surveyor's errors and nationalist claims are not the same thing. This mistake is unfortunately par for the course for you on this thread: you make a ridiculous statement and then attribute it to me. Not buying it ... again.

But if we decide to overlook the difficulties with your setup of the problem, we must still deal with the problem that surveyors cannot make absolutely precise measurements. Even if we say that the border at this exact longitude occurs at this exact latitude, measurement uncertainties mean that there will be uncertainty in our knowledge of exactly where the border lies. Thus, when we are close to the border, within the tolerances of our measurements, questions of national boundaries do in fact become difficult to answer. Is the Mexican National standing "right there" in California, or in Mexico? Do US or Mexican laws apply to some particular thing he's doing? If you get two honest surveyors, and they put him in different countries, which of them do you believe?

So here again is a case where lack of sure knowledge forces you to make a judgement call: in the limit, and in practice, uncertainties in our measurements can reduce the "objective" border to a subjective one.

[muir_redwoods]

"I'd say anyone who thinks that they can positively know that there is no God is a superstitious person."

Atheism certainly takes as much faith as any religion, so agnosticism sounds like a position whereby no superstition is involved. Religion, quite obviously, is "based on wants, emotions, traditions and feelings."

[Colonel Kangaroo]

I don't think a superstitious mindset is the way to examine the Bible. There are too many appeals to logic and reason. For instance, the sermons found in the book of Acts are logical arguments, not mere emotional appeals. The way to look at the New Testament is to examine the evidence both for and against its claims. Does one believe that it is the inspired word of God, complete in itself for every good work. (II Timothy 3:16-17, Jude 3, II Peter 1:3) or does one believe that it was just a fraud perpetrated over a short period of time by a number of men over different areas amazingly coordinating their far-flung deceit into a unified whole?

[muir_redwoods]

"...coordinating their far-flung deceit into a unified whole?"

Unified whole? the bible is a mass of contradictions and errors spanning centuries exacerbated by competing translations and malevolently opposed interpretations. One can justify almost anything with the words of the bible and it contains references to witches, giants, possession by demons and lots of other typically superstitious subjects.

Thanks but no thanks, I am very happy to leave the received wisdom of a people who spent 40 years making a 19 day trek accross the desert behind.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Unified whole? the bible is a mass of contradictions and errors spanning centuries exacerbated by competing translations and malevolently opposed interpretations. One can justify almost anything with the words of the bible and it contains references to witches, giants, possession by demons and lots of other typically superstitious subjects

Where in the Bible does it say that witches had magical power? The condemnation of witches was that they presumed to speak for God, not that they had supernatural powers. The giants were of one nationality and were not the 50 foot monsters of fairy tales but just extremely large men. Demon possession was a first century phenomenon associated with the verification of the New Testament. If you read Mark 16:16-20, you can see that the casting out of demons were part of the verification of the apostles teaching. I Corinthians 13:8-13 states that the miraculous gifts were to be done away with the revelation of the word was complete. When the revelation was complete, the miraculous ceased and I believe the demon possession passed away as well. I think if one gives the Bible a fair hearing, one can see that there are no real contradictions and it fits together perfectly. If you do not believe the Bible, you have to believe it is a magnificent fraud perpetrated by evil men willing to die for the meager earthly rewards of such a message.

[muir_redwoods]

Sorry, I read the bible. Then later, I grew up. You can keep it.

[Texas Jack]

"While it is too soon to pinpoint the particulars, the anarchy in the Bayou is undeniably related to the widespread irrationality—the refusal to think—..."

Not the refusal to think, they demonstrated the inability to think.

"...they have lost the ability to think for themselves. They have lost the ability to react to their basic survival instincts. They cannot get out of the ditch and continue their march to safety after Katrina has strafed them." CLICK HERE

I can't get the image out of my mind of Mayor Nagin sitting next to his fax machine the day after Katrina blew through wondering why his daily talking points from the DNC haven't arrived.

[steve-b]

It's also amusing that you've achieved yet another objectivist stereotype by dismissing the dictionary definition of a word as "irrelevant,"

It most certainly is irrelevant, as it is not the one that pertains to the case at hand.

For instance, if one is measuring the rotational speed of a child's top, you would presumably obfuscate the issue by dragging in the upper surface of an object, the dominant partner of an S&M pairing, et cetera -- it says right there in the dictionary that that's what "top" means, after all.

And then you would assert that the entire measurement is subjective, since it is a judgment call whether the result is 247.1 rpm, 247.8 rpm, or any of the infinity of numbers in between.

Well, first off you've got a problem, in that the southern border of California is not objective in the first place, but was in fact defined through a process of warfare and diplomacy, neither of which are particularly objective things.

Nonsense. It is a matter of historical fact that the United States beat Mexico to the point where the latter sued for peace. It is a matter of objective fact that both sides agreed upon a new boundary in a location which is defined by geographical facts, not personal opinions.

These phenomena may be "subjective" to a person who can assert with a straight face that there are no American troops within a hundred miles, even as they are in fact closing in on him, but they are nevertheless "objective" in reality.

[r9etb]

Steve or the dictionary -- who to believe....?

Sorry, steve, but I'm just not interested in watching you wallow in your ideology anymore.

[DoctorMichael]

Interesting article.

The Katrina story reminds me of the scene in ATLAS SHRUGGED in which all the passengers died when the train they were riding in entered a tunnel with a broken ventilation system. Rand wraps the scene in the inner thoughts of those about to innocently meet their deaths. The decision to drive the train through the tunnel was made due to a combination of bureaucratic incompetence, imbicility, and non-thinking by those in charge.

The last thing the passengers see is Wyatt's Torch. A very haunting scene, indeed!

The New Orleans Mayor and the Governor deserve the "Atlas Shrugged Award for Incompetence Leading to the Most Citizen Deaths".

[Rate_Determining_Step]

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

If a Christian's happiness is manifested in a rational desire to reach Heaven and avoid Hell while taking others with him, that'd seem consistent.

Here is the missing element of Objectivism that many "Christian Objectivists" miss entirely. From an academic treatment, it is the subject of epistimology. Objectivism holds that reason is the only tool for acquiring knowledge. This differs fundamentally from religion in that a base "leap of faith" must be made.

Some will argue around the edges that there's a scientific approach to God. But as Martin Luther said, "To be a Christian, you must pluck out the eye of reason". No mincing of words there. In the end, you must believe.

An Objectivist must be swayed by logical argument and facts. One of the most powerful words to an Objectivist is "why?".

In my personal experience with Christians in moments of deep questions and candor, many would have a hard time of things like death, how the world was created, etc. They ask if I as an Objectivist has problems with that. To which I answer, yeah, it would be nice to know some things that are not knowable, but I would rather deal with a no-answer situation than a made up answer I don't really believe.

I can live with the fact that I don't know for sure how the universe was created. And as far as death is concerned, as Miss Rand herself put it. Life is not a dress rehearsal. I try to live life with that in mind.

[Sloth]

An Objectivist must be swayed by logical argument and facts.

My religion is entirely based on my assessment of available evidence. I have no interest in 'blind faith' or adopting beliefs just because my parents had them, etc.

I have never been to the Bering Strait, but I believe (based on rational evidence) that such a place *does* exist between Siberia and Alaska (neither of which I've visited) and has been accurately described in atlases and such. My belief in God is fundamentally no different.