One Man's Meat, Another Man's Poison
I don't agree with all the ideas presented here, but is this hate speech? And is Gary Cooper advocating a hate crime against the Earth? Is he a Climate Criminal? Generally speaking. Click more to listen.
One of the most fascinating aspects of this speech is that it forces a rediscovery of some of the unstated assumptions that govern our lives. A moderately well educated man would immediately think: well, whoever wrote this speech had never heard of "intergenerational borrowing" -- that claim which the future has upon us. Surely a man who "lives for himself" lives outside the stream of humanity. But then who exactly makes this claim on behalf of future humanity, except people who live in the present? So the even the question of "intergenerational borrowing" may not be as clear-cut as we think.
It may be put forward that we accept the restrictions of community in order to further our own self-interest. We give up something to the crowd because we expect something back from it. But if that is the case then we have an individual interest in the survival of our own communities: that to which we gave and from which we expect recompense. We have a vested interest in the survival of our culture.
But hold on, haven't we arrived at a justification for ethnocentrism? Isn't that a refutation of multiculturalism? Mark Steyn, with his eye for the absurd, sees what a tangle we have gotten into by upholding all the unstated assumptions that throng our lives uncritically until they lead to irreconcilable contradictions. Writing in The Corner, Mark Steyn quotes the Times of London on the dim view the Greens have taken of large families.
Having Large Families 'Is An Eco-Crime'. Having large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a 4x4 car and failing to reuse plastic bags, according to a report to be published tomorrow by a green think tank. ...
John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said...: “The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.”
That gives Steyn the opening to draw the immediate and irrefutable conclusion.
In those terms, surely the greatest thing everyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to reduce his carbon footprint to zero by killing himself. The United Kingdom's present fertility rate is not three children or even two but 1.6 or 1.7, and the British will be extinct long before the polar bear. And when the self-loathing westerners are gone how many Yemeni imams will want to man the late shift at the local Greenpeace office?
Which brings us back to the Gary Cooper speech in the movie The Fountainhead. What he's saying must be true to the extent that if we do not care for ourselves, we cannot pretend to care for our values, nor the larger community that preserves these values. If the value of an individual is zero, then the summation of a succession of zeros is zero. If you believe that it is nonzero then amazingly enough the true value of environmentalism -- real environmentalism -- is not to serve Gaia but to serve man. I'd better stop here. Too many heresies already.
posted by wretchardthecat at 5/09/2007 09:42:00 PM
43 Comments:
Basic gibberish. He couldn't have built whatever it was he blew up without the grade school teacher the middle school teacher the high school teacher the college teacher the engineering school the concrete truck driver the carpenters the timber industry the makers of nails the glass makers and couldn't make his case other than in a court of law which requires....
Both Jesus Christ and Karl Marx would have disagreed.
Kinda sounds like a good lions roar though.
Ever since the fertile crescent and the coming of farming, and even before, we have been dependent upon one another. Even the monks depend upon one another.
Yes, and they trade amonst one another for equal measures of value. Roark provided the plan which no one else could devise. He did not ask for money. He asked for creative integrity. He did not get it.
So because someone did something for you once, you rlife is not your own? You cannot ask to sign your painting or sculpture? You cannot have it presented without fig leaves or censorship?
If Mark Twain was told that Huck Finn could not be published as long as it included words like "nigger" or "hell," would he have had the right to burn the manuscript?
More to the point, would some Solomon Grundy, Rupert Murdoch or Wal-Mart of the era have the right to take the manuscript, make substitutions like "African-American" or "perdition," and publish it, arrogating the rights and revenues?
Architecture is a form of art. If the artist has no creative rights because "someone else needs it," who in their right minds would create? Or creating, publish?
All they had to do was to not crap around with the design. Was that soooooo hard?
Remember that no one was harmed in the destruction of Cortlandt Homes. Only property, which many of the collectivists likewise scorn, except perhaps when it is public property.
Government mandates of our era have been easily so destructive in effect - for every legitimate asbestos scare, there are dozens of cases whee a nontoxic form of the material is used or the material is safely buried and the only harm possible is exactly in the unearthing. Look at carbon credits. Look at Kelo. Look at Kyoto.
It seems for some there are no absolutes - except the government.
Dennis Miller had Robert Spencer as a guest.
He says one thing the left shares with Jihadis which bonds them is a utopian vision they are willing to impose by use of force.
---
Miller's neighbor, Peter Noone (Herman) of Herman's Hermits also dropped in.
The perfect example of a non-selfcentered celebrity.
Great stories he willingly shares with anyone.
---
mp3 available here:
http://www.dennismillerradio.com/
---
Garret Hardin enjoyed discussing altruistic behavior in man and beast, and the biological and Darwinian implications and explanations.
---
Like all snake oil salesmen, Al Gore and John Edwards are dependent on gullible sheep to lap up their hogwash.
"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.
And we need your help. Please support the Wikimedia Foundation by donating today."
"Architecture is a form of art. If the artist has no creative rights because "someone else needs it," who in their right minds would create? Or creating, publish?"
---
Many examples of different models on the internet, from open source software to intermediate licensing schemes, and an almost infinite number of communities where people of like interest share opinions, knowledge, and creations.
Doug, this is nonresponsive. Allowing that since 1968 the Internet has expanded the range of ownership models, does that mean traditional forms of intellectual property are obsolete? Should they be forcibly obsoleted?
It would be ad hominem to wonder what it is you want to steal, and what you have to offer in return, so I won't. But if this is the best you have to offer, I don't think Stephen King or Chris Ofili or for that matter Frank Gehry have much to say to you.
As for open source, China among others seem to be inconvenienced not at all in the suppression of freedom in an open source society.
When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. Sure, you have Linus Torvalds and a bunch of pornographers, but talk about standing on the shoulders of giants!
Let me put it to you this way: how do people get paid in your world?
"Doug, this is nonresponsive. Allowing that since 1968 the Internet has expanded the range of ownership models, does that mean traditional forms of intellectual property are obsolete? Should they be forcibly obsoleted?"
---
Who said that?
Who implied that?
In the real world, everything is not mutually exclusive.
In London, prowling for cat tales
On the trail of felines' role in the British capital's history and legends.
James Boswell mentioned Hodge in his massive biography
"Life of Johnson":
"I recollect him one day scrambling up Dr. Johnson's breast ...; and when I observed he was a fine cat, saying, 'Why yes, Sir, but I have had cats whom I liked better than this'; and then as if perceiving Hodge to be out of countenance, adding, 'but he is a very fine cat, a very fine cat indeed.' "
Across from Dr. Johnson's House, 17 Gough Square; 011-44-20-7353-3745, www.drjohnsonshouse.org.
---
Golden cat...
As for Linus:
A lot of the fastest Supercomputers in the World run on Linux!
Utilized by Giants like IBM.
So in other words you are entirely uninterested in Wretchard's poat. Fine, go ahead and talk up open source. But even open source has licenses.
Newton's Arian beliefs
Now Newton, who felt that his mission was more to study religion than science, certainly did not stop at reading the King James version of the Bible, but rather read all original versions he could, learning the necessary ancient languages. He discovered that the final phrase 'and these three are one' was not present in any Greek version that he studied.
Newton came to the conclusion that it was a deliberate addition to the text to provide justification for the doctrine of the Trinity. He wrote down a list of twelve reasons why he was an Arian.
Now of course it was not acceptable for people to hold views considered heresy by the Church, so
after Newton's death this list, and his other theological writings, were marked "Not fit to be printed".
They were stored and were not read by anyone until Keynes acquired them in 1936.
My point was people sometimes create things of great value in the absence of monetary or even societal reward.
That Fountainhead is pure fantasy. Unless she’s building a tool shed in her back garden, an architect must coordinate with her own team, MEP engineers, structural engineers, cost consultants, security consultants, landscape consultants, town planning officials, building permit officials, fire officials, the end users; comply with all appropriate codes and regulations, and worst of all; satisfy the client who actually pays for the construction (and hopefully the architect's fees). Once you jump over all those hurdles it’s time to start dealing with the contractors and construction workers who actually build the building. Ayn Rand could not have selected a less appropriate profession with which to try illustrate her lone-genius theory.
We occasionally hear a milder version of that Howard Roark speech from recent graduates but sadly it doesn’t take long before reality turns them into mini versions of Peter Keating. In fact the real world tends to follow the Hegelian dialectic in that one needs the thesis (Roark or individualism) and anti-thesis (Keating or collectivism) to come to the correct synthesis (civilization).
That said the Greens in Britain are idiots. All that having one less child will do is mean that there will be room for one more immigrant will sneak her way into Britain.
Our dreams are the only dreams that we know. That's our curse and our glory. Why do we love underdog stories? Because we are the ultimate underdogs.
The most wildly improbable thought in all the universe is that some individual, some person for a time should be the center of it. That we should worth some story itself is winning against the odds.
The day may come when we flow into the River of the Arrow and all of our longings join those of everyone else. But until then our song is our own. God wants hear to it. He will want to hear no other.
French mathematician Joseph-Louis Lagrange often said that Newton was the greatest genius who ever lived, and once added that he was also
"the most fortunate, for we cannot find more than once a system of the world to establish."[33]
English poet Alexander Pope was moved by Newton's accomplishments to write the famous epitaph:
“ Nature and nature's laws lay hid in night;
God said "Let Newton be" and all was light.
For Tocqueville the concept was "Self interest properly understood." What goes around comes around, Dude.
Now the Enviros want to treat apes like peiple so they can treat people like apes.
How much integrity do you want your doctor to have? Lots--until it looks like he's insane (and wrong?). Then you point out it's his profession but your body.
How does one weigh self-interest vis-a-vis the common good? Are the "moderate Republicans" detailed below acting out of self-interest, or are they responsive to the needs and wishes of citizens who would vote them out if they were not? If they stick by the President, what of "the political reality next year"? Ah, Leadership!
May 10, 2007
G.O.P. Moderates Warn Bush Iraq Must Show Gains
By CARL HULSE and JEFF ZELENY
WASHINGTON, May 9 — Moderate Republicans gave President Bush a blunt warning on his Iraq policy at a private White House meeting this week, telling the president that conditions needed to improve markedly by fall or more Republicans would desert him on the war.
The White House session demonstrated the grave unease many Republicans are feeling about the war, even as they continue to stand with the president against Democratic efforts to force a withdrawal of forces through a spending measure that has been a flash point for weeks.
Participants in the Tuesday meeting between Mr. Bush, senior administration officials and 11 members of a moderate bloc of House Republicans said the lawmakers were unusually candid with the president, telling him that public support for the war was crumbling in their swing districts.
One told Mr. Bush that voters back home favored a withdrawal even if it meant the war was judged a loss. Representative Tom Davis told Mr. Bush that the president’s approval rating was at 5 percent in one section of his northern Virginia district.
“It was a tough meeting in terms of people being as frank as they possibly could about their districts and their feelings about where the American people are on the war,” said Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois, who took part in the session, which lasted more than an hour in the residential section of the White House. “It was a no-holds-barred meeting.”
Several of the Republican moderates who visited the White House have already come under political attack at home for their support of Mr. Bush and survived serious Democratic challenges in November.
Representative Charles W. Dent of Pennsylvania, a co-chairman of the Tuesday Group, an alliance of about 30 moderate Republican lawmakers, helped arrange the meeting. He said lawmakers wanted to convey the frustration and impatience with the war they are hearing from voters. “We had a very frank conversation about the situation in Iraq,” he said. Even so, the Republicans who attended the White House session indicated that they would maintain solidarity with Mr. Bush for now by opposing the latest Democratic proposal for two-stage financing of war, which is scheduled for a vote on Thursday in the House.
Lawmakers said Mr. Bush made no commitments, but seemed grateful for their support and said a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq could cause the sort of chaos that occurred in Southeast Asia after Americans left Vietnam. The lawmakers said that Mr. Bush and others at the meeting — including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the political adviser Karl Rove and National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley — appeared to appreciate the political reality facing Republicans who will be on the ballot next year.
Well, I'm in Maggie Tatcher mode these days, so I'll (mis)quote her again...
There's no such thing as humanity, there's just you and me.
And there's the rub - YOU and ME.
So it's not just all about me, or you.
Why can't we all just get along? Bullshit! One of us is right, the other wrong.
How to decide? Step forward the American Constitution - the separation of powers. Law makers are different to Law interpreters, who are different to decision implementers.
Simple, really.
Gary Cooper is poison. He was judge, jury, and executioner.
Masquarading as a man of principle, he was Al Quaeda.
ADE
Wow, I just got up. Can we tackle something easier, say proper tire inflation and rotation?
That or I'm going back to bed.
habu,
Quit now, then it's ME!
ADE
PS, But you'll like it. I know.
ADE,
Preposterous. Every dynamiter is not AQ. Remember that no lives were lost, no injuries except those enthusiastically self-inflicted by Dominique Francon.
What did we take from AQ to justify their actions?
I heard yesterday and again read it thismorning that a 7-11 clerk spoiled the jihadist plot when then sought to get a DVD made. The quick 7-11 clerk 911 the FBI with the 411. The rest is history.
This brings to mind a night watchman, who upon spotiing some poor tradecraft in tape placent on illegal entrance at the Watergate Complex spoiled an otherwise good venture.
My question is this. When are these people gonna learn to just wlak through their duties, depositing or scooping from the surplus penny fund the proper change, or in the case of the night guard read a dogearred Popular Science magazine purloined from the dentists office?
This rush to reponsibility has to stop. How are we as a nation ever going to be properly undermined and taken over like porcine housewives if we remain alert and reponsible?
Nichevo said...
Preposterous. Up front, perhaps. Preposterous, perhaps too.
Remember that no lives were lost, no injuries except those enthusiastically self-inflicted by Dominique Francon.
Well, he just got lucky. But the mentality means that his luck will run out. You'll know when you read about the child killed from the falling debris.
What did we take from AQ to justify their actions?
Perhaps that no injuries except those enthusiastically self-inflicted by AQ. On others. of course, but all for the cause, what?
Sorry, Gary was poison. Everything is relative, except for the broken bones.
Staggeringly, process is important.
ADE
This brings to mind those instances when some successful person says he is taking some action as a way “to give back to the community.”
If you work at a job, pay taxes, invest, obey the law, take care of your family, and help your friends, - in other words - live a decent and “normal” life, you are not just “giving back” to the community – you ARE the community.
I recall hearing some singer say that she did not hoard her money. I have not figured out yet how it is possible to hoard anything. Even if you take the money you make and bury it in the back yard, you are still supporting the currency. If you simply put it in the bank you are enabling other people to borrow it. Even if you use the money you made in the stock market to buy the Mona Lisa and lock it in a closet where only you can see it, you have still made that money available for others to use.
The only way you can “hoard” anything is to refuse to work, steal other people’s valuables, or advocate that other’s valuables be stolen by the state. Best way to do this appears to be to get a law degree.
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 05/10/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
"The only way you can “hoard” anything is to refuse to work, steal other people’s valuables, or advocate that other’s valuables be stolen by the state. Best way to do this appears to be to get a law degree."
Nope. Government "service" and politics. Law degree requires too much work.
'3. Those who tho' not conscious of the whole, of their continuousness, are yet both conscious of a continuousness--and make that the object of a reflex consciousness--and of the third Class the Species are infinite: and the first or lowest , as far as we know, is Man, or the human Soul. For Reflexion seems the first approach to, and shadow of, the divine Permanency; the first effect of divine working in us to find the Past and Future with the Present, and thereby to let in upon us some faint glimmering of that State in which Past, Present and Future are co-adunate in the adorable I AM. But this state and growth of reflex consciousness is not conceivable, without the action of kindred souls on each other, i.e. the modification of each by each, and of each by the whole. ... But man is truly altered by the co-existence of other men; his faculties cannot be developed in himself alone, and only by himself.....I can define the human Soul to be that class of Being, as far as we are permitted to know, the first and lowest of that class, which is endued with a reflex consciousness of it's own continuousness, and the great end and purpose of all it's energies and sufferings is the growth of that reflex consciousness; that class of Being too, in which the Individual is capable of being itself contemplated as a Species of itself, namely, by it's conscious continuousness moving on in an unbroken Line, while at the same time the whole Species is capable of being regarded as one Individual.....the growth of consciousness,....as the end of our earthly Being--when we reflect too, how habits of Vice, of all kinds tend to retard the growth, and how all our sufferings tend to extend and open it out, and how all our
Virtues..tend to bind it...And again, what sublime motives to self-respect with humble Hope does not the Idea give, that each Soul is a Species in itself; and what Implulses to more than brotherly Love of our fellow-creatures, the Idea that all men form as it were, one Soul!---
Coleridge
Have left out the part how he conceives this process continues through death, as my fingures hurt but ..no man walks alone.
Kevin et al:
Perhaps Rand chose an architect as the protagonist in the Fountainhead specifically *because* it was a difficult choice to illustrate the point of an individual's role in greater society. You are correct about your basic assessment of the profession; we receive our college degrees and head out in to the world with high hopes of Roark-ism, only to be given a big dose of reality when we have to make a profit and satisfy our clients.
However, we never quite lose our desire to express ourselves as individuals. One might even say that architects automatically have a built-in sense of superiority which prods us toward more socialist philosophies. After all, we are hired to make decisions about the way people should live and interact with each other - that is the essence of creating the built environment. And it leads toward a general philosophy that it is perfectly acceptable to have groups and/or classes of people that really do know what's best for other people.
Frankly, in many cases, my professional education does lead my thoughts toward a similar philosophy. After all, while architecture is a subjective art, there are elements of it that involve life safety and public welfare as well as good general practice guidelines. However, "public welfare" can be very subjective as well, which was the crux of The Fountainhead. Any architect that has gone through Design Review as part of the process to get a building permit knows how truly subjective it can be.
I suspect that it is a rarity for an architect to have anything other than a left-leaning political philosophy. However, once one is able to transpose the concept of individual freedom from one's self to those around them as well, the propensity towards active social engineering is lessened.
From my point of view, the social/built environment we create is an interaction of individuals acting upon their free will. Sometimes we choose to follow the crowd (which is sometimes beneficial to the individual AND the group); sometimes we choose, as Roark did, to do exactly as we want in spite of the views of others.
If I remember the Fountainhead correctly, Roark's condition of employment was to be the sole arbiter of the design. In that sense, it was more like commissioning an artist than hiring an architect. There are life safety issues. But then that dang subjective "public welfare" thing comes up. Where does individual expression end and collective responsibility begin?
We need to colonise the Moon and Mars, spread the risk.
Dueler,
You make an excellent argument, all very true. It is a choice for us (we Architects) to operate in and for the common collective, or for and as the heroic individual. It is a difficult choice given the risks. Afterall, even Howard Roark nearly starved to death (in Rand's book anyway)at one point, finally being banished altogethr from the profession he loved to work as a laborer in the quarries. But, as he stated in the book, and I paraphrase... "The kind of Men I wish to work for and with will find me." Indeed they might. And perhaps we'd risk starving to find the Hero within us no matter what our profession, were that we were 25 again and single without obligation. As it stands, you and I are prisoners of the collective... both in terms of profession and family and I would add, even from the standpoint of an Objectivist, of Mankind in general.
That does not prevent us however from seeking out Men of kind to invest a common worth. Afterall, Roark's own mentor stated that,
'Architecture is not a business, not a career, but a joy and a consecration that justifies the existence of the Earth.'
If only that were the essence of every Man's meat... the aim and nature of his passion for everything he does. I think that was Rand's point. There would be no doubt of his motivation and absolute trust of his method.
okay, I need to get this right...
Architecture is not a business, not a career, but a crusade and a consecration to a joy that justifies the existence of the Earth. - Henry Cameron (The Fountainhead)
forgive me, I had to think about it a moment longer. Its been quite some time since I read the book... or believed myself to be Howard Roark.
Unaha-closp,
Colonise Mars?
Please take a look at the work of Aus. architect Kerstin Thompson at
http://www.marssociety.org.au
"to infinity and beyond!"
Cheers
Mr. Atos,
Welcome back to Earth!
Doug,
Thank you...I guess. I didnt think I'd ever left. In fact, if I recall the name of one of the Chapters of Rand's follow-up Classic was title 'The Man Who Belonged On Earth' referring to the great hero/inventor, John Galt himself. Playing a role in her own platoesque dialogs and in response to the query of why a Man would waste his time inventing trinkets for public consumption, machines for industry, or a revolutionary motor to revolutionize common transportation and the world as we know it, in character, Rand replies, “because he liked living on this earth.”
The Earth is where Man exists... dead or alive. Yet if he wants to 'live' he must be free to use his mind in rational pursuit of his own objectives... his joy. By doing so he interacts with Men of kind to the benefit of each and all. And the world is better for it.
In that regard, yes I guess I could be said to belong on Earth.
Ayn Rand is dead.
She's still dead.
My wife worked for her many years ago in New York when she was humping Brandon while her husband stood around goofy.
Rand was the embodiment of her own philosophy and what a pathetic scene that was.
Read Barbara Brandon's book about those days and the practical application of Ms Rand's principles. HA!
Jesus Christ is alive. HE is clothed in glory and honor. HE is Theotes. That's greek, and what could that word mean?
Later.
The denigration of good sense neither inflates your beliefs nor endears you to anyone. My understanding of Flank Lloyd Wright was that he was a tremendous jerk. That doesn't dimish the fact that his ideas and creations were tremendous. I personally didn't know Plato, Aristotle, nor Jesus. They to are dead...(arguable in one case). Their personal foibles remain a mystery shrouded in legend and faith. But all contributed to the framework of Western Civilization and the ideas that founded this Nation. And for that I lend their memory profound respect irregardless of anything else.
"I suspect that it is a rarity for an architect to have anything other than a left-leaning political philosophy."
or,viewed another away:
get 'em young.
drive it deep.
watch 'em starve.
you have to have *some*
intellectual capacity to obtain a degree and a license to practice.
maybe a bit of study re: history and political philosophy would prove useful.
why does the left so consistently fear and loathe indviduals who become wealthy by providing goods/services to others
(money for value)???
could it be pure envy?
a failed world-view,
based on failure and envy?
MR. Atos:
Could you please be more specific; exactly what "foible" did Jesus Christ have?
I await your responce.
You are discovering the philosophies of Ayn Rand. That is a good thing.
Keep talking about it. We need it now more than ever.
More to the point ....
I have been very lonely in my views as many of Ayn's supporters are. Perhaps now that we are reaching desperation as a culture, her philosophies will save us from the failed ideologies of Socialism and government controlled capitalism.
If you are interested in learning more about this wonderful philosophy, check it out here. Two lectures by Leonard Piekoff.
intro to Objectivism part 1
intro to Objectivism part 2
I tell you it will open your eyes.
Sparks,
Since you await, I should say, that I am not in the habit of coopting another's forum for my discussions... especially one as significant as wretchard's. So if you intend to continue this conversation, I offer a forum of my own...
http://www.mysandmen.blogspot.com/
Review, cogitate, and respond as necessary. I think you might be surprised. That being said, I'm also not in the habit of wearing my faith like lipstick on a prostitute. Take that as you wish, but to believe that Jesus as a boy and then a man, had no 'foibles' defies the idea that he ever was human... does it not? Unless of course, you agree with Rand that Man is not burdoned with original sin. Afterall, even God made serpents...
...and apples
"the client who actually pays for the construction (and hopefully the architect's fees"
IIRC, the architect's fee in this particular case was that the building be built to his exact specifications, with no deviations whatever.
Post a Comment
<< Home