IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts
 


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.
Tags ayn rand , movies

Reply
Old 5th May 2011, 11:08 AM   #201
RobRoy
Not A Mormon
 
RobRoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the sandbox
Posts: 14,256
Originally Posted by ZirconBlue View Post
Come, now. You don't think I actually read your posts, do you?
This seems rather apropos in a thread about two fantasy novels!

Quote:
I think the mental effort to try to remember which is which in the first place, makes keeping up with such nuance difficult.
I have the same problem with you and that other guy.

Quote:
Agreed.
Let me know where to send the "Get Well Soon" card.
__________________
Logic is what man stoops to when absurdity and surrealism has failed. It's shameful. whatthebutlersaw
Far an taine n abhainn, s ann as m a fuaim.
Like my post? Buy my books!

Now taking bets on the Clinton Indictment!
RobRoy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2011, 11:28 AM   #202
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
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
Spindrift is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2011, 11:37 AM   #203
ArchieGoodwin
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.
ArchieGoodwin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2011, 11:43 AM   #204
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 19,246
Originally Posted by hud View Post
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.
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
Spindrift is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2011, 12:00 PM   #205
ArchieGoodwin
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 551
Originally Posted by Spindrift View Post
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.
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.
ArchieGoodwin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2011, 12:14 PM   #206
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,680
Originally Posted by hud View Post
Thanks. I'll probably see it as soon as it comes out on DVD then.
~~~
IF parts 2 & 3 are made, they'll go straight to DVD, so you might as well wait and buy the complete set.
__________________
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.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2011, 12:48 PM   #207
RobRoy
Not A Mormon
 
RobRoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the sandbox
Posts: 14,256
Originally Posted by Spindrift View Post
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.
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 m a fuaim.
Like my post? Buy my books!

Now taking bets on the Clinton Indictment!
RobRoy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2011, 12:59 PM   #208
ZirconBlue
Sole Survivor of L-Town
 
ZirconBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lexington, KY, USA, Earth
Posts: 14,283
Originally Posted by hud View Post
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.

I actually like the book (although I thought it in serious need of a good editor), but the reviews I've read make the movie sound abysmal. I'm going to wait until RobRoy reviews the DVD before I decide whether to watch it or not.
__________________
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.
ZirconBlue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2011, 01:23 PM   #209
RobRoy
Not A Mormon
 
RobRoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the sandbox
Posts: 14,256
Originally Posted by ZirconBlue View Post
I actually like the book (although I thought it in serious need of a good editor), but the reviews I've read make the movie sound abysmal. I'm going to wait until RobRoy reviews the DVD before I decide whether to watch it or not.
And by review it, you mean you'll do the opposite of whatever I recommend.

I can't fault you though. That process has gotten you this far.
__________________
Logic is what man stoops to when absurdity and surrealism has failed. It's shameful. whatthebutlersaw
Far an taine n abhainn, s ann as m a fuaim.
Like my post? Buy my books!

Now taking bets on the Clinton Indictment!
RobRoy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2011, 02:10 PM   #210
dropzone
Master Poster
 
dropzone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,033
Originally Posted by RobRoy View Post
And by review it, you mean you'll do the opposite of whatever I recommend.
It's worked for me so far.


ETA: Unless you pan it, cuz there's no freakin' way I'm seeing this movie.

Last edited by dropzone; 5th May 2011 at 02:11 PM.
dropzone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2011, 12:17 AM   #211
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Tagger
 
Damien Evans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 34,458
Originally Posted by dropzone View Post
It's worked for me so far.


ETA: Unless you pan it, cuz there's no freakin' way I'm seeing this movie.
With you on that one!
__________________
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.
Damien Evans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2011, 07:10 AM   #212
fullflavormenthol
Master Poster
 
fullflavormenthol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,415
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
No. In her world *I* do not pay for your education. If someone wants to donate money to help the mentally handicaped, or anyone else, that's their choice and they can do so. What Objectivism advocates is VOLUNTARY donations, as opposed to taxing people and using that money to pay for whatever programs are desired. Rand is being consistent with her other stances here--wellfair, medical bills, etc. would also not be paid for by "public" funds. The fact that this is personal to you I get, but really, if this is your analysis of this aspect of Objectivism I have to conclude that you have a very shallow understanding of the philosophy.

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.

An odd statement, considering one of her protagonists rejected exactly this offer.

Sorry, but you don't understand what Tolkien was doing. He was writing sagas, and after reading/listening to a number of sagas I can say he did a relatively good job. You're evaluating the books based on standards the book was never meant to live up to--something akin to saying that cars suck because they can't paint a house.
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

Last edited by fullflavormenthol; 21st May 2011 at 07:24 AM.
fullflavormenthol is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2013, 11:39 AM   #213
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
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:
Of course—using the same foresight that’s convinced them it’s the third Atlas Shrugged movie that will finally reach the masses, despite the first two earning less than $8 million combined—both have already anticipated that certain people may find something ironic about their asking others to give, all to create a movie that’s little more than one long speech decrying the act of asking others to give. “Isn’t asking for charity antithetical to Ayn Rand’s philosophy?” reads the FAQ, to which the answer is an obvious no, because Rand’s philosophy just had a problem with being forced to give through some absolute moral authority, which Kickstarter definitely isn’t (yet).
Objectivism will solve all our problems, except when it doesn't and then we get a pass.
__________________
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
Spindrift is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2013, 11:48 AM   #214
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by Spindrift
Objectivism will solve all our problems, except when it doesn't and then we get a pass.
The issue is, Objectivism IS working. The movies were crap, and people are withholding money. (Objectivists reacted in more strongly negative ways than non-Objectivists, in my experience.) If you make a horrible movie, you don't get money to make more.

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.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2013, 11:53 AM   #215
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 19,246
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
The issue is, Objectivism IS working. The movies were crap, and people are withholding money. (Objectivists reacted in more strongly negative ways than non-Objectivists, in my experience.) If you make a horrible movie, you don't get money to make more.

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.
Raising money for something that twice now has been shown to be a failure is not immoral for Objectivists? Sounds like they are asking people to throw good money after bad.
__________________
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
Spindrift is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2013, 11:58 AM   #216
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by Spindrift View Post
Raising money for something that twice now has been shown to be a failure is not immoral for Objectivists?
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.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2013, 01:24 PM   #217
SomedayGirl
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:
6. Have you decided how you’ll tackle John Galt’s epic speech in part three?


Well, I’m looking at a number of different things. Having John Galt give that speech, it might be in a casino environment. It might be that he is at a mountain retreat, rather than being where he is captured, not…that violent scene at the end. But we’re going to take a look. It doesn’t have to copy just that.

No, it absolutely will be a concentrate of entertaining words with a total, philosophic…But, you know, part three could be a musical…like a Les Miserables kind of a musical. That’s part of the impact and I guess I haven’t said this publicly yet, but I’m looking at it completely different if part three is a musical with quality music that’s done in a certain way that people will like. I mean, if you saw the play Les Miserable without the music, and then with the music, you may go in there saying, ‘oh hell, I would never want to see that great book in a musical.’ That’s going to shock a lot of people to see part three be a musical, and part two may be very different from part three and very different from part one. It has to be new, you know…We get a freshness, a vitality about it, and yet it has the same, rock-solid principles and philosophies that we all know and love.
__________________
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
SomedayGirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2013, 01:38 PM   #218
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
As long as they're not forcing anyone to donate, they're still on solid moral ground.
So for an Objectivist movie to get made, the producers have to rely on altrusism. That amount of sanctimony borders that of Christianity.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2013, 01:45 PM   #219
ravdin
Illuminator
 
ravdin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,985
Originally Posted by Spindrift View Post
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/



Objectivism will solve all our problems, except when it doesn't and then we get a pass.
Awesomesauce. Stop begging for charity and pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, you bums!
__________________
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
ravdin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2013, 01:50 PM   #220
Akri
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,349
Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel View Post
So for an Objectivist movie to get made, the producers have to rely on altrusism. That amount of sanctimony borders that of Christianity.
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.
Akri is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2013, 02:03 PM   #221
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel View Post
So for an Objectivist movie to get made, the producers have to rely on altrusism. That amount of sanctimony borders that of Christianity.
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
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.
This is stated so explicitely and so frequently in Rand's writings (both the fiction and non-fiction) that I am simply baffled that otherwise intelligent people so frequently fail to understand it. She may as well have beaten us over the head with a mallet where "YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT WITH YOUR MONEY!!!!" is engraved backwards, and people still refuse to acknowledge it.

Originally Posted by ravdin
Stop begging for charity and pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, you bums!
Uh-huh. And none of Rand's heros ever went door-to-door to gather start-up capital. Such things never occur in Objectivist literature!

Wait.....
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2013, 02:06 PM   #222
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
Originally Posted by Akri View Post
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.
So Objectivists say that altruism isn't a bad thing, as long as you want to help others? (If this isn't correct, or a pertinent piece of information is missing, please elucidate).

That renders Objectivsts' rejection of altruism meaningless.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2013, 02:09 PM   #223
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel
So Objectivists say that altruism isn't a bad thing, as long as you want to help others?
Objectivists say that acting to achieve your values isn't altruism in the first place.

Quote:
That renders Objectivsts' rejection of altruism meaningless.
No. It's merely an acknowledgement of the fact that there's a difference between altruism and contributions. The people contributing to the Atlas Shrugged movie expect a return on investment. "But profit, ma'am, well, that depends on what you're after." (The bum's speach, Atlas Shrugged).

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.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2013, 02:20 PM   #224
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
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 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.


Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
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.
There's already a definition for this. It's called a commodity.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Some people want this movie made. They are putting their money where their mouths are. This is not altruism by any rational definition.
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.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2013, 02:25 PM   #225
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel
You just extended the word "investment" to the point where it's meaningless.
Nope. But I'm going to wait until you've answered my question about your level of knowledge regarding Objectivism before responding any further.

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.

Last edited by Dinwar; 25th September 2013 at 02:27 PM.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2013, 02:27 PM   #226
Akri
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,349
Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel View Post
So Objectivists say that altruism isn't a bad thing, as long as you want to help others? (If this isn't correct, or a pertinent piece of information is missing, please elucidate).
Objectivism uses Auguste Comte's version of altruism.

From the Wikipedia page:

Quote:
Altruism (also called the ethic of altruism, moralistic altruism, and ethical altruism) is an ethical doctrine that holds that the moral value of an individual's actions depend solely on the impact on other individuals, regardless of the consequences on the individual itself. James Fieser states the altruist dictum as: "An action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the agent."[1] Auguste Comte's version of altruism calls for living for the sake of others. One who holds to either of these ethics is known as an "altruist."
"Altruism" in this sense isn't merely helping others--it's helping others without regard for yourself. So in Objectivism funding a kickstarter for a movie you want to see made isn't altruistic, because you're taking your own interests into account. Funding a movie that you don't want to see made would be altruistic, because you're going against your own interests. Objectivism takes issue with the idea that you should act in ways that are contrary to your interests and values.
Akri is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2013, 02:27 PM   #227
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Nope. But I'm going to wait until you've answered my question about your level of knowledge regarding Objectivism before responding any further.
Yes, you did. And I don't know what method you use to determine level of knowledge. Just call me a Black Belt in Objectivist Knowledge.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2013, 02:31 PM   #228
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel View Post
And I don't know what method you use to determine level of knowledge. Just call me a Black Belt in Objectivist Knowledge.
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.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2013, 02:32 PM   #229
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
Originally Posted by Akri View Post
Objectivism uses Auguste Comte's version of altruism.

From the Wikipedia page:



"Altruism" in this sense isn't merely helping others--it's helping others without regard for yourself. So in Objectivism funding a kickstarter for a movie you want to see made isn't altruistic, because you're taking your own interests into account. Funding a movie that you don't want to see made would be altruistic, because you're going against your own interests. Objectivism takes issue with the idea that you should act in ways that are contrary to your interests and values.
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.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2013, 02:34 PM   #230
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
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.
I don't like to be quizzed so let's not go down that route.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2013, 02:34 PM   #231
Akri
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,349
Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel View Post
And I don't know what method you use to determine level of knowledge.
He already told you:

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
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.
Quote:
Just call me a Black Belt in Objectivist Knowledge.
Do the colors go in reverse order in this system?
Akri is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2013, 02:35 PM   #232
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel
Clearly, donating money to the filmmakers is more favorable to the filmmakers than the donator.
You're right--I AM going to say you're wrong.

Quote:
And that'd make this discussion, like Objectivism, a complete waste of time.
Never mind the rest of my questions. I don't think you honestly give a rat's tail about the truth of Objectivism. You've already made up your mind, and I don't think anything I can say will convince you you're wrong.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2013, 02:39 PM   #233
Akri
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,349
Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel View Post
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.
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.

Last edited by Akri; 25th September 2013 at 02:46 PM.
Akri is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2013, 02:40 PM   #234
SomedayGirl
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
SomedayGirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2013, 02:42 PM   #235
Akri
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,349
Originally Posted by SomedayGirl View Post
And it is unlikely to be a musical, which means there really is no God.
A pity. I might have actually watched it in that case
Akri is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2013, 02:42 PM   #236
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
Originally Posted by Akri View Post
He already told you:




Do the colors go in reverse order in this system?
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.

Last edited by Baylor; 25th September 2013 at 02:46 PM.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2013, 02:43 PM   #237
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,394
Originally Posted by Akri View Post
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?
Is this what all Objectivism is? Arguing over the definition of words?
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2013, 02:50 PM   #238
Akri
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,349
Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel View Post
Is this what all Objectivism is? Arguing over the definition of words?
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.
Akri is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2013, 02:51 PM   #239
Dinwar
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.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2013, 02:54 PM   #240
Akri
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,349
Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel View Post
I've read all Ayn Rand's books
And yet you don't know how she uses the term "altruism"? That's like reading all of Kipling's books, and not knowing that he had a focus on India.
Akri is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:16 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.