13 de Julio de 2006
« Himno USA al son del himno soviético | Principal | Ayn Rand en "A Scanner Darkly" »
Bitácora de Antonio Mascaró Rotger
¡La peli "La Rebelión de Atlas" será trilogía!
Según cuentan en Laissez-Faire Books, la esperada versión cinematográfica de la novela de Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged será una trilogía. Esperada desde 1973, cuando se anunció por vez primera.
El presupuesto para la primera entrega, en principio, parece rondar los 40 millones de dólares.
Al parecer, una de las prioridades de los productores es satisfacer a la audiencia randiana, o sea, que sorprendentemente no se prevé una versión pasada por agua políticamente correcta.
Dicen que la Angelina Jolie es la única gran estrella tanteada que parece definitiva. Que hay muchas que se han interesado pero que la Jolie es la que tiene todos los números porque ella misma esta "muy muy interesada" en interpretar a la inolvidable Dagny Taggart.
El presupuesto para la primera entrega, en principio, parece rondar los 40 millones de dólares.
Al parecer, una de las prioridades de los productores es satisfacer a la audiencia randiana, o sea, que sorprendentemente no se prevé una versión pasada por agua políticamente correcta.
Dicen que la Angelina Jolie es la única gran estrella tanteada que parece definitiva. Que hay muchas que se han interesado pero que la Jolie es la que tiene todos los números porque ella misma esta "muy muy interesada" en interpretar a la inolvidable Dagny Taggart.
Comentarios
Ojalá, xD, vaya espaldarazo al movimiento liberal allí donde no dominamos, el mundo del artisteo de alto standing.
Oí también que se estaba preparando una veersión de "La luna..." de Heinlein, pero no he vuelto a saber nada.
Oí también que se estaba preparando una veersión de "La luna..." de Heinlein, pero no he vuelto a saber nada.
Esto sí que es un notición. Efectivamente, la película aparece en International Movie Database (IMDb www.imdb.com). Se espera el estreno para 2008. Parece ser que Brat Pitt también está interesado en el asunto. Por ahora, la adaptación del guión está a cargo de James V. Hart, el guionista del Dracula de Coppola y de Lara Croft Tomb Raider.
No todo el objetivismo es bueno.
Ellos no son consistentes con el axioma de no agresión de los liberales.
El objetivismo de Rand es un culto.
-------------
Libertarianism vs Objectivism; A Response to Peter Schwartz
Walter Block - Mises Institute
Loyola University New Orleans
http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/26/rp_26_4.pdf
Ellos no son consistentes con el axioma de no agresión de los liberales.
El objetivismo de Rand es un culto.
-------------
Libertarianism vs Objectivism; A Response to Peter Schwartz
Walter Block - Mises Institute
Loyola University New Orleans
http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/26/rp_26_4.pdf
Respuestas para dante_bayona:
"No todo el objetivismo es bueno"
Te conmino a que nos expliques qué partes no son buenas y por qué.
"...no son consistentes con el axioma de no agresión de los liberales"
*No good is achievable under any circumstances or for anyone by means of the initiation of force. (Leonard Peikoff en "Objectivism").
*Objectivism has been advocating for many years: the moral of reason over physical force—and the ban on the initiation of force, as a precondition of a civilized society (Ayn Rand en "The Objectivist", marzo de 1969).
...estas obligado a ser más específico en tu acusación, dante_bayona, porque tal y colo la has hecho no se sostiene.
El objetivismo de Rand es un culto.
Define "culto", por favor. Luego seguimos hablando.
Mientras que no definas el significado de esa palabra, tu acusación es un flatus vocis.
No obstante, el pdf que enlazas es interesante. Gracias.
Por lo demás, quedo a la espera de que substancies tus acusaciones.
"No todo el objetivismo es bueno"
Te conmino a que nos expliques qué partes no son buenas y por qué.
"...no son consistentes con el axioma de no agresión de los liberales"
*No good is achievable under any circumstances or for anyone by means of the initiation of force. (Leonard Peikoff en "Objectivism").
*Objectivism has been advocating for many years: the moral of reason over physical force—and the ban on the initiation of force, as a precondition of a civilized society (Ayn Rand en "The Objectivist", marzo de 1969).
...estas obligado a ser más específico en tu acusación, dante_bayona, porque tal y colo la has hecho no se sostiene.
El objetivismo de Rand es un culto.
Define "culto", por favor. Luego seguimos hablando.
Mientras que no definas el significado de esa palabra, tu acusación es un flatus vocis.
No obstante, el pdf que enlazas es interesante. Gracias.
Por lo demás, quedo a la espera de que substancies tus acusaciones.
Una trilogía es lo suyo. Por la extensión, por la moda de las trilogías y por la estructura del libro.
lee el paper...
--------------
Libertarianism vs Objectivism; A Response to Peter Schwartz
Walter Block - Mises Institute
Loyola University New Orleans
http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/26/rp_26_4.pdf
--------------------
Allí están todas las explicaciones y más...
Mejor aún randiano, dinos qué es falso en el paper. Y leelo bajo tu propia responsabilidad. No vaya a ser que a alguno de tus superiores no le guste lo que lees.
--------------
Libertarianism vs Objectivism; A Response to Peter Schwartz
Walter Block - Mises Institute
Loyola University New Orleans
http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/26/rp_26_4.pdf
--------------------
Allí están todas las explicaciones y más...
Mejor aún randiano, dinos qué es falso en el paper. Y leelo bajo tu propia responsabilidad. No vaya a ser que a alguno de tus superiores no le guste lo que lees.
... The next criticism that Schwartz levels at libertarianism is that we differ among ourselves. “There are so many disagreements on basic questions of liberty within the libertarian movement. That is why libertarianism readily accommodates a conglomeration of mutually incompatible groups.”
In contrast of course, the Randians don’t disagree on anything [this applies only to the pre-split days]. The explanation for this state of affairs is that Objectivism is a cult. Branden (1986) denies this, but she defines cults in religious terms, and obviously objectivism cannot be considered a religious cult. All members are very definitely atheists, and outspoken ones at that. But, apart from that one issue, it cannot be denied that they are cultish. There is the godhead or godheadess who holds forth. Anyone who disagrees with her view is purged. There is intellectual bullying, there is irrationality in the name of rationality. When Branden and Rand split, Rand asked all of her followers to take her side without explaining to them so much as what the issues were. She asked them to take her on faith even though she preaches against anyone taking anything on this basis. This is irrationality in the name of rationality.
This was the Randian cult. On a personal note, when I would ask my Randian acquaintances for their view on an event or issue, they would often not reply. Instead, they would say they had to think about it and would get back to me in a few days. All too often I was told privately, they had to check back with the head office because if they got caught saying something at variance with the cult leader, it was out of the Randian movement for them.
...
In contrast of course, the Randians don’t disagree on anything [this applies only to the pre-split days]. The explanation for this state of affairs is that Objectivism is a cult. Branden (1986) denies this, but she defines cults in religious terms, and obviously objectivism cannot be considered a religious cult. All members are very definitely atheists, and outspoken ones at that. But, apart from that one issue, it cannot be denied that they are cultish. There is the godhead or godheadess who holds forth. Anyone who disagrees with her view is purged. There is intellectual bullying, there is irrationality in the name of rationality. When Branden and Rand split, Rand asked all of her followers to take her side without explaining to them so much as what the issues were. She asked them to take her on faith even though she preaches against anyone taking anything on this basis. This is irrationality in the name of rationality.
This was the Randian cult. On a personal note, when I would ask my Randian acquaintances for their view on an event or issue, they would often not reply. Instead, they would say they had to think about it and would get back to me in a few days. All too often I was told privately, they had to check back with the head office because if they got caught saying something at variance with the cult leader, it was out of the Randian movement for them.
...
Has this cultism vanished? Not at all within the Piekoff part of the movement. Consider the June 26, 1986 publication of their cult periodical, the so called Intellectual Activist: “Robert Hessen (until this issue, a leading Randian) is no long associated with the Intellectual Activist in any manner whatsoever.” Period. That was it. No explanation whatsoever. I telephoned him, and asked, “What happened? Did he think that two plus two was five? Perhaps that A doesn’t equal A or something?” No, he told me, he liked Barbara Branden’s (1986) book.
Here is another statement by Piekoff which appeared in the May 26, 1986 issue of that publication: “The forthcoming biography of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden was undertaken against Miss Rand’s wishes. Miss Rand severed relationships with Mrs. Branden in 1968 regarding her as immoral and as an enemy of objectivism. Being aware of Mrs. Branden’s long time hostility to Miss Rand, including her public attacks on Miss Rand after her death, attacks interlarded with protestations of adulation, I have refused for years to meet with Mrs. Branden or to cooperate with her on this project. I had no reason to believe that the book would be either a truthful representation of Ayn Rand’s life or an accurate statement of her ideas. Advanced reports from several readers of the book in galley form, have confirmed my expectations. Therefore, I certainly do not recommend this book. As for myself, I have not read it and do not intend to do so.” How is that for thinking for yourself?
Libertarians disagree with each other because we are individuals. We are bright, but imperfect. We think for ourselves and the world is complex. We’re a political movement, not a cult. That’s why we disagree with each other, on occasion. Disagreements, fights, splits, even hatreds, yes. But no one party line. We have a healthy diversity.
...
Here is another statement by Piekoff which appeared in the May 26, 1986 issue of that publication: “The forthcoming biography of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden was undertaken against Miss Rand’s wishes. Miss Rand severed relationships with Mrs. Branden in 1968 regarding her as immoral and as an enemy of objectivism. Being aware of Mrs. Branden’s long time hostility to Miss Rand, including her public attacks on Miss Rand after her death, attacks interlarded with protestations of adulation, I have refused for years to meet with Mrs. Branden or to cooperate with her on this project. I had no reason to believe that the book would be either a truthful representation of Ayn Rand’s life or an accurate statement of her ideas. Advanced reports from several readers of the book in galley form, have confirmed my expectations. Therefore, I certainly do not recommend this book. As for myself, I have not read it and do not intend to do so.” How is that for thinking for yourself?
Libertarians disagree with each other because we are individuals. We are bright, but imperfect. We think for ourselves and the world is complex. We’re a political movement, not a cult. That’s why we disagree with each other, on occasion. Disagreements, fights, splits, even hatreds, yes. But no one party line. We have a healthy diversity.
...
...
If there is any person in the libertarian movement who could be considered a candidate for cult leader, it would be Murray Rothbard (“Mr. Libertarian”). He was certainly a leading thinker in the libertarian movement. As a matter of fact, Murray and I were good personal friends; yet I have disagreed with him in private, and in person and in writing and in public on several issues including voluntary slavery, immigration, the flat tax, and star wars (Block, 1968, 1998, 1999A, forthcoming). But, there has never been even any hint of a purge. Were Schwartz to disagree with Rand or Peikoff or any other top Objectivist disciple on any issue, no matter how picayune, he would be summarily dismissed from the elect.
Libertarianism is a growing vital, viable, intellectual concern and in such contexts people disagree with each other. We argue these things out. It is a market of ideas. There is nothing to be ashamed about in disagreeing with each other; the very contrary is true.
...
If there is any person in the libertarian movement who could be considered a candidate for cult leader, it would be Murray Rothbard (“Mr. Libertarian”). He was certainly a leading thinker in the libertarian movement. As a matter of fact, Murray and I were good personal friends; yet I have disagreed with him in private, and in person and in writing and in public on several issues including voluntary slavery, immigration, the flat tax, and star wars (Block, 1968, 1998, 1999A, forthcoming). But, there has never been even any hint of a purge. Were Schwartz to disagree with Rand or Peikoff or any other top Objectivist disciple on any issue, no matter how picayune, he would be summarily dismissed from the elect.
Libertarianism is a growing vital, viable, intellectual concern and in such contexts people disagree with each other. We argue these things out. It is a market of ideas. There is nothing to be ashamed about in disagreeing with each other; the very contrary is true.
...
A lo que has escrito, en castellano lo llamamos "salirse por la tangente", dante_bayona.
Yo en ningún momento he dicho que haya nada falso (ni verdadero) en el PDF cuyo enlace nos das.
La alusión a mis "superiores" (no los tengo) es un "ad hominem" barato, propio de quien no tiene nada mejor que decir.
Conozco la literatura de los Branden, dante-bayona, la tengo leída y subrayada, y es muy interesante para entender a Ayn Rand.
FIN DE MI INTERCAMBIO CON dante-bayona. Alguien que emplea un ad hominem ridículo y ofensivo como el de implicar que tengo superiores a los que tengo que dar cuentas de lo que leo no se merece un segundo más de mi precioso tiempo.
Que tengan ustedes buenas premisas.
Yo en ningún momento he dicho que haya nada falso (ni verdadero) en el PDF cuyo enlace nos das.
La alusión a mis "superiores" (no los tengo) es un "ad hominem" barato, propio de quien no tiene nada mejor que decir.
Conozco la literatura de los Branden, dante-bayona, la tengo leída y subrayada, y es muy interesante para entender a Ayn Rand.
FIN DE MI INTERCAMBIO CON dante-bayona. Alguien que emplea un ad hominem ridículo y ofensivo como el de implicar que tengo superiores a los que tengo que dar cuentas de lo que leo no se merece un segundo más de mi precioso tiempo.
Que tengan ustedes buenas premisas.
bueno,
Lean el paper y saquen sus conclusiones sobre el objetivismo.
Al final usted tampoco ha dicho nada, no ha defendido la incoherencia de los objetivistas con el principio de no agresión, y tampoco explicó lo de Branden y Robert Hessen.
Yo no tengo nada que decir.
Yo no entro en jueguitos de palabras. Aclare usted las fallas objetivistas.
Lean el paper y saquen sus conclusiones sobre el objetivismo.
Al final usted tampoco ha dicho nada, no ha defendido la incoherencia de los objetivistas con el principio de no agresión, y tampoco explicó lo de Branden y Robert Hessen.
Yo no tengo nada que decir.
Yo no entro en jueguitos de palabras. Aclare usted las fallas objetivistas.
No se admiten ya más comentarios.