Outreach: Atlas Shrugged Movie in 2009

[mediahasyou]

Project is dead. Director quit, and Jolie is pregnant.

Besides, the last attempt at this was terrible. Rand's tomes cannot be brought to film in any less than 5 hours of movie.

They should split it up into three movies, lord of the rings style.

 

[nate895]

This is the biggest misconception about Objectivism, and I'm tired of people bashing a philosophy they don't understand.

What it really says is we shouldn't HAVE to care about our fellow man, that nobody should be obligated to pay for his neighbor as they do in socialism or communism.

I really don't know how you can deny something that says "My philosophy..."

 

[Anti Federalist]

Caring for others is fine so long as you realize that in doing so, you are caring for yourself. It is when you start to expect gratitude that you are a parasitic emotional leech of the needy because you need others to validate yourself in the eyes of other delusional parasites. "Selflessness" is a selfish act. There is no beauty in it. It does not make you more "human". It does not negate poor judgment of the past.

I think, in Maimonides "levels of charity", he expresses this same thought, in that within the highest form of "charity" there is no opportunity to bask in the glow of "helping": you help by making the person in need of assistance self sufficient, no longer needing assistance, and you do this in way that the person receiving the assistance doesn't realize he is being helped.

The Christian version being "...teach man to fish and he eats for lifetime".

 

[nate895]

The Christian version being "...teach man to fish and he eats for lifetime".

That's Lao Tzu.

 

[Fox McCloud]

Caring for others is fine so long as you realize that in doing so, you are caring for yourself.

I would say that caring for others with complete disregard to caring for yourself is actually a very selfless act.

 

[Anti Federalist]

That's Lao Tzu.

Yeah yer right...

Now you know why I generally stay out of these religious circle jerks.

I usually end up looking like a horse's ass.

It's hard enough to get people to embrace liberty and freedom, let alone try to convince them of the "one true path to salvation" or even if there is such a path.

There are some truths that I accept and hold close, as you rightly pointed out, the sources of which through the ages, confused, lost or diminished.

I do hold, as an unshakable truth, that without freedom, that road to discovery will be forever closed.

 

[Kludge]

I would say that caring for others with complete disregard to caring for yourself is actually a very selfless act.

Every action by animals (humans included) is done to sustain themselves. It may be stupid, inefficient, or done under delusion, but it's always a rational decision driven by instinct. It's a bit of backwards science, but if you keep that in mind, you can almost always judge people and their actions accurately. Put more simply, I have not yet seen evidence that selflessness exists or is even possible.

We seek power (money, favor, influence, etc.) because we seek to secure our ability to sustain ourselves. Perhaps we open doors for good favor, hope that we'll improve some collective attitude, or because we would want the same done for us.

 

[BKom]

Atlas Shrugged is quite an interesting book. I read it in an afternoon about 30 years ago. The reason I was able to read it in an afternoon is this: I skipped all the pseudo-dialogue. That is speech making dressed up as dialogue. It's awful. And when a character goes on and on page after page making an actual speech, that is awful also. Terrible writing. Rand needed an editor badly.

I've written a few screenplays. And adapting Atlas Shrugged could be done easily to fit a 2 hour or slightly longer movie. Speechmaking would have to be cut or shortened. Speeches are not interesting in that context. They make the book drag and would certainly make a film drag.

Randall Wallace is a good screenwriter and I'm sure he could do a good job. He's the writer of Braveheart and other produced screenplays.

And if anyone wants to see how NOT to write a screenplay or make a film, please get a copy of the old Gary Cooper version of the Fountainhead. One of the worst pieces of trash ever filmed. I've always suspected it's because whoever wrote the screenplay (I don't feel like looking it up today) was too close to the material.

 

[BeFranklin]

What little respect I had for Rothbard has gone away now. He comes across as small and petty, and is consistently being misleading, and twisting the truth.

Rothbard unmasked

What little respect? Ayn Rand told him to divorce his wife because she was another faith. She had her followers sign loyality oaths after Branden split up with her.

What don't you understand? Her fictional books may be one thing, but she acted like a cult leader in real life. You see anything wrong or weird at all with how Ayn Rand acted?

 

[BeFranklin]

Rothbard repeatedly talks about "excommunication". Objectivism isn't a political party, but an intellectual movement, and it's only reasonable that if a person doesn't agree with the philosophy which the movement represents, he should no longer be recognized as an advocate of that philosophy, else he would misrepresent it, giving it a bad name. Libertarian critics of Objectivism went overboard with their accusations when "Pope Peikoff excommunicated Greenspan" as they put it, saying that he should have shown more tolerance for Greenspan -- well, they must regret their words now.

Umm, like this was a one time thing She did the same thing to Branden and others. And Greenspan went on to be the biggest pumper of paper money in the world after writing on the virtues of gold in Ayn Rand's book.

Not only do words have meaning, but actions have meaning as well. Greenspan probably caused the current economic collapse. Rothbard was right in 1972. It was all about power, and they weren't being truthful.

Proverbs 14:7
Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.

Matthew 7:15-20
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

 

[tremendoustie]

Every action by animals (humans included) is done to sustain themselves. It may be stupid, inefficient, or done under delusion, but it's always a rational decision driven by instinct. It's a bit of backwards science, but if you keep that in mind, you can almost always judge people and their actions accurately. Put more simply, I have not yet seen evidence that selflessness exists or is even possible.

We seek power (money, favor, influence, etc.) because we seek to secure our ability to sustain ourselves. Perhaps we open doors for good favor, hope that we'll improve some collective attitude, or because we would want the same done for us.

Here's a good thought experiment. Say a person you do not know and would never see again were going to suffer and die from a horrible disease, say Ebola.

And, say, you could immediately and permanently cure them, but you'd have to give up one dollar. That's it, just one buck.

No matter whether you choose to save the person or not, your memory will be wiped, and you'll never remember the question was ever posed, nor have any knowledge about the person or their fate.

Would you do it? I think almost everyone would. And, there is no possible way for it to benefit you, not even as a good feeling, since your memory will be wiped.

Ergo, selflessness.

 

[BeFranklin]

This is the biggest misconception about Objectivism, and I'm tired of people bashing a philosophy they don't understand.

Its a cheap diachotomy based off the golden rule. You either are "selfless" and sacrificing yourself, or you are "selfish". The golden rule is neither. It does not say love your neighbor more then yourself, or less than yourself. It says love your neighbor as yourself.

 

[tremendoustie]

Its a cheap diachotomy based off the golden rule. You either are "selfless" and sacrificing yourself, or you are "selfish". The golden rule is neither. It does not say love your neighbor more then yourself, or less than yourself. It says love your neighbor as yourself.

That's the ticket.

The thing is, it seems to me, there are really two definitions of selflessness: Giving up a lot of yourself to only help another person out a little. Or: Giving up something of yourself for a reason other than personal benefit.

According to the first definition selflessness is not good -- as you say, you should love your neighbor as your self, not more than yourself.

According to the second definition selflessness is good -- it is right to be willing to give of your self to help another.

That is, if I could lose a finger to save your arm, I should do it, even if I don't get any benefit. But, I shouldn't lose my arm to save your finger.

 

[tremendoustie]

This is the biggest misconception about Objectivism, and I'm tired of people bashing a philosophy they don't understand.

What it really says is we shouldn't HAVE to care about our fellow man, that nobody should be obligated to pay for his neighbor as they do in socialism or communism.

Yet, her heroes eschew voluntary gift-giving. Why is that?

 

[BeFranklin]

That is, if I could lose a finger to save your arm, I should do it, even if I don't get any benefit. But, I shouldn't lose my arm to save your finger.

Doesn't follow at all. Very poor understanding of the golden rule. The golden rule isn't based on self sacrifice.

 

[tremendoustie]

Doesn't follow at all. Very poor understanding of the golden rule. The golden rule isn't based on self sacrifice.

Then, how do you interpret it?

If I love you equally as much as I love myself -- all other things being equal, I would prefer to lose my finger rather than your arm, would I not?

 

[BeFranklin]

Then, how do you interpret it?

If I love you equally as much as I love myself -- all other things being equal, I would prefer to lose my finger rather than your arm, would I not?

At what cost to everything else, since man is more than a body?

Only after reading Rand would you start thinking in terms of everything being a self-sacrifice. It seems to me that the love of the golden rule would seek a situation where no one lost an arm or finger (geeze).

 

[tremendoustie]

At what cost to everything else, since man is more than a body?

Only after reading Rand would you start thinking in terms of everything being a self-sacrifice. It seems to me that the love of the golden rule would seek a situation where no one lost an arm or finger (geeze).

Oh, of course, you'd look for a better solution -- I was only speaking abstractly. And, I'm only speaking in terms of "self-sacrifice" because the discussion is about Rand.

The principle could be applied in many much more mundane ways. For example, if it would be easier for me to do something than for someone else to do it, I shouldn't try to pass it off on them ...

It means caring about the well being of others as much as you care about your own.

Ultimately, of course, you are only sacrificing in the physical sense, which, as you say, is of less importance ...

However, I do think the principle stands -- say you were pinned with a friend by some kind of avalanche or something, you'd want to weigh the well being of the both of you, equally, which means minimizing the total loss of life and limb.

 

[BeFranklin]

Ultimately, of course, you are only sacrificing in the physical sense, which, as you say, is of less importance ...

Or maybe I am not sacrificing at all, because it is of no importance?

I follow the golden rule. To apply it, my reasoning isn't like this at all.

Ayn Rand used a false dichatomy to begin her original work, her philosophy is ideal for sophism, she hated Christianity, and she ran her organization like a cult. Her most famous member caused the current econonic collape. It also seems to me to reak of possibly being part of marxist dialectics staged in the real world political realm. Rand's movement certainly seems little like the founders of this country, although I think designed to imitate (ie poison it).

I prefer the purtain work ethic. It is not being "selfish" or "selfless" to do so. There is no self-sacrifice there and everyone gains.

 

[mmink15]

I think Angelina Jolie would be a horrible Dagny Taggart, and I suppose that would mean they want Brad Pitt in there too as Galt or Reardon
I imagine the Reardon trial and/or the I am John Galt radio address would be cut down to a couple of minutes while the romance story becomes the heart of the movie.
I highly doubt any movies even mildly supporting free market economics will be coming out of American film studios anytime soon.