|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
5th May 2011, 11:08 AM | #201 |
Not A Mormon
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the sandbox
Posts: 14,706
|
|
__________________
Logic is what man stoops to when absurdity and surrealism has failed. It's shameful. – whatthebutlersaw Far an taine ‘n abhainn, ‘s ann as mò a fuaim. Like my post? Buy my books! Now taking bets on the Clinton Indictment! |
|
5th May 2011, 11:28 AM | #202 |
Time Person of the Year, 2006
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 19,246
|
So, I heard they made of movie out of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. /derail derail
|
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black. Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon |
|
5th May 2011, 11:37 AM | #203 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 551
|
Am I correct in assuming that this is one of those movies that I have to either love or hate before I actually see it?
In other words, aside from the proponents and critics of Rand's philosophy, can anyone recommend or pan this movie based on its merits? I only see a couple of movies a year so any help would be appreciated. |
5th May 2011, 11:43 AM | #204 |
Time Person of the Year, 2006
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 19,246
|
Well, it's pretty much gotten bad reviews. Roger Ebert hated it.
It was very low budget. If you only see a couple movies a year, I might pass on this one and wait for the DVD. I would love to hear from someone who had never heard of Ayn Rand and what they thought of the movie. |
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black. Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon |
|
5th May 2011, 12:00 PM | #205 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 551
|
Thanks. I'll probably see it as soon as it comes out on DVD then.
All I really know of Rand is what I read here, plus what my dad tells me. I would guess I have an overall negative view (mostly because my dad is such a big fan ), but I know I'm ignorant on the subject. |
5th May 2011, 12:14 PM | #206 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,680
|
|
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping. |
|
5th May 2011, 12:48 PM | #207 |
Not A Mormon
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the sandbox
Posts: 14,706
|
This is pretty much my advice too, and I haven't seen it either. As a (devoted) husband and father, I'm limited to a few movies in theaters each year. I can put my manly foot down maybe three times if I talk the film up early enough, and find a babysitter.
From everything I've read about the film, even decent reviews, I'd wait until the DVD anyhow. When the movie was either announced or getting ready to release, we had theorized (in another thread which I can't find at the moment) that the producers had only made this particular low-budget ($20 million) three-part film to maintain their hold on the movie rights. There has been talk (for years and years) of much larger stars portraying the role (last I heard was Jolie and Pitt). |
__________________
Logic is what man stoops to when absurdity and surrealism has failed. It's shameful. – whatthebutlersaw Far an taine ‘n abhainn, ‘s ann as mò a fuaim. Like my post? Buy my books! Now taking bets on the Clinton Indictment! |
|
5th May 2011, 12:59 PM | #208 |
Sole Survivor of L-Town
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lexington, KY, USA, Earth
Posts: 15,149
|
|
__________________
Religion and sex are powerplays. Manipulate the people for the money they pay. Selling skin, selling God The numbers look the same on their credit cards. |
|
5th May 2011, 01:23 PM | #209 |
Not A Mormon
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the sandbox
Posts: 14,706
|
|
__________________
Logic is what man stoops to when absurdity and surrealism has failed. It's shameful. – whatthebutlersaw Far an taine ‘n abhainn, ‘s ann as mò a fuaim. Like my post? Buy my books! Now taking bets on the Clinton Indictment! |
|
5th May 2011, 02:10 PM | #210 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,033
|
|
6th May 2011, 12:17 AM | #211 |
Up The Irons
Tagger
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 34,458
|
|
__________________
i loves the little birdies they goes tweet tweet tweet hee hee i loves them they sings to each other tweet twet tweet hee hee i loves them they is so cute i love yje little birdies little birdies in the room when birfies sings ther is no gloom i lobes the little birdies they goess tweet tweet tweet hee hee hee i loves them they sings me to sleep sing me to slrrp now little birdies - The wisdom of Shemp. |
|
21st May 2011, 07:10 AM | #212 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,415
|
The first problem is that Ayn Rand did not frame the issue as "people should voluntarily first to the gifted". She framed the argument that tax payer money should should be given to the gifted as a priority. That is the context of the clip.
Ayn Rand established a dichotomy that is either or with regards to the so called "mentally retarded" and the "gifted". I am approaching my argument from her actual statements, not through the lens of Objectivist apologetics. I am merely pointing out that in my younger days I am one of those "half idiots" and later in life I become one of those gifted. "It's also interest to note, though hardly surprising, that you see this issue as "Either the government pays for it or these people suffer". It seems to be a common theme among those who disagree with Rand." That wasn't, isn't and hasn't been my argument. A strawman argument doesn't detract from my observation, and doesn't change that seeing that clip was the moment I gave up on her beliefs. (Note you shouldn't put " " around a statement in reference to my argument unless I actually wrote that phrase.) Oh and the "Lord dictator" wasn't literal so much as a statement of the world if Ayn Rand had her way. Like saying "if I was lord dictator I would..." it is a turn of phrase. |
__________________
"Burning people! He says what we're all thinking!" -GLaDOS |
|
25th September 2013, 11:39 AM | #213 |
Time Person of the Year, 2006
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 19,246
|
Resurrecting this old thread.
Apparently the producers of Atlas Shrugged have gone to kickstarter to get money to make the 3rd Atlas Shrugged movie. http://www.avclub.com/articles/atlas...-for-h,103253/
Quote:
|
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black. Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon |
|
25th September 2013, 11:48 AM | #214 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Originally Posted by Spindrift
Also, there's nothing in Objectivism that objects to raising funds, provided you provide value for value. This doesn't have to be financial value, either--Ragnar provided money to people in Atlas Shrugged in order to kick-start the recovery of society. It'd be no contradiction for someone to say "I think this movie is important, therefore I'm going to donate money to it"; I've said the same thing about cancer research, dog parks, and fire fighting. As long as they're not forcing anyone to donate, they're still on solid moral ground. I hope that the movies are such fiscal disasters that everyone involved has to leave the industry permanently, and I'll certainly never give them a dime, but their way of raising revenue certainly isn't immoral from an Objectivist standpoint. |
25th September 2013, 11:53 AM | #215 |
Time Person of the Year, 2006
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 19,246
|
|
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black. Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon |
|
25th September 2013, 11:58 AM | #216 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Why would it be?
Remember, making money IS NOT the paramount virtue in Objectivism. The fact that the movies didn't make money may not be a critical consideration for them. They could be more interested in getting the movies out into the public eye. They could be more interested in proving it can be done (the pianist in Atlas Shrugged comes to mind). They may not agree that it's been a financial falure--they may think that they'll recoup their losses down the road. |
25th September 2013, 01:24 PM | #217 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 826
|
Please, please, dear jeebus, make this movie happen:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/04/10...n-aglialoro/3/
Quote:
|
__________________
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires. --Susan B. Anthony |
|
25th September 2013, 01:38 PM | #218 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
|
|
25th September 2013, 01:45 PM | #219 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,985
|
|
__________________
Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. -Christopher Hitchens Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan |
|
25th September 2013, 01:50 PM | #220 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,349
|
Voluntary charity is not what Objectivists are talking about when they condemn altruism (and this isn't a No True Scottsman or an equivocation fallacy, because Rand explicitly explained which definition of the term she was using in her writings). Voluntarily giving money (or time, or any other resource) because you want to do so has never been seen as a bad thing in Objectivism.
|
25th September 2013, 02:03 PM | #221 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Please explain to me how "I'm willing to contribute to a project I consider worth the investment" can possibly be called altruism. It's an investment. The fact that the return on investment isn't monitery isn't a relevant factor. You may as well call a primative farmer planting grain altruism--after all, his return on investment isn't money, but grain for both food and stock seed.
Some people want this movie made. They are putting their money where their mouths are. This is not altruism by any rational definition.
Originally Posted by Akri
Originally Posted by ravdin
Wait..... |
25th September 2013, 02:06 PM | #222 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
|
|
25th September 2013, 02:09 PM | #223 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel
Quote:
Out of curiosity, which of Rand's works have you read? It'll help in responding to your questions. I've been working on the assumption that you've at least read through Atlas Shrugged. |
25th September 2013, 02:20 PM | #224 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
|
You just extended the word "investment" to the point where it's meaningless. You can extend this "logic" to anything. You can give a homless man a hundred dollars and by your "logic" it wouldn't be considered altruism. You want to see that person eat food. That's your "investment." The fact that the return on investment isn't monitery isn't a relevant factor.
There's already a definition for this. It's called a commodity. Just because you not-so-subtlely tried to make the defintion of altruism meaningless, then went on to expand the defintion of investment so broad it's meaningless, doesn't negate the sanctimony of the filmmakers. |
25th September 2013, 02:25 PM | #225 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel
ETA: And if you attempt to psychoanalyze me again, or to again attribute to mallace arguments that you simply don't understand, I'm putting you on "Ignore". I've pretty much lost patience for that sort of nonsense in these discussions. If you want to have this discussion, start with the premise that you don't know what I think. If you can't, we're not going to go anywhere and there's no point in continuing. |
25th September 2013, 02:27 PM | #226 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,349
|
Objectivism uses Auguste Comte's version of altruism.
From the Wikipedia page:
Quote:
|
25th September 2013, 02:27 PM | #227 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
|
|
25th September 2013, 02:31 PM | #228 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Objectivism isn't some free-floating idea. Ayn Rand described it in a series of nonfiction essays, letters, talks at universities, etc., and it has been expanded upon by later philosophers (Ph.D.s in philosophy, so the term is apt).
Since you say you're "Black Belt in Objectivist Knkowledge", I assume you can name a few of the nonfiction books you've read. I'd like to know so that I don't make the assumption that you know things you don't. It will facilitate the conversation if we're both on the same page regarding one another's knowledge of the philosophy. |
25th September 2013, 02:32 PM | #229 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
|
Wow. Ok. By that definition, donating money to make sure Atlas Shrugged part 3 get made is certainly altruism.
"An action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the agent." Clearly, donating money to the filmmakers is more favorable to the filmmakers than the donator. I know you're going to say "but they want to see the movie just as much as the filmmakers want to make it yada yadad yada" And that'd make this discussion, like Objectivism, a complete waste of time. |
25th September 2013, 02:34 PM | #230 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
|
|
25th September 2013, 02:34 PM | #231 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,349
|
|
25th September 2013, 02:35 PM | #232 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel
Quote:
|
25th September 2013, 02:39 PM | #233 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,349
|
So "favorable" here must mean "monetarily favorable" because you say so. If that's the way you're going to discuss this, why not just say that "altruism" must mean "donating to the Atlas Shrugged Kickstarter" and be done with it?
Edit: and just to point something out, the bit you quoted talks about the outcome being more favorable than unfavorable, not how favorable it is for one person compared to another. If the outcome of donating to the kickstarter is favorable for the donator then it's not altruistic under that definition, even if the outcome is more favorable for the people receiving the donation. |
25th September 2013, 02:40 PM | #234 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 826
|
Not that this matters but the Kickstarter campaign is merely marketing, the movie is funded without it.
And it is unlikely to be a musical, which means there really is no God. |
__________________
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires. --Susan B. Anthony |
|
25th September 2013, 02:42 PM | #235 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,349
|
|
25th September 2013, 02:42 PM | #236 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
|
Guess so. I've read all Ayn Rand's books and like most, I don't take her ideas seriously. How could you take a woman seriously who thinks there should be no public eduction system? Reading an Ayn Rand book doesn't give anyone any knowledge about human nature, politics, economics, or any other discipline. An Ayn Rand book is just a documentation of a woman lost in her own thoughts.
|
25th September 2013, 02:43 PM | #237 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
|
|
25th September 2013, 02:50 PM | #238 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,349
|
When the topic of discussion is what a word means? Yes. Same thing will happen if you go into the Science subforum and start talking about how Evolution is just a theory, or if you go to the Religion subforum and say that faith in God is the same as faith in the sun rising.
|
25th September 2013, 02:51 PM | #239 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
UNLoVedRebel: This is altruism!
Dinwar: No, it isn't. It doesn't fit the definition. UNLoVedRebel: The definition is meaningless! Akri: Here's the definition. And by the way, the guy who defined it was an advocate of it. UNLoVedRebel: This is just an argument about definitions!!! The mind boggles, it truly does. |
25th September 2013, 02:54 PM | #240 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,349
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|