NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117971319.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

Atlas Shrugged finds a director in Vadim Perelman and, as previously announced, Angelina Jolie has the starring role as Dagny Taggart.

There is a Galt after all!


eudaimonia,

Mark

I wonder if the film will end up as much an unintentional comedy as the book.

I wonder if the film will end up as much an unintentional comedy as the book.I suppose the scriptwriter will need to do a massive rewrite.

I wonder how, or if, they will do the scene where Taggart lets herself get raped.

And I will be the first to make the joke about fininding out the identity of the male protagonist. Everyone wants to know: Who is John Galt?

I suppose the scriptwriter will need to do a massive rewrite.

Yeah, from illegible to unwatchable.

I wonder if the film will end up as much an unintentional comedy as the book.
The Fountainhead wasn't a bad screenplay. It was fraught with as many opportunities for unintentional humor as is Atlas Shrugged.

Of course, Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal, are far superior actors to Angelina Jolie and whoever else they find.

They'll probably do to Atlas Shrugged what the Robocop guys did to Starship Troopers. The book was about war, value, and bugs with guns; the movie was about fascism and giant bugs that stepped on people.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117971319.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

Atlas Shrugged finds a director in Vadim Perelman and, as previously announced, Angelina Jolie has the starring role as Dagny Taggart.

There is a Galt after all!


eudaimonia,

Mark

Linus and Lucy is going to go absolutely batshit insane over this, and demand that we watch this movie based on the work "of eminent 20th Century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand".

Hey Trots,
The state is, has been, and always will be purely coercive and omnipresent. Its only purpose to inspire fear allow those who seek power through it to control those around them, elevating and enriching themselves.

Government is a parasite, like a thief in the night he steals the fruits of your labor. No gods or kings, only man. A man chooses, a slave obeys. A man builds, a parasite asks "where's my share?" A man creates, a parasite asks "what will the neighbors think?" A man invents, a parasite says "Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God."

They'll probably do to Atlas Shrugged what the Robocop guys did to Starship Troopers. The book was about war, value, and bugs with guns; the movie was about fascism and giant bugs that stepped on people.
So what you're saying is that John Galt will have a slow motion gun fight with Dr. Ferris?

Yes. And the whole thing will take place in an underwater moon colony or in volcano on Jupiter. Yes, I know that it would be pointless to put water on the moon just to make an underwater colony and I know that Jupiter doesn't even have ground for a volcano to form on but they did shit like that on Voyager all the time and you have to admit it would be cool to live in a volcano 'cause when people come over you can say "Lava nice day."

Yes. And the whole thing will take place in an underwater moon colony or in volcano on Jupiter. Yes, I know that it would be pointless to put water on the moon just to make an underwater colony and I know that Jupiter doesn't even have ground for a volcano to form on but they did shit like that on Voyager all the time and you have to admit it would be cool to live in a volcano 'cause when people come over you can say "Lava nice day."

Or "Water you doing?"

I wonder if there will be 40 minutes of the movie where John Galt says "A is A," over and over again.

I wonder if there will be 40 minutes of the movie where John Galt says "A is A," over and over again.

I've never skipped ahead in a novel I was reading. Except once.

I read the first two paragraphs, then checked how long that damned radio broadcast went on for. Holy oh fucklette, I was not going to read a hundred page monologue about the exact same themes that the rest of the book was already pounding at with the obvious hammer.

Ayn Rand was not only out of touch with reality, but she was a crappy writer too.

I've never understood people's fascination with Atlas Shrugged. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the theme, it's just not that well written.

I've never skipped ahead in a novel I was reading. Except once.

I think that's the same case for an awful lot of people, me included. There was no point in reading it, as it had already been said dozens of times over and over again, I didn't need to hear it directly a hundred times over and over again.


Ayn Rand was not only out of touch with reality, but she was a crappy writer too.

Actually, the Fountainhead was rather nicely written, and as an artistic statement I really had a tough time disagreeing with it.

I'm a Communist, so I don't think the theme or message was good or even well-argued. But I did enjoy the story, even though the writing was very melodramatic, and the ending was not complete enough.

I think that's the same case for an awful lot of people, me included. There was no point in reading it, as it had already been said dozens of times over and over again, I didn't need to hear it directly a hundred times over and over again.




Actually, the Fountainhead was rather nicely written, and as an artistic statement I really had a tough time disagreeing with it.


Really, I found her writing to be heavy-handed. She also had characters that were more like caricatures of the social and cultural attitudes they embodied than actual 3 dimensional people. I also found that many plot points were predictable, and her historical revisionism was nauseating.

Part of this was obviously an effect of communicating a philosophy through the medium of the novel. The novel was not the goal, merely a means to a goal.

and the ending was not complete enough.

Good god, you can't say that part enough.

Really, I found her writing to be heavy-handed. She also had characters that were more like caricatures of the social and cultural attitudes they embodied than actual 3 dimensional people. I also found that many plot points were predictable, and her historical revisionism was nauseating.

Part of this was obviously an effect of communicating a philosophy through the medium of the novel. The novel was not the goal, merely a means to a goal.

Quite, that's a mistake I made a lot in my attempts at writing novels. Suffice to say, if people disagree with your ideas, making a novel centered around them will probably not help much.

Quite, that's a mistake I made a lot in my attempts at writing novels. Suffice to say, if people disagree with your ideas, making a novel centered around them will probably not help much.

Unless, that is, you want to preach to the choir.

Which has always baffled me about many politically oriented novels extolling the evils of a competing ideology. You know that none of the proponents of the ideology being attacked are going to read them, so therefore they're not going to be convinced of anything. Rather, it's to rally the troops, so to say. And for the reader it's a sort of mental masturbation, a way to justify or satisfy ones social ideology without actually involving other people.

She also had characters that were more like caricatures of the social and cultural attitudes they embodied than actual 3 dimensional people.

Her characters are infamous for being poorly written. Mimi Gladstein calls them "flat and uninteresting" (sort of like all her writing in general), her protagonists "implausibly wealthy, intelligent, physically attractive and free of doubt while arrayed against antagonists who are weak, pathetic, full of uncertainty, and lacking in imagination and talent". Unsurprising, since the entirety of "objectivism" is an exercise in begging the question.

Her characters are infamous for being poorly written. Mimi Gladstein calls them "flat and uninteresting" (sort of like all her writing in general), her protagonists "implausibly wealthy, intelligent, physically attractive and free of doubt while arrayed against antagonists who are weak, pathetic, full of uncertainty, and lacking in imagination and talent". Unsurprising, since the entirety of "objectivism" is an exercise in begging the question.
Admittedly, I've only read the Fountainhead and Anthem, but in both of those the protagonist lives most of his life in poverty, being chased from one rat's nest to another by the fabulously wealthy baddies.
As to the other complaints, well, what do you expect? You may as well start kvetching about how the Bible never says a bad word about Jesus or the Koran portrays Muhammad as being implausibly successful and brilliant.

As to the other complaints, well, what do you expect? You may as well start kvetching about how the Bible never says a bad word about Jesus or the Koran portrays Muhammad as being implausibly successful and brilliant.

The Bible and the Koran aren't well-written, either. So? You think by parading examples of other poorly written crap hers becomes less so?

The Bible and the Koran aren't well-written, either. So? You think by parading examples of other poorly written crap hers becomes less so?

You have obviously never seen the work of Stephen Ratliff. But you probably wouldn't want to, anyway.

The Bible and the Koran aren't well-written, either. So?
I didn't say they were. I was merely pointing out that such complaints are akin to eating a stick and complaining that said stick wasn't made of sausage. Howard Roark, John Galt, Jesus, Buddha, and all are meant to be examples of the perfect man, so what sort of idiot would expect them to have flaws?
Mimi Gladstein, I guess.

I didn't say they were. I was merely pointing out that such complaints are akin to eating a stick and complaining that said stick wasn't made of sausage. Howard Roark, John Galt, Jesus, Buddha, and all are meant to be examples of the perfect man, so what sort of idiot would expect them to have flaws?

The sort of "idiot" (a.k.a. "demanding reader") who expects things from literature. Going all "but, honest, I wanted them to be unidimensional and poor humans and base an entire book around them" doesn't detract one bit from the fact that that makes them flat and uninteresting, unless perhaps one is trying to make a comment of flatness and lack of interesting characteristics. It's like film-makers who make shitty films (like, say - Uwe Boll) who when they get criticism go: "well, this film isn't for you, it's for people who'll like it, so you don't get to critique moi!" Doesn't detract from the critique one bit.

The sort of "idiot" (a.k.a. "demanding reader") who expects things from literature.
It's not "literature", though, it's just philosophy with fictional people.
It's like film-makers who make shitty films (like, say - Uwe Boll) who when they get criticism go: "well, this film isn't for you, it's for people who'll like it, so you don't get to critique moi!" Doesn't detract from the critique one bit.
Uwe Boll is different, he does stuff that sucks on purpose as part of an elaborate German tax scam.

It's not "literature", though, it's just philosophy with fictional people.

If a philosophical construct is a good one, completely one-dimensional characters won't be necessary to demonstrate it. In fact, the use of such characters suggests just the opposite - that the philosophy will not work with real people, and that a new world with perfect little one-dimensional people must be created for the sole purpose of having it work.

From what I can tell, that is precisely what Rand did with Atlas Shrugged. She created one-dimensional characters and a world ready-set to have her philosophy work (complete with perpetual motion machine) and *gasp* it did! Of course, I could do the exact same thing with any other viewpoint. I could write a book in which the whole world was set up to accommodate Communism, where Communists were absolutely and unequivocally good people who wanted to do their best work for exactly what they needed and all the Capitalists were evil, evil people who just wanted to take advantage of everyone they could. It would have the exact same philosophical and literary value as Atlas Shrugged - that is to say, pretty much none.

If a philosophical construct is a good one, completely one-dimensional characters won't be necessary to demonstrate it. In fact, the use of such characters suggests just the opposite - that the philosophy will not work with real people, and that a new world with perfect little one-dimensional people must be created for the sole purpose of having it work.

From what I can tell, that is precisely what Rand did with Atlas Shrugged. She created one-dimensional characters and a world ready-set to have her philosophy work (complete with perpetual motion machine) and *gasp* it did! Of course, I could do the exact same thing with any other viewpoint. I could write a book in which the whole world was set up to accommodate Communism, where Communists were absolutely and unequivocally good people who wanted to do their best work for exactly what they needed and all the Capitalists were evil, evil people who just wanted to take advantage of everyone they could. It would have the exact same philosophical and literary value as Atlas Shrugged - that is to say, pretty much none.

Well, that's not necessarily true. An author could legitimately not want to spend time creating an extremely deep character if all that is being attempted is a thought experiment focusing on certain traits relevant to the idea being addressed. The work would still have merit, as well. It just depends on if said author is focusing on the right traits or not.

As for Atlas Shrugged...I've only just started reading it and am less than a hundred pages in. So far, as entertainment, it isn't very good. There are some semi-interesting ideas, or at least ideas that are implied, but nothing too astounding. I have to say, I don't see why people have such strong emotions towards Ayn Rand, so far. People either tend to accuse her of being a barely intelligent idiot, or as some demigod of libertarianism that is her century's Nietzsche. To be honest, though, she doesn't seem to be much of either. Though maybe the other ninety million pages of this book will sway me to one side or the other. *shrug* Can't really imagine how that'd happen, though.

Well, that's not necessarily true. An author could legitimately not want to spend time creating an extremely deep character if all that is being attempted is a thought experiment focusing on certain traits relevant to the idea being addressed. The work would still have merit, as well. It just depends on if said author is focusing on the right traits or not.

Human beings don't have just one or two traits - that's the problem. When we're talking about an ideology or philosophy that is supposed to be superior, it needs to be something that is going to work with real human beings, and one-dimensional characters will never be one-dimensional beings.

The problem with Rand's philosophy is that it necessitates those one-dimensional human beings and (as you'll see if you make it to the end of the book) essentially cuts out anyone who isn't extraordinary. Interestingly enough, the same problem occurs with pure Communism. Ideological absolutes tend to require human beings to be something that they are not - hence the reason they simply don't work in real life.

If your characters have to be unequivocally good or unequivocally evil to make your point, chances are that your point won't work with real people - who are neither.

As for Atlas Shrugged...I've only just started reading it and am less than a hundred pages in. So far, as entertainment, it isn't very good. There are some semi-interesting ideas, or at least ideas that are implied, but nothing too astounding. I have to say, I don't see why people have such strong emotions towards Ayn Rand, so far. People either tend to accuse her of being a barely intelligent idiot, or as some demigod of libertarianism that is her century's Nietzsche. To be honest, though, she doesn't seem to be much of either. Though maybe the other ninety million pages of this book will sway me to one side or the other. *shrug* Can't really imagine how that'd happen, though.

Wait until you get to the 40-page "A is A," speech.

As for Atlas Shrugged...I've only just started reading it and am less than a hundred pages in.
Don't waste your time. Read The Fountainhead instead, it's basically the same thing (same philosophy, same speeches, same surprise sex), but about 2/3s as long.

It's not "literature", though, it's just philosophy with fictional people.

If you think your second clause supports the first, it would seem you don't know what literature is.

Uwe Boll is different, he does stuff that sucks on purpose as part of an elaborate German tax scam.

Right...

Wait until you get to the 40-page "A is A," speech.

I've read up on objectivism, and the whole A is A thing seems a little redundant. What else is it gonna be, Z? (And I know A is A is a metaphor, I'm just too lazy to say what it means)

I've read up on objectivism, and the whole A is A thing seems a little redundant. What else is it gonna be, Z? (And I know A is A is a metaphor, I'm just too lazy to say what it means)

I once sat through a Calc class where the prof gave a 40 minute lecture on 2+2=5.

I once sat through a Calc class where the prof gave a 40 minute lecture on 2+2=5.

I just have to ask, how the fuck did he do that?

I just have to ask, how the fuck did he do that?

Modular Calculus.

There's a reason I dropped that class. : /

If you think your second clause supports the first, it would seem you don't know what literature is.
I know that my second clause supports the first.
Literature can be philosophical in nature and raise philosophical questions, but it isn't a direct philosophical argument in the sense that Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
Ayn Rand's writing, on the other hand, is naked philosophy, there is nothing subtle or open to interpretation, her mind and beliefs are stated flatly. The hero is clearly outlined as perfect, and all his positive traits are fully illustrated so that a reader who believes her philosophy may emulate him as best as they are able.
Right...
It's true, the German government gives tax credits to people who invest in German films, which means that German film makers (such as dear Dr. Boll) can serve as major tax shelters so long as they manage to waste as much money as possible in the least amount of time.

Man, I hated that book. I actually threw it out a window not once but twice while reading it.

I just have to ask, how the fuck did he do that?
Math is the closest thing to a real religion. Shit is made up and then "proven" and the proven stuff is accepted as fact and all other math and science is based around. Science is a religion? Fuck no, but math is.

You have obviously never seen the work of Stephen Ratliff. But you probably wouldn't want to, anyway.
Dear God... NOT Ratliff! I think I lost a good chunk of brain cells on ONE Marrissa Picard story!

I wonder if there will be 40 minutes of the movie where John Galt says "A is A," over and over again.
And we all thought that Lord of the Rings (The whole trilogy) was long... ;)

Two of the most vulgar, sophomoric and downright idiotic things will come together in holy union - American movies and atlas shrugged.

A match truly made in heaven.

Two of the most vulgar, sophomoric and downright idiotic things will come together in holy union - American movies and atlas shrugged.

A match truly made in heaven.

See! The hate, pure and unadulterated. This is what I don't understand. I mean, it can't possibly become that bad. But wtf? The most idiotic thing to be put to print is probably either Tom Clancy junk or Nora Roberts junk...if you've ever had to organize books in a library, you'll understand, but Atlas Shrugged, no matter how dull or preachy, can't possibly deserve the vitriolic hate it inspires in people.

Also, another thing I noticed about this book, is that if you read it in public, people have the irresistible urge to make some snarky remark about it. No, I honestly don't give a flying fuck what your opinion on the book is unless I (a) asked for it or (b) you actually know me on an even remotely personal level. How do people think it is in any way socially acceptable to go up to strangers and interrupt them while they're fucking reading and give their asinine little opinions about the book that, as of five seconds ago, I was actually busy reading...not listen to some fat jackass whose single-majoring in philosophy and feels compelled to validate their otherwise wasted college career.

guar...I'm still bitter about this, obviously.

The movie will star Corey Feldman, Corey Haim and Tori Spelling.

See! The hate, pure and unadulterated. This is what I don't understand. I mean, it can't possibly become that bad. But wtf? The most idiotic thing to be put to print is probably either Tom Clancy junk or Nora Roberts junk...if you've ever had to organize books in a library, you'll understand, but Atlas Shrugged, no matter how dull or preachy, can't possibly deserve the vitriolic hate it inspires in people.

Also, another thing I noticed about this book, is that if you read it in public, people have the irresistible urge to make some snarky remark about it. No, I honestly don't give a flying fuck what your opinion on the book is unless I (a) asked for it or (b) you actually know me on an even remotely personal level. How do people think it is in any way socially acceptable to go up to strangers and interrupt them while they're fucking reading and give their asinine little opinions about the book that, as of five seconds ago, I was actually busy reading...not listen to some fat jackass whose single-majoring in philosophy and feels compelled to validate their otherwise wasted college career.

guar...I'm still bitter about this, obviously.


All of that rambling aside, and for reasons anyone with common sense can appreciate - even sans a philosophy degree - ayn rand wrote bad books which impress dumb people and inspire them to new heights of wrongheadedness and idiocy.

And for the reader it's a sort of mental masturbation, a way to justify or satisfy ones social ideology without actually involving other people.

"Writing is not necessarily something to be ashamed of — but do it in private and wash your hands afterwards."
-- Robert A. Heinlein ( http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Heinlein#Time_Enough_for_Love_.281973.29 )

So what you're saying is that John Galt will have a slow motion gun fight with Dr. Ferris?

I'd watch that.

See! The hate, pure and unadulterated. This is what I don't understand. I mean, it can't possibly become that bad. But wtf? The most idiotic thing to be put to print is probably either Tom Clancy junk or Nora Roberts junk...if you've ever had to organize books in a library, you'll understand, but Atlas Shrugged, no matter how dull or preachy, can't possibly deserve the vitriolic hate it inspires in people.

And that is why the novel is successful. It really does strike a nerve in people (either positive or negative), and this is also why the novel still sells well many decades after being published. It was never a fad, like the vast majority of novels, and it dealt with many timeless issues.

When I started this topic, I expected no less than to see the hateful hecklers pour out. It was inevitable. But examining the hate can be interesting in itself.

BTW, I agree with some here that the novel does have certain literary faults, but focusing on the negatives is far too easy and uninteresting.

ALL novels have faults, but it is the positives in Atlas Shrugged that make it a great novel, and the positives do exist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

And that is why the novel is successful. It really does strike a nerve in people (either positive or negative), and this is also why the novel still sells well many decades after being published. It was never a fad, like the vast majority of novels, and it dealt with many timeless issues.

When I started this topic, I expected no less than to see the hateful hecklers pour out. It was inevitable. But examining the hate can be interesting in itself.

BTW, I agree with some here that the novel does have certain literary faults, but focusing on the negatives is far too easy and uninteresting.

ALL novels have faults, but it is the positives in Atlas Shrugged that make it a great novel, and the positives do exist.


eudaimonia,

Mark
There were positives? :eek: Where? :confused:

There were positives? :eek: Where? :confused:
I can think of three:
That it was 'only' 1000 pages and not 2000.
That there was no sequel.
That it was Rand's last work of fiction.

Either my favourite movie ever, or my most hated one.

I'm one of those strange types who likes the book. In fact, I'm the type who will buy it and give it to everyone I know on Christmas.

Given the difficulty Hollywood has with depth, and that the value of the story lies not in the characters or what happens, but the meaning of it, I'm expecting the worst.

I liked the Fountainhead but it seems I completely misunderstood the message. Never read Atlas Shrugged.

All of that rambling aside, and for reasons anyone with common sense can appreciate - even sans a philosophy degree - ayn rand wrote bad books which impress dumb people and inspire them to new heights of wrongheadedness and idiocy.

I'd like to thank you for posting here. You make a useful example of a Rand-hater. I find it interesting how Rand gets attacked for "black-and-white thinking", when some of her hecklers are, if anything, even more guilty of this. You even insist that anyone with common sense will naturally take your position, leaving no room for honest -- and common sensical -- disagreement. Ayn Rand would at least have listened to the reasons.

Personally, I have found Rand to be a positive influence on my life. I don't always agree with her, but I have found many pearls of wisdom in her philosophy. I have a brighter attitude, a greater sense of purpose, and a heightened self-esteem largely due to her influence. I value my friends more (and that includes friends who are uninfluenced by or disagree with Ayn Rand), I have a clearer idea of the virtues I strive to develop in myself, and I appreciate my career more than I would have otherwise. I am even a more caring and benevolent person because of her, though I doubt you would understand why.

Take that data-point with you. If you are honest, you'll remember it the next time you are tempted to place Ayn Rand in a wholely negative light.


eudaimonia,

Mark

"Reading Ayn Rand has at least one effect: Anyone who reads it is sure to be an asshole for at least a month afterward."
quote from someone famous, I can't remember who.

-snip-
Thank You.

It seems to me as if most people never bother to understand Ayn Rand's ideal. They read Atlas Shrugged and the harsh views it has on others (or rather, the way others interact with you and each other), and the potential consequences for those others if a Randroid (I do love that word...) utopia were to come about. And then they conclude that objectivism is insane and madness and evil.

Maybe I got a different message because of the time at which I read the book, which was a time at which the rest of humanity (and, more specifically, my co-workers and students I did group assignments with) hadn't impressed me very much. So I didn't bother feeling anything for the bad characters in the book. I should perhaps feel guilty, but even today the scene of the people in the train doomed to suffocate fills me with morbid glee.

To me the message is about the self. Objectivism is a philosophy of the self. So why does everyone always judge it on the basis of its effects on others? Shouldn't people judge it on the effects it has on one's self?

Not everyone will, should or even can like or want to adopt objectivism. But people should judge it for what it is. The title 'Atlas Shrugged' actually holds meaning, you know. "I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine" has been the most liberating maxim I have encountered in my life. Even if you don't share that view, you can still appreciate the positive effects of it.

Also, did this sound almost like some believer fighting off atheism? ;)

To me the message is about the self. Objectivism is a philosophy of the self. So why does everyone always judge it on the basis of its effects on others? Shouldn't people judge it on the effects it has on one's self?
Namely? Because no man is an island. When I read the book, I looked at the world Rand was saying, and I saw it as an reaction to Communism (Which, given her history, I can understand). The problem is, the reaction is so extreme that you end up on the opposite side of Communism, but with the same flaws. It sounds great on paper, but there's some pretty glaring errors.

Not everyone will, should or even can like or want to adopt objectivism. But people should judge it for what it is. The title 'Atlas Shrugged' actually holds meaning, you know. "I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine" has been the most liberating maxim I have encountered in my life. Even if you don't share that view, you can still appreciate the positive effects of it.
Granted, it sounds nice. But then the real world comes on in and you suddenly have to ask yourself, how well would that actually work in life?

Also, did this sound almost like some believer fighting off atheism? ;)
A bit. ;)

Namely? Because no man is an island.
Well, no one is alone. But we're not telepathic, hive minded or otherwise collectivist. We're all unitary individuals, and there's an infinite number of things that can make us unique. I think you sell people short if you look at them in the context of their environment.

So I think the best way to build a society full of healthy individuals is to think of society as a collection of islands.

Granted, it sounds nice. But then the real world comes on in and you suddenly have to ask yourself, how well would that actually work in life?
I can make that call as the necessity comes up. I know that I don't ask anyone to do anything for me without return, I don't ask anyone to spend a part of their life to make mine better. It's nice if they do, but I'd never ask for it or claim it.

So that's one part of the equation. The other can be more tricky...there's the part where the state threatens me with jail and the other part where people threaten me with slaps across the face.

As I said, it's a call you make on a case by case basis.

Well, no one is alone. But we're not telepathic, hive minded or otherwise collectivist. We're all unitary individuals, and there's an infinite number of things that can make us unique. I think you sell people short if you look at them in the context of their environment.

So I think the best way to build a society full of healthy individuals is to think of society as a collection of islands.


I can make that call as the necessity comes up. I know that I don't ask anyone to do anything for me without return, I don't ask anyone to spend a part of their life to make mine better. It's nice if they do, but I'd never ask for it or claim it.

So that's one part of the equation. The other can be more tricky...there's the part where the state threatens me with jail and the other part where people threaten me with slaps across the face.

As I said, it's a call you make on a case by case basis.

Wait, what? That's Objectivism? Didn't we have that pretty much covered with "Neither lender nor borrower be"? :eek:

Wait, what? That's Objectivism? Didn't we have that pretty much covered with "Neither lender nor borrower be"? :eek:
Well, that's of course not the whole story. It's rather more complicated than that.

http://www.working-minds.com/galtmini.htm

That's a mini summary of the big monologue from the book (spoiler warning, I suppose). It doesn't cover the whole humans survive by reason, reason is an individual thing etc, but it conveys my point about the consequences for the self and one's understanding of one's self.

Dear God... NOT Ratliff! I think I lost a good chunk of brain cells on ONE Marrissa Picard story!

I've seen his work repeatedly slammed a la MST3K. Look for MSTings of his work, because if you've ever watched MST3K, it's a laugh riot.

Math is the closest thing to a real religion. Shit is made up and then "proven" and the proven stuff is accepted as fact and all other math and science is based around. Science is a religion? Fuck no, but math is.

Hmph. It's none of my business anyway.

Well, that's of course not the whole story. It's rather more complicated than that.

http://www.working-minds.com/galtmini.htm

That's a mini summary of the big monologue from the book (spoiler warning, I suppose). It doesn't cover the whole humans survive by reason, reason is an individual thing etc, but it conveys my point about the consequences for the self and one's understanding of one's self.

...

At the very least, I see the premise of Demented Hamster's quote. :cool:

Well, no one is alone. But we're not telepathic, hive minded or otherwise collectivist. We're all unitary individuals, and there's an infinite number of things that can make us unique. I think you sell people short if you look at them in the context of their environment.

So I think the best way to build a society full of healthy individuals is to think of society as a collection of islands.
Not in the context of their environment, but acknowledging that what one does, it has an affect and/or an effect upon another. Like I said, her philosophy sounds nice, but when you look at her world as envisioned by Atlas Shrugged (And then compare it to the real world were we don't get Taggarts, we get Enron) and, well... like I said, looks good on paper.

I can make that call as the necessity comes up. I know that I don't ask anyone to do anything for me without return, I don't ask anyone to spend a part of their life to make mine better. It's nice if they do, but I'd never ask for it or claim it.
In today's modern world though, can you really make such a claim though? How much work goes into the infrastructure that you have not, or will never, pay for? How much food do you consume that you did not buy directly from the grower? And so on.

As I said, it's a call you make on a case by case basis.
Ya know, sooner or later the Dark Lord is going to get wind of this thread and come in and slap us all silly. ;)

In today's modern world though, can you really make such a claim though?
There are some things I can't change. I know I've never asked for them, and if I can avoid them, I do (that's where the state and its dungeon comes back into the picture). As I said, to me it's got more to do with one's internals, with one's self-esteem and motivation in life.

Ya know, sooner or later the Dark Lord is going to get wind of this thread and come in and slap us all silly. ;)
Meh, I'd deserve it. I'd rather not recall the silly things I said about Rand and objectivism before I knew what it was all about or had picked up a book. :D

Plus, he's not around enough anymore anyways. Can't hurt to get him back.

Just a couple of things I had to comment on...

I find it interesting how Rand gets attacked for "black-and-white thinking", when some of her hecklers are, if anything, even more guilty of this.


Even if your opponent is even more incapable of thinking in non-binary terms... it does nothing to alleviate the burden in your own thought.


...I have found many pearls of wisdom in her philosophy...


And you can find tiny traces of precious metals in human feces. Does that make it worth sifting through it?

There are some things I can't change. I know I've never asked for them, and if I can avoid them, I do...

I find that pretty dishonest, not least because the internet itself is a perfect example of the gestalt... and you seem okay with using that.

I'd bet you use roads, too. Hospitals... schools...

I find that pretty dishonest, not least because the internet itself is a perfect example of the gestalt... and you seem okay with using that.
There is no such thing as "the gestalt". It's made up.

Most importantly though, I never asked for any of these things. Nobody had to give up a part of their life for me because I claimed I had a right to it, the content I look at was made available by people freely and because they derived some enjoyment from doing it. Plus, I did in fact pay for this computer, and I pay for the connection. It's a free trade, done voluntarily between free people.

I'd bet you use roads, too. Hospitals... schools...
And you bet your ass I pay out of my nose for them. Not that I was ever asked. Worse still - I am also paying out of my nose for people who apparently claim a right to all sorts of freebies, which aren't really free but are precious minutes and hours of my life.

No, I am speaking of interpersonal relations between honest, human beings. The state is a group of people who talk about "the gestalt" because it allows them to connect themselves with something people might actually care about. I can't change the fact that they rule the place, that if I wanted to not pay taxes and live my own life they'd either force me to leave my home or throw me in jail.

I'm pretty honest about all this. I'm not John Galt, I can't leave society and leave a mark. If I thought I could, I'd definitely consider it, but this is unfortunately not a fictional world in which happy endings are possible. So I try to live my life as good and real and honest a human being as I can be within the limitations imposed upon me by others, with the dignity not to ask for hand-outs and the responsibility to achieve my dreams for myself.

There is no such thing as "the gestalt". It's made up.


No - the internet is a perfect example of 'the gestalt'. Is 'gestalt' an identifiable entity? No... it is a collection of consciousness maybe... a formality... a way to describe a phenomenon. That doesn't make it 'made up'.


Most importantly though, I never asked for any of these things. Nobody had to give up a part of their life for me because I claimed I had a right to it, the content I look at was made available by people freely and because they derived some enjoyment from doing it. Plus, I did in fact pay for this computer, and I pay for the connection. It's a free trade, done voluntarily between free people.


You never asked for roads. You didn't ask to be born, either, right?

I was sick of this whining from teens. If you're older than 18, you've got no excuse.

I'm willing to bet you use roads, right?


And you bet your ass I pay out of my nose for them. Not that I was ever asked. Worse still - I am also paying out of my nose for people who apparently claim a right to all sorts of freebies, which aren't really free but are precious minutes and hours of my life.


And the minutes of your life are so much more important than everyone else, right? You vitally need EVERY second, don't you? You have it all planned out, right? EVERY waking second, already allocated to some vital endeavour.


No, I am speaking of interpersonal relations between honest, human beings.


Good luck. You debate this on a forum, on the internet. Maybe you pay for products with plastic... maybe you buy online.

You speak of "interpersonal relations between honest, human beings" when it suits you.


The state is a group of people who talk about "the gestalt" because it allows them to connect themselves with something people might actually care about.


I'm not the state. The gestalt is a synergy. The gestalt is why there are any humans, at all.


I can't change the fact that they rule the place, that if I wanted to not pay taxes and live my own life they'd either force me to leave my home or throw me in jail.


You say that like ti would be wrong to ask someone who is existing as THOUGH he were outside of society... to actually have the courage of his convictions.


I'm pretty honest about all this. I'm not John Galt, I can't leave society and leave a mark. If I thought I could, I'd definitely consider it, but this is unfortunately not a fictional world in which happy endings are possible. So I try to live my life as good and real and honest a human being as I can be within the limitations imposed upon me by others, with the dignity not to ask for hand-outs and the responsibility to achieve my dreams for myself.

Because not helping others is so much the loftier goal?

Well, no one is alone. But we're not telepathic, hive minded or otherwise collectivist. We're all unitary individuals, and there's an infinite number of things that can make us unique. I think you sell people short if you look at them in the context of their environment.But by the same token there are an infinite number of things that we have in common with others, or at least some others.

No - the internet is a perfect example of 'the gestalt'. Is 'gestalt' an identifiable entity? No... it is a collection of consciousness maybe... a formality... a way to describe a phenomenon. That doesn't make it 'made up'.
And you think that objectivism means living all by yourself as a loner? I provided that link of Galt's speech (http://www.working-minds.com/galtmini.htm), didn't I?

If the internet is a 'gestalt' (this is hard for me, because it's an abuse of a German word), then that's fine. I never claimed to be a loner, I just said that I don't claim part of anyone's life as mine. The free stuff put on the web is not there because I forced them to put it there for my use, it's there because they wanted to put it there, knowing perfectly well that other people can and will access it. I do it myself.

How exactly is this not consistent with what I said, or what Galt says for that matter?

You never asked for roads. You didn't ask to be born, either, right?
Look, it's really quite simple. The state provides all this stuff, and makes it impossible to use alternatives. In return it takes part of my life away.

And then you blame me for using the stuff the state provides, as if I'm somehow wrongly benefitting from them?

I'm willing to bet you use roads, right?
I paid for them. How hard is that for you to understand?

And the minutes of your life are so much more important than everyone else, right? You vitally need EVERY second, don't you? You have it all planned out, right? EVERY waking second, already allocated to some vital endeavour.
To me, they're the most important thing I have. And I don't think I need to appologise for that fact.

Your argument is ridiculous. You might as well enslave someone and tell them they don't have a better use for their time anyways, so they might as well have to follow your every command.

Good luck. You debate this on a forum, on the internet. Maybe you pay for products with plastic... maybe you buy online.
I have no idea what you're talking about. How does debating here, paying with a credit card or buying stuff online mean I'm not interacting with real people? How does it mean I'm claiming part of someone else's life for my own?

You speak of "interpersonal relations between honest, human beings" when it suits you.
And you don't speak of them at all.

I'm not the state.
No, but to an objectivist you are a statist. When you say that it is right to force people to help one another, you are saying (again to quote Galt) that fear and joy are equal, but fear is more convenient.

Once you make that call, there is no limit to where you can go.

The gestalt is a synergy. The gestalt is why there are any humans, at all.
And there we go: "You wouldn't even be here if it wasn't for "the gestalt", conveniently someone can now claim to be one and the same with "the gestalt", therefore I owe them."

That's the made up part I was talking about. If you can find this "gestalt" fellow, I'd gladly pay him for his services. But I'm not going to pay an abstract concept any more than I'm going to pay planet earth. And just like I'm not going to pay a guy dressed up as planet earth, I'm not going to pay someone dressed as society, gestalt or anything else.

You say that like ti would be wrong to ask someone who is existing as THOUGH he were outside of society... to actually have the courage of his convictions.
I'm not outside society, who said I was? Society is a descriptive word to capture the individuals within a particular group. Of course I'm part of a whole bunch of societies.

It's just that when I deal with other people, I don't presume they owe me anything and I don't presume I owe them anything. We're individuals sovereign over ourselves, capable of coexisting on our own terms. That's the code I want to live by - the only real limitation to that is the state and the way it's infiltrated everything.

Yes, I could try to run away, though I wouldn't succeed. Unlike in a book, there is no empty space, hidden from everyone. One day I might be able to buy a piece of property and use that instead (though still being forced to pay taxes), but not now.

But more importantly, why would I have to run away from my life? I didn't commit a crime, or a sin. I don't deserve to be punished for anything, I never made a wrong choice. The things that I am doing wrong are things I don't have a choice on.

Because not helping others is so much the loftier goal?
Huh? Can you find me where I said I wouldn't help others?

To again quote Galt: "Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgement of the value of that person and his struggle."

I help others all the time. People I meet, people I like. But I do it because I want to (and I have refused people I didn't like), not because it is their right and I am somehow responsible for it. I like to see "please" and "thank you" and so on rather than begging, threatening or otherwise making a fuss.

But by the same token there are an infinite number of things that we have in common with others, or at least some others.
Yeah, biologically. Not so sure about the mind though.

Be that as it may, it doesn't change the fact that I'm unique, an individual and seperate from others. I live with others (or rather, alongside them), but I am not them and they are not me.

Yeah, biologically. Not so sure about the mind though.

Be that as it may, it doesn't change the fact that I'm unique, an individual and seperate from others. I live with others (or rather, alongside them), but I am not them and they are not me.Of course not, there is no hive mind.
Nonetheless, people have similarities as well as differences, and it is a mistake to focus only on their differences.

Does this mean officer Barbradey is going to stop watching movies now? :D

I tried Ayn Rand. Once. Never, ever, ever made that mistake again. Her style was (is?) BORING!! There may have been deep philosophy and great illuminations about the human condition in there, but I couldn't get past the fact that I started yawning about two pages in.

Nonetheless, people have similarities as well as differences, and it is a mistake to focus only on their differences.
Well, two bananas will have huge similarities. But it would still be factually incorrect to see them as the same thing.

I'm not saying that there are no similarities between people. It's just that to group them together and then treat that group as one thing is also factually incorrect.

You can take all bananas together and call them bananakind. All you have done is use the similarities to put seperate objects together in your mind. But it would be the biggest of all mistakes to conclude that the properties of bananakind could describe any single banana, or even that bananakind actually physically exists. It's a thinking aid, no more.

"Banana". What a word...lol.

Hey Trots,
The state is, has been, and always will be purely coercive and omnipresent. Its only purpose to inspire fear allow those who seek power through it to control those around them, elevating and enriching themselves.

Government is a parasite, like a thief in the night he steals the fruits of your labor. No gods or kings, only man. A man chooses, a slave obeys. A man builds, a parasite asks "where's my share?" A man creates, a parasite asks "what will the neighbors think?" A man invents, a parasite says "Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God."

Well, having annotated the hell out of my copy of The Ecology of Freedom, i will give you the rest of the quote.

"[The State's] capacity to rule by brute force has always been limited. The myth of a purely coercive, omnipresent State is a fiction that has served the state machinery all too well by creating a sense of awe and powerlessness in the oppressed that ends in social quietism. Without a high degree of cooperation from even the most victimized classes of society such as chattel slaves and serfs, its authority would eventually dissipate. Awe and apathy in the face of state power are the products social conditioning that renders this very power possible." [Murray Bookchin: The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy (Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2005) pp. 165., emphasis mine]

The state's power relies on one thing: consent. It's powers of violence, coercion and manipulation are used to maintain an implied consent to the existence of the state. If that consent is withdrawn by even a significant minority of the population through disobedience of the State's dictates, then the powers of the state will very quickly begin to erode. It is precisely because it is a parasite that it must divide and apathize its subjects. Coercion and violence are the methods of last resort, as they often backfire, creating the opposite of the intended effect. It is the State's subtle manipulation of the psyche of its subjects that is the State's first line of defense.

As Bookchin put it, "Hierarchy, class and ultimately the State penetrate the very integuement of the human psyche and establish within it unreflective internal powers of coercion and restraint...By using guilt and self-blame, the inner State can control behavior long before fear of the coercive powers of the State have to be invoked. Self-blame, in effect, becomes self-fear--the introjection of social coercion in the form of insecurity, anxiety, and guilt." [Ibid., pp. 189]