Atlas Shrugged getting several movies

Do a crossover with Thomas The Tank Engine.

(*Walks in, Sees , dies laughing*)

...Also RE: These movies: GIGO

Colbert just mentioned it on his show the other night and told his viewers to see the film. *Cough*

"America, you must see 'Atlas Shrugged'. Do it for John Aglialoro. Do it for Ayn Rand... because they would not do it for you."

No Such Thing as Bad Publicity

edited 7th May '11 9:40:17 AM by BoundByTheMoon

You mean like Sony has been enjoying lately?

I think what you meant was No Such Thing As Bad Reviews (which, I'm afraid, actually wouldn't be true).

It was in reference to the Colbert Report review.

And that has nothing to do with No Such Thing as Bad Publicity, as well.

Facinating that so many of you get the Randian definition of Altruism wrong. Its right here in your Useful Notes.

To most people, the charges she leveled at altruism wildly vary with what they have been told altruism actually means. To most people, altruism means (more or less) be kind to other people and refrain from being a jerkass.

This common definition of altruism is most emphatically not the definition Rand has in mind.

The word "altruism" was coined by Auguste Comte. He defined it as live for others and intended it to mean, basically, that a person can be called noble if the ultimate end of their actions is the benefit of others. In other words, the motive of service to others is intrinsically virtuous.

It is this definition of altruism that Rand was attacking. And Rand was not the only person to consider it insane. John Stuart Mill, a Utilitarian philosopher (not an ethical egoist like Rand), was quite shocked at the implications of Comte's definition. For more on this, please see Robert L. Campbell's Altruism in Comte and Rand, The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 7, no. 2 (Spring 2006): 357 to 369.

Rand argued that Comtean Altruism essentially results in a situation where the ends justifies the means with "others" as the end. As long as the intended end is the benefit of others, anything goes. For someone as concerned as she was with individual liberty, this is an understandable concern; Comtean Altruism can easily justify revoking the liberty of individuals if it is "for their own good."

Only Ayn Rand is still totally wrong and completely batshit.

Showing exclusive concern for the welfare of others will always be more of a human virtue than Rand's emphasis on only caring for oneself and personal selfishness. As others have expressed already, this is why Regular Iron Man is a better model for a human being than Objectivist Iron Man.

edited 9th May '11 8:20:27 AM by SeanMurrayI

So your cool with this then?

Rand argued that Comtean Altruism essentially results in a situation where the ends justifies the means with "others" as the end. As long as the intended end is the benefit of others, anything goes. For someone as concerned as she was with individual liberty, this is an understandable concern; Comtean Altruism can easily justify revoking the liberty of individuals if it is "for their own good."

Or maybe you just lack reading comprehension skills?

Objectivism does not promote solely caring for oneself. It rejects the belief that one MUST live foor others. Its your own CHOICE if you do so.

And besides that, Ayn Raynd isn't the Jesus Christ of Objectivism, more like the Jerry Fallwell.

Oh, I can read. The problem you're facing here though has nothing to do with the extent of my literacy skills and how much I understand the words being typed. The problem is that you've decided to argue with a brick wall. As someone who has already decided for himself that Ayn Rand's philosophy is flawed and inherently selfish in only the most amoral and inconvenient ways imaginable, no amount of positive interpretation of Rand's ideas are gonna change my opinion; I've heard it all before. Likewise, nothing I say that is critical of Rand is ever going to change your opinions about the positive things you see in her philosophy.

One thing's for certain though: The fact that you have to depend on an Ad Hominem attack and openly suspect the person you are talking to of being illiterate to give yourself any semblance of a righteous position in an argument on the Internet just makes you look like a tool.

The emphasis you place on Rand's view of individual liberty is flawed, anyway. "To be altruistic" =/= "to lose freedom." I can be completely altruistic and live for others entirely and still retain all the personal freedoms I am entitled to (speech, religion, life, pursuit of happiness, etc.). Hell, if you even say it's my own CHOICE to be altruistic or not, then my very altruistic actions would very much be an exercise of my freedom to choose what I do with my own life.

I do like your use of that one word: CHOICE. Indeed, life itself ultimately is just a choice to either use personal freedoms and abilities to help others or to use those same freedoms and abilities to help oneself, and we cannot have a free society without letting people make that kind of choice. Though I will say that I believe that the kinds of people who choose to use their freedoms and abilities for only their own sake tend to be massive dickheads.

edited 9th May '11 9:18:24 AM by SeanMurrayI

"I do like your use of that one word: CHOICE. Indeed, life itself ultimately is just a choice to either use personal freedoms and abilities to help others or to use those same freedoms and abilities to help oneself, and we cannot have a free society without having that choice be possible. Though I will say that I believe that people who choose to only use their freedoms and abilities for themselves tend to act like massive dickheads."

Ah, so you admit that I'm right. That's good then.

You are right about there being a choice.

However, you have not appropriately argued how being selfish and only looking out for oneself, as Rand had insisted, is the apparent correct choice.

edited 9th May '11 9:24:37 AM by SeanMurrayI

Pointless post.

edited 9th May '11 9:27:56 AM by Pannic

IIRC, this thread was about the Atlas Shrugged movie adaptation a few posts ago, not Rand's philosophy itself.

Relax, this thread has gone off on stranger, much more irrelevant tangents in the past.

edited 9th May '11 9:42:23 AM by SeanMurrayI

Well as I said, Raynd is a Jerry Fallwell, not a Jesus Christ to Objectivism. If that is indeed what she proposed then she was wrong.

Its perfectly fine to live a happy medium of living for oneself as well as others.

Ah, the good old days.

So who's up for another lengthy discussion about how much of a douchebag Shakespeare was or wasn't?

Which is all fine and dandy, but Atlas Shrugged has things like that whole "tunnel disaster'' thing.

Which is highly ironic, because unless I'm mistaken, the book's protagonist does pretty much exactly the same thing as the socialist politician does (flagrantly ignoring a warning sign and just going ahead), and yet with no similar consequences.

Also, re: Shakespeare - Purple Prose? Seriously, Shakey's got nothing on a lot of 19th-century authors. Ever read Frankenstein? I was reading that thing and I'm thinking "Who talks like this?"

edited 9th May '11 9:47:01 AM by Pannic

^^^ Ayn Rand has nothing in common with Jerry Falwell.

Jerry Falwell pushed ideas that were developed by other people long before him. Ayn Rand created her own school of thought, and yes, the philosophy she created calls for people to put themselves before others. There's no CHOICE in the matter according to Rand. She believes in individuals only helping themselves, above all.

The perfect metaphor for Objectivism in a nutshell would be the belief that a man overboard at sea should work to get himself back on board a boat on his own. And if someone else who is on board a boat should offer him help by way of throwing him a lifebuoy, that person would be giving the man overboard help which Rand would find such a person undeserving of.

If I were to create a special institute to promote Rand's philosophy to the public, Rand's philosophy holds that I should get funding for it solely through myself and my personal effort. If I were to open the door for encouraging charitable outside contributions from others or any other public fund-raising plan to help run the institute, then I'd be a social parasite living off of others' personal fortune. Both giving gifts, such as a charitable contribution, and accepting them are considered signs of moral weakness according to Rand and Objectivists.

Objectivist philosophy does not promote this "happy medium".

edited 9th May '11 11:17:36 AM by SeanMurrayI

Ayn Rand is more like L. Ron Hubbard in this case.

Was disgraced post-mortem by having an awful movie made based on her works by one of her fanboys?

...Oh. Whoops.

^ "Disgraced" would imply that both Rand and Hubbard actually had respect and honorable statuses in the first place, before movie adaptations of their narrative work were critically panned.

edited 9th May '11 11:14:14 AM by SeanMurrayI