18 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIt is a humorously written hatchet job, but quite offensive and insulting to anyone giving serious thought to Rand's philosophy.
The page isn't a "hatchet job", it's called "humor".
As for Rand's "ideas", I think to base a philosophy on selfishness is anti-human and goes against our basic nature as social animals.
Would you agree that any useful philosophy would have to truthfully acknowledge man's true nature? Rands first element of philosophy is metaphysics, a is a. Definition of terms and premises.
A. You say man is a "social animal", and I concur. The species would have been unlikely to survive if men were loners.
B. Is there anything contradictory with social animal and selfish animal?
C. How does a human become capable of aiding his fellows, his family, his society, without rational self interest?
D. A man who doesn't selfishly take care of himself, can hardly take care of the most basic element of any society, his family.
18 Apr 11
1 edit
PJ O'Rourke - no enemy of the deranged Randians, as he sets out in the link- is pretty much underwhelmed by the actual film:
http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2011/04/06/atlas-shrugged-and-so-did-i/
"They indicate that everything they say is important by not using contractions. John Galt, the shadowy genius who’s convincing the people who carry the world on their shoulders to go out on strike, is played, as far as I can tell, by a raincoat.
The rest of the movie’s acting is borrowed from “Dallas,” although the absence of Larry Hagman’s skill at subtly underplaying villainous roles is to be regretted. Staging and action owe a debt to “Dynasty”—except, on “Dynasty,” there usually was action."
Doesn't matter. the teabaggers will gobble it up anyway. Nom, nom, nom.
That's it, that's it. Come in your droves to the cinema, and pay your money to see what someone else has produced. What have you produced, superman? You pathetic scum. Buy more popcorn.
EDIT: Like a herd of ubermenschen:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/11/AR2011021106215.html
19 Apr 11
Originally posted by normbenignRand's philosophy is uninterested in the individual's "fellows, his family, his society". Pure selfishness is not only the highest virtue, but a moral imperative:
It is a humorously written hatchet job, but quite offensive and insulting to anyone giving serious thought to Rand's philosophy.
Would you agree that any useful philosophy would have to truthfully acknowledge man's true nature? Rands first element of philosophy is metaphysics, a is a. Definition of terms and premises.
A. You say man is a "social a ...[text shortened]... care of himself, can hardly take care of the most basic element of any society, his family.
The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others—and, therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. To live for his own sake means that the achievement of his own happiness is man’s highest moral purpose.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ari_ayn_rand_the_objectivist_ethics
Of course this is incompatible with being a social animal concerned with others. Of course it is contrary to human nature; in our most basic state, that of bands of hunter gatherers, acting with pure selfishness would have quickly resulted in the disappearance of the human race. Rand's philosophy is a pathological response to the totalitarian collectivist abominations of the early 20th century, but laissez faire is no more compatible with our basic nature than they were. Quite simply, men know that allowing other men to suffer is morally wrong because of our empathic nature and pure selfishness of the kind she espouses and that is characteristic of the extreme form of capitalism she regards as morally required is unsustainable given what Man is.
19 Apr 11
Originally posted by no1marauderOMG you do like to pontificate.
Rand's philosophy is uninterested in the individual's "fellows, his family, his society". Pure selfishness is not only the highest virtue, but a moral imperative:
The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or ...[text shortened]... reme form of capitalism she regards as morally required is unsustainable given what Man is.
Now go tell someone that cares.
19 Apr 11
2 edits
Originally posted by DrKFThe movie made $1.7 million in a very limited release of about 300 theaters. Per screen it made about the same as the Robert Redford directed The Conspirator which was on about 700 screens. http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2011/04/17/atlas-shrugged-earns-1-7-million-at-weekend-box-office/
PJ O'Rourke - no enemy of the deranged Randians, as he sets out in the link- is pretty much underwhelmed by the actual film:
http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2011/04/06/atlas-shrugged-and-so-did-i/
"They indicate that everything they say is important by not using contractions. John Galt, the shadowy genius who’s convincing the people who carry the world n:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/11/AR2011021106215.html
Given Rand's intense hostility to religion, it's interesting that the main distributor of the movie is Rocky Mountain Pictures, "which is known for its Christian-targeted releases" according to the WSJ. We'll see how the movie does once it moves to wider release (supposedly to a 1000 screens next week) and whether there is an Atlas Shrugged 2 and 3 (of course its producers and backers are morally required to act in their own self-interest and not produce something that will cost them their hard earned cash if it appears that demand isn't there).
19 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Sam The ShamIn case you can't read, norm asked me my opinion. I gave it though my post is about half of Rand's words rather than my own. If you don't want to read my posts, feel free not to.
OMG you do like to pontificate.
Now go tell someone that cares.
EDIT: Well maybe not "half Rand's words" ..............................................
19 Apr 11
Originally posted by no1marauder..a half a Rand is 50c. Who would have thought you were into rap......
In case you can't read, norm asked me my opinion. I gave it though my post is about half of Rand's words rather than my own. If you don't want to read my posts, feel free not to.
EDIT: Well maybe not "half Rand's words" ..............................................
19 Apr 11
Originally posted by no1marauderBy your previous tone I had always assumed you to be anti-Rand, but when you let her speak for herself as in this quote you actually promote and raise awareness of how correct she was, a bravo to you No.1, it is mans selfishness that makes him a social animal, she never said you should not help your fellow man just that you should not sacrifice yourself, there is a gulf between those two statements No1, I put it to you that right this minute you allow other men to suffer, and if you claim not to know of any we will find them for you.
Rand's philosophy is uninterested in the individual's "fellows, his family, his society". Pure selfishness is not only the highest virtue, but a moral imperative:
The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or ...[text shortened]... reme form of capitalism she regards as morally required is unsustainable given what Man is.
And if you claim it is mans natural state to express empathy, then the only way to know this is let men be free to act otherwise. Ok so there might be a few lone nutcases out there that might like for you to 'not' sacrifice yourself to them in anyway, would it be such a loss if you did not claim anything from them in return for their leaving you alone? Sounds like a pretty square deal to me.
19 Apr 11
Originally posted by no1marauderYes it was humour, you were parodying yourself and the shavmiester, and being a jolly good sport about it.
The page isn't a "hatchet job", it's called "humor".
As for Rand's "ideas", I think to base a philosophy on selfishness is anti-human and goes against our basic nature as social animals.
19 Apr 11
Originally posted by WajomaJust how correct she was? You mean right, obviously?
By your previous tone I had always assumed you to be anti-Rand, but when you let her speak for herself as in this quote you actually promote and raise awareness of how correct she was,
As in right-wing nut-job...
19 Apr 11
Originally posted by WajomaWajoma: it is mans selfishness that makes him a social animal
By your previous tone I had always assumed you to be anti-Rand, but when you let her speak for herself as in this quote you actually promote and raise awareness of how correct she was, a bravo to you No.1, it is mans selfishness that makes him a social animal, she never said you should not help your fellow man just that you should not sacrifice yoursel ...[text shortened]... hing from them in return for their leaving you alone? Sounds like a pretty square deal to me.
Surely even you can see that this statement is utter, Orwellian nonsense.
19 Apr 11
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, if man wasn't shellfish, Aquaman would be completely useless.
Wajoma: it is mans selfishness that makes him a social animal
Surely even you can see that this statement is utter, Orwellian nonsense.
However, Ayn Rand is so backwards she makes a priori sound like an Italian flower-scented pasta dish.
