RoR: Forum

PS - Don't waste your money on Mel's weirdness. Go see Jim Sheridan's brilliant "In America" instead.

- Daniel

Post 41

Monday, March 15, 2004 - 9:22pm

Mr. Firehammer,

Would you consider revising your article?

It doesn't seem to be conveying what you wanted it to convey. It seems as though you were grappling with a way to identify your position from the very beginning:

Mel Gibson is a hero. I do not mean he is my hero, or a hero to any particular group, but symbolically, he is an American hero.

I'm not sure what that means. If he's not a hero to you, then why not just say so? Why convolute the issue? To say someone is "a" hero and NOT your hero or a hero to a particular group (not fundamentalist Catholics?..hmm...) but is an "American hero" (to who? to most Americans?) gets confusing.

You stated that Mel Gibson is the same kind of hero as Howard Roark. I'm not convinced that you really believe that. Does Mel Gibson really represent the same sorts of values embodied by Roark? When you read about Roark and Gibson, do you admire both equally? Could one write a novel with Gibson as the hero and have it convey the same message Rand conveyed with The Fountainhead?

I don't know you, but I assume it's not your intention to mislead people...so I hope you'll take the time to revise the article. Perhaps you could change the title from "In Praise of Mel Gibson" to "In Defense of Mel Gibson's Right to Create Vile Films" (or something similar) and rework the article with that theme in mind. However, if Mel Gibson as a man really IS heroic to you, then perhaps you could make your views of him more straightforward and ditch the "symbolic...American hero" claptrap.

Gibson is NOT worthy of an ounce of my praise, and I trust that the vast bulk of your readers will reserve their praise for life-affirming individuals.

Could you at least drop the comparison to Howard Roark?

-Logan
www.individualistvoice.com

Post 42

Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 4:53am

Mr. Feys,

Thank you for the comments.

Would you consider revising your article?

If I made a spelling or grammatical error, yes. Otherwise, no.

It doesn't seem to be conveying what you wanted it to convey.

To Whom? I knew everyone wouldn't get it. It was a test and most people failed it.

It seems as though you were grappling with a way to identify your position from the very beginning:

I always know my exact position before I begin to write.

Mel Gibson is a hero. I do not mean he is my hero, or a hero to any particular group, but symbolically, he is an American hero.

I'm not sure what that means.

Ayn Rand identified the unique American phrase, "to make money." The expression was the recognition of the moral significance of money as the representative of human creativity. Unlike the wealth of those preceding America, primarily accumulated by some form of oppression or confiscation, Americans, "made money," by making something others willingly, even eagerly, without compulsion or fear, paid for entirely on their own.

If he's not a hero to you, then why not just say so? Why convolute the issue? To say someone is "a" hero and NOT your hero or a hero to a particular group (not fundamentalist Catholics?..hmm...) but is an "American hero" (to who? to most Americans?) gets confusing.

It is a device called rhetoric, and I am sure you understand exactly what it means. Howard Roark is a, "hero," also, but not my hero, or yours, or anyone else's, because Howard Roark never existed. Howard Roark is a fictional character. Still, he symbolizes, to a great many people, the characteristics of a hero. I'm sorry that confuses you.

I don't know you, but I assume it's not your intention to mislead people...so I hope you'll take the time to revise the article.

There is absolutely nothing misleading in the article. The title, as well as the theme, is intentionally subtle and controversial, but not misleading. As I said to Linz:

If you had read the article, for example, you would know the only "heroism" attributed to Mel Gibson is "symbolic" and for the one thing everyone else is criticizing him for, his financial success ... the only serious negative criticism he has received has been for is "sin" of making money. My point is, that is the only thing he did that was not a sin and his only real virtue, and he did that very well.

It is very interesting to me the Roman Catholics criticized me mercilessly (which was very entertaining to me), for praising Mr. Gibson for making lots of money, and now the Objectivists are entertaining me, for the same reason. Before Mel Gibson made a hugely successful movie about something he believes, nobody gave hoot what he believed. The Objectivists who are now talking about the evil nature of his beliefs and vileness of the movie wouldn't have noticed either if the film had been a flop. What the Objectivists are really complaining about is the fact his movie was a whopping financial success.

I and most Objectivists have been appalled at the obvious resentment of success displayed by those who are rejoicing over the despicable things the government is doing to Martha Stewart. The negative reactions and intentional obfuscation of my article by Objectivists is a sad revelation that Objectivists have that same resentment of success.

Regi

Post 43

Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 2:49pm

Now I understand your motivations and a little about your character. I gave you an opportunity to show some intellectual integrity, and you declined, refusing to thoughtfully reexamine your words or your views.

You enjoy being provocative...you specifically derive pleasure from the "entertaining" reaction you get from people by offending them. Trolling for others' adverse reactions is not necessarily bad when pursued in a playful and humorous way, but you seem to want to be taken seriously at the same time. You make it hard for me or any Objectivist to do that.

Maybe you want readers to think they're too stupid to understand your sophisticated and nuanced praise of Mel "A Hero (not your hero)" Gibson. I can grasp the point of all of Ayn Rand's essays...and since the point of your ruminations eludes me, you must think you've achieved an alotogether higher level of philosophial erudition than we can grasp or appreciate.

I do not mean he is my hero, or a hero to any particular group, but symbolically, he is an American hero.

Wow! I only wish I was capable of penetrating the profound meanings you have buried in your prose.

Let's see now...how could I really annoy and anger Objectivists? I know, I'll take one of their fictional heroes and bring him down to the level of a brutish religious exploiter named Mel "A Hero (not my hero)" Gibson! I'll assert that Gibson is just like Roark. Yeah, that'll really shock them! I'll reveal my Gibsonian sense of life to them all and wait for their reactions to come pouring in! And when they voice their objections, I'll hurl accusations at them. Then they'll be offended even more! That's how the game is played.

But what if we stopped reacting altogether? What if we completely ignored your next attack article or post? Then the game would be over, wouldn't it?

You shouldn't expect to hear from me again.

-Logan

Post 44

Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 5:04pm

Logan,

You shouldn't expect to hear from me again.

I'm sorry to hear that. I rather enjoyed your remarks, and am disappointed that you won't be making anymore. I much prefer someone who can intelligently and forcefully disagree with me than someone who just goes along. But, maybe I misjudged you.

Regi

Post 45

Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 9:52am

This seems to be hinting toward the idea of "I may not like what you have to say, but I'll fight for your right to say it." You don't like Mel Gibson's movie, but you're happy we live in a world where he has the right to make it. Fine, write about that, but why take the leap to calling him a hero?

He is a hero by some definitions. He did potentially sacrifice his career for the movie. He wasn't afraid of what people would think. But who cares? His cause is for something you don't agree with.

I think we often make the mistake that if someone has one good quality about them (in this case he followed through with a project he was passionate about) that we must give them respect and endorse them. All capitalists are not good people, all people who are persistent are not admirable, all people who make a lot of money doing something we don't like don't need to be labeled our heros. I think Mel and Howard both had brown hair, doesn't mean any more to me than the fact that both did something they believed in.

-Elizabeth

Post 46

Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 10:58am

Logan,

On your website, www.individualistvoice.com, you praise the film "A Man For All Seasons" for showing "an inspiring example of a man who refuses to surrender his integrity." Your site gives this praise even though "More does not hold a rational set of values per se (he is a Christian)." I, for one, agree with you. The story is a very inspiring view of the power of an individual.

But, then, my question is what makes Mel Gibson any different? He is certainly a Christian, and at the ridicule of countless critics and media moguls made the movie he wanted to make after fronting millions of his own dollars to do it. Is the film a vile and disgusting piece of filth? Sure it is. But if we're not going to say that Thomas More deserved to die for being a lousy vile Christian, then what's wrong with praising Mel for the one thing he did right: push through his vision and make a whole crapload of money off of it?

Kevin

Post 47

Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 11:21am

I dont understand why Mr. Firehammer would do something so obviously illogical as droping his context like that. Perhaps he forgot he was talking to Oists. In doing so he failed to define his hero in terms that are in opposition to a non-hero. He defined a hero by one and only one characteristic. A personality trait that does not mean anything about his moral values. A true hero should not only act with conviction but must also hold the right moral values as do Rand's heroes. They were heroes because they held the proper moral values and acted on them. Mel Gison does not hold good values. His film accomplished nothing productive. It is in fact destructive as it promotes destructive values, in spite of its money making. This is not a hero but an anti-hero. You cannot and should never remove a man's actions from his values. Pick your context back up.

Post 48

Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 6:49pm

Kevin,

Certainly I could identify and appreciate achievements and virtues in Mel Gibson. But weighing the good with the bad in his values and character, I find that the bad overwhelms the good. I find nothing heroic in anything he's done, even taking particular actions in isolation and separating them from his overall agenda in life. To call someone "a hero" is the strongest form of praise one can bestow on a person (as opposed to merely "admirable" or "good" or "noble"). Gibson is an anti-hero.

-Logan

Post 49

Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 6:29pm

Thanks, Elizabeth, for the comments.

This seems to be hinting toward the idea of "I may not like what you have to say, but I'll fight for your right to say it." You don't like Mel Gibson's movie, but you're happy we live in a world where he has the right to make it. Fine, write about that, but why take the leap to calling him a hero?

I resisted Logan Feys' earlier suggestion I edit the article, but I am beginning to think I at least should have made one point more clear. It is not Mel Gibson, the person, his views, or his movie I praised (except in the title, of course); but I made it clear in the very first sentence, he was being used as a symbol, and the article made it clear, what was being symbolized, which you yourself described:

He is a hero by some definitions. He did potentially sacrifice his career for the movie. He wasn't afraid of what people would think. ...

And, much more, actually. Since I was careful to point out the other earlier articles I wrote criticising both Mel Gibson and the Movie (as well as those who practically worshipped it), A Passion for Pain | Brutal, bloody and thin-skinned | Passion Prattle | A Catholic Passion | Not A Bible Story, I did not think anyone could possibly mistake what was written in this article could actually be lionizing Mel Gibson.

I think Mel and Howard both had brown hair ...

Actually Howard had red hair, but I understand your point. I am really sorry so many people have misunderstood the intent of the article (for which I take the blame), but it is no different than those cases where Rand herself pointed out the heroic aspects of individuals who were otherwise mistaken, or even evil in their intent.

Regi

Post 50

Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 7:47pm

Hi Marnee, thanks for the comments.

I dont understand why Mr. Firehammer would do something so obviously illogical as droping his context like that. Perhaps he forgot he was talking to Oists.

I would be interested in knowing what context you think I dropped. I may have done that, but I don't know what you have in mind. In any case, the article was not, "talking to Oists," particularly, and was originally written in response to all those Catholics who protested my opinion that the only praiseworthy aspect of Mel Gibsons effort was his making a lot of money, and originally posted here and here.

A true hero should not only act with conviction but must also hold the right moral values as do Rand's heroes.

I completely agree, "A true hero should not only act with conviction but must also hold the right moral values," but I was not attempting to describe a true hero, only presenting a symbol for one and that fact that true heroism results in success. As for Rand's heroes all fulfilling the pattern you describe, I assume you have only read her larger works. For example, "The Red Pawn," might give you a different impression.

His film accomplished nothing productive.

I assume you mean produced nothing of objective value. I agree, but then I would evaluate almost everything on TV (which I do not watch), most movies produced since 1960, almost all books produced today, all religious material (a multi-billion dollar business in the U.S.) and professional sports as equally "nothing productive." In terms of market value, however, the value of all these things, including Mel's movie cannot be denied, and if by some magic they could be plucked out of our economy, it would immediately collapse.

It is in fact destructive as it promotes destructive values, in spite of its money making.

Objectively, it is a "bad" movie, but I have already addressed that in detail. However, most people are giving the movie much more credit than it deserves. Its actual influence on what anyone believes or will actually do is miniscule, beyond the money they spend to see it.

Except for those who will suffer recurring nightmares, most people will forget what they have seen, and certainly won't remember anything they learned from it, because there is nothing to learn. It is purely sensationalism, highly effective, and deeply shallow.

You cannot and should never remove a man's actions from his values.

When did I do that? Do you think Mel Gibson acted contrary to his own values in producing his movie? I never said he exemplified Objectivist values, except as a symbol. But, within the limits of his own values, he certainly acted consistently, and risked all in the pursuit of them. If Objectivists were as consistent in pursuing their values they would succeed in the same magnificent way Mel Gibson did. In that sense, he puts Objectivists to shame.

I am glad you hold your convictions strongly and confidently enough to criticize the article as you have, and I have not answered you to change those convictions, but, if possible, to demonstrate the intent of the article was to uphold the very values you hold. Nevertheless, I will not be disappointed if you do not see it that way, so long as you hold on to your own convictions.

Regi

Post 51

Tuesday, April 6, 2004 - 12:27pm

My dear Regi:

You fretted over me:

But I hate pc, thin-skinned, pusillanimous, paranoid, cowards, who run away as soon as someone says something they don't like. How heroic.

Please prove us wrong!

I am back, of course, because I could no longer go on letting you think I was a coward. (But then, isn�t it actually cowardly of me to have worried about being thought a coward? Hmm, instead of going down this hall of mirrors, let�s move on �)

During my absence, I did some research on the sociology of Objectivists (that is, individuals who identify themselves as students, adherents, or followers of Rand�s philosophy � with or without quibbles). Having had more than a passing acquaintance with Rand and Objectivism for a quarter-century now, perhaps what I learned from my recent research should have been obvious to me earlier: Objectivism makes religious truth claims, therefore it functions as a religion for those who accept those claims.

I had always thought that Objectivism�s primary religious truth claim, atheism, was a gratuitous one to make. The morality of a capitalist society does not rest upon the truth of this assertion. Capitalism is not actually an �ism�, but rather it is a description of how people naturally organize their economic affairs if free to do so under limited government. In other words, a capitalist society is a product of human nature and will manifest itself under the proper conditions whether or not its denizens believe in God. So, I had ignored Objectivism�s atheism as inconsequential to its defense of capitalism.

And it is if you want to make the case for the morality of capitalism. But I now see that Objectivism�s atheism is central to its followers. Instead of ignoring Objectivism�s religious claim that there is no God, they identify with it and embrace it. By accepting this religious truth claim, Objectivism functions as a religion for Objectivists. Thus, the stridency of so many Objectivists when it comes to religion. For instance, I noted the recent despondency of one person in this forum over conservatives making religious arguments to vindicate the morality of capitalism. Such dismay can only come from divining a competing truth claim, and yet a religious claim can only be in competition with Objectivism to the extent that Objectivism functions as religion for our fellow correspondent.

This also explains why you received so many objections in this thread to your recognition of certain virtues displayed by Gibson in the making of his film. The religious truth claims of Objectivism put your challengers at odds with the contents of the film to such an exclusionary extent that they (irrationally) feared affirming anything in relationship to it, not even the courage of their perceived enemy. (Would you not agree that it is irrational to refuse to recognize virtue when it has truly manifested itself?)

So live and learn. I�ll see if I have correctly deduced the nature of an Objectivist�s adherence to Rand�s philosophy.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 52

Wednesday, April 7, 2004 - 11:38am

From Dictionary.com's definition of religion

n.

-
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Well Bill,

#4 may apply to what you said. But other than that, your wild generalization is completely off base. Try again.

Ethan

Post 53

Wednesday, April 7, 2004 - 12:48pm

Ethan:

You instructed me:

#4 may apply to what you said. But other than that, your wild generalization is completely off base. Try again.

If you have conceded that one of your definitions of religion conforms to my observation, why do I need to try again?

In any event, your third definition would also apply. Moreover, you failed to take notice that my observation was that Objectivism FUNCTIONS as a religion for Objectivists who accept its religious truth claims. In that case, any of your definitions of religion could apply.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 54

Wednesday, April 7, 2004 - 1:10pm

Bill,

#3 would NOT apply because "spiritual leader" would tend to imply something about objectivism is intangible, irrational, or unknowable. If you find the truths at the root of objectivism intangible in some way then I'm sorry for you. In any case, your attempt seems to be to try to say: "objectivists are just another religion."

So, what are your intentions? I admit I'm unfamiliar with your posts, so that is why I'm asking.

Post 55

Thursday, April 8, 2004 - 4:33am

Ethan:

You wrote:

#3 would NOT apply because "spiritual leader" would tend to imply something about objectivism is intangible, irrational, or unknowable. If you find the truths at the root of objectivism intangible in some way then I'm sorry for you.

Thank you for your compassion, but it is unnecessary. I know why I think what I think, and I can assure you I am under no delusions.

You continued:

In any case, your attempt seems to be to try to say: "objectivists are just another religion."

No. I am saying that (at least some) Objectivists are USING Objectivism as a religion, which is a misuse of a philosophy. However, I not inclined to be too harsh upon Objectivists for doing this because Objectivism makes religious truth claims, thus putting itself in competition with religion.

This is unfortunate, because the primary religious truth claim of Objectivism -- i.e., atheism -- is gratuitous. It is a metaphysically unnecessary assertion to support Objectivism's epistemological, ethical, political, and aesthetic principles. Furthermore, it is not benign, because it needlessly isolates Objectivism as a haunt of village atheists.

Finally, you asked:

So, what are your intentions? I admit I'm unfamiliar with your posts, so that is why I'm asking.

Well, by strict Objectivist reckoning I am an evil and irrational evader of the whim-worshipping mystic of the mind variety, so my apparent intentions are probably not to be trusted. But if you want to separate the messenger from the message, I think you'll find that there's no hidden agenda in what I write.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 56

Thursday, April 8, 2004 - 8:31am

"...because Objectivism makes religious truth claims, thus putting itself in competition with religion."

Bill, what you've called a "religious truth claim" (Objectivism's rejection of an unknowable, omniscient superbeing) isn't. It's a "scientific truth claim". It's a lot like me denying the existence of purple dragons. Where the adherents to particular religions begin to base philosophies on unknowable "religious truth claims" is where Objectivism comes into competition with religion--only in that it refutes the specific ideologies or tenets of a given religion. For instance, let's substitute "God" with, say, Kant's noumenal "true reality". Objectivists reject this unknowable "true reality" as a matter of science, not religion. As it happens, Objectivism rejects every philosophical consequence of the unknowable, noumenal "reality".

"This is unfortunate, because the primary religious truth claim of Objectivism -- i.e., atheism -- is gratuitous. It is a metaphysically unnecessary assertion to support Objectivism's epistemological, ethical, political, and aesthetic principles"

It is metaphysically unnecessary, even though metaphysics is a rather large portion of Objectivism? And epistemology studies how we grasp the metaphysical? Ethics, politics and aesthetics are results of metaphysics and epistemology--at least, in Objectivism, as far as I can tell.

"Furthermore, it is not benign..."

I suppose it's not benign. But, I would say...rejection of "God" is as simple to Objectivism as the rejection of purple dragons. If the Purple Dragon Cult decides to base a philosophy on the existence of purple dragons, rejecting tenets of that philosophy by Objectivism is a result of faulty "scientific truth claims" made by the cultists.

"...because it needlessly isolates Objectivism as a haunt of village atheists."

Village atheists? Objectivism is isolated by a lot more than just its atheism.

Sorry for butting in, but I got the chance to stop by for a second and couldn't resist.

Post 57

Thursday, April 8, 2004 - 9:52am

Hello, Jeremy.

Me: >>Objectivism makes religious truth claims, thus putting itself in competition with religion.<<

You: >>Bill, what you've called a "religious truth claim" (Objectivism's rejection of an unknowable, omniscient superbeing) isn't. It's a "scientific truth claim".<<

Science is competent to reveal truths concerning that which is material (composed of matter or energy) and mechanical (subject to causation). Therefore, science can tell us whether or not God exists within the realm of matter and causation. The scientific conclusion that He does not, at least within the four dimensions of spacetime that we can measure, is not controversial.

However, science can make no competent claim about that which neither material nor mechanical. It has no means of doing so. What can it measure? You can take it on faith that reality is material and mechanical in its entirety, but a materialist has no better argument that this is so than the theist has to the contrary. A moment's reflection upon the fact that animation, volition, and consciousness exist within the reality we daily experience, should give you pause. Even if you are confident that these are material and mechanical things -- or perhaps epiphenomena of such -- your intellectual honesty will dictate that it is not implausible to think these things are neither material nor subject to causation.

So, for Objectivism to restrict itself to a metaphysical statement that God is not necessary to explain the material universe is one thing. That would not be a religious truth claim, because it is matter that science can settle. However, for Objectivism to assert that reality cannot include God, ergo God does not exist, is to make a statement that can only be taken on faith, even if fallible reason leads to that leap of faith. That is a religious truth claim because it excludes the truth claims of other religions.

I suspect you and I are in agreement as to the limits of science. I also suspect our basic disagreement would be whether or not reality exists beyond those limits. I hope this clarifies the fundamental issue.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 58

Thursday, April 8, 2004 - 10:33am

Hello again, Jeremy.

To continue with the points you raised: >>It's a lot like me denying the existence of purple dragons.<<

I deny the existence of purple dragons too. First, because there appears to be no scientific evidence of their existence within the material universe. Second, because reason has not lead me to believe they would exist outside of that universe. I expect that you and I agree upon my first point and that you would dismiss my point as nonsense, because you believe nothing exists beyond the material universe.

You continued: >>Where the adherents to particular religions begin to base philosophies on unknowable "religious truth claims" is where Objectivism comes into competition with religion--only in that it refutes the specific ideologies or tenets of a given religion. For instance, let's substitute "God" with, say, Kant's noumenal "true reality". Objectivists reject this unknowable "true reality" as a matter of science, not religion. As it happens, Objectivism rejects every philosophical consequence of the unknowable, noumenal "reality".<<

I have found Kant to be impenetrable and so have lacked the enthusiasm to understand his philosophy despite the intriguing provocation of Rand denouncing him as the most evil wretch in history. So, I am incompetent to address the entirety of your point here.

However, as to the first part of your statement, we need to separate the metaphysical claims of religions from the ethical demands they make. What I have termed "religious truth" claims refer to only the metaphysical. Ethical divergences between Objectivism and any particular religion are not the issue. Indeed, one of my key points (which you addressed) was that Objectivism's metaphysical rejection of God was not necessary to establishing the validity of its ethics and politics and so on.

Me: >>This is unfortunate, because the primary religious truth claim of Objectivism -- i.e., atheism -- is gratuitous. It is a metaphysically unnecessary assertion to support Objectivism's epistemological, ethical, political, and aesthetic principles.<<

You: >>It is metaphysically unnecessary, even though metaphysics is a rather large portion of Objectivism? And epistemology studies how we grasp the metaphysical? Ethics, politics and aesthetics are results of metaphysics and epistemology--at least, in Objectivism, as far as I can tell.<<

Sure. That's why Objectivism's atheism is gratuitous because it is not needed to support its epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics.

Me: >>Furthermore, it is not benign ... <<

You: >>I suppose it's not benign. But, I would say...rejection of "God" is as simple to Objectivism as the rejection of purple dragons.<<

I agree that that rejection is simple to atheists seeking an intellectual home. Objectivism accommodates them by making the core of their faith -- i.e., God does not exist -- a metaphysical fact. However, if Objectivism's atheism is not necessary to establish the validity of its subsidiary principles, why shouldn't Occam's razor be used to preclude distortions or even perversions of those principles?

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 59

Thursday, April 8, 2004 - 10:43am