Atlas Shrugged: The Movie?

I suppose it can be well argued it's best to go to the source, but it's not impossible to form valid opinions by secondhand means, is it?

If everything had to be fist hand only, how could you possibly put any faith in the information garnered from the Apollo Moon missions, or the results of modern cosmology, or particle physics, or a political upheaval in Pakistan, or early native American tribal rituals, or an auto accident you did not witness directly?

You can't be everywhere / experience everything / read everything / discover everything etc. first hand, in fact for the most part you have to "trust" the circumstances you find yourself in to provide the information in a second-hand / third-hand / fourth-hand manner.

Even the very nature of first-hand experience itself is suspect or so some would argue (admittedly getting off the track though - but kind'a fun perhaps).

Also as a partial aside (but kind'a fun too me thinks) surely Rand's impetus was not from a vacuum, and thus this chain of experience / opinion must flow much farther backwards and travel much farther forwards than from "just" a book to "just" a reader.

0 Replies

I wouldn't argue with Neil Armstrong or Buzz Aldrin about the moon... but more importantly; I could read up on every one of those subjects at my leisure and likely wouldn't do a lot of arguing about any of them without first having done so.

0 Replies

Exactly Chumly. Though I may not have read the actual novels themselves, the validity of an argument only depends on the arguments themselves. I have not presented any form of argument except the one against her ethical egoism, but have provided a link to an argument against Rand's ideas provided by a reliable source with a good understanding of logic and philosophy, and whose arguments I thought are good.

By the way, this quote Phoenix provided reaffirms what I know about Rand:

Quote:

"Second-handers have no sense of reality. Their reality is not within them, but somewhere in that space which divides one human body from another. Not an entity, but a relation- anchored to nothing. That's the emptiness I couldn't understand in people. Men without an ego. Opinion without a rational process. Motion without brakes or motor. Power without responsibility. The second-hander acts, but the source of his actions is scattered in every other living person. It's everywhere and nowhere and you can't reason with him. He's not open to reason. You can't speak to him and he can't hear. You're tried by an empty bench. A blind mass running amuck, to crush you without sense or purpose .... "

"What would happen to the world without those who do, think, work, produce? Those are the egoists. You don't think through another's brain and you don't work through another's hands ...."

These are mostly rhetorics and clever manipulation of words. I suppose we all do not have any "sense of reality" as we obtain most of our informations through second hand sources.

That last paragraph is an awful description of what an egoist is. She's attaching a double meaning to the word. Those "who do, think, work, and produce" are not "egoist," they are dilligent people. Yet another manipulation of words.

Quote:

I'll be happy to, as soon as you're qualified to hold up your end... assuming of course you'd still want to once you did your homework for yourself, which is hardly a fore drawn conclusion. Her philosophy is not ethical egoism... the woman invented her own called objectivism...

Her "objectivist ethics" is a form of ethical egoism. She even said it herself and you can see from this quote that she is promoting egoism:

Quote:

What would happen to the world without those who do, think, work, produce? Those are the egoists. You don't think through another's brain and you don't work through another's hands ....

A quote that Phoenix promoted herself.

0 Replies

Sorry for diverting the main topic at hand, I just thought it was an interesting aside, no matter how you wish argue your viewpoints or obtain your information and no matter what your definition of "viewpoints" and/or "information" might be.

Perhaps this topic deserves its own thread as so much on A2K (let alone our "real" lives) relies on the interpretation of information most often (it seems) not garnered 1st hand - if it can be argued that anything can be garnered 1st hand that is (oops slipping into silly sophistry).

For the record and because it kind'a funny within the context of this thread, I don't really have any concrete views on Ayn Rand nor have I spent any meaningful time reading her books or other's critiques on same. Not that I don't have an interest in such things however, and perhaps this here thread will motivate me to read some of her stuff and/or read critiques of some of her material.

In any case, if no one has objections to a change in this thread's direction please carry on, I'll get the popcorn!

0 Replies

Ray the Devil's in the details and you have a tainted few to choose from. Among the many people Rand took the boots to, are philosophers. She hit them hard and they've been retaliating ever since. Everyone in the business of critiquing other's work were pretty much cast as leaches. You'll find that despite an incredibly huge following and MASSIVE book sales, no one in that industry is her friend. Accordingly, this discussion is useless.

0 Replies

You guys have good humors so it's in that spirit:

if Ayn Rand's books were set in the future, and a recurring theme was the question of robotics with/without a sense of self, morals and duty to mankind........

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

You guys have good humors so it's in that spirit:

if Ayn Rand's books were set in the future, and a recurring theme was the question of robotics with/without a sense of self, morals and duty to mankind........

Interestingly, she did write a very short book where the people behaved like robots, without a sense of self but intense morals and a ridiculous sense of duty to mankind. The word "I" was illegal... and it wasn't till it was rediscovered that the hypnosis-like state of being whore off. It wasn't very good, IMO.

0 Replies

The themes of robotics as per morals, ethics, identity, goals and programming and the metaphors they may represent in man's world are popular SF themes. I'm probably not telling you anything new.however more to the point the character of Dr. Susan Calvin places robots on a higher moral plane.

Quote:

Typically, Asimov portrays Dr. Calvin as a highly driven woman, focused on her work and divorced from normal emotions, almost more "robotic" than his mechanical characters. She likes robots considerably better than human beings; in "Evidence", when asked "Are robots so different from men?", she replies, "Worlds different. Robots are essentially decent." Asimov's own stories leave her misanthropy largely unexplained, but Harlan Ellison's screenplay adaptation of I, Robot investigates its origins, in the end concluding that her attitudes are rather well-founded. One of the continuing themes in Asimov's work is the essential irony that, although the Three Laws of Robotics make robots value human beings over themselves, Susan Calvin's estimation of robotic decency may not be entirely wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Calvin

As a speculation perhaps Rand was influenced by

Quote:

http://www.robotics.utexas.edu/rrg/learn_more/history/

Unsurprisingly being a bit of an SF fan, I share the Asimovian view of robots, not the Capekian view, although admittedly each has much potential.

0 Replies

Shapeless- I think that you have made some valid points. During the mid 1960's I attended a 20 session course on Objectivism, given by Nathaniel Branden. Ayn Rand would come on at the end of the session, and answer questions.

She was a formidable woman, probably the strongest that I have ever met. She was deeply in love with the United States, and all that it represented. One can understand, as a refugee from the Soviet Union, that the freedom of the U.S. was exhilarating to her.

On a number of occasions she would allude to the concept that what she was writing about was not what was, but what could be. She was very involved with the idea of the heroic, which certainly shows in her characters.

I think that if a person who reads Rand understands that she is taking her ideas out to the nth degree, that her characters are completely romanticized, that yes, they illustrate ideals that no human being could completely attain, one can read between the lines, and understand what she is conveying.

I think that the difficulty that some people have with Rand is that they take her too literally, and are turned off by characters that are much larger than life.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Accordingly, this discussion is useless.

Well, a discussion of Rand's philosophy might be useless in a film forum, but I would encourage you to start an objectivism thread in the philosophy forum.

0 Replies

Quote:

Ray the Devil's in the details and you have a tainted few to choose from. Among the many people Rand took the boots to, are philosophers. She hit them hard and they've been retaliating ever since. Everyone in the business of critiquing other's work were pretty much cast as leaches. You'll find that despite an incredibly huge following and MASSIVE book sales, no one in that industry is her friend. Accordingly, this discussion is useless.

You can't accuse all or even most philosophers to disdain her view merely because of the way she lashed at them. There is no justification for grouping "philosophers" in such a way. There are many critiques that offer direct quotes from her books, including those quotes that directly mention her view. They're not much different from the quote that Phoenix gave me.

Massive book sales is not an indication of how well her arguments are. There are many views that have or had massive book sales.

Yes, this discussion is useless. If I am to blame for bring this thread off topic, I apologize.

0 Replies

Here point is that of a Diva complex where the Diva can do no wrong as she is good at her craft and f uck the others. Nathaniel Branden was the target of Ayn's teacher-student romantic affair which ruined Branden's marriage. All her characters have an all-or-nothing attitude typical of teenagers. We all live in a society and there is give and take. We all can't drive around in a city as we like. We obey traffic rules that is the 'give' and the 'take' is we arrive at the destination faster than if we had walked.

Talking of her hero: an architect that builds skyscrapers. What is sogreat about skyscrapers? There were initiated to dodge taxes but the attendant problems are the jammed city traffic, canyon winds, overheated city summers from over-used air-conditioners. The skyscraper provides 3D living space but traffic is two dimensional so the highways and roadsare a nightmare during rush hours.

0 Replies

BILL wrote:

Interestingly, she did write a very short book where the people behaved like robots, without a sense of self but intense morals and a ridiculous sense of duty to mankind. The word "I" was illegal... and it wasn't till it was rediscovered that the hypnosis-like state of being whore off. It wasn't very good, IMO.

Yes, you are talking about "Anthem", the work that turned me on to Rand. Yeah, it was dull, stilted and boring, and then I got to Chapter 11, and "wham"!

If you are interested, read it, very carefully, very slowly. See the concepts which Rand is forming. I believe that that chapter is the distillation of what Rand expanded upon in both The Fountainhead and Atlas.

http://pd.sparknotes.com/lit/anthem/section11.html

talk- Yes, Rand did have a rather bizarre affair with Branden. One does not know whether that destroyed Branden's marriage, as the affair was no secret from Barbara Branden, right from the getgo.

What was really strange, was when Rand repudiated Branden. He had fallen in love with one of the women who were at his lectures, and eventually became his 2nd wife. I think that Rand knew that this woman (who was a stunner) was too much of a threat to Rand's and Branden's relationship.

At the time, I had written to Branden, and I wish that I had saved his reply, but I didn't. What eventually happened, was that the people around Rand split up into two groups, the ones who believe Rand and what she was saying about Branden, and the ones who rallied around Branden.

Actually, I was in the "camp" who thought that it was Branden was being wronged, and I thought that Rand was an idiot for behaving as she did. Remember, I did not really know about the affairs until later, when books by both Barbara Branden and Nathaniel Branden came out.

I had a suspicion, when I saw Branden, walking hand in hand with the woman that I had seen at his lectures on the streets in NY. My conclusion, later on, was that while Branden was with Barbara, Rand was not threatened by Branden's relationship with his wife. This new woman was another story.

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

Here point is that of a Diva complex where the Diva can do no wrong as she is good at her craft and f uck the others. Nathaniel Branden was the target of Ayn's teacher-student romantic affair which ruined Branden's marriage. All her characters have an all-or-nothing attitude typical of teenagers. We all live in a society and there is give and take. We all can't drive around in a city as we like. We obey traffic rules that is the 'give' and the 'take' is we arrive at the destination faster than if we had walked.

Talking of her hero: an architect that builds skyscrapers. What is sogreat about skyscrapers? There were initiated to dodge taxes but the attendant problems are the jammed city traffic, canyon winds, overheated city summers from over-used air-conditioners. The skyscraper provides 3D living space but traffic is two dimensional so the highways and roadsare a nightmare during rush hours.

Perhaps we'll discuss this one day when you can produce a legible, coherent thought. Btw, her character O'Rourke from the Fountainhead was based loosely on Frank Lloyd Wright... and is not among her most famous characters. You should probably try reading Atlas Shrugged before opining further.

Phoenix; fascinating insight, as usual on this subject... thank you.

0 Replies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7oZ9yWqO4

This link is the final scene in film made from The Fountainhead. I did not care for how the book was handled, but this will give you a good idea of some of Rand's concepts.

Bill- The protagonist in The Fountainhead was Howard Roark. His mistress was Dominique Francon. Rand's husband was Frank O'Connor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fountainhead

I had seen Frank O'Connor numerous times, although we never spoke.
His appearance was that of a sad little man, although I remember him as being rather tall. I had the impression that being in Rand's shadow had not been easy for him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_O%27Connor_%28actor%29

0 Replies

How my memory would produce O'Rourke, in place of Roark, I have no idea. Serves me right for being so abrasive I suppose. Embarrassed

0 Replies

It was so long ago that details are foggy and I do not wish to revisit things I rejected. I probably still have 'Atlas' in the storage but don't find it worthwhile digging for it in those boxes.

This Diva attitude only encourages selfish people like George W. think he is the class of 'do-ers' which clearly shows the bankruptcy of Objectivism. In fact, people like him would fight each other rather than cooperate e.g. W and Saddam and that nutcase in Iran.

There is Science which developed fromnatural philosophy so there is no need for Objectivism.

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

It was so long ago that details are foggy and I do not wish to revisit things I rejected. I probably still have 'Atlas' in the storage but don't find it worthwhile digging for it in those boxes.

This Diva attitude only encourages selfish people like George W. think he is the class of 'do-ers' which clearly shows the bankruptcy of Objectivism. In fact, people like him would fight each other rather than cooperate e.g. W and Saddam and that nutcase in Iran.

There is Science which developed fromnatural philosophy so there is no need for Objectivism.

What did George ever produce? He is the type of leader, in too many ways, that caused the strike in Atlas. You are WAY off base.

0 Replies

Agree- If Rand were alive, she probably would have a few choice words about Bush, and believe me, they would not be flattering.

talk- By your post, I get the disctinct impression that you really have little idea about the premises of Objectivism.

If you don't walt to read Atlas, you might want to read, "For the New Intellectual", by Rand. In this book, she gives a description of her concepts, illustrating them with sections of some of her books.

0 Replies

Phoenix, no thanks. I wouldn't waste my time on any of her books which are juvenile.

0 Replies

Atlas Shrugged: The Movie?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know