Atlas Shrugged getting several movies

True.

Unfortunately, Rand has a Godlike status among American conservatives. We've got a US Senator named after her, for godsakes.

Spiral: Selflessness is good. Selfishness is bad. Any preschool teacher could tell you that. Anyone who says otherwise is a wanker, pure and simple.

Nope, I don't think peopple get jobs in order to give every cent they earn to the desititue. So your absolutism falls on deaf ears.

It's cute how you think altruism automatically equates to absolutism. Now, go and play in your lovely dichotomous dream world while those who understand how the real world works talk.

• shrug* the definition of altruism your using in Reagard to Raynd is incorrect. So your wrong.

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.

Under that definition anything you think of doing is automatically okay, if the objective is 'virtuous' or 'for the greater good.

It's Machiavellian morality at best.

So... if a person only acts in their own interest and tells everybody else to go fuck off, then they are virtuous in Rand's world? Wow. I have truly seen the light now and will from now on endeavour to only do things for myself. Who says that society needs cooperation to survive? Yeah, fuck all those poor people, and sick people, and children, and the mentally handicapped. If they were really morally upright, they wouldn't have let themselves fall into circumstances beyond their control. Fuck those guys.

In a nutshell. She has a lot of fans because a lot of people want to be able to do whatever they want and still consider themselves morally superior to everyone else. For the most part, I don't think anyone actually believes it—they certainly wouldn't if they fell on the wrong end of it—but lots of people want it to be true, and that can be maintained through cognitive dissonance and obtuse nitpicking, as Spiral is doing.

I never stopped to think of Objectivism as a license cult, but on consideration, it fits the qualifications. . .

Yes, Objectivists use a definition of the word "altruism" that isn't even used by anybody else in modern society. That still doesn't make Rand's position valid; it just props up a strawman so that nobody who uses the real, widely accepted definition of the word cannot defend against Ayn Rand's argument. And the Objectivist position on "altruism" is still incredibly flawed, anyway.

What Ayn Rand is saying about "altruism" is that it is not a moral imperative or personal obligation or responsibility to give help to others who are in need. People are only morally obligated to look after themselves and their own interests. All she's essentially trying to do is give a moral justification to people who want to be selfish assholes and not feel guilty about it.

And if you are still trying to claim that Objectivism allows for the occasional, totally voluntary, charitable donation to another's cause (or promotes that "happy medium" between looking after oneself and helping others that you mentioned earlier), then I'm afraid that that means you are very, very, very wrong. Again, as I've already stated, Objectivism holds, basically, that everyone should live by their own effort, neither accepting gifts from others nor giving them, as both actions are considered moral weaknesses.

Case in point, below is a You Tube video that some Randroid posted to ask for personal donations to support his business and online vlogging activities. Sounds like a perfectly inoffensive, easily ignorable thing he's doing here, but you'd be amazed at what other Objectivists have to say about what he's doing in the video comments.

CHOICE COMMENTS:

Conclusion: Your average Objectivist truly is a complete shitbag.

edited 10th May '11 8:46:42 AM by SeanMurrayI

I hate to play devil's advocate, but all You Tube comment sections are filled with shitbags from every ideological slant. It's not a good idea to judge a philosophy (even one as distasteful as Objectivism) by what You Tube commentators say.

Only, as I pointed out, the You Tube Objectivists here are upholding the philosophy's view that everyone should live by their own effort without giving help to others or asking for help from them, which Rand and her followers consider signs of "moral weakness."

The You Tube comments on a video in which an apparent Objectivist welcomes outside help and contributions are a testament to the social values Objectivists hold dear (or that they don't hold dear, as the case may be).

Assuming there even is a polite way of calling somebody "morally weak" just for inviting "voluntary contributions" from others, anyway, I've yet to hear it.

edited 10th May '11 12:47:30 PM by SeanMurrayI

I stand corrected.

Eesh. I feel bad for that guy.

The real, overlooked, problem in the argument of altruism vs objectivism: both philosophies are assumed to be "totalitarian ideologies." I don't mean this in the sense of "providing support for an absolutist government," but in the sense that the philosophy itself is presumed to be relevantly applicable to all aspects of one's life, leaving no room for anything else.

Altruism, the idea that selflessness is a positive good, only becomes pathological if you add to it an absolute obligation to maximize the 'good' as defined by it and only it. Quite similarly, the idea of self-interest as a positive good becomes pathological if you apply it as the sole determinant of the good, and are similarly obligated to maximize it.

The mistake is:

1. assuming that there is one and only one source of good, as opposed to multiple varyingly compatible ones

2. viewing any action that does not maximize the good as being intrinsically evil

Officer Barbrady weighs in.

If I hadn't found good books, I would have had a similar reaction to a few works. I'm betting you can guess who.

I noticed now on IMDb that there is a "Part 2" in the works... maybe. I can't help but notice the "Either-Or" in the title. I'm not quite sure what that means.

I've also noticed that the cast has a few more familiar names than "Part 1". Thomas F. Wilson... Ray Wise... Robert Picardo... Larisa Oleynik, man, I've been wondering what Alex Mack has been up to nowadays.

RE the "Rand was arguing against Comte" thing. If true, what's the point of doing that? No one actually believes/has believed (except Comte himself I guess) you should live your life for other people, do they? It seems to me that if Rand was arguing against American liberalism on the basis that it believes in Comtean altruism, then she was arguing against a strawman.

Oh my god, the DVD cover art for "Part 1" is more gaudy than the cinematography in the actual movie.◊

edited 17th Apr '12 4:26:32 PM by SeanMurrayI

On top of that, even if you start with the idea "Comte was wrong", there are a ton of rationales one can use to establish this other than "selflessness is actively evil." Game Theory alone does the job, even if you believe Comte was right regarding the desired ideal.

I don't know if this movie will ever make it to Italy (given the crud we've had the chance to watch here, however, it could have the chance) but in case it happens, I already know what my reaction will be.

According to the cast list for the sequel now, the movie will feature Teller... but not Penn.

Rand was raised in the USSR before she went to the States. She wasn't really arguing against anything here, just having a serious breakdown over the Soviet propaganda she'd been harassed with her entire life. I've also heard she, herself, even toned down after all the story writing and had minor "What the Hell am I on about?" moments. Not sure how true that is, but it would damn her own philosophy for sure.

ALL systems work well in a vacuum. Good luck finding one. You'll always run into quirks of the universe, human or otherwise, that put the wrench in the machine. The trick is to find the right mixture of different ones that cover each other.

As for the movies . . . I completely forgot about this! I survived Atlus Shrugged, but just barely. Back in college dad said there were scholarships done by the Rand foundation, for essayists who could answer questions about the book. He doesn't know Rand's work, we just wanted to lower tuition costs with as many scholarships as possible. I finished the book in time to write an essay, but fuck if I wanted to. That stuff gave me a headache and made me want to puke. That's right! The Ayn Rand people give out scholarships for people who can understand the book. . . so much for everyone for themselves.

I've also heard she, herself, even toned down after all the story writing and had minor "What the Hell am I on about?"

Then why don't they make a movie about this?

Actually, being a Communist, I already knew I wouldn't have liked her "philosophy", but at least I hoped the book to be written decently. Dear lord, that book would have hurt less if it had been smacked repeatedly to my groin. However, I've read that the cast includes Michael O'Keefe (aka evil Dr. Stanley Howard fron Criminal Minds). Is there a chance that he'll go berserk and kill the protagonists?

That's SO one year ago. He isn't even in the cast list for the apparent sequel (which I still don't completely believe is being made).

edited 5th Jul '12 7:33:17 AM by SeanMurrayI