quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Why is that a dead horse, Rabbit? Are you talking about OSC's benevolence, or the fact that you can't know an author's personal characteristics from the works he produces?
How is that brazenly controversial?
It's kind of funny that anyone would think that controversial when we're all posting here in an environment made possible *only* by Card's benevolence.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: Instead, what you've done is imply that a failure to agree with Ayn Rand makes us narrow minded or that we have no care for reality.
I don't do that with Lisa - and I don't intend to do that with anyone who seems to have something cogent & knowledge-based to say.
That's my sense of it. There's a difference between someone disagreeing with Rand (I do, on numerous points) or even disagreeing with Objectivism, and the big wave of "crappy writer! dumb philosophy!" and a whole slew of strawman attacks on either Rand or Objectivism. It happens every time the subject comes up.
Of course, being the only Objectivist on the board (until very recently), I have to either take it, or argue and get dogpiled. The result is that people think that sort of behavior is legitimate.
quote:Having almost finished the Ender Quartet, I'd say that is an amazing, exemplary example of today's meaning of altruist: He's very deeply benevolent. (OTOH, that comes from the archaic, invalid moral code of Christianity. A major win would be to see him do that from the base of the valid philosophy of Objectivism.)
is the comment I was remembering when I said "brazenly controversial". And as I noted earlier, I was simply trying to warn a new poster that we have a rather unpleasant history discussing this general topic, least he step on any hidden land mines.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the word "brazen" is what makes it feel more like an attack on the poster than helpful advice.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Whenever the objectivist ethics become a topic of philosophical review, they get demolished, because the premises and implicit premises contain at least eight fatal flaws
I think that's the one I referred to above.
You'll find that Sam whips out Heumer's opus every time the subject comes up. I've pointed out that the "refutation" is based on clear misreading. Heumer takes Rand's definitions of terms as claims. So he'll say that Rand is claiming value to be only agent-relative, and say, "But she doesn't prove it! And here are examples where it isn't!" What he seems clueless about is that Rand, like any philosopher, requires a more rigorous terminology than a person might use in everyday speech. And she is defining the word "value" as "that which one acts to gain and/or keep."
Heumer's inability to understand the difference between defining a specialized terminology and making claims about terms as they are used on the street makes his whole article a complete non sequitur. It may be a refutation, but certainly not of anything Rand wrote.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The only way your Randian gets past this little reality roadblock is by building up half a dozen philosophical and rhetorical reasons why they're not really altruists at all, starting with changing the definition of altruism in the first place.
You are making Heumer's mistake. Every philosophical system defines terms. However, the whole idea of "it's better to give than to receive", aside from being really insulting to those you give things to, is a recipe for guilt and feelings of inadequacy.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Whenever the objectivist ethics become a topic of philosophical review, they get demolished, because the premises and implicit premises contain at least eight fatal flaws
I think that's the one I referred to above.
You'll find that Sam whips out Heumer's opus every time the subject comes up. I've pointed out that the "refutation" is based on clear misreading. Heumer takes Rand's definitions of terms as claims. So he'll say that Rand is claiming value to be only agent-relative, and say, "But she doesn't prove it! And here are examples where it isn't!" What he seems clueless about is that Rand, like any philosopher, requires a more rigorous terminology than a person might use in everyday speech. And she is defining the word "value" as "that which one acts to gain and/or keep."
You misread Heumer before, you misread him now. I think you will probably always do so. His is just one convenient page which does bring up plenty of valid philosophical critiques, but you have taken note of him, so let's talk about him. By "takes Rand's definitions of terms as claims" what you're really talking about is how he is analyzing Rand's argument and critiquing the premises derived from them. Noting that Rand views value as agent-relative is correct.
The Objectivist Ethics even literally said "It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil." It goes on a whole tangent related to imagining that immortal robots that cannot be affected or acted upon serve as an example of agents which cannot have values, but humans can due to the way we are impacted. It is startlingly clear to note that rand is establishing the premise that value is agent relative, even with regard to how she 'precisely' determines the identity of value.
Here's a simpler way of pointing out what you're missing. "Value is agent-relative; things can only be valuable for particular entities." is a correct assessment to how she applies to how value is derived and clear as an analysis of her premises. Again, I give you the big immortal robot:
quote:To make this point fully clear, try to imagine an immortal, indestructible robot, an entity which moves and acts, but which cannot be affected by anything, which cannot be changed in any respect, which cannot be damaged, injured or destroyed. Such an entity would not be able to have any values; it would have nothing to gain or to lose; it could not regard anything as for or against it, as serving or threatening its welfare, as fulfilling or frustrating its interests. It could have no interests and no goals.
Only a living entity can have goals or can originate them. And it is only a living organism that has the capacity for self-generated, goal-directed action. On the physical level, the functions of all living organisms, from the simplest to the most complex—from the nutritive function in the single cell of an amoeba to the blood circulation in the body of a man—are actions generated by the organism itself and directed to a single goal: the maintenance of the organism’s life.
Now, it's also fun to note that if the meaning of "value" that Rand is inherently working with, as you point out here in your dismissal of the author, is "that which one acts to gain and/or keep" — then even the assertions about the robot are false on their face. If it moves and acts, is capable of moving and acting, it can surely act to gain and/or keep anything it's programmed to take or build. Therefore, such an entity is clearly able to have "values(rand)." What a strange, convoluted-to-reconcile issue to have in a statement in the opener of the summation of the ethics of objectivism!
Stuff like this is why Tom was basically spot-on when he commented, and could back up exhaustively, why it's practically impossible to take philosophy and objectivism seriously. You could sit down and hammer out fatal flaws in the premises of The Objectivist Ethics like that one all day. What's really going to be the case, in the case of most objectivists, is either an ignorance of objectivism's philosophical invalidity, or a rejection of the conclusions of the philosophical community using philosophical review. Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: The most self-contradictory thing about Rand is the fact that, while believing in people's right to freely associate, she doesn't recognize as legitimate the acts of a democratically-elected government. Why is a corporation somehow more moral than a democratically-elected government? One's usually bigger than the other, but that's not absolutely always true. Corporations use violence, so that's not a legitimate difference. It's often done indirectly, through political manipulation, (like in Guatemala, with the United Fruit Company) but they are definitely behind many people's deaths. Why not? If they can make more money with a particular person dead, why not kill them? There's nothing in the profit motive about mercy, or ethics, or morality.
That's the thing about the extreme economic conservatives. They miss the fact that the profit motive is like nuclear energy. It's very powerful, and only a fool wouldn't put some safety mechanisms in place. A soon-to-be-dead-from-radiation-poisoning fool, is the exact kind of fool I'm talking about.
You can't be an Objectivist without placing an arbitrary distinction between corporations and democratically-elected governments. Further, I submit that the distinction is based on nothing factual at all.
Your ignorance of Objectivism is staggering, if I can say that non-rudely.
"Right to freely associate" is from somewhere else; it's definitely not a central point of Objectivism.
"Democratically elected government" ignores the criticality of a rights-guaranteeing constitution. You've heard of Ancient Greece's experience w/ democracy, no?
The fact that corporations can behave evilly.. (no different from individuals) ..fails to get to the philosophical level. (of, say, the essential nature of corporations)
"There's nothing in the profit motive about mercy, or ethics, or morality." is just childish. Although one could grant that there's a "profit motive" if he knew the conversation couldn't bear to think more systematically, it remains that Objectivism does (treat things systematically) - and so observes that a) Behaving immorally in the pursuit of values is self-defeating - of happiness, if not $$.
b) One of the main proper functions of gov't is to punish people who violate the (legitimate) rights of others.
Oh: and that's the "safety mechanism" you mention next.
The distinction betw/ corporations and governments is that gov't is the sole repository of the use of force in a civilized society.
Posts: 41 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Corporations don't care if you imprison or kill their henchmen. Henchmen are a dime a dozen. Hire two to replace the one, and so forth. You have to hit corporations in the pocketbook, which is where it hurts. This is where taxes and regulations, so odious to extreme conservatives, come in.
No, that's where laws come in.
Why in the world would you think that it's not possible to craft laws to punish rights-violating corporations?
You must've not worked in one. The one I worked in for 38 years spent an incredible amount of attention to avoid lawsuits, etc.
quote:
They have a function.
Yep: to fill gov't coffers and enable short-sighted beureaucrats, ignorant of system dynamics and the historical failure of such attempts, to control the complex system of an economy.
quote: When corporations won't/can't police themselves, it is the role of a democratically-elected government to do it for them.
Yep; via laws.
Regulation is punishment (in effect) prior to wrongdoing.
quote:
Anybody ever seen the movie "Erin Brokovich" or read Upton Sinclair's book "The Jungle"? That's why we have regulations. That's also part of why we have taxes, so we can pay regulators to...you know, REGULATE.
Er, yeah: For gov't to insinutae its tentacles into every aspect of our lives does take a lot of money - which all, of course, comes from individuals who produce.
Posts: 41 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PMH: I think that's true.
Of course, that had a lot to do with the fact that she judged them to be doing something other than developing a guide for actual human beings' actual choices in actual reality; she didn't value them or their opinions.
Not being a professional philosopher myself, I can barely (under)stand( to read) them myself; I don't know about you all.
That's pretty much you being an example of exactly what I'm talking about. In lieu of an understanding of the overall philosophical rejection of objectivism as a valid philosophy, one could either be ignorant about the fact that objectivism is essentially philosophically dismissed due to major insufficiencies and fatal flaws in its premises, or you could reject the conclusions that they have come to, finding their consensus to be wrong and possibly useless.
Anyway, to drive the point home, here's wikipedia discussing the overall philosophical rejection. From Ayn Rand's intellectual impact:
quote:According to Rick Karlin, academic philosophers have generally dismissed Rand's ideas and have marginalized her philosophy.[113] Online U.S. News and World Report columnist Sara Dabney Tisdale states that academic philosophers dismiss Atlas Shrugged as "sophomoric", "preachy", and "unoriginal".[114] Because of Rand's criticism of contemporary intellectuals,[115] Objectivism has been called "fiercely anti-academic".[116] David Sidorsky, a professor of moral and political philosophy at Columbia University, says Rand's work is "outside the mainstream" and is more of an ideological movement than a well-grounded philosophy.[117] Rand is not found in the comprehensive academic reference texts The Oxford Companion to Philosophy or The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, but is the subject of entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,[118] the Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers,[119] the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,[120] and the Routledge Dictionary of Twentieth-Century Political Thinkers.[121] A listing of Rand also appears in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, featuring the assessment "The influence of Rand's ideas was strongest among college students in the USA but attracted little attention from academic philosophers. Her outspoken defence of capitalism in works like Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (1967), and her characterization of her position as a defence of the 'virtue of selfishness' in her novel of the same title (published in 1974), also brought notoriety, but kept her out of the intellectual mainstream."[122]
quote:That's support enough for me; what am I missing?
"That's support enough for me" is not equal to "support enough to gain philosophical validity" and/or support with academic philosophy, rather than rejection. All popular movements like these, no matter how valid or invalid their premises are, ultimately, will have people who have decided there is support enough for them. Anarchists do it, Marxists do it, Objectivists do it.
quote:One would have to learn what she taught in order to decide for himself. (and yes, study enough of academic philosophy to judge that as well. Question is, how to decide how much of one's time it's worth his spending on that. I myself think I've spent enough -- but, as I say, I'm open. Say to someone why can honestly say that some academic philosopher has helped him live his life better.)
Philosophy does so quite frequently. it is also difficult to go into philosophy without having it be an exercise in teasing all of one's philosophical presuppositions, or having an entry-level teacher bias the aspects of argumentative analysis and ethical review with manifestations of bias towards one particular view or another. But when one is as heavily invested in the fields of preaching, apologetics, or ethical debate about any worldview, an understanding of the importance of coherency and cogency in philosophical assertions is a boon. It also goes deep enough that any committed philosopher could effectively tear me a new one about how sloppily I'm advancing these points.
I say this as a person who has utterly no assumption that doing so will "open your eyes" and "show you Objectivism is wrong," but rather working on the idea that understanding the philosophical objections and rejections of the objectivist ethics, and understanding how to critique ANY worldview, even the mushiest most altruistic ones, under the same lens, is important in qualifying arguments, especially in such an absolutist teaching that demands adherence to so many things, without deviation from the ethics provided, in order to be a true objectivist. That, and because I think the philosophical argument against objectivism is the most valid, and leagues beyond the 'importance' of pointing out Rand's deficiencies of reason and objectivity as a person, or caring about whether in one's opinion she wrote good fiction.
quote:I take it you mean other than learning from them.
Yes. To repeat another poster's paraphrase of a much better author's description of bad readers (guh), she proceeds through other people's ideas like a plundering army, taking whatever is useful to her and despoiling the rest. Smith & Aristotle are the two most common foils in this.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm perfectly happy w/ her characterizations as relatively simple embodiments of virtues & vices...
As long as you realize that this is avoiding something by definition,
That would be avoidance if she accepted your implicit arbitrary belief that undertaking the writing of a novel constitutes contracting to create characters that some unnamed judge thinks are sufficiently "real" - and then doesn't just reneg on that contract, but, further, ignores every reminder from her subconscious that she's doing that.
quote:
that her characters are symbols rather than real people -- and thus poor straw men that "represent" people rather than resembling anything like real people -- I have no problem with this.
But think for a moment about why it is so much easier to write a polemic full of "embodiments" whose words and actions do not necessarily need to ring true.
You mean don't sound like anyone you know?
...or are essentialised, with the attributes that are non-essential to her story left out so as not to interfere with / dilute it.
I mean, do you really care whether John Galt had acne, or Peter Keating was a good baseball coach?
An ethical code is a set of principles to guide one's choices.. ..which, if followed, will achieve the end of The Good.
What then would be the point/status of an ethical code which, by its very nature, is to be followed only part of the time?
What part of the time?
None of these statement is self evident.
You want self-evident, I give you "Existence exists.".
You want me to teach you all of Objectivism in every post, you're not gonna get it; study it for yourself (as I said earlier today).
I strongly recommend the new book _On Ayn Rand_ for an overview of the most-important parts of her philosophy, written very readably - and relatively short.
quote:
Human beings are social animals. We have developed ethical and moral systems to help us regulate selfishness in order to make social interaction possible.
Not bad -- except that:
Some of ethics is for the individual, apart from any considerations of his participation in a society. (Morality - Ayn Rand Lexicon)
What needs regulation is a person's lower-animal drive to acquire. That regulation is accomplish by our conceptual-level intelligence, guided by ethics.
quote:
If you deny the reality of all social units except the individual (as Ayn Rand does)
Sad.
She did, of course, address the issues of society, as one of the most important human issues. You could look up "Cooperation" or the "Trader Principle" in the above. (sorry that it's mostly so polemical and -- what? poetic?)
quote:I mean, do you really care whether John Galt had acne, or Peter Keating was a good baseball coach?
it IS important to note when her literature is basically an indulgent thought exercise where the universe is written ridiculously to support the ideology, setting Nietzschean supermen against bumbling, idiotic, sneering strawman antagonists. ANY ideology could do this, Rand just brought the core of it out to the extreme, the negative effect being that it practically trains her adherents to build and fight strawmen themselves rather than any nuanced perspective over socioeconomic and psychological reality — two fields which often come incompatibly at odds with objectivism. In the case of the latter, even nathaniel branden had to comment on this.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:One would have to learn what she taught in order to decide for himself. (and yes, study enough of academic philosophy to judge that as well. Question is, how to decide how much of one's time it's worth his spending on that. I myself think I've spent enough -- but, as I say, I'm open. Say to someone why can honestly say that some academic philosopher has helped him live his life better.)
Me!!
I was hoping for a bit more detail.
like what academic philosopher, what he said, what diff that made
quote:
I'm open to any one who can convince me that reading Ayn Rand has made them live their lives in ways I would agree are better.
"Convince" is rather a high bar, from my experience in this forum.
I'll post some examples some day, if I can think of any that are self-evident enough to be ingested w/o chewing.
quote:
I can point to several friends of mine who, as a result largely of Ayn Rand's influence, made choices that most of us would agree were unethical.
If you produce examples of people who behaved unethically while following a complete understanding of Objectivism, I will: a) be astounded - nay be ... What's an adjective for <be convinced that the impossible is in fact possible>?
quote:One would have to learn what she taught in order to decide for himself. (and yes, study enough of academic philosophy to judge that as well. Question is, how to decide how much of one's time it's worth his spending on that. I myself think I've spent enough -- but, as I say, I'm open. Say to someone why can honestly say that some academic philosopher has helped him live his life better.)
Me!!
I was hoping for a bit more detail.
like what academic philosopher, what he said, what diff that made
Off the top of my head; Dan Dennett, Peter Singer, Michael Sandel, and Mark Bickhard. Many others in small ways. I don't have the time or inclination to detail exactly what they said and in what ways they affected my life for the better. You'll have to trust me on that one. But for instance, a philosopher who elucidates some important aspect of epistemology lets say, necessarily helps me live my life better if that argument allows me to have better justification for my beliefs. And we haven't even gotten into moral philosophy yet.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
...or are essentialised, with the attributes that are non-essential to her story left out so as not to interfere with / dilute it.
This begs the question. When you are writing a polemic that asserts to speak to the nature of Man, peopling your novel with characters that do not resemble any men who have ever walked the Earth -- who are simply cartoonish exemplars of ill-formed prejudices and ideals, with none of the real complexity manifest in actual human interaction -- indicates that you have cut corners in order to make your job easier (or, I suppose, have never actually observed real men).
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are making Heumer's mistake. Every philosophical system defines terms. However, the whole idea of "it's better to give than to receive", aside from being really insulting to those you give things to, is a recipe for guilt and feelings of inadequacy.
Why is it insulting to those who receive? Because Objectivists say so? Unpersuasive to say the least. I say this as someone who has given and as someone who has received. But here's where you tell me that, no, I don't actually know myself at all-I am insulted, I do feel inadequate and guilty as do those who I've given things to.
Of course the funny - I might even say hypocritical - thing of it is you would (quite rightly) object in the strongest possible terms to that sort of presumption were it anything other than a system you already agreed with.
ETA: I didn't know that the term 'Randian' was problematic, Lisa. I'm sorry for using it-for me it's just as straightforward as 'Floridian' or something like that, but I can imagine where one might think it had less neutral implications.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ETA: I didn't know that the term 'Randian' was problematic, Lisa. I'm sorry for using it-for me it's just as straightforward as 'Floridian' or something like that, but I can imagine where one might think it had less neutral implications.
posted
Atlas Shrugged Trailer! It's been a while since I've been in the theater the day a movie opens, but this one I'll be at.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you deny the reality of all social units except the individual (as Ayn Rand does), you have gutted ethics.
...according to your ethics.
Yes. And also according to your religion.
Clearly, you know nothing about my religion.
Are you saying your religion does not believe that Jewish people form a nation that is real and permanent in the eyes of God and something to which you are morally obligated?
The first tenet of Objectivisim is that reality exists independent of any consciousness, how do you rationalize that with the belief that God created the Universe and sustains it continuously through an act of will?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you deny the reality of all social units except the individual (as Ayn Rand does), you have gutted ethics.
...according to your ethics.
Yes. And also according to your religion.
Clearly, you know nothing about my religion.
Are you saying your religion does not believe that Jewish people form a nation that is real and permanent in the eyes of God and something to which you are morally obligated?
The first tenet of Objectivisim is that reality exists independent of any consciousness, how do you rationalize that with the belief that God created the Universe and sustains it continuously through an act of will?
posted
Setting aside Rabbit's more controversial second point, Lisa, you must grant her first point that the Jewish religion implies "the reality of a social unit other than the individual."
(This is one reason I don't find Judaism too plausible, by the way. As I see it, there are two objectively important social units: the individual and humanity as a whole. Tribes and nations, on the other hand, shouldn't count as I see it.)
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
The first tenet of Objectivisim is that reality exists independent of any consciousness, how do you rationalize that with the belief that God created the Universe and sustains it continuously through an act of will?
God is Existence. [/QB]
And God dictated the Torah letter by letter, implying God has consciousness**. If God is existence and God has consciousness, Existence is not independent of consciousness.
**Based on the Torah, God has WILL, God is able to communicate that will using abstract symbols. God is self aware based on self reference and aware of creation. If this does not constitute consciousness, what does?
[ February 13, 2011, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
The first tenet of Objectivisim is that reality exists independent of any consciousness, how do you rationalize that with the belief that God created the Universe and sustains it continuously through an act of will?
God is Existence.
And God dictated the Torah letter by letter, implying God has consciousness**. If God is existence and God has consciousness, Existence is not independent of consciousness.
**Based on the Torah, God has WILL, God is able to communicate that will using abstract symbols. God is self aware based on self reference and aware of creation. If this does not constitute consciousness, what does? [/QB]
God's consciousness is different from ours, obviously. Not being timebound, it isn't what we could identify as consciousness at all. The most we can say is that what we received on this end looked like consciousness.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Setting aside Rabbit's more controversial second point, Lisa, you must grant her first point that the Jewish religion implies "the reality of a social unit other than the individual."
Certainly. I could point to Jewish sources that say the existence of the Community of Israel as a corporate body, rather than only the aggregate of the individuals making it up, is an exception to the rule. I believe the Gur Aryeh says this.
But it isn't really the issue. What Rabbit said was this: If you deny the reality of all social units except the individual (as Ayn Rand does), you have gutted ethics. I replied that this was so only in her own ethics, and then she made the claim that it was so in Judaism. It isn't.
The Sages say that "Derekh eretz" (roughly: ethical behavior) preceded the Torah by 26 generations. The reference is to the 26 generations from Adam to Moses. So ethical behavior exists the moment there's even a single person. Dealing with individuals rather than social groups hardly "guts" ethics.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This goes beyond any predictions afforded by the nature of the book, and how well or poorly the characters and antagonists can be represented and storyboarded within. There's a number of things that a film critic can warily pick out, including evidence of a shoestring budget.
Incorporating the novel, though, it looks direly like this is a movie that should have been a period piece but actually rendering period sets rather than borrowing glammy shooting locales and slapping printed out corporation logos on the walls was beyond their budgetary constraints.
The lines given also make it seem like the acting direction is amateur, flat, and uninspired. I'm literally not reading anything else about this film. This is just thin-slicing the preview.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm kind of fascinated by the whole Rearden Metal thing, as if Rearden had developed the metal himself (without a research organization that would is necessary to try out multiple alloy combinations, and test them thoroughly to characterize the metal's properties) and the metal is somehow "perfect," rather than merely being perfect for a particular application.
To be honest, I haven't read the book, although I'm planning to, but knowing what I do about industrial development, it just isn't realistic to posit an invention of this type being the work of one man.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:To be honest, I haven't read the book, although I'm planning to, but knowing what I do about industrial development, it just isn't realistic to posit an invention of this type being the work of one man.
What if he's a producer?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: I'm kind of fascinated by the whole Rearden Metal thing, as if Rearden had developed the metal himself (without a research organization that would is necessary to try out multiple alloy combinations, and test them thoroughly to characterize the metal's properties) and the metal is somehow "perfect," rather than merely being perfect for a particular application.
To be honest, I haven't read the book, although I'm planning to, but knowing what I do about industrial development, it just isn't realistic to posit an invention of this type being the work of one man.
The metal itself is a McGuffin. It's like a time machine in a science fiction novel. How it works isn't the issue. How it makes the people surrounding it act is what's important. Do you have a problem with SF stories that include things like time travel or FTL travel without going into the whole deal of how they work? Or is this something special for Atlas Shrugged?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The metal itself is a McGuffin. It's like a time machine in a science fiction novel.
Well, of course. But we do take apart science fiction all the time. Had a pretty good time with Avatar's "unobtainium," you know? Then there's Plinkett's review of star wars.
But the point here is that this rearden metal metaphorically represents the self-made man, when in reality it couldn't have been created by anything less than a large collective effort. It's one thing if the bad science is merely a plot tool, it's another when the thematic symbolism is based on an unworkable fiction.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The metal itself is a McGuffin. It's like a time machine in a science fiction novel. How it works isn't the issue. How it makes the people surrounding it act is what's important. Do you have a problem with SF stories that include things like time travel or FTL travel without going into the whole deal of how they work? Or is this something special for Atlas Shrugged?
When the McGuffin fundamentally contradicts the major core moral and philosophical premises of much of the entire rest of the film...well, sure, things can get a bit problematic, yeah. Rearden's a liar...which is a pretty solid premise for the film, really, heh.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought the trailer looked kinda "okay." I actually kind of liked the way that it's set in modern times but shot in a way that is reminiscent of earlier.
I had a pretty visceral negative reaction at the cartoonishly evil government guy(s), but honestly it's not like there's a lack of cartoonishly evil corporate guys in cinema, and I don't mind some variety in the protagonist/antagonist demographcis. I particularly liked the American Gothic TV show because it was straight-up unapologetic Christian storyline, and I hadn't actually seen one before.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I actually kind of liked the way that it's set in modern times but shot in a way that is reminiscent of earlier.
Yeah, actually, from what I understand, the book is set in a nebulous time period, sort of like Brazil's "somewhere in the 20th century."
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: But the point here is that this rearden metal metaphorically represents the self-made man, when in reality it couldn't have been created by anything less than a large collective effort. It's one thing if the bad science is merely a plot tool, it's another when the thematic symbolism is based on an unworkable fiction.
"we captains of industry, and our findings from nasa and the large hadron collider .."
hmm.
quote:Yeah, actually, from what I understand, the book is set in a nebulous time period, sort of like Brazil's "somewhere in the 20th century."
If it gets more people on board for modernizing our rail architecture and being half as cool in this regard as the chinese and europeans, I am ALL for it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I swear I hadn't even mentioned this anywhere else but Atlas Shrugged: The Drinking Game is already an independent idea in multiple places. oh god.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
cmon objectivism, what the hell. Even scientology can plunk down a hundred mil for battlefield earth, and you can't do half that for your own private inchon?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
