"Atlas Shrugged" out on Friday!

The trailer looks like a very pretty and faithful adaptation of the book, which is really great. Very cool to see so many memorable and critical plot points realized on the screen. For a 15 million dollar budget, it looks spectacular.

I think my only criticism of the trailer is that if I had not read the book, I would have NO idea what the movie is about. Obviously, something to do with trains and a metal company. But that's about it. I honestly don't see that trailer drawing in any viewers that are not familiar with the source material. I hope it makes one billion dollars, and they will certainly get my money. But I'd be surprised if it really goes the distance.

I won't asplode.

I was a political science major in college, though, so not throwing in my $0.02 is harder some times. I've been trying to come up with the least problematic way to talk political philosophy in VERY generic terms. I think I've figured out how.

I am, however, a lot less familiar with Ayn Rand's philosophy -- we never read her stuff. I think the farthest we got in my political philosophy classes was Nietzche.


As Orange Blend mentioned, I think most political philosophy sounds great in theory, but the problem is practical application by humans, you know, being creatures with feet of clay, as it were.

The philosophies typically boil down to one version or another of "Wouldn't it be great if...." But the "if" is basically impossible, so you have to dial it back to practicalities and go from there. And that's where all pure application of political philosophy falls apart. Even in the U.S. where we revere "The Framers," even their "ideal" system never quite worked. I mean, you've got the First Amendment, which SHOULD be pretty freakin' straightforward, right? Congress shall make NO LAW restricting the freedom of speech....and yet we end up with the Sedition Act in 1798 -- only 9 years after the Constitution has been ratified, and when just about ALL of the people who ORIGINALLY WROTE THE THING are still around!! And even THEN we can't get our act together to remain consistent! :lol

That's humanity, right there. That's PRACTICAL application of political philosophy. THIS LAW IS ETERNAL AND UNIMPEACHABLE....er...except when we really really need to get around it, right? Oops. So much for "The Founders'" high-minded ideals...



With any system, I think you need to consider not merely the ideals of the system, but the practical application thereof. Typically, we talk about "freedom" being our highest ideal. Certainly, the concept of liberty has been central in the modern age (although not everyone agrees on that point, of course). But, assuming you're talking about people who value freedom, what exactly does "freedom" mean?

Stop and consider that issue alone when looking at any political philosophy, and think in practical, real world terms. Some might say that freedom should be all about freedom FROM the restrictions of the government. That's all well and good, but our actions are restricted by more than JUST the government. We have social restrictions, economic restrictions, restrictions derived from our own genetic makeup, etc. Does this system espouse total freedom from governmental restrictions only? What does it say about economics? Does it address them at all?

Another way to ask this question is "What good is freedom if you're too busy starving to enjoy it?" The government may not prevent you from doing XYZ but if you can't PRACTICALLY do it, are you really free?

As a separate issue, it's important to bear in mind that ANY system of government is inherently designed to RESTRAIN human behavior. If you accept the premise that in the "state of nature" we are all 100% free from overarching governmental restrictions, then you have to start asking yourself what the point of government is. (This is why a lot of political philosophies start with a discussion of the "state of nature.") Although, even the state of nature discussion is tricky because, while you're "free" from governmental restrictions, nothing is stopping anyone else from bashing you over the head and taking your stuff. Or, you know, just bashing you over the head for funsies. So, how "free" are we -- ever -- really? I would posit that the question becomes more about what KIND of freedom one wants, and what one is willing to give up to get that kind of freedom. Keeping this stuff in mind can help one assess a political philosophy.




Aaand that's about as clinical and detached as I can get.

lol Quark (Armin Shimmerman (STDS9)) is in it, good enough for me hahah

I think that the errors of Rand's philosophy (or any other socio-political philosophy) can be understood much more simply when you stop to recognize the logical fallacy that almost all of them suffer.

For instance, Rand correctly understood that self-interest is the prime motivator of any economic system. Her error was to then mistake this prime motivator as the ONLY motivator. By this definition, she then labeled any selfless act as either self-deception or an act of evil (ie, her portrayal of New Deal politicians).

What she failed to realize was that humans are also highly social and empathetic animals and that we build communities to share burdens and protect ourselves as a group. When our communities are strong, then we, as part of that community, are also strong. The irony is that this is also self-interest - only it is focused on the long term gain of stability and not the short term gain of immediate profit.

The inverse can also be argued of Marxism, of which Rand's philosophy is a direct counter to. (For those unaware, Rand escaped Communist Russia in 1925). Marxism's obvious flaw is that it places overwhelming importance on needs of the community, while completely ignoring the needs and value of individual determination.

The overarching context that you need to understand all this is that the western world had only just gotten rid of its monarchies and had just suffered through a devestating World War and was now mired in the Great Depression. All of Europe was rife with brand new theories and philosophies on how to govern better in order to avoid these tragedies.

Marxism and Objectivism were simply the two most extreme examples that came out of this very experimental period, and history eventually proved both of them as being very nearly equally as wrong and short-sighted.

:thumbsdown Terrible author, crazy politics.

Let's make fun of Attack of the Clones instead....

Ozymandius said:

I think that the errors of Rand's philosophy (or any other socio-political philosophy) can be understood much more simply when you stop to recognize the logical fallacy that almost all of them suffer.

For instance, Rand correctly understood that self-interest is the prime motivator of any economic system. Her error was to then mistake this prime motivator as the ONLY motivator. By this definition, she then labeled any selfless act as either self-deception or an act of evil (ie, her portrayal of New Deal politicians).

What she failed to realize was that humans are also highly social and empathetic animals and that we build communities to share burdens and protect ourselves as a group. When our communities are strong, then we, as part of that community, are also strong. The irony is that this is also self-interest - only it is focused on the long term gain of stability and not the short term gain of immediate profit.

The inverse can also be argued of Marxism, of which Rand's philosophy is a direct counter to. (For those unaware, Rand escaped Communist Russia in 1925). Marxism's obvious flaw is that it places overwhelming importance on needs of the community, while completely ignoring the needs and value of individual determination.

The overarching context that you need to understand all this is that the western world had only just gotten rid of its monarchies and had just suffered through a devestating World War and was now mired in the Great Depression. All of Europe was rife with brand new theories and philosophies on how to govern better in order to avoid these tragedies.

Marxism and Objectivism were simply the two most extreme examples that came out of this very experimental period, and history eventually proved both of them as being very nearly equally as wrong and short-sighted.

Click to expand...

IndyFanChuck said:

:thumbsdown Terrible author, crazy politics.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's fair, the book itself is excellent.

As for the politics, they're extreme for sure but not crazy. Just very one sided and impractical in practice like others here have stated pretty well I think.

Oh, I was making a Judgement Call. I was being biased because of my disgust for her and her work. :angel

Orange_Blend said:

I don't think that's fair, the book itself is excellent.

As for the politics, they're extreme for sure but not crazy. Just very one sided and impractical in practice like others here have stated pretty well I think.

Click to expand...

I was being biased because of my disgust for her and her work.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the mods have been kind enough to leave this thread open so that we can have a civil and polite conversation. And that kind of bias is neither polite, nor civil.

Also, I can't help but point out that in vehemently denouncing a book which espouses a myopic self-interest at the cost of the communal good, you have in effect displayed a myopic self-interest that could well result in getting this thread shut down, thereby harming the communal good.

Irony's a *****, it'n it?

So for the sake of us all, please be nice. It's really not that hard.

I apologize for harming the public good. Sincerely.

Fair enough?

Orange_Blend said:

I don't think that's fair, the book itself is excellent.

As for the politics, they're extreme for sure but not crazy. Just very one sided and impractical in practice like others here have stated pretty well I think.

Click to expand...

I wish we could discuss the similarities between Rand's work and De Sade's...

"Compare the nobility of selfishness espoused in Atlas Shrugged with that expressed in Philosophy in the Bedroom. Be sure to use clear examples from the texts."

Go!

Just kidding, but I've been reading (and reluctantly admiring) DeSade and it seems to me there might be a great essay in comparing De Sade to Rand, maybe by way of Machiavelli and Oscar Wilde. Such different personalities with some real core commonalities that would be fun to explore.

IndyFanChuck said:

I apologize for harming the public good. Sincerely.

Fair enough?

Click to expand...

:lol

I didn't think what you said was so bad...

This thread does tread a fine line though so we should be cautious.

cayman shen said:

I wish we could discuss the similarities between Rand's work and De Sade's...

"Compare the nobility of selfishness espoused in Atlas Shrugged with that expressed in Philosophy in the Bedroom. Be sure to use clear examples from the texts."

Go!

Click to expand...

That would be an essay worth reading for sure! You have piqued my egghead interest...

At least Sade had tongue firmly implanted in cheek.....who's and which set is an entirely different matter!

:lol That's great!

Though I have to say, I can't tell when De Sade is kidding or not...

Rand, I imagine, never once kidded in her life.

cayman shen said:

Rand, I imagine, never once kidded in her life.

Click to expand...

She was very much a product of where she came from. Russia during the revolution. Her entire political philosophy is an attack on what she experienced and is understandable from that aspect.

Contrary to many I don't think she was a terrible person or even a cold person. Just someone who was very serious about her fears of what Marxism symbolized and said about human nature.

Orange_Blend said:

Atlas Shrugged would have been better served as a kind of period piece I think. Trains just don't have the same "life-blood" meaning in today's society like they did when the book was written.

Click to expand...

I think it was inspired to set it in modern day, snippets of the film set in front of government buildings with Mouch's announcement made it look like the nightly news, with announcements disturbingly close to reality. As for railways, they still transport a LOT of material, about 25% of everything shipped in the US, and in a much more efficient manner than anything else. It's not used as much for transportation of people, but if the rails started splitting and engines started wrecking, I'm sure you'd notice the effect.

really looks independent....like a well made fanfilm trailer.

...snippets of the film set in front of government buildings with Mouch's announcement made it look like the nightly news, with announcements disturbingly close to reality.

Click to expand...

Now that's where I keep getting confused. Exactly where are you seeing parallels with modern events?

Ozymandius said:

The overarching context that you need to understand all this is that the western world had only just gotten rid of its monarchies and had just suffered through a devestating World War and was now mired in the Great Depression. All of Europe was rife with brand new theories and philosophies on how to govern better in order to avoid these tragedies.

Marxism and Objectivism were simply the two most extreme examples that came out of this very experimental period, and history eventually proved both of them as being very nearly equally as wrong and short-sighted.

Click to expand...

Minor point of clarification, but I think you're talking more about Marxist-Leninism, rather than pure Marxism. Copyright on the Communist Manifesto is 1848.

cayman shen said:

Just kidding, but I've been reading (and reluctantly admiring) DeSade and it seems to me there might be a great essay in comparing De Sade to Rand, maybe by way of Machiavelli and Oscar Wilde. Such different personalities with some real core commonalities that would be fun to explore.

Click to expand...

"Yes....we like her work, too...."

Ozymandius said:

Now that's where I keep getting confused. Exactly where are you seeing parallels with modern events?

Click to expand...

The redistribution of wealth by government was a major theme of Atlas Shrugged.

The parallel with modern events is that many governments are running themselves to the point of collapse with entitlement programs that cannot be sustained as majority employment shifts from manufacturing to government employees engaged in the redistribution of wealth.

Mike