Atlas Shrugged Part 1

by littlerockguy 126 Replies latest social entertainment

• 

  SixofNine

  <snip> Rand is something of a cultural phenomenon — the author of potboilers who became an ethical and political philosopher, a libertarian heroine. But Rand’s distinctive mix of expressive egotism, free love and free-market metallurgy does not hold up very well on the screen. The emotional center of the movie is the success of high-speed rail — oddly similar to a proposal in Barack Obama’s last State of the Union address. All of the characters are ideological puppets. Visionary, comely capitalists are assaulted by sniveling government planners, smirking lobbyists, nagging wives, rented scientists and cynical humanitarians. When characters begin disappearing — on strike against the servility and inferiority of the masses — one does not question their wisdom in leaving the movie. None of the characters expresses a hint of sympathetic human emotion — which is precisely the point. Rand’s novels are vehicles for a system of thought known as Objectivism. Rand developed this philosophy at the length of Tolstoy, with the intellectual pretensions of Hegel, but it can be summarized on a napkin. Reason is everything. Religion is a fraud. Selfishness is a virtue. Altruism is a crime against human excellence. Self-sacrifice is weakness. Weakness is contemptible. “The Objectivist ethics, in essence,” said Rand, “hold that man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself.” If Objectivism seems familiar, it is because most people know it under another name: adolescence. Many of us experienced a few unfortunate years of invincible self-involvement, testing moral boundaries and prone to stormy egotism and hero worship. Usually one grows out of it, eventually discovering that the quality of our lives is tied to the benefit of others. Rand’s achievement was to turn a phase into a philosophy, as attractive as an outbreak of acne. <snip> Washington Post
• 

  BizzyBee

  If Objectivism seems familiar, it is because most people know it under another name: adolescence. Many of us experienced a few unfortunate years of invincible self-involvement, testing moral boundaries and prone to stormy egotism and hero worship. Usually one grows out of it, eventually discovering that the quality of our lives is tied to the benefit of others. Rand’s achievement was to turn a phase into a philosophy, as attractive as an outbreak of acne.

  Tou-effin-che!

  If you disagree with them say why. That is, give reasons.

  Quotes taken out of context, when we already know the bottom line are not very compelling. I could say that some I agree with and some are easily dismantled - and what would that prove? We all know Rand's basic philosophy - as one critic said - "I’m on board; pull up the lifeline." Yet, when the rubber met the road and Rand needed health care that her work could not pay for, she availed herself of Social Security and Medicare. I have no problem with that , but it is hypocritical given her philosophy of standing on your own two feet with out the aid of government.

  I do not agree with her basic premise - I believe that most significant human achievements have been built upon the knowledge and achievements that have gone before. Rand's philosophy seems to have a naive vision of individuals out of context, achieving their stand-alone success independent of their fellowman, which is pure bullshite.
• 

  agonus
• 

  agonus

  AAAARGH! Shitty IE9! I just posted a lengthy braindropping and it's nothing but a blank (but then, aren't all of my neurobabies)?

  Ah well. I'm too tired now. Let me gather my thoughts. I shall return in the morning. Grumble.
• 

  Terra Incognita

  Agonus: "Ah well. I'm too tired now. Let me gather my thoughts. I shall return in the morning. Grumble."

  Agonus; I feel your agony . Why don't you write your comments on Word and then paste it into the commentary box?
• 

  Terry

  Terra Incognita:

  As for “picking a fight”, I guess that coming to the defense of oppressed people is considered by you to be an aggressive act.

  As for where I’m coming from philosophically, don’t you think that a person’s philosophy could be deduced from his writings?

  Should it then surprise me that you don’t see the “position” that I clearly took? And hiding behind walls? Why comment any further on this ridiculous point?

  You aren't owning.

  Your sport is to hide and snipe and provoke. You personally add nothing; only games.

  You can scan through my ten thousand posts and clearly see who I am, what I've done and why I'm here.

  Would you care to come out of the shadows?

  Look at this statement from you:

  I guess that coming to the defense of oppressed people.

  That's mighty large of you to be defender of the Indian nations by squirreling away on an Ayn Rand Topic on an Ex-JW website!!

  The oppressed people are doubtless grateful for your largesse on their behalf. To me it sounds more like megalomania, but heck--I could be wrong.

  You add:

  Whatever statements I’ve made are either facts or my opinions.

  Well, duh!

  The point is you don't make clear which is which. The only arrow in your quiver is ridicule. I don't hear rational arguments coming from your posts.

  Here is a real gem from you:

  Having consistency in a philosophy is irrelevant to the morality or amorality of that philosophy.

  Excuse me while I laugh. You haven't bothered defining MORAL have you? I think you were too busy defending oppressed Indians to do so.

  How YOU define MORAL is key to your own philosophy. Nothing can be TRUE unless it is self-consistent. Tell us what MORAL means to you and how you DEFEND THAT, then we'll have a meaningful discussion instead of self-praise.

  I have taken the time to try and understand where your posts are coming from value-wise. I've re-read the Topics you've started.

  Apparently it is mostly an obsessive compulsion to create discord. If I'm wrong, I apologize. But, I don't have any sense of YOU as a person, a thinker, a reasoning participant or even a clear-thinking contributor.

  In your 3rd topic here on the Forum you state:

  My sincerest apologies to anyone and everyone on this forum who read my first two threads.

  I guess I started posting at a bad time in my life. Not too thoughtful of me but not insincere. I have always been a little lacking in the social graces department partly because of my JW upbringing. What would have been a forthright and honest temperament was twisted by them into an overly blunt and occasionally rude one.

  Thanks for being honest about this. But, this is no excuse for your style of passive-aggressive behavior disguised as concern for the oppressed people and defender of morality.

  You come on as a provocateur with statements like this:

  Terry; you’re beginning to look like a non-Christian version of Perry.

  Concerning what you wrote and my responses below let me say that most of your statements are outright meaningless. It looks, though I’m not familiar with them, like they are Objectivist phrases.

  Terra, if you think I'm an idealogue you misjudge me, my friend.

  If you have read my posts on this topic the phrases I cut and pasted ARE CLEARLY LABELED AS TO OBJECTIVIST SOURCES.

  So, don't play cute games and don't call me names. Are you listening?
• 

  Terry

  I don't personally have a stake in the plight of the American Indian. I'm unaware of the reason YOU DO.

  The reasons I make those statements about Indians is based on something that Objectivism apparently has no comprehension of. Altruism.

  Until I discovered how and why I became a Jehovah's Witness I could not proceed clearly and confidently in my life.

  It was after studying Ayn Rand's definition of ALTRUISM that it became crystal clear and I was enabled to break the spell.

  What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
  The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”
  Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,”
  Philosophy: Who Needs It

  Jehovah's Witnesses have no right to exist for their own sakes! They are discouraged from benefitting their mind by higher education, they are forbidden to accept certain medical treatments saving their own life, they are robbed of recreation, self-fulfillment and association with persons of choice ALL BECAUSE THEY MUST BE SERVANTS to "others" : the Organization, the unbelievers who must be converted and the enthroned Jesus who in 1914 set all this nonsense into motion by returning invisibly!

  IF WE DON'T have a right to our own life, our own pursuit of education, association, our own thoughts, values and happiness THEN HOW DO WE EVEN EXIST as individuals?

  This is what Ayn Rand started me thinking about.

  It is ALTRUISM that has poisoned generations of otherwise rational human beings into trading their own life values for "others".
• 

  asleif_dufansdottir

  Quoting Terry:

  "They never invented the wheel, metalurgy, schools, technology or managed to escape dependency on bison. Women were practically slaves in their society which was also quite brutal (in a Spartan way) with children."

  Brief one word summation: Bullshit.

  In the first place Native Americans are not one unified homenous group. "American Indians", as a group, did not "do" or "fail to do" ANY of these things. More than a few tribes were matriarchal. Several lived a settled, agrarian existence. Only Plains tribes (which Terry seems to think are "all American Indians") cared about bison, and even they farmed.

  They had technology, and social structures, and ways of life that were sufficient for their needs to survive, and thrive in quite diverse environments. They were neither innocent children, demonic savages, or enlightened beings. They were just people. People who got screwed over by an invading force...as people the globe over have been screwed over by invading forces since time began. It just so happend that this happened within the last few hundred years instead of a thousand, or two thousand, or three thousand years ago.

  Only someone who is grossly ignorant about the entire subject of Native peoples would state things that are at once both blatantly offensive and staggeringly wrong. All your other arguments are suspect on that basis.
• 

  james_woods

  Actually, James, this is a very topical discussion and quite relevant to serious current political issues. The novel, Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand, is a fictional vehicle for demonstrating her philosophy of Objectivism, which is being embraced by a significant and influential portion of the electorate, the Tea Party.

  That is strange - I don't recall ever having heard a Tea Party statement on either Ayn Rand or Objectivism.

  So you think you are somehow defeating the Tea Party by throwing a hate fit over this movie?
• 

  littlerockguy

  Thanks everybody for your imput on this thread. So I guess nobody else has seen the movie yet?

  LRG