Monster Rain wrote:I will watch it in 6 years when there's nothing better to do and it's available for streaming on Netflix.

I'll let you know what I think then.

Monster Rain wrote:I will watch it in 6 years when there's nothing better to do and it's available for streaming on Netflix.

I'll let you know what I think then.

Monster Rain wrote:I think M. Night Shyamalan would be a better choice.

He needs to ruin an actual classic!

Frazzled wrote:They could make it a comedy.

Platuan4th wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I think M. Night Shyamalan would be a better choice.

He needs to ruin an actual classic!

That would require Atlas Shrugged to be a classic in the first place.

Frazzled wrote:Classic POS maybe...

Frazzled wrote:Classic POS maybe...

Manchu wrote:This story is bad for your character.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I hope that anyone who has ever though or currently thinks that Atlas Shrugged presents a viable, believable, or even admirable morality or ethics will take the time to read Whittaker Chambers's reviews of Ms. Rand's magnum opus.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222482/big-sister-watching-you/flashback

Kilkrazy wrote:It's fair to say that there has been a lot of criticism about her writing.

Mr. Burning wrote:Russian Emigre who writes a huge tract of work with a hatred of communism at its core. And writes during a pretty hairy time during the cold war - is that it?

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:...and the Da Vinci code makes you hate Jesus and The Catcher in the Rye makes you murder people Not everyone takes works of fiction they read uber seriously. Yes, the characters are setup in an idealized universe for their personalities and beliefs (like pretty much every story ever written). that doesn't make this story any worse than any other one IMO.

Manchu wrote:Yeah, she hated living in Soviet society. Main reason: she wasn't in charge. She liked the idea that in a capitalist society, she might rise to the top on merit (she didn't) -- if only to treat those at the bottom exactly like they would be in a Soviet state. Also, she couldn't write her way out of a paper bag.

dogma wrote:

Manchu wrote:Yeah, she hated living in Soviet society. Main reason: she wasn't in charge. She liked the idea that in a capitalist society, she might rise to the top on merit (she didn't) -- if only to treat those at the bottom exactly like they would be in a Soviet state. Also, she couldn't write her way out of a paper bag.

Plus she was bourgeoisie. But not just any member of it, literally the stereotypical Marxist incarnation of it.

If her 'work' wasn't so obnoxious, her life would be hilarious.

Monster Rain wrote:

Who knew?

youbedead wrote:OF COURSE it all makes sense

Amaya wrote:Anyone else notice Quark in the trailer?

Grakmar wrote:Perhaps this should star Glenn Beck?

Manchu wrote:She called it "rational self-interest." It boils down to taking one's own self as the greatest possible good. I'm not sure if that answers your question.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:obligation doesn't exist beyond what you decide it covers

Kilkrazy wrote:Promoting selfishness as a valid political and social construct is just a way of excusing sociopathic behaviour.

Manchu wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:obligation doesn't exist beyond what you decide it covers

Refusing an obligation does not mean it does not exist. Words have power but not so much power as to annihilate reality.

Manchu wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:obligation doesn't exist beyond what you decide it covers

Refusing an obligation does not mean it does not exist. Words have power but not so much power as to annihilate reality.

Manchu wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:obligation doesn't exist beyond what you decide it covers

Refusing an obligation does not mean it does not exist. Words have power but not so much power as to annihilate reality.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:obligation doesn't exist beyond what you decide it covers

Refusing an obligation does not mean it does not exist. Words have power but not so much power as to annihilate reality.

My main issue arises when one tries to figure out who has the authority to declare obligations then? When a mother has a child, her natural maternal instinct kicks in, and it's fair to say that "nature" has set it up to create that obligation. In times of crisis, historically people have come together in many instances (sort of like the guy stepping into the street to knock someone out of the way of a car). I'd like to point out that even that last example is opposed to Objectivism to show the extremity of the system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr. Burning wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:obligation doesn't exist beyond what you decide it covers

Refusing an obligation does not mean it does not exist. Words have power but not so much power as to annihilate reality.

Cannerus' Avatar is annihilating reality.....

I was waiting! I was going to keep the stupid thing til someone commented on it.

Manchu wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:obligation doesn't exist beyond what you decide it covers

Refusing an obligation does not mean it does not exist. Words have power but not so much power as to annihilate reality.

Polonius wrote:In other words, absent a compelling authority, why do I need to do or refrain from doing anything?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:obligation doesn't exist beyond what you decide it covers

Refusing an obligation does not mean it does not exist. Words have power but not so much power as to annihilate reality.

Obligations are social constructs, much like property rights and the concept of the nuclear family. They really don't exist except insofar as we agree they do.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Obligations are social constructs, much like property rights and the concept of the nuclear family. They really don't exist except insofar as we agree they do.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:To be fair, Objectivism also comes from the classic Russian standpoint of there being no god.

Manchu wrote:

Polonius wrote:In other words, absent a compelling authority, why do I need to do or refrain from doing anything?

By compelling, it seems to me that you really mean "coercive" because there is the matter conscience. Now whether or not a particular actor find her or his conscience compelling is no sign of moral and even ethical norms being merely arbitrary. It's a sign of some defect on the part of that actor. But I'm starting to understand why you didn't like Kilkrazy (IMO) incisive summation of Objectivism.

Manchu wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Obligations are social constructs, much like property rights and the concept of the nuclear family. They really don't exist except insofar as we agree they do.

That is dramatically oversimplifying social construction. People aren't actually at liberty to recreate norms at their whim. Even legislative bodies don't have this power. The fact that something is socially constructed does not mean that is either arbitrary or not real or otherwise illegitimate.

Ahtman wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:To be fair, Objectivism also comes from the classic Russian standpoint of there being no god.

That explains all those Russian Cathedrals.

Polonius wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Promoting selfishness as a valid political and social construct is just a way of excusing sociopathic behaviour.

That's a really sweeping generalization that shows a pretty limited understanding of both Objectivism and sociopathy.

Or a better than average understanding of both.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Polonius wrote:In other words, absent a compelling authority, why do I need to do or refrain from doing anything?

By compelling, it seems to me that you really mean "coercive" because there is the matter conscience. Now whether or not a particular actor find her or his conscience compelling is no sign of moral and even ethical norms being merely arbitrary. It's a sign of some defect on the part of that actor. But I'm starting to understand why you didn't like Kilkrazy (IMO) incisive summation of Objectivism.

Conscience is completely relative and arbitrary as well; if a child grew up in any two different households, his conscience would vary. If it isn't, I'd be glad to see a definition other than our little friend.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Social constructs are arbitrary by definition.

Manchu wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Social constructs are arbitrary by definition.

This is incorrect.

Frazzled wrote:Now that I think about it, this movie must be made, if only to answer the question "Could anyone ever make a movie worse than Battlefield Earth?"

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Social constructs likewise exist only in our heads, they are not real, they are subjective, they are arbitrary.

Frazzled wrote:

Now that I think about it, this movie must be made, if only to answer the question "Could anyone ever make a movie worse than Battlefield Earth?"

Ahtman wrote:I am aware of the Soviet Union, I am also aware that it doesn't constitute a very large portion of the history of that area, thus calling atheism a "classic" Russian position is still not accurate.

Manchu wrote:@Grakmar: The Last Airbender was supposed to be the first in a movie trilogy . . .

Ahtman wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Promoting selfishness as a valid political and social construct is just a way of excusing sociopathic behaviour.

That's a really sweeping generalization that shows a pretty limited understanding of both Objectivism and sociopathy.

Or a better than average understanding of both.

Polonius wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Promoting selfishness as a valid political and social construct is just a way of excusing sociopathic behaviour.

That's a really sweeping generalization that shows a pretty limited understanding of both Objectivism and sociopathy.

Manchu wrote:I can see why you'd take exception to the analogical usage. But surely you can understand what is meant by saying the behavior of some institution is "scoiopathic." In the meantime, Objectivism disallows infringement on the rights of others according to its internal understanding of rights. In other understandings of rights -- especially where rights inevitably coincide with duties -- this is not so easily demonstrated.

Polonius wrote:Atlas Shrugged is about some relatively extreme examples, but I'm not sure you can draw a straight line from the book to killing hookers and making a suit out of their skin.

Polonius wrote:Honestly, I think KK used sociopathic to mean either "bad", "unethical" or "distasteful" in his initial post. Like fascist, it's technical definition is usually swallowed up by an overly broad casual usage.

Manchu wrote:

Polonius wrote:Honestly, I think KK used sociopathic to mean either "bad", "unethical" or "distasteful" in his initial post. Like fascist, it's technical definition is usually swallowed up by an overly broad casual usage.

I read it as unempathetic to the point of "bad" or "unethical," which I agree with. The purpose seems to suppress conscience and sublimate it to will. Pretty fascist, even by the technical standards. (I'm thinking of Deleuze and Guattari here.)

Polonius wrote:

Manchu wrote:I can see why you'd take exception to the analogical usage. But surely you can understand what is meant by saying the behavior of some institution is "scoiopathic." In the meantime, Objectivism disallows infringement on the rights of others according to its internal understanding of rights. In other understandings of rights -- especially where rights inevitably coincide with duties -- this is not so easily demonstrated.

Honestly, I think KK used sociopathic to mean either "bad", "unethical" or "distasteful" in his initial post. Like fascist, it's technical definition is usually swallowed up by an overly broad casual usage.

Polonius wrote:I mean, that's funny and all

Manchu wrote:A Chick Tract on Objectivism? How would that go?

Kilkrazy wrote:Sociopathy is a spectrum disorder which ranges from mild selfishness (this would not be diagnosed as an illness as such) right down to the point where it becomes psychopathy, and the sufferer fails to recognise other people as human beings.

Albatross wrote:Not all sociopaths become serial murderers, though many (I shy away from saying all) serial murderers are sociopathic/psychopathic.

Mannahnin wrote:
I think KK meant it more in the sense that the exaltation of selfishness as the primary (or only) good seems like a philosophy for sociopaths. If you see other human beings as falling into the categories of parasites or rivals, that's kind of similar to the way a sociopath lacks empathy for other people, or the ability to perceive their needs as being as important and valid as the sociopath's own. You can be a sociopath without being a serial killer, of course.

Manchu wrote:How about: objectivism is a (monomolecularly thin) veneer of intellectual credibility shellacked over base selfishness, maintained as credible by the willfully sociopathic?

Polonius wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Sociopathy is a spectrum disorder which ranges from mild selfishness (this would not be diagnosed as an illness as such) right down to the point where it becomes psychopathy, and the sufferer fails to recognise other people as human beings.

Not to be trite, but aren't then arguing that selfishness is a way to justify selfish behavior?

If objectivism = selfishness, and sociopathy includes mild selfishness, then aren't you just saying that A=A (pun definitly intended)?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Sociopathy is a spectrum disorder which ranges from mild selfishness (this would not be diagnosed as an illness as such) right down to the point where it becomes psychopathy, and the sufferer fails to recognise other people as human beings.

Not to be trite, but aren't then arguing that selfishness is a way to justify selfish behavior?

If objectivism = selfishness, and sociopathy includes mild selfishness, then aren't you just saying that A=A (pun definitly intended)?

A = A is not the same as A justifies A.

Polonius wrote:
Are you saying that objectivism is an ideology that preaches such extreme selfishness it can lead to harmful and destrcutvie behavior?

What keeps it from not? Even the theories underlying the Invisible Hand hold certain minimum laws to regulate efficient markets. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2450861.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2450861.page GMT
My opinion is that various moral or philosophical concepts have the capacity to be taken as an excuse to justify extremist behaviour for personal gratification. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2450889.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2450889.page GMT

Polonius wrote:I'd state rather that objecivism is a veneer of intellectual credibilty shellacked over base selfishness, maintained as credible by the disaffected, bitter, and angry.

Yes, I agree. For it to come to literal sociopathy you would need to enshrine it into the institutional culture of some kind of organization.

http://www.aynrand.org

All (half) jokes aside, I reiterate that Rand was probably not a sociopath. But her ideal man was. Since objectivism has made no serious splash in the real world, let's look at her model men: Roark is certainly a sociopath and Galt isn't even close to a human being (the emodiment of sociopathy).]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2450926.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2450926.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2450951.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2450951.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2450964.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2450964.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2450983.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2450983.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2451030.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2451030.page GMT

Kilkrazy wrote:Extreme selfishness certainly can lead to anti-social and destructive behaviour.

My opinion is that various moral or philosophical concepts have the capacity to be taken as an excuse to justify extremist behaviour for personal gratification.

True, but anybody that took philosophy 101 figures out how to warp pretty much any moral code. Ask Kant if he would lie to save a human life...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2451228.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2451228.page GMT

Polonius wrote:Honestly, I think KK used sociopathic to mean either "bad", "unethical" or "distasteful" in his initial post. Like fascist, it's technical definition is usually swallowed up by an overly broad casual usage.

Sociopathy will often be used to describe behaviour which lacks any measure of empathy, such as a guy who sees he no longer needs 10 workers in his factory so he fires them without any concern for them or their families. It is differentiated from psychopathy, where a person enjoys causing suffering on others, with sociopathy he just doesn't care. This isn't the clinical definition by any means, but like most psychological terms it forms a new meaning when the mainstream gets hold of it.

As for rights vs. duties, the main difference is that objectivism holds that duties are only valid if agreed upon. Even then, you'd be hard pressed to see a society exist without some form of taxation and the like, but even then the characters in Atlas Shrugged didn't hurt anybody (until the final jail break sequence, I suppose), they simply left.

Which gets into the two fundamental problems with objectivism. The first is the idea that we're all islands onto ourselves and we can pick and choose what contracts we might want to enter - when in reality we are entirely dependant on deals with countless people in society, most of whom we've never met. The second issue is that simply pointing out that we aren't specifically obligated to act on the behalf of others doesn't address in any way what we should do - it doesn't address what actions might make us good people.

In ignoring those two things, objectivism basically boils down to 'I'm not gonna and you can't make me', which when coupled with the fantasy that troubled loners can end up powerful captains of industry through their inherent awesomeness, explains why it appeals to so many disaffected young adults.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:@Ahtman: That's pretty good. You should read over Rand's bio and line them up. (I don't think she was sociopath but I bet she wished she was.)

She was fairly infatuated with, and maintained jailhouse correspondence with, a good looking child murderer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:How about: objectivism is a (monomolecularly thin) veneer of intellectual credibility shellacked over base selfishness, maintained as credible by the willfully sociopathic?

Thing is, I don't think too many self proclaimed objectivists actually lead particularly objectivist lifestyles. They just like complaining about government and dreaming of being captains of industry.

It's a bit like the nihilists in The Big Lebowski, they love the trappings of intellectualism, but lack the intellect to realise it's an unsustainable ideology.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:Well, yeah, if you see all other humans that way, you've got a problem. That's not what objectivism is about. What too many of her critics miss, and what is really her biggest fault, isn't the creepy stuff: it's the ridiculously romantic view she has of human nature. Her expectations of how humans could act in her ideal society are no more ludicrous than anything spouted by a pot smoking marxist. She felt that people would accept living in a competitive, strictly voluntary society in which the strong prosper and the weak perish (figuratively or perhaps literally). Of course, nobody likes that.

She also had little idea of how society operates, Galt's Gulch was an utterly ludicrous place, with the real and incredibly difficult realities of building a new society waved away with a couple of future techs (we can just i. This wasn't a problem for Rand, because she basically assumed everything would work wonderfully once all the good people were seperated from the bad people.

Robbespierre thought the same thing, and he kept killing all the bad people but somehow society didn't actually improve. Because 'badness' isn't an intrinsic human characteristic, you can't just kill the bad ones (Robbespierre) or have the good ones form a new society (Rand) and end up with utopia. We're a product of our place in society, and as long as some people are put on the bottom we'll have 'bad' people.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2451622.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2451622.page GMT

sebster wrote:
In ignoring those two things, objectivism basically boils down to 'I'm not gonna and you can't make me', which when coupled with the fantasy that troubled loners can end up powerful captains of industry through their inherent awesomeness, explains why it appeals to so many disaffected young adults.

I'd agree with this.

Thing is, I don't think too many self proclaimed objectivists actually lead particularly objectivist lifestyles. They just like complaining about government and dreaming of being captains of industry.

It's a bit like the nihilists in The Big Lebowski, they love the trappings of intellectualism, but lack the intellect to realise it's an unsustainable ideology.

While driving home from work today (well, technically walking to my car) I realized that above all else, Objectivism is an annoying ideology that goes perfectly with two groups of young intellectuals who tend to be annoying: atheists and libertarians. Now, don't get me wrong, pretty much everybody that falls into an ideology (religion, cause, political party, lifestyle) between 16 and 22 tends to run super annoying, but at least in my circles some of the most self righteously and humorlessly annoying were the the people convinced that religion and/or government is ruining everything. Objectivism becomes a way of talking about their incredibly annoying leanings.




]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2451659.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2451659.page GMT ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2451682.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2451682.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2451777.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2451777.page GMT

Ahtman wrote:While I agree on principle with what you are saying Polonius, I have met some incredibly awful people that combined both Christianity and Objecticvism. How they justified it I can't say, but there it is, some hideous thing wallowing in the sun, frightening the children.

That's a mean thing to say about the Republican Party.

Thanks folks, I'll be here all week.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2451788.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2451788.page GMT

Polonius wrote:

Ahtman wrote:While I agree on principle with what you are saying Polonius, I have met some incredibly awful people that combined both Christianity and Objecticvism. How they justified it I can't say, but there it is, some hideous thing wallowing in the sun, frightening the children.

That's a mean thing to say about the Republican Party.

Thanks folks, I'll be here all week.

Touche XD]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2451803.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2451803.page GMT

Polonius wrote:While driving home from work today (well, technically walking to my car) I realized that above all else, Objectivism is an annoying ideology that goes perfectly with two groups of young intellectuals who tend to be annoying: atheists and libertarians. Now, don't get me wrong, pretty much everybody that falls into an ideology (religion, cause, political party, lifestyle) between 16 and 22 tends to run super annoying, but at least in my circles some of the most self righteously and humorlessly annoying were the the people convinced that religion and/or government is ruining everything. Objectivism becomes a way of talking about their incredibly annoying leanings.

Absolutely, and when you consider 16 to 22 year olds are already the most annoying people on Earth, we end up talking about some really, really annoying people.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2452378.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2452378.page GMT

Manchu wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Social constructs likewise exist only in our heads, they are not real, they are subjective, they are arbitrary.

I think you're using the word "real" rather flippantly or at least uncritically (are concepts real?) and you are perfectly aware of the connotations of the word "arbitrary" as I used it.

Perhaps. Would you mind giving the definition of 'real' that you're using, so that I know what you mean?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2452626.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2452626.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2452671.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2452671.page GMT

Kilkrazy wrote:Is the law a social construct?

I would certainly call it one, yes.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2452689.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2452689.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2452710.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2452710.page GMT

Kilkrazy wrote:What happens if you break the law?

Is the law an actual, tangible thing? Or is it an idea?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2452715.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2452715.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2452719.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2452719.page GMT

Kilkrazy wrote:I would say that depends which side of the prison bars you are sitting.

The prison bars are an actual tangible thing. The courtroom is an actual tangible thing. The judge is an actual tangible thing. The police are a collection of actual tangible things.

The law is an idea that we agree on, and enforce on those that disagree.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2452722.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2452722.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2452743.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2452743.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2452750.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2452750.page GMT

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't think that makes any practical difference.

What makes an idea real?

You should, at this point, understand what I mean by real: that if something is real, it is an actual thing that would exist even if all sapient life was eliminated.

What is your definition?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2452758.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2452758.page GMT

Kilkrazy wrote:What happens if you break the law?

The law is nothing. It takes the legions to make the law, legal*

*Apologies to Caesar for my bastardization thereof. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2452761.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2452761.page GMT

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't think that makes any practical difference.

What makes an idea real?

You should, at this point, understand what I mean by real: that if something is real, it is an actual thing that would exist even if all sapient life was eliminated.

What is your definition?

That is an interesting question.

I would make a number of points in response.

1. An idea inside the brain consists of some as yet not understood physical arrangement of matter or forces. Perhaps it is a kind of standing wave, like a whirlpool if you will. From that viewpoint it is a 'real' thing.
2. Ideas can be written down and transmitted as physical matter, for example, rock carvings. Theoretically, if sapient life on Earth were extinguished, the ideas we had written down could be deciphered and used by an alien species which has not yet evolved to intelligence.
3. At one level, everything in the apparently real world is actually a construct inside the brain, brought about by a variety of sensing mechanisms. The world is in a sense an idea.

As far as social constructs go, my opinion is that if they are capable of affecting human behaviour, which results in making physical changes in the material world, they are effectively real to human beings.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2452801.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2452801.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453175.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453175.page GMT

Manchu wrote:I'd like to know in what sense something tangible, like KK's prison bars, are "real" as opposed to "arbitrary" regarding the term "absolute" in contrast to the term "relative." The ability to deconstruct a narrative (even a physical one, as I tried to bring up regarding atoms) doesn't render the narrative false. If anything, deconstruction is a critique of perception rather than the reality perceived. Saying that "social constructs" are not "real" is totally abstract and, in a discussion like this one, merely rhetorical. Show me in a practical way how some socially-constructed thing is not real.

Sure, as soon as you define 'real'.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453207.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453207.page GMT
Would you like to submit a counter-offer?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453219.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453219.page GMT

Manchu wrote:This is going to spiral. Something is real if it exists. Yes, that means unicorns are real -- as concepts. All I'm doing here is trying to deflate the prestige of the word "real."

I can't very well say that X != Y if I don't know what Y is supposed to be, now can I?

Manchu wrote:Would you like to submit a counter-offer?

What isn't real if we say that ideas and concepts are real? Dreams are real. Hallucinations are real. The list goes on and on. EVERYTHING is real. The word is utterly meaningless when we use it like this.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453253.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453253.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453267.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453267.page GMT

Manchu wrote:Not at all. All those things are real in different ways. The trouble is that "reality" is not privileged. Saying a social construct is "not real" doesn't offer any significant insight. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that's what KK was getting at, too.

Until someone offers me a suggestion of what the different ways that one might classify something as being real are, then I'm going to be forced to consider it an effectively meaningless term when used like this.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453296.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453296.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453298.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453298.page GMT

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Manchu wrote:Not at all. All those things are real in different ways. The trouble is that "reality" is not privileged. Saying a social construct is "not real" doesn't offer any significant insight. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that's what KK was getting at, too.

Until someone offers me a suggestion of what the different ways that one might classify something as being real are, then I'm going to be forced to consider it an effectively meaningless term when used like this.

Every philosopher would agree.

Of course, that makes calling sometihng "not real" equally meaningless.

Either way, you made an assertion: that social constructs are not real. I'm guessing you mean that they lack some quality (I'm guessing it's close to material tangibility), not that they don't exist.

And yes, if everything is real, than things get more comlicated, because we see that reality is in many ways transient. The taboo against hitting on married women only exists because people exist. But people do, and the taboo does, and I wouldn't recommend trying it in the wrong bar. Sounds kind of real to me.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453408.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453408.page GMT
And so deconstruction tells us little enough about "reality." At least, nothing that we didn't already know.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453411.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453411.page GMT

Polonius wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Manchu wrote:Not at all. All those things are real in different ways. The trouble is that "reality" is not privileged. Saying a social construct is "not real" doesn't offer any significant insight. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that's what KK was getting at, too.

Until someone offers me a suggestion of what the different ways that one might classify something as being real are, then I'm going to be forced to consider it an effectively meaningless term when used like this.

Every philosopher would agree.

Of course, that makes calling sometihng "not real" equally meaningless.

Either way, you made an assertion: that social constructs are not real. I'm guessing you mean that they lack some quality (I'm guessing it's close to material tangibility)

Correct. I gave basically that definition a page or so back.

Polonius wrote:not that they don't exist.

And yes, if everything is real, than things get more comlicated, because we see that reality is in many ways transient. The taboo against hitting on married women only exists because people exist. But people do, and the taboo does, and I wouldn't recommend trying it in the wrong bar. Sounds kind of real to me.

Someone might, if I am unlucky, kill me because god has told them to do so. God is therefore real?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453453.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453453.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453470.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453470.page GMT

Kilkrazy wrote:Perhaps the idea of God is real.

For the sake of argument, sure.

Would you say that social constructs are real in the same way that the idea of god is real?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453488.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453488.page GMT
For example, we see various types of social constructs in animal populations, but we see no sign of religious ideas.

Perhaps religion is more abstract.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453509.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453509.page GMT
God's actual existence isn't relevant to that discussion.

That's what makes a discussion of reality kind of boring to me: it doesn't matter. Anything that affects you is real enough.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453667.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453667.page GMT

sebster wrote:Well, a trilogy actually.

Well, that's unfortunate.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453676.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453676.page GMT

Kilkrazy wrote:I would say that depends which side of the prison bars you are sitting.

You are presumptuous in this instance. Does every person who commits a crime go to jail/pay fines/whatever? Are the results different for differing people? Of course, because the law being enforced is not a passive thing, it's an active thing. I use the example that people say "don't leave the car unlocked, it will get broken into." Actually, there's no guarantee it will get broken into. That doesn't just happen, someone comes along and makes a conscious decision to do so then has to act on it. If I'm jaywalking on a slow night, I might get a ticket, but if I'm jaywalking when an officer is going fast with his lights on towards an armed robbery, he could give a crap, so am I really breaking anything if nothing happens?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453840.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453840.page GMT
What I mean is, if a real thing has impacts in the tangible world, the fact that it doesn't always have the same impact does not prove that it is unreal.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453870.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453870.page GMT
Clarification, Cannerus?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453876.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453876.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453901.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2453901.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454103.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454103.page GMT

Manchu wrote:Where's the line between nature and man-made? (purely rhetorical question)

I realize you say this is rhetorical, but I feel the need to stress the answer anyway.

Man is a product of nature. We've evolved from natural elements using natural means. Everything we do is a natural process. Anything we create is, itself, a product of 100% natural processes and natural supplies.

Homes are all 100% natural. Genetically engineered animals are 100% natural. Drugs are all 100% natural. And, laws are 100% natural.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454211.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454211.page GMT ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454217.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454217.page GMT

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:The law isn't a force of nature. Nature is a good example of something that I would consider completely real, whereas man-made laws are something that don't matter a portion (yes, a generic portion - there's no way to define this) of the time. In nature, there's pure cause and effect and with the legal system it's nothing more than a glorified game of tag in terms of how the brain operates. That being said, I don't consider the law "real" (nor would most people in a crisis situation), though it is terribly convenient to play the same game everyone else is playing.

For something that isn't real, it sure seems to have a pretty big impact.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454388.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454388.page GMT
There has been a distinction between natural law and the laws of man for several hundred years. Just becuase it wasn't written on a tree by the wind doesn't mean it has no weight or bearing in the world. Go rob a bank and try and argue in court that you can't be prosecuted becuase the court isn't natural. See how far that gets you.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454502.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454502.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454517.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454517.page GMT BA in philosophy is the ability to reason, read quickly, and write quickly. The actual "knowledge" is long gone, replaced with far more useful matters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I wasn't addressing it's impact, only stating that it was a abstract notion that people stick to (and again, a convenient one at that). If the legal process decides tomorrow that it's illegal to buy cigarettes then the rules suddenly change, which doesn't happen in nature. Further, me breaking the law and hoping to get away unpunished is very different from dropping a rock from the second story and expecting it to float it in the air. I can't see the arbitrary rules man creates as being on par with the laws of physics because that honestly makes no sense.

I don't think anybody is arguing that. It's just that complete materialism (where nothing that cannot be measured, detected, etc) is a dead-end. Once you accept that nothing exists outside of the interplay between matter and energy, than you're trapped in a completely determinist life, where everything good or bad is merely a chemical shift in the brain.

Congratulations.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454520.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454520.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454532.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454532.page GMT

Manchu wrote:Those are invaluable skills for our profession, however.

I'm not complaining. It also taught how to argue convincingly when you have no real knowledge of the subject matter.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454543.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454543.page GMT

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I wasn't addressing it's impact, only stating that it was a abstract notion that people stick to (and again, a convenient one at that). If the legal process decides tomorrow that it's illegal to buy cigarettes then the rules suddenly change, which doesn't happen in nature. Further, me breaking the law and hoping to get away unpunished is very different from dropping a rock from the second story and expecting it to float it in the air. I can't see the arbitrary rules man creates as being on par with the laws of physics because that honestly makes no sense.

"Arbitrary"

I do not think that word means what you think it means.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454545.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454545.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454554.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454554.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454568.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454568.page GMT

1.
subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2.
decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
3.
having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
4.
capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.
5.
Mathematics . undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant.

I'd say #1 fits. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454581.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454581.page GMT arbitrary (adj.), from L. arbitrarius, "exactly whatever the feth I say it means"]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454611.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454611.page GMT

Polonius wrote:
I don't think anybody is arguing that. It's just that complete materialism (where nothing that cannot be measured, detected, etc) is a dead-end. Once you accept that nothing exists outside of the interplay between matter and energy, than you're trapped in a completely determinist life, where everything good or bad is merely a chemical shift in the brain.

Congratulations.

If you don't regard chemical shifts as mundane, then it really isn't all that bad.

In any case, that seems a lot less like a trap if you accept that free wlll and determinism are not incompatible; though they are admittedly less intuitive than simply arguing against full determinism.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454616.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454616.page GMT

Manchu wrote:arbitrary (adj.), from L. arbitrarius, "exactly whatever the feth I say it means"

Close, but "because I say so" is probably better.

Either way, some laws are arbitrary, but few are. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454633.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454633.page GMT

Polonius wrote:It also seems that Cannerous really respects immutability as a sign of reality, or at least real laws.

Yeah, and that opens a whole other can of worms when we start talking about things like any sort of physics that extends beyond the immediately observable.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454634.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454634.page GMT

dogma wrote:

Polonius wrote:
I don't think anybody is arguing that. It's just that complete materialism (where nothing that cannot be measured, detected, etc) is a dead-end. Once you accept that nothing exists outside of the interplay between matter and energy, than you're trapped in a completely determinist life, where everything good or bad is merely a chemical shift in the brain.

Congratulations.

If you don't regard chemical shifts as mundane, then it really isn't all that bad.

In any case, that seems a lot less like a trap if you accept that free wlll and determinism are not incompatible; though they are admittedly less intuitive than simply arguing against full determinism.

it's not neccessarily bad, it's just an outlier in terms of popular ideologies. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454641.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454641.page GMT I just wanted to give my viewpoint via my likely flawed examples. To me though, either something has the same results every time it happens or it doesn't, and that tells you fairly quickly whether it is or isn't. Obviously we operate on things that don't turn out the same 100% of the time (even crossing the street can be risky) and that's part of existing, but I've never found that just because everyone else was doing something that it necessarily made it more or less valid.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454666.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454666.page GMT Though I despise most of Ayn Rand's philosophy, writings and her general egotism, Atlas Shrugged hasnt been too bad. Its exceptionally preachy about an original philosophy using characters who are god like in everyway but completely unrealistic, Ive heard of people having their careers destroyed by using Objectivism as the basis of their superiority. Rand tends to make it that her ideal heroes are flawless super humans who cant be wrong in any possible way, anyone who disagrees with them is a slimy, weak parasite feeding off of their awesomness and is therefore portrayed as such.
I have to say though its a pretty easy read, never before have payed so much attention to Trains and Copper Smelting, she does have a way of making these things interesting.
Yes so Atlas Shrugged is kind've a like/hate for me so I will probably see the movie, Im really not looking forward to John Galt's speech though, a whole chapter of this preachy garabage, no thankyou.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454680.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454680.page GMT
Atlas Shrugged was already adapted to film. It was actually called Iron Man 2. The beginning of the movie goes like this.

Evil Government: Give me your technology Stark, we demand it.
Stark: No that is my private property
Evil Government: No you must share that technology
Stark: No it is mine and it benefits me and no one else.

Then battling competition hires a dude that is related to the man that the Stark family stole technology from in the first place to create their capitalist dent into the world of government defense contracts. Which is very lucrative I hear. This man wants to bring down the agenda of government and capitalists and form a society of the selfishly elite, or people who just think like he does. All the while trying to steal Stark technology and business using funding from government contracts, hence more evil government involvement in big business.

All the while Stark maintains an image of a worthless billionaire playboy to avoid the government thieves from taking him seriously and avoiding a government take over of his technology. The only thing that is missing is Stark giving a 45 minute speech.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454696.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454696.page GMT

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I pretty much only understand about half of what is being talked about right now I just wanted to give my viewpoint via my likely flawed examples. To me though, either something has the same results every time it happens or it doesn't, and that tells you fairly quickly whether it is or isn't. Obviously we operate on things that don't turn out the same 100% of the time (even crossing the street can be risky) and that's part of existing, but I've never found that just because everyone else was doing something that it necessarily made it more or less valid.

How do you reconcile that viewpoint with chaotic behavior in nature? No comptuer on earth can model how a turbulent fluid will flow.

Or Quantumm Mechanics? Where events happen randomly, with no way to predict them.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454710.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454710.page GMT

Polonius wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I pretty much only understand about half of what is being talked about right now I just wanted to give my viewpoint via my likely flawed examples. To me though, either something has the same results every time it happens or it doesn't, and that tells you fairly quickly whether it is or isn't. Obviously we operate on things that don't turn out the same 100% of the time (even crossing the street can be risky) and that's part of existing, but I've never found that just because everyone else was doing something that it necessarily made it more or less valid.

How do you reconcile that viewpoint with chaotic behavior in nature? No comptuer on earth can model how a turbulent fluid will flow.

Or Quantumm Mechanics? Where events happen randomly, with no way to predict them.

Quantech mechanics does not suggest that events are random, it suggests that things occur due to cause and effect but we can never know all of the causes or effects.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454720.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454720.page GMT

corpsesarefun wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I pretty much only understand about half of what is being talked about right now I just wanted to give my viewpoint via my likely flawed examples. To me though, either something has the same results every time it happens or it doesn't, and that tells you fairly quickly whether it is or isn't. Obviously we operate on things that don't turn out the same 100% of the time (even crossing the street can be risky) and that's part of existing, but I've never found that just because everyone else was doing something that it necessarily made it more or less valid.

How do you reconcile that viewpoint with chaotic behavior in nature? No comptuer on earth can model how a turbulent fluid will flow.

Or Quantumm Mechanics? Where events happen randomly, with no way to predict them.

Quantech mechanics does not suggest that events are random, it suggests that things occur due to cause and effect but we can never know all of the causes or effects.

^this. Also, I've never once thought about quantum mechanics and I manage to stay fed and breathe. Sign enough for me that it doesn't actually pertain to my life If someone else wants to worry about it I'll have to take their word unless they're telling me I can or can't do something because of it. I'm worried less about specific theories than I am my existence, similar to how the majority of the populous is I'm sure ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454752.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454752.page GMT

corpsesarefun wrote:
Quantech mechanics does not suggest that events are random, it suggests that things occur due to cause and effect but we can never know all of the causes or effects.

That depends entirely on the particular quantum physicist you talk to. Some people claim that we simply cannot know, and others claim that we cannot know because causality breaks down at the quantum level; there's evidence to support both perspectives.

Also, random action is simply action that itself appears to lack a discernible cause. That does not stop objects that behave at random from causing other, non-random events.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454761.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454761.page GMT

dogma wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:
Quantech mechanics does not suggest that events are random, it suggests that things occur due to cause and effect but we can never know all of the causes or effects.

That depends entirely on the particular quantum physicist you talk to. Some people claim that we simply cannot know, and others claim that we cannot know because causality breaks down at the quantum level; there's evidence to support both perspectives.

Which likely means Option C is the correct one. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454770.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454770.page GMT

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Which likely means Option C is the correct one.

Option C goes something like this: We cannot know because we're trying to think of it in terms of causality, and not simply in terms of identity. In this line of thought any given quantum object will do everything we would theoretically expect it do except where prevented from doing so by another quantum object; as such the characteristics of any such given object are only sensible discussed relative to all other, similar members of the relevant system. Causality isn't so much violated as ignored due to simultaneity. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454802.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454802.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454856.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454856.page GMT ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454876.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2454876.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2455047.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2455047.page GMT
On the original topic, the plot of the book could make a good movie, there are strong characters and a bunch of decisive action. The problem is that the politics make it unlikely that Hollywood (which is a tad left-leaning) would want to make a movie sympathetic to the book, and someone sympathetic to the politics would likely include all of the speeches and such, which would make a bad movie. Since they're talking about a trilogy, I suspect they're not going to do a quick version using the plot, but instead are going to bring chapter-long speeches to the silver screen, which is pretty far from 'good movie' material.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2455238.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2455238.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2455621.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2455621.page GMT
Hollywood may be left-leaning, but it leans towards financial gain even more. If they believed could produce a straight love-letter to Objectivism, and make money, they would do it. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2455644.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2455644.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2455664.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2455664.page GMT

BearersOfSalvation wrote:The problem is that the politics make it unlikely that Hollywood (which is a tad left-leaning) would want to make a movie sympathetic to the book...

This is one of those things people have said over and over again until people started assuming it must be true. I'm left wondering if the people who say it have ever seen an action movie where the police hero of the movie does what needs to be done, slaughtering hordes of villains, despite the police dept being too inefficient or namby pamby liberal to be effective.

I mean, name a Hollywood movie that's positive towards the UN, or internationalism in general?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2455741.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2455741.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2455824.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2455824.page GMT
In fact that sort of film has no bias, it is a straight arrow, middle of the political road film.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2456499.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2456499.page GMT

Kilkrazy wrote:You seem to be implying that films like that are right leaning and therefore disprove Hollywood's know left-wing bias.

In fact that sort of film has no bias, it is a straight arrow, middle of the political road film.

Films have narratives, those narratives often tie in with popular political messages. The film may not be written with the intent of carrying those messages, it may just be good story telling (for instance, in a police action movie an efficient police department would make the hero's actions appear unnecessary and reckless) but that doesn't mean that it doesn't end up in the final movie anyway. When trying to make a sweeping claim about Hollywood, you can't just ignore this.

The truth is Hollywood films are all over the shop politically, making a preachy film about breaking down racial barriers one minute, then making the villains that same ethnic stereotype in the next. Sometimes they do both in one movie.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2456520.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2456520.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2456541.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2456541.page GMT

Mannahnin wrote:I believe Kilkrazy was employing his trademark deadpan humor. He doesn't tend to ignore things, IME.

Ah, I am the fail.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2456573.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2456573.page GMT
Hollywood loves the almighty dollar. They employ a few wing nuts to get the job done but its all about money in the end. Hell, right now objectivism just might sell well.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2457053.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2457053.page GMT

Tyyr wrote:After reading this thread my decision to become an engineer has once again been confirmed as the right one. If I'd gone to school for this I'd have killed someone. Probably a lot of someones.

Hollywood loves the almighty dollar. They employ a few wing nuts to get the job done but its all about money in the end. Hell, right now objectivism just might sell well.

They were handing out free copies of Atlas Shrugged at several Tea Party gatherings. I find the irony a bit hilarious. Since most of them are right leaning hard liners and that Ayn Rand's characters were all sinning atheists. That is a bit beside the point though. I think given the climate in America right now, that this movie could sell well in several different markets. As long as they don't spend a lot of money on it they will make profit.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2457742.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2457742.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458041.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458041.page GMT

sebster wrote:This is one of those things people have said over and over again until people started assuming it must be true. I'm left wondering if the people who say it have ever seen an action movie where the police hero of the movie does what needs to be done, slaughtering hordes of villains, despite the police dept being too inefficient or namby pamby liberal to be effective.

Do you understand that there's a difference between 'left leaning' and 'completely and utterly dedicated to a particular set of left-wing ideals and never does anything against those ideals'? This isn't a book that happens to have stuff that can be sort of connected with politics in some way, it's a book written to express a political and philosophical viewpoint that is often referred to by people currently involved in politics. It's filled with multi-page political speeches reiterating a particular ideology, not a book where the action hero has a few lines about Getting Things Done Even If We Ignore The Book.

Your response really doesn't make sense when one realizes that the end of the sentence that you quoted the first part of explicitly acknowledges that there are movie makers sympathetic to the politics of the book.

I mean, name a Hollywood movie that's positive towards the UN, or internationalism in general?

I mean, name a Hollywood movie that takes a book primarily about right-wing politics and treats it in a sympathetic way while also managing to make a good move?
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458044.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458044.page GMT

Mannahnin wrote:Rand is a natural fit for SOME segments of the Tea Party- the Libertarian types. That's part of why my parents got together, believe it or not. She had Objectivist leanings and he was Libertarian. They were really active Libertarians for about 15 years or so, with him running for Congress at one point and her for Governor.

Im sorry man... I.. I.. Didnt know ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458051.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458051.page GMT

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

I mean, name a Hollywood movie that takes a book primarily about right-wing politics and treats it in a sympathetic way while also managing to make a good move?

Your question presupposes that there is anything sympathetic about right-wing politics.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458334.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458334.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458345.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458345.page GMT ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458356.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458356.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458366.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458366.page GMT

Frazzled wrote:Only if you're a commie or a government worker, but I repeat myself.

Yes because Republicans want small government, except when they want it bigger]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458372.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458372.page GMT

Frazzled wrote:Thats a cheap shot KK.

We all have to find the best value in today's difficult economic circumstances.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458386.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458386.page GMT

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats a cheap shot KK.

We all have to find the best value in today's difficult economic circumstances.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458420.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458420.page GMT

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats a cheap shot KK.

We all have to find the best value in today's difficult economic circumstances.

I see what you did there ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458450.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458450.page GMT ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458472.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458472.page GMT

Your question presupposes that there is anything sympathetic about right-wing politics.

Because mass murder, slavery, and genocide are reasonable basis for a society.

The best thing that objectivism has going for it is that it, unlike socialism, doesn't have a history of, or even require, murdering political dissidents.

Some people may consider this a bug.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458564.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458564.page GMT
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458569.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458569.page GMT Good 'ole Dakka. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458575.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458575.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458667.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2458667.page GMT

Kilkrazy wrote:

New avatar!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2459073.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2459073.page GMT

biccat wrote:

Your question presupposes that there is anything sympathetic about right-wing politics.

Because mass murder, slavery, and genocide are reasonable basis for a society.

The best thing that objectivism has going for it is that it, unlike socialism, doesn't have a history of, or even require, murdering political dissidents.

Some people may consider this a bug.

Yes because political parties never change...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2459270.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2459270.page GMT

biccat wrote:

Your question presupposes that there is anything sympathetic about right-wing politics.

Because mass murder, slavery, and genocide are reasonable basis for a society.

The best thing that objectivism has going for it is that it, unlike socialism, doesn't have a history of, or even require, murdering political dissidents.

Some people may consider this a bug.

thats on;y because an objectionist country has never existed. If it did it would ' have a history of, or even require, murdering political dissidents.'
'']]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2459836.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/346586/2459836.page GMT