The Chronicles of Narnia

I do have a dog, and have had several more over the course of my life. No, I have not heard of the Muttnik principle. The fact that the dog growls and barks is undisputed. But how he views the human he interacts with... well let's just say I haven't reached the same conclusion you have after viewing similar evidence. Are you telling me it should just be self-evident that the dog fantasizes about his human partner being an enemy? Sorry, I don't see it.

Post 61

Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 7:09am

Jonathan,

You must be new to Objectivism. Do a Google search on "Muttnik principle."

For the record, it is given in The Psychology of Self-Esteem by Nathaniel Branden and quoted a lot the Objectivist places.

This deals directly with what you are talking about.

(btw - My good humor is always benevolent, rarely sarcastic, so please don't interpret my previous post as some kind of mocking. It wasn't.)

Michael

Post 62

Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 2:22pm

"If Dogs Could Talk," Vilmos Csanyi / Tolkien Lewis & Rand

Fauth & Kelly:

You're both saying the same thing aren't you?

Kelly: "When they wrestle with a human being, they are FEIGNING that the person is an enemy..."

Fauth: "I don't think that the dog sees the person as an enemy, they are just PLAYING..."

Except for wording, you seem to be in agreement. Current understanding is that all young social mammals engage in play, young predators will mock attack but never come to the point of inflicting pain or damage. In dogs, this play is initiated by pawing the ground and then extending the forelegs and lowering the front end while keeping the rear end up high with the tail wagging. Other dogs and dog owners will see this as an unambiguous invitation to begin playful behaviour.

Most wild animals will play less or not at all once they reach adulthood. But dogs have been bred for some 10,000 years to retain playfulness and other juvenile behaviours into adulthood. Whereas an adult wolf will make eye-contact only when initiating a dominance or attack behaviour, dogs universally seek out and maintain eye-contact, a behaviour almost unseen in nature.

Dogs actually do have sophisticated ways of signalling their intent, but the body language can be subtle and must be learned by humans. (Watch Cesar Milan on cable's "The Dog Whisperer") Dog body language is transparent in that it is rare for them to send mixed signals, and while their gestures do signal their intent, it cannot be said that the animals are self-aware of their intent. Even body language in humans is subconscious. (Also, keep in mind that humans, as visually-cued primates, use incredibly complex "face-language" as well as body language. Much on-line misunderstanding, and the use of emoticons to address this misundertanding >:D are a consequence of this face-orientation) It is significant that Humans, dogs and horses are all pack animals (or evolved therefrom) all expressing dominance behaviour and body language communication. When a dog or horse is domesticated it is because they accept their human master as the dominant member of their adopted pack. Only humans are self-critically aware (or potentially aware) of this communication. In regard to the Dog Mind, I recommend the Book in the title of my post, Csanyi's "If dogs could talk" which is available on amazon or used from abebooks.com.

To get back to Narnia:

C.S.Lewis and Tolkien, after Lewis's conversion, discussed different book projects. The immediate fruits were Lewis's Perelandra trilogy and the first but only posthumously published "Fall of Numenor" in the "Silmarilion." Tolkien went on to explore the idea of a world that had been corrupted by Satan (i.e., Morgoth) and his disciple, Sauron, before Christ had come to redeem the world. Tolkien viewed Man's irrational fear of the inevitability of death as the primary impetus towards evil, and the search to avoid death by unnatural means, by the search for power over others as the source of evil. (These ideas are excellently examind in Tom Shippey's "Road to Middle Earth" and "Author of the Century" lucid works of literary criticism, and in Tolkien's posthumous "Morgoth's Ring" edited by his son Christopher.)

Tolkien's thought is quite subtle. While he is a Catholic and LOTR is a implicitly a theistic work, Middle Earth lacks any actual religious practice. Tolkien explored the idea that Man's relationship to the divine was originally unmediated by religious practice. Idol worship was instituted by Morgoth (who felt he should be the master of creation) through his intermediary Sauron, who introduced organized (pagan) human sacrifice to a dark god in a temple. Toliken never finalized or published these thoughts while he was alive, but the implication is that Earth was made for man to live in and be happy, but that man was corrupted when Morgoth's priests/agents convinced men to fear death and to try to escape it by necromancy. Middle Earth is identified as the real world about 7,000 BC, before any modern religion or the incarnation of Christ.

Lewis, whom Tolkien always thought to be a slow and muddled pupil, then developed Narnia on the speculation: If there were a "real" world populated by animals and mythological beasts (Almost as if it were an alien planet) and Christ were to appear there, how might he be incarnated? The result was Narnia, with the Ice Queen as Satan and Aslan as Christ. Tolkien felt that this was bad theology, bad mythopoesis and bad literature. Whereas Tolkien went out of his way to keep all theology implicit, he believed that Lewis marred his work by making it mere allegory.

TSK 09/02/06

P.S. There is a strong influence in both Rand's and Tolkien's thought by the Neo-Scholastics. Jesuits at the end of the 19th Century were synthesizing Natural law and Classical liberalism. The best work I know on their teaching is Cardinal Mercier's Manual of Scholastic Philosophy published in the late 1890's. Much of Isabel Paterson's influence on Rand came thru this school. Rand was originally going to have a Father Amadeus as one of her characters in Atlas Shrugged, but found it unworkable. Rand and Paterson's falling out seems to have been in part over Rand's supposed unacknowledged use of this thought. Unfortunately reactionary forces in the church attacked the Neo-Scholastics and Modernists as heretical and left the door open for Marxist and Fascist strains to gain ascendancy. Since the 1960's Marxism has become the strongest influence among Catholic intellectuals, if they may be called intellectuals.

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 9/02, 2:40pm)

Content added

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 9/02, 5:06pm)

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 9/02, 5:18pm)

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 9/02, 8:07pm)

Post 63

Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 5:45pm

     Here, re Narnia, I thought we were talking about a mere 'fairy tale', a pure (on the 'surface', anyways) fantasy, and I find that we're really talking about literary and cinematic portrayals of differing deep-seated views on the socio-psychological, if not purely sociological, origin-exegetics of present-day theodicies. What'll I find here next? Can't wait 'till we get into analysis of The Terminator (Armageddon [or REVELATIONS -'revised'] anyone?)

     Mother Goose, Grimm: what might you be yet hiding to be deconstructed?

     For 'moralistic' stories, give me Aesop anyday.

LLAP
J:D

P.S: An 'objectivist' studier who hasn't read/heard of The Muttnick Principle? Shades of Sauron!

Post 64

Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 10:02pm

Sorry! I'm just not familiar with the Branden's. My local bookstores and libraries don't have any of their stuff. I'm not biased against them or anything, I know nothing about their feud with Rand, and frankly don't really care. But I do look forward to reading more about them.

Post 65

Sunday, September 3, 2006 - 1:52am

http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/splash.php

http://www.barbarabranden.com/

Post 66

Sunday, September 3, 2006 - 8:13am

Thanks Robert. The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem looks intriguing. Has anyone read it?

Post 67

Sunday, September 3, 2006 - 9:19am

Next to Honoring the Self, I'd say it is his best general work...

Post 68

Sunday, September 3, 2006 - 10:39am

I had held off making any quick replying to my posts for two reasons - 1)the hope there would be another to further my position, and 2)that there would be a serious attempt at refutation. Sadly, neither has taken place.

No, there has NOT been any refutation. Appeals to authority is not refutation - far less to inviolate authority. Nor is appealing to tradition - indeed, that is the coward's cry of complacency, the claim of irrational harmlessness ["well, I survived it OK,and discovering Santa wasn't real wasn't traumatizing to ME!" - and wondering if engaging in some sentence completion exercises just how much trauma would actually be revealed, how much lessening of love of reality was inculled as consequence].

And certainly resorting to ad hominem attacks is not refutation, but indeed merely a revealing of 1)hatred for being found out a loving for the irrational, 2)a distinct lack of understanding of Art, especially from an Objectivist perspective, and 3) - no matter, the other two are enough.

To reiterate -

why there is this persistant cry that to achieve this 'sense of wonder' there must be a resorting to fantasy - what is it of reality that supposedly is so barren that imagination would not provide all the sense of wonder one could hold, that would - because it is reality oriented- aid even moreso that development in a person to seek and achieve the 'best within him/her'...

And, on second thought, I will add one more non-refutation - using the adult allegory, which as adults there's a knowing the distinction between fantasy and imagination, yet that [whether a validity or not is another question] is used as an excuse for pandering - nay, encouraging - its use among children, who are at that point in their mental growth incapable of distinguishing the difference.

There is no argument that children do not distinguish between the real and the non-real in their early years.   Indeed, it is as part of the process of growth that one teaches the child this distinction, a process which often does not succeed until close to the 7th year.   If this is the case where a person is seeking to acquire knowledge, to be able to function in the real world, to gain aspects of survival as a human being - that is, by using one's cognitive capabilities - how much more important that this is not hindered by introducing, deliberately, the non-real, and encouraging its use as if it were real, thus adding confusion to the learning person.

It matters not that this has been the practice since untold years before.   If one recognises, as Objectivists, the irresponsiblity of inducing religion to a child as a means of teaching ethics, how much moreso this is with regards to any other aspect of learning.

No question that there is at present a dearth of suitable material to utilize in replacement - except that of the parents' imaginations, and the recognition that lessons dealing with the real instill a greater appreciation for one's own capacity as well as the child's to inventing viable solutions to problems usually presented thru fantasy - recognising that it is, after all, just the aspects of the fantasy which pertain to the real which are of use in the presenting, not the fantasy parts themselves, which actually only make for confusion in dealing with the learning, as said, of the difference between the real and the possible, and the unreal and impossible.

Now, as adults, are many of these fantasies enjoyable - of course - but because as adults one sees the differenciation, even as it ideally would have been better if not resorted to using the fantasy for the tasks given. In other words, turning to fantasy is a 'cop-out' in effect, an 'easy way out' so to speak, instead of utilizing one's talents at improvising the imagination and valuing the real for what it is - the real.

Finally, make no mistake - my works are in no way Dali-esque [which is the sin qua non of 'surrealism'].   That my lands are not reproductions or imitations of specific places around the globe, does not make them fantasy, but rather imaginative - and here, most importantly, needs be recognised that difference.   I am a themescapist - that is, I render visualizations of themes - the materials are in effect backgrounds for the presentation of ideas.   I am not a recorder - that is what photography is mostly about.

For those not sure of Rand's stance on Art -

The BASIC purpose of Art is NOT to teach, but to SHOW - to hold up to man a concretized image of his nature and his place in the universe...
Since a rational man's ambition is unlimited... he needs a moment, an hour or some period of time in which he can experience the sense of his completed task, the sense of living in a universe where his values have been successfully achieved...
Art gives him that...
The pleasure of contemplating the objectified reality of one's own sense of life is the pleasure of feeling what it would be like to live in one's ideal world.
                                                                                                                Ayn Rand

Ideal does not mean fantasy.

(Edited by robert malcom on 9/03, 11:47am)

Post 69

Sunday, September 3, 2006 - 11:05am

Robert,

For some reason I get the feeling you are all wound up at me mostly. Even if it is not, let me address an idea or two.

You make some amazing claims, like "the fantasy parts themselves, which actually only make for confusion in dealing with the learning" or that liking fantasy is some kind of "cop out" and whatever. I took these from your last post for convenience, but there are others.

I find these observations completely arbitrary, so I don't address them. I see nothing in reality that supports this. I certainly don't see any adult intellectually, morally or psychologically damaged because he used to believe in Santa Claus.

You want refutation or agreement. It is hard to find those who do this with the arbitrary.

In some of the paintings of yours I have seen, you greatly exaggerated the human figure, pushing it all out of shape (especially the mouth, which grew to gigantic proportions) - like sculpting from a perfect form with silly putty. Call that what you want. Reality it ain't. I find this inconsistent with what you have been claiming.

If that is ad hominem, hatred of the rational, lack of understanding of Art (with upper case "A") or whatever, make the most of it. I am merely reporting what I see and read and comparing the two. They don't add up.

Michael

Post 70

Sunday, September 3, 2006 - 2:29pm

For those wishing to see my works -

www.visioneerwindows.blogspot.com

...and note that among those are a few stone faces from walls], humorously done, but in which the human figures - women - are most assurredly NOT distorted... and note, too, these are but a small and as stated, side issue among those of my repertoire, all of which reflect a love of reality and sensuousness among it.....

Yes, I would consider that ad hominem...

(Edited by robert malcom on 9/03, 2:31pm)

Post 71

Sunday, September 3, 2006 - 3:06pm

Robert,

Be offended if you like. Here is a painting of yours I remember called "FaceOff":

The date in your blog is September 21, 2005

That fits my description, not yours. I remember others, too.

btw - I like your 2006 stuff. Seriously. It's good.

Michael

Post 72

Monday, September 4, 2006 - 7:56pm

Robert:

     Could you give an example of, as you say, parents using their talents, re their (expected) "using imagination" WITHOUT resorting to 'fantasy' methodologies...in literature/story-telling territory?

     In my experience, few guardians have the independent-wealth for the time/energy (not to mention ability or even obligation-of-a-life-priority) to spend on personal creativity-for-their-kids, even given having learned (as moi) some things re Montessori-type pedogogy (specially-made/searched-for materials re alphabet/math/etc.) Me-is-awares that most don't have even the minimum of such. They lack one or the other of the necessary factors I specified (not comprehensive, btw)...especially for such expectations by others, parents-or-non. But even there, we're not talking about literary symbolism re implicitly didactive stories-for-'children'. Montessori had less than little to say on teaching the use of such primitive and basic literary 'art'. Others have even less to say than she, in my searchings. --- To be sure, psycho-social analysis of fairy tales already done, such as Bettelheim et al, is a wholely different subject, of course; just making sure that THAT subject is not going to pop up.

     I can understand, especially by 'objectivist'-oriented ones, a near visceral anathema to any stories that even slightly smack of 'the supernatural' (ie: any fairy tales that refer to anything even merely nominally called 'magic'; interestingly, talking animals don't seem to qualify there...but, I digress.) --- Ntl...give it a break re 'children-stories'...or any stories that bring imagination that's not reality (can we say 'empirically/sensorially' here?) grounded.

     I thought I explained the attraction of kids to such re their own grown familiarity with (their limited conception of) what they see as 'real'/'Reality': familiarity (perceptually) with its inherent limitations within children's conceptions/perceptions breeds boredom giving rise to the attitude exemplified by Peggy Lee's famous song "Is That All There Is?" (nm the song's inherent nihility which would go over the heads of kids.) Such boredom with the kids' temporarily-perceived banal/familiar 'reality' is also exemplified by Beauty in Disney's classic "Beauty & The Beast" when she was singing (a la Julie Andrews in "Sound of Music") in the meadow after leaving town. Story-wise, this expectable-by-children boredom-with-'reality' allows wonderment-of-new-'possibilities' to ntl grow regardless of the childrens' personal surrounding environment, whatever such may be, if open to the 'imagination' of story-tellers: storytellers who talk/write about unicorns, fairies, Hercules, Cerberus, Scylla, and threats/powers beyond what they presently are able to experience, but, are aware of 'some' level of existence regarding...all of which is 'magic' to them.

     Guess why so many children find a fascination with dinosaurs (nm that an insightful psychologist/psychiatrist explained that THAT interest was really no more than "Those things are very, very Big, and, they are very, very dead") and traveling to other planets/stars/galaxies, neither of which have to do with 'magic'? They, to kids, are not 'real'...anymore, or, yet. Regardless that they aren't, the wonderment regarding the new, the different, the...other side of the perceived (until they conceive of new perspectives on the familiar)...Horizon. --- I do believe that Rand commented on this search-over-the-horizon re children...somewhere.

     Regardless, as I asked at the outset, Robert: what is your view of an adult's using 'imagination' for kids/children...in literary terms (beyond Br'er Rabbit and Big Bird, of course)? I can't help but think that you must disagree with me re my clearly spelled out view, and, I'm in a quandry re what your view of using such imagination is. More succinctly, I can't imagine any view re literary imagination other than what I've spelled out.

LLAP
J:D

P.S: Mehopes that you notice that it IS quite noticeable that in your otherwise quite thought-provoking comments, that you had no comment to Michael's comment about Rand's comment about the use of 'fantasy' in any level of literature.

P.P.S: re Rand's comments about 'art' being oriented to 'show'ing and not merely 'tell'ing (didactic 'teaching'), methinks you're making too much of this distinction re the use of fantasy in literature. Art doesn't properly 'tell', true; it 'shows.' However, though the purpose isn't (as it shouldn't; b-o-r-i-n-g) there per se, what 'showing' is NOT 'teaching'...to those still discovering what newness in reality (especially via 'fantasy'), there is to 'show'? Especially re 'children' fantasy-stories?

(Edited by John Dailey on 9/04, 8:52pm)

Post 73

Monday, September 4, 2006 - 8:18pm

In the case of the present, would have to agree with you - "it's earlier than you think", so to speak.... I was making my comments in regards to principles, that in this age, we as humans have come to be able to recognise the difference between the two - fantasizing and imaginating - yet, largely because of tradition and not actually directing attention to correcting or filling in the missing in this matter, merely, for the sake of convenience, carry on with the less offensive of the fantasy.... this is not a new notion of mine, this distinction - indeed, have been, in my own way, fighting this for over quarter of century, since first marked in my screenplay :Satyr", of the early 80's, my first written attempt to consolidate my aesthetic ideas into one place...

I wish I had been more interested in writing tales and 'worlds of wonder' such to give you concrete examples from which to see, but am too visual an artist to take the time.... there is no dearth of literature for the kids who have passed this stage - Stevenson, Dumas, Kipling, et al, and it would seem one would have long ago sought to do the same for those younger... you note, even as asking for examples, you acknowledge my position is not being refuted, only that at present there seem little in alternatives from which to work...

In a way, as an analogy, what is needed is another L. Frank Baum - who, as an attempt to give benevolance to fairy tales, in contradistinction to the Grimm Brothers' collection, and even Hans Christian Andersens' - wrote the Oz tales, popular, yet, still making an implied claim that the wonder of life is less without fantasy, that imagination per se somehow lacks, that reality somehow is less than optimum.....

Without blushing, I would add, tho, that had I kids - and tho tried and tried, never managed - I would have been doing those tales you desire, to my own.... but in so saying, do recognise that I am and always have been a wee different from most others in how I see things and in my imaginating... let's say, am very reality oriented, and science fictionized, such that that realm would have at least in part been the means of showing wonders - along with showing in real-life, those grasping of nature one shows the youngsters as they grow, translating more complex notions into their parts, such that the child could grasp and understand - much as do the Montessorri......

(Edited by robert malcom on 9/04, 8:27pm)

Post 74

Monday, September 4, 2006 - 9:49pm

Robert:

     Thank you for such a thoughtful response.

     Upon re-reading my challenge to you, mesuspects I may have come off a bit...too strong. (I've never written/said THAT, btw). Sorry 'bout that. I know you rarely...extemporate...and would certainly not want to make it more rare. At any rate...

     No, I did not 'refute' what you had said; nor did I attempt to. I prefer to merely challenge (hard to do, 'diplomatically', if ya know what I mean; even then, I get into hot water with others. One needs a knack at that sort of thing I guess; not my forte.)

     Re your last paragraph, oh boy, I DO understand, 'believe it or not.' Ntl, the prob you have with seeing any worth in 'fantasy' literature (L.F.Baum aside) I just don't share. Often, much is absolutely worthless, no argument. A noted old SF writer (Theodore Sturgeon), no less, is known re his response to someone then (in the 50's) asking "Why do you write that stuff? 90% of it is crap." He answered: "90% of everything is crap; so?"

     Anyhoo, just because something's labeled 'fantasy' doesn't make it 'profoundly symbolic' (beyond hack-writing of over-used cliches), granted. Re SF, I'm a 'hard'-SF oriented type (not much around nowadays since Heinlein [and even he got 'soft' later on] other than R. L. Forward) myself. I suspect that you must be aware of the 'sci-fi communities' controversy over the very idea of 'defining' a diff 'twixt fantasy and science-fiction. Haven't come to any conclusions on that meself. (Shades of A. Clarke's dictum about 'advanced technology' [or, imaginings thereof?] and 'magic'!) --- However, o-t-other-h, just because something's labeled 'fantasy' doesn't make it 'crap' (or, that it's teaching 'mystical'-oriented poison to younglings) either. THAT attitude I find to smack a bit of the fundamentalist-Evangelicals news-noted probs with Harry Potter. To be 'rational' doesn't mean to be 'knee-jerky' about anyone's imaginings in story-telling. How LITERAL such imaginings are taken is where any non-/anti-'reality' probs can occur. See them as METAPHORICAL, and no such 'mystical' poisonings are even relevent to worry about. --- Consider: I wrote about Pegasus being a wonderful imagining of an 'ideal' (though not put exactly that way, but, my drift was not unnoticeable); I do believe that for a decade or two, Rand's "Anthem" in paperback showed a male with wings symbolically 'striving-to-fly' during the 70's-80's.

     Fantasy, interpretable as literally 'another place'-preferred-to-'here' IS an idea to deplore and castigate the worth of; interpreted metaphorically/symbolically...then we're talking the optimism of Baum...talking animals and all. But, not all 'fantasy' is anti-Baum.

     (Boy, I CAN go on and on, can't I?)

     But then, I suspect that you already do understand this point I'm over-emphasizing by now.

     You just didn't like Narnia, and that's all there is to it, right? 'Fess up!

LLAP
J:D

P.S: Sorry for my late 'P.S's on my last post. Apparently I was adding them whilst you posted your response to my not-yet-P.S.'d post. Hope this didn't make you too P.S'd

Post 75

Monday, September 4, 2006 - 11:25pm

I did not mean to imply there's little worth in many fantasy works - but there is the implication of it being, as analogies or allegories, of values to older than the child we've been discussing... yes, have all the Harry Potter books, along with the complete Burton translation of 1,001 Nights, as well as Uncle Remus [these last two, properly, being collections of folk tales, much as Grimm brothers did].... for that matter, have complete Edgar Rice Burroughs [tho that is classified as early science fiction] and the complete Robert Howard, Conan's creator... and several others - and enjoy reading them all [or used to as far as Conan goes, kept mainly for the collector value of the books now] - and got a big enjoyment over Fletcher Pratt's Compleat Enchanter series, delightful playing with Spencer's Fairie Queene and other such works.... but they always had taken a back seat to the what are called 'hard' science fiction - Charles Scheffield, Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, Hogan, Forward, and others.. tales, by the way, which few kids are able today to read and understand... or the fiction works of Eric Frank Russell, Robert Heinlein, and so forth...

.that, however, doesn't stop one who has read these works from being able to restate then in simplified terms such as a child could grasp - after all, in earlier years, before cartoons and fantasy works, parents did read to their children from the likes of Stevenson and Mark Twain and other adventurous writers, especially sparked by illustrations by Howard Pyle and Maxfield Parrish and N C Wyeth, because many even back then had notions such were better than fantasy works, even if they couldn't say why..

And no, did not like Narnia.....

(Edited by robert malcom on 9/04, 11:26pm)

There is another thing to consider - as said, "it's earlier than you think" - meaning that we are in a transition period of growth, and understanding the methodology of child raising is rather a newness, as far as history goes, and this transition involves as well removing the long held notion [ given in one form or another over millenias] that this world is a passing point to somewhere else, and instilling instead the wonders of this world in all its possibilities while fighting off 'the last hurrahs of the olden hordes', as it were, which in large respect is the reason for all this continued loving of fantasy.... so, if one is interested in being a writer, this is fertile field to work in, to fill in some of the gap...

(Edited by robert malcom on 9/04, 11:38pm)

Post 76

Tuesday, September 5, 2006 - 12:43pm

Robert,
I can't find the word "imaginate" in any dictionary, so I can't refute the definition you provide. However, according to Merriam-Webster the definition of the word imagine is "to form a mental image of something not present" or "to form a notion without sufficient basis". I don't see any reference to reality. The definition of fantasize is "to indulge in reverie" or "to create or develop imaginative and fantastic views or ideas" or "to portray in the mind". Therefore, my question is still... what's the difference? Not, what's the difference according to you, but what's the REAL difference?

Also, the entire point that I was trying to make is in regards to children, not adults. A 2-year-old has not "passed beyond that youth". A toddler doesn't need to be taught to imagine or to fantasize. He learns that all by himself and he enjoys it. He learns from it and by it, yes, but mostly it's just plain fun.

Post 77

Tuesday, September 5, 2006 - 1:48pm

P.S. There is a strong influence in both Rand's and Tolkien's thought by the Neo-Scholastics. Jesuits at the end of the 19th Century were synthesizing Natural law and Classical liberalism. The best work I know on their teaching is Cardinal Mercier's Manual of Scholastic Philosophy published in the late 1890's.

The writings of the Catholic Lord Acton are also worth checking out.

Rand was originally going to have a Father Amadeus as one of her characters in Atlas Shrugged, but found it unworkable.

This is the first time I have heard this one.

Rand and Paterson's falling out seems to have been in part over Rand's supposed unacknowledged use of this thought.

Or it could have been over religion in general. This falling out seemed to coincide with the time that Rand acquired a bunch of blind followers.

Unfortunately reactionary forces in the church attacked the Neo-Scholastics and Modernists as heretical and left the door open for Marxist and Fascist strains to gain ascendancy. Since the 1960's Marxism has become the strongest influence among Catholic intellectuals, if they may be called intellectuals.

The Protestant Reformation was in many respects a revolt against Aristotle and Aquinas in favor of Plato and Augustine. Catholicism retained much of its Aristotelianism.

Can you give some examples of the Marxist influence?

Post 78

Tuesday, September 5, 2006 - 3:04pm

Ahistorical, Abiological, Rationalism

Deanna,

So far as I can determine, there is no difference over all between many self-identified objectivists and the general population, except that much of the general population makes atribitrary assertions which they justify based on religion, ignorance or whim and much of the "objectivist" population makes arbitrary assertions which they couch in the terms of Rand.

You bring up your example that children spontaneously fantasize, which is undeniable, is universal, and is of great import. But how many so-called objectivists have children, rememeber their childhoods, or take child development into account in their theorizing?

Much of what passes for objectivism on-line, and sometimes in print, implicitly ignores any knowledge of human nature that might be gleaned from the comparative study of world history, (which did not begin in 1947, 1776, or 330 BC,) primitive culture, (which is denounced as "savagery" and may thus be conveniently ignored) or that nebulous and perhaps embarrassing time in our own lives before we learned to parrot Rand's rhetorical style, our own childhoods.

Dailey's statement regarding the penchant for children to fantasize about dinosaurs is an insight that could be looked at in the context of worldwide Dragon mythology, worldwide totemistic traditons, (Ever heard of the Philadelphia Eagles? The Gators, The Cougars?) or America's symbol (totem) which is the Bald Eagle, not the ~tabula rasa.~

Knowledge of the world cannot be deduced ~a priori~ from Rand's dicta or by ignoring subjects of which Rand was ignorant (by her own admission, like biology) or which Rand abhorred (comparative religion) or which Rand dismissed off-handedly (Eastern and primitive cultures.)

Ted Keer 5 Sep '06 NYC

Post 79

Tuesday, September 5, 2006 - 3:27pm