don't worry guys, I'm a philosophy major
please give me a job
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;29323049]impassioned writing and compelling ideals that made the book so interesting.[/QUOTE]
not really
it must be really difficult to transcribe those passion filled sex passages to the big screen
The third movie will be a 4 hour long speech by Galt.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29324273]Are you defending objectivism[/QUOTE]
No, objectivism as a whole is a rather silly ideal, though I find some of its concepts to be very interesting, if not compelling. Objectivism is not a means to justify bashing those who don't aspire to be famous engineers or brilliant business moguls, as is often mistakenly believed (by both fans and critics), but rather it preaches that the determination and the strength to pursue the actualization of everything you want from life of your own volition, rather than through the piggybacking of other peoples' strengths and struggles, is the key to living a happy life. She argues that, through your own happiness and success, you will impact the world in a positive way, no matter how small or great your contribution.
She focuses more on this aspect of her philosophy in The Fountainhead, where many of her primary characters, one of them her idea of the "perfect" human, are struggling just to make a living. They face condemnation, ridicule, and hardship, but they still fight to secure the lives they yearn for. Of course they end up becoming terrorists and everybody gets raped, so maybe they took themselves just a little bit too seriously, and the world would be a lot better off if everybody just chilled the fuck out and realized that they didn't have to make humanity as a whole conform to one ideal in order to eek out a happy life.
"Conservative Bible" or not, I thoroughly enjoyed the book. It was a cool story with an interesting philosophy, but didn't translate well to film at all.
[QUOTE=Contag;29326064]The third movie will be a 4 hour long speech by Galt.[/QUOTE]
OH MY GOD I CAN'T STOP LAUGHING
I'm pretty sure that this joke shouldn't be this funny, but it just made reading a single chapter literally longer than an uncut Lord of the Rings movie completely worth it.
[QUOTE=thisispain;29325170]not really[/QUOTE]
The writing was impassioned, the speeches were well-written, and some of the virtues and ideas were compelling. That made it a pretty damn interesting book as far as I'm concerned. The book's biggest weak-point as a novel, in my opinion, is that Rand isn't a very good storyteller. She dwindled off-topic for hundreds of pages, so much so that the story itself was often lost in her philosophical ramblings. By the time you got back to the actual story you had to remind yourself that you weren't just reading a collection of essays.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;29326320]The writing was impassioned, the speeches were well-written, and some of the virtues and ideas were compelling. That made it a pretty damn interesting book as far as I'm concerned. The book's biggest weak-point as a novel, in my opinion, is that Rand isn't a very good storyteller. She dwindled off-topic for hundreds of pages, so much so that the story itself was often lost in her philosophical ramblings. By the time you got back to the actual story you had to remind yourself that you weren't just reading a collection of essays.[/QUOTE]
yeah but it's not even close to being the best novel of all time regardless of how much people throw hype on it
i can name 200 books that are far better
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;29326320]The writing was impassioned, the speeches were well-written, and some of the virtues and ideas were compelling. That made it a pretty damn interesting book as far as I'm concerned. The book's biggest weak-point as a novel, in my opinion, is that Rand isn't a very good storyteller. She dwindled off-topic for hundreds of pages, so much so that the story itself was often lost in her philosophical ramblings. By the time you got back to the actual story you had to remind yourself that you weren't just reading a collection of essays.[/QUOTE]
Actually, I agree. The story is original and compelling even despite the fact that it's one giant philosophical rambling. I felt a deep connection to the protagonists and their reactions to a world that was completely against them. There are really two problems with it:
Ayn Rand simply does not understand people with other philosophies, which becomes evident, and quite frankly painful, when reading the scenes of the antagonists. The philosophy and thoughts of protagonists are fully developed and relateable, but the antagonists are just senseless evil.
The book is old. I know it's not really Rand's fault, but time and an unprecedented level of communication, which resulted in the freedom of information movement of which most of us are adherents, has proven many of the higher-level societal portions of the philosophy impractical or outright wrong.
[QUOTE=ASmellyOgre;29326624]Actually, I agree. The story is original and compelling even despite the fact that it's one giant philosophical rambling. I felt a deep connection to the protagonists and their reactions to a world that was completely against them. There are really two problems with it:
Ayn Rand simply does not understand people with other philosophies, which becomes evident, and quite frankly painful, when reading the scenes of the antagonists. The philosophy and thoughts of protagonists are fully developed and relateable, but the antagonists are just senseless evil.
The book is old. I know it's not really Rand's fault, but time and an unprecedented level of communication, which resulted in the freedom of information movement of which most of us are adherents, has proven many of the higher-level societal portions of the philosophy impractical or outright wrong.[/QUOTE]
I know exactly what you mean. Scenes about characters on the other side of the line are just so stupidly shallow. Their motivations never make sense, it's always just, "fuck personal ambition, sacrifice everything for no reason. Give us everything so that we can destroy it."
But, it's a philosophical writing. She exaggerates and bends reality in order to better make her points. Her essays aren't much better at that. They're filled to the brim with paranoid warnings of "looters and parasites" come to leech off of the successes and strengths of anybody who manages to achieve self-actualization. The key to something like Rand, or really any philosophical writer, is not to take it so damn seriously. Read it, interpret it, reflect on it, and apply whatever lessons and values you found worthwhile to your own life.
i prefer bertrand russell anyday
I've heard reports that Atlas shrugged when asked what he thought of Ayn Rand's latest film adaptation.
The fuck is this movie about
[QUOTE=MainSqueeze;29327230]The fuck is this movie about[/QUOTE]
Its railworks the movie
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;29325248]Not as bad as Pluto Nash...[/QUOTE]
Yeah but it isn't ironic as a film about capitalism being a huge financial loss or something like that.
Could this be a revolutionary thread for facepunch? I think so. Good to have you on the right end of perspective, Big Dumb American! You're right in many ways. No every way.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;29326242]it preaches that the determination and the strength to pursue the actualization of everything you want from life of your own volition, rather than through the piggybacking of other peoples' strengths and struggles, is the key to living a happy life. She argues that, through your own happiness and success, you will impact the world in a positive way, no matter how small or great your contribution. [/QUOTE]
An interesting analysis but that actually makes me hate it even more than I did before
Glad to know Rand was naive as well
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29329292]An interesting analysis but that actually makes me hate it even more than I did before
Glad to know Rand was naive as well[/QUOTE]
It's an ideal, and naivety is the substance of ideals. Every philosopher who's ever conceptualized a perfect world or a perfect life or a perfect man would be a fool to think it anything other than a pleasant fiction, but that doesn't make philosophy any less important. Men need to question themselves and their world in order to truly begin to understand what they want from it.
I saw a car today with the license plate AYNRAND.
I bet they enjoyed this film.
[QUOTE=thisispain;29326387]yeah but it's not even close to being the best novel of all time regardless of how much people throw hype on it
i can name 200 books that are far better[/QUOTE]
Animorphs?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;29330047]It's an ideal, and naivety is the substance of ideals. Every philosopher who's ever conceptualized a perfect world or a perfect life or a perfect man would be a fool to think it anything other than a pleasant fiction, but that doesn't make philosophy any less important. Men need to question themselves and their world in order to truly begin to understand what they want from it.[/QUOTE]
If men didn't question themselves or the world around them, it would be very difficult to realize that which makes life so virtuous and so worth living. It's quite simple, even for those who don't read philosophy
[QUOTE=TH89;29330236]Animorphs?[/QUOTE]
No way in hell. Goosebumps?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;29330047]Every philosopher who's ever conceptualized a perfect world or a perfect life or a perfect man would be a fool to think it anything other than a pleasant fiction, but that doesn't make philosophy any less important.[/QUOTE]
Why doesn't it?
My questioning lies less with the fact that Rand wrote this but with the fact that people actually have decided to live by it
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29330756]Why doesn't it?
My questioning lies less with the fact that Rand wrote this but with the fact that people actually have decided to live by it[/QUOTE]
So what? Let 'em. They're not hurting anybody. At least objectivists live under a code that forbids them from living at anybody else's expense, so the only real weapon they have is smugness, and it's not like anybody is forced to go swallow it. There's no sense at all in getting angry that other people don't hold the same ideals as you, so long as their actions don't prevent you from pursuing yours, and the only thing self-righteous preaching has ever stopped is a good time.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;29335925] At least objectivists live under a code that forbids them from living at anybody else's expense[/QUOTE]
I think you missed the part where many objectivists fail so hard at their own philosophy that they end up doing/believing the exact opposite, the same way many Christians do.
I can't really say, I don't know any actual objectivists. I know a bunch of self-proclaimed "super Republicans" that totally miss the point of objectivism, yet still tote it as the founding of the modern Republican, but that's not really objectivism, is it? That's just wearing orange robes and calling yourself a Shaolin Monk.
My problem with objectivism is that, though I have some things to contribute to society, I have a big overall aversion to hard work. If I have to work hard, constantly, I break down. It's sort of like a low stress tolerance. Some people have handicaps that force them to live partially on the shoulders of others. Objectivism, like all philosophies and religions, is great if you use it for your own improvement and to run your own life, but when you start forcing it on other people, people who it might not work for, it becomes a problem.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;29335925]So what? Let 'em. They're not hurting anybody. At least objectivists live under a code that forbids them from living at anybody else's expense, so the only real weapon they have is smugness, and it's not like anybody is forced to go swallow it. There's no sense at all in getting angry that other people don't hold the same ideals as you, so long as their actions don't prevent you from pursuing yours, and the only thing self-righteous preaching has ever stopped is a good time.[/QUOTE]
The problem is it's impossible to [i]actually[/i] live at nobody's expense. Roads, police, etc. are all paid for by taxes. Even if you run out and hide in the woods, chances are the woods are only still there and undeveloped because of government intervention. Every self-proclaimed objectivist I know likes to imagine that they're not standing on the shoulders of society so they feel less guilty about taking a dump on everyone underneath.
[QUOTE=Pepin;29284576]I don't know much about the movie or the book, but the OP seems like a "oh I really dislike libertarianism and this movie flopped so I'm going to make a humorous thread about it". Based off a few things in the OP, it doesn't seem like you watched the movie or have intentions to do so. You should really talk a bit more about the movie and why it sucks, rather than putting the focus on the political message. I'm expecting some witty reply, but my point is that it is a terrible OP. Not nearly as bad as the House OP though.[/QUOTE]
no but the funny thing is is that the movie espousing a philosophy centered on the glory of the free market failed miserably in the free market
[editline]21st April 2011[/editline]
whoa, didn't see it was 4 pages
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
