Outreach: Atlas Shrugged Movie in 2009

[tremendoustie]

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.

I'm no fan of Rand's morality or spiritual musings, only of her opposition to socialism and forced charity. I don't know if you thought I was some sort of Rand apologist, but I'm not.

I agree that it's not ultimately really sacrificing anything to "love your neighbor as you love yourself" -- that it's ultimately beneficial to all parties.

If you love someone, though, you are willing to give something up for their sake.

And, say you are in that situation -- say you've got groceries, and see someone who needs them more. I think the right reason to give the groceries up is because you care about that person's hunger, not for your own spiritual benefit.

Love spurs us to give things up for others, even if we do ultimately gain more. If the motivation is the personal benefit, however, I don't think it's really love ...

And I do think the principle applies -- if you are even hungrier than your neighbor, I think the right thing is to make sure you have what you need. As you say, you love your neighbor as yourself, not more than yourself.

 

[BeFranklin]

I'm no fan of Rand's morality or spiritual musings, only of her opposition to socialism and forced charity. I don't know if you thought I was some sort of Rand apologist, but I'm not.

I agree that it's not ultimately really sacrificing anything to "love your neighbor as you love yourself" -- that it's ultimately beneficial to all parties.

If you love someone, though, you are willing to give something up for their sake.

And, say you are in that situation -- say you've got groceries, and see someone who needs them more. I think the right reason to give the groceries up is because you care about that person's hunger, not for your own spiritual benefit.

Love spurs us to give things up for others, even if we do ultimately gain more. If the motivation is the personal benefit, however, I don't think it's really love ...

And I do think the principle applies -- if you are even hungrier than your neighbor, I think the right thing is to make sure you have what you need. As you say, you love your neighbor as yourself, not more than yourself.

How about it is better to give then receive

 

[tremendoustie]

How about it is better to give then receive

Very true . But, if you give because you wish to enjoy the benefit of giving, not because you wish another to enjoy the benefit of receiving, love for the other person is not really your motivation.

It's one of those things which you only receive incidentally, when pursuing something else. Nothing's a bigger conversation killer than to say, "Now, let's have a good conversation." Rather, good conversations are what results when one is interested in the ideas and experiences of one's friends.

Also, I do not think it is healthy to neglect your self. If one is starving, one should not give one's food to the well fed. We are supposed to love ourselves as well, after all.

 

[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

Rothbard, Playwrite
One of the first attacks on Rand, and the source of false rumors regarding Rand, was a play that Rothbard wrote, entitled Mozart Was a Red. The widely spread myth that Rand argued that smoking was a requirement for rationality is clearly stated in Rothbard's play. The main character is Carson Sand (Rand). Keith seems to be Rothbard while Greta is Barbara Branden and Jonathan is Nathaniel.

CARSON (turning to KEITH): Keith, would you like a cigarette? Here, this is a particularly rational brand.

KEITH (a bit bemused): "Rational...?" (A slight pause) Oh, I'm sorry, thank you. I don't smoke.

(Exclamations of disapproval from JONATHAN and GRETA .)

GRETA (lashing out): You don't smoke! Why not?

KEITH (taken back): Well, uh...because I don't like to.

CARSON (in scarcely-controlled fury): You don't like to! You permit your mere subjective whims, your feelings (this word said with utmost contempt) to stand in the way of reason and reality?

KEITH (sweating again): But surely, Miss Sand, what other possible grounds can you have for smoking than simply liking it?

(Expressions of fury, dismay from GRETA, JONATHAN, and CARSON, "Oh!", "Ah!", etc.)

JONATHAN (bounding up): Mr. Hackley, Carson Sand never, never does anything out of her subjective feelings; only out of reason, which means: the objective nature of reality. You have grossly insulted this great woman, Carson Sand, you have abused her courtesy and her hospitality. (sits down)

KEITH: But...but...what possible reason can there be...?

CARSON: Mr. Hackley, why are you evading the self-evident fact? Smoking is a symbol of the fire in the mind, the fire of ideas. He who refuses to smoke is therefore an enemy of ideas and of the mind.

Absolutely no sense of humor or ability to detect it, lol

 

[Truth Warrior]

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

Or even 6, "Star Wars" style. Made for TV mini-series ( movies ) have come a long way.<IMHO> "The Tudors", "Rome", "Sopranos", "Lonesome Dove", etc.

 

[DeadheadForPaul]

Ayn Rand was not a libertarian. In fact, she disliked the libertarian movement.

Objectivists make up a small portion of the freedom movement

In my opinion, Objectivists are completely selfish and are intolerable to be around. It's one thing to believe that you should have personal freedom and another to condemn philanthropy, manners, and compassion as sins of the weak-minded

 

[DeadheadForPaul]

Quite frankly, after reading what they (the objectivists) did to Rothbard for his wife being a Presbyterian, why anyone would to Ayn Rand as a good libertarian is beyond me.



We shouldn't care about our fellow man, we should simply live to pleasure ourselves. What a wonderful world!!! It is such an astonishing fact her philosophy never caught on beyond a few nobodies in New York.

A++++

 

[Kludge]

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.

No, it's still a selfish act. You did it because it made you feel good immediately after and during.

 

[tremendoustie]

No, it's still a selfish act. You did it because it made you feel good immediately after and during.

Right, I'm sure that's why people would do it. For the split second good feeling .

Fine, say all pleasure receptors in your brain are turned off during the question, and decision making process, so you won't feel good either way.

People would still do it, because in almost everyone's purely cold, calculating, intellectual list of priorities, a persons life still ranks higher than a dollar.

To many people, the well being of others is a lower priority than their own, but to assert that to everyone, no one else's well being is any priority at all, is simply absurd.

 

[Kludge]

Fine, say all pleasure receptors in your brain are turned off during the question, and decision making process, so you won't feel good either way.

People would still do it, because in almost everyone's purely cold, calculating, intellectual list of priorities, a persons life still ranks higher than a dollar.

I don't know much about neurology, but I doubt that it's possible to eliminate any feeling of pleasure in a person so long as they can think. If they derive no pleasure, you couldn't value the dollar, so it still wouldn't be selfless as there's no sacrifice.

 

[DeadheadForPaul]

No, it's still a selfish act. You did it because it made you feel good immediately after and during.

There is a possibility that someone could do the act out of DUTY.

Do you believe that every single person has fought in the armed forces because it made them feel better? Is it possible that one hated it but knew it was their duty?

 

[Kludge]

There is a possibility that someone could do the act out of DUTY.

Do you believe that every single person has fought in the armed forces because it made them feel better? Is it possible that one hated it but knew it was their duty?

What's duty?

Serving in the armed forces (negating the meager pay/benefits) would come from fear of the alternative and again can be attributed to instinct which seeks to sustain oneself.

 

[Thrashertm]

I still need to read Atlas Shrugged. Its just so long and it seems like there is probably a lot of other more worthwhile things I could read.

I am just finishing it. Trust me, read the first 50 pages. You will be hooked.

 

[tremendoustie]

I don't know much about neurology, but I doubt that it's possible to eliminate any feeling of pleasure in a person so long as they can think. If they derive no pleasure, you couldn't value the dollar, so it still wouldn't be selfless as there's no sacrifice.

It's a thought experiment, it doesn't matter if it's practically implementable. And, you can think rationally and make value judgments without experiencing physical enjoyment of the thinking.

There is no way to externally observe motivations, all we have is self-examination. Any cursory effort at self examination will reveal that the most common way we make decisions is by value judgments.

I value $100 more than $1000 because I realize that in the future I will be able to purchase more goods with $1000. I don't sit there and somehow imagine each and see how much immediate enjoyment and pleasure I experience from the process of imagining them, I make the decision because I value one more than the other. Specifically, I value the greater amount of stuff I can get with $1000 more than the lesser amount of stuff I can get with $100.

Similarly, I value the life of another person more than I value one dollar. Even if the memory of the decision was to be erased, even if I never got pleasure in some way by savoring the decision, I can easily compare two goods and make a value judgment.

I think any honest self examination of the way a person thinks will reveal this. $1000>$100, problem solved. Person's life>$1, problem solved.

You can bend human psychology into a pretzel to justify a bizzare philosophy about self-interest, but any honest self examination by a normal person will reveal that they do care about others, to a greater or lesser extent. Not about the pleasure that they get from them, but just about that person.

Why should people not value others at all? Why must the horrible death of another person be less important to me than the pleasure I get from a stick of gum? This idea that every decision must be somehow traced back around to personal pleasure is absurd.

It's not the way we make decisions, it's not the way we think about them, and it's not the reality of our priorities.

Instead of redefining every human emotion, and positing invisible hidden motivations that no one has ever perceived, in order to make everyone into some sort of donkey, motivated only by the carrot of pleasure or the stick of pain, why not take human mentality at face value?

We're relatively selfish beings, who do often care for others, though usually somewhat less than ourselves, and are sometimes capable of generous action, most often when the cost is not too great.

I think that matches what we observe about our mentalities better than a single ubiquitous pleasure pain calculation.

 

[Shadow of a Doubt]

Atlas Shrugged is my second favorite book next to The Fountainhead, and Ayn Rand is my favorite author. That said, she was very flawed and I don't think Atlas would make a good movie. I think her books are so loved by some and despised by others because they pander exclusively to a certain audience, an audience that typically gets no attention, and therefore responds to her enthusiastically. When I first read The Fountainhead, I loved it immediately because I admired the character of Howard Roark so much, and it seemed like this was the first time I read a novel with a protagonist whose style of heroism I could appreciate, and it was an epic novel that revolved around him as well. To anyone who doesn't like Roark, though, even if they might be libertarian/paleo-conservative, it's an incredible effort that completely misses their pleasure center. It's the same thing with Atlas Shrugged. I was grinning throughout Francisco D'Anconia's "Money is the Root of All Evil" speech, but I knew that anyone who didn't share my love of Rand's stalwart voraciousness would be bored to tears, and most people don't.

 

[Kludge]

I think any honest self examination of the way a person thinks will reveal this. $1000>$100, problem solved. Person's life>$1, problem solved.

That isn't rational. I know, as best I can, that no person would ever do something which gives absolutely no benefit to their self.

any honest self examination by a normal person will reveal that they do care about others

Anyway, people can care for others due to entertainment value they may have, or perhaps they validate you in the eyes of others, or perhaps they bake they cookies you enjoy. You value some people more or less than others. Your friends have qualities you like. If you dislike a person, you will probably try to evade them as they burden your life. Given that people are practically limitless in supply, it would benefit your life (negating theoretical "blowback") if they were dead. In the same sense, would you save the life of a likely murderer? If you were a soldier in WW2, would you shoot Hitler? Or does he have inherent rights due to his inherent value?

Why should people not value others at all? Why must the horrible death of another person be less important to me than the pleasure I get from a stick of gum?

Simply by making the choice, it is a selfish act. Apparently, you dislike the thought of another's "horrible death". Thus, sparing them out of pity eases your mind. To let them die may instill regret.

It's not the way we make decisions, it's not the way we think about them, and it's not the reality of our priorities.

You're using collective terms when I obviously disagree.

Why not take human mentality at face value?

Everyone lies -- mostly to themselves, which in turn makes them lie to everyone else. Many people believe themselves some mystical race, chosen by God or "Nature", and that they are of exponentially higher value than other animals because they can think in abstracts and communicate with other humans. If you take religion out of the equation, it's very difficult to justify the sacrificing of an innocent animal for ourselves even though it's entirely unnecessary (actually, I'm interested in arguments if anyone has some).

 

[tremendoustie]

That isn't rational. I know, as best I can, that no person would ever do something which gives absolutely no benefit to their self.

So, anyone who acts in a way which is not in accordance with your theory must be irrational? There is no possible other rational motivation but the one you define?

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Anyway, people can care for others due to entertainment value they may have, or perhaps they validate you in the eyes of others, or perhaps they bake they cookies you enjoy.

Plus, there's always actually caring about the other person's well being.

I wasn't saying you're not normal, I think if you consider it honestly, you'll realize you wouldn't sit there and compare how much pleasure you think different options would give you, you'd just decide the person's life is of greater worth.

You value some people more or less than others. Your friends have qualities you like. If you dislike a person, you will probably try to evade them as they burden your life. Given that people are practically limitless in supply, it would benefit your life (negating theoretical "blowback") if they were dead.

Yeah, there are certainly people like that. Yet, strangely, I do not want them to die, because I *gasp* care about them. I wouldn't want them to die even by some natural event, and if my wanting it were erased from my memory, and even if during wanting it, I were protected from any guilt.

In the same sense, would you save the life of a likely murderer? If you were a soldier in WW2, would you shoot Hitler? Or does he have inherent rights due to his inherent value?

This is a different moral question. This is not a question about the possibility of non-selfish acts. But, since you ask, I think I would be absolutely justified in shooting Hitler, as a murderer. Also, I'd judge the lives of those he was killing to be of greater value than his.

Simply by making the choice, it is a selfish act. Apparently, you dislike the thought of another's "horrible death". Thus, sparing them out of pity eases your mind. To let them die may instill regret.

Nope, not really. My thought process would be this: Which do I think is of greater value? Me having a dollar, or some guy I never knew and never will know not dying in horrible agony? Yeah, the guy's more important, it's not even close, the buck barely matters to me at all, I care about the guy's horrible death much more.

This even if you remove all pleasure and pain, and let me know you'll wipe my memory right after the decision. As I say, it's just a value decision, it requires basic comparative ability, not pleasure/pain.

Over life, I've developed a scale of relative value of goods, as I think most people do. I don't have to sit there and think for ten minutes about whether I'd rather have a hamburger or a steak, I know. Same for the person - there's no pleasure/pain about it, a person is more important than a dollar.

I think this is how most people make decisions, and I think most people would also value the person over the dollar.

You're using collective terms when I obviously disagree.

Ok, I guess, I'll give you that. Do you honestly make all your decisions by sitting down and considering the pleasure/pain for yourself inherent in each option?

Everyone lies -- mostly to themselves, which in turn makes them lie to everyone else. Many people believe themselves some mystical race, chosen by God or "Nature", and that they are of exponentially higher value than other animals because they can think in abstracts and communicate with other humans.

Well, I can't jump inside an animal's head, so I can't say for sure what value they have.

I do believe people are more than meat sacks, because they are self aware. Briefly, the attribute of self awareness does not describe the physical state of particles, but rather a mind's perception. Without being a person, you could not say conclusively that the person experiences self awareness or does not -- despite perfect physical knowledge. This implies that self-awareness is not a physical attribute.

For my part, I'd call this non-physical attribute a soul.

If you take religion out of the equation, it's very difficult to justify the sacrificing of an innocent animal for ourselves even though it's entirely unnecessary (actually, I'm interested in arguments if anyone has some).

Right, well, I think this is a different topic, but it is an interesting one. The question, to me, comes down to the minds of animals. Any animal that is truly self aware should not be killed needlessly. If you told me cows and pigs and fish and chicken, etc, were all truly self aware, after finishing being horrified with myself, I'd become a vegetarian.

 

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

Quite frankly, after reading what they (the objectivists) did to Rothbard for his wife being a Presbyterian, why anyone would to Ayn Rand as a good libertarian is beyond me.


We shouldn't care about our fellow man, we should simply live to pleasure ourselves. What a wonderful world!!! It is such an astonishing fact her philosophy never caught on beyond a few nobodies in New York.

That's like writing off Ron Paul because of the zany activities and beliefs of his supporters. I've learned to not judge a person by his/her followers. Ayn did have personality quirks, but can't be judged for the actions of the objectivist cult.

 

[BeFranklin]

That's like writing off Ron Paul because of the zany activities and beliefs of his supporters. I've learned to not judge a person by his/her followers. Ayn did have personality quirks, but can't be judged for the actions of the objectivist cult.

It was Ayn Rand herself that was acting like a fruitcake. Look at what she did to Branden after that, or other people. It wasn't a one time thing.

 

[nate895]

That's like writing off Ron Paul because of the zany activities and beliefs of his supporters. I've learned to not judge a person by his/her followers. Ayn did have personality quirks, but can't be judged for the actions of the objectivist cult.

She participated in the "trial" and was the one who ordered him to get a "more reasonable mate."